Responses: Nov 29, 2005 public meeting

1.   What level of treatment will the regional storage and treatment facility provide to the combined sewage, realizing it is not the same level of treatment as Metro?
 

Response:   The ACJ requires the County to abate CSOs by eliminating or capturing for treatment 85% of the CSO volume on an average annual system wide basis, to eliminate or minimize floatables from discharging into Onondaga Creek and to provide sufficient facilities to reduce bacterial concentrations to less than 200 cfu/100 mL within the service area for the 1-year design storm. The Clinton facility plan is designed to meet these ACJ requirements.
 
When the volume of the storm, requires the regional treatment facility to fully operate and discharge treated effluent, floatables will be removed and the effluent will be treated with sodium hypochlorite to kill bacteria and then dechlorinated with sodium bisulfate before it is released into Onondaga Creek. (Clare)
 

2.   What are the incremental costs for higher levels of treatment?
 

Response:   The County does not have a listing of incremental costs for "higher levels of treatment." The alternatives evaluated by the County satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the ACJ. (Clare)
 
Out of the alternatives evaluated, the County has recommended the alternative that will meet these requirements in the most cost effective manner.
 

3.   Suggested that the County look into further reducing costs. Asked if the County had looked into generating energy from the water in the operation perhaps with use of a low head turbine for instance. (K. Miranda)
 

Response:   These CSO facilities operate on average fifty to sixty times per year during wet weather situations. The wet weather events are normally of limited time duration. For this reason, the County has not investigated energy generation due to the fact that the energy developed would be unpredictable, intermittent and of very limited duration.
 
In addition, the RTF will be designed at water surface elevations high enough for discharge into the creek, but no higher than necessary to save energy costs associated with pumping. Therefore, the free fall will be minimal and not sufficient for even low head turbines.
 

4.   County should look at this as an opportunity and think outside the box. Need to look at long term planning issues and see what other projects could be tied into this project in a useful way. Speaker suggested as an example of multi-use facilities, incorporating nuclear waste storage for instance into the RTF. The County should look at this project and see how it could contribute to the City in other real beneficial ways. Could be tied into the MOST in some ways for educational programs. Was willing to give the County the names of designers who could really help with this kind of multi-use thinking. (E. Kamell)
 

Response:   The County has looked into tie-ins with other beneficial projects like the creekwalk, parking alternatives, etc. and has been actively pursuing those possibilities since starting this facilities planning process. The County would take designers' names if she would like to pass them along to County and/or further suggestions for multiple use facilities. (Elander)
 

5.   Has anyone looked into the air pollution from these facilities? Does the ACJ consider air pollution? (Wolfson)
 

Response: Eidt:   The ACJ does not get into air pollution issues. Those are design issues. Air pollution controls, if necessary, would be put in the final design of the facility that would then be reviewed by DEC.
 

6.   Concerned about release of chlorination by-products into the environment and their impacts on human health. Stated that a Health Risk Assessment must be done. He asked where the Health Risk Assessment was and who was going to do it? (Wolfson)
 

Response: Eidt:   Can't answer that question. The DEC Division of Air would get involved if and when there is an emission point determined during design.
 
Following the meeting, the County formally asked DEC for an opinion on the necessity for a health risk assessment. See letter from County to DEC in Appendix. In a subsequent discussion on the topic with DEC, the County was informed that no such health risk assessment would be required for such a facility and DEC would be indicating that opinion in a letter of response (as not yet received) to be sent to the County.
 

7.   Review schedule for completion and operation of this project.
 

Response:   Design of the conveyances is scheduled to be complete by September 2006. Construction of the conveyances is scheduled to commence by December 2006 and be completed by August 2008.
 
