Thank 107 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. you, Councilwoman. We'll ask that you remain. We'd like to now bring forward the union, Sherman Harris, District Council 33, Andy Bond, Mike Keough, Louis Willis and Dave Sharpanski. The Chair would also like to note the presence of Wendell Young from the Retail Clerks and also from Talking Unions. We hear you. Welcome. (Applause.)
Councilwoman, thank you for letting us testify. With respect to the letter agreement or that side agreement, we are also prepared to amend our resolution so that the existence of that agreement is recognized in the bill.
Thank you. We'll look forward to receiving the document, the letter, and amending the document. Thank you, Mr. Managing Director.
Mr. Director, you're staying with us? 108 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Mr. Director?
When do you anticipate that letter will be received?
Thank you. See, the Solicitor thought he was here on another bill. Thank you very much for your patience. We'll ask you to identify yourself for our record, then begin your testimony. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and the Committee. My name is Sherman Harris. I'm the Assistant to the President of 109 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. AFSCME District Council 33. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Matthews in support of Local 394's position in this Synagro debacle. Originally I was only here to introduce them and thank you for being here, but in sitting here and listening to this testimony, I ask that the Council would just allow me a point of privilege, because as a 20-year member of the Water Department, I'm insulted, I'm upset and, in union terms, pissed off, because this is a bunch of rhetoric that's attacked our members. One of the first questions I asked was the relationship between the Water Department and the Administration of the Water Department. In 1980 when I came to the Water Department, there was labor unrest to holy hell. We fought everything. We came against everything the Department tried to do. Over the years, we got smart. We developed a relationship with the Department where we 110 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. partnered with them in trying to resolve the issues that was causing labor unrest. I personally was in one of the first labor management groups at the BRC southwest facility where we sacrificed our attitudes and our positions to walk along with this Department to make changes. During that time, between the '80s and early '90s, we developed a calm workplace where everybody got along. We did what we had to do to make the changes. In 1992, the Department started -- I'm sorry; early '80s, excuse me. In the early '80s when the Department started the de-watering facility, which is the crust of this sludge processing plant, we came in as unknown new technology that they're talking about today. Every member -- you have some that have been here 20. I've got 20-something years. You have quite a few here that's been here. We were all brand new and we became experts in this 111 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. field. We learned this process. We helped the Department win award after award after award. For them to sit here today and call us dumb and ignorant because we can't understand technology -- (Applause.)
-- is insulting. It is very insulting. I personally was a maintenance supervisor during the big crucial '92 campaign when they had the same song and dance, if we don't make repairs, we got to lay off or transfer or close this facility. In 1992, union rep, as well as maintenance supervisor, went against the union on some issues, went with the union on some issues, but we sat down and we rolled up our sleeves and we knuckled it out and we made changes that saved the Department $15 million. Now you come along with a new process. You wait until the end of the process to call us into the room and tell us to eat the process or go along with it, which has been the 112 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. attitude they've had the whole time, and now you want to call us dumb and ignorant and we know the process, we are the process. You're looking around this room, there's a hundred some people in here. I believe about a good 50 of them work there. They know the process. The plant manager there, who we have gained a lot of confidence in, he trusts us. This Administration has left him out of the process, as well as us. We're insulted. It's a problem. All we asked from the beginning until now was to let us sit down, look at some alternatives that we believe that will save the City money, will impact the environment of the community and help our union also. They have refused. We were just in a PAC meeting where they specifically said they will not accept any other alternatives. That was the question I asked on the floor. They danced and danced. I asked for a yes or no. Their answer was no, it's Synagro or 113 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. nothing. We've had a little passing discussion with Synagro. Synagro, the company, is not our problem. The problem for us is the process that this Administration has brought to the table that has excluded us. That is the issue for us. We know if we sit down six months, months, we will resolve the 11 problems. 12 We agree that changes need to 13 be made. We've been there. We know what 14 has to be done. We agree. We disagree 15 with the way they're doing it. That's 16 the first thing. 17 I need to also talk about the 18 layoffs. And all this will be supported in testimony from Local 394. The layoffs are a shell game. Let's not kid nobody. You got 300 positions that the Department has refused to fill for the last, what, good year, six months to a year. Six months to a year. They've held these positions because they're determined to 114 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. shove the Synagro contract down our throat and move our people into positions. If, in fact, however you look at it, if I moved the 92 people, the bottom total on the union side is 92 jobs lost, no matter how you look at it, period. All right. I want to calm down and introduce to my right Mr. Andy Bond, who is the business agent of Local 394. Beside him I have two of a team of employees who presented this package to you. They've researched this package. They've talked with you on numerous occasions. Two employees that are part of a team that I'm proud of, that I've watched work in the last eight months, work diligently. I think 11 o'clock last night, 12 o'clock some nights. They're dedicated employees, and for this Administration to insult them, it hurts my feelings. But there's Mike Keough and Joe Ramos sitting with us. (Applause.) 115 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
We also have to my left, we have a few of our stewards that are part of this process. We have our President, Mr. Randall Grove, is sitting there, and our Eastwick PAC member. Just in the front here, it's easy to say we got 150 years of experience. For a department to tell me I don't know what's going on and I can't understand technology, it's crazy. Thank you. Mr. Andy Bond. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell and members of the Committee. Before I read my statement, I would also like to make a comment that time and time again we have went to the Water Department to try to work this out. I am not going to say as they said many times, because like they said, they started this process in 2002 and we didn't sit down to start talking until 2005. And if we talked a good six or 116 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. seven times, then it's not known to me. Now, they keep saying that they hired expert after expert to come in and give them all these analysis. We have the whole AFSCME international behind us. They have research teams. They have municipalities that have the same process that we have that we could have gone, sat down and worked with. We met, but it was more just like Councilman Ramos said, it was just a word game. You sit down. If we say black, they say white. It just went nowhere. It was just, I guess, to hold us off bay until we got to this point, it seemed to me. I took this office ten years ago when Pete Matthews, President Matthews, became President of District Council 33, and at that time, we have a unit in the Water Department called the Distribution Unit. They're the people that fix the water mains that pop in the street. Now, what the Water Department 117 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. used to do was, they used to put a million dollars aside for the private contractors to come in at that time of the year to work with us, which at the end of the year we would have to go back and clean up what they messed up. But we sat down and negotiated and worked out what we call a winter schedule. We've been doing that for the last ten years, where we sat down and we have saved this City $10 million alone, because they would have to put that million dollars up every year. So for them to sit down and just to say -- it's a slap in our face for them to keep saying how dumb we are. These are the people -- there's an old saying down at District Council 33: This City works because we do. (Applause.)
