Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-SJC-05-07-25SJC MEETING May 7, 2025 SJC Board members A Robert Cantelmo, City of Ithaca P Rod Howe, Town of Ithaca A Clyde Lederman, City of Ithaca A Rob Rosen, Town of Ithaca P Scott Reynolds, City of Ithaca A Ray Burger, Town of Dryden P Dave Warden, City of Ithaca P Jason Leifer, Town of Dryden P Rich DePaolo, Town of Ithaca P = Present, PZ = Present via zoom, E = Excused Staff A Wendy Cole, City of Ithaca P David O’Shea, Town of Ithaca P Scott Gibson, City of Ithaca P Joe Slater, Town of Ithaca PZ Ken Scherrieble, Camden Group PZ Kelly VanRiper, City of Ithaca P Peter Wernsdorfer, Camden Group P Kelly Anderson Town of Ithaca - Guest P = Present, PZ = Present via zoom, PP = Present via phone, A= Absent Meeting called to order 1:04 pm. 1) Agenda Review and Approval of Minutes: • Agenda review – No Updates. • Approved - January 8, 2025, and April 9, 2025, Minutes, Approved by Rich and Second by Rod. All in favor. 2) Financial Report - Wendy Cole • See attached for the Financial Report as of 04/30/2025. No Discussion. 3) Operation and Engineering Report – Peter Wernsdorfer • Operations No Discussion. • Reporting No Discussion. • Business, Long-Term Development No Discussion. 4) Presentation and Discussion: Capital Improvement Project – Jesse Semanchik (B&L) Discussion: o We’ve been working on the capital improvement plan. Since the beginning, we’ve been working very closely with our technical working group meeting every 2 weeks. Today is the update to the committee. View it as an executive summary. The understanding to date. o We'll walk through the overview of the CIP process, and review the stakeholder call that occurred. o The alternatives analyses and the master planning user costs, user impacts and potential next steps. o So, the goals for today are to provide a transparent overview of this process. o We’ll also talk about the engineering report. It’s due by May 30th. So part of this process today is to gain a consensus. The report is well underway but gaining consensus on the recommendations that will be submitted with the report. We are targeting a draft report for next Friday. o Who is it submitted to, and why? You don't have to submit an engineering report, either. It’s an option. Every year the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation administers all the water and wastewater funding in the State. They have what's called the intended use plan for both. They maintain one for the Clean Water State Revolving fund, which is wastewater and drinking water. The end of May is their deadline for receiving reports to make projects eligible for funding in the following fiscal year. o So, if you don't submit a report for a perspective project by May 30th you cannot get on the intended use plan until the following year. o It's been our target to work with the communities. o There are a lot of advantages to getting a use plan for a specific project. It makes you eligible for interest- free financing on a capital project. It makes you eligible for grant funding through the bipartisan infrastructure act. o It makes you eligible for what they call principal forgiveness, which is just forgiving some of the capital. o You can finance a project on your own by bonding for a project for current market rates o The some of the Grant programs that we'll talk about like the WEA, which is the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act that's administered through EFC as well. That program does not require you to be on the intended use plan. You can go with grant-only scenario. o We'll talk about the DEC Water Quality Improvement program again. That doesn't require you to be on IUP, but I can say that at B & L, every project is effectively done through the IUP. The scope of what you're intending to submit for purposes of being eligible for this funding next year is the design elements or actual construction elements. o We call this the preliminary engineering report. It's strictly a planning-level document. It puts no onus on the community to move forward with that project. There's no design, there's nothing to do with construction. It is just a first step. o I view this record depending on the outcome of today's conversation as a bargaining tool with DEC on the limits they put forth on the call. o I'm just going to back up when we started this in December. Our goals are to work with the communities quickly to eliminate the reactionary spending that's been occurring at the plant. o Stabilize O & M costs. Prepare for a 30-year, planned investment on aspects of the plant that have not seen improvements over the years. Do this in a way to maximize funding opportunities. And then, you know, leverage those improvements protecting water quality of the lake, of course, which is what the plan is there for looking at ways to improve renewable energy generation and resiliency, sustainability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and look at the potential for beneficial use of biosolids. o We kicked this off in December. It's been moving very quickly. We were authorized in November. Since then, we've been doing bi-weekly meetings with what I call our technical team from the 3 municipalities and Camden group. o We conducted the stakeholder workshop with EFC, and