Floatable Control Facility Plan

Imagine the result

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection

Floatable Control Facility Plan November 16, 2010 Revised April 28, 2011

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Prepared for:

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Prepared by:

ARCADIS of New York, Inc. 6723 Towpath Road P.O. Box 66 Syracuse New York 13214-0066 Tel 315.446.9120 Fax 315.446.7485 Our Ref.:

B0000380.0007 Date:

November 16, 2010 Revised April 28, 2011

Table of Contents

1.

2.

3.

Project Background

1

1.1

Introduction

1

1.2

Fourth Stipulation and Order to Amended Consent Judgment

1

1.3

FCF Plan Goal

2

Summary of Combined Sewer Overflows

3

2.1

Introduction

3

2.2

CSO Overview

3

2.3

CSO Treatment Requirements

3

2.4

CSO Discharges to be Treated

3

2.5

CSO Assessment

7

Floatables Control Technology Evaluation

8

3.1

Introduction

8

3.2

Floatables Control Technology Overview

8

3.2.1

Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

9

3.2.2

Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

10

3.2.3

Horizontal Band Screens

12

3.2.4

Low Profile Overflow Screens

13

3.2.5

Rotary Drum Sieve Screens

15

3.2.6

Pump Action Screens

16

3.2.7

Brush Screens

17

3.2.8

Oscillating Static Screens

18

3.2.9

Static Screens

19

3.2.10 Drum Screens

20

3.2.11 Continuous Deflection Separation

21

3.3

Evaluation of Floatables Control Technologies

22

3.4

Selected Floatables Control Technologies

24

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

i

Table of Contents

4.

5.

FCF Abatement Approaches

25

4.1

Introduction

25

4.2

Potential CSO Groupings

25

4.3

Harbor Brook In-stream FCF

26

4.4

Most Viable Floatables Control Alternatives

26

4.5

Present Worth Cost Evaluation

28

4.5.1

FCF Costs

28

4.5.2

Sewer Separation Costs

28

4.5.3

Conveyance Costs

29

4.5.4

In-stream FCF Costs

30

4.5.5

Present Worth Costs

30

Recommended FCF Plan

32

5.1

Introduction

32

5.2

Recommended FCF Plan

32

5.3

Preliminary Basis of Design

33

5.4

Identification of Required Permitting

33

5.5

CSO Discharge Flow Monitoring

34

5.6

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

34

5.6.1

FCF – Static Screen

35

5.6.2

FCF – Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

35

5.6.3

Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screen

35

5.6.4

CSO Conveyance and Sanitary Sewer Pipelines

35

5.7

Green Infrastructure

35

5.8

Implementation Schedule

36

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

ii

Table of Contents

Tables Table 2-1

Summary of CSO Floatables Control

Table 2-2

FCF Plan CSOs

Table 2-3

Minimum Rainfall Intensity to Trigger CSO Activation

Table 3-1

CSO Technology Evaluation Metrics

Table 3-2

Floatables Control Technology Non-Cost Evaluation

Table 4-1

Summary of the Most Viable Floatable Control Alternatives

Table 5-1

Preliminary Basis of Design

Table 5-2

CSO Flow Monitoring

Figures Figure 2-1

CSO Floatables Control Overview

Figure 2-2

Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area Project Area

Figure 2-3

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area Project Area

Figure 5-1

Alternative 5 CSO 063 Site Plan

Figure 5-2

Alternative 5 CSO In-stream FCF

Figure 5-3

Alternative 5 CSO 014 and 015 Site Plan

Figure 5-4

Alternative 5 CSO 017 Site Plan

Figure 5-5

Alternative 5 CSO 18 Site Plan

Figure 5-6

Alternative 5 CSO 078 Site Plan

Figure 5-7

Alternative 5 CSO 061 Site Plan

Figure 5-8

Alternative 5 CSO 076 Site Plan

Appendices Appendix A

Cost Curves

Appendix B

Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates Memorandum

Appendix C

Construction Costs

Appendix D

ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide Memorandum

Appendix E

Present Worth Cost Spreadsheets

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

iii

Floatable Control Facility Plan

1. Project Background 1.1 Introduction

The Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (County) provides wastewater conveyance and treatment services to the County of Onondaga, New York, including the City of Syracuse.

The County has retained ARCADIS of New York, Inc. (ARCADIS) to prepare a Floatable Control Facility (FCF) Plan for select Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) locations in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook Sewer Service Areas.

1.2 Fourth Stipulation and Order to Amended Consent Judgment

In January 1989, Onondaga County entered into a Judgment of Consent with the State of New York and the Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF) in settlement of litigation initiated in connection with alleged violations of state and federal water pollution control laws. The conditions of the Judgment of Consent required the County to perform a series of engineering and scientific studies to evaluate the need for upgrading the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro) and providing treatment of CSOs that occur within the Metro service area.

Based on the results of those studies, and in consultation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the County developed a plan for upgrading the Metro plant and providing treatment of CSOs. The County submitted a proposed Municipal Compliance Plan (MCP) to NYSDEC and ASLF on January 11, 1996.

Subsequent negotiations with regard to the proposed MCP resulted in the execution of an Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ) between the parties, which was executed by the U.S. District Court on January 20, 1998. This ACJ replaced and superseded the Consent Judgment entered on February 1, 1989.

In an effort to incorporate the addition of green infrastructure projects to reduce the frequency and volume of CSOs, the County, working with the NYSDEC, EPA and ASLF, amended the ACJ and on November 16, 2009, the Fourth Stipulation and Order Amending the County’s ACJ (Fourth Stipulation and Order) was adopted.

As a result of the Fourth Stipulation and Order, the County must submit to the NYSDEC and ASLF a plan for the assessment of all the County’s CSO outfalls, as well as a proposed implementation schedule to address floatables controls on the remaining untreated CSO outfalls.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

1

Floatable Control Facility Plan

1.3 FCF Plan Goal

The goal of this FCF Plan is to identify and evaluate viable floatable control technologies for future installation with the end result being the elimination of floatables discharge to surface waters during CSO events. This FCF Plan has been prepared to summarize preliminary planning for the project. A separate engineering report will be prepared at a later date to describe the project(s) in detail, clarify project scope and issues, and present the basis of design to be used in preparation of Contract Documents for the construction of the project(s). Additionally, the County will provide the NYSDEC with floatables capture information from each existing and proposed FCF as new facilities are activated and data becomes available.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

2

Floatable Control Facility Plan

2. Summary of Combined Sewer Overflows 2.1 Introduction

This section provides a summary overview of the County’s current CSO floatable control approach, the CSO treatment requirements, identifies the FCF Plan CSOs, provides CSO discharge characteristics including the associated sewershed area, peak flow rate and volume, activation frequency and CSO regulator description.

2.2 CSO Overview

Figure 2-1 provides a summary overview of how the County is addressing each of its CSOs for floatables control. Table 2-1 provides a listing of drainage basin, current CSO status and floatable control approach for each of the County’s CSOs. 2.3 CSO Treatment Requirements

The Fourth Stipulation and Order requires the County to address floatables controls as necessary, on all remaining CSO outfalls which currently are not being provided treatment. Although the Fourth Stipulation and Order does not dictate a specific level of floatables control, the County has stated that CSO outfalls shall be provided floatables control to capture floatables up to the 1-year, 2-hour design event.

2.4 CSO Discharges to be Treated

As a result of the Fourth Stipulation and Order, the County is addressing floatables control at remaining untreated CSOs through several separate projects, including the following:

•

Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility: CSOs 003 and 004

•

Clinton Street Storage Facility: CSOs 028, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036 and 037

•

Midland Avenue Regional Treatment Facility: CSO 044

•

Addressed through a separate detailed CSO Facilities Plan per the Fourth Stipulation and Order: CSOs 022, 027, 029, 052, 060/077 and 067

The CSO discharges that will be addressed in detail under this FCF Plan include the following:

•

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area CSOs: 045, 061 and 076

•

Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area CSOs: 063, 005, 006, 006A, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, and 078

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

3

CITY:SYRACUSE,ÿNYÿÿÿDIV/GROUP:ENV/141ÿÿÿÿDB:T.RITSCHEL,ÿK.SARTORIÿÿÿÿÿÿPIC:J.PERRIELLOÿÿÿÿPM:J.PERRIELLOÿÿÿÿTM:D.GROFFÿÿÿÿLYR:(Opt)ON=*;OFF=*REF* G:\ENVCAD\SYRACUSE\ACT\B0000380\0000\00012\DWG\FACILITY\00380B01.DWG LAYOUT:ÿ 2-1 SAVED:ÿ 4/19/2011ÿ11:28ÿAM ACADVER:ÿ 18.0Sÿ(LMSÿTECH) IMAGES:

PAGESETUP:ÿ PD2B-PDF PLOTSTYLETABLE:ÿ PLTFULL.CTB

PLOTTED:ÿ 4/26/2011ÿ10:27ÿAM

BY:ÿ SARTORI,ÿKATHERINE

PROJECTNAME:ÿÿ ----

LE Yÿ CR EE K

XREFS:

LEMOYNE/DARLINGTONÿTRUNK

HIAWATHAÿBLVD.ÿRTF ONONDAGAÿLAKE HIAWATHAÿBLVD.ÿTRUNK

TEALLÿBROOKÿFCF

TEMPORARYÿIN-STREAMÿFCF PROPOSEDÿLOWER HARBORÿBROOKÿSTORAGE TANKÿLOCATION

METROPOLITAN SYRACUSEÿWWTP

BUTTERNUT/GRANTÿTRUNK

KIRKPATRICKÿSTREET PUMPÿSTATION

HA

RB

MAINÿINTERCEPTORÿSEWER

O

Rÿ BR

O

O

BUTTERNUTÿSREETÿFCF

K HARBORÿBROOK INTERCEPTORÿSEWER

EMERSONÿTRUNK

BURNETÿAVE.ÿFCF

MALTBIEÿSTREETÿFCF

JAMESÿTRUNK BURNETÿTRUNK

WESTÿSTREETÿTRUNK ERIEÿBLVDÿSTORMÿSEWER

GENESEEÿTRUNK

FAYETTEÿTRUNK

TOMPKINSÿTRUNK

PROPOSEDÿCLINTON STREETÿSTORAGE TANKÿLOCATION

JEFFERSONÿTRUNK

HARRISONÿTRUNK

ONONDAGAÿTRUNK VELASKOÿROAD DETENTIONÿBASIN DELAWAREÿTRUNK TALLMANÿTRUNK MIDLANDÿAVE. CONVEYANCEÿPIPE (PHASEÿ1ÿSECTION) BELLEVUEÿTRUNK

MIDLANDÿAVE.ÿRTF

PROPOSEDÿEXTENSIONÿOF MIDLANDÿCONVEYANCEÿTO CSOÿ044ÿ(PHASEÿ3ÿSECTION)

MIDLANDÿAVE. CONVEYANCEÿPIPE (PHASEÿ2ÿSECTION) KENNEDYÿTRUNK

MIDLANDÿTRUNK

COLVIN/SKYTOPÿTRUNK ROWLANDÿTRUNK

BRIGHTONÿTRUNK ELMHURSTÿTRUNK

ON ON DA GA ÿC RE EK

AINSLEY/MATSONÿTRUNK SALINAÿTRUNK

SOUTHÿAVE.ÿTRUNK

ONONDAGAÿCOUNTYÿÿDEPARTMENT OFÿWATERÿENVIRONMENTÿPROTECTION

FLOATABLEÿCONTROLÿFACILITYÿPLAN

WESTÿSENECA TURNPIKEÿTRUNK

CSOÿFLOATABLEÿCONTROL OVERVIEW FIGURE

2-1

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 2-1 – Summary of CSO Floatables Control CSO Number

Drainage Basin

CSO Current Status

Floatable Control Approach

003

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage

004

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage

005

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

006

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

007

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

006A/079

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

007

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

008

Harbor Brook

Closed

009

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

010

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

011

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

012

Harbor Brook

Closed

013

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed Separation

014

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

015

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

016

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed Separation

017

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

018

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

019

Onondaga Creek

Closed

Upgraded Kirkpatrick Street Pump Station Capacity

020

Onondaga Creek

Active

Butternut Street FCF

021

Onondaga Creek

Active

Burnet Avenue FCF

022

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

024

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

025

Onondaga Creek

Closed

026

Onondaga Creek

Closed

027

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

028

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

029

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

030

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

031

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

032

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan CSO Number

Drainage Basin

CSO Current Status

Floatable Control Approach

033

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

034

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

035

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

036

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

037

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Clinton Storage

038

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

039

Onondaga Creek

Active

Midland Avenue RTF

040

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

041

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

042

Onondaga Creek

Active

Midland Avenue RTF

043

Onondaga Creek

Closed

Midland Avenue RTF

044

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Conveyance to Midland Avenue RTF

045

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed Separation

046A

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

046B

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

047

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

048

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

049

Onondaga Creek

Closed

050

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

051

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

052

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

053

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

054

Onondaga Creek

Closed

(Separation)

060

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

061

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

062

Onondaga Creek

Closed

063

Harbor Brook

Active

065

Onondaga Creek

Closed

066

Onondaga Creek

Active

Maltbie Street FCF

067

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

072

Onondaga Creek

Closed

073

Teall Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

Teall Brook FCF

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan CSO Number

Drainage Basin

CSO Current Status

Floatable Control Approach

074

Ley Creek

Active

Hiawatha Boulevard RTF

075

Onondaga Creek

Active

Upgraded Kirkpatrick Street Pump Station Capacity

076

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

077

Onondaga Creek

Active

Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

078

Harbor Brook

Active

Proposed FCF Plan

080

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080A

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080B

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080C

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080D

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080E

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080F

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080G

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080H

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

080I

Onondaga Creek

Active

Erie Boulevard Storage System

086

Harbor Brook

Closed

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Subsequent to the initiation of the FCF Plan project, the following CSOs were being addressed through separately administered sewer separation projects: 013, 016 and 045. Sewer separation projects for CSOs 013 and 016 are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011. Sewer separation of CSO 045 is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012. In addition, it was discovered during the site investigations, that CSO 008 has been closed, i.e., mechanically plugged for an extended period of time, as the County had previously determined that this CSO does not activate. The County plans to install a permanent plug in CSO 008, i.e., concrete bulkhead, in summer 2011. Since CSOs 008, 013, 016 and 045 are currently being addressed they are not included in the FCF Plan.

Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show the project area and the location of the CSOs that are addressed in this FCF Plan.

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the FCF Plan CSOs, their associated drainage areas, peak design flows and volumes (1-year, 2-hour design event) and overflow frequency during the typical year rainfall.

A description of each CSO regulator is provided below: Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area CSO Regulators 063 – The CSO 063 regulator is located in the sidewalk on the north side of Emerson Avenue and the outfall is located approximately 500 feet northeast of the regulator structure. The regulator and outfall are located west of Harbor Brook. The influent to the regulator is by a 48-inch-diameter pipe and a 6-inch-diameter storm sewer. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and flows in excess of dry weather sewer capacity are directed to a 48-inchdiameter overflow pipe. Currently CSO 063 discharges to a swale located on a mix of privately owned property located north of Erie Boulevard West.

005 – The CSO 005 regulator and outfall structure is located in the middle of West Genesee Street east of Harbor Brook. The CSO regulator and outfall structure are located adjacent to the covered portion of Harbor Brook. The influent to the regulator is by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by an 8-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a square orifice located in the wall between the regulator and outfall structure. Flows in excess of the dry weather sewer capacity are directed to the adjacent outfall structure. Wet weather flow in excess of dry weather capacity is directed to Harbor Brook by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Excess flows from Harbor Brook are prevented from entering the regulator structure by a flap gate mounted over the orifice in the outfall structure.

006 - The outfall structure for CSO 006 is located on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Sackett Street. Flow is directed to CSO 006 from manhole No. 79 located approximately 500 feet west of the regulator structure in the center of Park Avenue. The influent to manhole No. 79 is by a 22-inch by 15-inch conduit. Dry weather flow is conveyed from manhole No. 79 by a 22-inch by 15-inch conduit. Wet weather

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

4

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds.mxd - 4/26/2011 @ 2:51:58 PM

IN T

ONONDAGA LAKE ER S

TA TE

69

0

063

#

063

005

W. GENESEE ST.

# 006

006

005

## 006A

006A 007

#

007

ERIE BLVD.

009

009

# #010 010

011

#

011

014

# 015

# 017

015

014

#

018

#

ON W.

D ON

AG

AS

078

T.

# 017

078

018

LEGEND:

#

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION CSO DRAINAGE BOUNDARY

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

HARBOR BROOK OPEN PORTION

HARBOR BROOK SEWER SERVICE AREA PROJECT AREA

HARBOR BROOK COVERED PORTION

0

1,250 GRAPHIC SCALE

2,500 Feet

FIGURE

2-2

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_east.mxd - 4/26/2011 @ 2:53:10 PM

IN S OLV W. C

ST. GE

VE. ND A

HAN CRE

LA MID

061

#

T.

061 HOP E AV E.

CH HAT ST.

GA NDA ONO EK CRE

ELMHURST AVE.

076 076 E. HTON AV W. BRIG

LEGEND:

#

#

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

CSO DRAINAGE BOUNDARY

ONONDAGA CREEK SEWER SERVICE AREA PROJECT AREA 0

200 GRAPHIC SCALE

400 Feet

FIGURE

2-3

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 2-2 – FCF Plan CSOs 1-Year, 2 Hour 1 Design Event

CSO Number CSO Regulator Location Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area

Drainage Area (acres)

Peak Flow (mgd)

Volume (MG)

Number of Overflow Events (Typical Year 2 Rainfall)

063

Emerson Avenue

122

37

0.6

23

005

West Genesee and Sackett Streets

13

10

0.2

25

006

Park Avenue and Sackett Street (west)

10

5

0.1

23

006A

Park Avenue and Sackett Street (east)

7

4

>0.1

6

007

Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street

24

3

>0.1

10

009

West Fayette Street (west)

28

6

0.1

4

010

West Fayette Street (east)

16

8

0.1

31

011

Gifford Street at Fowler High School

20

8

0.1

16

014

Delaware and Amy Streets

196

67

1.0

18

015

Herriman Street and Grand Avenue

40

18

0.3

18

017

Hoeffler Street

25

17

0.3

24

018

Rowland Street

149

17

0.7

40

078

Bellevue Avenue and Velasko Road

86

28

0.4

23

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area 061

Crehange Street

3

2

0.1

42

076

Brighton and Midland Avenues

86

23

0.2

2

3

Notes: 1.

Data received from Brown and Caldwell dated 8/31/10 and assumes proposed Lower Harbor Brook and Clinton Storage Facilities constructed. Data assumes Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility equal to 3.2 MG and Clinton Storage Facility equal to 3.7 MG.

2.

Typical year rainfall based on year 1991 with a 6-hour inter-event duration.

3.

Value appears to be in error. County verifying SWMM model and has subsequently installed a flow monitor in this CSO (since January 2011) to determine its activity.

4.

mgd = million gallons per day, MG = million gallons

Floatable Control Facility Plan

flow in excess of dry weather capacity is directed to the outfall structure by a 24-inch-diameter pipe. CSO 006 discharges to the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

006A – The CSO 006A regulator and outfall structure is located in Park Avenue just east of the Sackett Street intersection on the east side of Harbor Brook. The CSO regulator and outfall structure are located adjacent to the covered portion of Harbor Brook. CSO 006A functions as an interceptor relief overflow as the regulator is located on the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by the Harbor Brook Interceptor. Wet weather flow is controlled by a square orifice located in the wall between the regulator and outfall structure. Flows in excess of dry weather capacity are directed to the adjacent outfall structure. The outfall structure consists of a short section of 18-inch-diameter overflow pipe that empties directly into the covered portion of Harbor Brook. Excess flows from Harbor Brook are prevented from entering the regulator structure by a flap gate mounted over the orifice in the outfall structure.

007 – CSO 007 is located at the intersection of Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street on the east side of Harbor Brook and consists of adjacent regulator and outfall structures. The CSO regulator and outfall structure are located adjacent to the covered portion of Harbor Brook. CSO 007 functions as an interceptor relief overflow as the regulator is located on the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer. Wet weather flow is controlled by a square orifice located in the wall between the regulator and outfall structure. Flows in excess of dry weather capacity are directed to the adjacent outfall structure. The outfall structure consists of a short section of 24-inch-diameter overflow pipe that empties directly into the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

Excess flows from Harbor Brook are prevented from entering the regulator structure by a flap gate mounted over the orifice in the outfall structure.

009 – CSO 009 is located in the middle of West Fayette Street on the west side of Harbor Brook. The influent to the regulator is by a 24-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by a 12-inch-diameter pipe into the Harbor Brook Interceptor. Wet weather flow is controlled by a leaping weir and is discharged to the covered portion of Harbor Brook via a 24-inch-diameter overflow pipe.

010 – CSO 010 is located in the middle of West Fayette Street on the east side of Harbor Brook. The influent to the regulator is by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by a 15-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by an orifice equipped with a flap gate and discharged via an 18-inch-diameter overflow pipe into the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

011 – CSO 011 is located adjacent to the Fowler High School athletic fields on the east side of Harbor Brook. The influent to the regulator is by a 24-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 8-inch-diameter drop connection. Wet weather flow is controlled by a leaping weir and discharged by a 24-inch-diameter pipe to the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

5

Floatable Control Facility Plan

014 – CSO 014 is located at the corner of Delaware Street and Amy Street on the east side of Harbor Brook.

The influent to the regulator structure is by a 66-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 66inch-diameter pipe to the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

015 – CSO 015 was located on the north side of Grand Avenue just off the pavement at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Herriman Street on the east side of Harbor Brook. The existing regulator was recently replaced as part of the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement and CSO Abatement Project by a new regulator located in Herriman Street. Influent to the regulator is from a 30-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged to a downstream manhole by a 30-inch-diameter pipe. The flow exits the manhole by a trapezoidal channel and enters Harbor Brook.

017 – CSO 017 was located to the south and adjacent to Harbor Brook on Hoeffler Street. The existing regulator was recently replaced during the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement and CSO Abatement Project by a new regulator located at the intersection of Hoeffler Street and Hartson Street.

Influent to the regulator is from a 30-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 30-inch-diameter pipe to a downstream manhole (the old regulator located adjacent to Harbor Brook) approximately 400 feet downstream where it then discharges to Harbor Brook.

018 – CSO 018 is located in the Velasko Road Detention Basin near Rowland Street. The influent to the regulator structure is by a 48-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by a 10inch-diameter drop pipe connection. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 48-inchdiameter pipe and by 48-inch by 45-inch pipe to Harbor Brook. During conversations with County personnel it was noted that this CSO is located in the flood plain and has been submerged in the past during large wet weather events.

078 – CSO 078 is located in the intersection of Velasko Road and Bellevue Avenue. The influent to the regulator is by a 36-inch-diameter pipe and a 15-inch diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by a 15-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 27-inchdiameter pipe to the outfall in Harbor Brook located approximately 1,300 feet north/northwest of the regulator structure.

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area CSO Regulators 061 – CSO 061 is located at the intersection of Crehange Street and Kirk Park Drive on the east side of Onondaga Creek. The influent to the regulator is by a 12-inch-diameter pipe and an 8-inch diameter pipe.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

6

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 8-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a leaping weir and discharged by a 12-inch-diameter pipe to the adjacent outfall in Onondaga Creek.

076 – CSO 076 is located in the right-of-way on the corner of the intersection of Brighton Avenue and Midland Avenue on the east side of Onondaga Creek. The influent to the regulator is by a 54-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by a 15-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 54-inch-diameter pipe to an outfall in Onondaga Creek located approximately 1,350 feet west of the regulator structure.

2.5 CSO Assessment

This section provides an assessment of the CSOs addressed in this FCF Plan.

As required under the Metro State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, the County conducts visual inspections of each CSO. These CSO inspection sheets are included as part of the monthly Metro Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to the NYSDEC. Further assessments by the County of any remaining problematic CSOs will be done after projects such as the Harbor Brook Interceptor, and the Clinton and Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facilities are completed.

In general, all of the FCF Plan CSOs are active and discharge according to different rainfall intensities. Table 2-3 provides the minimum rainfall intensity necessary to trigger CSO activation by CSOs addressed in this FCF Plan.

Model information for CSO 061 indicates a rainfall intensity of 0.15 inches per hour will trigger this CSO to activate. Based on County observations, it is believed that this CSO does not activate as frequently as predicted by the model and as a result the County installed an area velocity flow meter in the CSO 061 outfall on January 21, 2011. The flow data will be used to verify model predictions and help to refine model calibration. The County will continue to monitor CSO 061 to determine if the model predicted activation intensity is consistent with actual results.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

7

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 2-3 – Minimum Rainfall Intensity to Trigger CSO Activation

CSO Number

CSO Regulator Location

Drainage Area (acres)

Trigger Rainfall 1, 2 Intensity (in/hr)

Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area 063

Emerson Avenue

122

0.20

005

West Genesee and Sackett Streets

13

0.40

006

Park Avenue and Sackett Street (west)

10

0.50

006A

Park Avenue and Sackett Street (east)

7

0.50

007

Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street

24

0.75

009

West Fayette Street (west)

28

0.75

010

West Fayette Street (east)

16

0.85

011

Gifford Street at Fowler High School

20

0.10

014

Delaware and Amy Streets

196

0.15

015

Herriman Street and Grand Avenue

40

0.15

017

Hoeffler Street

25

0.15

018

Rowland Street

149

0.05

078

Bellevue Avenue and Velasko Road

86

0.20

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area 3

061

Crehange Street

3

0.15

076

Brighton and Midland Avenues

86

0.70

Notes: 1.

Data is from the Draft SWMM Model Documentation Report (March 2011), prepared for Onondaga County by Brown and Caldwell.

2.

Data represents existing conditions; information is subject to change for future conditions.

3.

Value appears to be in error. County verifying SWMM Model and has subsequently installed a flow monitor in this CSO (since January 2011).

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3. Floatables Control Technology Evaluation 3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to review potential floatables control technologies for CSOs located in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook Sewer Service Areas.

This section presents technologies that were considered for evaluation, and the criteria and methodologies used to identify, assess and evaluate technologies for CSO floatables control on a non-cost basis. Further evaluations will be presented in Section 4 to include construction costs and present worth costs during the evaluation of FCF abatement approaches. This section includes the following:

•

Floatables Control Technology Overview

•

Evaluation of Floatables Control Technologies

•

Selected Floatables Control Technologies

3.2 Floatables Control Technology Overview

For the evaluation of floatables control technologies, the following list of technologies were identified to determine those most appropriate for further evaluation. All these technologies have been utilized for CSO floatables control in the United States and Europe.

