Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-SJC-06-11-25SJC MEETING June 11, 2025 SJC Board members A Robert Cantelmo, City of Ithaca P Rod Howe, Town of Ithaca A Clyde Lederman, City of Ithaca P Rob Rosen, Town of Ithaca P Scott Reynolds, City of Ithaca A Ray Burger, Town of Dryden A 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 PZ Wendy Cole, City of Ithaca PZ Peter Wernsdorfer, Camden Group A Scott Gibson, City of Ithaca P Joe Slater, Town of Ithaca P David O’Shea, Town of Ithaca PZ Kelly VanRiper, City of Ithaca PZ Ken Scherrieble, Camden Group P Jesse Semanchik P Cereese Qurba,, Ithaca Voice P = Present, PZ = Present via zoom, PP = Present via phone, A= Absent Meeting called to order 1:04pm. 1) Agenda Review and Approval of Minutes: • Agenda review – Add Resolutions for Dryden. • Approved - May 22, 2025, Rich moved Scott second. All in favor. • Approved with corrections to technical issues minutes – May 7, 2025, were approved and Rich DePaolo will scrutinize and make corrections to certain acronyms and technical jargon. Minutes as “AI” note taker was used. The secretary has advised SJC that there was no video of the May 7th, 2025, meeting. She only had the “AI transcript” data available to complete the minutes. Rich approved Scott second. All in favor. 2) Operation and Engineering Report – Peter Wernsdorfer Operations • We have a very busy summer schedule of projects as detailed below including finishing the repairs to the Primary Settling and Final Settling treatment process units (outlined below), replacing the aeration system membranes in two Aeration Tanks (ATs), cleaning the effluent channel, as well as training new hires, trucking digestate to Auburn, power-washing of the building, Housekeeping Fridays (we tackle one project a week), and clearing the fence line of debris and vegetation (to improve facility security). • Regulatory Compliance – Effluent quality is very high. • Personnel – Two candidates were moved forward to hire as Operator Trainees. They are expected to start around June 23, 2025. • Blowers – We have counsel identified in our claim against Howden. • Digesters – Awaiting final repair on the mixer system. • Micro Turbines – Repairs on Turbine 4 are being made, otherwise operating normally. Gas quality remains very high. • ActiFlo (Tertiary Treatment) – The polymer feed system pump is working correctly. • Clarifiers – this has become multi-faceted in that it involves primary and final settling trains. • Primary Settling Tank 1 (PST 1) repairs are scheduled for the second week of July. This includes cross-collector drives in addition to the flights, chains, and sprockets. • Final Settling Tank 4 (FST4) cross -collector drive is scheduled for late July. • Facility Improvements – Lab HVAC is completed. We are tuning it up over the next week. • Asset Management – OpWorks is in daily use. Inventory will be complete at month’s end • Staff Management – Weekly check-ins continue. Safety Toolbox Talks are held weekly. Reporting • Regulatory reports were sent as scheduled Business, Long-Term Development • Capital Planning – Semi-monthly meetings continue. Asst Superintendent will report on the process and recent information – will need to wait for Scott to discuss further • Energy Management – attended monthly coaching call. Workshop 5 rescheduled to 5 June to July 15. • Operations Data – The MOR and Gas Data Tables were forwarded to the Chair. 3) Added the 2 Town of Dryden Resolutions to our discussion – Jason Leifer • Resolution 1: o Hanshaw Village Mobile Home Community o Jason moves o Rod Seconds o All in favor • Resolution 2: o INHS Varrna development at Freeze Road o Rich moves o Jason Seconds o All in favor. 4) Discussion of Potential Permit Modification – Peter and Scott Gibson Discussion: • An Ammonia Toxicity Report from the late 80s prepared by Liz Moran to meet Federal standards. • Value in what was reported in the 80s to the DEC, however, it wasn’t conclusive to Nitra at that time. • Jesse agrees with Rich’s summary. • Jesse also stated that it is not completely parallel to the current situation. However, the analysis completed was with the Associated Clean Water Act Grant. This shows conformance with EPA ammonia and the water quality. • At that time New York had not adopted criteria to make standards. • There were no significant finds at the time of that report. • There were no negative effects on aquatic life. • Jesse expressed that the Daily Max levels may be proposed to situational problematic levels for the wastewater treatment plant. • The Daily Max versus monthly average doesn't foundationally change the nitrate issues that have been discussed. • Issues discussed by Jesse: o One milligram per liter requirement at the edge of the mixing zone. Whether that's a monthly average or daily. Max is kind of one issue. o The second issue is the foundational nature of that point. One based on the work completed to date is the foundational issue with the Cip and the recommendations that were put force to