we've completed our detailed plan assessments ourselves and some of our subconsultants. o We had energy evaluations completed by another one of our subs. o Biosolids reuse evaluation by Material Matters. We paused them on that for the moment. o And then, lastly, as we told you at the onset, we were able to obtain a $157,000 supplemental grant. o The plant has been in operation since 1987. o EFC considers design in terms of EDU's or equivalent dwelling units. We've looked at a detailed capital planning inventory working with Peter working with their top works and an asset tree that was developed for the plant. o Within the CIP report there's going to be an appendix that walks through all the existing assets, documenting service life, remaining service life. This effort has been complicated by some of the recent regulatory discussions. o On March 25th we conducted a workshop with EFC and DEC. This is what we like to do on these types of projects. We want to get EFC and DEC on the team, and stakeholders to support projects. o A big part of funding is getting the agencies on board and familiar with the project so they can help the community navigate the funding pathways. o The intent of this call was to review the ammonia compliance schedule that's in the SPDES permit. We also wanted to talk about the TMDL for phosphorus, because that has been finalized, and there are significant grant opportunities if we can navigate the correct pieces in place for that. o Monica Moss at DEC brought up that, within the existing SPDES permit, there's a monitor-only for nitrite. She directed us back to the fact sheet, which was issued when SPDES permit was issued several years ago. o There is also a compliance schedule for ammonia in the permit. The preliminary engineering report for ammonia will be due next April at the latest. The schedule was calling for design documents by October 2026, and completion of construction by October 2028. o Proposed ammonia limits are 21 milligrams per liter in the summer and 31 milligrams per liter in the winter. Monica walked us through the SPDES fact sheet, which is a separate document that was issued when the SPDES permit was issued. o There was higher level of nitrite submitted with the plant sampling data so that triggered the department to put the nitrite monitor-only. The reasoning behind that is New York State ambient water quality standards, otherwise known as TOGS 1.1.1. Nitrite is toxic to aquatic life. Lake is a Class A drinking water supply. It’s parentheses C standard, which means for chronic exposure. They look at aquatic life for chronic protection against the respective constituent. So, we were directed to this table for nitrite. State standard is 100 micrograms per liter for a “warm water fishery” lake. If it was a trout stream, it would be 20 micrograms per liter. o They are using a dilution ratio of 16 to one. That's another way of saying, when the plant discharges into the lake through the outfall, it's diluted by a factor of 16. So going in reverse. What it tells you is that if you multiply those times the dilution ratio, it gets you the effective maximum concentration that would be discharged out the outbound that when it hits the lake it gets diluted down to the acceptable standard. o Some of the initial questions on this was, could this become a monthly average? Because the daily max is very problematic for treatment facility. And it really puts the plan in a bad spot. o So right now, the plant, since it's been in operation, is subject to that 12-month rolling average load of 40 pounds per day of phosphorus. DEC is recommending a point 5 milligram per liter limit for phosphorus. at the next permitting cycle. o DEC is assuming the board is going to be providing a response back, though. o So, first looking at nitrification. Can we meet the limits? o It's tough both ammonia and nitrite. They're separate. They're related. o It’s unusual. 21 milligram per liter for ammonia is an unusual limit where it's quite high. Nitrification is a really hard process to control, especially in cold weather. It's kind of like you're all in on nitrification, or where the plants been is kind of in a state of partial nitrification. o You know the original, the plant, when it was designed and re-rated, was designed for total suspended solids and total phosphorus. o Ammonia was not considered in the original design. o The goal for a plant is to nitrify. o You want the plan to be treating ammonia like BOD. o Regardless of the variability, the plant's able to knock down BOD to low levels. o The plant was not designed to nitrify. Ammonia was not on the radar screen. Last year or two, operators have been experimenting with ways to get the plant to nitrify. o What we believe is that there is partial nitrification occurring, where you're sometimes getting nitrification. Sometimes it's just passing through the plant. o So, nitrification. What happens is ammonia gets oxidized by ammonia, oxidizing bacteria to nitrite you input oxygen and alkalinity into the process. Nitrite goes gets oxidized to nitrate by nitrite oxidizing bacteria with the input of additional oxygen and alkalinity. o The aeration tank is floating bugs mixed liquor, intermixed with primary treated wastewater. o So the average time that a particle of bugs remain