•

Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

•

Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

•

Horizontal Band Screens

•

Low Profile Overflow Screens

•

Rotary Drum Sieve Screens

•

Pump Action Screens

•

Brush Screens

•

Oscillating Static Screens

•

Static Screens

•

Drum Screens

•

Continuous Deflection Separation

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

8

Floatable Control Facility Plan

It is important to note that disposable nets and floating booms are not included in the above listing of floatables control technologies. Due to the nature of the CSOs being evaluated, characteristics of the receiving water bodies and the County’s previous operating experience with these floatables control technologies, they are not being considered for this project.

The following section provides a brief description of the floatables control technology and their operating characteristics and a concise list of advantages and disadvantages.

3.2.1 Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

Mechanically raked CSO bar screens are stationary fine screens that are mechanically cleaned and arranged in either a horizontal or vertical position to the CSO flow and are typically installed below ground.

The screen consists of modules of horizontal or vertical fixed bar rack and cleaning assembles mounted along a weir wall. Each module is made of stainless steel bars with pre-determined spacing. Bar spacing options include 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 millimeters (mm) with 4 mm being the most commonly used for CSO floatables control. The rake assembly consists of a series of combs that are powered by a hydraulic pack.

As storm flow enters the system, the comb begins its raking operation before the overflow to the effluent channel occurs based on a signal from a level sensor. In the horizontal configuration, the flow is upward through the screen bars to an effluent conduit discharging to the receiving body of water, while the solids and floatables are retained in a continuous flow to the dry weather sewer. When the water level drops below the effluent weir, the sensor signals the rake assembly to stop. The screens are mechanically cleaned, but require periodic cleaning with a high-pressure hose wash by the facility operators in order to dislodge accumulated stringy materials. This type of screen was installed at the Teall Brook FCF in 2000 and has performed well based on discussions with the County. Figure 3-1 presents a typical mechanically raked CSO bar screen installation.

•

•

Advantages –

Proven technology – 47 Westech ROMAG units have been installed in the United States (U.S.)

–

County experience - Teall Brook FCF

–

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

–

Below ground installation

Disadvantages –

Requires large excavation

–

Requires power

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

9

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Potential manufacturers include the following:

•

Westech - ROMAG

•

EIMCO – COPA

•

Hydro International

Figure 3-1 – Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screen (Westech ROMAG) – Vertical Screen Installation

3.2.2 Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

Mechanically cleaned conventional screens are typically mounted in aboveground facilities and utilize numerous mechanical cleaning methods to keep the stationary screen mounted in the flow channel free of debris accumulation. This screen type is used for the removal of floatables and other debris from open channels. A bar screen spacing of ½-inch is typically used for CSO floatables control. Mechanically cleaned conventional screens include the following types:

•

Climber-type Screen Machines

•

Perforated Panel Screens

•

Catenary Screens

•

Chain and Rake Screens

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

10

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Mechanically cleaned conventional screens collect floatables from the face of the submerged bar rack and transfer them to a receptacle where they are accumulated. Following a CSO event, containerized residuals must be transported by truck for further processing. The County has had extensive experience with this type of screen as a number of climber-type screens have recently been installed at numerous County sanitary sewer pump stations and the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro). The screens installed at Metro have performed well treating CSO from the County’s main interceptor sewer. Figure 3-2 presents a typical mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen.

•

•

Advantages –

Proven technology utilized in pump station and wastewater treatment plant settings and channel screening

–

County experience (16 climber-type screens installed in collection and treatment system)

Disadvantages –

Requires above ground facility – may not be able to install in existing right-of-way

–

Requires power

–

May require water based on screen type

–

Requires residuals management after a CSO event

–

Not as simple to operate and maintain as other types of screens

–

Potential odor generation from screenings receptacle

Potential manufacturers include the following:

•

Veolia /John Meunier

•

Headworks

•

JWC

•

Andritz

•

EIMCO

•

WSG Solutions

•

Degremont

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

11

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Figure 3-2 – Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screen (IDI Climber-type)

3.2.3 Horizontal Band Screens

This type of screen is a mechanically cleaned rotating fine screen that is oriented horizontally to the wastewater flow. Flow enters the screen in an upward direction where it is screened and directed over a weir to the outfall. The screen has perforated stainless steel panels with openings of 6 mm that travel around the screen. A rotating brush positioned on the downstream end of the screen removes screened material from the rotating perforated panels and directs the collected debris back into the wastewater flow.

Figure 3-3 presents a typical horizontal band screen. ·

·

Advantages o

Proven technology – 246 installations in Europe

o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

Disadvantages o

Requires large excavation

o

Requires power

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

12

Floatable Control Facility Plan

o

Drive train exposed to wastewater flow

o

Not as simple to operate and maintain as other types of screens

o

Only 2 U.S. CSO installations for this technology

Potential manufacturers include the following: ·

Veolia/John Meunier

·

JWC

Figure 3-3 – Horizontal Band Screen (JWC Storm Monster)

3.2.4 Low Profile Overflow Screens

The low profile overflow screen is a mechanically cleaned fine screen consisting of a profiled weir assembly, modular curved bar rack and a motor driven rake mechanism. The screen retains floatables from the CSO flow by means of a curved bar rack located on a profiled weir assembly. Flow is routed over the profiled weir and down through the screen into the effluent channel. The profile weir assembly is used to evenly distribute the wastewater flow across the entire width of the screen. Floatables and debris are directed by the rake to a collection trough located behind the screen. The screenings are then flushed to the wastewater flow. Figure 3-4 presents a typical low profile overflow screen.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

13

Floatable Control Facility Plan

·

·

Advantages o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

Disadvantages o

Requires large excavation

o

Requires power

o

Drive train exposed to wastewater flow

o

Only one manufacturer

o

Only 2 U.S. installations (4 in Canada)

Veolia/John Meunier is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

RAKE MECHANISM MOTOR

SCREENED OVERFLOW TO RECEIVING WATER

COMBINED INFLUENT SCREENINGS TO WWTP

PROFILED WEIR SCREEN

DRY WEATHER FLOW TO WWTP

Figure 3-4 – Low Profile Overflow Screen (John Meunier)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

14

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.5 Rotary Drum Sieve Screens

This type of screen consists of a large perforated stainless steel cylindrical rotary sieve mounted on a weir wall. The sieve is turned slowly by a hydraulic motor on a gear wheel in a direction such that the clean side is facing the oncoming flow. A brush adjacent to the sieve rotates in the opposite direct from the sieve and directs the collected material back into the wastewater flow. The sieve sizes are available in 4 mm, 5 mm or 6 mm wide slots. Figure 3-5 presents a typical rotary drum sieve screen. ·

·

Advantages o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

Disadvantages o

Requires large excavation

o

Requires power

o

Only one manufacturer

o

No U.S. installations (84 in Europe)

Veolia/John Meunier is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

SCREENED EFFLUENT TO RECEIVING WATER

COMBINED INFLUENT

ROTATING DRUM

ROTATING BRUSH

DRY WEATHER FLOW/ SCREENINGS TO WWTP

Figure 3-5 – Rotary Drum Sieve Screen (John Meunier Hydrovex)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

15

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.6 Pump Action Screens

Pump action screens (PAS) are fine screens fabricated from stainless steel plate consisting of 6 mm perforations typically mounted on the flow side of an overflow weir just below the weir level. There are no mechanical moving parts within the screen itself. The PAS is kept clean using a pump that entrains air into the wastewater flow. The power of the air/water mixture scours the underside of the screen, transporting debris past the end of the screen and on into the wastewater flow preventing the screen from blinding.

Figure 3-6 presents a typical pump action screen installation. ·

·

Advantages o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

Disadvantages o

Requires large excavation

o

Requires power

o

Only one manufacturer

o

No U.S. installations (204 outside U.S.)

CSO Technik is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

Figure 3-6 – Pump Action Screen (CSO Technik)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

16

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.7 Brush Screens

Brush screens consist of fine bristles that provide removal of floatables and debris. The brush screen is mounted horizontally on a shaft that rotates countercurrent to the flow being treated. The rotating brush is cleaned by a fixed comb that directs captured material into a collection trough where it is then carried back into the wastewater stream. The rotating action of the brush screen is provided by the flow action on a water wheel drive that is connected to the brush. Figure 3-7 presents a typical brush screen. ·

·

Advantages o

Below ground installation

o

No power required

Disadvantages o

May require additional cleaning, maintenance and removal of residuals after an event

o

Only one manufacturer

o

No U.S. installations

Hydrok UK is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

Figure 3-7 – Brush Screen (Hydrok Hydroclean)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

17

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.8 Oscillating Static Screens

Oscillating static screens are comprised of welded bar rack modules supported on an elevated bar and are designed to hang downward and pivot in the CSO effluent flow. When an overflow event occurs, flow is routed through the back side of the screen and is directed over an effluent weir. As flows increase and the screen captures more floatables, the headloss increases on the screen resulting in a rotation of the screen upward toward the effluent weir. The rotation prevents the upstream sewer from surcharging while still screening floatables on the upstream side of the screen. After the CSO event subsides the retained floatables are manually cleaned off the screen and directed back to the dry-weather sewer. Figure 3-8 presents a typical oscillating static screen. ·

·

Advantages o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

o

No power required

Disadvantages o

May require more extensive cleaning after an event than other technologies

o

Only one manufacturer

o

Only 5 U.S. installations (54 outside U.S.)

Veolia/John Meunier is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

Figure 3-8 – Oscillating Static Screen (John Meunier)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

18

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.9 Static Screens

A static screen has no moving parts or electrical requirements. Static screens are comprised of a bar rack that may be mounted vertically in the wastewater flow or horizontally above it. Static screens may be designed with self cleaning features that direct collected material into the wastewater flow to the WWTP or they may require manual cleaning and collection of residuals after each CSO event. Since static screens are susceptible to blinding, they are typically used for CSOs with smaller peak flow rates and infrequent activation frequencies. Figure 3-9 presents a typical static screen. ·

·

Advantages o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

o

No power required

Disadvantages o

Could be susceptible to blinding

Potential Manufacturers include the following: ·

Hydro International

·

EIMCO

Figure 3-9 – Static Screen (Hydro International Hydro Static Screen)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

19

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.10 Drum Screens

A drum screen is a non-powered perforated screen that consists of a cylindrical sieve mounted on a weir wall. The drum screen rotates counter to the flow by means of a water wheel located on the interior of the drum. This rotational action keeps floatables in the wastewater that is directed to the dry weather sewer.

There are no additional brushes or collection equipment that requires power. Figure 3-10 presents a typical drum screen. ·

·

Advantages o

No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o

Below ground installation

o

No power required

Disadvantages o

Requires large excavation

o

Only one manufacturer

o

No U.S. installations (multiple installations in the United Kingdom)

EIMCO COPA is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

Figure 3-10 – Drum Screen (EIMCO COPA)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

20

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.2.11 Continuous Deflection Separation

Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) is a variation of the vortex separation technology. The CDS consists of a cylindrical tank that uses a physical barrier, typically a fine screen, between the influent flow and outlet discharge. Flows enter the CDS tank tangentially and are deflected from the discharge by entering a deep sump. Flows are conveyed into the center of the sump and must pass through a screen before proceeding to the discharge. The continuous swirling action in the sump causes heavier solids to fall to the bottom and keeps them away from the screen, thereby eliminating the need for a cleaning mechanism. After an event, the trapped floatables and solids retained in the sump require removal by maintenance personnel via vacuum truck or clamshell bucket. This technology was developed for solids removal in stormwater systems. Figure 3-11 presents a typical CDS installation. ·

·

Advantages o

Below ground installation

o

Smaller excavation than other technologies

o

No power required

Disadvantages o

Requires residuals management after an event

o

Not a proven technology for CSO applications

Potential Manufacturers include the following: ·

CONTECH Construction Products, Inc.

·

Hydro International

Figure 3-11 – Continuous Deflection Separation (CONTECH)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

21

Floatable Control Facility Plan

3.3 Evaluation of Floatables Control Technologies

Each of the floatables control technologies identified were evaluated to determine their feasibility for controlling floatables in CSOs. Floatables control technologies cannot be reviewed solely for their ability to capture floatables; therefore, other non-cost factors such as operation and maintenance requirements, equipment availability and public factors must also be considered. Evaluation criteria were therefore developed to assess the overall impacts of applying each technology to the following non-cost criteria: ·

Water Quality

·

Residuals Management

·

Equipment Maintenance

·

Energy Usage

·

Proven and Reliable Technology

·

Multiple Manufacturers

·

Public Acceptance

Each of the identified floatables control technologies were evaluated with the above criteria. The following were used in the evaluation of the criteria: ·

+ indicates a positive impact (and would carry a +1 score)

·

- indicates a negative impact (and would carry a -1 score)

·

0 indicates a neutral impact depending on the application of the technology (and would carry a 0 score)

A progress meeting was conducted with County personnel on July 15, 2010 to review the screening criteria and determine which criteria should carry a greater weight. The meeting resulted in a decision to place a greater weight (i.e., a positive impact would carry a +2 score and a negative impact would carry a -2 score) on the following three criteria: ·

Equipment Maintenance

·

Residuals Management

·

Proven and Reliable Technology

Table 3-1 presents the definition of the evaluation criteria and metrics used to assign the +/-/0 impacts to the floatables control technology.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

22

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 3-1 – CSO TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION METRICS

Evaluation Criteria a.

