anc/ iii - agnew::beck consulting · pdf fileanc/ iii ... 3-1 city of bethel population...

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 III

Contents

Section Page

Abbreviations and Acronyms ......................................................................................................VII

ES Executive Summary and Recommendations..............................................................ES-1

1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-11.1 Community Issues and Goals .....................................................................................1-11.2 Public Involvement Process ........................................................................................1-1

2 Community Information...................................................................................................2-12.1 Historical Background .................................................................................................2-12.2 Physical Environment..................................................................................................2-12.3 Identification of Major Stakeholders .........................................................................2-62.4 Governmental Structure ..............................................................................................2-62.5 Administration..............................................................................................................2-72.6 Demographics ...............................................................................................................2-82.7 Economic and Financial Profile ..................................................................................2-82.8 Public Facilities, Services, and Housing..................................................................2-112.9 Power Supply..............................................................................................................2-122.10 Transportation Facilities ..........................................................................................2-122.11 Land Use, Ownership, and Status..........................................................................2-12

3 Forecasting ...........................................................................................................................3-13.1 Population Projections .................................................................................................3-13.2 Future Housing Needs.................................................................................................3-23.3 Future Facility Needs...................................................................................................3-2

4 Permitting and Regulations..............................................................................................4-14.1 Wastewater Permitting Requirements ......................................................................4-14.2 Solid Waste Permitting Requirements.......................................................................4-24.3 Regulatory Requirements and Standards .................................................................4-2

5 Community Wastewater Facilities ..................................................................................5-15.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment System....................................................................5-15.2 Wastewater System Design Criteria and Projections ............................................5-155.3 Wastewater System Alternatives..............................................................................5-185.4 Wastewater System Recommendations ..................................................................5-32

6 Community Solid Waste Facilities..................................................................................6-16.1 Existing Solid Waste Management System...............................................................6-16.2 Solid Waste Facility Design Criteria ........................................................................6-166.3 Solid Waste System Alternatives..............................................................................6-18

CONTENTS

IV ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007

7 Budget and Funding Options .......................................................................................... 7-17.1 Funding ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

8 Implementation.................................................................................................................. 8-1

9 References ........................................................................................................................... 9-1

Appendixes

A Landfill, Photographic SimulationsB Field Notes and Meeting MinutesC Solid Waste Community Questionnaire ResultsD Bethel Landfill Hydrogeology Technical MemorandumE Wastewater PermitF Solid Waste PermitG Wastewater Monitoring DataH Cost Estimate DetailsI Dumpster Locations and Collection FrequencyJ Litter Receptacle RegulationsK Public Work Committee Recommendation to City of Bethel Council

Tables Page

ES-1 City of Bethel Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Alternatives .......................ES-2ES-2 City of Bethel Solid Waste Alternatives.........................................................................ES-3ES-3 Implementation of Phased Projects for the City of Bethel Master Plan Update ......ES-3

2-1 Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Bethel Airport, Alaska.................. 2-32-2 Climatological Data for Bethel, Alaska ............................................................................ 2-42-3 City of Bethel Demographic Summary............................................................................ 2-82-4 City of Bethel 1990 Employment by Occupation and Industry.................................... 2-92-5 City of Bethel 1990 Household Income.......................................................................... 2-102-6 City of Bethel 1999 Operating Revenue ......................................................................... 2-102-7 City of Bethel 1999 Operating Expenditures................................................................. 2-112-8 City of Bethel 1999 Enterprise Fund Details ................................................................. 2-11

4-1 City of Bethel Sewage Lagoon Effluent Limitations andMonitoring Requirements.................................................................................................. 4-2

5-1 City of Bethel Total Sewage Waste Loads Year 2000 .................................................... 5-15-2 City of Bethel Piped Sewage Flow Year 2000 ................................................................. 5-45-3 Current Wastewater Flows at the Main Lift Station ...................................................... 5-55-4 Instantaneous Wastewater Flows Entering the Main Lift Station................................ 5-65-5 Truck Hauled Wastewater Flow Year 2000 .................................................................... 5-75-6 Existing Sewage Lagoon Cells........................................................................................... 5-8

CONTENTS

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 V

5-7 Design Criteria Established in 1993 for Wastewater Volume and Waste LoadCharacteristics....................................................................................................................5-10

5-8 2000 Total Lagoon Wastewater Volumes.......................................................................5-115-9 City of Bethel Piped Collection System Wastewater Waste Loads for Year 2000

and Projected for Year 2021..............................................................................................5-165-10 Truck Hauled Wastewater Flow for Year 2000 and Projected for Year 2021 ….. .....5-175-11 City of Bethel Total Sewage Waste Loads for 2000 and 2021….. ................................5-195-12 Main Lift Station Improvement Costs ….. .....................................................................5-205-13 Lined and Aerated Lagoon Costs …...............................................................................5-245-14 Conventional Treatment Costs ….. .................................................................................5-265-15 Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Costs ….....................................................................5-285-16 Disinfection Alternative Costs….....................................................................................5-325-17 City of Bethel Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Alternatives .......................5-32

6-1 Estimated Solid Waste Generation Quantities in the City of Bethel ............................6-86-2 Municipal Solid Waste Composition for the City of Bethel ........................................6-116-3 Paper Composition of Municipal Waste for the City of Bethel...................................6-126-4 Metal Composition of Municipal Waste for the City of Bethel...................................6-136-5 Residential and Commercial Construction and Demolition Debris for the

City of Bethel......................................................................................................................6-146-6 Registered Vehicles in the City of Bethel .......................................................................6-156-7 Solid Waste Baler Facilities in Alaska.............................................................................6-246-8 In-Place Volume of 1 Ton of Refuse................................................................................6-276-9 Potential Recovery of Wood and Paper Waste .............................................................6-336-10 Remaining Landfill Capacity and Life ...........................................................................6-376-11 Volume Reduction and Landfill Life ..............................................................................6-39

Figures

1-1 Solid Waste Survey—Collection Services ........................................................................1-21-2 Solid Waste Survey—Dumpster Preferences ..................................................................1-31-3 Solid Waste Survey—Business User Fee ..........................................................................1-31-4 Solid Waste Survey—Landfill............................................................................................1-4

2-1 Aerial View of Bethel ..........................................................................................................2-22-2 City of Bethel Government Structure ...............................................................................2-7

3-1 City of Bethel Population Projection.................................................................................3-1

5-1 Bethel Landfill, Sewage Lagoon, and Lift Stations .........................................................5-15-2 City of Bethel Wastewater Conveyance Schematic ........................................................5-35-3 Main Lift Station ..................................................................................................................5-55-4 Topographical View of the City of Bethel Sewage Lagoon ...........................................5-85-5 Bethel Lagoon Influent Pipe (Main Lift Station Discharge) ..........................................5-95-6 Pump Curve for City of Bethel Sewage Lagoon Discharge Pump.............................5-115-7 Bethel Lagoon Condition, 2001........................................................................................5-12

CONTENTS

VI ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007

5-8 Bethel Lagoon Truck Haul Dump Operation (High Solids Deposition Area) ......... 5-135-9 Bethel Lagoon Honeybucket Dump............................................................................... 5-145-10 Bethel Lagoon Discharge Point ....................................................................................... 5-155-11 City of Bethel Projected Wastewater Flow ................................................................... 5-185-12 Main Lift Station Conceptual Design............................................................................. 5-215-13 Lined Aerated Lagoon Alternative................................................................................. 5-245-14 Conventional Treatment (Activated Sludge) Schematic Design................................ 5-255-15 Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Alternative............................................................... 5-275-16 Conceptual Level Recommended Wastewater Treatment/Solid Waste

Building Layout................................................................................................................. 5-305-17 Recommended New Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities ..................................... 5-33

6-1 Landfill Operations Office ................................................................................................. 6-36-2 Used Oil Storage Area ........................................................................................................ 6-36-3 Neighborhood Dumpsters................................................................................................. 6-56-4 Typical Residential Dumpster........................................................................................... 6-56-5 Total Percent Composition of Solid Waste in the City of Bethel................................ 6-146-6 Three-sided Dumpster Shelter ........................................................................................ 6-206-7 Enclosed Dumpster Shelter ............................................................................................. 6-216-8 Automated Collection Tote ............................................................................................. 6-226-9 Simple Transfer Station .................................................................................................... 6-236-10 Vertical Fill ......................................................................................................................... 6-266-11 Typical Density of Compacted Refuse........................................................................... 6-266-12 In-place Volume of 1 Ton of Refuse with Cover Material........................................... 6-276-13 Typical Wire Baler............................................................................................................. 6-296-14 Topographic Map of Landfill .......................................................................................... 6-356-15 Bethel Landfill Fill Configurations ................................................................................. 6-36

8-1 Project Implementation Schedule ..................................................................................... 8-2

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 VII

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

AACE Advancement of Cost Engineering

ADCED Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

AMBBA Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority

ASHA Alaska State Housing Authority

ATTAC Alaska Training/Technical Assistance Center

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

C&D Construction & Demolition

CCA chromated copper arsenate

CDBG Community Block Grant Program

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA-ISA Clean Water Act-Indian Set Aside

cy cubic yard

DNA dioxyribonucleic acid

DPW Bethel Department of Public Works

EDA U.S. Department of Economic Development Administration

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCB fecal coliform bacteria

GCL geosynthetic clay layer

gpd gallons per day

gpcpd gallons per capita per day

gpm gallons per minute

HMI human-machine interface

I&I Infiltration and Inflow

IDLH immediately dangerous to life or health

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

VIII ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007

lb/lbs pound/pounds

lb/day pounds per day

LKSD Lower Kuskokwim School District

m meters

MBR membrane bioreactor

mg/L milligrams per liter

mgd milligrams per day

MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids

mm millimeters

nm nanometers

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONAP Office of Native American Programs

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

ppd pounds per day

ppcd pounds per capita per day

PSM Process Safety Management

QFC Quick Food Center

RASC Rural Alaska Sanitation Coalition

RMP Risk Management Program

RMW Remote Maintenance Worker

rpm revolutions per minute

RUBA Rural Utilities Business Advisory

SEDS Social and Economic Development Strategies

SRT solids retention time

TSS total suspended solids

UFC Uniform Fire Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

uv ultraviolet

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 IX

VSW Village Safe Water

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

WTP Water Treatment Plant

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 ES-1

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Master Plan Update Summary and RecommendationsThe purpose of this document is to update the City of Bethel’s master plan to developmanagement solutions to the City’s wastewater and solid waste facilities. This documentpresents short- and long-term strategies for managing these facilities.

The following recommendations from the City’s Public Utilities Committee were presentedto the City Council in April 2002.

Wastewater Facilities RecommendationsThe following are recommended changes to the City of Bethel’s future wastewater system:

• The Main Lift Station is at capacity. Replace the Main Lift Station as soon as possible.

• Perform a pilot plant study to consider the treatability and feasibility of using amembrane bioreactor and primary treatment system to treat the wastewater. The studywould look at the ease or difficulty of operation, the impacts of the cold (40 degrees F)wastewater on the treatment capacity, and the solids dewatering capability of the sludgeproduced. Costs for this study are approximately $5,000 to $10,000/month plus bargeshipment costs of the pilot units from Seattle to Bethel.

• Initiate grant-funding requests for a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to replacethe existing lagoon system. Locate the new WWTP on the City-owned property near theentrance to the current landfill.

The capital, operation and maintenance, and 20-year present worth costs for therecommended facilities are provided in Table ES-1. The order-of-magnitude level capitalcosts in Table ES-1 include construction, engineering, and city administration costs. Anorder-of-magnitude cost estimate has an accuracy ranging from +50 percent to -30 percent.

Bethel Solid Waste RecommendationsCollection System RecommendationsContinue with dumpster system with a few improvements as follows:

• Associate all dumpsters with a responsible party. The responsible party could be agroup of residents, a neighborhood, a business, a facility, etc. Eliminate all unassociateddumpsters except at public parks and facilities maintained by public works. Responsibleparties will sign an agreement to keep dumpster areas clean and free of litter. An extrafee may be charged if litter cleanup is required. Dumpsters could be removed ifproblems persist.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ES-2 ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007

TABLE ES-1City of Bethel Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Alternatives

AlternativesCapitalCostsa

Annual O&MCosts

(see notes)

Present WorthCosts for 20-Year

Period

Conveyance System Modifications

New Main Lift Station $530,000 $17,000 $770,000

Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

MBR Treatment (Pretreatment, MBR, SolidsHandling, and Buildingb)

$9,100,000 $435,000c $16,400,000

Wastewater Disinfection Alternatives

UV Disinfection $610,000 $22,000 $920,000

Notes:aThese are “Project Costs,” which include construction costs, engineering, and City administration costsbThe building costs that are included provide for a premanufactured building on a slab on grade that will alsoprovide space for the solid waste equipment and office.cKenai WWTP is a similar size and pays power and gas of $200,000 /year at $0.09/kwh versus $.14/kwh inBethel (or $308,000 at Bethel costs)

• Track dumpster usage and adjust the number and location of dumpsters toaccommodate the waste generation rate.

• Develop an ordinance that requires future housing developments and commercialfacilities to designate an area of sufficient size for dumpster placement.

• Continue to obtain more public input on the style of dumpsters that are easiest to useand purchase preferred styles when replacing worn out dumpsters.

• Continue to maintain existing dumpsters (repair and paint) and support public artpainting of the dumpsters.

Solid Waste Pre-Landfill Processing Recommendations• A baler facility is recommended because it will make a vertical expansion of the existing

landfill easier and will minimize litter. Under current operations, the landfill is expectedto be full in about 11 years. With a vertical expansion at a 20 percent grade (5:1 slope),the landfill could last as long as 35 years. A baler also compacts waste to a higherdensity than the track bulldozer currently used. The capital cost of a baler facility isaround 2 million dollars, but costs can be minimized by combining the recommendedwastewater treatment plant in the same building as the baler facility.

• Another recommended option is a pilot project to recycle paper and wood into fireplacelogs. It is estimated that up to 16 percent of the municipal waste stream could berecycled in this manner. It is recommended that a testing phase be developed and theproduct refined before attempting to sell recycled logs to the public.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 ES-3

Landfill Recommendations• Fill the landfill as high as acceptable to the public. Figure 6-14 in Chapter 6 shows the

Bethel Landfill Fill Height cross sections that are possible. The landfill can be safelyfilled with a 5:1 (horizontal to vertical, respectively) slope (20 percent grade). The finalheight of the landfill would be about 85 feet above the existing ground level. Wastebaling will be necessary to efficiently fill the landfill at this slope. Under this scenario,the landfill would have enough capacity for about 35 years. See the landfillphotographic simulations in Appendix A to see the approximate final appearance of thelandfill at various fill slopes.

The operating plan and permit would need to be amended to accommodate this change.

Costs for the recommended solid waste facilities are summarized in Table ES-2.

TABLE ES-2City of Bethel Solid Waste Alternatives

Description Amount

Sheep’s foot compactor equipment $250,000

Wire baler $250,000

Building costs (included in the sharedWastewater/Solid Waste Building Facility)

$2,000,000*

Project PhasingA phased approach for upgrading the wastewater and solid waste facilities is summarizedin Table ES-3.

TABLE ES-3Implementation of Phased Projects for the City of Bethel Master Plan Update

Phase Scope Funding Status Amount

I Construct Main Lift StationPurchase Solid Waste Compaction Equipment

Proposed $600,000$250,000

II Pilot Study Wastewater Treatment Proposed $60,000

III Purchase Wastewater Treatment Equipment Proposed $3 million

IV Construct Combined Wastewater/Solid WasteFacility

Proposed $6.2 million

V Purchase Solid Waste Baler Equipment Proposed $250,000

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007 1-1

SECTION 1

Introduction

1.1 Community Issues and GoalsThe City of Bethel (the City or Bethel) is interested in delineating long-range strategies forthe community’s wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal systems. The City hascontracted with CH2M HILL to work closely with the City, Bethel community, Village SafeWater (VSW), and the South-central Regional Office (SCRO) of the Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) to achieve this aim.

The City has a wastewater treatment lagoon. The lagoon is nearing capacity and the City hashad to discharge during the summer and fall to protect the side slopes against failure. TheCity is looking for a solution to address the capacity issue, lagoon slope stabilization, andsolids removal. The City also currently faces a conveyance challenge with the Main LiftStation. Frost heave is causing the structural integrity of the lift station to be compromised.There is no backup for the lift station. A geotechnical report offering solutions to theproblem is part of this Design Study/Master Plan Update.

Another challenge is the solid waste landfill, which is also nearing capacity. The City isinterested in addressing a new landfill siting and looking at pre-disposal processing such asincineration and/or baling of the solid waste.

This Design Study/Master Plan Update integrates planning and preliminary designengineering to address the wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal system concernsof the City.

1.2 Public Involvement ProcessThe public involvement process is very important to the success of any community masterplan. This master plan update effort included the following:

• A Solid Waste Management Questionnaire was sent to all City customers. Commentswere received and are incorporated in this report.

• Two meetings were held with the City’s Public Works Committee to discuss ideas anddevelop the strategies discussed in this report.

• A presentation was made to the City Council on April 23, 2002 to outline the issues andrecommended strategies for the City’s wastewater and solid waste facilities.

Summaries of these meetings are included in Appendix B.

1.2.1 Public Input on Solid Waste ManagementIn early October 2001, the City mailed a solid waste questionnaire to all customers on theBethel water, sewer, and solid waste utility mailing list, resulting in the distribution of about

INTRODUCTION

1-2 ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007

1,800 questionnaires. The city received 111 completed questionnaires by the commentdeadline of November 15, 2001.

CH2M HILL tallied survey results. All responses were given equal attention regardless oftheir source. The names of the respondents were not reviewed or recorded with the results.Therefore, all responses are considered anonymous.

Some of the respondents selected more than one option for questions 3, 4, and 5 in thesurvey. This was appropriate and accounts for the total number of responses exceeding thetotal number of questionnaires returned on the three questions. Likewise, some respondentschose not to answer some of the questions; therefore, the total number of responses to somequestions may be less than the number of questionnaires returned.

The city encouraged the public to provide written comments on the questionnaire, and as aresult the majority of respondents provided comments in addition to circling the options oftheir choice. Vulgar language and derogatory comments towards others were not recordedin the results. The written comments are very helpful. The questionnaire is presented inAppendix C , Solid Waste Questionnaire, of this document, with the number of responsesprinted in bold numbers following each question option. Written responses follow eachquestion, as well as additional comments at the end. Additional text in brackets was addedby CH2M HILL to clarify the response.

The results of the Solid Waste Questionnaire are summarized in Figures 1-1 through 1-4.

FIGURE 1-1Solid Waste Survey – Collection Services

Survey Question 1: What is your opinion of the current solid waste collection services?

57%

19%

16%

8%

Adequate

Good

Inadequate

Poor

Survey Question 2: What is your preferred method of solid waste collection?

81%

18%1%

Continue withDumpsters

Use Individual GarbageCans, No Dumpsters

Individual Haul

INTRODUCTION


FIGURE 1-2Solid Waste Survey – Dumpster Preferences

FIGURE 1-3Solid Waste Survey – Business User Fee

Survey Question 3: What is your preference to improve dumpster appearance?

48%

24%

15%

13% Volunteers Paint

Wooden Fencing

Keep As Is

City Paint w/Solid Color

Survey Question 4: What is your preference for minimizing dumpster litter?

32%

24% 44%

Purchase Dumpsters with LowDoors that People Can Reach

Make Dumpster Tops So TheyCan't Be Left Open, DiscourageBirdsBuild Steps or Ramp Next toDumpster for Easier Access

Survey Question 5: What is your preference for dumpster location?

24%

15%

10%51%

Build Pads Off Roadway & PlaceMore Dumpsters along ResidentialStreetsPlace More Dumpsters alongResidential Streets

Build Pads Off Roadway so TheyDon't Interfere with Traffic

Remove Dumpsters fromResidential Streets & Replacewith Central Collection Facilities

Survey Question 6: Should businesses pay the $12 Household Fee or the $40 Commercial Fee?

36%

14% 50%

Commercial Fee, If GeneratesMore Waste Than TypicalHouseholdCommercial Fee

Household Fee

INTRODUCTION


FIGURE 1-4Solid Waste Survey – Landfill

Survey Question 8: When landfill is full, where should City build its next landfill?

8%

42%

50%Keep in Same Area as ExistingLandfill

Find a New Site Farther from Town

Various Suggestions, including Useof Abandoned Sand Pits &Incineration

Survey Question 7: How high should the landfill be filled until it is closed?

44%

12%44%

No Higher Than Existing Berm

As High As Needed to MaximizeCapacity without Causing ErosionProblems

Height of 4 Story Building withRounded Hill Appearance

Survey Question 9: Would you be willing to purchase reasonably priced wood logs made from

recycled wood products?

60%

40%Yes

No


SECTION 2

Community Information

2.1 Historical BackgroundBethel was established by the Yup’ik Eskimos. Scarce historical information is available onthe Kuskokwim River Delta region. The original village name was “Mumtrekhlogamute,”meaning “Smokehouse People” for a nearby fish smokehouse.

The purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867 had little effect on the region. TheMoravian Church took over the Russian Orthodox Church’s role in the area. The MoravianMission in Bethel was completed in 1885 by missionaries Henry Hartmann and W.H.Weinland. The missionaries subsequently changed the village name to Bethel. At the time ofthe Alaska purchase, fur trading in the area was light; however, Russian fur traders wereeventually replaced by American traders. The trading post in Bethel, run by AlaskaCommercial Company, did not become robust until 1907.

Around 1907, W.R. Buckman, an early mineral prospector, created the first reliable andavailable maps of the upper reaches of the Kuskokwim River and in the Holitna Basin,spurning interest in the area. Irregular trade was established in 1907 between Seattle andBethel. The Kuskokwim River became a major trade artery to the Interior and profits for theAlaska Commercial Company increased significantly.

By 1911, the gold boom was declining and by 1930, the thirty-plus gold operations hadscaled down significantly. In 1933, the Roosevelt administration raised the price of gold,which lead to a flurry of activity in the gold operations. The coming of World War II,however, caused war-time shortages and increased operation and maintenance costs. By thelate 1950s, gold mining was nearly abandoned in the Kuskokwim River Delta area.

In 1886, the Moravian missionaries established a mission school. The school increasedBethel’s attraction to many of the Kuskokwim River Delta occupants and led to an increasein village population. Today Bethel remains the area’s largest population center.

Bethel’s post office was opened in 1905, and the City of Bethel was incorporated in 1957.Since then many federal and state agencies have maintained regional offices there.

The lack of rapid development in the area has helped to preserve the traditional Yup’ikEskimo culture, practices, and language that are predominant in the area (AlaskaDepartment of Community and Economic Development [ADCED], 2001).

2.2 Physical Environment2.2.1 LocationBethel is located in the southwest region of Alaska on the Kuskokwim River Delta. Thevillage is 40 miles inland from the Bering Sea and 400 air miles from Anchorage. Thecommunity is in the Bethel Recording District and lies in the Yukon Delta National Wildlife

COMMUNITY INFORMATION


Refuge. The area covers 44 square miles of land and 6 square miles of water. Bethel issituated at approximately 60° 47’ N Latitude, 161° 45’ W Longitude, which is in Section 9,Township 8 N, Range 71 W of the Seward meridian (ADCED, 2001). Figure 2-1 is an aerialview of Bethel.