in the aeration tanks is what we refer to as solids retention time. o In order to get nitrification with the existing aeration tanks, we have to raise that mixed liquor level to get a greater concentration of bugs. o They can remain in the aeration tank for longer, and as we increase the mixed liquor, suspended solids concentration, there's a limiting factor for the final clarification process as far as settling those bugs and recycling them back to the aeration tank. We've realized the plant has had some challenges. o We're focused on wintertime nitrification, which slows down considerably. o A lot of plants have ammonia limits. Not a lot have nitrite limits. o We're taught that nitrite is an unstable compound. It goes with ammonia to nitrate rather quickly. So, now that nitrite limits are coming out, we're seeing that there's a lot more detail that needs to be considered. o The goal was to see if we could get nitrification to occur within the 4 tanks. o The plant is sitting at around 4 or 5 days of solids retention time. EPA recommends the bare minimum is 7 days, and they recommend for any type of engineering design capital investment that you use this process design safety factor of 2, which brings you up to 14 days, for a margin of error, in order to achieve full nitrification. o You just must have more tanks. o Plants that are designed for nitrification have much bigger aeration tanks. o So, we're focused on the winter, when there's little to no notification. o We prepared a BioWin model. BioWin is the industry standard computer modeling software for wastewater treatment. o We build different scenarios once we calibrate it. o Unfortunately, the plant is not able to effectively nitrify per BioWin. o Ammonia just passes through the plant. o If you ever get higher flows, you're just a pass through, basically. o This was a scenario where we said we build 2 additional aeration tanks, convert the primaries to aeration to double the aeration capacity, but we’re not saying it's technically feasible. o Building 2 aeration tanks, you know again, this is that doubling of the aeration volume. Final clarifiers upgrade in the finals. o And then there's potential for what's called a membrane bioreactor. We use membranes for clarification. o The water is pulled through. They rack up the system where they rack up the membrane. What kind of O & M is involved with that? o They backwash, or they clean in place with a chlorine solution. It's all done in the tank and then think it's maybe a 6 month or yearly. It's mild. They use citric acid in the tanks, but that literally, it's a very mild solution and gets drained back to the headworks for the plant. o There are many manufacturers we talked with. These have a 10-year warranty, so what they find is during that time, and they would replace any of the membranes. o They've been seeing them for the last 15 to 20 years. After the 10 Year warranty, they plan for a10% replacement over the following 10 years, which would continue for the life of the system. o Some of the membranes are expensive. The membrane manufacturer was adamant. I t'd be kind of a really a shift in operation with Ithaca. o Q: But for this kind of thing you're talking about, it’s like the whole plan is being redone? o A: This is a fundamental shift. Yes, in the process, and physically as well. The plant has great bones. o The membrane bioreactor appeared to be the most favorable from just the technical evaluation re effectively reworking the plant. You eliminate the existing processes, you can go to the biological phosphorus, nitrogen removal that would be future-proof. o Q: What was your back of the napkin cost estimate before nitrification became an issue? o A: The back of the napkin was a 40-to-50-million-dollar investment to renew the parts of the plan that remained original. o Q: So now we’re looking at adding a hundred million dollars? What kind of incremental improvements in nitrification would occur just based on the original plan? Would there be any improvements? o I will pose the question back to the committee in simplist terms. o We can't stamp the report that says status quo is going to comply with the permit limits. o Q: Do we have to assume that the permit limits are going to be imposed? That's a baseline assumption that underpins your report, right? I'm looking at the regulatory environment in which we're being told from all angles that nitrogen is not a problem in the lake, that that what comes in all comes in off the farm fields, and that we're being asked to pay a hundred million dollars to mitigate a problem that doesn't exist in the lake, and to the extent that it does comes from other sources. So I understand that I'm talking in political terms. You're talking in engineering terms. I get that. There's a difference in what we're trying to achieve here. But we're looking at a Class A waterbody. So maybe, has anyone asked the question, is Bolton Point seeing any kind of you know at their intake? Is anybody? Are they seeing any kind of elevated effects, of what we're being asked to mitigate at this exorbitant cost. I understand that your job is based on what the creating a report that solves the potential permit problem. What I'm asking is that politically, given the fact that the TMDL for phosphorus goes out of