Local 394 has a long history of working cooperatively with the Water Department. Well, then it goes back to ten years ago, which we have 118 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. saved them the $10 million. This was money that the Department always put aside for the contractors to come in and work with us. But at the end of the year, we would have to go back and fix what they messed up. And that was every year, and it would be at cost, because we usually do it on overtime. During the Rendell Administration, we sat down with the people at the BRC and worked and worked and worked diligently and saved the City $15 million. Our concerns with the current situation are because both Local 394 and concerned citizens in the community surrounding the BRC facility have been deliberately kept out of the loop. And that's what we've been saying all along. They knew that this was coming about. They sat down in 2002, came up with whatever they was and worked on it, worked on it, and kept the union out of this loop. They never sat down and talked to us until 2005. 119 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. And all we are asking for is for them to come back and sit down earnestly with us and listen to some of the ideas that we have with modern technology, just as -- I forget his name -- Councilman --
-- O'Neill asked was there other technologies out there that's suitable to what the Water Department needs, and we know firsthand that there are. And one of them was what they talked about, the digestive system, which when I introduce Mike and Joe, they will elaborate on that and explain it to you diligently. So Mike.
Sorry. My name is Mike Keough. Thanks for having me. 120 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Please bear with me. It's the first time I testified before Council. I'm going to read a prepared statement. To risk a change in biosolids regulation is low, not high. No 7 significant regulatory changes are on the horizon. PWD administrators continue to overstate the risk. The Water Department also expects the public support for current programs to decrease. In speaking with Pennsylvania and Maryland regulators, there are no 14 plans to halt any land application of Class B biosolids or change any regulations concerning land application. The City's biosolids program has increased land applications in both states and have an excellent record of community cooperation. These land applications have increased 13 percent since Fiscal 2004. These programs are operated by contractors and have been in operation since the Water Department stopped ocean 121 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. dumping in 1980. The cost of these programs compare favorably to other east coast cities. Even if regulations affecting land application of Class B biosolids change, we would still not be facing any environmental crisis. The DEP would give the Water Department at least ten years to move out of Class B land application and into new technology. Regulators realize there are hundreds of Pennsylvania municipalities using the same disposal methods and would give them time to make changes. The odors at BRC are manageable. PWD administrators have overstated the significance of odor emissions at BRC as one of the criteria for requesting the contract operations of the plant. The BRC has always operated with the philosophy of continuous improvement and has implemented practices to reduce odors. Before 1995, the site had 19 identified sources of odors. 122 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Currently, BRC has 12 identified sources, and with cooperation from Water Department management and if we implement what we call Plan B, the BRC would only have four identified odor sources, and that's a 79 percent reduction of 1995 levels. These reductions in odors will be achieved without major capital investment through existing disposal contracts and improving handling practices. The concern is increasing for the impact of greenhouse gases on global climate change. The Synagro dryer is not the right technology for the Water Department to use if the City is going to make any positive contribution to the reducing of greenhouse gases. The proposed pelletizer will emit large amounts of greenhouse gases and will surpass current BRC emissions as a total. Pelletizer emissions will substantially increase the amount of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide in the 123 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. community already taxed with similar emissions generated by the Sunoco Refinery. These additional emissions will increase the creation of ground-level ozone, acid rain and lead to poor water quality. It is well known that these conditions contribute to respiratory distress and can be seen as a neighborhood complaint of the Synagro's NYOFCo plant in the South Bronx where there was a disproportionate number of childhood asthma cases. Contract operation will save the City money. S. Filter for contract operation of BRC was contract operations would save the City money. S. Filter decided to pull out of the process when they realized they could not compete with the cost-effective programs ran by BRC. S. Filter could not save the City money. Any savings this proposed contract may realize is highly speculative. The Water Department can 124 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. only show savings by fabricating scenarios of continued public employee operations that are exaggerated in their assumptions. Water Department administrators jumped to conclusions about the desired technology.
The Water Department failed to involve the stakeholders from the very start of the process, a necessary component of a successful long-term plan. Water Department administrators continue to only limit the view of technology options before they develop an RFP for contract operations. There are many good examples of wastewater agencies making serious searches for technologies that best serve their communities. PWD did not do this. Evidence of the inefficiency of this planning process is the City received only one proposal for the operation of BRC. Water Department administrators should have gone back to the drawing board when only one bidder responded to 125 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. the RFP. Water Department administrators wrongfully failed to examine options to make improvements through its own staff. The Water Department has been fully capable in the past of carrying out complicated programs and accomplishing cost-effective improvements. Why not in biosolids? The following statement is taken directly from the Water Commissioner's Fiscal 2007 operating budget testimony, , March 7, 2006. 6 million in Fiscal 2000, and 16 million in Fiscal '01. Costs for Fiscal '03 and '04 remain in the $17 to $18 million range. Beginning in 1993, an aggressive strategy has been implemented at the facility, including investment in more efficient equipment, the implementation of streamlined work processes negotiated with AFSCME District Council 33, partial 126 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. " The Water Department issued a flawed RFP at an unfavorable time, yielding only one proposal. Not only did the Water Department issue a flawed RFP, the Water Department issued an RFP at a time when major firms in wastewater business were reorganizing or had not yet established full capabilities. Several firms today would be able to provide long-term services. Since there are no 16 emergency conditions driving the City to make changes to its biosolids program, the City can take the opportunity to work with Local 394 to implement innovative and cost-effective solutions. Water Department administrators have not fully explored the opportunity to upgrade digesters. Water Department wastewater plants have sufficient capacity in their digester to support 127 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. innovative processes that would produce Class A biosolids with low odors. The innovations might also produce more digester gas with energy benefits to reduce the quality of biosolids and save utilization expenses. Opportunities to use digester gas for electricity production will not be possible if the gases have to be used for drying. New types of electrical generation systems and new kinds of combined heat and power systems are being developed in response to new energy conservation goals. If major changes in fuel costs occur or if taxes are imposed on carbon emissions, then benefits to the City using digester gas for maximum electricity production will grow. The proposed Synagro contract will interfere with making optimal use of digester gas. Alternative biosolids processes could be installed with little capital expense to produce improved biosolids. The BRC managers and operators have 128 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. experimented successfully with using lime and other materials to make a Class A biosolids and reduce odors. These alternatives are cost-effective alternatives to a dryer. Technology innovations could provide future benefits not seen today. Many innovations have been introduced in the wastewater industry over the past decade. These innovations will most likely allow the City to produce better biosolids products at lower costs in the future, but if the City signs up with a 25-year contract with Synagro, then the City will not be able to benefit from these future innovations. I'd like to turn this over now to Joe Ramos.