Design of the Regional Treatment Facility is scheduled to be complete by April 2007. Construction is scheduled to commence by July 2007 and be completed by July 2009. (Clare)
 

8   My property is directly affected by this project because the conveyance line goes right through it. Have you looked into other possible routes and alternatives like use of the Erie Boulevard storage? How will the County compensate me for disturbing my property and making it no longer available for development, therefore stifling growth in the Armory Square area? What about changing the RTF's location to the Dickerson site? (J. Butler)
 

Response:   Other routes have been looked into. Use of the Erie Boulevard system for storage is not feasible because there is no remaining capacity. (Clare)
 
At your convenience, the County will plan to meet with you in the very near future to discuss your concerns about your property. (Elander)
 
The Dickerson Site would have required the same conveyance route through your (Butler) property. One of the alternative routes that was looked at was putting the pipe in Franklin Street; however, this would have been much more disruptive to the whole of Armory Square area. (Clare)
 
Diverting flow from CSO area 027 to the Erie Boulevard Storage Structure was investigated. The existing volumes of CSO inflow in addition to the non-CSO stormwater currently utilize almost all of the capacity of the Erie Boulevard Storage Structure. Even if there were room for the flow from 027, it would not eliminate the conveyance pipe that is currently proposed through your property between Walton and W. Jefferson Streets. This pipe will be bringing flow from CSO 029 to the regional treatment facility.
 
At the proper time the County will order an appraisal to determine fair market value of the property. An offer from the County will then be made to purchase the property or acquire an easement. The use of eminent domain (condemnation) will only be used as a last resort if it is determined that a negotiated purchase on reasonable terms cannot happen.
 

9.   Did you look into sewer separation for the Fayette St. trunk sewer? (D. Hughes) We'll take a look at that, if we haven't already and respond in the responsiveness summary. ( Elander)
 
Further response: CSO 027 drainage basin contains 2,695 LF of combined sewers within residential areas and 28,520 LF of combined sewers in the non-residential areas. (See Table 5-2 in the draft Clinton facilities plan.) Using the sewer separation costs in the CDM/C&S memorandum contained in Appendix I of the facility plan, separating this one basin would cost an estimated $28.7 million.
 
Clearly, the choice to undertake sewer separation within CSO basin 027 would increase the total project costs without significantly lowering costs attributable to conveyances or the size of the regional treatment facility. Therefore, the lack of any economic benefit would not justify the severe disruption and resulting economic impacts that such a sewer separation project would have on downtown Syracuse.
 

10.   Encouraged use of more storage like at the Midland RTF thereby reducing the number of vortex units. Noted Midland had at least half of total volume available for storage. Use more sewer separation to get stormwater out of the system and therefore reduce size of plant. (A. Lane)
 

Response:   Various storage options were investigated for the Clinton project. One of the options looked into was similar to that used for the Midland facility. It was recommended that this type of application was not the most cost effective approach to abating CSOs within the Clinton area for the reasons stated in Chapter 6 and Table 6-4 of the draft facilities plan. (Clare)
 
Also, when large volumes of stormwater are "taken out" of the system through extensive sewer separation, that stormwater volume (via a separate pipe) is discharged into Onondaga Creek without any level of floatables control or treatment to reduce bacteria levels. These untreated stormwater volumes could be in excess of existing levels released to the creek because the existing combined sewer system currently captures large volumes of polluted stormwater and conveys it to Metro for treatment. This is even more significant in highly urbanized and impervious areas like the Clinton basin area.
 

11.   Had given 5 questions to J. Clare and had not received a response. Asked for that response. Noted that all estimates of CSO volumes had gone up since the Midland negotiations were held with the State and the Partnership for Onondaga Creek. Questioned why the volume numbers calculated through modeling had changed so much? She cited that the volume before negotiations on Clinton had been estimated at 142 MG and now it was 225 MG. (A. Lane)
 

Response:   We will get back to you with the responses to your 5 questions. (Elander)
 
(See below for County response to A. Lane letter with written questions.)
 
With regard to the Clinton and Erie Boulevard Storage System connection, prior to 2002, the Clinton model did not include portions of the CSO 080 drainage area in the upper reaches of the Fayette Trunk Sewer (which is interconnected with the EBSS ). Dry weather flow and smaller storm events are directed down the Fayette Trunk Sewer and during larger storms combined sewage is discharged to the EBSS. These areas contribute additional flow to the Clinton RTF as well via the Fayette Trunk Sewer. New model figures reflect this additional flow.
 