Technology requires minimal post event residuals management

Technology requires extensive post event residuals management

Not applicable

Technology requires minimal maintenance

Technology requires frequent maintenance

Technology requires infrequent but regular maintenance

Technology does not require mechanical equipment requiring energy usage

Technology requires mechanical equipment requiring energy usage

Not applicable

Technology has been utilized for CSO floatables control in multiple applications in the U.S. and expected results have been proven reliable

Technology has not been utilized for CSO floatables control in multiple applications in the U.S. and/or results have not yet been proven reliable

Technology has been utilized for CSO control in other countries, or limited applications in the U.S.

Technology available from 2 or more manufacturers

Technology has only one manufacturer

Not applicable

Technology will most likely not require property acquisition, will not include above-grade structures, and will not generate noise or odors, or significant construction impacts

Technology may require property acquisition, will result in an above-grade structure, and may generate noise and odors

Depending on application, this technology may require property acquisition, may result in an above-grade structure and may generate noise and odors

Multiple Manufacturers Equipment is readily available from 2 or more manufacturers.

g.

Provides nominal reduction in water quality pollutants

Proven and Reliable Technology This criteria defines whether the equipment/technology has a number of successful installations in CSO applications in the United States.

f.

Technology cannot significantly reduce the amount of water quality pollutants of concern currently discharged to the environment

Energy Usage Energy usage only includes power needed for the equipment/technology to operate.

e.

Technology can reduce the amount of water quality pollutants of concern currently discharged to the environment

Equipment Maintenance Maintenance includes routine maintenance and any other maintenance needed to keep equipment running properly. Maintenance also includes a subjective review of potential or inherent maintenance issues due to a technologies/ strategies design or construction, complexity, prior experience with similar installations, sustainability, and safety considerations (i.e., confined space entry).

d.

Neutral Impact (0)

Residuals Management Residuals management is defined as any activities that require personnel to perform any of the following; removal of residuals from equipment, heavy cleaning of equipment after an event, containerization of residuals, transportation and disposal of residuals.

c.

Negative Impact (-)

Water Quality Removal of floatables from the CSO is presumed to be a requirement for consideration of a technology/strategy. Other water quality pollutants of concern include Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Suspended Solids (SS).

b.

Positive Impact (+)

Public Acceptance Public acceptance includes a number of factors that affect public perception including but not limited to; disruptions due to construction and ongoing O&M activities, property acquisitions, noise and odors, and above grade facilities.

Z:\bek10\212011386 Table 3-1.docx

Floatable Control Facility Plan

In addition to evaluating potential impacts, each technology was also reviewed to determine possible applications for controlling floatables in an in-channel application (i.e., installed in Harbor Brook). This application is based on a “yes” or “no” to the criteria (i.e., would the technology be applicable to an inchannel configuration).

The County currently operates an in-stream FCF in Harbor Brook that is located approximately 1,700 feet upstream of its confluence with Onondaga Lake. This facility utilizes net bag technology as a means of floatables capture. During discussions with County personnel, it was stated that the facility performs adequately but that the facility is subject to blinding during periods of high flow and that removal and replacement of the bags is cumbersome and labor intensive. To eliminate the blinding and O&M issues associated with the current temporary facility, a permanent, mechanically-cleaned, in-stream facility will be evaluated. A single, permanent in-stream FCF has the following advantages over stand alone underground FCFs: ·

In addition to capturing floatables associated with CSO, a permanent in-stream FCF would capture floatables and debris that make their way into the uncovered portion of Harbor Brook from other sources (i.e., windblown debris, street litter, yard wastes, etc.).

·

An in-stream FCF would continue to capture floatables in Harbor Brook and prevent them from reaching Onondaga Lake even during dry weather flow periods.

·

A single in-stream FCF would decrease the amount of required maintenance associated with numerous stand alone facilities.

·

An in-stream FCF would provide redundancy. A stand-alone facility equipped with a single screen that becomes inoperable will allow the discharge of floatables or cause sewer surcharging.

An in-stream FCF equipped with at least two screens would allow for continued floatables capture should one of the screens become inoperable or be offline due to maintenance.

·

An in-stream FCF would eliminate the need to construct numerous underground FCFs and the continued disruption of neighborhoods that have already endured numerous months of construction related disruptions associated with other ongoing CSO projects (i.e., Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project and CSO Abatement Project).

An in-stream FCF would eliminate numerous employee health and safety concerns during construction and the subsequent operation and maintenance that are normally associated with underground facilities (i.e., confined space entry, access in busy streets and intersections, protection of the public during construction, ventilation, and debris removal).

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

23

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Each of the technologies were scored utilizing the CSO technology evaluation metrics (Table 3-1) and the net scores for each screening criteria were summed. Table 3-2 presents the results of the floatables control technology non-cost evaluation.

3.4 Selected Floatables Control Technologies

The purpose of the floatables control technology non-cost evaluation was to score all of the identified floatables control technologies versus the screening criteria to determine the most appropriate floatables control technologies on a non-cost basis. At the conclusion of this evaluation, technologies resulting in the highest net summation of impacts were considered the most preferred technologies for floatables control.

The evaluation resulted in mechanically raked CSO bar screens and static screens having the highest net impact of all the technologies evaluated and these technologies will be retained for further evaluation.

Though the mechanically cleaned conventional screen did not score well in some of the criteria compared to the above retained technologies, this technology will be retained because it is the only technology evaluated that could be utilized effectively in an in-channel application (i.e., Harbor Brook) should the combined treatment of floatables for several CSOs discharging into the covered portion of Harbor Brook be deemed acceptable by the regulatory authorities.

In addition to the floatables control technologies being evaluated, three other floatables control strategies (sewer separation, green technology, and convey to treatment/storage facility) were also evaluated based on their ability to effectively remove floatables. As a result, sewer separation and convey to treatment/storage facility will be retained for further evaluation. Although green technologies are effective as CSO abatement controls, they are not deemed effective based solely on a floatables removal basis.

In summary, the following floatables control technologies and strategies will be retained for further evaluation: 路

路

Floatables Control Technologies o

Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

o

Static Screens

o

Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

Other Strategies o

Sewer Separation

o

Convey to Treatment/Storage Facility

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

24

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 3-2 - FLOATABLES CONTROL TECHNOLOGY NON-COST EVALUATION Technologies Other Strategies

(5)

Unpowered Equipment

Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

Horizontal Band Screens

Low Profile Overflow Screens

Rotary Drum Sieve Screens

Pump Action Screens

Brush Screens

Oscillating Static Screens

Static Screens

Drum Screens

Continuous Deflection Separation

Sewer Separation

Green Technology

Convey to Treatment/Storage Facility

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

+

+

+

++

--

++

++

++

++

--

--

++

++

--

++

--

++

0

--

--

--

0

--

--

++

++

++

++

++

--

++

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

++

++

--

0

0

0

--

0

++

--

--

++

0

++

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

+

N/A

N/A

N/A

Public Acceptance

+

-

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

0

+

+

0

Net Impact

+5

-3

-1

-1

+1

-1

-7

+1

+9

+3

0

+9

-1

+8

In Channel Floatables Capture

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

N/A

N/A

N/A

Retained for Further Evaluation

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

(1)

Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

( 2)

Powered Equipment

Screening Criteria Water Quality Residuals Management

(4)

Equipment Maintenance

(4)

Energy Usage Proven and Reliable Technology Multiple Manufacturers

(3)

(4)

Notes: 1. Includes horizontal and vertical CSO screens 2. Includes climber type, band/perforated panel, chain and rake, and catenary type screens. Although this technology did not score well it is being retained as it was deemed most appropriate for an in-channel floatables control facility (i.e., installed in Harbor Brook).

3. Applies to technologies only 4. In the July 15, 2010 Progress Meeting these criteria were deemed to have a greater importance and; therefore, the weights for these criteria were doubled.

5. The technology non-cost evaluation in addition to evaluating floatables control equipment also included evaluations of the following floatables control strategies: sewer separation, green technology and conveyance of flows to an adjacent treatment and/or storage facility.

Z:\bek10\212011386 Table

3-2.docx

Key “+” indicates a positive impact “–“ indicates a negative impact “0” or ”N/A” indicates a neutral

Floatable Control Facility Plan

4. FCF Abatement Approaches 4.1 Introduction

As presented in Section 3.4, the following CSO floatables control technologies and strategies were determined to be the most feasible for achieving compliance with the Fourth Stipulation and Order. ·

FCFs (either individual or grouped) utilizing the following screening technologies: o

Mechanically raked CSO bar screens

o

Static screens

o

Mechanically cleaned conventional screens for an in-stream application

·

Sewer Separation

·

Convey to Treatment/Storage Facility

Recognizing that multiple combinations of the above control technologies and strategies exist, this section presents the most viable floatables control alternatives and presents a present worth cost analysis for the most viable floatables control alternatives.

4.2 Potential CSO Groupings

By utilizing the flow information presented in Table 2-2, site inspections and review of available sewer mapping and construction documents, CSO groupings were developed based upon combining CSOs which are in close proximity to other CSOs. In general, minimizing the number of facilities maximizes the total length of consolidation pipelines required to convey overflows to floatables control facilities, and vice versa.

Therefore, CSO groupings were developed where CSOs were in close proximity to one another and consolidation pipeline requirements were minimal. In addition, CSOs located on opposite sides of Harbor Brook were eliminated from consideration from grouping together due to the requirement that a siphon connection would be required to convey flows under Harbor Brook to the FCF and recognizing that maintaining a siphon designed for intermittent flows is not desirable from an operational and maintenance standpoint. CSOs not in close proximity to other CSOs or opposite sides of Harbor Brook from one another will be evaluated for stand alone, individual FCFs. Based on a review of the FCF Plan CSOs, the following groupings were identified: ·

A FCF located at CSO 005 combining CSOs 005 and 006A

·

A FCF located at CSO 014 combining CSOs 014 and 015

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

25

Floatable Control Facility Plan

4.3 Harbor Brook In-stream FCF

Another potential CSO grouping would include controlling the floatables from the CSOs which discharge directly into the covered portion of Harbor Brook at an in-stream FCF located near the outlet of the covered portion located adjacent to State Fair Boulevard. The covered portion of Harbor Brook begins at Delaware Street and daylights downstream at State Fair Boulevard and includes discharges from the following FCF Plan CSOs (listed in order from upstream to downstream): 014, 011, 010, 009, 007, 006A, 006 and 005.

Due to its proximity to the covered portion of Harbor Brook, CSO 015 could also be conveyed to CSO 014 and included in the in-stream FCF. Under the in-stream FCF grouping, CSO 015 would be closed and redirected to the CSO 014 outfall which discharges into the covered portion of Harbor Brook. The in-stream FCF would be located in Harbor Brook to capture floatables in the stream via mechanically cleaned conventional screens with disposal of the screenings into a receptacle for removal by County personnel. The new in-stream FCF would be constructed to replace the existing temporary in-stream FCF currently located north of Hiawatha Boulevard and would need to be constructed in the existing stream bed and be equipped with bypass channel(s) to convey excess flows above the design storm frequency. In addition, the equipment and screenings receptacle would require a building enclosure for protection from the elements and to minimize potential odors. The construction of an in-stream FCF will require approval of the regulatory agencies as the facility would be located within Harbor Brook and its associated flood plain. The in-stream FCF would be sized to convey the projected 100-year stream flow (1,310 cfs, FEMA Flood Study, November 1981) and treat floatables up to the 1-year, 2-hour design storm event. Based on annual peak stream flow records from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station 04240105 located on Harbor Brook, north of Hiawatha Boulevard, the average annual peak flow is equal to approximately 428 cfs (based on 30-years of record 1980-2009).

4.4 Most Viable Floatables Control Alternatives

In addition to the CSO groupings and in-stream FCF identified in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, sewer separation was also identified as a feasible floatables control strategy. Since sewer separation has previously been evaluated on a basin-wide approach (reference: Harbor Brook CSO Abatement Facilities Plan, dated August 2005 as prepared by Brown and Caldwell), this FCF Plan is only evaluating partial separation, i.e., for individual CSO tributary areas. Because sewer separation has historically been a costly control method, especially for floatables control, it has been assumed that CSO tributary areas less than 15 acres be considered for sewer separation. This rationale is based on historical sewer separation costs in the County which have averaged approximately $200,000 per acre resulting in a $3 million construction cost for a 15 acre area. Sewer separation for tributary areas greater than 15 acres are considerably more costly than other FCF control alternatives, and therefore sewer separation was not considered for those CSOs with larger tributary areas. The CSOs which were considered for sewer separation include CSOs 005, 006, 006A and 061.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

26

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Based upon discussions with the County and floatables control equipment manufacturers, it was reasoned that for FCFs which have lower peak flow rates and/or low activation rates, that the use of static screens as opposed to more costly and equipment intensive mechanically raked CSO bar screens would be an appropriate technology application. Therefore, it was assumed that CSOs which have projected peak flow rates of less than 20 cubic feet second (cfs) or 13 mgd and overflow frequencies less than 12 times per year (based on the typical year rainfall) would be equipped with static screens including CSOs 005, 006A, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011 and 061. CSOs with greater than 20 cfs and/or overflow frequencies greater than 12 times per year would be equipped with mechanically raked CSO bar screens including CSOs 063, 014, 015, 017, 018, 078 and 076. In addition, the grouped FCFs, which have projected peak flows greater than 20 cfs, would be equipped with mechanically raked CSO bar screens.