comply with that point. • Rich - Are we at a point where you feel that in Lake monitoring program might be appropriate to hopefully corroborate our assumption that there aren't any water quality exceedances at the boundary of the mixing zone. • Jesse - Yeah, I think, we thought possibly the 1st step would be a request of full analysis by DEC and in providing these updates to the SPEEDIES permit, so that would put the onus on them to provide the full technical analysis. I don’t see why they wouldn't provide that to the municipalities. • Secondarily, specific to the southern end of the Cayuga Lake. • Propose tags-based nitrate limits. The question becomes dilution mixing zone analysis that the DEC uses is completely hypothetical. • A field-based sampling program would help affirm a mathematical based dilution analysis. That would be the 1st step. • Possibility exists that you can show dilution. Conforming with that point one milligram per liter and then a second step consistent with Liz's report. o If you couldn’t show conformance there could be some type of trout population that would be kind of secondary. o 1st step would be showing the actual dilution and dispersion. Both at the edge of the mixing zone and some distance beyond. o Liz showed these with the ammonia in the ease. • This is part of the memo that I created for people's review and comment. • Are there questions as to whether the tags or TMDL component establish a water quality based effluent limitation. o I know that's an out and an open question. o We've discussed; the cogs are somewhat circular. o There are questions of chronology and priority. o It would be departmental discretion. o I still think that you will know at least one central point. • Pointing a finger at a wastewater treatment plant without figuring out the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters is not really where the department wants to go. We can do that if we make that case on our own before we get into that sort of strategic discussion. o I wanted to prevail upon you to talk about some of the things we informally discussed, related to the possibility of chemical oxidation as a sort of intermediate approach to dealing with the nitrite issue. o Pros and cons of that. Just so everyone is aware that there is at least a potential avenue between the conventional treatment that we have and the membrane treatment that is under consideration. • The report the CIP did contemplate alternatives to strict biological nitrification and nitrate reduction. • We should consider both chlorine-based oxidation of nitrate and ozone-based oxidation. • We also solicited budgetary concepts from what's called advanced UV oxidation, which is a combination of UV and hydrogen peroxide that vendor had failed or pulled back to provide any budgetary information regarding this application. They had stated it would not be competitive with the ozone treatment for nitrate. • Whether it's chlorine or ozone. The concept was to provide a tertiary polishing system for nitrite. o The concept was, if there's we ran it up to a residual of 4 milligrams per liter of nitrite. o We would have the ability to call it mechanically or chemically oxidize that material to nitrate again. That can be done with hypochlorite. o It can be done with ozone. Ozone is O. 3; it can be done with ozone. Ozone is O. 3. o The final CIP did carry forth some improvements. It recommended staying with the liquid chlorination for the tertiary nitrate polishing. (This is a recommendation) • When oxidizing nitrite with chlorine. It's about a 5 to 1 ratio. • This doesn't require any additional infrastructure. It would just require some additional online monitoring and larger chlorine pumps to deliver a larger dose. • There's about $500,000 included in the CIP for those respective liquid chlorination dichlorination improvements. • We'd also looked at retrofitting that area of the plant with the ozone oxidation system, so that it would provide disinfection of the effluent. o It would provide this oxidizing of nitrite. o This would have higher electrical costs than dechlor, and it also requires liquid oxygen. o The capital was at the planning level and was significant. o The project cost estimate for that piece for ozone was about 30 million dollars as compared to the 500,000 for core decor. • The capital was at the planning level and was significant. • The project cost estimate for that piece for ozone was about 30 million dollars as compared to the 500,000 for core décor. • The planning level O and M costs were comparable between the 2. • The capital cost was significant. As I relate to the ozone layer. We also just want to be clear. • It's not a common way for wastewater disinfection to occur. And then the nitrate oxidation is even less common. So, it's not a common way for wastewater disinfection to occur. And then the nitrate oxidation is even less common. • I'm not aware of any plants in New York State that have ozone implemented at scale even for disinfection. • We