12.   What is the process by which the County will purchase the needed property in the "Trolley Lot" from the City?
 

Response:   The County will attempt to purchase the property from the City through a standard negotiated purchase. In the past, the City has told the County that they didn't want to sell the land to the County. If they maintain that position, the County will pursue acquisition of the land through the use of eminent domain as was done on the Midland project. Currently, both the City and the County are still waiting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to issue a decision on the use of eminent domain on the Midland project that was requested when the City appealed a lower court's decision to uphold the County's use of eminent domain. (Elander)
 

13.   What about replacing parking that will be taken away by use for the RTF?
 

Response:   The County has consistently stated our commitment to replacing any parking we take from this area due to our construction and the completed project. Many alternatives have been offered that could assist in expanding parking supply within the Armory Square area as well as downtown in general.
 
Possible alternatives mentioned include adding on to the Atrium garage and expanding its hours of operation on nights and weekends, incorporating parking into the Regional Treatment Facility, building a parking garage on the lot across from the Hawthorne Suites as part of a joint public/private economic development venture, providing direct funding assistance to renovate the Hotel Syracuse garage or assisting in funding the construction of the Excellus garage. To date, the City has refused to discuss any parking alternatives. (Elander)
 

14.   Could the new parking spaces be put in a couple of places, not just in one location?
 

Response:   Above ground surface parking could be arranged on a couple of sites. This would be one additional possibility to those listed above. However, there is a shortage of unused open space within the downtown area particularly near Armory Square and multiple sites have not been identified.
 
Spaces available for building a parking garage are also limited, and it's not cost effective to build two or more parking garages of smaller size rather the one larger facility. (Elander)
 

15.   What are the good points in favor of sewer separation, and why do some people want that vs. a regional treatment facility?
 

Response:   The advantages as well as the disadvantages of sewer separation are included in Table 5-1 of the facilities plan. Generally, the advantages of sewer separation are that all wastewater is sent to Metro for full treatment, and sewer separation results in the lowest operating and maintenance requirements. On the negative side, sewer separation is the most expensive and most disruptive CSO abatement alternative to implement. Additionally, sewer separation results in untreated urban stormwater discharging into the creek and at some point in time, the regulations governing these discharges may change and require treatment.
 
The County does not object to sewer separation. The County objects to sewer separation where it does not make economic or environmental sense. Within the Clinton CSO area, sewer separation would cost almost $100 million more than the proposed RTF and would result in the excavation of every street within the downtown Syracuse area as well as parts of the Syracuse University area over a period of years. After all the disruption and the expenditure of all the extra dollars, Onondaga Creek would still be subject to significant pollutants from the discharge of increased amounts of untreated stormwater.
 

16.   You referred to charcoal filter. What is that for? (Wolfson)
 

Response:   The regional treatment facility will include a carbon adsorption odor control system. Any air discharged from the facility will pass through this system. The system is a redundant design to assure continuous operation during CSO events even while the system is being maintained.
 

17.   Reiterated concerns about by-products of chlorination that he says will not be eliminated by dechlorination process.
 

Response:   (See Questions and response #6 above.)
 

18.   Wants to know distance from discharge pipe to Walton St. near Armory Square? (Wolfson)
 

Response:   Can not provide distance figure at this time; will get back to you in Responsiveness Summary with that information. (Clare)
 
Additional Information: Distance from outfall pipe to Walton Street at the Walton Street bridge is approximately 450´. Distance to the intersection of Walton Street & S. Franklin Street is approximately 600´.
 

19. Representing Hanford Pharmaceutical Company   Would like to know construction schedule and how the construction may impact their operation. He noted that Tully St. will be disrupted and the Company uses that as a driveway to their operation and entrance to their parking lot. The conveyance pipe also will be installed directly in front of the shipping and receiving area for the Company.
 
Also cited concerns if any contaminants could be released from the air pollution control or effluent discharge pipes because the nature of Hanford's business requires Clean Room facilities that have air intakes to the outside air; therefore he's concerned about potential for air pollution and dust during construction and post construction and if there would be any resultant impacts on the Company's operation.
 