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell and members of the Finance Committee. I have a few more points to make. My name is Joe Ramos again, as I said. Number one, the Water 129 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Department administrators understated the risk of the dryer technology. They failed to mention the fire hazards and the explosions that have been experienced by many of the pelletizers that have been built across the country and had been occurring with alarming frequency. The media has carried stories about fires and explosions in New York; Toronto; Ocean County, New Jersey; and Lakeland, Florida. This is not a fool-proof technology. In New York City and Baltimore, the dryer operations have had odor problems. Several community groups in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx have organized around their concerns regarding odors and pollution coming from the New York pelletizer. Some of these organizations include the sustainable South Bronx, the Point Community Development Corporation, South Bronx Clean Air Coalition and Mothers on the Move. Point No. 2, the risk of 130 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. putting all our eggs in one basket has not really been considered. Very few large cities, including Philadelphia, until now have chosen to put all these processing and distribution programs for biosolids into one outlet. When only one outlet is available in the event of an accident, then the agency is vulnerable to serious disruption. The dryer contract operation makes the City very vulnerable to problems with dryer equipment. The City should be expanding the number of companies participating in its biosolids program, not reducing that number. Poor contractor performance elsewhere has not been adequately considered as a risk factor. Synagro's performance has been attacked by communities in New York City and has been attacked by government officials in Rockland County, New York. Two farming districts in Pennsylvania that have experienced community upset over the 131 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. biosolids have been due to Synagro operations. Synagro's reputation in some areas is that the company is heavy-handed and unresponsive to community complaints. The risk to Philadelphia Water Department's wastewater treatment if the contractor fails to perform has not been properly evaluated. The Water Department's compliance with effluent standards depends on removing sludge consistently from its process tanks. If the contractor would ever fail at being able to accept sludges from the three wastewater treatment plants, then Philadelphia would be at risk of non-compliance with its effluent criteria. If the Water Department administrators reassign the entire staff out of BRC, then the experienced Water Department employees would no longer be available to step in and resume operations in a situation of contractor non-performance. Since Philadelphia is a 132 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. uniquely large contract, no alternate private contractor is likely to be found by the City to replace Synagro in the event that the Synagro contract is terminated for non-performance. This fact itself might interfere with the possibility the City could successfully deal with contract non-performance. The City might be forced to accept inferior service or pay additional costs. The risk of the cost of energy is another factor. The dryer technology will use a vast quantity of natural gas to dry these biosolids. Over the past two years, gas prices have varied by 60 cents a therm. Since the dryer may use up to 5 million therms a year, this is a variable cost of up to $3 million a year. The risk for this unpredictable cost is borne entirely by the City's ratepayers, as stated within the contract proposal. Because of the potentially high cost of gas in the future, many other cities in the world have avoided using dryer 133 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. technology. The cost savings of the contract are exaggerated vastly.
The administrators have falsely projected high savings by making unreasonable claims for future costs of the current program. These false projections cause the current operation to appear expensive in comparison. Water Department administrators have made no allowance for change orders that the contractor may seek from the City in the case of unforeseen cost increases. Elsewhere Synagro has aggressively sought such changes when the contract has been lean. The price offered by Synagro to Philadelphia may be falsely low to capture the contract. As the old saying goes, if the deal looks too good to be true, then it probably is. )
The cost to the City of Baltimore of its contract for de-watering and drying its sludge is 134 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. about $600 a dry ton. Sacramento is paying about $700 a dry ton. How can Synagro offer to do it for Philadelphia for $350 a dry ton? You have to ask yourself. The Water Department administrators have not adequately considered the possibility that Synagro may have low-balled its costs in order to get the contract first and then dismantle our ability to operate the facility so they can negotiate a better deal. Finally, the benefits of the pellets themselves are exaggerated. Biosolids pellets themselves can cause community problems, as they can catch fire, they emit odors when they are re-wetted and they are not of high value to farmers as fertilizers. The existing supply of biosolids pellets from New York, Boston and Baltimore has already overwhelmed the market, so that the pellets can no longer be sold for a positive cash flow. Every day around the 135 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. country large quantities of pellets end up in landfills anyway. And that concludes my comments. I will turn it back to Andy. (Applause.)
Thank you. Before I go back to my statement, I just want to elaborate a little bit on this about them talking about filtering District Council 33 into different spots in the Water Department. I want you to get a clear understanding here. We are down by 300 employees in the Water Department. A few months ago, talking to Bernie Brunwasser back and forth, the Managing Director had allotted us 180 positions to be filled. So that left 120. Where do you think the 120 is supposed to come from? BRC. They are playing a shell game. And those are 120 positions that will never be filled again if you contract this facility out. See, nobody is looking at that. We are losing those jobs. They will never be filled again. 136 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. So for them to sit here and say no one is going to be laid off, no, they're not going to be laid off. We're going to lose the positions, and that's the problem. See, they come here and say this Synagro like it's the pie in the sky, but they're not telling you everything. We have two vendors that's going to testify here today that will show you that they can do it more efficiently and cost effective. (Applause.)
Please identify yourself for the record before you make your testimony and let us know the name of your company.
It would be a pleasure to do so. I want to thank you. My name is Michael Coia. I'm the General Manager 137 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. of a company Applied Reclamation Techniques. I'm a civil and environmental engineer with over years 5 experience in various aspects of 6 environmental consulting and construction 7 operations. I practiced in the greater 8 Philadelphia for the majority of my 9 career. I've been involved in the last 10 five years with a number of projects 11 involving Philadelphia, as well as the 12 anthracite region of the coal industry 13 and I've met a number of you folks and 14 Council representatives trying to bring 15 dredge materials up to reclaimed mine 16 sites up in the anthracite region. 17 We've also been working with 18 the Philadelphia Water Department for a 19 number of years in looking at options 20 that currently exist. One of the 21 premises that was discussed earlier today 22 is odd as professional servicing 23 environmental activities. Councilperson 24 asked about high technology, cutting-edge 25 technology. There's low-end technology 138 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. that is just as proven effective and being applied elsewhere in this country to make Class A product. Class A product is not only done by composting and it's not only done by pellets. There's plenty of other ways to do it that are proven, and other cities are doing it every day of the week. The approach that we developed in concert with the Philadelphia Water Department's BRC staff -- and we actually worked with the BRC staff and with Philadelphia Water Department engineering management staff in technology development. These are people that, curiously, didn't testify today, but they have been involved with looking at a number of different technologies. Those technologies have been referred to as Plan B. You've heard some discussion about Plan B earlier today. That Plan B set of options continues to be seen as technically acceptable within the Water Department, 139 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. within the BRC staff, environmentally superior to the current operations that are there. Everyone knows that the current operations of composting need to change. These technologies that can be applied are technically and environmentally superior and will be far less costly, both with comparison of the existing prices that are being paid by the Water Department and the proposed pricing that is in front of you with this privatization approach. We believe that under Plan B there are plenty of opportunities for Class A low-odor, treated product to be taken up for reclamation of mine sites and other impacted areas as cover soils. It's being done elsewhere. It can be done here. The technology was demonstrated at the bench level and at pilot scale level with the BRC staff over the past few months in concert with trying to get an alternative to this privatization approach. 