need to explore that a little more, both on a New York State basis and a national basis. Just benchmark the application but it is technically feasible. • I know that initially, we had heard numbers like 50. Now, I know there's a range even associated with conventional treatment based on whether certain components are addressed so we could put but it is technically feasible • Memos and resolutions that would be helpful at this point. • I will direct the next question to Ken. o Related to the effluent monitoring that you are now doing for ammonia and nitrate. Can you just give us a picture of what's happening at the plant to sort of create baseline data for those constituents. o Ken referred to the question Peter answered. ▪ We've added nitrite testing as a bench reagent to our weeklies, and we're sending it to the lab once a month. ▪ We were only doing it quarterly as part of the permit. But we want to build a database there. o What lab are we currently using ▪ CES, which is now part of PACE. ▪ PACE seems to have purchased everybody we used to use Alpha Adirondack CES. o Peter, can we share any information yet? ▪ No, we only have 5 data points right now. And they're all reagent testing. So we'll have this month's test back. ▪ On Tuesday of next week, because we send the same. o Rich asked Peter So, you are doing in-house testing that is not official testing, correct? ▪ Yes, it's just process control. ▪ The thing about the reagent testing is we want to run it for, you know, for about a week before we know that we're confident we're getting credible results. ▪ We would be able to give next week 5 days if you would like them. o Ken stated that next month we’ll be able to have a couple of weeks of data available. o What is wanted is seasonal variations as testing goes forward. ▪ Temperature ▪ PH ▪ Etcetera • Here is a hypothetical question for Jesse. o If we were to find ourselves in a position where we had to embark on an in-Lake monitoring program. Given the fact that that would have to be approved, I imagine, in partnership with DEC. So that there were certified labs, and you know there were any chain of custody issues, and so forth, and so on, and to account for seasonal variations in the lake as well. We're looking at a monitoring program that would probably extend into next year, I would imagine, unless you see that. o Jesse replied: I think Rich for something of that nature. I do believe the Department would want to approve the plan. ▪ It would take time to prepare a plan, and have it approved. I think the plan would include capturing all the seasons. That would correlate with the plant, the varying plant performance over the year. We expect different levels of both ammonia and nitrate to be present in Esalen based on primarily, the wastewater temperature. And of course, the student population will affect that as well. ▪ I think conservatively, the timeline you just kind of laid out. ▪ Probably not really having a plan improved until the end of 2025, and then, conservatively. ▪ I would imagine the bulk of 2026 would be captured within that you might get if you keep a like a live study and a running tally. There might be some conclusive data obtained that help guide that for better, for worse. o Our potential funding streams. We just must reapply annually. • Yes, with the report submitted. On May 30th you'll be listed on this intended use plan that we've talked about at length. • EFC has already reached out to me with some questions. So, they've scored the project. We're going to see that in August. The scoring is not really predicated on the exact technology that will be implemented. It's based more on all the external. • Water quality, community demographics. They create this project score. I wouldn't see that score changing over time. • If the project shifts back to conventional asset renewal. You're always going to be getting maximum points for water quality, because of the impaired, the TMDL, the impairment for phosphorus, you know. • This will be gaining you maximum points, and then you'll have. I believe you'll have some type of compliance schedule even if nitrate goes away. You know, I think you'll still have that in some form. This ammonia compliance schedule, which is lessened with the limits are lessened through this field study. But that's also gaining you points. • This assists the potential financing again. For let's just call it a plant rehabilitation project. That's that hardship 0% potential principal forgiveness. And this was the final year for bipartisan infrastructure. • There's no further action required by the municipalities. We'll have a good sense and a chance to comment on that. August, when the draft is issued. They have about a month-long comment period. If we can ask for the scoring at that time and go down the scoring, if we feel that it's not representing all the factors, we can put comments in. • We'll finalize that in September. Then you will have a good sense of where we landed again on that