Pleased about the good things happening in the area and possible connections with this RTF like the creekwalk. Interested in talking to County about alternative route to Fabius St. that would be helpful to Hanford in continuing their operation in downtown Syracuse. (W. Buecheler)
 

Response:   We will arrange to sit and discuss those issues and routes with you. RTF will be taking care of the current situation where untreated combined sewage is released from 11 discharge points within a small distance between Oneida and Fayette St. into Onondaga Creek. (Elander)
 
As addressed in the draft EID, the County has determined that this project will result in no significant adverse environmental impacts. Any potential impacts will be temporary and short term related to construction. To address these potential impacts, the County will ensure that mitigation measures are implemented to reduce impacts as much as possible. These mitigation measures can include requiring the contractors to utilize dust control systems, making sure that construction vehicles have proper muffler systems, maintaining access for local traffic, requiring excavated areas to be covered to allow entry into driveways by the end of each work day and restoring and improving areas following construction.
 
These temporary impacts due to construction will be offset not only by the County's mitigation measures, but by the overall environmental benefits brought about by this project in addressing the 11 CSOs that currently discharge unto Onondaga Creek in this 4-6 block area. This project will reduce odors and health concerns to the area caused by these overflows as they exist now.
 

20.   I used to live across the street from a large treatment plant in New York City; so, I don't believe this facility here will be odorless. What do you have to say on that? (J. Miranda)
 

Response:   This facility will be a fully enclosed operation with odor control system and, therefore, odorless to the outside. It is difficult to provide a specific response on the NYC situation without knowing the specifics of the facility being referred to in New York City.
 
The NYC facility could have been a 24-7 full sewage treatment plant, not a CSO facility with odor control. Full wastewater treatment facilities that are not fully enclosed and operate on a 24/7 basis are not comparable to CSO abatement facilities.
 
And there is one case the County is aware of that was a demonstration CSO facility in New York City known as the Corona Ave. Facility. It was not equipped with any odor control system. The Corona facility also received non-CSO or dry weather sanitary flow in addition to flow resulting from combined sewer overflows. These factors would make the Corona Ave. facility prone to odor problems and complaints.
 
The Clinton facility will be totally enclosed, have an odor control system and will only operate during times of wet weather that produce combined sewer overflows.
 

21.   Indicates that he is pleased this meeting was held but concerned that all questions weren't answered. The County should get back to lady with 5 questions, should look outside the box for possible energy/green building alternatives, should incorporate other beneficial uses if possible as mentioned by urban planner, and answer Dr. Wolfson's concerns. (J. Miranda)
 

Response:   We will get back to anyone who did not get the answer to their question tonight either directly or through the Responsiveness Summary to be compiled and we will investigate some of the alternatives suggested.
 
We will meet with Mr. Butler about his property and Mr. Buecheler from Hanford and look into the information Dr. Wolfson has requested. The purpose of tonight's meeting was to hear your concerns and suggestions. It is advantageous to us to hear these suggestions and we are writing them down and all will be included in the Responsiveness Summary of this meeting.
 
Regarding use of chlorine, wastewater treatment facilities across the country and around the world are using the process of chlorination-dechlorination as the approved disinfection method to eliminate harmful bacteria from the effluent. These are facilities that operate 24-7. Use of chlorine is also approved by EPA and DEC as an effective method to eliminate bacteria in combined sewage as well. It will be an odor-free operation and safe. (Elander)
 

22.   Owner of property on Dickerson Street site offers his property for sale as an alternative site, pointing out it is still available and might eliminate concerns in Armory Square. (T. Ward)
 

Response:   We acknowledge your property is available. The Clinton St. site is still the preferred site for this facility as described and evaluated in Section 5 of the Facilities Plan.

1.   Concerned about release of disinfection by-products.
 

Response:   The use of liquid sodium hypoclorite in conjunction with sodium bisulfate as a method of reducing harmful bacteria within combined sewage is a proven technology that is approved by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 
The issue of volatilized chlorine byproducts becoming airborne is addressed within Question 6 of the Responsiveness Summary (above).
 

2.   Consideration should be given to sewer separation in some of the sub-basins contributory to the Clinton Facility—in particular, the Fayette St. trunk sewer system.
 

Response:   There is no evidence to suggest that performing sewer separation within the upstream portion of CSO area 027, constructing a new trunk sewer from Almond St. through downtown to S. Franklin St. and leaving the remainder of CSO area 027 as a combined sewer is either more cost-effective or environmentally effective than the County's proposal.
 