140 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. So the BRC themselves has a plan and has an opportunity to do another alternative besides making pellets or doing composting. It's just not in the management plan that seems to be moving forward as being reflected in this privatization approach. My company, Applied Reclamation Techniques, previously submitted a proposal to the Philadelphia Water Department to manage Class A biosolids for the production of manufactured soils. This would be used in mine reclamation and other environmental reclamation programs. Our proposal will implement Class A biosolids treatment and produce manufactured soils at far less costs than the current Philadelphia Water Department composting costs and far less costs than what is in front of you with the privatization proposal. As I understand privatization in general -- and I'm not an economist. I'm a civil and environmental engineer -- 141 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
the City is supposed to pay less and it's supposed to have less risk and it's supposed to have longer-term benefits to the City than currently doing it themselves or, as was earlier described, revamping your own internal processes to do it better yourselves with your own staff. I believe that in review of this privatization proposal that's in front of you, that it neither captures a financial benefit nor does it capture any kind of risk benefit for the City. Privatization in some cases may represent a sound municipal contracting policy when total costs and operational risks are reduced below those of current or anticipated operations. The Synagro Biosolids privatization contract accomplishes neither of these objectives. We believe that the privatization approach would contractually obligate the City to pay significantly higher costs, while bearing the same or perhaps even higher risks. 142 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. A thorough evaluation of current Class A biosolids management approaches which can be implemented over the next to months should be 6 considered in light of the poor choice 7 that is currently in front of the 8 Department. In particular, I would like 9 to highlight some positive considerations 10 from our proposal and that of the work 11 that was done by numerous professionals 12 with the BRC staff and the Philadelphia 13 Water Department's engineering staff over 14 the past two years. 15 First off, significantly lower 16 costs. It is estimated that the future 17 total costs for the City implementing 18 biosolids management in the manner in 19 which the very union staff and BRC 20 operating people at the plant want to do 21 would put costs in the range of $80 to 22 $90 per wet ton, not the $26 million 23 that's the bogey that's set up in the 24 current privatization spreadsheet that you see. 143 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. The Controller's own report has demonstrated to you that these numbers that are in that tabular summary probably owe themselves to be reinvestigated further. I'm not saying they're wrong, but they ought to be reinvestigated further. I believe that the $80 to $90 per ton bogey is really the bogey that somebody should be shooting at. And when you look at 200,000 tons a year that the Water Department worries about, we're talking about $18 to $19 million. That's the target that the very staff that are sitting here, these professionals that have been operating the plant very successfully, are shooting at to get at. I don't know where $26 million comes from, but it's tabulated as being a number. The projected biosolids costs are significantly less than Synagro's proposed service fee, not to mention the additional requirement of the City to pay 144 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. the Synagro natural gas fuel costs. And it was previously discussed about what is the real price of natural gas as we move forward, what price per therm should we be talking about. We believe that the overall privatization proposal that are in the range of about $122 a ton, $125 a ton are way over the cost of what it should be to implement a Class A alternative strategy. Our proposed Class A manufactured soils program would cost the City a total projected long-range cost of about $80 to $90 a ton, and that assumes that the current Philadelphia Water Department BRC staff are doing the Class A treatment approach and then the materials are moved up from manufactured soils placement. That's a total cost of $80 to $90 a ton. It's been stated earlier that the City placed a requirement that these operations be already demonstrated having been done by the contractors that are doing work and with a technology that's 145 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. proven. I'm certain that the Philadelphia Water Department with a properly-put-on-the-street RFP for manufactured soils would be able to garner a total cost of $80 to $90 a ton, not $120 a ton. That's 50 percent difference in cost.
Well, my world of privatization, as an environmental engineer, I'm not sure a $50 increase in the bogey is necessarily a target that one should be putting up on a pedestal as being the best opportunity that someone could have gone and solicited. Next topic, preservation of business activities and jobs in the City and in the region. Under the current high-cost privatization scheme, job losses in the City would include, but are not limited to, the union staff at the BRC. We've heard a lot of discussion about the union jobs that are going to be lost at the BRC. What about the related jobs of the industry that moves materials out? What about the related jobs that 146 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. could be in the ultimate location where this material could be placed? We project that at least 100 jobs could be cut at the BRC alone and another 120 to 200 jobs in the region, which is not just Philadelphia, it's other counties adjacent to Philadelphia. Those jobs in directly related industries will be adversely affected. Under privatization, income to the local and regional companies whose services currently support the BRC services will be impacted negatively. Our proposed alternative for Class A manufactured soils production preserves many of the BRC jobs expected to be cut by the Synagro contract and would preserve and expand other related jobs, not only in the City of Philadelphia but in other related areas. The City and the regional economy will be improved by another alternative for Class A production of materials that's not pelletization. 147 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Another topic, decreased risks of sole sourcing biosolids management. The City's BRC program has consistently and effectively managed the risks associated with biosolids management by not allowing a single contractor to be responsible for either land application or other ways that the City currently disposes of their materials. The City's BRC has successfully utilized a flexible program with multiple contractors and multiple outlets of biosolids management and maintains a proven program. There's already discussion of the BRC folks limiting and eliminating composting. The elimination of composting and the replacement with another alternative is one of the avenues that the union supports moving forward with. Acceptance of the Synagro privatization scheme will render the City completely dependent on one single contractor. As recent history has shown, 148 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. even corporations that appear to be the most effective and financially sound and have done the project in multiple cities and have success in multiple cities, even those companies can fail and do something unexpectedly. If significant problems arise with future privatized operations, the City will incur all of the risks without any of the available biosolids management personnel in experienced positions that currently are being successfully implemented. Our proposed Class A mine reclamation program would fit very well in the current BRC mixture of biosolids management approaches and contractors. Flexibility will be maintained and shorter term, ten-year perhaps, contracting vehicles will be available. It is highly likely that multiple contractors, not only my company but multiple contractors, will be capable and interested in bidding on the bringing up of Class A biosolids for mine 149 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. reclamation. Finally, when this Class A manufactured soils program can be implemented with a number of other biosolids management alternatives, such as the EnerTech technology that is going to be discussed next, this will offer the ability for the Philadelphia Water Department management to continue in their current operations. Last topic. It was talked about earlier that approximately 70 acres of this site could be made available and a number of those acres could be made available for other activities.
