The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTB Minutes 2012-11-13Special Meeting Ithaca Town Board November 13,2012 at 3:00 215 N. Tioga St AGENDA 1. Review and Consider pending application for modiflcation of Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling permit from the NYS DEC 2. Consider Resolution Opposing the Approval of the Proposed Permit for Lake Source Cooling by the DEC ""Copies of the draft resolution and the Town's analysis follow this agenda. Due to time constraints, public comments at this meeting should be no longer than 3 minutes. Written comments can be sent to the Town Board via the Town Clerk at pterwilliger@town.ithaca.nv.us TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PRESS RELEASE ¨ % I, Paulette Terwiiliger, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompklns County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly sent to ail media contacts in Ithaca: Press Release and Notice of Special Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board November 13, 2012 Proposed Permit for Lake Source Cooling by the NYS DEC Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting: November 1,2012 Date of Notification to Media Outlets: November 1, 2012 Date of Posting to Town Website: November 8, 2012 Paulette Tei Town Clerk iiger STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8^^ day of November, 2012 Notary Public Debra DeAuglstine Noterv Public - Stale of New York NO.01DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19.20 ITHACA TOWN BOARD TO REVIEW LAKE SOURCE COOLING PERMIT For Immediate Release The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca will hold a special meeting Tuesday, November 13 at 3:00 at the Ithaca Town Hall to review the pending application for modification of Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling permit from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. The Town Board will determine if it should object to the permit modification and request a hearing on the matter. Herb Engman, Town Supervisor, stated, "The Town is alarmed that the DEC is proposing that the permittee, Cornell University, be charged with conducting a study that will determine the fate of its own permit. This is a clear conflict of interest. The DEC should conduct the study itself or contract for an independent study." Engman continued: "It is irresponsible for the DEC to allow Cornell University to increase its phosphorus effluent limits and to abandon its monitoring requirements prior to completion of a study. Lake Source Cooling has substantially added soluble reactive phosphorus to the south end of Cayuga Lake at the same time that the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant have spend millions of dollars to reduce the amount of phosphorus in the lake. Allowing an ^ increase in Cornell-produced pollution prior to completion of a study is unacceptable." The Town Board encourages the public to review and respond to the proposed permit modification. The draft permit is available for review on the DEC's website at: http://www.dec.nv.gov/enb/enb.html. Comments to the DEC are due November 16 to: Teresa Diehsner NYSDEC 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 (518)402-9167 Media contact: Herb Engman Town Supervisor (607) 273-1721, Ext 125 HEngman @ town, ithaca.nv.us 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 r\^ Special Meeting ^ . Ithaca Town Board November 13, 2012 at 3:00 215 N. Tioga St Board Members Present: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Pat Leary, Tee-Ann Hunter, Bill Goodman, and Rich DePaolo Absent: Eric Levine Staff Present: Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement Mr. Engman opened the meeting at 3:04 p.m. and explained that the permit came out just recently and we do not meet until November 19^"^ and responses are due by November 16'^ so the Board scheduled this meeting. The timing and board members' schedules necessitated scheduling this meeting at this time but we only have one hour before another meeting. Therefore, although we will be taking public comments, we need to ask x you to limit your comments to 3 minutes. Lake Source Cooling = LSC Lake Source Cooling Facility = LSCF Persons to be Heard Bert Bland, Senior Director of Energy and Sustainability within the Facilities Services as Cornell University. Mr. Bland stated that he was non-academic and his department runs the LSCF. He stated that he saw the press release about this meeting about 10 days ago and they sent in corrections that they thought needed to be factually correct for the press release announcing this meeting and he distributed copies to the Board. (Attachment #1^ 9— He stated that they also reviewed the resolution and supporting documentation that was on the website and they want to make written comments tomorrow noting that they feel there are factual mistakes in both. He said he was not here this evening to persuade the board in anything 1 particular or to engage in a substantive debate but stated that they were willing to come down anytime and have offered to come down and discuss their studies and their interpretation of studies and they remain willing to do that. He added that they have a website devoted to this subject called fingerlakemodelingproject.edu which points to the DEC and also has frequently asked questions. Walter Hang addressed the board and commended them for their efforts noting