FIGURE 2-1Aerial View of Bethel

2.2.2 Climate and WeatherThe average precipitation is 16 inches/year. The average snowfall is 50 inches. Thetemperature in the summer ranges from 42 to 62°F and in the winter from -2 to 19°F. Basedon data from 1949 to 2000, there is a 10 percent probability that fall freeze will occur before



September 2 and a 50 percent probability that it will occur before September 16. There is a 50percent probability that spring freezing will occur after May 25 and a 10 percent probabilitythat it will occur after June 9 (Western Regional Climatic Center, 2001).

Table 2-1 shows monthly and annual climatic data for Bethel for the period of record fromSeptember 3, 1949, to December 31, 2000. Table 2-2 provides information on seasonalextreme temperatures and average annual climatic data summaries.

TABLE 2-1Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Bethel Airport, AlaskaPeriod of Record : 9/3/1949 to 12/31/2000

Climate Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

AverageMax.Temperature(°F)

12.2 14.0 21.4 32.8 49.1 59.6 62.7 59.3 51.8 35.5 23.7 13.6 36.3

AverageMin.Temperature(°F)

-0.8 0.0 5.2 16.9 32.3 42.8 47.9 46.5 38.4 24.0 11.6 0.6 22.1

AverageTotalPrecipitation(in.)

0.75 0.65 0.76 0.65 0.86 1.47 2.10 3.35 2.32 1.34 1.20 1.08 16.53

AverageTotalSnowfall (in.)

7.6 6.8 8.7 5.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.9 9.3 10.3 53.8

AverageSnow Depth(in.)

8 9 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 3

Notes:Percent of possible observations for period of record.Max. Temp.: 99.8% Min. Temp.: 99.8% Precipitation: 99.7% Snowfall: 99.8% Snow Depth: 99.7%

2.2.3 Geology and SoilsBethel is situated on a modern floodplain. The geology in this area is made up ofunconsolidated floodplain alluvium and silt deposits (Selkregg, 1974). Mud, silt, sand, andorganic matter comprise the floodplain alluvium. Silt, sandy silt, and some organic mattermake up the silt deposits (Dames & Moore, 1996).

The soil is characterized as poorly drained, medium loam, medium erosion potential, with apeat surface layer. The surface layer consists of poorly drained, non-arable fibrous peat.Disturbance of the peat surface mat by removal, tearing, or compression can result inmelting and subsidence of the frozen soil, sometimes irreversibly. If the underlying mineralsoil is exposed, erosion can occur. (Selkregg, 1974).

The presence of high or fluctuating water levels, permafrost, and peat material makeconstruction of any kind a challenge in this area (Selkregg, 1974).



TABLE 2-2Climatological Data for Bethel, Alaska

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Record Low Temperature (°F), January,1973 -46 Design Freezing Index (worst year in

10 years) (°F-days /year) 4,400

Record High Temperature (°F), August,1959 86 Thawing Index (°F-days /year) 2,500

Mean January Temperature (min/max) (°F) -0.8/12.2 Design Thawing Index (°F-days /year) 3,200

Mean July Temperature (min/max) (°F) 47.9/62.7 Heating Degree Days (°F-days /year) 13,203

Mean Annual Temperature (°F) 29.15 Design Heating Degree Days (°F-days/year) 14,000

Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) 16.4 Prevailing Wind & Velocity (mph) NNE/ 12

Mean Annual Snowfall (inches) 54.74 Extreme Wind (summer storms) &Velocity (mph) SSE/ 60

Freezing Index (°F-days /year) 3,500

Source: Western Regional Climate Center, 2001; Selkregg, 1974.

Underlying the delta in the area of Bethel is a shallow permafrost table. The permafrostranges from moderately thin to thick. The maximum depth to base on the delta is 600 feet.The temperature of the permafrost ranges from 23 to 30°F, but may be higher. Locally,permafrost is absent around large bodies of water (Selkregg, 1974).

2.2.4 Vegetation and WetlandsBethel is located in moist tundra. Vegetation in this area is characterized by a wide varietyof low-growing shrubs, herbs, grasses, and sedges rooted in a continuous mat of mosses andlichens. Cotton grass is common in depressions and poorly drained areas. Dwarf shrubsincluding crowberry, birch, willow, and blueberry are found on slightly raised areas(Selkregg, 1974).

2.2.5 Fish and Wildlife HabitatFish living in the freshwater surrounding Bethel include arctic char, lake trout, DollyVarden, rainbow trout, arctic grayling, northern pike, sculpin, whitefish, burbot, stickleback,and blackfish.

Birds in the area consist of an abundance of geese and 15 species of ducks. Other birdspecies present include arctic tern, black brant, old-squaw, swan, pintail, teal, falcon, eider,scoter, merganser, dipper, semipalmated plover, sandpiper, phalarope, loon, and grebe.

Larger wildlife are generally not present on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Smallermammals which are common to the area include red and Arctic fox, land otter, mink,marten, short-tailed weasel, lynx, beaver, muskrat, and snowshoe and Arctic hare (Selkregg,1974).



2.2.6 Surface HydrologyThe principal feature of the surface hydrology surrounding Bethel is the Kuskokwim River.The drainage area of the Kuskokwim River is 50,000 square miles (Selkregg, 1974). TheKuskokwim River flows out of the Kuskokwim Mountains for a distance of 540 miles to theBering Sea.

The river is free flowing from approximately May to late October or early November. Tidalbackwaters from the Bering Sea influence the river but saltwater does not penetrate as farupriver as Bethel. The typical range of velocity in the river is 0.8 to 2.2 feet/second (Doravaand Hogan, 1995).

In addition to the Kuskokwim River, Bethel is surrounded by ponds, small lakes, sloughs,and marshes. The marshes occur in old river beds, suggesting previous flow patterns of theKuskokwim River.

Further definition of the area’s surface hydrology can be found in the technicalmemorandum entitled “Bethel Landfill Hydrogeology” dated May 2002 and included inAppendix D.

2.2.7 GroundwaterGroundwater is the main drinking water source for the City. Groundwater is abundant andis located in the deep subpermafrost silt, sand, and pebble deposits west of the KuskokwimRiver in a confined aquifer and in permafrost-free areas along the east side of the river. Thesubpermafrost groundwater probably flows toward the southwest, similar to the flow of theKuskokwim River (Dorava and Hogan, 1995).

Shallow groundwater exists under the thaw bulbs of surrounding water bodies and theKuskokwim River. Shallow groundwater probably flows in the direction of the topographicgradients (Dorava and Hogan, 1995).

2.2.8 Flooding PotentialBethel experiences some flooding annually by the Kuskokwim River (U.S. Army, 1993). Icejam and subsequent stream overflow is the major cause for flooding. In May 1985, the flooddepth was between 3 and 4 feet, resulting in the flooding of several homes. In 1988, theflood depth was approximately 5 feet and 600 homes were reported as flooded.

2.2.9 ErosionThe original community of Bethel was relocated because of erosion along the banks of theKuskokwim River. Today erosion continues to be a problem. Erosion is caused by highflows and scouring associated with spring break up. In areas of discontinuous permafrost, itcan be caused by heat transfer from river water to ice cemented sediments within the riverbank. The melting of the icy soil creates an undercut below the peat surface mat. Continualundercut causes the surface mat to collapse, exposing fresh soil (Selkregg, 1974).

In the 1960s, river bank erosion necessitated moving the fuel tanks and rebuilding the dock.The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers helped the City to construct a 3,000-foot-long bulkhead



to prevent erosion. By 1971, however, the bulkhead had been undermined by scour and wasno longer effective.

In the 1970s, the City used junked cars to shore up the banks. The Alaska Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (ADEC) put an end to this practice due to possiblecontamination of the river. In 1982 and 1984, sheet pile walls were built to help preventerosion along the banks. This has aided some in slowing down the process of erosion(Dorava and Hogan, 1995).

2.3 Identification of Major StakeholdersThe entire community is a stakeholder regarding wastewater and solid waste disposal;however, major stakeholders can be identified as landowners adjacent to the sewage lagoonor landfill and businesses that could be affected by utility rate changes or a change in solidwaste collection methods. Also, businesses that generate significant quantities of waste maybe considered major stakeholders.

Landowners adjacent to the sewage lagoon and landfill include Martina Oscar, Nancy M.Andrew, Dan J. Charles, Mary M. Gregory, Katie Liskey, John W. Haroldsen, Edward M.Stevenson, and Martha Sara. The Bethel Native Corporation has property to the southeast ofthe sewage lagoon and landfill. Actual landowners may be different than those listed ifownership has been transferred.

There are several subdivisions adjacent to the sewage lagoon and landfill. These include theHaroldsen Estates, Ptarmigan Subdivision, Bethel Heights, and Brown Slough.

2.4 Governmental StructureBethel is a second-class city and has a Council-Manager form of government. The CityCouncil is made up of seven residents who are elected at-large. Three of the councilmembers are elected in even numbered years and four are elected in odd numbered years.City elections take place in October of each year.

A Mayor and Vice Mayor are elected annually from and by the City Council. A CityManager is appointed by the Mayor and City Council to run the daily business of the Cityand to oversee all sections of the government. The City Council also appoints a City Clerk,who provides staff support to the Council.

At the time of this writing, the Mayor is Tundy Rodgers. Robert (Bob) Herron is the CityManager, and Colleen Soberay is the City Clerk.

Figure 2-2 illustrates the different government departments.



FIGURE 2-2City of Bethel Government Structure

2.5 AdministrationThe Bethel Department of Public Works (DPW) is directed by Clair Grifka. Gary Koesteroversees the solid waste collection system and landfill operations. The landfill operator isRoger Burton.

The DPW has many areas of responsibility including office buildings, roads, subdivisiondevelopment, and sanitary facilities. DPW responsibilities pertaining to solid waste andwastewater include the following:

• The design coordination, cost estimating, and construction inspection of public worksprojects

• Drinking water supply and treatment

• Truck haul water delivery

• Piped water system

• Piped sewer system and lift stations

• Wastewater tank pumping and truck haul to sewage lagoon

• Refuse collection

• Landfill operations and maintenance

• Facility planning

City of BethelMayor & City Council

City Manager

Administration Finance Fire Planning Police Port ofBethel

Parks andRecreation

BuildingMaintenance

VehicleMaintenance

RoadMaintenance

UtilitiesService

Solid Waste

Water Wastewater

Planning Purchasing Administration Coordination

PublicWorks

SeniorServices



2.6 DemographicsThe U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 indicates there are 5,471 people in Bethel. Table 2-3lists the percentage of ethnic groups within this total population. The median age forresidents of Bethel is 29, based on census data for 2000 (ADCED, 2001).

TABLE 2-3City of Bethel Demographic Summary

Race Percent of Total Population

Alaska Native or American Indian 62

White 27

Asian 3

Black or African American < 1

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander < 1

Other Race < 1

Two or More Races 7

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

2.7 Economic and Financial ProfileBethel is the regional center for the 56 villages on the Kuskokwim Delta. Businesses inBethel provide transportation, medical care, and other services to the outlying villages.Barged food, fuel, construction supplies, and miscellaneous goods are distributedthroughout the region by boat and plane.

The most stable sources of wage employment in Bethel are government services,transportation, and construction. Government jobs make up 50 percent of the employment.Table 2-4 shows the number and percentage of the employed work force withinoccupational and industrial categories. In 1990, there were 1,991 people employed in theprivate and public sector and an additional 30 people in the armed services.

The basic subsistence economy is derived from fishing, hunting, and gathering. The localdiet consists primarily of salmon, freshwater fish, game birds, and berries. The communityhas been significantly impacted by poor fish returns since 1997.

Commercial fishing and trapping contribute to annual wages. According to the ADCEDAlaska Community Database, 205 residents hold commercial fishing permits, primarily forsalmon and herring roe net fisheries. In addition, native arts and crafts are a growing trade.The sale of alcohol is prohibited, although possession and importation is allowed.



TABLE 2-4City of Bethel 1990 Employment by Occupation and Industry

Occupation

Numberof

People

LaborPopulation(percent) Industry

Numberof

People

LaborPopulation(percent)

Executive/Administrator 274 14 Forestry/Fishing/Farming 15 1

Professional Specialty 456 23 Mining 2 < 1

Technician 95 5 Construction 68 3

Sales 111 6 Non-Dur. Manufacturing 8 < 1

Administrative Support 410 21 Durable Manufacturing 5 < 1

Private Household 9 < 1 Transportation 227 11

Protective Service 58 3 Communications/Utilities 77 4

Other Professional Service 271 14 Wholesale Trade 18 1

Forestry/Fishing/Farming 7 < 1 Retail Trade 219 11

Precision Craft or Repair 147 7 Fin./Insur./Real Estate 34 2

Machine Operators 25 1 Business & RepairService

51 3

Transportation or Materials 75 4 Personal Service 36 2

Handler/Equipment/Labor 53 3 Entertainment/Recreation 15 1

Communications/Utilities 77 4 Health Services 320 16

Total 1,991 100 Education Services 361 18

Public Admin. 355 18

Other Prof. Services 186 9

Total 1,991 100

Source: ADCED Alaska Community Database Online. Taken from 1990 Census Data. 49 percent of populationsampled. 2000 Census Data may differ and will be available May 2002.

Table 2-5 breaks down the number of families by income level in 1990. In 1990, the totalnumber of family occupied housing units was 1,004. In comparison, the census data for 2000indicates there are 1,154 family occupied households.

The City receives local revenue from taxes, licensing and permitting, service charges andlocal enterprises. Outside revenue comes from federal operating budget, state revenuesharing, state safe communities budget, state fish tax sharing, and other state revenues.



TABLE 2-5City of Bethel 1990 Household Income

Income RangeNumber of

HouseholdsPercent of

Households Income RangeNumber of

HouseholdsPercent of

Households

Less than $10,000 75 7 $60,000 to $74,999 153 15

$10,000 to $19,999 136 14 $75,000 to $99,999 110 11

$20,000 to $29,999 109 11 $100,000 to $125,000 50 5

$30,000 to $39,000 113 11 $125,000 to $149,000 12 < 1

$40,000 to $49,000 122 12 Over $150,000 8 < 1

$50,000 to $59,000 116 12

Median HouseholdIncome

$42,232 Median FamilyIncome

$45,203

Source: ADCED Alaska Community Database Online. Taken from 1990 Census Data. 49 percent ofpopulation sampled. 2000 Census Data may differ and will be available May 2002.

Table 2-6 illustrates the dollar amounts for these categories.

TABLE 2-6City of Bethel 1999 Operating Revenue

Local Revenue Amount Outside Revenue Amount

Taxes $3,420,133 Federal Operating $398,859

License/Permits $521,357 State Rev. Sharing $281,243

Service Charges $64,172 State Safe Communities $205,933

Enterprise $4,225,286 State Fish Tax Sharing $39,337

Other Local Revenue $484,666 Other State Revenue $370,578

Total Local Revenue $8,715,614 Total Outside Operating Revenue $1,295,950

Total Operating Revenue $10,011,564

Capital Project Revenue $800,892

Total All Revenue $10,812,456

Source: ADCED Alaska Community Database Online.

Table 2-7 shows 1999 expenditures for the City of Bethel.



TABLE 2-7City of Bethel 1999 Operating Expenditures

GeneralGovernment Amount Public Services Amount Public Safety Amount

Admin/Finance $838,787 Harbor/Dock $485,365 Police $1,691,910

Planning/Zoning $115,877 Water/Sewer $2,480,697 Fire $684,150

Total General Gov’t $954,664 Other Public Works $951,687 Other Public Safety $4,241

Library/Museum $63,922 Total Public Safety $2,380,301

Parks and Rec. $394,153

Misc. PublicServices

$835,686

Total PublicServices

$5,211,510

Debt Retirement $87,518

Total OperatingExpenditure

$8,633,993

Total AllExpenditure

$9,465,414


Table 2-8 shows 1999 enterprise fund details for the City, which indicates that theenterprises operated at a loss of $896,369 in 1999.

TABLE 2-8City of Bethel 1999 Enterprise Fund Details

Revenues Amount Expenditures Amount

Water/Sewer $2,934,532 Water/Sewer $2,480,697

Misc. Enterprises $1,290,754 Misc. Enterprises $2,613,958

Total Revenue $4,225,286 Total Expenditure $5,094,655


2.8 Public Facilities, Services, and HousingPublic facilities in Bethel include the hospital, youth center, senior center, library, culturalcenter, city hall, pool, schools, and churches. Commercial services are located throughoutthe Bethel town site between Third and Seventh Avenue, and along Ridgecrest Drive.

Industrial services include the airport, fuel tank farm, Bethel Utilities Company powerplant, docks and warehouses, water treatment plants, sewage facility, solid waste disposalsite, and fish processing facilities.



Housing subdivisions in Bethel include Blueberry Subdivision, Trailer Park, NunvakEstates, City Subdivision, Bethel Heights, Tundra North, Martina Oscar Subdivision, UivikSubdivision, Tundra Ridge, Alligator Acres, Bethel Town Site, East Addition, PtarmiganSubdivision, and Brown Slough.

2.9 Power SupplyPower is supplied by the privately owned Bethel Utilities Corporation. Electrical power isderived from diesel fuel and has a 12,600 kilowatt capacity.

There are three bulk fuel tanks owned by separate entities. Bethel Utilities Corporation is theowner of a 51,000-gallon tank. Mark Air Express previously owned a 120,500-gallon tank.The third tank is owned by United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) andFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) and has a volume of 44,000 gallons.

2.10 Transportation FacilitiesBethel has two dominate transportation facilities: the Bethel Airport and the Port of Bethel.Bethel is the hub for air and barge cargo for other communities in the area.

According to the ADCED Alaska Community Database, the state-owned airport is servedby two major passenger airlines, two cargo carriers, and numerous air taxi services. Theairport ranks third in the state for the total number of flights. The asphalt runway is6,398 feet long and the gravel crosswind runway is 1,850 feet long. The airport recentlyunderwent a $7 million renovation and expansion. Two floatplane bases are located nearbyat Hangar Lake and H Marker Lake.

The Port of Bethel holds the record as the northern-most medium-draft port in the U.S.Seafaring barges from Anchorage and Seattle can dock at the deep sea port during ice freemonths, generally from May to November. River barge service based in Bethel providesgoods to villages along the Kuskokwim.

Within the corporate boundary of Bethel, there are 16 miles of roads and state highway.

2.11 Land Use, Ownership, and StatusLand use in Bethel consists of residential, commercial, industrial, public institution, andpublic open space.

Residential land use includes homes, duplexes, apartments, and mobile homes. Commercialland use includes businesses that supply goods and services but are not involved inmanufacturing. Industrial land use areas include the airport, docks, warehouses, fishprocessing plants, fuel tank farm, Bethel Utilities power plant, water treatment plants, solidwaste landfill site, and sewage lagoon. These areas are defined as industrial because of eitherrestricted public access, the presence of heavy equipment, or potential physical hazards.


SECTION 3

Forecasting

3.1 Population ProjectionsFor this report, the population has been projected through design year 2021. Data used fordetermining the population projection include the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Data andinput from the Alaska State Demographer.

A linear regression analysis was performed on the existing data to determine the populationtrend. Figure 3-1 illustrates Bethel’s growth trend. The average population growth isestimated to be 1.6 percent/year. The 2000 Census Data, which is actually the averagepopulation data for 1999, is 5,471; the population in 2021 is estimated to be 7,419.

FIGURE 3-1City of Bethel Population Projection

Several factors influence the population growth. One is an increase in the number of peopleof child-bearing age. In addition, many people migrate to Bethel from surrounding villagesfor economic reasons. Potential factors that may slow population growth in Bethel includepoor fishing and cuts in federal funding for agencies that maintain offices in Bethel.

651

1,258

2,416

3,576

4,674

5,471

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

Population History

Population Projection

Population History

Design Value 7,419Year 2021

FORECASTING


3.2 Future Housing NeedsBethel’s 2000 Census housing count is 1,990. The total number of occupied housing in 2000was 1,741. Seasonal homes excluded, the percent of occupied homes was 90.25 percent. Thenumber of people living in households, as opposed to living in group quarters, was 5,230.This represents 95.6 percent of the total population in 2000. The average housing densitywas 3.00 people/household in 2000 (ADCED, 2001). Projections for 2021 indicate that ifhousing density remains 3.00 people per household, then 95.6 percent of the population willbe living in housing units, and the number of housing units will total 2, 361.

3.3 Future Facility NeedsThe wastewater and solid waste facilities in Bethel will need to increase in size toaccommodate the growing population. A standard 20-year planning horizon period is usedfor this master plan update. The facilities also need to meet present demand. The sewagelagoon in its present condition cannot accommodate the present wastewater disposal rate.

The foundation of the Main Lift Station needs evaluation and replacement. The structuralintegrity of the building has been compromised by frost heave.


SECTION 4

Permitting and Regulations

4.1 Wastewater Permitting RequirementsThe City maintains a permit to discharge domestic wastewater after the water receivessecondary treatment. This permit for the wastewater sewage lagoon was issued February 26,2001, and is ADEC File Number 9725-DB005 (formerly Permit Number 9125-DB003). Thepermit expires July 1, 2002. The permit is attached in Appendix E. A request for renewalmust be received by ADEC at least 30 days prior to expiration of the wastewater disposalpermit. Requests not received prior to this date cannot be renewed and must be reissued asa new permit. The renewal process takes at least 60 days, during which time the facility maybe prohibited from operation.

The 2001 wastewater disposal permit requires the permittee to comply with all parts of theNovember 13, 1996 permit, except where specified in the current permit. The site operationis limited to discharging treated domestic waste. Treated wastewater may be discharged tothe low-lying marsh area directly to the north of the lagoon. Discharges need to bescheduled and may be conducted during the fall of each year. Emergency discharges toprotect the physical integrity of the lagoon require separate approval by ADEC. Allmonitoring and reporting conditions set forth in the permit apply to authorized emergencydischarges.

Prior to discharging, the City must post notification in the Tundra Drums and on the localradio station. The City is currently discharging in the summer and fall for up to 30 days at atime.

No discharge of floating solids, garbage, grease, foam, oily waste, or wastewater containinga visible sheen is allowed, nor is that which may produce a film, sheen, or coloration on thesurface water. The disposal must be in accordance with Alaska Water Quality Standards,Section 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 70, by not contaminating surface orgroundwaters. The disposal also must not have an adverse effect on aquatic or terrestrialplant or animal life, their reproduction, or habitat.

Discharge from the sewage lagoon flows to Brown Slough. ADEC has stated in the permitthat samples to monitor fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) are to be collected from Brown Sloughat the culvert under Ptarmigan Street at a rate of three times per week during discharge, andduring the 2 weeks following discharge.

Table 4-1 lists the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements set forth by ADEC,Division of Air and Water Quality. Appendix E contains a copy of the waste disposalpermit.

PERMITTING AND REGULATIONS


TABLE 4-1City of Bethel Sewage Lagoon Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

Effluent Limitations

Effluent CharacteristicsMonthlyAverage

DailyMaximum

MonitoringFrequency

SampleType

Flow (gallons/day) Report Daily Estimate

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), BOD5 (mg/L) 45 Weekly Grab

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), TSS (mg/L) 70 Weekly Grab

pH range (std. Units) 6.5 – 8.5 Weekly Grab

Fecal Coliform Bacteria (FC) (FC/100mL) Report 3 times/ week Grab

4.2 Solid Waste Permitting RequirementsA solid waste disposal permit is required by ADEC in order to operate the Bethel Landfill.Solid waste disposal permit number 9125-BA006 was issued to the City of Bethel on June 22,1994, and expired on June 1, 1999. A renewal application was submitted to ADEC onMarch 20, 2000, with supplemental information dated June 27, 2000. A draft solid wastedisposal permit was issued by ADEC on December 27, 2000. A final solid waste permit wasissued August 6, 2001. Appendix F contains a copy of the final solid waste permit.