We believe that there's availability of additional long-term public/private partnerships that can arise and should arise once an alternative set of programs are being implemented by the Philadelphia Water Department. Under our proposed Class A manufactured soils program, the City will benefit from additional public/private 150 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. partnerships, which can be implemented at the BRC site. It is not necessary to wholistically say that it's either a public work or a private contractor doing the work. There's opportunities for public/private partnerships that can evolve as long as all parties are willing to sit and talk to each other at the table. Under a program that we are currently developing with District Council 33 and EnerTech, additional City jobs would be created by the development of a large renewable energy production facility. Why look at this vacant land as just vacant land? Why not consider the production of renewable energy, biodiesel and ethanol, right in our own backyard in a facility that is already on Philadelphia land, where there will be the ability to utilize additional District Council 33 jobs that could create additional revenues for the City and additional ratables from that 151 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. industry? We're currently working with AFSCME District Council 33, along with Pennsylvania and federal government authorities, for the development of this facility, which would utilize portions of the current BRC site as part of a successful implementation of alternate Class A technologies discussed here today. Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf the union's position. )
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman and members of the Finance Committee. My name is Don Brindley. I'm the Vice-President of Eastern Projects with EnerTech Environmental. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia, and despite 152 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. the fact that we've been in existence since 1994, we probably fall into the cutting-edge technology piece of the evaluation. In the interest of time, I promise to be brief. I am currently employed by EnerTech Environmental as Vice-President of Eastern Projects. I am a life-long resident of the Philadelphia area and hold a BS degree in chemical engineering from Drexel University and have over 14 years of experience in the water and 15 wastewater industry. 16 In July of 2005, our 17 Vice-President of Biosolids Projects, 18 Mr. Ray Kearney, submitted a proposal for 19 an alternative long-term biosolids 20 management plan to the Philadelphia Water Department. Ray is a nationally recognized expert in the regulation and management of biosolids with over 35 years of engineering experience. That proposal detailed plans to construct an 153 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. EnerTech SlurryCarb Facility at the Philadelphia Biosolids Recycling Center, similar to the plant that we are currently constructing in Rialto, California. The Rialto facility will process 675 wet tons per day of biosolids -- very similar in size to the facility we're talking about in Philadelphia -- from five regional municipal authorities and will produce 120 tons per day of E-fuel, a coal-like product certified by both the California Energy Commission and the Green-E Renewable Electricity Certification Program as a renewable fuel. Our proposal in July detailed the following benefits for the Philadelphia Water Department versus the privatization plan that is currently being considered: Number one, an environmentally friendly, long-term biosolids recycling solution that places the Philadelphia Water Department at the forefront of advanced technological 154 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. solutions; Number two, a biosolids recycling solution that aligns well with industry trends and eliminates agricultural land application of the end product. Very important; A method of biosolids utilization that renders no by-product and, therefore, no long-term contingent liability for the Philadelphia Water Department; Another very important issue as well, a process that will consume 60 percent less energy and mitigate the risk of natural gas price escalation; A renewable energy component that will generate E-fuel to support biodiesel and ethanol production at the envisioned renewable energy production facility at the Philadelphia BRC site; The retention of all existing BRC personnel and the addition of 15 to 20 Philadelphia Water Department operations staff; 155 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. And in conjunction with our partners at Applied Reclamation Techniques, we'll provide the City with a diversified portfolio of Class A biosolids disposition strategies and renewable energy alternatives. Thus, we see real potential for synergy between the financial, environmental and societal objectives of the City of Philadelphia and what our company has to offer. We very much appreciate your time and consideration today and are committed to speaking or meeting with anyone that this Committee thinks appropriate to consider and evaluate the EnerTech and Applied Reclamation Techniques' offering that we would like to develop. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you very much. Are you prepared for questions now, gentlemen? 156 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
I think the Council President was just stating that this is really something the Water Department has to respond to, but I just want to make sure I understand, because I was very interested in reading through this whole package that the union had presented. Plan B really drew me in because it's the Water Department's Plan B. It's not the union's Plan B. And so I was interested in it. And then going to the conclusion page, No. 2 and No. 7 particularly deal with odors from composting going away, because there's not going to be any composting.
So composting/odors, no longer an issue under Plan B. 157 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
I also want to make sure it's clear, because the Council President also asked me, were these two proposals that we just heard from submitted to the Water Department? And there's a difference, as I explained, between something that was submitted to the Water Department, which I believe both of yours have been, and the RFP, which you couldn't respond to because it was targeted to a different technology than yours. So only somebody with the pellet technology could respond to it. So, one, no composting, no 20 odors. Two, the two distinct and different but both using City forces, one may actually increase the jobs that the City has before the Water Department and the Water Department has actually worked with those proposals, but were rejected 158 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. clearly by the RFP, which limited itself to a particular technology that neither of those could respond to legitimately.
Just as a sort of laying a foundation I'm just trying to do here, because I think the Water Department really has to respond to this. Because as I look at what has been described as the problem, the smell, the odors, which we know are coming from compost, the union officials that are here and their employees from the BRC, you understand that composting could be yesterday's news, but it doesn't mean that you have to be yesterday's news.
And it doesn't mean that there isn't a better alternative to -- forgetting the privatization issue -- to the pellet proposal.
In fact, the plans that are Plan B have composting out of the equation, have the staff reductions that would have been according to the composting being eliminated. Those staff positions, I believe the union has already clarified that they have accepted that that's going to be. So if one sets as the bogey, if you will, of the target and says that all the staff are still there and that composting is still there and the attendant costs and risks and odors and all issues associated with it are still in the equation, I submit that that's the wrong bogey to be putting --
So what you're saying, I believe, is that we shouldn't be comparing in all the cost savings and what will happen if this legislation is passed, we shouldn't be comparing it to what's going on today 160 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. with composting and a number of employees needed to make it work. It should be something different, like comparing the proposal that's in front of us in the legislation with Plan B.
And that's not been presented to us by the Water Department.
And the savings, for instance, that we heard about, whether we go by the Water Department's numbers of 90 million or the Controller's numbers of 40 million, the present value savings over the period of this contract, we don't have the present value savings of going to either of your technologies.
Which you had mentioned 80 to 90 on the one. I 161 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. mean, in other words, your position is that there would be more savings and we shouldn't be comparing it to something that we know isn't going to stay with us, because something is going to change.
And how many positions, while I'm on it, because I'll just leave it with this, how many positions are involved in the reduced number of employees that the union has already agreed to if we do away with the composting, as we are doing now, and go to Plan B?
Let me clarify one thing. No matter what happens, no matter 162 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. what happens, there's already been an agreement that compost is gone --
-- as of February. They will start to eliminate the composting.
See, and that's what we were saying all along. Why wouldn't they bring the numbers in from when we already downsized? That's where they should have started the numbers at.
Because those would be the true numbers. Because starting February, the composting is supposed to be gone. Those employees that work there will be infiltrated into the Water Department. See, one thing about this that we haven't discussed, the first five years of this contract, nothing changes. Nothing changes. They will still be 163 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. doing what's going on. And plus they're kind of going in reverse because they're going to use a solution that's called mine mixing that has a worser smell than you ever --
Now, let me make sure I understand what you just said. If this legislation doesn't pass, composting is gone in February and the odor associated with composting is gone in February.
And cost, but particularly the odor. Councilwoman Verna's constituents are not concerned about the costs, from what I understand. They're concerned about the odor. 164 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
Okay. Now, if we pass this and the pellet operation comes in, that composting with its attendant odor will continue for five years?
No. What we're saying nothing changes, basically the first three to five years of the contract allows the contractor to come in and build his building. While he's building that building, he's going to do what we're going to be doing anyhow.