its way to push nitrogen to the side, is this the best way to spend a hundred million dollars? o A: I'm not endorsing any of this. I personally feel for the communities. This project poses an enormous financial burden that it would be very reasonable for you to respond that it's not economically feasible. Yeah, we can go do all this fancy membrane treatment. I fully agree that the cost objection is a very rational, viable response to the situation. o Q: I'm basically pushing back on the need to accomplish it to begin with, and that's based on my colloquial knowledge of things. It's based on what DEC has been saying, and what they ultimately concluded in a document that took 25 years to prepare. So, you know what I'm saying. So, I understand, you have a deadline, right? And so, you're saying this thing has to go in by May 30th. You're also saying that it doesn't bind us to any course of action. o A: This could extend several years. Interim period. o 2 scenarios o First scenario for 156 million. o Second scenario, eliminating a couple of ancillaries like biosolids sludge dryer. Those are not required. That would reduce the cost to 115 million. o Funding Options o We believe it would be very rational for the State to award 25 million under the bipartisan infrastructure act. o With supplemental monies from other sources, that would total about 50 70 million, which still leaves a large remaining principle. o 46.9 partially gets interest-free and some subsidized interest. So, the results in the sizable annual debt service payment of 1.8 million. o We're talking for a typical single-family household, an increase of plus or minus $130 per year. Same logic on the larger project with everything, it would be a $240 increase. o You're not out of line by saying that this is not affordable, and we can't advance this project, and we need additional state support. o Q: correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we'd be looking at a doubling of people's sewer bills. Roughly speaking, does that sound right? So, this is a lot. o Next steps. o Taking no action is an option. If you were to advance towards some type of capital improvements here, we would submit the report by May 30th. SEQR is not required at this stage. o If that was to be pursued this year, it would require a focused effort. o Q: We would have to commit to a course of action prior to doing SEQR, right? o A: You would. Yeah. So that could wait. o Q: So, the bottom line is to keep the lake clean. Do we know the impact of the project? Let's say we go through with it, and we get the beautiful treatment and all that. How much of an impact does it have on the lake? Considering all the other sources of pollution. We want to get all the nitrates down and all that. We're going to spend a lot of money and find out we are a miniscule percentage of the lake’s problem. Point sources in aggregate are estimated to be between 4 and 5% of the nutrient loading in the lake. o A: (Committee member) I think that's the point that I'm making is that you can't, on the one hand, tell me that these point sources aren't the problem and then tell me to spend $150 million. The TMDL for phosphorus did not include modifications to point sources at all. o It's a lot of money for not a lot of environmental benefit. o It couldn't be spent more beneficially, you know, in terms of just creating riparian buffers or retention areas, or whatever it is. But this is an argument that needs to be made to DEC. And it needs to be made in relatively short order, or else we're going to be left footing the bill. o Cayuga Heights is up for renewal right now. I don't know if it'd be worth contacting. Cayuga Heights to see what DEC is telling them regarding nitrite and pneumonia, but according to Brent, they're hearing the same whispers. o Q: Will we see the language before you submit it? This is a big, you know. Do we need a special meeting? Last year we may came to the conclusion that we would not run afoul of open meetings law because we are strictly advisory. o 5) Misc. Updates (Time Permitting): • Staffing - Scott Gibson o Peter - we have 2 operator trainees interviews scheduled for tomorrow, and they're going to be conducted by city staff. • Cecil Malone Drive emergency interceptor repair - Scott Gibson o Scott - interceptor appears done. We're still waiting for billing from the railroad. • Flow Meter status update – Dave O’Shea, Joe Slater o I sat down with my staff earlier this week. Just our water and sewer Maintenance Supervisor. We pulled data from our 2018 town light sewer study with Larson and just looked at average flows. So, what I've tasked him with is just taking all the flows out of that report per meter and just kind of spot checking those every few weeks. And then, if he's seeing something that's out of the ordinary. That shows a higher flow in one of those to go out to the meter, check it with our crew, and run a jet up and see if we can't clear these things out and just kind of maintain that. So, I will keep you updated as we move forward, but just to get a baseline here and see, you know and then we also talked about the interceptor study, right? So, it may get more verification on meters if we get that thing over to zoom talking about. 6) Adjournment at 2:56 pm Upcoming Meeting Date: May 22, 2025