4.3 Regulatory Requirements and StandardsRegulations are adopted by various agencies and approved by the Executive Branch of thestate legislature. These regulations elaborate on the provisions of Alaska Statutes, which arepassed by the state legislature and provide general authority.

The following statutes address wastewater and solid waste:

• Alaska Statute 46.03.100: Waste disposal permit required for solid waste or wastewaterdisposal

• Alaska Statute 46.06: Waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste management planning

The following regulations address water quality and solid waste management standards.The AAC contains further information about these regulations:

• 18 AAC 72: Wastewater Disposal• 18 AAC 70: Water Quality Standards• 18 AAC 60: Solid Waste Management• 18 AAC 64: Litter Receptacles

Other cross-media regulations may also apply. For example, air quality regulations apply tothe incineration of solid waste. Additionally, solid waste and wastewater setbacks apply todrinking water sources covered under the Drinking Water Standards in 18 AAC 80.


SECTION 5

Community Wastewater Facilities

5.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment System5.1.1 Wastewater Collection SystemFigure 5-1 is an aerial photo of Bethel’s wastewater collection and treatment system,showing the landfill, sewage lagoon, and lift stations.

FIGURE 5-1Bethel Landfill, Sewage Lagoon, and Lift Stations

COMMUNITY WASTEWATER FACILITIES


Wastewater in Bethel is collected and delivered to the sewage lagoon by three methods:

1. Piped sewage is pumped from several pump stations to the Main Lift Station, then viapipeline to the lagoon.

2. Wastewater is pumped into trucks from individual collection tanks at commercial orresidential customer locations.

3. Honeybuckets of waste are left at the lagoon by individuals for disposal by the Citystaff.

Table 5-1 summarizes the City’s current waste loads.

TABLE 5-1City of Bethel Total Sewage Waste Loads for Year 2000

Parameter Unit 2000

Flow

Total Bethel Population 5,560

Piped Sewage Customers 2,215

Hauled Sewage Customers 3,345

Total gpd 255,000

5.1.1.1 Piped Wastewater Collection System and Lift Stations5.1.1.1.1 Collection System. The City’s collection system consists of a main pressurized trunkwith pressurized and gravity-fed laterals. The flow collects at the Main lift station and fromthere is pumped into the sewage lagoon. Figure 5-2 is a schematic of the City’s wastewatercollection system and lift stations. Aside from the Main Lift Station, the other lift stations inthe system are: Kilbuck lift station, Quick Food Center (QFC) No. 2 lift station, BethelHeights lift station, and Alaska State Housing Authority (ASHA) lift station. Othersignificant sources of flow entering the collection system include: Lower Kuskokwim SchoolDistrict (LKSD), Bethel Heights Water Treatment Plant (WTP) backwash, City SubdivisionWTP backwash, City Center Complex, Bethel Hospital, FAA service extension, and the locallaundromat.

The wastewater flow varies from a standard city collection system influent because itconsists only of commercial and residential services and contains no infiltration or inflow(I&I). This is because of the unique above-grade pipeline system in the Bethel area. Thispipeline is either elevated or lays on grade and thus receives no I&I. Thus, for the purposesof this report, no impacts to the wastewater flows from I&I will be considered.

Table 5-2 shows the City’s current piped flow.



FIGURE 5-2City of Bethel Wastewater Conveyance Schematic



TABLE 5-2City of Bethel Piped Sewage Flow Year 2000

Piped Wastewater Unit 2000

Flow

Average Annual gpd 168,421

Summer Peak Week gpd 207,160

Winter Peak Week gpd 185,265

Per Capita Flow Average Annual gpcpd 54

BOD

Average Annual lb/d 356

Summer Peak Week lb/d 440

Winter Peak Week lb/d 390

Concentration mg/L 254

Loading per Capita ppcd 0.15

TSS

Average Annual lb/d 439

Summer Peak Week lb/d 540

Winter Peak Week lb/d 480



The maximum month flow is based on the ratio of the 2000 summer and winter peakaverage month water production to the average annual water production for the WTPs. Thepeaking factor for the maximum winter month is 1.1; for the summer month it is 1.23. Thepeaking factor for peak hour is 1.8; for peak week it is 1.4.

5.1.1.1.2 Main Lift Station. Figure 5-3 shows the Main Lift Station. It is located at the edge of apond and next to the laundromat and the Bethel Heights WTP.

There are three primary concerns regarding the Main Lift Station:

1. The Main Lift Station is under capacity. It currently can only pump 21 percent of theYear 2001 potential instantaneous flow. Backwash discharges and large discharges mustbe timed so as not to overflow the pumping capacity.

2. The 1/2-inch-thick steel floor is susceptible to frost jacking and could fail from metalfatigue or by pressure from the frozen soils.

3. There is no emergency power source for this lift station. If power fails, wastewatercannot be pumped to the lagoon and overflows then occur.



FIGURE 5-3Main Lift Station

5.1.1.1.2.1 Capacity Issues. The Main Lift Station is currently unable to keep up with averageflows, and occasionally floods if flow from two of the three following sources occurssimultaneously: backwash from the Bethel Heights WTP, backwash from the CitySubdivision WTP, or flow from the Bethel Hospital pumps. City WTP operators currentlyhave to time and coordinate backwash cycles from the WTP to eliminate flooding. Thus, thecapacity of the Main Lift Station is a controlling factor in daily WTP operations.

The current operation capacity of the Main Lift Station is 168,421 gpd. This is based onpump run time records from January 1 to January 8, 2001. To confirm the accuracy of thepump run time records, flow monitoring was performed as part of this study from June 14to June 29, 2001. The flow-monitoring data matched the pump run time records for the sameperiod, confirming the reliability of the pump run time records.

Table 5-3 summarizes the results of the flow-monitoring performed from June 14 to June 29,2001.

TABLE 5-3Current Wastewater Flows at the Main Lift StationData Sample Period (June 14, 2001 to June 29, 2001)

Data SourceTotal Flow for the period

(gallons)Average daily flow

(gpd)

Flow Metering 2,067,890 139,408

Pump Run Time Records 2,110,560 150,754

During the flow-monitoring period from June 14 to June 29, 2001, the pumps were on forapproximately 8.8 hours/day over the 14-day sampling period. The pumping rate is280 gpm with one pump in operation and 450 gpm with both pumps in operation.



Table 5-4 shows the sources of wastewater flow to the Main Lift Station and the respectivepeak hour flow rates. The information in Table 5-4 illustrates the magnitude ofundercapacity of the Main Lift Station to handle the total potential instantaneous flow.Appendix G contains the graphs of the monitored flow for the Main Lift Station effluent, themain pipeline influent into the Main Lift Station, the Laundromat, the Bethel Heights WTPbackwash discharge, and LKSD.

TABLE 5-4Instantaneous Wastewater Flows Entering the Main Lift Station

SourceFlow(gpm)

Backwash from Bethel Heights WTP 470

Main Pipeline (includes Hospital, Kilbuck, and QFC No. 2 LiftStations, and backwash from City Subdivision WTP sump pump)

680

Laundromat 90

LKSD Lift Station Line 460

ASHA Lift Station 400

Total Instantaneous Flow 2,100

Current Main Lift Station Capacity (both pumps operating) 450

City staff would like the sewage collection system to accept all of the flows simultaneously.If the instantaneous flow increases proportional to population, it will be 2,900 gpm by 2021.The instantaneous flow will increase based on the number of additional service linesconnecting directly into the main line between the upstream lift stations and the Main LiftStation. Flow also will increase based on any upgrades made to the upstream lift stations’pumping capacity.

5.1.1.1.2.2 Geotechnical and Structural Considerations at the Main Lift Station. The City hasasked CH2M HILL to examine the Main Lift Station for structural integrity. The Main LiftStation wet well floor is heaving. This is exhibited by the pump rails that extend down tothe pump in the wet well. The rails are PVC pipe and are held in place at the top by anglebars. When the floor heaves, the rails bend the angle bars up and the rails come loose. Whenthe floor subsides, the rails drop below the angle bars—which are designed to extend 6inches into the rails—and the rails come loose. The Kilbuck Lift Station was similarlydesigned and constructed under the same contract and is not experiencing any knownproblems. A major difference between the Kilbuck and Main Lift Stations is that the MainLift Station was built next to a pond.

The water and saturated soils during non-freezing and freezing conditions create anupward force on the bottom of the lift station, which causes heaving. When the water andfrozen soils are countered by sufficient load within the wet well, the wet well floor sags.Sagging may be caused by settled soils no longer providing adequate support to the wetwell floor.

Note the potentialinstantaneous flowcompared to thecurrent capacity



The wet well floor was not designed to be unsupported or experience upward hydrostaticpressure. The wet well floor is made of ¼”-thick steel plate, which was not designed to carrythe load created by the contents of the wet well or external forces. The wet well isconstructed in accordance with U.L. 142 for above ground tanks. The sides of the wet wellare reinforced to counter the force exerted by a full wet well. The wet well support pilingsare 34 feet deep and most likely will not experience frost heave. The anchor clips aredesigned to withstand groundwater conditions currently present at the Main Lift Station.

5.1.2 Truck-Hauled SewageA significant portion of the lagoon’s wastewater influent is composed of sewage hauleddaily by trucks. These sewage haul trucks vacuum out commercial and residential sewagetanks and dump the wastewater into the lagoon at a location constructed specifically for thispurpose.

The volume of hauled sewage is roughly equivalent to the volume of fresh water hauled toBethel customers. Water haul records from the Bethel Heights WTP and City SubdivisionWTP were totaled for the period from November 8, 2000, when the new City SubdivisionWTP began service, to May 30, 2001. Currently, there are 1,115 haul accounts. The waterhaul records indicate a usage of 75,082 gpd.

City staff assume that an additional 11,000 gpd originating from well water usage can beadded to the hauled sewage estimate. The total volume of hauled sewage, then, is estimatedto be 86,000 gpd. Table 5-5 shows the current waste loads from the truck-hauled sewageoperation.

TABLE 5-5Truck Hauled Wastewater Flow Year 2000

Hauled Wastewater Unit 2000

Hauled – Average Annual gpd 86,082

Hauled per Capita gpcd 26

BOD

Loading lb/d 449



TSS

Loading lb/d 547





5.1.3 Sewage Treatment Lagoon5.1.3.1 Lagoon Wastewater Volumes and TreatmentFigure 5-4 is a topographical view of the City’s Wastewater Lagoon and Landfill. The lagoonconsists of two non-aerated cells. The original lagoon configuration included only 1 cell ofapproximately 30 acres. In 1993, a second cell was added on the west side of the lagoon,along with baffle curtains to address short-circuiting concerns. The landfill cell dimensionsare summarized in Table 5-6. Baffle curtains in the lagoon cells increase detention time bypreventing short circuiting of the flow. The existing baffles rise and fall with the water levelof the lagoon. During lagoon drawdown, the baffles sag and sometimes stick or freeze in asagged position. When the water level rises, it can rise above the level of the baffles and flowover the baffles, creating short circuiting in the lagoon. Short circuiting reduces thetreatment time for removing BOD and TSS from the pumped effluent.

FIGURE 5-4Topographical View of the City of Bethel Sewage Lagoon

TABLE 5-6Existing Sewage Lagoon Cells

First Lagoon Cell Second Lagoon Cell Total

Area (acre) 29.94 31.66 61.60

Design Volume (cubic feet) 7,000,000 10,605,000 17,605,000

Design Volume (gallons) 52,360,000 79,325,000 131,685,000

The information in Table 5-6 also is taken from the 1993 design drawings and summarizesthe area and design volume of both lagoon cells.



The total amount of wastewater flow entering the sewage treatment lagoon from piped andhauled sources is approximately 254,503 gpd, or 93 million gallons annually.

Flow into the lagoon is not metered on a continual basis. However, there are pump run timerecords for two submersible pumps in the Main Lift Station. Truck haul records for sewageare not available. Water haul records have been used to estimate the volume of wastewaterhauled daily to the lagoon.

The existing sewage lagoon is designed for 455,000 gpd influent flow. The lagoon isdesigned for 9-month retention time, or approximately 124.5 million gallons influentstorage. Figure 5-5 shows the piped influent entering the lagoon (which comes from theMain Lift Station).

FIGURE 5-5Bethel Lagoon Influent Pipe (Main Lift Station Discharge)

The lagoon is pumped twice each year. It is initially pumped after turnover, in June or July,to reduce the amount of erosion of the lagoon cell walls caused by wave action and statichead. The lagoon is also pumped in the fall—September or October—to discharge the waste.Each pumping period lasts approximately 20 to 30 days. The annual volume of sewagepumped from the lagoon is more than 200 million gallons. In 2000, the amount pumpedfrom the lagoon totaled approximately 250 million gallons. The total annual influent volumeis 93 million gallons. The excess volume being pumped from the lagoon is attributed toprecipitation and groundwater seeping into the lagoon.

Table 5-7 lists the original design criteria for the wastewater volume and BOD waste loadcharacteristics. This information was taken from the 1993 design drawings, the same yearthe second lagoon cell was completed.



TABLE 5-7Design Criteria Established in 1993 for Wastewater Volume and Waste Load Characteristics

Wastewater Volume BOD Retention

DesignYear Population gpcd gal/day

AnnualGallons ppcd lb/day lb/ac/day Day

2012 7000 65 455,000 166,075,000 0.220 1,500 25 289

Notes:Maximum design discharge is calculated for the 20th year design load 9-month retention, which is equal to124,600,000 gallons in 30 days.gpcd = gallons per capita per dayppcd = pounds per capita per day

Seepage into the lagoon, while supported by pump records, may not be visually obviousbecause the seepage rate through the silty sand surrounding the lagoon is fairly slow. Todetermine the accuracy of the discharge pumping data, the pump curve was reviewed andthe effluent pump manufacturer was consulted. Figure 5-7 shows the pump curve for thedischarge pump.

At 10- to 20-feet of head and 1,600 rpm (800 rpm on graph), the pump curve in Figure 5-6shows that the pump operates around 4,500 gpm. Based on a 24-hour operation for2 periods spanning 20 days each, the total annual volume is 259 million gallons per year.This value closely matches the reported value of 250 million gallons and confirms that thereported value is reliable.

If the liquid level is allowed to get too high, there is a concern that the lagoon could breechthe lagoon dike. Wave action should be taken into account when considering a safeallowable liquid level. If the dike were to become saturated and fail, the lagoon sewagecould flood the downstream area.



FIGURE 5-6Pump Curve for City of Bethel Sewage Lagoon Discharge Pump

Table 5-8 shows the wastewater source and flow rate, in gpd, entering the lagoon.

TABLE 5-82000 Total Lagoon Wastewater Volumes

SourceAverage Daily Flow

(gpd)

Annual Flow(million gallons per

year)

Main Lift Station 168,421 61.5

Truck Haul 86,082 31.5

Total Wastewater to Lagoon 254,503 93

Precipitation Contribution to the Lagoon (estimated) 28

Groundwater Seepage into the Lagoon (estimated) 129

Total Annual Wastewater and Groundwaterpumped from Lagoon

250

Available Wastewater Volume in Lagoons 130

Only 37 % (93 million gallons)of the annual water pumpedfrom the lagoon comes fromthe City’s wastewatercollection system

PumpOperatingPoint

Year 2012

Design166

Million

Year 2001 Total 250 Million Gallons

Annual Infiltration and Inflow

Bethel Annual Wastewater

160 Million

90 Million Gallons

Figure 5-7

Bethel Lagoon Condition - 2001

166045.A1.03 Bethel 5-7.ai10 07-01-02 anc/ctj



Table 5-8 also illustrates the seriousness of groundwater seepage. For example, if the129 million gallons of seepage were part of the waste flow from the City, the per capitacontribution would be double what it currently is. As it is, groundwater seepage into thelagoon is significant. It could be caused by a hydraulic gradient of the groundwater tablesurrounding the lagoon, and forcing water into the lagoon.

The present unlined treatment lagoon meets current NPDES requirements only because ofthe high volume of dilution water caused by the seepage of groundwater into the lagoon.The current lagoon is not large enough to treat the current BOD loading. An acceptedguideline for sizing a lagoon in this cold environment, based on BOD loading, is10 lb/ac-day. The current loading on the system is about 12 lb/ac-day. By 2021, the loadingwill be approximately 17 lb/ac-day, and the required lagoon size would be 104 acres.However, the lagoon is typically frozen from October to mid-June and very little BODreduction occurs during this period. Thus, the allowable treatment period is mid-June toOctober, which is approximately 100 days.

Because of the groundwater infiltration, the City staff closely monitors the water levels inthe lagoon. The high water level in the lagoon poses a threat to the dike. During high winds,heavy wave action could crest the dike, causing erosion and failure. A liner could helpprevent dike failure by reducing or eliminating groundwater seepage into the lagoon, thusallowing operators to control the water level in the lagoon more effectively. Figure 5-7shows the condition of the lagoon in 2001.

The truck haul operation dumps trucks at one location in the lagoon’s first cell. Figure 5-8shows the sewage truck haul dump site. A large portion of the wastewater influent to thelagoon is composed of sewage hauled daily by a fleet of sewage haul trucks. These trucksvacuum out commercial and residential sewage tanks and dump the wastewater into thelagoon at a location constructed specifically for this purpose (Figure 5-8). This area of thelagoon requires dredging to remove the accumulated solids from the truck dump operation.

FIGURE 5-8Bethel Lagoon Truck Haul Dump Operation (High Solids Deposition Area)



Dredging is a significant operation and maintenance cost for the lagoon. The lagoonrequires dredging approximately every 5 years to maintain available capacity.

Honeybuckets are occasionally left at the lagoon’s gate for dumping, though this practiceappears to be on the decline and is unlawful under the current City code. Figure 5-9 showsthe honeybucket dump.

FIGURE 5-9Bethel Lagoon Honeybucket Dump

5.1.3.2 Lagoon Wastewater DisinfectionThe existing permit for the City’s sewage lagoon requires monitoring of fecal coliforms.Currently, there is no disinfection facility at the lagoon. Disinfection reduces the number ofpathogens and viruses, and protects the community’s health by minimizing the spread ofdisease.

Fecal coliforms are used as an indicator bacteria for measuring the level of contamination ofwater. The State of Alaska has established water quality criteria for fecal coliforms. Indrinking water, for example, the average fecal coliform count cannot exceed 20 per100 milliliters (mL) of sample over a 30-day sampling period. Water used for non-contactrecreation can have an average fecal coliform count of 200 per 100 mL. The wastewater inthe Ptarmigan Culvert during the October 2000 discharge period had fecal levels as high as1,000/100 mL. During the same period, the wastewater at the discharge point of the lagoonhad a fecal count as high as 3,600/100 mL.

The City’s existing wastewater discharge permit requires sampling for fecal coliforms threetimes per week. Although the 1993 design documents indicated a new chlorine disinfectionfacility to be built, one was never constructed. Thus, the lagoon effluent is not currentlydisinfected with chlorine. Discharge of the wastewater is to the tundra and flows eventually



into Brown’s Creek, then Brown’s Slough, and then the Kuskokwim River near the containerport. Figure 5-10 is a view of the lagoon’s discharge point.

FIGURE 5-10Bethel Lagoon Discharge Point

5.1.3.3 Lagoon Sludge Disposal MethodsSludge is a byproduct of the existing wastewater treatment system. Sludge, or biosolids, aredeposited in the lagoon by sedimentation from the influent wastewater and truck dumpingoperations. The first lagoon cell receives the greatest share of solids.

The solids that accumulate at the bottom of the lagoon are partially reduced by microbialaction. The remaining solids build up and reduce the effective volume of the lagoon overtime. These solids may be removed every few years by either dredging or excavating whenthe lagoon is emptied.

The first cell of the lagoon was partially excavated in the mid 1990s at a cost of severalmillion dollars. The solids that were removed were stockpiled in an area south of the firstcell. Based on recent sludge depth sampling, the area surrounding the truck dump in thefirst cell is again ready for dredging.

5.2 Wastewater System Design Criteria and ProjectionsFuture waste flows are based on projected populations for both hauled and pipedwastewater and are summarized in this section. Capital improvement projects that increasethe number of people on piped sewer are also accounted for in the wastewater projections.Peaking factors multiplied by the average annual flow are used to determine the volumes offlow that pumps and treatment equipment will have to handle in the future. Wastecharacteristics such as BOD and TSS are also calculated based on projected populations.



5.2.1 Piped SystemThe number of people on the piped system was calculated based on the difference betweenthe City’s total population and the number of people on haul accounts, or, 5,560 minus3,345. The number of people on haul accounts is determined based on the ADCED’s housingdensity of three people per account (household) in year 2000 and 1,115 haul accounts.

This report assumes that average housing density shall remain at 3 people per household,and that the average piped sewage contribution per person of 54 gallons per capita/per daycalculated for Year 2000 will not change in the future. Hence, piped sewage flow willincrease only by increasing the number of service connections. The 2021 piped sewage flowis estimated to be 252,499 gpd, or 93 million gallons/year. This includes hospital waste flow.The hospital wastewater flow is assumed to remain constant over the design period of thisstudy. The average annual flow is 48,724 gpd. Should the hospital be expanded, a hydraulicand BOD/TSS loading analysis should be performed to verify that the wastewater collectionsystem and facility can accommodate the anticipated additional flow.

Water and sewer capital improvement projects are anticipated over the next several years.The first is expected in 2003. A new capital improvement project is expected to come on lineevery 2 years after that. Based on the three upcoming capital improvement projects, anaverage of 52 additional service connections per capital improvement project is expected tocome on line every other year after 2007. Table 5-9 summarizes the waste loading and flowprojections to the Year 2021 for the piped system.

TABLE 5-9City of Bethel Piped Collection System Wastewater Waste Loads for Year 2000 and Projected for Year 2021

Piped Wastewater Unit 2000 2021

Flow

Average Annual gpd 168,421 252,499

Summer Peak Week gpd 207,160 310,575

Winter Peak Week gpd 185,265 277,750

Per Capita Flow Average Annual gpcpd 54 54

BOD

Average Annual lb/d 356 534

Summer Peak Week lb/d 440 660

Winter Peak Week lb/d 390 590

Concentration mg/L 254 254

Loading per Capita ppcd 0.15 0.15

TSS

Average Annual lb/d 439 657

Summer Peak Week lb/d 540 810

Winter Peak Week lb/d 480 725





5.2.2 Haul System ImpactsBased on ADCED’s average of 3 people per residence in 2000, the average hauled wasteflow contributed by each person is 26 gallons per capita per day. This value is assumed toremain the same over the design period of this study. The 2021 forecasted waste flow fromhaul users is 94,786 gpd, or 34.6 million gallons/year. Based on the rate at which capitalimprovement projects are planned to come on line, there will still be hauled sewage in 2021.The current population growth and the rate of capital improvement project serviceconnections coming on line are approximately the same. Therefore, there is a small netincrease change in the number of haul customers by 2021. A reduction in hauled wastecould be achieved more rapidly if the rate of capital improvement project serviceconnections is increased.

Table 5-10 summarizes the truck-hauled wastewater projections for Year 2021.

TABLE 5-10Truck Hauled Wastewater Flow for Year 2000 and Projected for Year 2021

Hauled Wastewater Unit 2000 2021

Hauled – Average Annual gpd 86,082 94,786

Hauled per Capita gpcd 26 26

BOD

Loading lb/d 449 495



TSS

Loading lb/d 547 602



5.2.3 Lagoon System Total Influent Wastewater ProjectionsThe Year 2000 waste loading on the lagoon is 255,000 gpd, or 93 million gallons/year. Theanticipated Year 2021 wastewater flow entering the lagoon is 350,000 gpd, or 128 milliongallons/year. This estimate takes into account population growth and an increase in flowfrom capital improvement projects. It also takes into account the increase in frequency inbackwashing the filters at the water treatment plants, and assumes the hospital waste flowremains constant. Figure 5-11 summarizes this information.