that he has been working on this project for 14 years and he had some strong adjectives for it. He felt the permit is an outrage and illegal and urged us to oppose it by all available means. He stated that the permit should never have been granted in the first place and that it violates 122.4(i) because the discharge permit will cause or contribute to existing water quality violations and the before and after impact studies showed that chlorophyll ^ ^ A went up 50% in the most impaired section of the lake and that is statistically significant ^ ^ and was supposed to trip the wire on either moving the discharge pipe off of the shelf or TB 11 13 2012 Page 2 of 9 requiring advance treatment to take out the phosphorus. That permit provision has never been enforced. He felt that eliminating the in-lake monitoring is an incredibly bad idea because that is how we know the lake is becoming utrophic and that is why we fought so long and hard to make sure that that impact was monitored. He went on to say that the proposed 6.4 lbs per day limitation would actually allow more phosphorus to be discharged into the lake and the final 4.8 lb per day doesn’t require any cut in the phosphorus that is promoting the growth of algae and weeds that are choking our lake. He felt that the permit is just “study, study, study, ad nauseum by Cornell which is obviously a huge conflict of interest.” He went on to say that there is no requirement in the permit on when a total maximum daily load would be actually adopted, so that the lake could be cleaned up which was required as a high-priority in 2004 and we are 8 years past due and the DEC and EPA will not enforce the law and that’s why this board can do a tremendous public service by passing this resolution. He felt that there would be legal action taken and encouraged the town to participate in that also. Mr. Hang apologized for his tone but really felt that it is an outrage that the law is not being enforced and the lake does not belong to Cornell University and it is our duty to protect it. (Attachment #3) David Bouldin addressed the board stating that he has studied streams, lakes and wells in the southern tier of New York and in the last ten years since his retirement, he has gone back and looked at all the work that has been done on Cayuga Lake and has developed a database with almost 1,000 samples of analyzed lake water and he has been interested in studying Hydrilla and its affects and in his view, Hydrilla is a far more serious menace than LSC. LSC is simply moving water from one end of the lake to another and he finds it difficult to hear all the talk about the increase in algae because his historical data shows no change since 1968-69. (Attachment #4 w/ CD) He submitted a prepared statement. Fay Goughakis addressed the board saying that she has followed this project for many years and Cornell repeatedly said that we could not go after them because a lot of people putting stuff in the lake. She thought that was a peculiar statement and felt that somebody was afraid of something. Nevertheless she felt the question has always been the location of the pipe and why not put it further into the lake. She simply couldn’t understand why Cornell can not extend the pipe. She went on to say that although she is not a scientist, the algae problem has increased and global warming does not explain all of that. She agreed with Mr. Hang that the DEC asking Cornell to help with a study is a conflict of interest and commended the board. She noted that although Cornell does a lot for the community and they use a lot of energy, they need to do it right. She noted that she heard a Cornell representative say that if they do not use the LSC to its capacity, they actually use more energy than if it was not used at all. She thought someone should investigate that and also comments about increasing LSC. She thanked the board for their work. TB 11 13 2012 Page 3 of 9 There was no one else wishing to address the Board and Mr. Engman turned the matter to the Board. The draft resolution was moved by Mr. DePaolo and seconded by Mr. Goodman for discussion. Ms. Leary had questions for the Cornell representatives based on the letter they handed out this evening. She said it looks like Cornell won’t be conducting the study but they would be funding the study; she asked who was conducting the study. Mr. Bland responded that the permit is not final but that the proposal is that they have contracted with Upstate Freshwater Institute, a not-for-profit in Syracuse, NY, highly renowned for independence. They are a scientific institute that publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. He went on to say that that would be supplemented by other entities focused on watershed, primarily focused on the lake and would be some faculty from Cornell’s biological engineering working on the models that they develop and are used worldwide. Ms. Leary asked about the statement that the Town developed; she asked if staff helped write it and Mr. Engman stated that Mr. DePaolo wrote the white paper on the permit. Ms. Leary asked about the statement about the 6.4 pounds of interim phosphorus that would be allowed and makes a reference that this exceeds the historical limits but the response from Cornell says that it is based on historical limits and she asked for clarification for that. Mr. DePaolo asked Mr. Bland if he wanted to answer or have him answer and