1. Call to order - 5:35 p.m.

2.  Roll Call-  See above.

SFPUC Staff present – Idil Bereket, Tyrone Jue, Kenya Briggs, Sam Murray, Natalie Sierra, Karen Hurst
Members of the public – Bill McLaughlin, Steven Smith, Paul Ledesma, Amy Chastain

3.  Minutes – August ‘08 Regular Meeting minutes have been approved.

5.  Biosolids Update – by Natalie Sierra

Questions and Comments
* Asked what the problem with Treasure Island’s solid waste was and why it cannot be reused.
ANSWER: EPA has strict regulations, Treasure Island just does not have the ability to do that.
* Asked whether there is a difference between organic/non-organic matter.
ANSWER: Biosolids are digested, the green waste does release VOC’s.
* Asked when the next phase for the Biosolids Regional Program would start.
ANSWER: In the next 3-6 months.
* Asked what the difference between Class B & Class A Biosolids is.
ANSWER: Class B means knocked down level of pathogens, but still restrictive, cannot grow corn (anything close to the ground). Class A is pathogen-free.
* Asked what the fuel options are
ANSWER: There is a project called “Intertec” where they are making Fuel out of biosolids, something like low-grade coal, and even the ashes could be used within the cement.
* Asked if biosolids were used for ethanol, meaning using biosolids to produce ethanol.
ANSWER: That has been considered. Corn in Northern California does not make sense, but if you find a way for indirect biosolids to energy option, it is an option that’s been considered.
* Asked if you can digest to Class A.
ANSWER: Yes.
* Asked about the advantages and disadvantages of producing Class A.
ANSWER: Regulatory and public perception issues. Kern County is producing Class A, but it’s about public perception.
* Asked about the cost of fuel for Class A vs. Class B.
ANSWER: Class B digestion is much cheaper. But, places you can apply Class B is also shrinking.
* Asked whether the SFPUC would need additional space if we go to Class A, and if that would mean you would need a space double the size of the current.
ANSWER: At OSP, it was designed for a much larger flow, so we will be able to modify the process, no additional footprint will be needed and we would just need to upsize the heat exchanger, with no footprint. At SEP, we would need a little more space but it’s not too much bigger, because you need to get it hotter for a little bit longer.
* Commented that it might be a problem for the population living in Los Banos.
* Asked whether the trucks are clean energy trucks.
ANSWER: Norcal has switched to compressed natural gas.
* Asked whether there would be an opportunity to see land application this year.
ANSWER: Probably not this year.
* Asked whether groundwater testing was being done.
ANSWER: Yes, and nothing has been found. The nitrate levels are strictly monitored.
* Asked whether there was any coordination/vetting with the Department of Public Health.
ANSWER: We are regulated at federal level, then at state level and then the local regulations that come out of the counties.
* Asked whether the partners were looking for grant funding for research.
ANSWER: It’s for the regional project. We have one more work to do for EIR, that we need grant and also for building the facility.

No action was taken.

6.  Digester Task Force – update on progress made

Sam Murray provided a list of potential members and asked that the WWCAC also appoints one member for the task force.

Questions and Comments
* Commented that the WWCAC representative would have to be appointed by the Chair.
* Asked who appointed the members.
ANSWER: The names came from the SFPUC and we tried to create diversity and choose people from the community.
* Asked who would be making the appointment of the members.
ANSWER: Most probably the General Manager. Tommy Moala and Communications would be involved as well.
* Mentioned that there was no one from the Asian Community, and added that it would be good including someone from that community.
* Asked if anyone from the list was part of the ministers.
ANSWER: Yes.
* Commented that the SFPUC should make more efforts in finding representatives from the Asian and Latino communities.
* Commented that it would also be good to have a voice from the youth.
ANSWER: We talked to the principal of Thurgood Marshall and someone from the Science Department might be able to join in.
* Asked about SWAC
ANSWER: We called and asked and waiting for an answer.
* Asked about the percentage of the members living in the neighborhood.
ANSWER: Most are from the neighborhood, and it’s a consideration / criteria for selection.
* Asked whether staff would be involved in the process.
ANSWER: Staff would be involved in the process.
* Commented that it would be nice to have expertise from outside the SFPUC.
* Commented that having TAC as an advisory role would be good.
* Asked about the specific goals of the Task Force, and whether it wasn’t about siting and site design.
ANSWER: Both.
ANSWER: There is a statement about what the task force is, and we are refining that statement.

4. Public Comment

No public comment.

7.  Staff Updates: SF Sewer System Master Plan and Wastewater Enterprise

Kenya Briggs provided an update on the Big Blue Bucket

Questions and Comments
* Literacy for Environmental Justice confirmed that they would like to have a booth at the Fair, and would contact SFPUC staff to coordinate.
* Asked to see if the WWCAC members could get the Big Blue Bucket flyer could be included in the body of the email for distribution.

Kenya Briggs asked whether the members would have recommendations on blogs where the SFPUC can post the flyer/information about the fair.
* Commented that it would be good to send the flyer or the link to people who are using eBill.
* Nature in the City, Neighborhood Parks Council and Jake Sigg.
* Board of Supervisors, District Police Stations, similar venues that the SFE contacted for the May ’06 Pharmaceutical Drop Off event, KQED’s “To do” list.

Natalie Sierra did a quick update on the SF Sewer System Master Plan.
* There will be a draft for the purposes of EIR.
* We will do programmatic CEQA document.

Questions and Comments
* Asked when the public draft will be ready.
ANSWER: November ‘08
* Asked when it would be presented to the Commission.
ANSWER: Early December Commission meeting
* Asked when scoping would start.
ANSWER: Next spring/early summer ’09.
* Asked whether there would be any surprises.
ANSWER: The report is in line with what Jon presented.
* Asked whether part of EIR would take into consideration the issue of not taking anything from Mission Bay to the SEP.
ANSWER: The Master Plan will include a recommended program and suggest alternative ways.
* Asked whether the SFPUC was taking into consideration the greenhouse gas projections.
ANSWER: Yes.
* Asked whether the High Speed Rail complicate drainage.
ANSWER: It would have to be looked at.

8.  Comments, suggestions and requests for future agenda items by members of the Wastewater Subcommittee, staff and general public.

* Mentioned that it would be good to have an update on operations and maintenance budget update and on the state of good repair. Added that the item should also include discussion on how the WWCAC could be involved.
* Asked whether the agency looked at metal and its value, and perhaps that could constitute an agenda item.

9.  Adjourned - 7:10 p.m.