Figure 5-11 also shows the average annual waste flow trend for total, piped, and hauledsewage flows. There are no anticipated expansion plans currently for the hospital, so thehospital waste flow is expected to remain unchanged. The piped flow is expected to increasewith sewer capital improvement projects coming on line—which is occurring at about thesame rate as Bethel’s population growth. Therefore, the hauled flow remains fairly constant



347,285

254,503 252,499

168,421

203,775

119,697

94,78686,082

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

Year

Ann

ual A

vera

ge F

low

(gal

lons

per

day

)Total Waste Load (gpd)Total Piped Waste (gpd)Piped Waste (gpd)Hauled Waste (gpd)

Hospital contributes48,724 gpd

FIGURE 5-11City of Bethel Projected Wastewater Flow

over the next 20 years. To reduce the number of haul customers, the capital improvementprojects need to increase in size or frequency.

Table 5-11 summarizes the current and future waste loads for the City, with a 37 percentincrease in waste flow by 2021. Waste loads and flow projections for the piped and hauledsystems are explained further in the text that follows.

5.3 Wastewater System Alternatives5.3.1 Wastewater Conveyance5.3.1.1 Main Lift Station ImprovementsThe Main Lift Station is currently beyond its pumping capacity. Additionally, piped flowentering the Main Lift Station is expected to increase with the City Subdivision Water andSewer Improvement project. The expected date for completion of all three phases of thisparticular capital improvement project is 2007. A new Main Lift Station should beconstructed to meet the current and future wastewater flows.



TABLE 5-11City of Bethel Total Sewage Waste Loads for 2000 and 2021

Parameter Unit 2000 2021

Total Bethel Population 5,560a 7,419

Piped Sewage Customers 2,215 3,774

Hauled Sewage Customers 3,345 3,646

Average Waste Flow gpd 255,000 350,000

BOD

Loading lb/d 810 1,100

Concentrationb mg/L 380 355

TSS

Loading lb/d 990 1,300

Concentrationb mg/L 465 435

aThe 2000 U.S. Census data actually reflects 1999 population data for Bethel. The population in 2021 iscomputed-based on a 1.6 percent annual growth rate.

bThe biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) coming into the sewagelagoon were measured from June 14, 2001, to June 29, 2001.

5.3.1.2 Lift Station Location ConsiderationsThe current location of the Main Lift Station is within a confined area and is adjacent to apond. The pond is saturating the soil and threatening the structural integrity of the liftstation wet well. The confining nature of the lift station’s location makes it extremelychallenging to rectify the problems caused by the frost jacking. The location also makes itdifficult to consider expanding the Main Lift Station to meet current and future waste flows.A new lift station is required in order to meet wastewater demand and to prevent a majorproblem if and when the wet well structure eventually fails.

The Main Lift Station receives flow by pressure-fed lines and gravity-fed lines. The flowfrom Bethel Heights WTP is gravity fed into the Main Lift Station. Possibly the least costlysiting of a new lift station is near where the Laundromat is currently located. The locationwould allow enough space to sufficiently size the new lift station. Gravity lines thatcurrently feed into the Main Lift Station would not have to be substantially relocated.

5.3.1.3 Lift Station Grit and Rag Management ConsiderationsGrit and rags enter the Main Lift Station and accumulate in the quiescent areas of the wetwell, reducing the effective wet well volume and clogging the pumps. Once or twice peryear, City staff enter and clean the wet well using rakes and pitch fork. To clean out the wetwell, the staff must drain the wet well down as much as possible, then clean out the grit andrags by hand while working in a confined space with the influent raw sewage entering thewet well. In addition, the current pumps shut off when approximately 3 feet of liquid



remains in the wet well. This also has the effect of reducing the storage capacity of the wetwell.

One means for reducing labor maintenance is to use a wet well design that concentrates thegrit in a sump within the wet well to allow the pumps to remove the grit efficiently eachtime the pumps turn on to drain the wet well. In this way, the effective volume of the wetwell can be kept near 100 percent of the original design.

5.3.1.4 Emergency Backup PowerThe new facilities should have emergency backup power. Two potential sources should beevaluated during the Main Lift Station design:

1. Utilize power backup from the Bethel Heights WTP.

2. Purchase and install a new standby generator for the Main Lift Station.

5.3.1.5 Recommendations for the Main Lift StationIn Summary, the Main Lift Station is currently at design capacity. A new lift station isrequired in order to meet wastewater demands and to prevent a major problem if and whenthe wet well structure eventually fails.

Figure 5-12 shows a Conceptual Design of a New Lift Station. Table 5-12 summarizes thecosts for these improvements to the Main Lift Station.

TABLE 5-12Main Lift Station Improvement Costs

Capital Costs*Annual O&M

CostsPresent Worth Costs

(20-Year Period)


*An order-of-magnitude cost estimate is +50 percent/ -30 percent. An order-of-magnitude cost estimate is providedin Appendix H.

5.3.2 Wastewater Treatment AlternativesSeveral alternatives exist for wastewater treatment, and each should be considered in lightof several factors: treatment effectiveness; capital cost; operation and maintenance cost; levelof operator training required; discharge permitting approval; and other permittingrequirements.

The wastewater treatment alternatives should consider not only capital costs but theoperation and maintenance requirements over the 20-year design life. Because Bethel has aharsh winter environment, careful consideration should be given to reducing the amount ofexposure to staff and equipment. Therefore, if it all possible, treatment process equipmentshould be located indoors, out of the weather. This would reduce maintenance andreplacement costs over the design period.



Additionally, the existing wastewater treatment lagoon is a fill-and-pump system that storeswastewater and groundwater over the 8- to 9-month period the lagoon is frozen over. Oneof the main goals for all of the alternatives considered should be to eliminate groundwaterand surface water entering the system. Currently, most of the wastewater in the lagoon isfrom these sources. This leads to the question of whether the utility needs to go from a fill-and-pump system to a continuous discharge system.

The advantages of a continuous discharge system are that treatment system footprint andequipment sizes are greatly reduced. This is because the yearly volume of wastewater isspread out over the entire year and not pumped at a high rate for 20 to 30 days, twice peryear.

The disadvantage of a continuously discharging treatment system is that it would need tobe pumped to the current discharge location or the treatment plant would need to berelocated closer to the Kuskokwim River to allow for a gravity discharge via a submergedoutfall.

Consideration has been given in this planning effort to relocation of the wastewatertreatment plant. However, the option of changing the discharge point to a larger water bodysuch as the Kuskokwim River would require a new NPDES discharge point analysis andapproval by the Environmental Protection Agency. This can be an involved process andwould lead to further delay in addressing the City’s wastewater problems. Thus, it isrecommended to keep the existing lagoon discharge location.

5.3.2.1 Alternatives for Relocation of the Haul Discharge LocationCurrently, some of the subdivision haul waste is disposed of in the QFC No. 2 Lift Station.The remainder of the haul waste is discharged into the first cell of the WastewaterTreatment Lagoon. To reduce the loading at the Main Lift Station, one alternative is todiscontinue discharging haul waste into the QFC No.2 Lift Station. Instead, the wasteshould be discharged directly into a new septage receiving facility at a new wastewatertreatment facility.

Relocation of the haul discharge will depend on the final selected wastewater treatmentalternative. If a conventional treatment system is built, a likely location for a haul dischargepoint would be at the treatment plant headworks. If a lined aerated lagoon is constructed,the haul discharge point would be relocated to the aerated lagoon. Another alternative toconsider depends on the construction of a new lift station. A new and larger lift stationdesign could incorporate haul discharge volume, reducing truck travel time to a fartherdischarge point such as the lagoon.

5.3.2.2 Wastewater Treatment AlternativesThere are many alternatives for treating wastewater. Each system has its own set ofadvantages and disadvantages. The following analysis considers several options, discusseseach system and their pros and cons. Costs for both Operation and Maintenance as well asProject costs are considered for each alternative. Thus this option would not be consideredfurther in this discussion.

Several criteria should be applied in choosing a treatment alternative for the City’s use:



• Provide a simple operation

• Low cost

• Reduce the facility footprint in order to reduce initial building capital costs as well aslong-term operational costs associated with heating the building.

• Minimize sludge volumes that require landfilling

• Reduce odor, noise and visual impacts

• Provide the treatment necessary to meet the current and future NPDES Permitrequirements

• Provide flexibility to expand in the future along with the City’s growing population.

Simple operation is particularly important to keep staffing requirements to a minimum. Asingle employee currently is assigned to handle the operational needs of the lagoon system.The treatment plant upgrade will probably require the addition of at least another full-timeoperator. Simple operation would keep the staffing increase to a minimum.

Cost is a consideration because the community is relatively small and does not have thecapability to pay for all of the improvements. Grant and loan funding will be necessary tocomplete any kind of expansion of the current wastewater facilities. The considerable costsof treatment should be kept as low as possible to avoid placing an unreasonable financialburden on the residents of Bethel. Appendix H contains order-of-magnitude cost for severalof these alternatives.

Odors from the existing lagoon are often a complaint heard from nearby residents wheneverthe wind is blowing in a southerly direction toward town. The new facilities shouldconsider measures to reduce odors as well as noise impacts to the surrounding neighbors.

A number of treatment systems were considered for the City’s use. Oxidation ditches andsequencing batch reactors (SBR) were considered. However, both of these systems requiretwo equal-sized tanks and a large footprint in order to meet redundancy requirements.These treatment processes are discussed in the following text to provide the reader anunderstanding of each system’s operation.

5.3.2.2.1 Oxidation Ditch. The oxidation ditch process is an extended aeration activatedsludge process that uses an aeration basin configuration similar to a race track. Its benefit isthat it is a relatively simple operation, combining the treatment of wastewater with sludgestabilization. It is typically a reliable operation and requires less maintenance than fullconventional treatment plants. The disadvantage is that the aeration equipment is lessefficient then diffuser technology and electrical costs for producing the oxygen necessary toreduce waste loads make this option less desirable for the City. Additionally, the systemwould need two identical systems to provide redundancy, which would impact the buildingsize, again making this system less desirable for the City.

5.3.2.2.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor. The sequencing batch reactor or SBR is a relatively newtechnology that has been developed to use a “batch” rather than continuous flow treatmentmode. One basin is used for both the aeration and sedimentation phases; thus mixing andaeration and settling are intermittent.



The principle of batch treatment is not new; this type of treatment was used prior to theintroduction of conventional flow-through treatment systems became standard. The majoradvantages of the SBR treatment option are: the elimination of separate secondary clarifiers;sludge return (RAS) pumps; a large settling area; elimination of any short circuitingproblems; and relatively simple operation.

The major disadvantage would be the size and number of the reactor tanks required for theCity. Multiple basins are normally required to allow independent batch drain-filloperations. The system would not adequately address the need to keep the buildingenvelope small. Thus this option would not be considered further in this discussion.

5.3.2.2.3 Lined and Aerated Lagoon. The aerated lagoon alternative is developed here toexplore the options for reusing the existing facultative lagoon. Because the existingfacultative lagoon has a large problem with groundwater, lagoon lining would be requiredin order to eliminate the infiltration water problem. If the groundwater issues are resolved,the lagoon has sufficient volume to provide partial treatment. A primary clarifier wouldprobably be necessary upstream of the lagoon to reduce influent BOD and solids loading tothe lagoon.

Aeration would be required in order to reduce BOD to levels acceptable to the NPDESPermit requirements. Aeration can be achieved using some form of surface aeration. Basedon BOD, the number of surface aerators for 350,000 gpd is 20-20 horsepower units.

A settling pond in the second cell following the aerated treatment cell may be used to settleout solids.

Figure 5-13 is a layout of the lined aerated lagoon alternative.

FIGURE 5-13Lined Aerated Lagoon Alternative

Costs for this alternative are not feasible, primarily due to the lagoon lining material costs.The only suitable materials for lining are not found locally and thus require importing thesematerials at a great expense. Table 5-13 summarizes the costs for this alternative.



TABLE 5-13Lined and Aerated Lagoon Costs

Summary of Present Worth Costs Project CostsaAnnual O&M

CostsbPresent Worth Costs

(20-Year Period)

Lined and Aerated Lagoon $57,300,000 $686,000 $67,000,000

aAn order-of-magnitude project cost estimate is +50 percent/ -30 percent. These costs include engineering andadministration costs estimates.bOperation & Maintenance (O&M) costs averages dredging every 5 years.

Appendix H contains the order-of-magnitude cost estimate for this alternative.

An advantage of the lined and aerated lagoon is that the lagoon size would be adequate totreat present BOD loading.

Disadvantages of the lined and aerated lagoon include:

• Lining the lagoon is cost prohibitive• No alternative treatment is available while lining lagoon• There is no guarantee that the lagoon lining will prevent groundwater from seeping in• Aerators would require additional maintenance and can ice up in arctic conditions• Staff would require training to operate aerators• Lagoon baffles need replacing

5.3.2.2.2 Conventional Treatment (Activated Sludge). Conventional treatment, which isillustrated in Figure 5-14, consists of the following process elements: primary treatment,secondary treatment, and solids handling.

FIGURE 5-14Conventional Treatment (Activated Sludge) Schematic Diagram

PrimaryClarifierBar Screen

Aeration Basins

Belt FilterPress Effluent

Influent

SolidsDewatered Solids toLandfill

SecondaryClarifiers

DisinfectionRAS



Conventional treatment at a minimum consists of solids removal, or primary treatment.Primary treatment alone was considered in this study. The effluent from primary treatment,however, will not meet permit requirements for BOD.

In order to remove sufficient BOD to meet permit requirements, biological secondarytreatment also must be used. Secondary treatment optimizes the function of the bacterialpopulation already present in the wastewater, reducing the amount of BOD and solidspresent.

One treatment goal in primary and secondary treatment systems is the separation of theliquid and solids in wastewater. Once the solids are separated out, they are dewatered in asolids handling facility. By dewatering the solids, the volume of solids is reduced and theresulting product is dry enough to be landfilled.

An equalization tank should be included in the process flow stream to dampen hydraulicpeaks in the plant, and thus reduce the size of the treatment equipment. The tank would belocated outside and insulated.

The equipment should be located indoors to reduce maintenance during the winter.

Large outdoor aeration basins and clarifiers would not be appropriate for Bethel because ofthe cold temperatures and the difficulty in maintaining the system during the wintermonths. Maintaining heat in the aeration basins and clarifiers would be cost prohibitive.

The solids from the primary and secondary treatment systems are piped to a sludge tankwhere they are blended together at about a 3 percent solids consistency. The blended solidsare then dewatered to a consistency of a dry loamy material that can be disposed of in alandfill.

The solids handling equipment appropriate for the City of Bethel consists of a sludge blendtank, a belt filter press, pumps, and chemical equipment to enhance dewatering.

The amount of dewatered solids anticipated to be produced in 2021 is about 1 cubicyard/day of 18 percent solids. To dispose of biosolids in a landfill, the solids need to meetthe “Paint Filter Test,” EPA Method 90-95. Dewatered solids typically meet the EPA “PaintFilter Test.”

Table 5-14 summarizes the costs for this alternative.

TABLE 5-14Conventional Treatment Costs



(20-Year Period)

Conventional Treatment $13,800,000 $502,000 $19,300,000

aAn order-of-magnitude project cost estimate is +50 percent/ -30 percent. These costs include engineering andadministration costs estimates.bAppendix H contains the order-of-magnitude cost estimate for this alternative.



There are several advantages to a conventional treatment facility, including:

• Design would adequately treat present and future waste loads to meet permitrequirements

• Solids and grit would be separated from the waste stream for landfill application andthus eliminate lagoon dredging costs

• NPDES Permit discharge point could remain the same to avoid approval process for anew discharge point

• Processes are easily automated, minimizing operator time

• Equipment can be located inside a structure, thus reducing operator and maintenancecosts because of extreme weather.

Disadvantages to a conventional treatment system would be that operator training would berequired, and the equipment would require enclosure in a building.

5.3.2.2.3 Membrane Bioreactor Treatment (Activated Sludge/MBR Treatment). Membranebioreactor systems are suspended growth activated sludge treatment systems that rely uponmembrane equipment for liquids/solids separation (no secondary clarifiers) prior todischarge of the effluent. Membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems are still considered anemerging wastewater treatment technology in the United States because of their ease ofoperation and good effluent quality. Figure 5-15 is a schematic diagram of the MBR system.

Most MBR systems have been designed with extremely long Solids Retention Times(SRTs)—in the order of 30 to 70 days—and very few have been operated at less than about20 days. The benefits of long SRT include the stability of the system, a significant reductionin solids (sludge) produced, as well as a system that is less likely to experience operationalupsets.

FIGURE 5-15Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Alternative

Bar ScreenMembrane Bioreactor

Belt FilterPress

Solids

EffluentInfluent

DewateredSolids toLandfill



Immersed MBR systems have typically operated with Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids(MLSS) concentrations above 12,000 mg/L, and often in the range of 20,000 mg/L (activatedsludge with secondary clarification typically operates at 2,500 mg/L). This range has beenbeneficial with regard to bioreactor volume reduction and subsequent waste sludgehandling and stabilization—in both cases because of the high waste sludge concentration.Immersed membranes are typically provided with shallow coarse bubble air to agitate themembranes as a means to control fouling. This “membrane aeration” provides someoxygenation, but at low efficiency.

The treatment of diurnal peak flows by providing a greater number of membranes is noteconomical, and flow equalization will be required.

Biosolids handling operations and costs for this alternative would be the same as theConventional Treatment (Activated Sludge) alternative.

Table 5-15 summarizes the costs for this alternative. The building layout and additionalinfluent and effluent piping are similar to the layout for the Conventional Treatment Plantshown in Figure 5-14. The building footprint would be smaller than the conventionaltreatment plant footprint (100 ft x 95 ft vs. 120 ft x 130 ft), reducing costs for the building andreducing the amount of heating energy costs in the future.

TABLE 5-15Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Costs



(20-Year Period)

Membrane Bioreactor $9,100,000 $435,000 $16,400,000

aAn order-of-magnitude project cost estimate is +50 percent/ -30 percent. These costs include engineering andadministration costs estimates.bNote that the Filter Elements must be replaced every 7 to 8 years at a cost of $480,000 each period.Appendix H contains the order-of-magnitude cost estimate for this alternative.

Advantages to the MBR treatment facility include:

• Design would adequately treat present and future waste loads to meet permitrequirements

• Solids and grit would be separated from the waste stream for landfill application

• Building footprint is much smaller than for a conventional treatment plant

• MBR eliminates the need for secondary clarifiers, thus eliminating most of theconventional treatment process complexity

• A primary clarifier can be added as an option to cut back aeration power costs

• The NPDES Permit discharge point could remain the same to avoid approval process fora new discharge point.

Disadvantages to the MBR treatment facility include:



• MBR is new technology for Alaska, though is used successfully around the globe atsmall treatment plants similar to Bethel’s

• Filter units must be replace every 7 to 8 years

• Operator training would be required

• Equipment would require enclosure in a building.

A conceptual level wastewater facility layout is shown in Figure 5-16. The layout includesdual use with solid waste operations baler facility.

5.3.3 Disinfection AlternativesThe existing permit for the City’s sewage lagoon requires monitoring of fecal coliforms.Currently, there is no disinfection facility at the lagoon.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) may require disinfection inthe future. Several alternative disinfection systems are discussed below.

5.3.3.1 UV DisinfectionUltraviolet (UV) disinfection is a physical process in which the water is passed through azone of UV light. UV light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum between visible light andX-rays. The portion of the UV spectrum between 200 and 300 nanometers (nm) is consideredto be germicidal, with peak effectiveness around 260 nm. The germicidal light penetrates theouter structure of the cell, enters the nucleus, and alters the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)molecule. This alteration prevents replication, which causes the cell to die.

Advantages

• The major advantage is the elimination of hazardous chemicals• There are no potentially toxic by-products or residuals• Medium-pressure arc tubes are unaffected by fluid temperature

Can be used effectively with and MBR conventional treatment system

Disadvantage

• More frequent analysis of treated water may be required to prove the performance of thesystem.

5.3.3.2 Chlorine DisinfectionThe most common chemical used to disinfect wastewater is chlorine. Chlorine can bepurchased as a liquid, gas, or can be generated on-site using brine and electricity. TheTypical range of chlorine demand for moderately fresh sewage is 10 to 12 mg/L.

5.3.3.2 Chlorine GasSix 1-ton chlorine gas cylinders would be required for the City. Because of the substantialregulatory requirements, chlorine gas was not considered as a disinfection option.



5.3.3.3 Delivered Sodium HypochloriteSodium hypochlorite can be barged in 55-gallon drums. However, long-term storage ofsodium hypochlorite is not recommended because it deteriorates in 2 to 3 months. For thisreason, sodium hypochlorite was not considered as a disinfection option.

5.3.3.4 Calcium HypochloriteCalcium hypochlorite is used currently at both the water treatment plants as a disinfectant.It comes in granular and tablet form. It is currently available from an Anchorage-basedsupply company at 66 percent strength. The tablet form of calcium hypochlorite wasconsidered as a disinfection alternative with a tablet chlorine-feed system.

Advantages

• Operators are familiar with the chemical• The chemical can be flown in via air cargo• Ease of operation

Disadvantage

• Chemical comes in plastic pails which require disposal

5.3.3.5 Onsite Chlorine GenerationThe onsite chlorine generation process eliminates the use of gas chlorine and results in theproduction of dilute sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). The only imported product for theprocess is salt. Food-grade solar salt is mixed with water to create a saturated brine solution(30 percent).

Advantages

• Requires only salt, water and electricity to produce Sodium Hypochlorite

• Provides the power of chlorine without the danger of storing or handling hazardousmaterials

• Sodium hypochlorite generated on-site is a less than 1 percent solution and thus doesnot degrade like commercial sodium hypochlorite

• The total operating cost is less than conventional chlorination methods

• On-site generation of sodium hypochlorite allows the operator to produce only what isneeded and when it is needed

Disadvantage

• Solution strength of on-site generated NaOCl is only 0.8 percent, as compared to the12 to 15 percent of conventional purchased hypochlorite, which can result in the needfor increased storage tank size



Project costs for these disinfection alternatives are summarized at the end of this section.The alternatives for disinfection are indicated in the text that follows. Costs are summarizedin Table 5-16.

TABLE 5-16Disinfection Alternative Costs



(20-Year Period)

UV Disinfection $610,000 $22,000 $920,000

Calcium Hypochlorite $60,000 $73,000 $1,100,000

On-site Sodium Hypochlorite Generation $310,000 $41,000 $890,000

aAn order-of-magnitude project cost estimate is +50 percent/-30 percent. These costs include engineering andadministration costs estimates.bAppendix H contains the order-of-magnitude cost estimate for these alternatives.

5.4 Wastewater System Recommendations5.4.1 Wastewater Facilities RecommendationsThe following are recommended changes to the City’s future wastewater system :

• Design and construct a replacement to the Main Lift Station as soon as possible.

• Perform a 3-month pilot plant study to consider the treatability and feasibility of using amembrane bioreactor and/or primary treatment system to treat the wastewater. Thestudy would look at the ease or difficulty of operation, the impacts of the cold (5 degreesC) wastewater on the treatment capacity, and the solids dewatering capability of thesludge produced. Costs for this study are approximately $5,000 to $10,000/month, plusbarge shipment costs of the pilot units from Seattle to Bethel.