hardship, principle, forgiveness, bipartisan infrastructure law. That requires a bond resolution which generally requires acceptance by the project owner, which we're not at that stage yet. • If grants are obtained. Obviously, you're done applying. However, you would just continue to apply. At that time, it was generally thought of as plant improvements. • Jesse recommended we apply each year as situations evolve, so that we get clarity. Strategic Conversation: • We can do some studies to really nail down the reality of the situation. That's going to go into late 2026 at best. And we really wouldn't be starting detailed engineering until that time, because we wouldn't have identified the limits. We also don’t want to get ahead of technology. • I guess you could do some things around plant rehabilitation. But there still would be this open question of how we did the nitrite or ammonia technologies. Is that a good summary of that. • Jesse answered: I know as we've talked before, it's a unique situation where there are common components. I always throw out the raw pump station as an example. Improvements to that were included in baseline CIP the You know you have 40-year-old pumps 40-year-old valves. There’s potential you could advance some preliminary components to get ahead of the curve. Conversely, we also told you know, something like the raw pump station. • When Ken and I were chatting, we thought, maybe this is 40 to 50. And then, as we started getting budgetary estimates and a better scope, it was maybe 60 to 70, and when we got all the vendor quotations and our subconsultants opinions on the facilities component heating and ventilation electrical, you know, we ended up at the 100. • I wanted to stress that. That's an extremely comprehensive and conservative number. I see a path where we had agreed, and it talked previously to go into the funding cycle. • We can be descoped, descaling, prioritized down to a budget that the municipalities were comfortable. • Investing in the facility. EFC supports a single project. They're not going to support a multi-year. CIP investment with their financing and grant programs. • Rich interjected: I thought that you had presented them with the idea of doing a phase program to potentially avail we of more than one funding cycle. Was I misinformed about that? • Jesse replies to Rich directly: you’re correct on that. We talked conceptually about what's called financial phasing. • The example we used was to create liquid treatment and solid treatment. separate projects with EFC. This would allow those 2 separate projects to share the point, scoring, and to be able to apply for the WEA and or the IMG Grant programs. The liquid and solid stream is still 2 larger capital projects. • EFC does not support like an incremental 15 year. Investment in the facility is what I meant. • So then, from a scheduling point of view, construction documents in 2027 are late, because you must finish your engineering, and then we wouldn't even be going onto the ground till late 27 or 28. Then, right. That was kind of the schedule we outlined with. That was included in the CIP report. • Well, coincidentally we had. We called it collaboration we aligned with what we're talking about right now within the report. We didn't really know at the time exactly what form that would take. But we just had to use our judgment to allot 2026 to the collaboration period. • You and I did speak before the meeting and stress the importance of potentially getting the technical and regulatory and that technical analysis and regulatory framework from DEC, I think that's great. I have sort of incorporated that into some of these drafts that I'm working on for the Inter Municipal approach. • Would you say you think it would be advantageous? This is your opinion, obviously not professional. This is your more colloquial opinion, more advantageous to acquire that information before we put some of those other issues on the table related to, you know, talks and TMDLS and things of that nature. Yeah, I thought, after we I discussed with some of my colleagues. That was suggested before you offer up any approaches, because, as you said, Rich, the tags and Monica Moss's references. It's all very circular, and it's confusing in nature the way those documents are published. If you were to request that technical analysis is the 1st step it would allow your decision making to be more informed. Versus offers up a kind of jumping the gun if you will, until you have the full set of facts from Dec's side. • Here's how we went about everything that'll point to your TMDL analysis within tags, etc. Requesting that that was my suggestion ahead of any, just as the 1st step ahead of any further actions. • It will move to a kind of discussion of the next step. I mean, I think it does make sense to get them to ascertain the technical and regulatory underpinnings of the request. I think that we will discover there are some process gaps potentially, there are potentially some things that we can exploit