Construction of a new trunk sewer from Almond Street to the main interceptor sewer at S. Franklin Street would be much more disruptive to Armory Square and downtown than the County's proposal. The West Jefferson Conveyance pipe also serves as a conveyance for flows from CSO areas 029 and 030. Therefore, the proposal contained in your letter does not eliminate the need for the West Jefferson conveyance pipe and adds installation of a portion of new trunk sewer through Armory Square on Fayette St.
 
The issue of utilizing the Erie Boulevard Storage System is addressed in Question 8 of the Responsiveness Summary (above).

1.   How much does each conveyance cost?
 

Response:   The draft facilities plan provides an estimated construction cost for all conveyances related to the Clinton facility of $19 million. At the present time, we do not have a breakdown for each conveyance section.
 

2.   How much storage volume is in the plan?
 

Response:   The following storage is included in the Clinton Plan:
 
      Conveyances - 0.64 MG
      RTF - 3.06 MG
      Total - 3.70 MG
 
The pipe volume of the underflow main to the MIS is not calculated as part of the in-line storage because the underflow pipe is only used after a CSO event to convey stored flow to the MIS.
 

3. a.   Why is the model's effluent prediction so off-base when you use the old hydrograph (uses Midland as example)?
 

Response:   The following response was provided from the County's modeling consultant, Dan Davis of Brown and Caldwell:
 
Any collection system modeling program representative of a combined sewer system as large as the County's will include improvements in model development as the programs are developed. Two models were developed and employed for the County CSO work and both were necessary to meet the ACJ requirements. The first, Model A, was used to size the conveyance pipelines, regional treatment facilities (RTFs), and associated equipment to accommodate peak flows. This model uses a one-year design storm. The one-year design storm is a single storm event with 2-hour duration and so reflects the short-term impacts on the collection system and the RTF. Model A was not modified since it included the EBSS connection.
 
The long-term Model B uses many years of rainfall to assess the longer-term impacts on the collection system and receiving waters and to calculate the percentage of capture in the RTF on a average annual basis. Model B was used also to determine average annual volumes of discharge, and was modified since it did not include the EBSS connection. Model B was modified as identified in a memo by Brown and Caldwell dated June 2, 2003, but these modifications did not change the design flows or facility sizing. While the Model B modifications did result in significantly changed average annual volumes at individual facilities, the total system-wide annual CSO volume discharged to the receiving waters was reduced by only 4%. Additionally, the Model B modifications resulted in an increase in total system-wide capture of approximately 1%.
 
The one-year design storm (Model A) will only include the volume associated with a single event, while the long-term simulation (Model B) will include the volumes from all the overflow events in a typical or average year (approximately 50). As an example, the one-year storm will result in a total influent flow to the Midland Facility of approximately 15 MG; however, the average year will result in approximately 200 MG of influent flow to the Midland Facility.
 

3. b.   Explain how adding the upstream EBSS connection increased the Clinton CSO volume from 142 MG to 225 MG?
 

Response:   With regard to the Clinton and EBSS connection, prior to 2002 the Clinton model did not include portions of the CSO drainage area (080 designations) in the upper reaches of the Fayette Trunk Sewer (which is interconnected with the EBSS system). Dry-weather flow and smaller storm events are directed down the Fayette Trunk Sewer and during larger storms combined sewage is discharged to the EBSS. These areas contribute additional flow (83 MG) to the Clinton RTF via the Fayette Trunk Sewer. Also see response to Question #11 in Responsiveness Summary (above)
 

4.   Why is the EBSS under-utilized? Since the Fayette trunk has three upstream connections to the EBSS why is it only storing 5 MG (2003) and 24 MG (2004)?
 