Mr. Bland responded that he did not want to get into a debate, but that the DEC calculated that based on 95% exceedence point. Mr. DePaolo then answered saying that there are currently not any limits in the permit, but there are historical averages of the amount of phosphorus that is introduced in the southern basin of the lake, and if you look at the 12-month rolling average for the entire year leading up to this point, it is roughly 2.78 pounds a day; the interim limit allows for significantly more phosphorus to be discharged than the project has on a historical basis. He noted that this is public information available on the EPA’s website. Ms. Leary asked if it was 95% of the th historic and Mr. DePaolo responded that the 95 percentile may be calculated based on daily averages or peak operations, but as far as the numbers that are provided to the EPA, the project averages, between June and September, averages 4.5 pounds a day and the DEC is allowing them to increase their discharge. Ms. Leary thought that was quite a lot more. Mr. DePaolo also addressed Ms. Leary’s first question with respect to who is going to conduct the study and he drew the board’s attention to the Frequently asked Questions that Cornell posted on its website on the day that the press release for the renewal of this permit was issued; the two sentences that stick out to him plainly are “ Upstate Freshwater Institute (UFI) of Syracuse will be responsible for lake water quality modeling, Cornell Professor Todd Walter will lead the watershed assessment and modeling”. He felt that summed it up. Upstate Freshwater Institute is the entity that has conducted in-lake ambient water quality monitoring since the inception of this project and they are also the entity that argued strenuously against the conclusion and statistical analysis that showed that LSC was having a negative impact on the southern end of Cayuga Lake. From his perspective, there is an inherent conflict of interest there and there is the likelihood of their predisposition towards defending the Lake Source Cooling TB 11 13 2012 Page 4 of 9 Project will not yield the most objective analysis. Ms. Leary asked if they are associated with a Cornell faculty member and Mr. DePaolo responded that he did not know the nexis between UFI and Cornell faculty, but he could say that they have been paid by Cornell University for the past 12 years to conduct in-lake water quality modeling and to analyze reports that showed a statistically significant degradation in water quality attributable to LSC. Ms. Leary then asked if this statement, by the Town, is recommending that Cornell fund an independent study conducted by an entity after a public review? Mr. DePaolo responded that he thinks that Cornell can’t be allowed to spearhead this effort given the amount of money that hangs in the balance and given that a modification to the outflow of the cooling project could potentially result in changes to the efficiency of the project that would lead directly to the amount of money they are saving over the life of the project. There is a lot of money hanging out there and he felt that Cornell should contribute financially to the effort noting that this is coming out of the Facilities budget and these are not in-kind services but actual cash money that could be dedicated to an impartial entity. Ms. Leary asked what the process would be that would ensure that any funding of this from Cornell would be impartial noting that Cornell is saying that UFI is impartial. Mr. DePaolo thought that that was subject to interpretation but there is a difference of opinion on both sides regarding the Before After Control Impact (BACI) analysis that Cornell designed that shows statistically significant degradation of water quality and UFI argued on Cornell’s behalf that its own statistical methodology was flawed when DEC found a link and was attempting to hold Cornell responsible. So that calls into question the objectivity of UFI with respect to this particular project. He stated that he was not impugning their efforts elsewhere, but that speaks for itself in his opinion. Ms. Leary asked if we were asking Cornell to contribute given that DEC is underfunded and Mr. DePaolo responded that back in 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency proposed that Cornell offset its phosphorus contribution elsewhere in the watershed and in theory that offset could be in a TMDL study and implementation. Offsets mean you either have to do it yourself or pay for it and in the spirit of that proposal, he thought that Cornell should either voluntarily or be compelled to contribute to an effort that would lead to an unbiased conclusion on the effects of LSC. rd Mr. Goodman had a change to the 3 resolved of the resolution regarding the backsliding rule. He suggested the board add an explanation of what the backsliding rule is. Mr. DePaolo had some substitute language for that area and another. He stated that it was an anti-backsliding rule. He explained that anti-backsliding rules were designed to prevent discharges into impaired waters from expanding so they look at the historical discharge data and essentially put a cap on what that discharge is. He did not feel that in this instance the spirit of those regulations are being honored. He went on to add that there are technical operational guidance documents that govern this which he could cite, but the relevant documents, 