• After pilot testing is complete, initiate grant funding requests for a new wastewatertreatment plant (WWTP) to replace the existing lagoon system.

• Locate the new WWTP near the existing lagoon to utilize the existing discharge location,reduce the amount of effluent piping modifications, and facilitate landfill solids disposal.

Figure 5-16 is a conceptual level layout of a combined wastewater/solid waste facility thatcould be located between the present lagoon and landfill.

Figure 5-17 shows the recommended location of the new Wastewater Treatment Facilitysituated between the lagoon and the landfill.

Table 5-17 lists the capital, operation and maintenance, and 20-year present worth costs of thewastewater treatment and conveyance alternatives. The order-of-magnitude level capital costsin Table 5-17 include construction, engineering, and city administration costs. As indicatedpreviously, an order-of-magnitude cost estimate has an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.



FIGURE 5-17Recommended New Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities

TABLE 5-17City of Bethel Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Alternatives

AlternativesCapitalCostsa

Annual O&MCosts

(see notes)

Present WorthCosts for 20-Year

Period

Conveyance System Modifications


Wastewater Treatment Alternatives

MBR Treatment (Pretreatment, MBR, SolidsHandling, and Buildingb)

$9,100,000 $435,000c $16,400,000

Wastewater Disinfection Alternatives

UV Disinfection $610,000 $22,000 $920,000

Notes:aThese are “Project Costs,” which include construction costs, engineering, and City administration costsbThe building costs that are included provide for a premanufactured building on a slab on grade that will alsoprovide space for the solid waste equipment and office.cKenai WWTP is a similar size and pays power and gas of $200,000 /year at $0.09/kwh versus $.14/kwh inBethel (or $308,000 at Bethel costs)


SECTION 6

Community Solid Waste Facilities

6.1 Existing Solid Waste Management System6.1.1 Background HistoryThe City’s previous solid waste management plan was prepared during 1986 and 1987 andis published in the City of Bethel Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Master Plan (Quadra, 1987).There have been many changes in the community and solid waste regulations since thattime and a solid waste management plan update is warranted.

A brief history of solid waste management in Bethel is presented in the previous masterplan and portions are repeated herein to provide a historical perspective on wastemanagement in Bethel. A description of current facilities is presented in following sections.

The City assumed authority over solid waste management in 1976 and moved the landfill toits current location. Before 1976, the solid waste disposal site was located east of Brown’sSlough in the area colloquially known as “Lousetown.” While the City operated somecollection vehicles prior to 1976, these vehicles consisted primarily of dump trucks that wereused on an as-available basis when they were not being used on other city projects. The Cityprovided collection service to some high-waste volume generators; however, the majority ofcommercial facility owners and residents were responsible for hauling their own waste tothe disposal site with no City assistance or oversight. The old disposal site was operated asan open dump with frequent open burning.

The old disposal site was subject to almost annual flooding from the Kuskokwim River andthe City was under increasing pressure from state regulatory officials to relocate the site andto assume a more direct management role. Around 1976, the disposal site was relocated tothe present site, located immediately east of the first wastewater treatment lagoon. The oldsite east of the Slough was covered with local silty sand and has become revegetatedthrough natural processes.

During the first several years of operation at the new solid waste site, collection methodsremained much the same, with a combination of city-provided, street-side pickup, andcommercial and residential customers delivering their own solid waste to the site. Coverwas applied at the landfill only when equipment was readily available to do so. The landfillwas subject to frequent open fires, with smoke and debris often drifting toward thedeveloped community.

In 1980, the City initiated more formalized solid waste operations, acquiring severaldumpsters and the first compaction type garbage collection truck. Street-side pickup andindividual delivery to the site was still used for the majority of residential customers. Moredumpsters were purchased in 1981 and 1983, and located at strategic positions in thedeveloped areas of the community. In 1985, a second compaction-type collection vehicle,specifically designed for use with dumpsters, was acquired. Street-side pickup was almost

COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE FACILITIES


entirely abandoned and residents were responsible for depositing their solid waste into thedumpsters, which the City would empty on a routine basis. Also around 1985, the Cityenacted an ordinance to more effectively control open dumping at the landfill site, requiringspecial permits for individual or commercial access to the site.

Eventually, the City established scheduled hours of operation at the disposal site with anattendant on duty at all times when the facility was open. The presence of an attendantallowed the City to maintain control at the site by directing customers to the active workingface in the landfill, and prohibiting the disposal of unauthorized items and other illegalactivities.

6.1.2 Existing FacilitiesThe solid waste planning regulations in 18 AAC 60.205(c)(1) require an estimate of thequantity and source of each type of waste to be managed. The following discussions onsources of waste and waste stream analysis meet that general requirement.

Existing solid waste management facilities include the current landfill, dumpsters, andequipment. These facilities are described in the following sections.

6.1.2.1 LandfillThe existing landfill is located just east of the wastewater treatment lagoon off RidgecrestDrive. Figure 5-1 is an aerial photograph of the landfill, which shows its location. Thelandfill was established at its current site around 1976 and has grown to approximately17.6 acres in size. The landfill is surrounded by a soil berm, which forms the currentboundary. The total facility boundary designated for future landfill expansion has not beendefined.

The landfill is only open during scheduled hours and public access is blocked by a lockedgate when the site is closed. An attendant is on duty at all times when the landfill is open.Entrance facilities include an office and storage area for recyclables and waste that areotherwise prohibited in the landfill. The landfill office and used oil storage area can be seenin Figures 6-1 and 6-2.

Wood pallets and clean lumber are set aside near the office and the public is allowed to takethe wood for reuse. Most of the wood is burned in residential wood stoves or is used to heatsweat houses (saunas).

Paints, used oil, lead-acid batteries, and other wastes prohibited in the landfill are acceptedand set aside in designated areas near the landfill office. Appliances containingchlorofluorocarbons (refrigerant gas) are stored until the gases can be recovered by anauthorized appliance service agent. Sorbents and oily rags are burned in a Smart Ash unit atthe landfill. Latex paints are opened and allowed to dry before disposal in the landfill. Usedoil is stored in 55-gallon drums and is eventually burned in a space heater at the landfilloffice or Public Works shop. The City occasionally contracts with a waste management firmto containerize and ship out household hazardous waste on an as-needed basis.



FIGURE 6-1Landfill Operations Office

FIGURE 6-2Used Oil Storage Area



The area fill method is used in the landfill. All activities take place within the dikedperimeter wall. Soil has been added to the wall to raise its height over time as the landfillfills, but there is no detailed plan as to the final design height. Waste haulers are directed tothe active working face by the operator and waste is compacted and consolidated with atrack loader each day of deposition. The working face is covered on a regular basis tominimize the area of exposed waste.

6.1.3.2 DumpstersThe City currently maintains about 183 public dumpsters throughout the town. There areapproximately 43 of the smaller 4-cubic-yard dumpsters and 136 of the larger 8-cubic-yarddumpsters in service. Public-use dumpsters are located in residential neighborhoods.Commercial businesses are required to contract with the City for solid waste service and arecharged each time the dumpsters at their businesses are emptied (tipped). There is no rentalfee for the dumpster.

The City has a maintenance program whereby dumpsters are repaired or replaced whenneeded. Repair activities include replacing bottoms, lids, and side arm slots. Dumpstersusually require some maintenance every few years of service. When dumpsters are beyondrepair, they are replaced.

In an effort to improve the appearance of the dumpsters, a volunteer group has beenpainting designs on some of the dumpsters. Despite this effort, many of the dumpstersappear worn and rusted. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 show typical neighborhood dumpsters.

The location of dumpsters has evolved over time in response to public need and demand.Appendix I contains information regarding the location, number, and collection frequencyof the dumpsters. Most of the dumpsters are located in close proximity to residentialneighborhoods and public use areas on the City road right-of-way; however, some arelocated on private property with permission of the owner.

6.1.3.3 EquipmentThe only piece of equipment dedicated for use at the landfill is a Caterpillar 953B trackloader. Other City equipment is occasionally used at the landfill on an as-needed basis.

The City currently has one operational garbage collection truck equipped to empty thedumpsters and a few broken ones that have been out of service for some time.

The City also recently constructed a building just outside of the landfill gate for thecollection and processing of recyclables. Inside the building is a small baler for processingaluminum cans.

6.1.3.4 Fee SystemOperation of solid waste facilities is funded in part through utility fees. Residentialcustomers are charged a flat fee of $12/month for solid waste services. This charge isincluded with water and sewer fees on a combined monthly bill. Commercial customers arecharged $40 each time an 8-cubic-yard container is emptied. There is no rental fee for thedumpster.



FIGURE 6-3Neighborhood Dumpsters

FIGURE 6-4Typical Residential Dumpster

A fee is also collected at the landfill entrance for customers that haul their own waste to thelandfill. Residential customers are allowed one free load per day, then are charged $4/cythereafter. Commercial customers are charged $4/cy. There are no scales at the landfill, so,for fee purposes, the volume of waste is estimated by the landfill operator.



A detailed analysis of utility revenues versus solid waste management costs has not beenperformed recently; therefore, it is not known if solid waste fees are adequate to cover allsolid waste management costs. Money collected for solid waste services goes into the Cityenterprise fund, which is combined with water and wastewater funds.

6.1.2 Waste Stream Sources and VolumeThis section includes an estimate of the sources and quantities of waste generated in theCity. An analysis of the waste generation rate is useful for estimating the remaining life ofthe existing landfill and future landfill capacity needs. Also, information about the sourceand composition of waste is useful for developing waste reduction and recycling programs.

6.1.2.1 Waste Generation RateIndirect methods of estimating the waste generation rate are necessary because there are nodirect measurements by weight. There is no scale at the landfill and waste loads are notcounted; therefore, no records of waste quantities are available.

There are generally two methods used to estimate the waste generation rate in Bethel. Onemethod uses a general rule of thumb based on the population. The second method countsthe number and size of dumpsters emptied each week to calculate an estimated generationrate.

As a general rule of thumb, rural cities in Alaska generate about 6 pounds of solid wasteperson/day. This generation rate is not meant to imply that each and every persongenerates 6 pounds of solid waste per day, but rather that the community as a wholegenerates waste at that rate based on the number of people in the community. Althoughcommunities vary, several studies have indicated that this generation rate is appropriate formany rural communities. This method assumes that the rate can be correlated to thepopulation and that there are no major external sources of waste independent of population.The ADEC solid waste management Website(www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/home.htm) also lists 6 pounds perperson/per day as a typical community waste generation rate. The United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists the 1999 national municipal waste generationrate at 4.5 pounds per person/day; however, municipal waste is only a portion of the totalwaste generated by a community. When other types of waste are added in, the nationalaverage is closer to 6 pounds person/day.

According to the most current census data, the average annual population in Bethel for 1999was 5,471. If 6 pounds person/day is applied to this number, the annual waste generationrate in 1999 for Bethel can be estimated to be 5,991 tons/year. Applying a typical annualgrowth rate for Bethel of 1.6 percent/year yields a Year 2001 average of 6,196 tons/year.

The dumpster count method is another way to estimate the waste generation rate. Thenumber and frequency of dumpsters emptied by the City is shown in Appendix I. Forestimating purposes, it is assumed that dumpsters are only half-full when emptied.Dumpsters that appear full are usually only about two-thirds to three-quarters full.Dumpsters that are filled to the maximum are usually overflowing, with litter surroundingthe dumpster. Assuming that dumpsters are half-full on an annual basis is a reasonableestimate. The density of uncompacted residential waste ranges from 150 to 300 pounds/cy.



Based on visual inspections of dumpsters in Bethel, it can be assumed that an averagedensity is 200 lb/cy. If these factors are applied to the number and frequency of dumpstersemptied each year by the city, the Year 2001 average can be estimated to be 6,392 tons/year.This estimate does not take into account waste hauled directly to the landfill; therefore, theactual rate can be expected to be somewhat higher.

The two methods compare well with each other. If an average of the two methods is taken,the Year 2001 rate can be assumed to be about 6,300 tons/year. It is roughly estimated thatan additional 700 tons/year is hauled directly to the landfill, therefore, the total 2001 rate isestimated at 7,000 tons/year.

The solid waste generation rate can be expected to fluctuate in a community throughout theyear. The waste generation rate usually increases in summer months in most Alaskancommunities. In Bethel, a rise in the waste generation rate can be expected following thearrival of each supply barge to town as pallets, crates, and other dunnage is discarded.Barge service is usually provided to Bethel between March and September with 6 to7 sailings per year. The waste generation rate usually diminishes during winter months,with a small rise during the holiday season in late-December through mid-January.

6.1.2.2 Sources of WasteThe major sources of waste can be estimated by reviewing the dumpster locations and tipfrequency included in Appendix I. Based on this information, it appears that the majority ofwaste is from residential neighborhoods. The largest percentage of waste generated inBethel is collected in the City Subdivision area. This area is considered to be the maindowntown area of Bethel by many people and also contains a high density of residentialhouses and apartments. Other significant waste collection areas include the ASHA housingarea, Tundra Ridge, and the City Shop.

The largest nonresidential source of solid waste in Bethel is the hospital. Othernonresidential sources of waste include the airport and barge dock. These transportationfacilities generate a substantial amount of packaging waste, such as pallets, shrink wrap,bubble wrap, cardboard, and other dunnage. Bethel serves as a transportation hub for theYukon-Kuskokwim Delta and many materials that are shipped in bulk need to berepackaged to fit into small river boats and small airplanes. Large pallets and boxes will notfit in these vehicles; therefore, this packaging material is discarded as waste whenmerchandise is re-packaged to fit into smaller transport vehicles.

6.1.2.3 Future Generation RateThe solid waste generation rate and waste volume estimates can be used to determine futurelandfill capacity needs. There is usually a linear correlation between the number of peopleand the amount of waste generated in an area. Therefore, a review of demographics canhelp predict the future waste generation rate.

The waste generation rate can be correlated with the population rate. According to censusdata, the City experienced an average growth rate of 1.6 percent/year over the 10-yearperiod from 1990 through 1999. For future planning purposes, it is estimated that thisgrowth rate will remain constant over the next 20 years and the solid waste growth rate willincrease at the same rate as the population growth rate.



The density of waste after it is compacted and covered in the landfill is estimated to beabout 900 lb/cy. This density is typical for loosely compacted refuse that has beencompacted with a track dozer. The cover soil to waste ratio is estimated to be about one partsoil to three parts waste (1:3). About one-third of the volume in the landfill is estimated to becover soils. The total in-place landfill volume of soil and compacted waste can be estimatedby multiplying the volume of waste by a factor of 1.5. The tonnage and in-place volume ofwaste and cover are shown in Table 6-1.

TABLE 6-1Estimated Solid Waste Generation Quantities in the City of Bethel

YearWeight(Tons)

Volume(Cubic Yards)

Cover + Waste(Cubic Yards)

2001 7,000 17,500 23,333

2002 7,112 17,780 23,707

2003 7,226 18,064 24,086

2004 7,341 18,354 24,471

2005 7,459 18,647 24,863

2006 7,578 18,946 25,261

2007 7,699 19,249 25,665

2008 7,823 19,557 26,076

2009 7,948 19,870 26,493

2010 8,075 20,187 26,917

2011 8,204 20,510 27,347

2012 8,335 20,839 27,785

2013 8,469 21,172 28,229

2014 8,604 21,511 28,681

2015 8,742 21,855 29,140

2016 8,882 22,205 29,606

2017 9,024 22,560 30,080

2018 9,168 22,921 30,561

2019 9,315 23,288 31,050

2020 9,464 23,660 31,547

2021 9,616 24,039 32,052

The waste generation rate is influenced by many unpredictable factors and may vary fromthis estimate. The major factors that can affect the generation rate include the following:

• Population growth rate changes



• Changes in economic development• Weather and natural disasters• Changes in landfill operation techniques• A reduction in the use of cover material or the use of alternative covers• Changes in the quantity and type of materials recycled• Alternative waste disposal options

6.1.3 Composition of Waste StreamThe purpose of this section is to characterize the primary waste streams within the City.Waste composition data are helpful for determining what types of equipment and processesare necessary to manage the waste and what types of materials are available for recycling.

6.1.3.1 Waste Type CategoriesRegulation 18 AAC 60.2059(c)(1) requires an estimate of the quantity of each type of wasteto be managed. Using definitions of solid waste found in the Alaska solid waste regulations,waste can be categorized as follows:

• Municipal Waste: community-generated waste

− Household Waste: produced by individual households, apartment complexes,hotels, dormitories, and work camps

− Commercial waste: generated by a store, office, restaurant, warehouse, or other non-manufacturing activity

• Industrial Waste: generated by a manufacturing or industrial process that is not ahazardous waste. Industrial waste includes polluted soil, organic and inorganicchemicals, and manufacturing waste

• Inert Waste: Solid waste that has a low potential to pollute air or water, and that doesnot normally attract wildlife. Inert waste includes coal power plant ash, scrap metal,auto fluff, construction and demolition (C&D) waste, and pavement rubble.

• Drilling Waste: Exploration and production waste from oil, gas, or geothermal welldevelopment and maintenance.

• Biosolids Waste: Residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in atreatment works.

Because the majority of waste is collected in residential neighborhoods and there is a lack ofsignificant industries, about 87 percent of the waste generated in the City is estimated toconsist of municipal waste and about 10 percent is estimated to consist of inert waste. Bothof these waste categories are accepted at the landfill. The remaining 3 percent consistsprimarily of biosolids with a very minor percentage of industrial waste.

6.1.3.2 Waste Composition BreakdownThe composition of the solid waste stream can be divided into many waste types. Tosimplify the classification process, the waste stream is usually divided into major wastegroups. The actual waste stream is composed of a large variety of different materials that



would be too cumbersome to list individually. For consistency, waste groups that are listedin the EPA waste characterization reports are used.

Many waste items are composed of a combination of waste types. For example, a shoe maycontain leather, rubber, cotton, metal, and small quantities of other material. The categoriespresented here and in other reports should not be interpreted to represent pure materials,but rather a general estimate of their proportional composition in the total waste stream.

Solid waste is generated on a continual basis and the composition can be expected to changefor a variety of reasons. Economic changes, new products, seasonal variations, and publicperceptions can affect the commodities people purchase and the wastes generated. Thepercentages presented here represent a general annual average and are not meant to beinterpreted as exact or static generation rate.

There are two primary methods for conducting a waste characterization study. The firstmethod, often referred to as the direct measurement method, is a source-specific approachin which the individual components of the waste stream are sampled, sorted, and weighed.Direct measurement of the waste stream requires proper sampling and sorting techniques toobtain statistically valid results. Sampling is usually conducted over a period of at least oneyear to obtain a sufficient sample size to account for seasonal variations. Sorting programsusually divide the waste into anywhere from 6 to 30 waste classifications. The secondmethod is often called the source estimation method. This method uses average wastecomposition figures from other studies and applies adjustments to the numbers based onsite-specific factors unique to a community. The consumption of commodities used in acommunity is reviewed to assist in the estimation process. A portion of the materialspurchased in a community can be assumed to eventually end up as solid waste.

The source estimation method was determined to be the most appropriate method tocharacterize the composition of the City waste stream. A review of a wide variety of wastesort studies that have been performed with adequate quality control indicate that thecomposition of municipal waste is fairly consistent across the nation. The composition onlyvaries by a few percent in most cases despite a wide variety of differences betweencommunities. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that the composition ofwaste in Bethel is similar to the national average, but varies with regard to a few specifics.National average estimates were obtained from the EPA document titled Characterization ofMunicipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1999 Update The city estimates were prepared byadjusting the national average by a reasonable factor to account for site-specific conditions.For many of the estimates lacking empirical data, professional experience and judgmentbased on circumstantial data were used. For example, there are very few lawns in Bethel;therefore, the national average for yard trimmings was modified downward.

Table 6-2 presents a breakdown of the municipal waste composition and lists the nationalaverage and estimate for the City. Wastes listed in this group do not include sewage sludge;waste oil; C&D debris; junk cars and other large scrap metal objects; hazardous waste; andother waste not normally disposed of in the municipal waste stream. These wastes are notincluded in the national waste-characterization study; therefore, they are not included hereso the data are comparable.



TABLE 6-2Municipal Solid Waste Composition for the City of Bethel

Percent by Weight

Material Nationala Bethel Comment

Paper and Paperboard 38.2 43 More shipping containers

Glass 5.7 3 Fewer supplies shipped in glass containers

Metals 7.6 9 Higher due to batteries and boat hulls

Plastics 10.2 10 About the same

Rubber & Leather 3.1 5 Higher tire and rubber boot usage

Textiles 3.9 5 Higher usage of clothes in colder climates

Wood 5.4 7 Higher due to shipping crates and pallets

Food Waste 10.0 11 Higher due to food storage difficulties in rural areas

Yard Trimmings 12.6 3 Lower due to less lawn and garden waste disposal

Other 3.3 4 Includes waste types not listed above.

Total 100.0 100a Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1999 Update. Year 1998 data.

Notes:Generation before materials recovery. Does not include construction & demolition debris, industrial processwastes, sewage sludge, junk vehicles, and hazardous waste.

Waste categories for paper and metals were divided into more detailed characterization.Table 6-3 lists a breakdown of paper items. Although the total paper percentage is the sameas the national average, the composition is different. The percentage of newspaper is muchsmaller than the national average. The regional newspaper, the Tundra Drums, is smallerthan the average municipal newspaper. Some daily papers are delivered to the city fromAnchorage and other locations, but the quantity of newsprint is still less than the nationalaverage. Telephone directories are also much smaller than the national average. Thepercentage of cardboard and packing paper is much higher than the national averagebecause of a higher percentage of shipping containers. Office paper waste and other paperwaste composition are similar to the national average.



TABLE 6-3Paper Composition of Municipal Waste for the City of Bethel

Percent by Weight

Product Category Nationala Bethel Comment

Nondurable Goods

Newspaper 6.2 2.0 Smaller and less frequent papers

Books 0.5 0.5 Same

Magazines 1.0 2.0 Higher; more catalogs

Office Papers 3.2 3.0 About the same

Directories 0.3 0.1 Smaller phone books

Standard Mail 2.4 3.0 More items shipped by US mail

Commercial Printing 3.0 2.0 Less commercial print

Tissue Paper & Towels 1.4 2.0 Higher

Paper Plates & Cups 0.4 0.4 Same

Other Nonpackingb 2.0 2.0 Same

Subtotal 20.4 17.0 Less

Containers and Packaging

Corrugated Boxes 13.5 20.0 Higher due to more shipping containers

Milk Cartons 0.2 0.2 Same

Folding Cartons 2.5 2.5 Same

Other PaperboardPackaging

0.1 0.5 Higher due to more shipping

Bags and Sacks 0.8 0.8 Same

Other Paper Packaging 0.6 2.0 Higher due to more shipping

Subtotal 17.8 26.0 Higher due to more shipping

TOTAL (all paper) 38.2 43 Higher due to more shipping containers

aSource: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1999 Update. Year 1998 datab Includes tissue in disposable diapers, paper in games and novelties, cards, etc.

Table 6-4 lists the metal composition of the City’s municipal waste. Lead from batteries ishigher than the national average because of the shorter life of lead-acid batteries in coldclimates and the higher percentage of batteries and large equipment. Metal from foodcontainers, such as aluminum beverage cans, is historically higher in Alaskan communities.Steel container usage is also slightly higher in the City because of the higher than averageuse of 5-gallon steel containers for aviation fuel, gasoline, and motor oil.