subsequently in our communications, once the facts are laid for us. It's possible that the Memos and resolute draft resolutions that I have made available to you could be premature. We could hold on to that for a month or 2 while we're gathering more information from DEC, given. Now that we're looking at a potentially multi-year. • But it's possible that we could author a letter on behalf of the 6 signatories to the municipal agreement. Requesting the information and that it would be signed by them. Where would where would the information? • To whom would we request the information be delivered? You suggest that that would come from the SJC. As but signed by the municipalities, and then maybe we'd release the information to the engineer from SJC. Provided that the scope of the letter is simply a request for technical analysis and regulatory connections. You know, we can bring it back to SJC. Next month. It will. That will add another month to potentially to receiving the data. But I think it's a simple request, right? I don't feel like any of us on the SJC. Have the technical ability to review this information and contest it. I think it should be assigned to a consultant like Barton & Loguidice, or perhaps even a specialist who's a specialist in environmental regulations. • If we could gather a quorum, you know, for a quick, special meeting. I can circulate a draft beforehand. Then we can maybe come in and make sure we're on the same page with what we're requesting, and how we want the information to be disseminated then we'll do that, and I'll do that sooner rather than later, and maybe solicit people now for their availability. But I think that seems to me to be an uncharacteristically prudent approach. • I do like to make certain points, some of which we might still make in the end. But for now, I think that's a good approach. Is there anything else for Jesse before we let him get on with his? We'll follow up on his comment about we're going to draft this letter, and we're going to ask them for a study. • Jesse and his cohort be the primary, and then, if they felt it appropriate, ask for additional scope. To get a specialist involved is that makes sense to start there. I think, Jesse, you're a person who understands these limitations, and you have colleagues who can help you ferret through these documents and let us know where we stand. So I think it makes sense for you for to keep it in house with Barton& Loguidice for starters, and then, if you need to suggest any subcontracting or anything like that, you'll double back to us. • Jesse’s reply: I think that that sounds realistic. We would take a 1st look, and then we could advise the SJC of any additional resources that would be beneficial. We're certainly we're coming to the end of it • Rich’s thoughts: Given the money that is at stake here. I think we're looking at a relatively small outlay to continue the analysis. I think there won't be much of a problem there, if you're exorbitant. You're already exorbitant range don't increase. I will circulate whatever draft letter I come up draft request. I'll circulate it to you. You can weigh in if you want just to make sure that we have all of our bases covered • I guess the most comprehensive way to do it would be through freedom of information request, but I imagine that it could be done, that that is, that sort of raises people's hackles and creates kind of an adversarial environment, but it is potentially the most comprehensive way to go. I don't know. Jesse. Do you think you have any advice? • Ultimately it may become incumbent upon records management at the DEC. To make sure that all the documentation is. But is this really linked sort of to our SPEEDIES Permit? Probably going to Tom would be my guess right, Jesse, as the region. • Jesse suggested: I would suggest Tom Vignol, as would likely be the recipient of this. He’s in the region. 7. Just the regional water engineer. He oversees Matt Russo, who's the plants engineer from DEC. I mean, there's also the possibility we could talk offline. I mean, we have a very good working relationship with Tom. What would they need on their end, or I could not make that call, if we feel that it's better just to deliver the request than a letter, but I'd be willing to have the conversation to see how this can be done. • Rich replied to Jesse and the Committee: If you want to, just at least give them a heads up that this is what the municipalities are asking for. That would, I think, if they're willing to do this collegially, or is it going to get a little bit sticky. • Jesse answered: I think they'll furnish everything they may need something in writing just to facilitate, you know, the full release of documentation. But I don't think they're going to have a problem. • • Cc 5) Misc. Updates: • Staffing - Scott Gibson & Peter Wernsdorfer o Scott Gibson was unable to attend due to an emergency. • Cecil Malone Drive emergency interceptor repair - Scott Gibson o Scott Gibson was unable to attend due to an emergency. • Water Meter Replacement – Rich o Scott Gibson was unable to attend due to an emergency. • Flow Meter status update - Scott o Scott Gibson was unable to attend due to an emergency. 