Due to the CSO 063 location near the proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (which is designed to store flows from CSOs 003 and 004), conveyance of the flow from CSO 063 to the storage facility will be evaluated as a separate alternative. Conveyance of flow from CSO 063 will involve permanently closing CSO 063 and installing a pipeline from the existing outfall location for CSO 063 along Erie Boulevard West to the regulator structure of CSO 003 located at Hiawatha Boulevard West. The proposed pipeline from CSO 003 to the storage facility will also be up-sized to handle the additional flow from CSO 063. In addition to the upsized pipeline, the storage capacity at the proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility will also need to be increased by 0.6 MG (1-year, 2-hour design storm event volume). CSOs 003 and 004 are being designed to discharge flows up to the 1-year, 2-hour design storm to the proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility. Above the design storm, flows from CSOs 003 and 004 would continue to discharge to Harbor Brook.

Based on the above discussions, the following most viable floatables control alternatives have been identified for further evaluation: ·

Alternative 1: Individual FCFs at all FCF Plan CSOs

·

Alternative 2: Individual FCFs at CSOs 063, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 017, 018, 078, 061 and 076; Grouped FCFs for CSOs 005 and 006A, and 014 and 015.

·

Alternative 3: Convey CSO 063 to proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; Grouped FCFs for CSOs 005 and 006A, and 014 and 015. Individual FCFs at CSOs 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 017, 018, 078, 061 and 076.

·

Alternative 4: Convey CSO 063 to proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; Sewer Separation for CSO areas 005, 006, 006A and 061; Grouped FCF for CSOs 014 and 015; Individual FCFs at CSOs 007, 009, 010, 011, 017, 018, 078 and 076.

·

Alternative 5: Convey CSO 063 to proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; Harbor Brook Instream FCF for CSOs 015, 014, 011, 010, 009, 007, 006A, 006 and 005; Sewer Separation for CSO 061; Individual FCFs at CSOs 017, 018, 078 and 076.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

27

Floatable Control Facility Plan

4.5 Present Worth Cost Evaluation

Preliminary construction costs and total present worth cost estimates were developed for each of the above identified most viable control alternatives and are presented in Table 4-1. Assumptions and methodologies used to develop the costs are provided in the following sections.

4.5.1 FCF Costs

The base construction cost for FCFs was determined by utilizing the EPA CSO screening construction cost curve from the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Manual (1993). Construction costs are based on the treatment capacity of the equipment in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The cost of the FCF includes the screening equipment, structure and associated typical appurtenances (connection piping, weirs, gates, related site work, etc). Not included in the costs provided by the curves are additional concrete due to special configurations necessitated by site constraints, piping in excess of making connections to existing conveyance piping, access roads or land acquisition. Additional costs associated with grouped CSO facilities include connection piping and structures to convey flow from the upstream CSO to the downstream CSO in the group. Additional costs associated with the grouped CSOs were added to the cost obtained from the cost curves. Additional costs associated with the instream FCF were added to the screen cost from the manufacturer.

Equipment replacement curves were compiled based on the screening technology (static or mechanical) and include the cost of replacing the equipment only, installation labor and contractors overhead and profit.

Base equipment costs were obtained from equipment manufacturers for the selected screening technologies, and were utilized to provide a replacement cost of the equipment for present worth analysis.

Operation and maintenance cost curves were adapted from the EPA Combined Sewer Overflow Control Manual for 10 and 30 overflow events per year. Operation and maintenance curves were extrapolated for additional overflows of 5 and 20 per year to provide some measure of the costs associated with O&M for event occurrences outside the EPA range. O&M costs are based on the treatment capacity of the equipment in MGD and the number of overflow events per year.

The Construction Cost Curve, Equipment Replacement Cost Curves, and the O&M Cost Curves for FCFs are included in Appendix A. 4.5.2 Sewer Separation Costs

Sewer separation costs were calculated for CSOs that presented the opportunity for the sewer separation alternative. To determine construction costs that could be used to calculate costs for future sewer separation projects, at the direction of the County, Camp Dresser and McKee/C&S Engineers, A Joint

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

28

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 4-1 – Summary of the Most Viable Floatable Control Alternatives

CSO Number

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Individual FCF

Convey to Storage

Convey to Storage

Convey to Storage

Grouped FCF

Grouped FCF

Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area 063 005 006A

Sewer Separation

1

006 007 009

Individual FCF

Individual FCF

In-Stream FCF Individual FCF

010

Individual FCF

011 014 Grouped FCF

Grouped FCF

Grouped FCF

Individual FCF

Individual FCF

Individual FCF

015 017 018

Individual FCF

078 Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area 061

Sewer Separation Individual FCF

Individual FCF

1

Sewer Separation

Individual FCF

076

Individual FCF

Individual FCF

Number of FCFs

15

13

12

9

5

Closed CSOs

0

2

3

6

3

Construction 2 Cost (millions)

$13.4

$13.6

$14.2

$19.3

$14.7

Present Worth 2 Cost (millions)

$26.1

$25.7

$26.6

$32.9

$24.6

Notes: 1.

Areas designated for monitoring and potential closure. Costs are based on sewer separation.

2.

Costs are based on October 2010 Dollars (ENR CCI = 8920), rounded.

Z:\bek10\212011386 Table 4-1.docx

1

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Venture (CDM/C&S), the Lake Improvement Project Manager, reviewed actual construction costs for newly installed sanitary sewer that has been installed for several recent County sewer separation projects. In their Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates memorandum dated August 10, 2010, CDM/C&S recommended using a linear foot unit cost of $1,315 for sewer separation based on their review. It was agreed at the progress meeting conducted by County personnel on July 15, 2010, that any sewer separation construction cost estimates would utilize the linear foot cost for sewer separation developed by CDM/C&S. The unit cost was adjusted from the July 2010 ENRCCI of 8865 to the current ENRCCI of 8920 for October 2010 which resulted in a unit cost for sewer separation of $1,323 per linear foot. This unit price was multiplied by the linear footage of existing combined sewer, taken from County sewer maps, currently contributing to each CSO designated for separation. The cost for sewer separation represents the installation of a new parallel sanitary sewer adjacent to the existing combined sewer and installation of new laterals from contributing properties to the new sanitary sewer. Also included in the cost for sewer separation is the cost of full width street and sidewalk restoration, installation of new curbing, existing regulator reconfiguration and the installation of new water mains and water service lines.

A copy of the CDM/C&S Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates memorandum is included in Appendix B. 4.5.3 Conveyance Costs

Additional costs associated for piping for grouped FCFs was calculated and added to the facility costs obtained from the facility cost curve to obtain the Construction Cost for these facilities. The additional conveyance piping was needed to connect potential grouped FCFs together and was calculated based on the distance from the upstream CSO to the downstream CSO of the grouping. The cost of additional piping needed for grouped FCFs also includes any required manholes, structures and associated discharge piping.

A copy of the estimate for the proposed grouped FCFs is included in Appendix C. The construction costs associated with the conveyance of flow from CSO 063 to the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility via CSO 003 includes the following: 路

Conveyance piping from CSO 063 to CSO 003;

路

Upsizing of the planned conveyance from CSO 003 to the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; and

路

Additional storage capacity (tankage).

A copy of the estimate for the CSO 063 conveyance is included in Appendix C.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

29

Floatable Control Facility Plan

4.5.4 In-stream FCF Costs

The construction cost for the in-stream FCF includes: ·

The construction cost for the screening facility was based on manufacturers budget pricing for screening equipment and the cost of the building that will house the equipment (EPA cost curve only goes to 200 MGD and does not necessarily apply for an above ground, in-stream screening facility);

·

Costs associated with additional concrete needed for reconfiguration of Harbor Brook, a stream bypass channel, and building foundations;

·

Six inch trash racks upstream of screening facility to protect the screening equipment from oversize debris;

·

Costs for a conveyor needed to transfer screenings from the mechanically cleaned screens to a screenings receptacle; and

·

Stream restoration, access road and stream flow bypassing during construction.

A copy of the estimate for the in-stream FCF is included in Appendix C. 4.5.5 Present Worth Costs

After calculating construction costs for the identified alternatives, a present worth cost evaluation was conducted to determine life cycle costs associated with each alternative. Calculation of present worth cost was based on the recommendations of CDM/C&S in the Onondaga ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide memorandum dated August 18, 2010 (Revised September 10, 2010). A copy of the CDM/C&S Onondaga ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide memorandum is included in Appendix D. Utilizing the guidelines in the memorandum, a present worth cost was calculated for each of the alternatives that included the following: ·

Total Construction Cost – Total Construction Cost is the construction cost of the facility plus the Contractor’s Mobilization times a 20% Construction Contingency.

·

Total Project Cost – Total Project Cost is the Total Construction Cost plus 15% for Engineering and 5% for County Construction Management (CM) and Administration. Both the engineering and County CM percentages are based on the Total Construction Cost.

·

Total Present Worth Cost – Total Present Worth Cost Includes the Total Project Cost plus the Equipment Replacement Cost plus the O&M Present Worth Cost. O&M Present Worth Cost factors

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

30

Floatable Control Facility Plan

include the annual O&M cost based on the O&M Cost Curves, a 3% discount rate and an O&M life cycle of 30 years. Equipment replacement is assumed to occur at 20 years.

Copies of the cost spreadsheets used to calculate the present worth for each of the identified alternatives are provided in Appendix E.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

31

Floatable Control Facility Plan

5. Recommended FCF Plan 5.1 Introduction

This section provides the recommended FCF plan and preliminary opinion of probable project costs, a preliminary basis of design of the FCF Plan projects, identification of permitting and operation and maintenance requirements and a proposed implementation schedule. In addition, a description of the recommended CSO discharge flow monitoring plan and a description of potential green infrastructure considerations are presented.

5.2 Recommended FCF Plan

Based on the analysis of the present worth costs for each alternative identified in Section 4.4 the following observations can be made from Table 4-1: ·

Alternative 5 is the least expensive;

·

Alternative 4 is the most expensive;

·

The present worth cost of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 are within 2.0 million dollars of one another;

·

CSOs closed by each alternative can be evaluated to determine if an alternative that results in the closure of more CSOs may be warranted even though that alternative may result in a slightly increased present worth cost; and

·

Number of new FCFs for each alternative.

Based on the above observations, the following can be surmised: ·

Alternative 1 is the third least costly option (based on present worth). Alternative 1 results in 15 FCFs that must be operated and maintained by the County. Additionally, no CSOs are closed under this alternative.

·

Alternative 2 is the second least costly option. This alternative results in 13 new FCF facilities and the closure of only 2 CSOs.

·

Alternative 3 is the fourth least costly option and results in 12 new FCF facilities and the closure of 3 CSOs. This alternative closes an additional CSO when compared to Alternative 2 for an additional $900,000 (Present Worth Cost) with the construction of the 063 conveyance to the Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

32

Floatable Control Facility Plan

路

Alternative 4 is the most costly option but results in the closure of the most CSOs (6). This alternative also results in the second fewest new FCFs to be constructed (9).

路

Alternative 5 is the least costly option and results in the closure of 3 CSOs. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative 5 also results in the fewest number of new FCFs (5) that would need to be constructed and maintained. Alternative 5 also provides greater redundancy and has less health and safety issues associated with its operation and maintenance compared to the other alternatives.

This alternative will need regulatory approval in addition to approval from the City of Syracuse due to its proposed location in Harbor Brook and its associated flood plain.

Based on the above, Alternative 1 should be eliminated from further consideration due to the fact that it closes no CSOs when compared to similarly cost alternatives and results in numerous FCFs that must be maintained. Siting of the FCFs required for Alternative 1 may also be difficult due to the limited available area in several of the CSO locations. Additionally, several of the CSOs are located in areas of the County that have been recently disrupted due to the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement and CSO Abatement Project and it may be desirable to limit continued disruption of these neighborhoods. Alternative 4 should be eliminated due to the highest overall cost associated with sewer separation. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 should be eliminated because they result in numerous new FCFs to be maintained (13 for Alternate 2 and 12 for Alternate 3), continued community disruption, and in the case of Alternate 2 the closure of only 2 CSOs. Alternate 5 provides a favorable mix of cost, environmental benefit, i.e., 3 CSOs closed, and a manageable number of new FCFs (5) that must be operated and maintained by the County.

Alternative 5 also provides the additional benefit of having the ability to remove more floatables originating from upstream separate stormwater areas and street litter and debris entering the brook from sources other than CSOs. For the reasons stated above, Alternate 5 is recommended for the selected alternative.

5.3 Preliminary Basis of Design

A preliminary basis of design for the recommended FCF Plan is presented in Table 5-1. Site plans for Alternative 5 are presented on Figures 5-1 through 5-8.

5.4 Identification of Required Permitting

If the recommended FCF Plan is implemented by the County, compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review ACT (SEQR) laws will be required. It is anticipated that the action would be considered a Type I action under SEQR. This classification will require a full environmental review of potential impacts under the SEQR process, including establishment of the lead agency, completion of a full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), determination of significance of impacts, and, if necessary based on impact significance, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

33

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 5-1 – Preliminary Basis of Design CSO Number

1

Proposed CSO Status

Preliminary Basis of Design

063

Closed

Convey to Harbor Brook Storage Facility – 48” diameter PVC pipe and manholes to convey flow (37 mgd) from CSO 063 to CSO 003, upsize pipe from CSO 003 to storage tank from 48” diameter to 54” diameter, provide additional storage capacity

005

Active

006

Active

006A

Active

007

Active

009

Active

010

Active

011

Active

014

Active

015

Closed (Redirected to CSO 014)

017

Active

Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 17 mgd

Active

Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 17 mgd

Active

Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 28 mgd

061

Closed

Sewer separation

076

Active

Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 23 mgd

2

018

2

078

3

Grouped CSOs to discharge to Harbor Brook (combined CSO flow 129 mgd peak year stream flow equal to 277 mgd) with flow from CSO 015 conveyed to CSO 014 in 30” diameter PVC pipe, in-stream facility equipped with mechanically cleaned conventional screens and conveyor sized for 277 mgd, by-pass channel sized to the projected 100-year storm stream flow

Note: 1. Conveyance pipes sized based on full flow, Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.013 and a slope of 0.008 ft/ft. Conveyance pipe for CSO 063 based on existing 48” diameter influent pipe to regulator.