TABLE 6-4Metal Composition of Municipal Waste for the City of Bethel

Percent by Weight

Product Category Nationala Bethel Comment

Durable Goods

Ferrous Metalsb 4.3 4.3 Same

Aluminumc 0.4 0.8 Higher due to boat hull disposal

Leadd 0.4 0.7 Shorter battery life in colder climates

Other nonferrouse 0.2 0.2 Same

Subtotal 5.3 6.0 Slightly higher

Nondurable

Aluminum 0.1 0.1 Same

Containers

Steel cans 1.3 1.5 Higher steel fuel can usage

Aluminum Beverage Cans 0.9 1.4 Higher canned beverage consumption

Subtotal 2.2 3.0

Grand Total 7.6 9.0 Highera Source: Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1999 Update. Year 1998 datab Ferrous metals in appliances, furniture, tires, and miscellaneous durables.c Aluminum in appliances, furniture, and miscellaneous durables.d Lead primarily from lead-acid batteriese Other nonferrous metals in appliances and miscellaneous durables.

6.1.3.2.1 Inert Waste. It is estimated that inert waste comprises about 10 percent by weight ofthe total waste received at the Bethel Landfill based on visual observations and estimates bylandfill operations staff. The composition and rate of waste generation for this category ofwaste can vary significantly depending on the type and number of construction anddemolition projects in the city. Representative generation sources of inert wastes include thefollowing:

• Site-cleared materials such as brush, trees, mud, and stumps

• Excavated materials such as peat, silt, and earth fill

• Roadwork materials such as asphalt rubble and roto-milled asphalt material, concreteslabs and rubble, timbers, steel beams, and concrete supports

• New construction materials such as residential, commercial, and industrial projectsources

• Renovation, remodeling, or repair materials from residential, commercial, and industrialproject sources



• Demolition materials from buildings and other structures

• Disaster debris as a result of fires, floods, storms, earthquakes, and other naturaldisasters

Some of these wastes are managed outside the waste stream or on location. For example,clearing debris is excluded from the Alaska definition of solid waste and is often managedonsite or on surplus land. Asphalt paving debris is also frequently recycled on-site duringroad construction projects either as road base fill or in the manufacture of new paving.

Table 6-5 shows a general estimate of the City’s combined residential and commercialconstruction and demolition inert debris.

TABLE 6-5Residential and Commercial Construction and Demolition Debris for the City of Bethel

MaterialConstruction & Demolition

(percent)

Metals: scrap steel, junk equipment, aluminum boats, etc. 10

Plastics 2

Wood: pallets, poles, beams, etc. 37

Landclearing: brush, stumps, logs, peat, etc. 1

Inerts: concrete rubble, asphalt paving debris, tires, roofing, wallboard, etc. 50

TOTAL 100

Figure 6-5 shows a total composition breakdown of the City’s municipal and inert wasteAbout half of the inert waste can be combined with municipal waste quantities of metal,wood, and plastic; leaving only 5 percent as general inert debris.

FIGURE 6-5Total Percent Composition of Solid Waste in the City of Bethel

Textiles5%

Other4%

Paper and Paperboard

38%Wood

9%

Metals9%

Glass3%

Yard Trimmings3%

Inerts5%

Food Waste10%

Rubber & Leather

5%

Plastics9%



6.1.3.2.2 Other Wastes

6.1.3.2.2.1 Junk Vehicles. Junk vehicles represent a special waste category in Bethel. Almostall vehicles that are shipped to Bethel remain there their entire life. Few vehicles are evershipped out due to the high cost of shipping. There were 3,978 vehicles registered in theCity in 2000, with pickup trucks at 32 percent and snowmobiles 13 percent of this total.

Table 6-6 lists the class and number of vehicles registered in the City. U.S. Governmentvehicles are not included in the registration numbers; however, these vehicles are usuallyshipped back to the General Services Administration for disposition rather than to localjunk yards. Many off-road vehicles and snowmobiles are not registered, so it is difficult toestimate these numbers. Large construction equipment, such as bulldozers, front-loaders,and backhoes, do not require registration and are not included in the list.

TABLE 6-6Registered Vehicles in the City of Bethel*

Class of Vehicle Quantity

Passenger 1,468

Motorcycle 42

Commercial Trailer 30

Trailers 335

Commercial Truck 315

Pickup 1,275

Bus 14

Snowmobile 499

Total 3,978

*2000 Department of Motor Vehicle Records

Information from other communities in Alaska indicate that about 2 percent of the numberof registered vehicles are junked each year. Applying this estimate to the City would yieldabout 80 junk vehicles/year. The average weight of all vehicles is estimated to be about2,000 lb/vehicle. Using this information, the total weight of junked vehicles per year isabout 160,000 pounds (80 tons/year).

6.1.3.2.2.2 Boats and Other Large Equipment. Boats, boilers, and other large equipmentpresent a special problem in the landfill. These materials are difficult to crush and canconsume a lot of space in the landfill. The number of boats and other large pieces ofequipment generated each year are unknown.

6.1.3.2.2.3 Appliances. Appliances, such as refrigerators, are another waste stream that mustbe handled separately because it is illegal to allow the refrigerant gasses to escape into theatmosphere. The gas must be recovered before they can be crushed and landfilled. Twentyto 30 refrigerators are disposed at the landfill each year.



The City does not have records on the quantity of household hazardous and otherprohibited waste received at the landfill. It would be beneficial to maintain records of thefollowing waste streams in the future:

• Used motor oil• Oil-based paints and solvents• Lead-acid batteries• Refrigerators• Antifreeze• Other hazardous waste

Other waste streams that require special handling or management practices should also berecorded so that management provisions can be budgeted in the future.

6.2 Solid Waste Facility Design CriteriaDesign criteria for solid waste management facilities is based on regulatory requirements,site conditions, political factors, and economics. The criteria exist for dumpsters and landfillfacilities.

6.2.1 Dumpster CriteriaThe State of Alaska has established regulations for litter receptacles published in 18 AAC 64.Appendix J contains a copy of these regulations. These regulations define minimumstandards for public litter receptacles and dumpsters. Basically, they require an adequatesize and collection frequency to prevent litter and other pollution problems.

In addition to these regulatory requirements, the City has the following goals:

• Locate dumpsters so that they are convenient for public use• Design dumpsters so that they are accessible to residents• Design dumpsters to minimize litter and wildlife attraction• Serve residential areas equitably• Provide dumpsters for businesses when requested• Maintain adequate dumpster capacity and collection frequency to minimize litter• Avoid interference with traffic flow in placement of dumpsters

The development of future solid waste collection plans will incorporate these criteria in theplanning process.

6.2.2 Landfill CriteriaThe State of Alaska has established minimum standards for municipal solid waste landfillspublished in 18 AAC 60.300. There are different landfill criteria based on the classification ofthe landfill.

The Bethel Landfill is a Class II landfill, based on the quantity of waste generated in Betheland the location of the site. Class II standards require the following:

• The facility must receive less than an annual average of 20 tons/day



• The facility cannot be connected by road to a Class I landfill• There can be no evidence of groundwater pollution caused or contributed by the

landfill.

The Bethel Landfill receives an annual average of about 17 to 18 tons of waste per/day, andthe site is not connected by road to a Class I landfill facility. Also, there is no evidence thatthe site has caused a groundwater pollution problem. Therefore, the Bethel Landfill qualifiesas a Class II landfill and the criteria for that type of landfill applies.

6.2.2.1 Vertical ExpansionThe City is currently filling vertically over the existing landfill site; however, a final filldesign has not been prepared. In developing a vertical expansion plan, the following criteriashould be considered:

• Perimeter boundaries• Steepest slope that will still be stable, both under static and seismic conditions• Fill plan and sequencing• Erosion potential of final cover• Final cover materials available in Bethel• Cover options to meet required 10-5 cm/second permeability requirement• Final appearance (vegetative cover)• Final elevation acceptable to public• Drainage control and runoff discharge areas• Future use plans

6.2.2.2 New Landfill CellsThe development of a new landfill or lateral expansion cell should consider the followingregulatory requirements:

• It must be on City property, or written approval must be obtained by the landowner ifthe landfill is to be located on someone else’s property

• It must be greater than 4-foot vertical separation from bottom of landfill to seasonal highgroundwater

• It must be greater than 100 feet from surface water

• It must be greater than 200 feet from a drinking water source

• It must be greater than 10,000 feet from the end of an airport runway

• It must be an upland area (not a wetland) unless a waiver is granted

• It must have drainage away from site

• It must not be in 100-year floodplain unless designed to withstand flood with nowashout

• There must be greater than a 50-foot buffer between waste and property boundary

• It must be a geologically stable area



• It must be no steeper than a 10-percent grade

• There must be no interference with historical or archeological sites

• There must be no interference with endangered or threatened species

Other practical siting criteria should also be considered, such as:

• It must be accessible (near existing roads or feasible to build a road to site)

• It should be near the source of waste to minimize hauling costs

• Site soils must be suitable for excavation for below grade disposal

• Suitable cover material must be available

• Space should be available nearby for stockpiling cover material

• Site must be designed to prevent thawing and creation of an unstable base if permafrostis present

• It must not interfere with other facilities (airport, residential areas, utility lines)

• Space must be available for anticipated waste quantities over the specified 20-yeardesign life

• Space should be available for expansion beyond the 20-year design life

• Prevailing wind direction and potential litter and odor problems should be considered

• Space should be available to push snow off the landfill

• Site must be suitable to meet public acceptance

Other siting criteria may develop as a result of public input once potential sites are selected.

6.3 Solid Waste System Alternatives6.3.1 Collection SystemAn effective solid waste collection system is essential in order to maintain a clean andsanitary community. Solid waste collection prevents litter, wildlife problems, disease, andodor nuisances. Relying on all individuals to haul their waste to the landfill is impractical ina community the size of Bethel. Many people lack the means and resources to transportwaste to the landfill; therefore, solid waste collection is a necessary city service.

The existing system of dumpsters located throughout the city has worked well; however,several problems with the system have been identified by users as follows:

• Dumpsters are unsightly and detract from the aesthetic qualities of Bethel.

• It is difficult for some people throw waste into tall dumpsters; therefore, bags are leftoutside where they can be ripped open by animals.



• Litter problems are created when people leave waste bags outside the dumpster ordumpsters are overfilled.

• Birds, fox, dogs, and other animals are attracted to the dumpsters and create a nuisance.

• Rain and snowmelt drains through and out the dumpsters, discharging polluted water.

• Some dumpster locations create traffic hazards or are difficult to access.

• Some public dumpsters are placed on private land because the city does not own land ina suitable location to serve some areas.

• Some commercial waste generators use public dumpsters without paying thecommercial fee.

• There is no incentive for residential customers to minimize the amount of waste theygenerate because the fee is the same regardless of how much waste is generated.

• Dumpsters are expensive to maintain.

• Waste collection is relatively costly and time consuming.

Despite this long list of problems, the current system works reasonably well. Some problemsare simply inherent with solid waste and are not likely to be solved by switching to anothersystem. However, a review of waste collection alternatives is warranted to determine thebest system for the City, both from an environmental and economic standpoint.

Collection options under review include the following:

• Continue with the existing dumpster system but make a few improvements whereneeded

• Switch to curbside collection of waste in garbage cans at each residence and business

• Construct a centralized transfer station and remove public dumpsters

6.3.2 Commercial and Neighborhood DumpstersThe current commercial and neighborhood dumpster program could continue with someimprovements to address public concerns. The existing system appears to work reasonablywell. Minor complaints with the system can be addressed by modifying the type andplacement of dumpsters. Options to improve the existing system are described in thefollowing sections.

6.3.2.1 Dumpster Styles and AppearanceDumpsters come in many shapes and sizes. The most appropriate dumpsters for Bethel areones that can be accessed by all users. Another desirable attribute is a self-closing lid thatprevents the top from being left open.

In an effort to improve the appearance of dumpsters, a volunteer organization has beenpainting them. Some people like the art work and say it adds character to Bethel, whileothers think it makes them look worse. Some would prefer the city paint them a solid colorto make them less conspicuous.



Another option to improve their appearance is to build shelters around the dumpsters tovisually screen them and to minimize litter. Visual dumpster screens are usuallyconstructed out of wood fencing or cinder blocks. Concrete blocks are also available thatlook more like stone and come in various colors. Two examples of dumpster shelters areshown in Figures 6-6 and 6-7. Although this may improve the appearance of dumpsters, itmay make them more difficult to access with a garbage truck and can make snow removalmore difficult.

FIGURE 6-6Three-Sided Dumpster Shelter

6.3.2.2 Dumpster PlacementDumpsters can be easily moved; therefore, collection efficiency can be optimized byremoving dumpsters from areas with little use and adding dumpsters to areas where theyare frequently full. Information about dumpster use can be collected by the garbage truckdrivers and reviewed on a periodic basis. Appropriate adjustments to dumpster size,location, and collection frequency can be made based on information collected.

Two significant problems have been associated with dumpster placement. One problem isthat public use dumpsters are sometimes placed on private property because there is noother suitable location for the dumpster. In this case, the city should have a writtenagreement with the landowner authorizing placement of the dumpster and authorizationgranting public access to the dumpster. Another problem is that some dumpster locationspresent a traffic hazard. It is recommended that dumpsters be removed from areas withpotential traffic problems.



FIGURE 6-7Enclosed Dumpster Shelter

One option to provide more convenient dumpster stations would be to build pads off theroadway. In many areas, the road right-of-way extends 10 to 20 feet off the side of theexisting road edge. The construction of dumpster pads at some locations could reduce trafficconflicts, the need to use private land, and provide for more convenient access at somelocations.

Dumpster stations should be planned into new residential and commercial developments. Itmay be prudent for the city to pass an ordinance requiring all new subdivisions andapartment complexes to design appropriately sized dumpster stations within the newdevelopment area. This planning requirement would eliminate the problem of havinginadequate room for dumpsters after a new development is built.

6.3.3 Curb-Side CollectionMany cities throughout the world use curb-side collection of individual garbage cans. In thisscenario, each household either purchases or is leased a standardized garbage can, and agarbage truck drives to each person’s house to unload their can into the truck. The mostcommon truck used is a rear-load compactor truck. Another method is to use a front-endbasket to dump the waste into, which is then lifted over the truck cab into the truck in asimilar manner to emptying dumpsters. Side loaders are also gaining in popularity becausethey usually require only one employee to operate.

There are several disadvantages to this option. Residents must remember to place theirgarbage cans out at the street on collection day. Also, curb-side cans can be tipped over bywind or animals, resulting in the discharge of waste and leading to wildlife attraction andlitter. Another problem with the garbage can system is that the injury rate of garbage



collectors is relatively high. Curb-side collection has never been implemented in Bethel andwould require an extensive public information program in order to obtain communityacceptance and cooperation with the new collection program.

In order to reduce worker injuries and to improve collection speed, some cities have gone toautomated collection equipment. Specially designed garbage cans are used that can be liftedand emptied into the garbage truck through means of a mechanical arm. The truck drivernever needs to leave the truck to empty the containers and larger containers can be used.

Although automated collection is popular in other states, it has not worked well in Alaska.Snow and ice make it difficult to position the containers for collection. Large 90-gallon toteson wheels are often used for collection (Figure 6-8), but these totes are difficult to move onsnow and ice. Also, trucks have difficulty maneuvering into position to access the collectioncans on icy roads. When automated collection trucks were tested in Anchorage andFairbanks, many of them became stuck in the snow or slid into ditches while attempting toaccess the totes. For these reasons, an automated collection system for residentialneighborhoods is not recommended for Bethel.

FIGURE 6-8Automated Collection Tote

6.3.4 Central Transfer StationThe development of a transfer station near the central area of town would eliminate theneed for dumpsters throughout the city. Residents would be required to haul their waste tothe transfer station for disposal. This option would substantially reduce collection costsbecause less time would be required to haul the waste from a single transfer stationcompared to the time it currently takes to collect waste from over a hundred dumpstersthroughout town. Transfer containers used at these types of stations are usually large,holding up to 120 cy of waste.



A typical transfer station includes one or more 120 cy, walking-floor transfer trailers, apaved drop-off area, a roof over the trailers to keep out rain and snow, street lights, and anattendant building. Figure 6-9 shows a simple transfer station. The typical cost for a facilitylarge enough to handle the quantity of waste generated at Bethel would be around $250,000.Labor and maintenance requirements would be less than is currently required for theexisting dumpster system. Two full-time-equivalent employees would be sufficient toprovide an attendant on duty 80 hours/week. The haul time to take the transfer trailers tothe landfill would be about 4 hours/week and could either be contracted out or performedby the landfill attendant.

FIGURE 6-9Simple Transfer Station

Several factors specific to Bethel make this alternative less than favorable. Many residentslack transportation and hauling their waste to a central transfer station would be difficult.The inconvenience of hauling waste is likely to result in numerous waste accumulation pilesaround town, as was the situation before the dumpsters were placed in residential areas.Siting a transfer station is also likely to be controversial. There is no clearly defined centralarea and it is not clear where would be the best place for it. Individuals near proposed sitesare likely to protest its establishment, while those most distant are likely to complain that itis too far away.

Despite potential cost savings resulting from lower collection costs, replacing residentialdumpsters with a central transfer station is not recommend for Bethel because of thepreviously mentioned disadvantages.



6.3.5 Solid Waste Pre-Landfill Processing6.3.5.1 Baler Facility FeasibilityBaling is a waste processing method whereby solid waste is compacted into blocks beforedisposal into a landfill. A typical baler facility consists of a building containing the followingitems: a concrete floor (tipping area) designed to accept the discharge of waste from trucksand private vehicles, a baling machine, an office, a restroom, an equipment storage andrepair shop, and a storage area. Common operations involve the discharge of waste onto theconcrete floor of a baler facility, where it is then pushed onto a conveyor belt with a smallloader vehicle and fed into the baling machine. The facility can be designed to eject baleswithin the building for storage until sufficient quantities are generated to warrant disposalin the landfill or the bales can be ejected directly into the back of a truck for transport to thelandfill.

There are currently 13 solid waste baler facilities operating in Alaska. A list of baler facilitiesin Alaska is included in Table 6-7 along with contact names and telephone numbers.

TABLE 6-7Solid Waste Baler Facilities in Alaska

City/Address Contact/Phone # Baler Brand & Type

Anchorage Recycling CenterSmurfit Stone Inc.6161 Rosewood StreetAnchorage, AK 99518

Guy BartonGeneral Manager(907) 562-2267

Harris PressHRB

City of CordovaP.O. Box 1210Cordova, AK 99574

Bob MinerBaler Facility Supervisor(907) 424-5600Public Works Department 424-6200

Logemann

Homer Baler Facility42336 Sterling HighwayHomer, AK 99603

Baler Facility Supervisor(907) 235-6678

Harris PressHRB

Ketchikan LandfillCity of Ketchikan344 Front StreetKetchikan, AK 99901

Public Works Director(907) 225-3111

MosleyBadger 75S-2

Kodiak Island Borough710 Mill Bay RoadKodiak, AK 99615

Baler Facility Manager(907) 486-9345

Harris PressHRB

City of KotzebueP.O. Box 46Kotzebue, AK 99752

Baler Facility Operator(907) 442-2105

Mosley

Naknek - King SalmonBristol Bay BoroughP.O. Box 189Naknek, AK 99633

Baler Facility Manager(907) 246-4233Public Works Department 246-8223

MosleyI-100-AP

City of PetersburgP.O. Box 329Petersburg, AK 99833


Mosley Badger



TABLE 6-7Solid Waste Baler Facilities in Alaska

City/Address Contact/Phone # Baler Brand & Type

Prudhoe BayPiquniq Management Corp.Pouch 340044Prudhoe Bay, AK 99734

Landfill Facility Manager(907) 659-2635

Harris PressHRB-10A

Central Peninsula Baling FacilityKenai Peninsula Borough144 North Binkley StreetSoldotna, AK 99669

Cathy MayerSolid Waste Director(907) 262-9667

MosleyHLBA III 150S-SW

City of Thorne BayP.O. Box 19710Thorne Bay, AK 99919

Utility Manager(907) 828-3380 (City Hall)

MosleyBadger 50S-2

City of UnalakleetP.O. Box 28Unalakleet, AK 99684


SelcoHarris Group2R 10-50 HP

City of ValdezP.O. Box 307Valdez, AK 99686

Stan GilfillanLandfill Facility Supervisor(907) 835-2356

MosleyIII-100-2-AP

There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of a baler facility compared to aconventional landfill operation without any waste processing. The most commonadvantages and disadvantages with baler facilities in Alaska are described in the followingsections.

6.3.5.1.1 Advantages. Perhaps the greatest advantage of processing the waste in a baler isthat the bales are easier to stack abovegrade than loose refuse. This advantage is particularlyimportant for the City because belowgrade landfills are usually not practical in permafrostareas. Several landfills in Alaska have been able to extend the life of existing landfills bystacking waste bales over previously filled landfill areas. Bales have been stacked to a heightof more than 50 feet above the old landfill with an exterior side slope of 3 horizontal to 1vertical. Figure 6-10 is a photograph of this vertical fill. Baling waste would make a verticalexpansion of the existing Bethel Landfill much easier than attempting to stack loose refuseabove the existing perimeter berm.

Baling waste also minimizes litter because vehicles discharge waste inside a building ratherthan in the open landfill. Also, bales contain the waste until it can be covered. However,bales typically tend to disintegrate over time if left exposed; therefore, they must be coveredsoon after placement in the landfill to prevent litter.

Better compaction can usually be obtained with a baler than a typical steel wheel compactor;therefore, the life of a landfill cell will last longer than with conventional compaction in thelandfill with a steel-wheel compactor. A typical low-density baler compacts waste to adensity of 1,000 to 1,300 lb/cy, while a steel-wheel compactor typically compacts waste to adensity of 800 to 1,100 lb/cy; therefore, a baler can save about 20 to 25 percent of a landfill’s



FIGURE 6-10Vertical Fill

volume. There are currently some very large steel-wheel compactors weighing more than50,000 pounds that are capable of achieving the similar compaction densities as a low-density baler, but the cost of these machines is more than the typical cost of a baler machine(not including the cost of the building). Evidence collected at some landfills in Alaskaindicate that bales tend to expand within hours after baling and the resulting density is nobetter than that achieved with a steel-wheeled compactor. The resulting density is still likelyto be better than achieved by a track bulldozer, as is used at the Bethel Landfill. Figure 6-11is a comparison of compacted waste densities.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Bulldozer Steel Wheel Compactor Baler

LB

S/C

Y

FIGURE 6-11Typical Density of Compacted Refuse



Less cover material is needed to adequately cover baled waste because there is usually lessexposed waste; therefore, additional landfill space can be saved. Also, less operational timeis spent applying cover material to a balefill than an area landfill; thereby saving labor costs.Cover material consumes about 20 to 40 percent of landfill space in a typical landfill, whileonly consuming 20 to 25 percent of space in a balefill. A relatively high percentage of covermaterial is often used in windy areas in an attempt to minimize windblown litter.

Table 6-8 compares the in-place volume of 1 ton of refuse in the Bethel Landfill to a typicalbalefill in Table 6-8. Figure 6-12 is a graphical representation of this information. Thecombination of more compact waste and less cover material required for a balefill results inabout 25 percent more waste to be accommodated in a balefill as compared to currentoperations at the Bethel Landfill. The use of a steel wheel compactor and better operatingtechniques at the landfill could reduce the volume difference between the baler operationand the conventional landfill operation.