6) Financials Updates: • Peter stated: We recognize we're behind on revenue, and Ken can cover this in other detail. But we're actively looking for other revenue and trying to expand that operation. We also are shifting to our charge by the size of the capacity rather than gallons as of July 1st, 2025. We anticipated automating that system in conjunction with the plant gate. But that got bigger than we thought. We're going to shift to the single reading on July 1, 2025 so that should make up some of the revenue as well. • Rich is there a reason money is down? • Visits were off until recently, when it warmed up, and I think partly that was a particularly cold winter, and a lot of people didn't have service while the ground was frozen, and that, as you know, last frost was late this year. • Rich have we scared people off by the pricing system? • I don't think it's going to scare anybody off, either, though. But no, you're correct, Rich. The haulers were aware that it was coming. • Peter: I forgot also that we also stopped taking in Leachate from the landfill, because it was proving toxic to the system. So, we lost that as well. • Rich: How much revenue did that account for? Do you know of hand? • Peter: It was more than a third. We projected it into the budget year, and then we stopped at the end of last year, when we did the testing on it and realized that it was what it was, creating a treatment issue for us. And there's a coinciding thing here, too, that at the same time the State was putting pressure on the landfill at Ontario to do something about their leachate. So, they've built a system in Ken will have to. I think it's Canandaigua west of Geneva, and they're going to. They're going to use that plan exclusively from here out. So that revenue would have been lost anyway, at about this time of the year, which we didn't know about, until about 3 or 4 months ago. And we're hoping to make up some of that with the new pricing structure. • Scott R: As I recall, we had already priced in the increase because we thought this was going to roll out much earlier in the year. So, I think we might be sort of like double behind here. • Rich: Looks like 2024 financials are finalized. • Wendy: I am working on closing 23 and 24 right now. Miscellaneous: • We found we did clear blockage of the road meter. So back up just a little bit. I tasked our water and sewer Maintenance Supervisor with going through somewhat no data which the town had from the 2,018 Larsen design study in which we implemented portable meters right around the divisional meters. So we took the average of those meters and kind of just threw them in a spreadsheet, and we're just going out and monitoring each of those sites. Our observations, obviously meters, were always questionable whether we needed one there or not, because there's such a low flow, and there's pressure transducing. They’re different than the other meter setups that have an ultrasonic eye. So, there is no data for Trumansburg Road. Obviously enough. If you look in that pit, it has, just wires tangled up everywhere. But that one's reading close to average Mecklenburg Road is flatlined every time we read it. It says 9 gallons per minute. So there's obviously some kind of error in that one. Elm Street is way exceeded the average. The average on Elm Street. That meter from the Larson design study was 19 gallons per minute. We're getting readings of over 200. So that's questionable. Floral Ave is offline. There's nothing there. Danby Road. We did find a blockage in that which was cleared. It was reading upwards of 2,000 gallons per minute. On average, it's back down to normal. It was about 350. • Going down through the rest of them. Crescent, which is coming up the South Hill trail by the South Hills Elementary School. There was reading, high as well, same as State Street, but we did get surcharged in this recent storm that we observed here a couple of days ago. So: most of them are in line communicating. There are a couple, and I will write up an email to Chris from Lecter just to see what these ones that offline kind of tag are, Scott, I'll tag you in the chair so to take away is that you may or may not be able to use data from again. I'd like to go back. And I poked the city to see if there was a original design documents. They really couldn't put their finger on to see what kind of flows these things are, you know, designed to handle as far as partial flumes ago. • More discussion on flow meters and keeping up the communication with Chris from Lecter. So, we can keep up with the repairs and replacements of flow meters. Ask if 3 months is enough time to get an overall and have a data update/Larson study? • Discussion of possible having a virtual meeting on June 25, 2025. • 7) Adjournment at 2:34 pm Upcoming Meeting Date: July 9, 2025