2. CSOs 018 and 078 could be combined at a grouped FCF pending the findings of a wetlands treatment evaluation.

3. County verifying activation frequency and has installed a flow monitor in this CSO (since January 2011). If CSO 061 is determined to be inactive, it will be closed. If CSO 061 is determined to be active, green infrastructure may be implemented in lieu of sewer separation to control floatables.

INT E

063 OUTFALL

# EM ERS ON

AVE .

RS TA TE 690

063

#

BO

R

BR

O

O

K

AW AT H HI

48" Ø

E AT ST IR FA .

VD BL

003

#

UPSIZE PIPE: 48" Ø TO 54" Ø I ER E

ACCESS ROAD

.W VD BL ES T

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_063_Alt5.mxd - 4/26/2011 @ 11:32:38 AM

A

BL VD

.W .

HA R

IN-STREAM FCF

RU

SIN

E. AV

PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY

004

#

LEGEND:

#

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY PROPOSED FCF LOCATION ACCESS ROAD PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE

0

300

HARBOR BROOK COVERED PORTION

600 Feet

HARBOR BROOK OPEN PORTION GRAPHIC SCALE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 063 SITE PLAN FIGURE

5-1

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\InstreamFCF.mxd - 4/20/2011 @ 2:12:29 PM

FCF WITH CONVEYOR AND LOADING AREA ACCESS ROAD

RU

SIN

E. AV

HARBOR BROOK BYPASS CHANNEL

PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY

E AT ST IR FA

IE

.

VD BL

ER T ES

D OA ILR

W

RA

VD BL

HA

LEGEND:

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED FCF LOCATION PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY ACCESS ROAD

100

ALTERNATIVE 5 IN-STREAM FCF

200 Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

K OO

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

BYPASS CHANNEL

0

R

R RB BO

FIGURE

5-2

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_014_015_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:45:51 AM

HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR 014

66" Ø O/F TO HARBOR BROOK 66" Ø MODIFIED DIVERSION STRUCTURE

OR

K

E .

ST

H

B AR

OO

AR W LA DE

30" Ø

BR

MODIFIED DIVERSION STRUCTURE (CLOSED O/F) D GRAN

AVE.

HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR

015

30" Ø

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

LEGEND: CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 014 AND 015 SITE PLAN

EXISTING PIPELINES HARBOR BROOK COVERED PORTION

0

150

300 Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

FIGURE

5-3

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_017_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:16:41 AM

016

LYDELL ST.

.

HOEFFLER ST

HOLDEN ST.

30" Ø O/F TO HARBOR BROOK

017

MODIFIED 017 DIVERSION STRUCTURE R BRO O HARBO

K

HARTSON ST.

DRY WEATHER FLOW TO HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR

LEGEND:

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED FCF LOCATION PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE EXISTING PIPELINES

0

150

300 Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

30" PIPE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 017 SITE PLAN FIGURE

5-4

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_018_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:32:14 AM

VELASKO ROAD DETENTION BASIN R BRO O HARBO

K

30" Ø O/F TO CHANNEL TO HARBOR BROOK

VELASKO ROAD DETENTION BASIN

MODIFIED 018 DIVERSION STRUCTURE 018

DRY WEATHER FLOW TO HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR

42" Ø

LEGEND:

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED FCF LOCATION PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE EXISTING PIPELINES PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD

0

150

300 Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 018 SITE PLAN FIGURE

5-5

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_078_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:47:44 AM

TO VELASKO ROAD DETENTION BASIN SK VELA O RD .

27" Ø O/F E. AV E U EV LL BE

078

DRY WEATHER FLOW TO INTERCEPTOR

36" Ø

15" Ø

LEGEND:

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED FCF LOCATION EXISTING PIPELINES PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE

0

100

200 Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 078 SITE PLAN FIGURE

5-6

R. KD KP AR KIR

ON O

ND

AG

AC

RE EK

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_061_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:50:47 AM

PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER

061

HAN CRE

GE

ST.

MODIFIED REGULATOR STRUCTURE (CLOSE O/F)

LEGEND:

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING PIPELINES

0

100 GRAPHIC SCALE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 061 SITE PLAN 200 Feet

FIGURE

5-7

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000) Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_076_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:55:23 AM

DRY WEATHER FLOW TO INTERCEPTOR

62" Ø

N ONO DAG

076

AC REE

N AVE. RIGHTO WEST B

REGULATOR STRUCTURE

K

076 OUTFALL

54" Ø O/F TO ONONDAGA CREEK

LEGEND:

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

PROPOSED FCF LOCATION PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE EXISTING PIPELINES

0

150

300 Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

ALTERNATIVE 5 CSO 076 SITE PLAN FIGURE

5-8

Floatable Control Facility Plan

The environmental impact review work should proceed concurrently with the preliminary and final design of the recommended FCF Plan, since the design activities provide needed components and construction information for the SEQR documents.

In addition to the requirements of SEQR, the recommended FCF Plan would require review and acceptance by the NYSDEC for technical compliance with the “Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.”

Permits required for the selected alternative may include the following: ·

NYSDEC/United States Army Corps of Engineers Joint Stream Disturbance Permit for proposed work in Harbor Brook;

·

City of Syracuse Street Cut Permit for any work requiring disturbance of street surfaces;

·

City of Syracuse approval for work conducted in Harbor Brook flood plain; and

·

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Construction (GP-0-10-001) for construction activities.

Based on discussions with NYSDEC permit personnel, no other permits to construct the in-stream FCF were identified.

5.5 CSO Discharge Flow Monitoring

Based on the County’s Proposed Modifications to the Ambient Monitoring Program Work Plan (AMP) dated May 14, 2010 all CSOs included in this FCF plan will be equipped with monitoring equipment as outlined in Table 5-3 of the AMP. Provisions will be made during design of the FCFs to include the recommended instrumentation and controls necessary to obtain the desired information. It should be noted that final selection of the flow monitoring devices and locations are subject to review and approval by the NYSDEC. Table 5-2 summarizes the recommended instrumentation and monitoring parameters for the CSOs covered by this FCF Plan from Table 5-3 of the AMP modified to reflect CSO closures/diversions by Alternative 5. In addition to flow monitoring at the regulator equipment structures, flow monitoring at the in-stream FCF would monitor flow conditions and be available electronically.

5.6 Operation and Maintenance Requirements

The purpose of the FCF Plan projects is to provide effective floatables control up to the 1-year, 2-hour design storm event. Each type of FCF will have specific operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements.

The following is a description of O&M requirements for each of the proposed FCFs for the selected alternative.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

34

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan TABLE 5-2 – CSO Flow Monitoring

1, 2, 3

CSO Number

Flow Monitoring Plan

063

Water Level Sensor

005 & 006A

Water Level Sensor

006

Water Level Sensor

006

Water Level Sensor

007

Water Level Sensor

009

Water Level Sensor

010

Water Level Sensor

011

Water Level Sensor

014

Flow Meter, Sampler

015

Ultrasonic Level Sensor

017

Water Level Sensor

018

Water Level Sensor

078

Water Level Sensor

4

061

Sewer Separation

076

Water Level Sensor

Notes: 1. Flow monitoring plan from Table 5-3 Ambient Monitoring Program Work Plan dated May 14, 2010.

2. Sensors proposed to be integrated in existing or new regulator structures or FCF structures.

3. Water level sensor to monitor water level and CSO activation duration. Data may be translated to calculate discharge volume.

4. County verifying activation frequency and has installed a flow meter in this CSO (since January 2011). If CSO 061 is determined to be active, green infrastructure may be implemented in lieu of sewer separation.

Floatable Control Facility Plan

5.6.1 FCF – Static Screen

Operation and maintenance requirements for the static screen are minimal due to the nature of the screen’s design. The static screen has no moving parts that need adjustment, replacement or lubrication. Though this type of screen is designed to be self-cleaning it is recommended that following a CSO event, personnel clean the screen using a high pressure water hose. The screen is installed so that personnel may walk on the screen during cleaning operations and also inspect the screen for damage following each event.

5.6.2 FCF – Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

Operation and maintenance requirements for mechanically cleaned CSO bar screens will be the same as currently required at the Teall Brook FCF. Mechanical screens will need regular manufacturer recommended maintenance, checking of fluids used in drive units and inspection of hydraulic hoses, and replacement of wear parts (rake combs). Though this type of screen is mechanically cleaned, personnel should inspect the unit following each CSO event. The use of high pressure water or manual methods may be needed to dislodge any material that has become lodged between the screen bars.

5.6.3 Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screen

Operation and maintenance of mechanically cleaned conventional screens for use in a CSO setting would be similar to the numerous installations of this type of screen currently installed in County pump stations and at the Metro WWTP. Mechanically cleaned conventional screens will require regular manufacturer recommended maintenance which may include checking of fluid levels in drives, checking fasteners for tightness, and replacement of wear parts such as wipers and rake teeth. Though this type of screen is mechanically cleaned, personnel should inspect the unit following each CSO event.

5.6.4 CSO Conveyance and Sanitary Sewer Pipelines

Maintenance requirements for CSO conveyance and sanitary sewer pipelines will consist of periodic pipeline cleaning (hydro-jetting) and cleaning of manholes and regulators of debris. Televised inspection of pipelines should also be conducted periodically to ensure that unsatisfactory conditions are corrected.

5.7 Green Infrastructure

As previously discussed in Section 3.4, the exclusive use of green infrastructure is not an effective floatables control strategy; however, by utilizing green infrastructure to help reduce runoff volumes, “grey infrastructure” can be reduced in size. The County is currently evaluating the use of green infrastructure to reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff introduced to the combined sewer system. A reduction in runoff quantity could reduce the overall flow in the sewer system resulting in the reduction in CSOs which could

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

35

Floatable Control Facility Plan

result in a reduced FCF. Green infrastructure that is under consideration by the County includes, but is not limited to, the following green technologies: · Porous pavements; · Green streets; · Vegetated swales; · Rain gardens; · Bio-retention (constructed wetland) facilities; and · Infiltration trenches.

Prior to design and construction of “gray infrastructure” required to control floatables, the County will evaluate the use of green infrastructure to reduce and/or eliminate selected CSOs. This evaluation period will take into consideration the timeline required to meet the requirements of the Fourth Stipulation and Order. Following the installation and evaluation period for the selected green infrastructure, a determination will be made regarding whether the selected green infrastructure was successful in reducing or eliminating the CSOs. Based on this determination, the appropriately sized FCF will be designed and constructed.

5.8 Implementation Schedule

Per the Fourth Stipulation and Order, the County has one year from entry (November 16, 2009) to submit this FCF Plan to the NYSDEC and ASLF for review and NYSDEC approval. Paragraph 14O of the Fourth Stipulation and Order further states: “The plan shall include proposed projects to address each CSO and a proposed implementation schedule for completing said projects. Upon approval from the NYSDEC of the projects and proposed completion dates, the completion dates shall become major milestone compliance dates under the ACJ and the County shall be obligated to construct said projects by the designated milestone dates.”

Since the County currently has several large CSO abatement projects in various stages of design and construction in the Harbor Brook and Onondaga Creek sewer service areas, it is the County’s intent to monitor the impacts from these projects, e.g., Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility and Clinton Street Storage Facility for impacts on floatables capture prior to initiating final design of the identified FCF projects.

As such, the initiation for design services for the FCF projects will commence in 2014. In the interim, floatables capture will be monitored at the existing Harbor Brook In-stream FCF and at the proposed CSO storage facilities as they are activated.

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

36

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Based upon the above, the following is the recommended implementation schedule for the recommended FCF Plan projects.

Project Schedule Activity

Proposed Date

Acceptance of FCF Plan

Assume Effective Date of Approval (EDA) is May 2011

RFP Process for Engineering Services

June 1, 2013

Initiate Design Services

January 1, 2014

Complete Design, Permitting and Regulatory Review Phase

January 1, 2016

Bid Advertisement

April 1, 2016

Start Construction

July 1, 2016

Project Completion

December 31, 2017*

*No later than December 31, 2018 (CSO Stage IV Compliance Schedule)

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc

37

Appendices

Appendix A Cost Curves

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan CSO Screening Facilities Construction Cost Curve

$100.0

Construction Cost (Millions)

$10.0

Cost = 0.087*Capacity0.843

Adapted from EPA Combined Sewer Overflow Control 1993

Teall Brook

$1.0

Cost Curve

$0.1

ENR CCI Oct. 2010 8920 (Rounded)

$0.0 1

10

100 Treatment Capacity (MGD)

1,000

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan CSO Screening Facilities Equipment Replacement Cost Curves $350,000

$300,000

Cost = 2286.9*Capacity + 146543

Installed Cost (Equip. Only)

$250,000

Cost = 4083.1*Capacity + 13378 $200,000

Mech. Raked CSO Screen $150,000

Static CSO Screen

$100,000

ENR CCI Oct. 2010 8920 (Rounded)

$50,000

$0 0

10

20

30

40

50

Treatment Capacity (MGD)

60

70

80

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan CSO Screening Facilities Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves

100.0

O&M Cost = 0.2586*Capacity + 18.584

Annual O&M Costs (Thousands)

O&M Cost = 0.1784*Capacity + 12.606 Adapted from EPA Combined Sewer Overflow Control 1993

Teall Brook*

O&M Cost = 0.1319*Capacity + 7.4779 ENR CCI October 2010 8920 (Rounded)

† 5 O/F Events Year

10.0

10 O/F Events Year†

O&M Cost = 0.0659*Capacity + 3.7389

20 O/F Events Year 30 O/F Events Year

†Extrapolated *Teall Brook 2009 O&M Cost $22,000 (Source: OCDWEP). Adjusted to October 2010.