TABLE 6-8In-Place Volume of 1 Ton of Refuse

Bethel Landfill Typical Balefill

Compacted Waste Volume (cubic yards) 2.5 (estimated) 2.0

Cover Material (cubic yards) 0.83 (rough estimate) 0.5

Total In-place Volume 3.33 2.5

Percent Cover Material 25% 20%

Cover to Waste Ratio 1:3 1:4

2.52

0.5

0.83

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Bethel Landfill Typical Balefill

Cub

ic Y

ards Cover Material

Waste

FIGURE 6-12In-Place Volume of 1 Ton of Refuse with Cover Material



Also, less soil is needed in a balefill to construct a vertical expansion because a perimeterberm is not needed. A perimeter berm is usually constructed to contain loose refuse, butbales can be stacked and covered without a containment berm. Eliminating the perimeterberm can substantially reduce the amount of soil needed to construct a vertical expansion ofthe landfill.

Wind-blown litter is less of a problem at baler facilities because the waste is off-loaded fromvehicles inside of a building and baled before the waste is disposed into the landfill. Thisprocess eliminates the windblown litter problem that is present when waste is dischargedout in the open before it can be compacted and covered. This advantage is highly pertinentto the Bethel Landfill, which is often windy.

The off-loading of waste onto a tipping floor inside a building provides a better opportunityto screen the incoming waste and to remove prohibited wastes. The screening of hazardouswastes, waste oil, and other prohibited waste can result in less contaminants in the leachate.

Baler facilities provide a more comfortable working environment and allows the landfillfacility to remain open and functioning even during adverse weather conditions. Theoperational efficiency of out-door operations usually declines during periods of high winds,rain, or snow, whereas baling operations can continue uninterrupted during bad weatherperiods.

Baler facilities can provide a greater opportunity for recycling. Recyclables can be sortedand screened more easily within a baler building than outside, thereby increasing the purityand value of recyclables. Baled materials are often preferred by recycling brokers, andrecyclables are often worth more when they are baled than unbaled. Additionally, baledrecyclables can be stored and shipped more easily than unbaled materials.

Baled waste is often less attractive to disease vectors and wildlife than unbaled waste;however, bird and wildlife attraction is not eliminated by baling. Birds, fox, and bears canstill access baled waste; however, it is possible to store the waste in the baler building untilthe operator is ready to place and cover the bales in the landfill. This procedure can beimplemented if wildlife problems become a nuisance.

There is some evidence to indicate that less concentrated leachate is produced in balefillsbecause infiltrating water has a tendency to flow through the space between bales ratherthan through the compacted bales; therefore, there is less water contact with the waste in atypical balefill, which results in more dilute leachate.

6.3.5.1.2 Disadvantages. The capital costs of constructing a baler facility can be substantiallyhigher than constructing a typical office and equipment maintenance building necessary fora facility the size of the Bethel Landfill.

Financing will probably be required in order to design and construct a baler facility. The citywill probably need to obtain a bond to finance the facility and it may be necessary for thecity to increase disposal fees in order to service the debt.

Occasional down time can be expected for baler maintenance and repair; therefore it is stillnecessary to have the capability of operating a conventional landfill in the interim.



A baler facility does not completely replace the need for heavy equipment at the landfill.Not all waste can be baled, therefore it is still necessary to maintain a bulldozer at thelandfill to move and compact large heavy objects that cannot be baled. Also, a loader orbulldozer is still needed to apply cover material.

A baler facility is typically larger than an equipment maintenance and storage building andtherefore can be expected to require more energy to heat and light. More buildingmaintenance is also required compared to a simple equipment storage garage.

Wash-down water from a baler facility may present a wastewater disposal problem andcould be expensive to dispose of properly. This potential problem can be minimized bycoordinating procedures with the selected wastewater treatment and disposal option.

Off-loading space is limited by the size of the tipping floor of a baler facility and traffic mayget backed-up at peak business times. This situation is not likely to be a significant problemat Bethel using the current dumpster collection system because few customers haul theirown waste to the landfill.

6.3.5.1.3 Baler Types. There are several types of solid waste balers. The most common solidbaler type in use is the wire-tie bale system. In this type of baler, the waste is compacted in asteel chamber by a hydraulic ram and the bale is wrapped by two or three rounds of steelwire. Figure 6-13 is a photo of this type of baler.

Currently, all baler facilities in Alaska use this type of system. Therefore other operators areavailable to answer technical questions about baler maintenance, repair, and operations.(Refer to Table 6-7 for a list of contacts.) This type of baler typically costs around $250,000,installed.

FIGURE 6-13Typical Wire Baler



Another type of baler compresses waste into a cylinder shape and wraps the bale in shrinkwrap. Shrink wrap bales can be stored or left exposed for a much longer period of time thanwire bales because the protective wrap prevents infiltration of water and keeps the balefrom disintegrating. Wire bales tend to fall apart after being left outdoors for several days.Unfortunately, the smallest roll-press baler currently made is too large for Bethel and it costsabout $1 million.

6.3.5.1.4 Economic Analysis. A review of capital costs of building a baler facility in Alaskaindicate that a facility that is a size appropriate for Bethel would be in the price range of $2to $2.5 million. These costs are based on a facility that includes an office; a restroom withtwo toilets and one shower; a baler; a conveyor belt; a reinforced concrete tipping floor; anequipment storage room large enough to park one bulldozer; a prohibited waste storagearea; and a bale storage area with enough capacity to store 2 weeks of waste. The buildingsize is approximate 6,000 square feet. The city may decide to combine a wastewatertreatment building with the baler facility to save building construction costs.

Operation costs are usually about the same for a baler facility as a conventional landfill.Although more time is spent inside processing the waste, less time is spent outside in thelandfill. As a result, staffing requirements are about the same. The Kenai PeninsulaBorough, which contracts out the operation of their balefill, has indicated that operationcosts did not increase when they switched from a conventional landfill to a balefill in theearly 1990s. The city of Valdez also switched to a balefill in the 1990s and indicated thatoperational costs remained about the same.

Maintenance costs can be expected to be slightly higher with a baler facility than aconventional landfill. Typical building maintenance is required, such as periodic painting,cleaning, roof repair, and other maintenance tasks. The concrete tipping floor usually needsto be resurfaced every 10 or 15 years. Also, a major overhaul of the baler machine istypically performed every 10 or 15 years. Overall operating costs can be expected to beabout 20 percent higher with a baler facility than with a conventional landfill operation.

Another economic factor to consider is the space savings value of a baler facility. Balingwaste uses 25 to 30 percent less space in the landfill than conventional operations with abulldozer. Baling will defer the cost of building a new landfill. As the city grows, it willeventually be required to upgrade the landfill to the more stringent and costly Class Istandards. The city will be allowed to use the existing unlined landfill as long as it lasts;however, once it is full, a new lined cell will be required for municipal waste. Under thepermitted fill plan, with a 2 percent slope on the final cover, the existing landfill isanticipated to be full by mid-2012. Using a baler, the existing landfill is not anticipated to befull until mid-2014. Money would be saved by deferring the interest payment on moneyborrowed to construct a new cell. Using a net present value analysis, and a bond interestrate of 6 percent, deferring the construction by 2 years would be about $54,600 in Year 2001dollars. Therefore, there is an economic benefit to prolonging the life of the existing landfill.

6.3.5.1.5 Baler Facility Conclusions. There are several advantages of a baler facility that aredirectly applicable to the site-specific conditions at Bethel. High winds are common at thesite and wind-blown litter can be a problem. Wind-blown litter is likely to become a greaterproblem as the landfill is expanded higher than the existing berm. The installation of a balerfacility could significantly reduce litter problems. Also, a vertical expansion above the



existing berm can be constructed with bales without the need to raise the elevation of theperimeter berm. The exterior perimeter bales will still have at least 2 feet of cover; however,this soil will be substantially less than required to raise the elevation of the perimeter berm.A baler facility could also improve waste screening activities at the landfill and reduce thepotential of leachate problems. The ability to reduce hazardous constituents in the leachateis of particular importance at the Bethel Landfill because the site is currently unlined andleachate eventually seeps into the surrounding environment. A baler facility could also beused to process recyclables and improve the quality and price received for recycledmaterials. Another advantage of a baler facility that is applicable to the Bethel Landfill isthat it allows for better conservation of landfill space. This factor is of particular importanceif future cells are required to be lined.

Public acceptance of a baler facility could be mixed. The higher initial cost of the facilitycould be viewed as too costly and unnecessary. Financing the cost of a baler facility couldcause disposal fees to increase because it will be necessary to generate enough revenue topay off any loans acquired to finance the facility. Some may view the increased recyclingcapability of the facility as a worthwhile investment. Reduced litter at the site wouldimprove the aesthetics of the site and reduce public and agency concerns over potentialpollution problems. Overall, there are several advantages and disadvantages to a balerfacility and selection of this option will depend on the level of importance the city places oneach of the considerations.

6.3.5.2 IncinerationAnother method of waste processing that reduces waste volume is incineration. Severalsmall communities and a few large communities incinerate waste in Alaska. Smallincinerators with a rated capacity at less than 1,000 lb/hour capacity are exempt from manyof the emission monitoring requirements. The lack of tight emission controls makes smallincinerators a feasible option for communities that generate less than a few tons of wasteeach day. However, larger facilities must meet more stringent emission requirements, whichsignificantly increase the cost of operation. In addition, the capital cost of building a largeincinerator with pollution controls is in the millions of dollars. Incineration can beeconomically viable at very large communities (over one million in population) due to theeconomies of scale. But for the previous reasons, it is usually not economical to incineratemunicipal waste at medium-sized communities (>1,000 people) unless landfill space isextremely limited. Another problem with incineration in small communities is the lack ofsufficient waste to keep the unit running on a continuous basis. Incineration is most efficientat normal operating temperatures. A higher percentage of pollution is generated duringstartup and shutdown than during normal operations.

Incineration has been a viable option in Southeast Alaska where landfill space is extremelylimited. Juneau, Sitka, and Skagway currently incinerate their waste. Their tipping fees arealso some of the highest in the state. For example, the tipping fee in Juneau is $140/toncompared to $45/ton at the Anchorage Regional Landfill, which is a conventional landfillwithout incineration.

In addition to high costs, large incinerators must also go through a lengthy permittingprocess. It took the North Slope Borough more than 3 years after the construction of an



incinerator in Barrow to get an operating permit. Also, other waste incinerators in Alaskahave been shut down due to permit compliance problems.

Air emission monitoring can also be expensive. Large municipal waste incinerators arerequired to install continuous emission monitors for various parameters. This monitoringadds substantially to the cost of the operation. Air monitoring alone usually costs more than$30,000/year.

The operation of an incinerator also requires trained staff and routine maintenance. Thelevel of training is usually higher than that required for regular landfill operation.Maintenance costs vary, but are usually significantly higher than routine maintenance oflandfill equipment.

It is estimated that the cost of incineration will greatly exceed the value of landfill spacesaved at the Bethel Landfill; therefore, incineration is not recommended at this time.Although incineration can reduce the volume of waste by about 75 percent of the total wastestream, the landfill space savings at the Bethel Landfill will not be great enough to balancethe high cost of incineration. Incineration would extend the life of the landfill under thecurrently permitted plan to mid-2037. Using the same net present value analysis and interestrate used for the baler facility analysis, the deferred cost savings would be about $381,000. Amass burn refuse incinerator would cost at least $5 million.

6.3.5.2.1 Incinerator Facility Conclusions. Based on the preceding discussion, a mass burnrefuse incinerator is not recommended for Bethel at this time. The benefits are not sufficientto justify the higher costs compared to the other options. In addition, this option reliesheavily on equipment that may be difficult and expensive to maintain in Bethel.

The city should re-evaluate the feasibility of incineration a few years before the existinglandfill is full. The landfill has enough capacity to last at least until the year 2012 and longerif it is filled higher than the existing perimeter berm. Any new landfill constructed after thisdate will have to meet the Class I standards unless the quantity of waste is reduced.Incineration would reduce the quantity of disposable waste to less than the 20 tons/daylimit, allowing the Class II standards to be used. The increased cost of incineration shouldbe compared to the cost difference between a Class I and Class II landfill to determine theeconomic value of the two options.

However, incineration of specific wastes on a small scale is practical. The city currently has aSmart Ash incinerator at the landfill for the combustion of sorbents, oily rags, oil filters, andother combustible items that could present a pollution problem if disposed directly in thelandfill. This unit does not require an air emission permit because the unit is under the1,000 lb/hr rated-capacity size limit. The Smart Ash burner is appropriate for the quantity ofoily solid waste received at the landfill. It is recommended that this unit be kept in an arealimited to staff access only. The Smart Ash units remain hot for several hours after operationand can cause severe burns if touched. Also, the staff must control what goes into the burnerin order to prevent explosions or toxic emissions.

6.3.5.3 RecyclingRecycling can divert waste from the landfill, thereby extending the life of the landfill.Currently aluminum beverage cans and some wood is recycled. The high cost of shipping



materials to a place that can use recyclables makes it uneconomical to recycle most items inBethel. However, more materials could be recycled economically if products could be madeand sold locally rather than trying to ship the waste out.

According to statistics published in the EPA document titled Characterization of MunicipalSolid Waste in the United States, 1999 Update, aluminum beverage cans make up about0.9 percent by weight of the municipal solid waste stream. According to this same source,the recycling rate is 53.9 percent of that generated. Therefore, aluminum can recycling canbe expected to divert less than one-half a percent of the total municipal waste stream.Although this may seem insignificant, every bit helps. The relatively high value ofaluminum beverage cans makes them economical to recycle. The average price paid forclean aluminum cans in 2001 in Anchorage was $500/ton. Materials can be shipped toSeattle by barge for about $300/ton, including loading and wharf fees. Unloading andshipping to a recycling facility in Seattle is less than $100/ton. Therefore, it is economical toship aluminum cans to Seattle for recycling. Airlines in the past have also offered free orreduced costs for flying aluminum cans to Anchorage for recycling.

The only other item recycled in significant quantity in Bethel is wood. Pallets and otherlumber are set aside at the landfill for public reuse. Most of the wood is burned in woodstoves to supply supplemental heat or to heat steam houses. Wood makes up 5.4 percent ofthe national average of municipal solid waste. Only about 6 percent of the national averageis recycled; therefore, less than 0.3 percent of the municipal waste stream is divertedthrough wood recycling.

Wood and paper recycling in Bethel could be increased by producing a locally usableproduct from these two waste streams. Paper and wood can be shredded and combinedwith a small amount of paraffin and compacted into 5- or 6-pound fireplace logs. These logswould be similar to commercial products such as Presto Logs® and Duraflame®. Thesecommercial logs sell for $6 to $9 each in Bethel. Currently, all paper products, such as officepaper and cardboard, are discarded into the landfill. The national average of paper productsin the municipal waste stream is 38.2 percent, while the national recovery rate is41.6 percent. Table 6-9 shows the total practical recovery rate of wood and paper productsthat could be achieved in Bethel based on national averages.

TABLE 6-9Potential Recovery of Wood and Paper Waste

MaterialWaste streamPercentage Practical Recovery Rate

Potential RecoveryPercentagea

Wood 5.4 6 0.3

Paper & Paperboard 38.2 41.6 15.9

Totals 43.6 16.2a Percent of municipal waste stream by weight. Does not include construction and demolition waste.

Approximately 16 percent of the waste stream could be diverted through wood and paperrecycling to make fire logs. Assuming that 7,000 tons/year of solid waste is generated inBethel in the year 2001, about 1,120 tons of paper and wood could be recycled. At 6 lb/log,



this amount would result in the production of 373,333 logs. This amount is probably themaximum recovery rate and the actual rate is likely to be lower. Not all paper and woodwaste is suitable for log production. Some wood is treated with preservatives to preventmold and rot. A common wood preservative in current use is chromated copper arsenate(CCA). Wood treated with CCA often has a slight green color, but is more difficult to detectin weathered wood that has turned brown. Other preservatives include creosote andpentaphenol. Woods treated with preservatives are not safe to burn in fireplaces or woodstoves because they can emit toxic fumes and the ash may contain heavy metals that areharmful if inhaled or ingested. Also, not all paper materials are suitable for burning.Magazines and glossy print contains a higher percentage of clay and inks that inhibitburning and leave a higher percentage of ash. Excluding unsuitable paper and wood wastesfrom recycling may lower the recovery rate to less than 16 percent of the waste stream.

The Bethel Recycling Coordinator is currently conducting further evaluations of thefeasibility of producing fireplace logs from recycled wood and paper waste materials and isattempting to obtain funding for a pilot project. If funding is available, a pilot project wouldbe a worthwhile endeavor.

If a recycled log pilot project is developed, it is recommended that a testing phase bedeveloped before products are sold to the public. If poor quality experimental products aresold initially, it may become difficult to convince consumers to purchase an improvedproduct at a later date. Volunteers may be available to test experimental logs made fromrecycled paper and wood. Their feedback could be used to develop a good product thatpeople would be willing to buy.

6.3.6 Solid Waste Disposal6.3.6.1 Landfill CapacityThe capacity of a landfill is estimated by comparing existing contours with proposed finalcontours to determine the remaining available volume. The waste generation rate, aspresented in Section 5, is then used to estimate the annual volume of landfill space that isconsumed. This consumption rate is then divided into the space available to estimate theremaining life of the landfill.

A topographic map of existing conditions at the landfill was generated in the Fall of 2001.This map is based on an aerial photograph taken in the Summer of 2001 and is presented inFigure 6-14.

Landfill mapping was performed as part of a larger project involving city-wide mapping.

A digital terrain model of existing landfill contours was then input into an Inroadscomputer model to generate various final fill elevations and to calculate the volume oflandfill capacity. Three final contour plans were chosen for modeling purposes. Figure 6-15is a cross-section drawing of the three fill options. Detailed conceptual landfill photographicsimulations are included for each fill option in Appendix A.

The first option is to fill the landfill to the top of the existing perimeter berm as described inthe permit application. The existing plan shows a 2 percent grade (50 horizontal to 1vertical) over the top of the landfill to promote drainage away from the landfill. The center



of the landfill will be about 7 feet higher than the top of the perimeter berm. Under thisoption, the remaining capacity is approximately 287,378 cubic yards. The existing landfill isanticipated to reach this capacity by the summer of 2012.

The second option is to fill the landfill at a grade of 10:1 with a relatively flat area about 100-feet-wide on the top for truck turnaround during fill operations. This fill plan would elevatethe final cover about 30 feet higher than the existing perimeter berm and would providesubstantially more capacity than the first option. This option would provide enoughcapacity to last through mid-2019. The final appearance would result in a gently rolling hillthat would fit in better with the natural terrain.

The third option is to fill the landfill at a grade of 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5:1) with arelatively flat area about 100 feet wide on top to allow trucks in the area to turn aroundwhen filling the landfill. This contour would result in a hill about 70 feet higher than the topof the existing perimeter berm. The 5:1 slope was chosen because there are no significantgeotechnical concerns with the stability of the waste and final cover components at thisgrade. This option would provide enough capacity to Year 2030.

The existing permit allows side slopes to be as steep as 4:1; however, stability and erosionconcerns increase with slopes steeper than 5:1 at this site. A 4:1 slope may be feasible, but anengineering analysis would be necessary to determine static and seismic stability.Engineering design provisions may be necessary to ensure the geotechnical stability of covercomponents. Also, this slope would raise the final elevation to about 90 feet above theperimeter berm. The steeper slope would be more difficult to construct. Also, it may not beacceptable to the public to have a landfill this high above the surroundings.

FIGURE 6-15Bethel Landfill Fill Configurations

The in-place volume of waste presented in Table 6-8 was used to estimate the remaining lifeof the landfill. Landfill capacity and remaining life at various fill slopes is presented inTable 6-10. The starting point for this capacity evaluation is the summer of 2001. This



capacity estimate is based on several variables that may change over time; therefore, theactual life of the landfill may vary from that shown.

TABLE 6-10Remaining Landfill Capacity and Life

Final Contour Slope(horizontal:vertical) Percent Grade

Landfill Capacity(cubic yards)

Remaining Life(years after

2001) Year Full

50:1 2 287,378 11.5 years 2012

10:1 10 509,211 21 years 2019

5:1 20 857,407 35 years 2030

The selection of the final contour option is more of an aesthetic issue than an engineeringissue. The final cover can be constructed at a slope as steep as 4:1 or flatter. The flattest sloperecommended is 20:1 (5 percent slope); however, the permit approved a 50:1 (2 percent)final slope presented in the permit application. A slope flatter than 20:1 could result ininadequate drainage away from the fill and ponding could occur if differential settlement issignificant. The permit also requires ponding and other drainage problems to be correctedon an as-needed basis. In order to avoid potential drainage problems, a slope steeper than 2percent is recommended. Clearly, more capacity can be obtained by filling to a steeperslope, but the landfill appearance would be more noticeable.

There are several advantages to maximizing the capacity of the existing site. It is anticipatedthat the waste generation rate will exceed an annual average of 20 tons/year within the next4 or 5 years and the landfill permit will change from a Class II facility to a Class I facility.Under Class I regulations, all lateral landfill expansion cells or new landfill cells will requirea liner and leachate collection system; however, existing unlined cells can remain as they areif they do not present a pollution problem. Therefore, it is advantageous to make theexisting unlined landfill last as long as possible because new cells will be more expensive toconstruct and maintain. Another advantage of maximizing landfill capacity is that less landwill be used for waste disposal. Since land has value, there is an economic advantage tomaximizing landfill capacity.

6.3.6.2 Landfill Final Cover OptionsA key factor to consider in developing a final contour plan is the design and appearance ofthe final cover. Several factors, including permeability, runoff, stability, erosion potential,vegetation type, and gas venting are affected by the type of final cover that is selected. Thesefactors affect both environmental protection and aesthetics.

Current landfill regulations require unlined landfills to be capped with an infiltration layerat least 18 inches thick with a permeability no greater than 10-5 cm/second. This layer mustbe covered by at least 6 inches of soil capable of sustaining native vegetation. Local silty soilin the area is not likely to meet the 10-5 cm/second permeability requirement for theinfiltration layer and it will probably be necessary to import material in order to meet thisrequirement. Local soils can be amended with bentonite clay to achieve a lower



permeability; however, mixing and placing soils can be an expensive and time-consumingprocess. Another option is to place a geosynthetic clay layer (GCL) of bentonite sandwichedbetween two layers of geotextile. A significant advantage of the GCL is that it is moreresistant to cracking following freeze-thaw cycles and desiccation than a silt cover. Two feetof silty soil would then be placed over the GCL. Under both options the final cover wouldbe seeded to establish a grass cover to minimize erosion. Willows would also be planted toestablish a long-term natural cover of brush similar to that growing on the existing sideslopes.

It may be appropriate to close portions of the landfill in phases as it is brought up to designelevation. The planar area of the landfill is 18 acres. Applying a final cover over this entirearea at one time would be expensive. Applying a final cover in 6-acre phases would helpminimize leachate formation and would partition the closure into more manageable units.The phased approach would also reduce the high cost of applying a final cover over theentire site at once.

6.3.6.3 Future Landfill SitingAll landfills eventually become full; therefore, it is prudent to plan ahead and identifypotential locations for new landfills. It is usually preferable to keep future landfillexpansions in the same general area of the existing landfill. No significant complaints havebeen voiced regarding the current location, which is also next to the sewage lagoon.Therefore, it is best to keep these types of facilities in the same general area rather thanlocate a new landfill somewhere else. Also, the existing facilities are monitored andadditional landfill facilities in the same general area could be covered under some of theexisting monitoring programs at no additional cost.

One option is to construct a new landfill cell within a portion of a filled lagoon cell.Wastewater lagoons eventually fill with solids and must be either dredged or closed. By thetime the existing landfill is expected to be full, a significant portion of the first lagoon isexpected to be filled with solids. A portion of this filled lagoon could be diked and lined toform a new landfill cell. This option eliminates the need to disturb additional land and thecity already owns the property. Also, leachate could be drained into the adjacent lagoon fortreatment. The primary lagoon is estimated to have enough capacity for an additional 20 to40 years, depending on the final height selected for the fill.