Response:   The Erie Boulevard Storage System receives both stormwater-only flows and combined sewer overflows. During wet weather events that do not trigger a CSO event, the EBSS still receives large volumes of stormwater. When a CSO event starts from any of the overflow points, the gates within the EBSS system close and begin storing the CSO flow as well as flow from dedicated stormwater points upstream of the CSO points. Upon completion of the CSO event, the stored volumes are sent to the Main Interceptor Sewer for treatment at Metro. The volumes cited in your question are from the measurements taken by the County's Department of Water Environment Protection at each of the CSO overflow points. These volumes do not include the stormwater flows that enter the EBSS from the dedicated stormwater-only points located upstream. The sources of the stormwater points are separated sewer systems upstream of the EBSS that now contribute 100% of their stormwater flows.
 
The County investigated the option of storing additional CSO flows from the Fayette trunk sewer in the EBSS. Based on total volumes of CSO and stormwater in the EBSS, there is not adequate capacity to store the additional CSO volume from the Fayette St. Trunk.
 

5.   The tiny district of Walton St. needs to be separated. It has a pre-Civil War Pipe.
 

Response:   We do not agree that it would be preferable to separate the sewers in this area. Sewer separation here would require excavating the entire length of Walton St. and reconstructing internal building connections. Even though this area is small in size, the street involved is the main arterial within the Armory Square area. Therefore, excavating this street would be extremely disruptive to residents and businesses in the area and could have potentially major economic impacts on businesses in the entire Armory Square area.
 
It is also important to point out that current condition or age of the City's sewer pipes are not a factor in determining the cost-effectiveness of sewer separation under the ACJ because in most cases, the combined pipes are still in use; however, instead of transporting combined flow, they carry stormwater only.
 
Given the fact that the flows from Fayette St. cannot go to the EBSS, the conveyance pipe from W. Fayette St. to Walton will be required. Since this pipe will need to pick up the area of CSO 030 behind the MOST, it will pass right through the end of Walton St. anyway. It would, therefore, not make sense to go through with full disruption of Walton St. by sewer separation when the conveyance pipe will need to go by this area and would be far less disruptive to Armory Square.
 
The Walton St. CSO 029 will be permanently closed under the County's Clinton facility plan, and the result will be, therefore, environmentally superior to sewer separation of this basin which would still necessitate untreated stormwater to be released into Onondaga Creek at the former CSO discharge point.
 

6.   In the Facilities Plan, there will be no sewer separation (in the Clinton Plan) even for CSO 037. However, in the facilities plan, the separation of CSO 037 is described as "currently directed by the ACJ." How is it possible to ignore any ACJ directions?
 

Response:   Chapter 6 of the Facilities Plan contains a financial analysis that finds it is more cost-effective to capture the CSO flow from CSO 037 and direct it to the Clinton RTF than to undertake sewer separation in that basin area. As stated in the Facilities Plan, "this assessment was considered appropriate due to the short distance between the CSO 037 outfall and the proposed Clinton St. RTF along with the anticipated complexity and potential construction risks, difficulties and impacts to local business operations associated with separation of the combined sewers within the highly urbanized CSO 037 drainage basin." Based on plan's finding, it was recommended that flow from CSO 037 be included into the Clinton RTF.
 
This recommendation to bring in CSO 037 into the RTF was also discussed during meetings with the Clinton Mitigation Advisory Committee with members representing Armory Square and downtown businesses, and they supported this option as less disruptive than sewer separation for CSO 037.
 
This more cost-effective/less disruptive alternative is in the Facilities Plan and is in full compliance with ACJ requirements. The State DEC has the responsibility to review and approve the facilities plan for compliance with the ACJ and the Clean Water Act.
 

7.   How do the conveyance pipes for the Trolley Lot site that go through J. Butler's property affect development plans for this property or value of the property? Owner asks if he can build on top of the pipes and what option does he have for input into the design?
 

Response:   The conveyance pipe for the Clinton project would go through the J. Butler property whether the RTF was located on the Trolley lot site or the Dickerson St. site.
 
The same Butler property has also been identified for use by the City as a section of the Creekwalk project.
 
Placement of our conveyance pipe would not be in conflict with proposed use of this land for the creekwalk or for its future use, as it is now, for surface parking.
 
Building on top of the pipe would depend on the structure to be developed and its use. The County will require a permanent easement along the pipe in order to maintain legal access to the pipe for maintenance.
 
The County has indicated their willingness to meet with Mr. Butler to discuss this issue in more detail.