The current staff anyhow is going to stop composting and clean the site. Now they're going to move out 60 people or say 92 people and put in people to do the same thing 25 we're going to be doing anyhow, and I'm 165 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. not sure --
So for five years, the same thing is going to be going on. There won't be any odor, but there also won't be any pellet operation.
So if the biggest issue is odor -- and for people that live around there, I'm sure that's the biggest issue. Aesthetics probably isn't a bad item either, but it's gone in February.
Mr. Councilman, if you would look at other technologies that have been proven and are being used around the country to make Class A materials, odors are solved with those techniques as well.
So eliminating composting and eliminating odors still requires something else to be done or else there's going to be 60,000 tons of 166 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. stuff that has to go to the landfill.
Councilman, what's happening? Where is the composting going?
Composting is a process that it's become costly and, of course, an odor problem.
So basically you change the way you do your sludge. You'll do more of landfill and more of what they call land applications, which is farmland applications. Now, of course, what we all agree with, the Department as well as us, is that you need a good Class A. And we want to clarify something. Pellets is not the issue. It's Class A. And Class A just simply takes more pathogens out of the sludge and it will be used for more 167 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. things and applied more places, create a bigger market for disposal. That's all that's going on here. So the pellets are pretty and everything. That's fine. But if it's not a Class A, the pellet doesn't mean anything. Class A is the crucial thing here. Composting is the current way of making a Class A. It has become obsolete, period. We all agree. We don't disagree with that. The problem is that they're selling you pellets is the only way to make a Class A. We're saying it's not. That's not true. As you can see in our packet, we've become -- they're educating us every day. As we research this contract, we're finding there's plenty of other ways to make Class A. They are trying to smoke screen that system and tell you there's only one way, is these pellets. These pellets are just a process that Synagro uses to make money, which we have no problem with. 168 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. But we do agree Class A has to be a definite part of the problem, period.
In fact, internally within the Philadelphia Water Department's own staff capabilities, I'm very impressed as a consultant/contractor with the capabilities of the engineering and development personnel who sit here in Philadelphia, as well as the people that, as you say, make it work every day out at the BRC. Those very people who have been in the developmental stage are experts in the country and the world on innovative --
Can I just ask you to take a break? I think it might be helpful.
We will resume our hearing. Thank you for your patience, and we will resume our testimony. Are there any other questions 169 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. from members of the Committee? (No response.)
And I know, Councilwoman, that you wanted to ask the Water Commissioner a question. So we'll ask Commissioner Brunwasser to be available as soon as we're finished here, and then we'll hear from PAC, Tyrone. And is Donna Henry here? I don't think I saw her. Oh, there you are. Then we'll hear that testimony.
You had heard from Local 394 and the members of District Council 33. I am here today to ask you to put off voting the Synagro proposal out of Committee for these three reasons. We would like for you to follow the past procedures allowing Local 394 to sit at the table during discussions about solutions to the City's biosolids recycling needs, instruct the Water Department to earnestly sit down with Local 394 and take advantage of the experience members bring to the table, 170 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. and to work with the union to develop new alternatives that will be less costly and more effective, more efficient, and, most importantly allow Local 394 at least two years to work with the Water Department to come up with an alternate plan. And that's all we're asking for. We're asking for them to sit down with us for two years, because for the first five years, nothing happens. So why they can't give us two years, why is it a great rush for this? That is something we just don't understand. And we'd like to thank you for hearing our concerns.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony and your patience and the attendance of you, the union and all who are here. Thank you very much.
We would now like to hear from Eastwick PAC and Southwest CDC. I'm sorry. After 171 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. them, I did promise -- I'm sorry. Commissioner, would you come forward as well. That's all right. Commissioner, the Councilwoman is happy to wait until after the community testifies. So we have two more individuals to testify and then we'll call you. Thank you. Welcome.
Good afternoon, Councilwoman Blackwell, Chairman, and Councilmembers. I'm from the Eastwick PAC, Project Area Committee, which is one of the largest community groups of --
My name is Tyrone Beverly. I'm a member of the Eastwick PAC, on the Board. Also, I am a resident in the area and I did experience the smell at the plant. For several years -- I've been there for 23 years, and during that time, 172 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. I have seen where the City had worked very diligently to try to curb that smell. As of now, we are experiencing a better condition out there in Eastwick in reference to the smell. There was a time at your dinner hour you could not have dinner, but that particular problem has sort of subsided over the years. I would like to say that we attended a meeting in reference to Council President Verna whereby the community had some questions. I don't think we have enough information for us to go forward to entertaining anything from Synagro at this time. We need more time, more data, and we need to have a clear understanding where Synagro is going. For us to have lack of information to know whether this particular new plant is going to be combustible, how will it fit in with Runway 1735 with the new airplanes coming over, what's going to be much closer, what will be the effect. We're the 173 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. highest cancer rate area in the City, and I'm saying that we need to be looked at in a different way than what we're being looked at as far as us having a new plant and don't have the data. We cannot support at this time not having them coming to a PAC meeting whereby we can sit down and get the information that we need to be a viable community that will not have these health issues, will not have this new smell. And we need to know who we're going to talk to when we have the problem. Right now we can call you, the Council-At-Large and I call our Councilperson in reference to the problem. How will we talk with Synagro? What, are we going to have a third-party system? And we're concerned about that. We're your constituents. We're the residents, and as a resident and one that lives on Lindbergh very close to the plant, I'm concerned. And I do have a wife that has cancer, and I have a major concern out there. 174 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. When I moved there -- I'm not saying cancer couldn't have come to my wife, but I know now my wife has cancer and she has cancer of the throat, and I'm very concerned. My mother-in-law just died with brain cancer on Chester Avenue. So we have some major concerns. Look at the data in reference to Eastwick and the cancer population. This Council here has a real obligation to us, to talk to us about our medical problems, about our needs out there. And we at the PAC, we have lost our funding. I have to put this in there. We have lost our funding, but we have not lost our drive. We will continue on to be the Project Area Committee. We are going to speak for our community and we're going to speak about our needs. At this time, we're asking that you back off and don't fast-track this legislation. Give us a chance to talk with Synagro. Give us a chance to investigate Synagro. Give us a chance to 175 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. get the information. I understand our President did go down to Synagro and looked at the facility, but when the questions was asked, he couldn't answer. We need to have direct communication with Synagro at the Eastwick PAC. I thank you for the time. I'm asking you, please, think of it as a health issue, a smell issue, as a community issue. Thank you. (Applause.)
Tyrone, I certainly want to thank you for taking the time to come in. I know that you're very active in the community. 176 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Have you been in touch or has Eastwick PAC been in touch with Synagro to invite them to a meeting to try to get the answers that you're seeking?
At the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Verna, that you had, the town meeting, Craig Maladoshan (ph) talked with Synagro. Synagro was supposed to get back with us and we would keep that dialogue going. We have not heard from Synagro. You know we're really having problems in our office, but we do have staff there for eight hours a day, and we have not heard from Synagro at all. And I'm saying that I think that it's like a disrespect not to talk to us, because we are the affected community. We are the Eastwick area.