1.0 1

10

100 Treatment Capacity (MGD)

1000

Appendix B Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates Memorandum

Salina Industrial Power Park, One General Motors Drive Syracuse, New York 13206 - Ph: 315/434-3200 - Fx: 315/463-5100

MEMO TO:

Patricia M. Pastella, Commissioner OCDWEP

FROM:

Robert J. Kukenberger, P.E.

RE:

Review of Sewer Separation Costs

SUBJECT:

Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates

DATE:

August 10, 2010

CDM/C&S has reviewed the actual construction costs per linear foot of newly installed sanitary sewer for Sewer Separation projects completed under the Lake Improvement Project and evaluated the final project costs in 2010 dollars. .The projects included in the evaluation were the West Street and CSO 024, 038, 040, 046A, 046B, 047, 048, 050, 051, 053 and 054 Sewer Separation Projects (see attached Table 1).

Since January of 2006, the County has completed construction of three Sewer Separation Projects that separated a total of 4 CSO Areas (047, 048, 050 and 051). The projects separated sewers serving residential section of the City located along the South Avenue Corridor from the Onondaga Creek crossing to West Colvin Street. These projects included a general shift in County policy that included more surface restoration such as full-depth, curb-to-curb pavement reconstruction; new curbing and sidewalks for the project area; and green infrastructure. The projects completed prior to 2006 included both residential and commercial areas of the City, and surface restoration was limited consisted of sewer trench pavement and subbase restoration with full width milling and paving of top course, and replacement curbing and sidewalks where directly impacted by sewer lateral installation. In addition, over the course of this period the City had changed it’s pavement restoration specification which required additional street restoration based upon the percentage of the road width impacted and proximity to curbing which would have required the County to complete additional road reconstruction regardless if they had chosen to do so or not.

In consideration of the cost information from the recently completed projects, we recommend that the County use a unit cost of $1,315 per foot of proposed sewer for future sewer separation projects. These unit costs are based upon a July 2010 ENRCCI of 8865 and should be adjusted to correspond with the Cost Indices used in preparing future estimates. The unit costs do not include contingencies, engineering (design and construction inspection), legal and administrative costs. cc:

Nick Capozza, OCDWEP Marty Meehan, OCDWEP John Perriello, P.E., EEA William McMillin, P.E., CH2MHill John Perriello, P.E. Arcadis Chris Schmidt, CDM/C&S Robert Palladine, P.E., CDM/C&S

C:\Users\dgroff\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QBE63P2S\sewersepcostmemo 071510.doc

Table 1 Onondaga Lake Improvement Project Sewer Separation Projects Final and/or Projection of Construction Costs

Sewer Separation Project

Land Use

Project Cost

Midpoint of Construction

ENR at End of Construction

Project Cost in July 2010 Linear Foot of Cost Per Linear Dollars Sanitary Sewer Foot in July (ENR = 8865) Installed 2010 Dollars

West Street

Commercial

$ 2,311,126.00

January 2000

6130 $

3,342,273

3812

$

876.78

024

Commercial

$ 701,799.00

October 2001

6397 $

972,557

1111

$

875.39

053/054

Residential

$ 2,211,605.00

July 2003

6,695

$

2,928,436

2864

$

1,022.50

038/040/046A/046B *

Residential

$ 4,087,556.00

January 2005

7,297

$

4,965,902

6723

$

738.64

047/048

Residential

$ 1,654,022.34

August 2006

7,959

$

1,842,305

1381

$

1,334.04

050

Residential

$ 4,474,888.00

January 2008

8,090

$

4,903,570

3842

$

1,276.31

051

Residential

$ 5,059,909.00

September 2009

8,586

$

5,224,330

3971

$

1,315.62

Notes: * - The original bid price by C.O. Falter was $3,598,681, total price include outstanding claims made by the Contractor.

P:\Onondaga LIP - 11500\Project Mgmt - 37787, 71420\Sewer Separation\sewer sep projects summary 081110.xls

Appendix C Construction Costs

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan Construction Costs

This spreadsheet was developed to identify costs and provide backup for costs that were not included in the CSO Screening Facilities Construction Cost Curves. This spreadsheet provides detail for CSO Groupings, CSO 063 Conveyance to the Harbor Brook Storage Facility, Sewer Separation Costs and the Construction Cost for the In-stream FCF. These Construction Costs were then utilized to develop the Present Worth Cost for each alternative.

Construction Costs for CSO Groups 5 & 6A and 14 & 15 CSO Group 5 & 6A CSO Screening Facility (from Cost Curve) Conveyance Pipe (400 LF of 18" @ $365/LF, 50 LF of 27" @ $482/LF) Total

Cost $805,000 $170,000 $975,000

Rounded

$1,952 $2,000

Annual O&M Cost for new conveyance pipe (400 LF @ $4.88/LF)

CSO Group 14 & 15 CSO Screening Facility (from Cost Curve) Conveyance Pipe (900 LF of 30" @ $462/LF, 50 LF of 66" @ $1,011/LF)

Cost $3,681,000 $466,000 Total $4,147,000

Annual O&M Cost for new conveyance pipe (900 LF @ $4.88/LF) Rounded

$4,392 $4,000

Construction Costs to convey CSO 063 flow to Harbor Brook Storage Facility Cost $1,690,000 $720,000 $31,000 Total $2,441,000

48" PVC Pipe (2,600 LF @ $650/LF) Additional storage capacity (0.6 MG) Upsize pipe from CSO 003 to Storage Tank from 48" to 54"

Annual O&M Cost for new conveyance pipe (2,600 LF @ $4.88/LF) Rounded

$12,688 $13,000

Construction Costs for Sewer Separation for CSOs 005, 006, 006A, 061 CSO No. 005 006 006A 061

LF 1725 1671 1246 321

Cost/LF Cost $1,323 $2,282,000 $1,323 $2,211,000 $1,323 $1,648,000 $1,323 $425,000

Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 005 (1,725 LF @ $1.39/LF) Rounded Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 006 (1,671 LF @ $1.39/LF) Rounded Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 006A (1,246 LF @ $1.39/LF) Rounded Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 061 (321 LF @ $1.39/LF) Rounded

$2,398 $2,000 $2,323 $2,000 $1,732 $2,000 $446 $1,000

Construction Costs for In-stream FCF CSO Screening Facility (mechanical screens from manufacturers quote and building) Concrete (channel modifications, facility foundation, by-pass channel) Screenings Conveyor Trash Racks Flow By-pass During Construction Stream Restoration Access Road Conveyance Pipe from CSO 15 to CSO 14

Cost $3,900,000 $1,119,000 $400,000 $100,000 $200,000 $50,000 $20,000 $466,000 Total $6,255,000

Appendix D ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide Memorandum

Salina Industrial Power Park, One General Motors Drive Syracuse, New York 13206 - Ph: 315/434-3200 - Fx: 315/463-5100

MEMO TO:

Patricia M. Pastella, Commissioner, OCDWEP

FROM:

Robert Kukenberger, Robert Palladine, CDM/C&S

CC:

Mike Lannon, OCDWEP Nick Capozza, OCDWEP Marty Meehan, OCDWEP Bonnie Karasinski, OCDWEP Bruce Munn, GHD Rob Ganley, O’Brien & Gere Kristin Angello, Arcadis Matt Marko, Ch2MHill Bill McMillan, Ch2MHill

SUBJECT:

Onondaga ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide

DATE:

August 18, 2010 Revised September 10, 2010

Due to the large number of projects planned or underway in response to the Fourth Stipulation and Order Amending the Amended Consent Judgment (ACJ), the County has requested that CDM/C&S develop this guideline for estimating and presenting cost estimates for capital projects. All projects should follow this guideline unless unique or special conditions exist that would suggest variance from the guidelines. Variance from these guidelines will require an explanation of and reason for said variance. The terms “construction cost estimate”, “total construction cost” and “total project cost” are intended to be synonymous with “Opinion of Probable Project Costs” for the purposes of this memorandum.

Each consulting engineering firm that has a scope of work to develop an opinion of probable construction costs will retain the responsibility in accordance with individual engineering contracts.

Each firm should follow their practices for development of costs and providing appropriate quality assurance.

The following guidelines will be used for ACJ capital projects from this time forward: ·

Contractor mobilization – 3% of estimated construction costs, to be applied prior to calculation of contingencies and other non construction costs. It is preferred that mobilization be listed as the first item of the construction costs.

·

Construction Contingency – percentage of total construction costs based upon table 1 below.

Percentages vary by design stage.

·

Total Construction Cost – Total of construction plus contingency

·

Engineering – 15% of Total Construction Costs (including contingency)

·

County Construction Management and Administration – 5% of Total Construction Cost

·

Total Project Cost (Present Time) – sum of Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Administration

·

Project Escalation – 3% per year to anticipated date of midpoint of construction (may be modified as construction inflation changes)

·

Total Project Cost (Including Project Escalation) – Total Project Cost (Present Time) plus escalation to midpoint of construction

·

Life Cycle Cost – used during alternatives analysis, total life cycle cost shall include Total Project Cost (Including Construction Escalation) plus present worth of annual operation and maintenance costs over a 30 year life cycle with a 3% discount rate. Buildings and structures are assumed to have a 20 year life, and equipment replacement and/or major overhaul should be estimated based on the type of equipment. For example, piping, valves, pumps, sluice gates, slide gates and other heavy equipment would have a 20 year life, whereas screens, grit equipment and other equipment that experiences abrasive or corrosive environments should be replaced in 10 years for the purposes of calculating life cycle costs.

Table 1 Summary of Cost Estimating Guidelines by Design Stage Design Stage Cost Component

Facility Plan and/or Engineering Report

95% and 100% Design

Post-Bid

Construction Contingency

20%

10%

5%

Engineering

15%

Contract amount + 5%

Contract amount + 5%

County Construction Management and Administration

5%

5%

5%

3% per year to anticipated midpoint of construction

3% per year to anticipated midpoint of construction

3% per year to anticipated midpoint of construction

Construction Escalation

If you need additional information or have any questions or comments please contact me at (315) 434-3200 x43234 or kukenbergerrj@cdm.com

C:\Users\dgroff\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\QBE63P2S\CDMCS MEMO ACJ Cost Est Guide 08 18 10 rev 9 13 10.doc

Appendix E Present Worth Cost Spreadsheets

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan Alternative 1 - Present Worth Costs

CSO # 063 005 006A 006 007 009 010 011 014 015 017 018 078 061 076

CFS1 57 15 6 7 5 9 13 12 104 28 26 27 43 3 36

No. of Construction Contract.