The existing lagoon should be filled above the water table before the area is used as the basefor a landfill. A comparison of inflow to outflow measurements at the lagoons indicate thatwater is seeping into the lagoons from the surrounding area in the summer. Inflow waterpressure on the bottom liner of a landfill should be avoided; therefore, the bottom of thewaste cell should be built above the water table.

An option under the wastewater plan is to construct a separate wastewater treatmentsystem in lieu of continued use of the lagoons. In this case, the lagoons could be drained andthe first lagoon could be used as a landfill for primary sludge disposal. Disposal ofwastewater solids would eventually fill the lagoon so that it could eventually be used forexpansion of the municipal waste landfill as previously described.



6.3.6.4 Affects of Processing On CapacityWaste processing before disposal can reduce the volume of waste entering the landfill. Bysaving space, the life of the landfill can be extended.

An aggressive wood- and paper-recycling program to produce combustible logs couldreduce the volume of waste by 10 to 20 percent. Although the national average of paperproducts makes up 38 percent of the municipal waste stream, not all of this paper isrecoverable or suitable for reuse. Less than half this amount is recycled in the United States.Therefore, we can assume that less than half of the paper and wood products in Bethelwould be remanufactured into log products. Also, the combustion of wood and paperproducts results in ash that would go to the landfill. Approximately 10 to 15 percent, byweight, of combustible product ends up as ash after it is burned.

Incineration of waste can result in an 80 to 90 percent reduction in the volume of municipalwaste. When other non-municipal items are considered, such as junk vehicles and non-combustible demolition debris, the volume reduction through incineration can result inabout 75 percent of the entire waste stream.

Baling can reduce the volume of waste by about 20 percent. Likewise, the use of a steel-wheeled compactor could also reduce the volume of waste by about the same amount;however more cover is needed to contain loose waste than baled waste. Table 6-11 showsthe space savings and effects on the life of the existing landfill. The life of the existinglandfill is based on the permitted final cover plan filling the landfill to the top of the existingberm with a 2 percent grade. Greater landfill capacity and landfill life can be obtained byextending the final design height above the existing perimeter berm as previouslydiscussed.

TABLE 6-11Volume Reduction and Landfill Life

Type of Pre-ProcessingTypical Percent

Volume ReductionLandfill Life

(years) Year Full

None 0% 11.5 2012

Maximum Recycling 15% 13.5 2014

Incineration 75% 36.0 2037

Baling* 20% 15.5 2016

Steel Wheeled Compaction 15% 13.5 2014

*Based on 5% landfill final cover slope.


SECTION 7

Budget and Funding Options

7.1 FundingVarious grants and loans are available to cover costs associated with planning, design, andconstruction of water and sanitation projects from state, federal, and tribal agencies. Supportis also available for technical training and technical assistance. The following is analphabetical listing of grants and loans, their description, and contacts for more information.The provided web sites are very informative and may answer many questions regarding thevarious programs.

7.1.1 GrantsAlaska Science and Technology Foundation GrantsThe Alaska Science and Technology Foundation manages this grant for the study andplanning of innovative projects, including sewer and water treatment projects. Researchmust demonstrate that the project is technologically feasible and will result in direct andsignificant benefits to the state of Alaska.

Contact:

Alaska Science and Technology Foundation4500 Diplomacy Drive, Suite 515Anchorage, AK 99508-5918Phone: (907) 272-4333 Fax: (907) 274-6228E-mail: [email protected]

Alaska Solid Waste Management Demonstration GrantsThe Rural Alaska Sanitation Coalition (RASC) provides grants in an amount ranging from$2,000 to $10,000 to Alaska Native Tribes for community-approved solid waste projects. Tobe eligible, the Tribe must show a need and document community support and commitmentto the project. Projects range from necessary activities to close an existing site to developinga new solid waste management plan. Innovative projects that may be modeled by othercommunities are encouraged.

Contact:

Elizabeth LeBlanc, RASC/Solid Waste Management Program ManagerRural Alaska Sanitation CoalitionAlaska Native Health Board4201 Tudor Centre Drive, Suite 105Anchorage, AK 99508Phone: (907) 562-6006 Fax: (907) 563-2001E-mail: [email protected]://www.anhb.org/sub/rasc/solidwaste.html

BUDGET AND FUNDING OPTIONS


Alaska-Specific Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) ProjectsThe Administration for Native Americans Department of Health and Human Servicesprovides grants to Native Tribes and rural communities with the goal to improve tribalgovernance capabilities and improve social and economic development. Grants may be usedto plan for the development or improvement of water systems and sewer systems. Theymay also be used for the development of management, protection, and assessment plans ofland and natural resources, including environmental impact studies. Funding is availableup to $100,000 for individual projects and $150,000 for regional nonprofit and tribalconsortia projects.

Contact:

Christopher Beach, Program SpecialistDepartment of Health and Human ServicesAdministration for Children and FamiliesAdministration for Native Americans370 L’Enfant Promenade SWMail Stop HHH 348-FWashington, DC 20447Phone: (202) 690-5793 Fax: (202) 690-7441E-mail: [email protected]://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ana/seds99.txthttp://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ana/index.html

Clean Water Act Indian-Set Aside (CWA-ISA) Grant ProgramThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes this grant program available toTribes and Alaska Native communities where 50 percent of the population is Native. Fundsare used to plan, design, and construct community-approved wastewater facilities,including sewage lagoons, ocean outfalls, community washeterias, and sewer systemrehabilitation. The EPA uses the IHS SDS for scoring applications and prioritizing thefunding of projects.

Contact:

Geoff KeelerEPA Region 101200 Sixth Ave. M/S OW-136Seattle, WA 98101Phone: (206) 553-1089 Fax: (206) 553-0165E-mail: [email protected]://www.epa.gov/owm/indian.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/owm/finan.htmhttp://www.ihs.govhttp://www.ihs.gov/FacilitiesServices/AreaOffices/Alaska/AK.asp

Community Block Grant Program (CDBG)This grant program is managed by the HUD and ADCED to provide financial assistance inareas that address health and safety needs. The grant offers financial resources to



communities for public facility planning, design, and construction. Specific project activitiesmay include water and sewer facilities construction, landfill construction, acquisition ofproperty, relocation and demolition, and rehabilitation of structures. Municipalgovernments (except Anchorage) are eligible for this program. In addition, 51 percent of thepersons who benefit from a funded project must be of low-to-moderate income. The CDBGapplications are distributed to eligible municipalities in September or October. Applicationsmust be submitted around December or January (details in application) and awards aremade the following spring.

Contact:

Jo Cooper, Block Grant AdministratorDepartment of Community and Regional Affairs209 Forty Mile AvenueFairbanks, AK 99701-3301Phone: (907) 452-4468 Fax: (907) 451-7251E-mail: [email protected]://wwwcomregaf.state.ak.mradcdbg.htmlhttp://www.hud.gov/progdesc/cdbg-st.html

Community Development Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native VillagesThe HUD Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) offers grants (maximum $500,000per applicant) to Tribes or Alaska Native villages for planning and construction ofcommunity facilities, including sanitation infrastructure. The Indian Tribe or Alaska Nativevillage applicant must show that 51 percent of the persons who benefit from a fundedproject must be of low-to-moderate income to be eligible for this program. In the HUDapplication, the applicant must describe the community need and how the proposed projectwill address that need. Timing for the program varies with the year.

Contact:

Marlin Knight, AdministratorAnchorage Office of Native American ProgramsUniversity Plaza Building946 East 36th Ave. Suite 401Anchorage, AK 99508-4399Phone: (907) 271-4603 Fax: (907) 271-3667E-mail:[email protected]://www.hud.govhttp://www.codetalk.fed.us

Denali CommissionThe Denali Commission is an innovative federal-state partnership established by Congressin 1998. The Denali Commission operates in conjunction with the office of the AlaskaLieutenant Governor to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic supportthroughout Alaska in remote areas. The Denali Commission has been accepting proposalsfrom villages for the construction of washeteria, clinics, and other facilities.



Contact:

Al Ewing, Chief of StaffDenali Commission510 L Street, Suite 410Anchorage, AK 99501Phone: toll free (888) 480-4321 or (907) 271-1414 Fax: (907) 271-1415E-mail: [email protected]://www.denali.gov

Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Tribal Set-Aside ProgramThe EPA provides funds under this grant program to federally recognized Tribes forprojects that address serious public health risks. The goal of the program is to promotepublic health and compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. For non-federallyrecognized tribes, the IHS may accept projects on the Tribe’s behalf. The EPA uses the IHSSDS for scoring applications and prioritizing the funding of projects.

Contact:

Dennis J. Wagner, P.E.US EPA, Alaska Operations Office222 W. 7th Ave. #19, Room 537Anchorage, AK 99513Phone: (907) 271-3651 Fax: (907) 271-3424E-mail: [email protected]://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/tribes.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/tribal/tribsrf.htm

Environmental Justice Small Grants ProgramsThe EPA provides funding to Native Tribes and nonprofit community organizations toaddress environmental justice issues. Grants may be used to develop, expand, or implementsafe drinking water or solid waste public health programs. Funding is available in the rangeof $15,000 to $20,000.

Contact:

Office of Civil Rights and Environmental JusticeGrant Project ManagerUS EPA Region 101200 Sixth Ave. M/S CEJ-163Seattle, WA 98101Phone: (206) 553-8580 Fax: (206) 553-8338E-mail: [email protected]://www.epa.gov/oeca/oej/grants.html

Indian Environmental General Assistance ProgramThe EPA American Indian Environmental Office provides funding and training under thisprogram for Tribes and Tribal nonprofit groups to plan and develop environmental



protection programs. Such programs may include, but are not limited to, the planning ofsewer collection and treatment facilities.

Contact:

Jean Gamache, Alaska Native CoordinatorUS EPA Alaska Operations Office222 W. 7th Ave. #19Anchorage, AK 99513Phone: (907) 271-6558 Fax: (907) 271-3424E-mail: [email protected]://www.epa.gov/Indian

Indian Health Service Facilities Construction ProgramThe Department of Health and Human Services IHS manages this grant program to providefinancial assistance to Tribes or Alaska Native villages for improving their environment. Thefund may be used for construction, engineering services, and construction managementservices for drinking water, sewer, and solid waste projects. The funding is limited toprojects occurring in remote locations with a minimum of five new or “like new” homes(having an approximate 20-year life span) with electricity and thermostatic controlled heat.

Contact:

Bill Griffith, P.E., DirectorDivision of Sanitation Facilities3925 Tudor Centre Dr.Anchorage, AK 99508Phone: (907) 729-3538 Fax: (907) 271-4734E-mail: [email protected]://www.ihs.govhttp://www.ihs.gov/FacilitiesServices/AreaOffices/Alaska/AK.asp

Municipal Matching Grants: Water, Sewerage, and Solid Waste Grant ProgramADEC provides partial grants and engineering assistance to incorporated municipalities forplanning, design, and construction projects in the area of water, sewer, and solid waste.ADEC mails a survey to eligible communities, which they must fill out to illustrate neededfacility improvements. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews the surveysand the Governor chooses suitable projects and requests funding from the State legislature.

Contact:

Dan Garner, Program ManagerDepartment of Environmental ConservationDivision of Facility Construction and OperationMunicipal Grants and Loans Unit410 Willoughby AvenueJuneau, AK 99801Phone: (907) 465-5144 Fax: (907) 465-5177E-mail: [email protected]



http://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm#Operationshttp://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dfco/mgr_form.htm

Public Works and Development Facilities ProgramThe U.S. Department of Economic Development Administration (EDA) funds this grantprogram to assist communities experiencing economic distress and whose economic growthis lagging behind the rest of the country. The program provides financial assistance tocommunities for water and wastewater treatment systems, access roads to industrial parksor sites, port improvements, and tourism projects with the goal of creating permanent jobsin the private sector. Grants from $200,000 to $2,000,000 are awarded to Tribal governments,cities, municipalities, boroughs, and public or private nonprofit organizations.

Contact:

Bernhard E. Richert, Jr.Economic Development Representative550 W. 7th Avenue Suite 1700Anchorage, AK 99501Phone: (907)271-2272 Fax:(907)271-2273/2274E-mail: [email protected]://www.doc.gov/edahttp://www.eda.gov

USDA Water and Waste Disposal GrantsThe USDA Rural Development manages this grant program to rural communities with apopulation of 10,000 or less, with priority given to populations less than 5,500,municipalities, boroughs, Alaska Native villages, and nonprofit corporations. The aim of theprogram is to bring the cost of water and waste disposal down to an affordable level forrural community users by providing assistance to construct, repair, modify, expand, orotherwise improve water supply, water distribution, waste collection, waste treatment,storm drainage, and solid waste disposal systems. Funding is also available for legal andengineering fees associated with the development of such systems.

Contact:

John LaVarnway800 W. Evergreen, Suite 201Palmer, AK 99645Phone: (907) 761-7705 Fax: (907) 761-7783E-mail: [email protected]://www.usda.gov/rus/water/programs.htm#PROGRAMS

Village Safe Water ProgramThe ADEC Division of Facility Construction and Operation, EPA, and U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Rural Development Program work together to provide grants to ruralcommunities: first class cities with a population equal to or less than 600, second class cities,and unincorporated communities of 25 to 600 people living within a 2-mile radius(including Indian Reorganization Act governments). The grant program provides financial



and technical assistance to upgrade community-approved water, sewer, and solid wastefacilities to improve public health and compliance with environmental laws. The applicationquestionnaire is due by October 1 of each year to ADEC.

Contact:

Ken Collison, Manager VSWDepartment of Environmental ConservationDivision of Facility Construction and OperationVillage Safe Water410 Willoughby Avenue, suite 303Juneau, AK 99801Phone: (907) 269-7516 Fax: (907) 269-7509E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/home.htm#Operationshttp://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm#Operationshttp://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/fco_vsw.htm

Water Quality Cooperative AgreementsThe EPA manages this program, which funds innovative projects that address requirementsfor combined sewer outflows, sludge, and pretreatment. Project grants are awarded inamounts ranging from $25,000 to $500,000 and matching funding is encouraged. Eligibleapplicants include Tribes, nonprofit institutions, state water pollution control agencies, andlocal public agencies.

Contact:

Bill Gissel, State Revolving Fund CoordinatorP.O. Box 20370Juneau, AK 99802-0370Phone: (907) 586-7620 Fax: (907) 586-7015E-mail: [email protected]://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fundppc.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/OWM/finan.htm

7.1.2 LoansAlaska Clean Water FundThe EPA and ADEC manage this low-interest loan program offered to municipalities. Theloans are available for planning, design, and construction of wastewater treatment facilities,construction and rehabilitation of sewer collection systems, studying nonpoint sourcepollution, managing estuaries, protecting groundwater, and implementing control measuresfor combined sewers. Eligible communities can receive a questionnaire in February, which isdue by mid-March.



Contact:

Terriann LowellAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Facilities Construction and Operation410 Willoughby Ave. Suite 303Juneau, AK 99801-1795Phone: (907) 465-5146 Fax: (907) 465-5177E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm

Alaska Drinking Water FundThe EPA and ADEC manage this low-interest loan program to help finance the planningand design of drinking water projects and upgrades. Eligible applicants includemunicipalities (incorporated political subdivisions) and publicly owned community watersystems. Eligible applicants can receive a questionnaire in February, which is due by mid-March.

Contact:

Terriann LowellAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Facilities Construction and Operation410 Willoughby Ave. Suite 303Juneau, AK 99801-1795Phone: (907) 465-5146 Fax: (907) 465-5177E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm

Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority (AMBBA)The State of Alaska Department of Revenue provides loans to Alaskan municipalities forfinancing any capital projects.

Contact:

Deven Mitchell, Executive DirectorAlaska Municipal Bond Bank AuthorityP.O. Box 110405Juneau, AK 99811-0405Phone: (907) 465-2388 Fax: (907) 465-2902E-mail: [email protected]://www.revenue.state.ak.us/treasury/ambba/ambba.htm

Municipal Loan ProgramThe ADEC provides low-interest loans and engineering assistance to public and qualifyingprivately owned utility systems for drinking water and wastewater projects. The loan maybe used to assist in securing or matching federal grant funds. Program participants receivean assigned engineer to assist with the project planning, budgeting, design, construction,and regulatory issues.



Contact:

Dan Garner, Program ManagerDepartment of Environmental ConservationDivision of Facility Construction and OperationMunicipal Grants and Loans Unit410 Willoughby AvenueJuneau, AK 99801Phone: (907) 465-5144 Fax: (907) 465-5177E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm#Operationshttp://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dfco/mgr_form.htm

USDA Water and Waste Disposal LoansThe USDA Rural Development provides this loan program to rural communities that areunable to obtain loans at reasonable rates and terms from conventional lenders. The ruralcommunities must have a population of 10,000 or less, with priority given to populationsless than 5,500, municipalities, boroughs, Alaska Native villages, and nonprofitcorporations. The loan offers assistance to construct, repair, modify, expand, or otherwiseimprove water supply, water distribution, waste collection, waste treatment, stormdrainage, and solid waste disposal systems. Funding is also available for legal andengineering fees associated with the development of such systems.

Contact:

John LaVarnway800 W. Evergreen, Suite 201Palmer, AK 99645Phone: (907) 761-7705 Fax: (907) 761-7783E-mail: [email protected]://www.usda.gov/rus/water/programs.htm#PROGRAMS

7.1.3 Training and Technical AssistanceThe following is a list of programs that provide funding for training and technical assistanceto communities.

Alaska Training/Technical Assistance Center (ATTAC)The EPA manages this training and technical assistance program with the aim to enhancethe technical abilities of operators of small public water and wastewater systems. Trainingand technical assistance is free to the community. For those applying for continuingeducation units, a nominal processing fee is assessed based on the number of credits.



Contact:

Lee Michalsky, Program DirectorEnvironmental Technology ProgramUniversity of Alaska Southeast/Sitka1332 Seward Ave.Sitka, AK 99835Phone: toll free (888) 750-3823 or (907) 747-7755 Fax: (907) 747-7753E-mail: [email protected]://www.water-alaska.org

Denali CommissionThe Denali Commission is an innovative federal-state partnership established by Congressin 1998. The Denali Commission operates in conjunction with the office of the AlaskaLieutenant Governor to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic supportthroughout Alaska in remote areas. It is charged to lower the cost of living and raise thestandard of living in Alaska by delivering federal services in the most cost-effective mannerpossible.

Contact:

Al Ewing, Chief of StaffDenali Commission510 L Street, Suite 410Anchorage, AK 99501Phone: toll free (888) 480-4321 or (907) 271-1414 Fax: (907) 271-1415E-mail: [email protected]://www.denali.gov

Operator Training and Certification ProgramThe ADEC offers onsite technical assistance and training, correspondence courses, andclassroom technical training to certify and advance community water and wastewateroperators. The ADEC provides resources, including a library of training videos, textbooks,and reference materials. Through this program, the ADEC is also able to collect the concernsof operators and direct them to the Governor’s Water/Wastewater Works Advisory Board.

Contact:

Ken Smith, Certification OfficerDepartment of Environmental Conservation410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 303Juneau, AK 99801-1795Phone: (907) 465-5140 Fax: (907) 465-5177E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm#Operations



Remote Maintenance Worker (RMW)The ADEC Division of Facility and Construction and Operation—Operations AssistanceUnit and the EPA offer this program to aid operators of sanitation systems in remote partsof rural Alaska. Assistance includes reviewing plans for new or upgraded facilities,developing cold weather preparedness plans, implementing preventive maintenance plans,and providing onsite help with emergency repairs.

Contact:

Kerry Lindley, Program ManagerDepartment of Environmental ConservationDivision of Facility Construction and OperationRemote Maintenance Worker Program410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 303Juneau, AK 99801-1795Phone: (907) 465-5143 Fax: (907) 465-5177E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm#Operations

Rural Utilities Business Advisory ProgramThe Rural Utilities Business Advisory (RUBA) Program provides onsite managerial trainingfor city managers to improve the management of water and wastewater facilities. Throughthe RUBA Program, management assistance and financial training related to water andwastewater utilities is provided to cities and villages. Regional workshops on financialrecord keeping, utility management, and utility planning are offered to many communitiesin addition to the onsite visits by RUBA staff.

Contact:

Michael Black , Program ManagerDivision of Community and Business DevelopmentDepartment of Community and Economic Development550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1640Anchorage, AK 99501Phone: (907) 269-4537 FAX: (907) 269-4563e-mail: [email protected]://www.dced.state.ak.us/mra/Mradruba.htm

Wastewater Assistance ProgramThe ADEC Division of Facility Construction and Operation Assistance Unit and the EPAwork together to provide training to operate and maintain wastewater facilities to extendthe average facility life and protect public health. Program participants also receive onsitewastewater system evaluation, research on optimal equipment and necessary parts, andhelp with discharge permits and laboratory testing. Assistance is available for communitieswith a wastewater treatment plant larger that 5 million gallons per day (mgd) and a willingplant operator.



Contact:

Van Madding, 104 Assistance ProviderDepartment of Environmental Conservation410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 303Juneau, AK 99801-1795Phone:(907)465-5142 Fax:(907)465-5177E-mail: [email protected]://www.state.ak.us/dec/dfco/dec_dfco.htm#Operations


SECTION 8

Implementation

Figure 8-1 presents a schedule for implementation of the recommended wastewater andsolid waste facility improvements. The schedule is based on the recommended alternativesproposed in Chapters 5 and 6.

The wastewater facilities are over capacity and need to be upgraded as soon as feasible. Thefollowing list outlines the facility improvements and is prioritized for planning purposes:

1. a. Replace the Main Lift Stationb. Purchase a sheep’s foot compactor for the solid waste facilityc. Initiate a pilot study to determine the feasibility of a membrane treatment system

2. Develop a predesign of the wastewater/solid waste facility

3. Procure funding for the new facilities

4. Construct the building envelope and new wastewater treatment facilities

5. Add the new solid waste baler equipment to the combined wastewater/solid wastefacility building


SECTION 9

References

ADCED (Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development. Alaska CommunityData Base On-Line. City of Bethel Profile. http://www.dced.state.ak.us/. July 2001.

Crawford, G. D. Thompson, J. Loyier, G. Diagger and E. Flicher. CH2M HILL/ZenonEnvironmental. Membrane - A Designers Perspective. 2001.

Dames & Moore. Final Report Water and Sewer Facilities Master Plan Update City of Bethel. July1996.

Dorava, J. M. and E. V. Hogan. Overview of Environmental and Hydrological Conditions atBethel, Alaska. 1995.

Quadra Engineering. City of Bethel Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Master Plan. 1987.

Selkregg, L. L. Alaska Regional Profiles, Volume III, Southwest Region. 1974.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska. Alaskan Communities Flood Hazard Data. June 1993.

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000, Bethel City, Alaska. 2000.

Western Regional Climatic Center. On-Line Community Summary-Bethel, Alaska.http://www.wrcc.dri.edu. 2001.

White, George Clifford. Handbook of Chlorination, 2nd Edition. Published Van NostrandReinhold Co., Inc., NY. 1996.

ANC/BETHEL.DOC/021650007

Appendix ALandfill, Photographic Simulations


Appendix BFields Notes and Meeting Minutes


Kick-Off Meeting


35% Study Review Meeting

anc/ iii - agnew::beck consulting · pdf fileanc/ iii ... 3-1 city of bethel population...

Documents