Well, I certainly would agree with you that they certainly should have met with the community, if that was the community's desire. And if Synagro is still here, I would suggest that we're going to be 177 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. considering this and that you go before the committee and explain what this process is going to be about. Looking at this, we know about the horrible odors that once existed out in that community, and I recall several years ago there had been a convention in the City and conventioneers were staying at a hotel by the airport. It was during the summer months and, of course, they had their air conditioners on. The stench was so bad, I am told, that all of the conventioneers decided to leave because they thought this was going to be another Bellevue Stratford incident. So they left. I heard from many of my constituents. We could smell it sometimes in South Philadelphia if the wind were blowing in that direction. So that has, I agree with you, that has improved a great deal, because I understand that line was put on to much of what was out there. 178 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. We talk about all of the problems with traffic and we hear that 70 percent less traffic will be in place if in fact this bill and Councilman Clarke's bill were to pass Council. I'm saying "if it were to pass." With that being said, do you think the community would be a loser or a winner?
Well, as you know, Councilwoman Verna, in dealing with some of the problems in some of the redevelopment of Eastwick, we were at least fortunate enough to have that dialogue with you when the post office come that we weren't going to allow certain traffic out there. That's why we made them -- not made them, but that's why we requested that that cut would come into the Island Avenue bridge to make sure that the trucks didn't run on Lindbergh. In our particular area, you have a couple things going on, in which you know. 291 has been cut off, all for 179 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. expansion of the airport, and that's why I said to you, now that you're going to have 1735 come directly over top the houses, get that close with that vacuum of exhaust from the planes, what do we know that's going to really do to the community? How do we know what's going to happen there?
Well, Tyrone, I know you call my office quite frequently and I'm sorry that you did not call before today to advise me that you had this conversation at our last meeting with the people from Synagro and they ignored you. Had you called me, perhaps there could have been a scheduled meeting and they would have been there to address your interests and concerns. However, with that being said, I have nothing further.
I would just like to say, no disrespect to you, Councilwoman Verna, I think you know me well enough to know if I have a concern, 180 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. I'm definitely coming in your office. I have no problems with a dialogue with you, and I would never ever talk with anyone without talking with you.
But in saying that, I would like to say that we have to be very clear, that it seems like there's a shutting down of Eastwick, and I'm saying that we're not going to shut down. We have real problems out there, and I don't think that a fast-track legislation is the answer to anything. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying to you, Synagro needs to sit down and talk to us, and I'm hoping, I'm asking you as my Councilperson that you don't put this on the fast-track legislation and run this through on December like that project went on 63rd Street.
Transfreight. 181 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. That went in on the last of the bill, and that was a $2 million project, ending up costing million. So if we're talking 5 about price cuts, I hope that you don't 6 do that on the end of the Calendar. 7
I hope you do something next year, give us a chance to talk to them.
I believe the woman from Synagro, she raised her hand. You heard this gentleman speak and I would like you to please talk to him before he leaves the Chamber. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. Any other questions for Mr. Beverly? (No response.)
182 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Ms. Henry, please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. I am Donna Henry, Executive Director of the Southwest Community Development Corporation. The Southwest Development Corporation supports Bill 060108 as it was proposed. Southwest Philadelphia has more than its fair share of pollutants. While we understand that jobs come with pollution, those jobs are not being held by many Southwest residents. At times, there is an awful stench coming from the existing Biosolids Recycling Center in Southwest, and we understand that bad odors aren't necessarily harmful to our health. Southwest CDC has concerns about potential effects to the health of Southwest residents, but has confidence that the Water Department will monitor levels of pathogens, Aspergillus fungi 183 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. and heavy metals, such arsenic and cadmium, to ensure that they are safe. Southwest CDC has heard presentations held by the Water Department employees affected by the proposed change and has weighed the information against how it will affect the residents of Southwest Philadelphia. Southwest CDC supports the Southwest Philadelphia environmental activists who have researched the new process and determined that the noxious emissions will be reduced, decreasing or eliminating the unpleasant odors that drift across Southwest Philadelphia. Southwest CDC supports the process that will create Class A biosolids which can be reused without known health threats. After visiting a comparative plant to understand the process, Southwest residents and environmental activists shared their views and were impressed with the process and the final product. 184 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Southwest CDC also supports the process that will reduce truck traffic in and around Southwest Philadelphia and the pollution that comes with them. We understand that this action will be minor compared with all trucks coming and going throughout Southwest, but it is a step in the right direction. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
Ma'am, I understand your testimony from your organization and I just want to know, it sounded like you were comparing what you're now in favor of to what we were just told by the panel of witnesses that were up here, including the gentleman that's still sitting in the middle from the union, that that's all gone in February regardless of whether Synagro or Plan B takes effect. 185 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Did your organization and the environmentalists you mentioned, were they comparing the Synagro to the current composting or were they comparing it also to Plan B? "Plan B" being everything that was testified to, including the two gentlemen that were sitting right on the side you were on.
Because the odor is gone, from what they testified to, either way.
My understanding was that they looked at the Synagro product, the pellet product, with being Class A and that they were satisfied and impressed that product in what would be coming into Southwest, not necessarily comparing it to the existing process, which we know will go away, the composting. 186 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
I'm not talking about the existing process, because that is going away, but I'm thinking the two alternatives that are in Plan B within the Water Department's alternative plan.
Thank you very much. Are there further questions? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Commissioner Brunwasser, would you come forward. Councilwoman Tasco has a question.
And, Madam Chair, I do have a letter here from Robert Stewart, who is a Committeeman in the 40th Ward, the 11th Division in Southwest Philadelphia. I will give it 187 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. to the stenographer so it will be made part of the record.
Thank you, Madam President. He was here and had to leave.
I know. He had to leave because we were running rather late. And he does in his letter testify that he is in favor of both bills.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. So as part of the record, we will have a statement from Mr. Robert Stewart from the 40th Ward stating his support for both bills. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Tasco.
I just have a question to clarify Class A and Class B. The discussion has been around Class A. What happens to the Class B biosolids? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: At 188 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. the present time, what happens to Class B biosolids is, there are some land application programs.
I mean, what's going to happen going forward? Does everything now become Class A? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Under the proposal from Philadelphia Biosolids, yes.
All the Class A and Class B will be dried out and produced as pellets? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. That's the proposed plan, yes.
So you don't have a separate operation for Class B biosolids under your new proposal? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's correct. We're transforming it all to Class A, which we believe is a more acceptable process, more acceptable product, I should say.
The gentleman from the union testified that 189 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. beginning in February you're not going to do any more composting. So what's going to happen and what's going to happen to the Class B biosolids? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, at the time that there's no composting, then we won't be making any Class A product. It will all be Class B.