1 2 Cost3 Mob (3%)4 MGD Events Technology 37 23 M $1,826,000 $55,000 10 25 S $606,000 $18,000 4 6 S $280,000 $8,000 5 23 S $338,000 $10,000 3 10 S $220,000 $7,000 6 4 S $394,000 $12,000 8 31 S $502,000 $15,000 8 16 S $502,000 $15,000 67 18 M $3,012,000 $90,000 18 18 M $995,000 $30,000 17 24 M $948,000 $28,000 17 40 M $948,000 $28,000 28 23 M $1,444,000 $43,000 2 42 S $156,000 $5,000 23 2 M $1,223,000 $37,000 $13,394,000

Contingen Total Engineering County CM & Total Project Equip. Rep. Annual O&M Disc. Life Cycle (20%)4 Const. Cost4 (15%)4 Admin (5%)4 Cost4 Cost5 Cost6 Rate4 (years)4 $376,000 $2,257,000 $339,000 $113,000 $2,709,000 $231,000 $19,000 3% 30 $125,000 $749,000 $112,000 $37,000 $898,000 $54,000 $21,000 3% 30 $58,000 $346,000 $52,000 $17,000 $415,000 $30,000 $4,000 3% 30 $70,000 $418,000 $63,000 $21,000 $502,000 $34,000 $13,000 3% 30 $45,000 $272,000 $41,000 $14,000 $327,000 $26,000 $8,000 3% 30 $81,000 $487,000 $73,000 $24,000 $584,000 $38,000 $4,000 3% 30 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $21,000 3% 30 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $14,000 3% 30 $620,000 $3,722,000 $558,000 $186,000 $4,466,000 $300,000 $25,000 3% 30 $205,000 $1,230,000 $185,000 $62,000 $1,477,000 $188,000 $16,000 3% 30 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $16,000 3% 30 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $23,000 3% 30 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $89,000 $2,141,000 $211,000 $18,000 3% 30 $32,000 $193,000 $29,000 $10,000 $232,000 $22,000 $19,000 3% 30 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $76,000 $1,815,000 $199,000 $5,000 3% 30 $16,552,000 $19,866,000

Notes: 1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 2010 2. Abbreviations: M = Mechanical Screen S = Static Screen GM = FCF Group with Mechanical Screen C = Convey to Treatment/Storage Sep = Sewer Separation I = In-stream FCF 3. Construction cost for the selected technology Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve Static Screen - From construction cost curve FCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe FCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe Convey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tank Sewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separated In-stream FCF - From construction cost curve for screening facility and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road 4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010 Contractor Mobilization - 3% Construction Contingency - 20% Engineering - 15% County Construction Management and Administration - 5% Discount Rate - 3% Equipment Replacement - 20 years Life Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW) Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + Contingency Total Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Admin Total Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M 5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P 6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines 7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle

O&M PW 7 $372,000 $412,000 $78,000 $255,000 $157,000 $78,000 $412,000 $274,000 $490,000 $314,000 $314,000 $451,000 $353,000 $372,000 $98,000

Total Present Worth Cost4 $3,312,000 $1,364,000 $523,000 $791,000 $510,000 $700,000 $1,202,000 $1,064,000 $5,256,000 $1,979,000 $1,905,000 $2,042,000 $2,705,000 $626,000 $2,112,000 $26,091,000

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan Alternative 2 - Present Worth Costs

CSO # 063 005 006A 006 007 009 010 011 014 015 017 018 078 061 076

No. of Construction Contract. Contingen Total Engineering County CM & Total Project Equip. Rep. Annual O&M Disc. Life Cycle Total Present CFS1 MGD Events1 Technology2 Cost3 Mob (3%)4 (20%)4 Const. Cost4 (15%)4 Admin (5%)4 Cost4 Cost5 Cost6 Rate4 (years)4 O&M PW 7 Worth Cost4 57 37 23 M $1,826,000 $55,000 $376,000 $2,257,000 $339,000 $113,000 $2,709,000 $231,000 $19,000 3% 30 $372,000 $3,312,000 21 7 5 9 13 12

14 5 3 6 8 8

25 23 10 4 31 16

GM S S S S S

132 26 27 43 3 36

85 17 17 28 2 23

18 24 40 23 42 2

GM M M M S M

$975,000 $338,000 $220,000 $394,000 $502,000 $502,000

$29,000 $201,000 $10,000 $70,000 $7,000 $45,000 $12,000 $81,000 $15,000 $103,000 $15,000 $103,000

$1,205,000 $418,000 $272,000 $487,000 $620,000 $620,000

$181,000 $63,000 $41,000 $73,000 $93,000 $93,000

$60,000 $21,000 $14,000 $24,000 $31,000 $31,000

$1,446,000 $502,000 $327,000 $584,000 $744,000 $744,000

$179,000 $34,000 $26,000 $38,000 $46,000 $46,000

$24,000 $13,000 $8,000 $4,000 $21,000 $14,000

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 30 30 30 30 30

$470,000 $255,000 $157,000 $78,000 $412,000 $274,000

$2,095,000 $791,000 $510,000 $700,000 $1,202,000 $1,064,000

$4,147,000 $124,000 $854,000 $5,125,000 $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $156,000 $5,000 $32,000 $193,000 $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $13,623,000 $16,835,000

$769,000 $176,000 $176,000 $268,000 $29,000 $227,000

$256,000 $59,000 $59,000 $89,000 $10,000 $76,000

$6,150,000 $1,406,000 $1,406,000 $2,141,000 $232,000 $1,815,000 $20,206,000

$341,000 $83,000 $83,000 $211,000 $22,000 $199,000

$23,000 $16,000 $16,000 $18,000 $19,000 $5,000

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 30 30 30 30 30

$451,000 $314,000 $314,000 $353,000 $372,000 $98,000

$6,942,000 $1,803,000 $1,803,000 $2,705,000 $626,000 $2,112,000 $25,665,000

Notes: 1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 2010 2. Abbreviations: M = Mechanical Screen S = Static Screen GM = FCF Group with Mechanical Screen C = Convey to Treatment/Storage Sep = Sewer Separation I = In-stream FCF 3. Construction cost for the selected technology Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve Static Screen - From construction cost curve FCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe FCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe Convey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tank Sewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separated In-stream FCF - From construction cost curve for screening facility and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road 4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010 Contractor Mobilization - 3% Construction Contingency - 20% Engineering - 15% County Construction Management and Administration - 5% Discount Rate - 3% Equipment Replacement - 20 years Life Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW) Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + Contingency Total Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Admin Total Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M 5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P 6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines 7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan Alternative 3 - Present Worth Costs

CSO # 063 005 006A 006 007 009 010 011 014 015 017 018 078 061 076

No. of Construction Contract. Contingen Total Engineering County CM & Total Project Equip. Rep. Annual O&M Disc. Life Cycle Total Present CFS1 MGD Events1 Technology2 Cost3 Mob (3%)4 (20%)4 Const. Cost4 (15%)4 Admin (5%)4 Cost4 Cost5 Cost6 Rate4 (years)4 O&M PW 7 Worth Cost4 57 37 23 C $2,441,000 $73,000 $503,000 $3,017,000 $453,000 $151,000 $3,621,000 $0 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $3,876,000 21 7 5 9 13 12

14 5 3 6 8 8

25 23 10 4 31 16

GM S S S S S

132 26 27 43 3 36

85 17 17 28 2 23

18 24 40 23 42 2

GM M M M S M

$975,000 $338,000 $220,000 $394,000 $502,000 $502,000

$29,000 $201,000 $10,000 $70,000 $7,000 $45,000 $12,000 $81,000 $15,000 $103,000 $15,000 $103,000

$1,205,000 $418,000 $272,000 $487,000 $620,000 $620,000

$181,000 $63,000 $41,000 $73,000 $93,000 $93,000

$60,000 $21,000 $14,000 $24,000 $31,000 $31,000

$1,446,000 $502,000 $327,000 $584,000 $744,000 $744,000

$179,000 $34,000 $26,000 $38,000 $46,000 $46,000

$24,000 $13,000 $8,000 $4,000 $21,000 $14,000

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 30 30 30 30 30

$470,000 $255,000 $157,000 $78,000 $412,000 $274,000

$2,095,000 $791,000 $510,000 $700,000 $1,202,000 $1,064,000

$4,147,000 $124,000 $854,000 $5,125,000 $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $156,000 $5,000 $32,000 $193,000 $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $14,238,000 $17,595,000

$769,000 $176,000 $176,000 $268,000 $29,000 $227,000

$256,000 $59,000 $59,000 $89,000 $10,000 $76,000

$6,150,000 $1,406,000 $1,406,000 $2,141,000 $232,000 $1,815,000 $21,118,000

$341,000 $185,000 $185,000 $211,000 $22,000 $199,000

$23,000 $16,000 $23,000 $18,000 $19,000 $5,000

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 30 30 30 30 30

$451,000 $314,000 $451,000 $353,000 $372,000 $98,000

$6,942,000 $1,905,000 $2,042,000 $2,705,000 $626,000 $2,112,000 $26,570,000

Notes: 1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 2010 2. Abbreviations: M = Mechanical Screen S = Static Screen GM = FCF Group with Mechanical Screen C = Convey to Treatment/Storage Sep = Sewer Separation I = In-stream FCF 3. Construction cost for the selected technology Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve Static Screen - From construction cost curve FCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe FCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe Convey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tank Sewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separated In-stream FCF - From construction cost curve for screening facility and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road 4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010 Contractor Mobilization - 3% Construction Contingency - 20% Engineering - 15% County Construction Management and Administration - 5% Discount Rate - 3% Equipment Replacement - 20 years Life Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW) Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + Contingency Total Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Admin Total Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M 5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P 6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines 7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan Alternative 4 - Present Worth Costs

CSO # 063 005 006A 006 007 009 010 011 014 015 017 018 078 061 076

No. of Construction Contract. Contingen Total Engineering County CM & Total Project Equip. Rep. Annual O&M Disc. Life Cycle CFS1 MGD Events1 Technology2 Cost3 Mob (3%)4 (20%)4 Const. Cost4 (15%)4 Admin (5%)4 Cost4 Cost5 Cost6 Rate4 (years)4 57 37 23 C $2,441,000 $73,000 $503,000 $3,017,000 $453,000 $151,000 $3,621,000 $0 $13,000 3% 30 15 10 25 Sep $2,282,000 $68,000 $470,000 $2,820,000 $423,000 $141,000 $3,384,000 $0 $2,000 3% 30 6 4 6 Sep $1,649,000 $49,000 $340,000 $2,038,000 $306,000 $102,000 $2,446,000 $0 $2,000 3% 30 7 5 23 Sep $2,211,000 $66,000 $455,000 $2,732,000 $410,000 $137,000 $3,279,000 $0 $2,000 3% 30 5 3 10 S $220,000 $7,000 $45,000 $272,000 $41,000 $14,000 $327,000 $26,000 $8,000 3% 30 9 6 4 S $394,000 $12,000 $81,000 $487,000 $73,000 $24,000 $584,000 $38,000 $4,000 3% 30 13 8 31 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $21,000 3% 30 12 8 16 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $14,000 3% 30 132 26 27 43 3 36

85 17 17 28 2 23

18 24 40 23 42 2

GM M M M Sep M

$4,147,000 $124,000 $948,000 $28,000 $948,000 $28,000 $1,444,000 $43,000 $425,000 $13,000 $1,223,000 $37,000 $19,336,000

$854,000 $195,000 $195,000 $297,000 $88,000 $252,000

$5,125,000 $1,171,000 $1,171,000 $1,784,000 $526,000 $1,512,000 $23,895,000

$769,000 $176,000 $176,000 $268,000 $79,000 $227,000

$256,000 $59,000 $59,000 $89,000 $26,000 $76,000

$6,150,000 $1,406,000 $1,406,000 $2,141,000 $631,000 $1,815,000 $28,678,000

$341,000 $185,000 $185,000 $211,000 $0 $199,000

$23,000 $16,000 $23,000 $18,000 $1,000 $5,000

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 30 30 30 30 30

Total Present O&M PW 7 Worth Cost4 $255,000 $3,876,000 $39,000 $3,423,000 $39,000 $2,485,000 $39,000 $3,318,000 $157,000 $510,000 $78,000 $700,000 $412,000 $1,202,000 $274,000 $1,064,000 $451,000 $314,000 $451,000 $353,000 $20,000 $98,000

Notes: 1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 2010 2. Abbreviations: M = Mechanical Screen S = Static Screen GM = FCF Group with Mechanical Screen C = Convey to Treatment/Storage Sep = Sewer Separation I = In-stream FCF 3. Construction cost for the selected technology Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve Static Screen - From construction cost curve FCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe FCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe Convey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tank Sewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separated In-stream FCF - From construction cost curve for screening facility and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road 4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010 Contractor Mobilization - 3% Construction Contingency - 20% Engineering - 15% County Construction Management and Administration - 5% Discount Rate - 3% Equipment Replacement - 20 years Life Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW) Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + Contingency Total Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Admin Total Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M 5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P 6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines 7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle

$6,942,000 $1,905,000 $2,042,000 $2,705,000 $651,000 $2,112,000 $32,935,000

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection Floatable Control Facility Plan Alternative 5 - Present Worth Costs

CSO # 063 005 006A 006 007 009 010 011 014 015 017 018 078 061 076

No. of Construction Contract. Contingen Total Engineering County CM & Total Project Equip. Rep. Annual O&M Disc. Life Cycle Total Present 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 4 4 7 4 1 Cost Mob (3%) (20%) Const. Cost (15%) Admin (5%) Cost Cost Cost Rate (years) O&M PW Worth Cost CFS MGD Events Technology 57 37 23 C $2,441,000 $73,000 $503,000 $3,017,000 $453,000 $151,000 $3,621,000 $0 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $3,876,000

428 26 27 43 3 36

277 17 17 28 2 23

18 24 40 23 42 2

I M M M Sep M

$6,255,000 $188,000 $1,289,000 $7,732,000 $1,160,000 $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $425,000 $13,000 $88,000 $526,000 $79,000 $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $13,684,000 $16,913,000

$387,000 $59,000 $59,000 $89,000 $26,000 $76,000

$9,279,000 $1,406,000 $1,406,000 $2,141,000 $631,000 $1,815,000 $20,299,000

$780,000 $185,000 $185,000 $211,000 $0 $199,000

$66,000 $16,000 $23,000 $18,000 $1,000 $5,000

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

30 $1,294,000 30 $314,000 30 $451,000 30 $353,000 30 $20,000 30 $98,000

Notes: 1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 2010. Flow rate for In-stream FCF based on peak stream flow (1980-2009).

2. Abbreviations: M = Mechanical Screen S = Static Screen GM = FCF Group with Mechanical Screen C = Convey to Treatment/Storage Sep = Sewer Separation I = In-stream FCF 3. Construction cost for the selected technology Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve Static Screen - From construction cost curve FCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe FCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe Convey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tank Sewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separated In-stream FCF - Estimate based on manufacturer's quotation for equipment, estimated building cost and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road 4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010 Contractor Mobilization - 3% Construction Contingency - 20% Engineering - 15% County Construction Management and Administration - 5% Discount Rate - 3% Equipment Replacement - 20 years Life Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW) Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + Contingency Total Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Admin Total Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M 5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P 6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines 7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle

$11,353,000 $1,905,000 $2,042,000 $2,705,000 $651,000 $2,112,000 $24,644,000