Well, the material will essentially have to be landfilled. It will end up going to a landfill at a fairly expensive price. You know, you can't step up the farm application or some of the other applications of Class B. You have to take it to landfill.
I think what you just said at least conflicts with what is in the materials before us as Philadelphia Water Department's Plan B, because that is something different 190 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. than landfilling all of the material. Could you comment on, one, is there a Plan B, and what is your position on it? Because it would seem to me from what I read that if we don't pass these bills, Plan B is the alternative, but Plan B isn't described by what Mr. Blair said on everything being Class B going out to wherever you can take it, landfilling it or whatever, but something that the Water Department's own staff has been working on for several years with the two gentlemen that were sitting here. I think we need a lot more dialogue about Plan B before we can appreciate Plan A. And if there is a Plan B and all we've been hearing about are comparisons to an obsolete composting that has two months left, shame on you for presenting it and shame on us for having to listen to it. (Applause.)
Because I really don't want to hear about 191 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. comparisons to composting if it's not going to be around past February. But if there's a Plan B, I do want to hear comparisons between what is obviously Plan A that's before us and Plan B, which is what has been described as what will happen if this legislation doesn't pass. That would be a legitimate comparison. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: First of all, Councilman, the comparison that you have in front of you on those charts that we presented is a comparison between the proposal from Synagro and what the Department is doing now but without composting. So it is a proper comparison.
So it is Plan B? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 21 Plan B is not -- the Plan B that the gentleman was speaking to --
The "gentleman" being the head of the union? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. 192 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
Okay. He has a name, I think, and you work with him all the time. Why don't you just identify him. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, there were references to Plan B --
Well, there were union officials there and there were a couple of private people. The union officials introduced Plan B. I'd really like it to be clear that this wasn't two private entrepreneurs that introduced Plan B, but your own union. (Applause.)
And why do we have to hear it from them? Why don't we get the full discussion from the first panel? If there's a Plan B, why don't we hear about it?
Pardon 193 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. me. We have a point of information on the table. Excuse me.
Point of information on the table. Councilman Goode.
Commissioner, did you just say that the comparison that we have is a comparison between Plan A and no plan at all? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 14 No. What I said --
It's not a comparison between Plan A and Plan B. It's a comparison between Plan A -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: First of all, I have to address Plan B so you'll understand what my position is.
My question was, what did you say the comparison was between? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It's between the proposal from Philadelphia 194 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Biosolids compared to what is happening at the site today, our current operation, with a change from composting to landfilling.
Is that actually a serious option, in your mind? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. I mean, that is the back-stop position for us.
That's your Plan B. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's our Plan B. That's the comparison that you have. We have not discussed this alternate Plan B that was brought up by --
That is actually worse than not presenting the other Plan B.
Was what the union brought to us as Plan B, now that there's two Plan B's, was it -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 25 We've discussed -- 195 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC.
That's not foreign to you, is it? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 5 No. That was an internal internally -- that was an internal document and what we would consider more of a brainstorming session inside the Water Department. And we evaluated that and we've spoken to the union on several occasions about that particular proposal, which is known now as Plan B. It's not the Water Department's Plan B. It's not our proposal.
I'll tell you what, the union's Plan B sounded a lot better than yours. (Applause.) MS. McCARTY: I'd like to speak to that. I'm Debra McCarty. I'm the Deputy Commissioner of the Water Department of Operations. The employees we're talking about are under my charge, and I am very concerned about what happens with our employees, and we've met 196 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. several times, as has been mentioned. The Plan B that I believe -- I didn't get a packet, but what I believe that you all have that was presented by the union is, as the Commissioner said, an internal document that someone generated. No one was asked to do this. This is something that was developed. We looked at it. We went through it with a fine-tooth comb and we've developed a different -- and Plan B is maybe a bad name, but we've developed something other than what the Plan B I believe you have, and it is, as the Commissioner said, basically it is when we stop composting in March, not in February but in March, we're going to have to go to landfill, because there just aren't the outlets that the most optimistic person would want out there. There just aren't for this Class B. It will not be Class A sludge biosolid. It will be Class B.
So the 197 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. mine mix that Synagro would be doing for five years that was described to us by the previous panel is not going to happen. It's going to be the landfilling of the material after you stop composting. Because they're not going to have the plant built for five years, so something has got to happen starting February. MS. McCARTY: Well, it will be three to five years.
What happens then in the interim? MS. McCARTY: Well --
They're going to landfill everything? MS. McCARTY: No. I was telling you what our fact -- our stop gap, what our Plan B is. What the Water Department's Plan B is, it's a Plan B if we don't go forward with PBS.
Go ahead. What do you do for three to five years -- MS. McCARTY: We won't. That 198 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. will be Synagro.
What will Synagro do? MS. McCARTY: Pam Racey from Synagro, I believe, wants to speak to that.
I would really like to address that. And first, I'd also like to say that our contract allows us up to five years to be fully operational, but our intent is to be fully operational with a new plant in three years. And that's one year of permitting and two years of construction. And Synagro has the discretion to do multiple things with it in the interim, and our plan is to do a combination of land application in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and mine reclamation in Pennsylvania as well as landfilling. Synagro has been a contractor for the City for over ten years. We previously provided mine reclamation and we're currently providing agricultural land application in 199 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. Maryland. And our company, just to give you a flavor, we have 600 municipal contracts across the country, and we don't just offer pelletization. We offer every commercially proven biosolids management option that's available. So we don't have to come to Philadelphia and say, Gee, Councilman O'Neill, drying is right for you, because that's all we do is drying. We could offer you thermophilic digestion, in-vessel composting, reclamation, land application, but truly when you look at it with an objective hat, heat drying and pelletization is what makes the most sense for the City. There's huge opposition to reclamation in the Pennsylvania mines. We could give you a website with tons of articles associated even with Mr. Coia's company where they've been kicked out of Hazleton. There's no sludge, no dredge signs. That's why we're saying this 200 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. isn't a realistic, sustainable option to flip the switch in March, shut down the composting and say, I'm going to ship 60,000 tons up to the mine sites in Pennsylvania. It just won't happen.
Right. When you're doing pelletizing, you get to reduce the volume by 90 percent. So instead of having 200,000 tons to deal with, you have much less material to move out into the market. So that's one of the reasons we're anxious to get this thing online in three years instead of five, is because it's going to be a big effort for us over this three years to move this out. We're going to Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania landfill, and we're anxious to get it into the process facility where we're going to make a product that people 201 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. actually want to buy instead of --
What would be during the three-year period when you won't have a plan and you have those other options that you mentioned, I think there were three --
Well, land app in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. That's agricultural land app in those three states. We are going to do some mine reclamation in Pennsylvania.
Okay. But I just wanted to know which is more expensive, doing what you just described 202 11/30/06 - FINANCE - BILL 060108, ETC. in some percentages between the ag, the mining and the landfill, or doing all landfill during those three years?