1.3.6 and 1.3.9 in this case. One has to do with phosphorus and the other to do with man-made pollutants. TB 11 13 2012 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Engman asked for the proposed changes at this point. Mr. DePaolo proposed a nd substitute 2 Whereas to fix grammatical errors to read “WHEREASin 1998 the southern end of Cayuga Lake was identified on the federal 303(d) list as an impaired water body due to excessive phosphorous and turbidity and” There were no objections from the seconder Mr. DePaolo noted for the record that in the first Whereas, the permit has to do with Lake Source Cooling Facility, not “System”. th Down to the 6 whereas, he had a substitute whereas to read “WHEREAS the draft SPDES permit allows for the removal of the existing LSC seasonal ambient permit compliance monitoring protocol” No objection from the seconder st Mr. DePaolo proposed substituting the 1 Further Resolved with the “FURTHER RESOLVED that the DEC or a consultant other than an involved permittee or affiliate, hired and supervised by the DEC, conduct the study to determine the TMDL for Cayuga Lake and” No objection from the seconder Mr. DePaolo proposed changing the next Further Resolved to read “FURTHER RESOLVED that the DEC honor its “anti-backsliding” regulations and require Cornell to immediately implement new procedures such as changing the outfall location for LSC or constructing a closed-loop system to eliminate its contributions to phosphorous loading to the south shelf of Cayuga Lake and” No objection from the seconder Mr. Engman asked if there was any further discussion or comment and Ms. Leary asked if it was true that under this proposed permit, monitoring will no longer be required and Mr. DePaolo responded that as he understood it from subsequent communications from Cornell, the in-lake monitoring, permit compliance monitoring for LSC would either be substantially altered or eliminated after 2013. He did not know if that was correct or not and Ms. Leary looked to the Cornell representatives. Mr. Stewart addressed the Board. His comments were preceded by “as a taxpayer” and follow here verbatim: My name is Gary Stewart and I live in the town of Ithaca. As a taxpayer, I hope we can get the clock fixed sometime. We offered to come down on November first to provide a briefing to herb and to anyone else who wanted to come. We asked if herb and the board wanted us to present today, we didn’t receive a response on that either way. Our answers TB 11 13 2012 Page 6 of 9 are all on the modeling website and I really just felt… I think that given the fact that some of the board members are clearly reading this resolution today, amendments are being introduced on the fly. We weren’t given the courtesy of even knowing this thing was on your website, which got up yesterday, and fortunately we came across it. I just don’t think this is a good way for us to do business, and we’re not here to testify. We weren’t asked to say… there’s going to be questions asked of you. We did volunteer on November first for a briefing or to test… or to provide a presentation today, but I feel very uncomfortable as a town of ithaca resident that a resolution like this, of this import is being kind of crafted piecemeal. Thank you. Mr. Engman responded – I will jump in…. Gary Stewart back – the other thing is we have this letter because there are several errors in the work, that we are preparing, that we are going to be delivering tomorrow. Thanks. Mr. Engman responded – I will jump in at this point. The reason we have to move very fast, and we have had very little time, is, for example, we could only get a meeting for an hour because of the scheduling, is because after at least a decade of talking about changes to the possible SPEDES permit, all of a sudden it came out in the paper that there was going to be this proposed permitting system set up, so we just didn’t have the time, quite frankly, and it would have been nice if Cornell had contacted us to say that they were conspiring behind our backs to get this system going with the DEC, and in fact, in the news release, dragged the name of the Town of Ithaca into it by saying that we were getting, on behalf of the Department of State grant, that is going to go to the IO, the inter agency… I keep forgetting the exact name, that’s why I am stumbling. Can you give the name again. Rich DePaolo – Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Organization. Herb Engman again – and we have been very generously providing the financial or fiscal conduit for those monies to come from the Department of State to the IO and that project had been in the works for several years, and all of a sudden it comes out in a news release to make it look like the Town of Ithaca somehow was on board with all of this. Cornell University and the Department of Environmental Conservation knows full well where the Town of Ithaca has stood on this for the past ten years. We had an independent monitoring grant, we followed the project, we said consistently that Cornell was adding to the pollution of phosphorus to the south end of Cayuga Lake. That has never changed in the past ten years. We’ve had our own independent monitors looking at that. The Environmental Council of Tompkins County told Cornell before this thing was built that they would be adding phosphorus to the south end of Cayuga Lake and the Cornell folks absolutely refused, they said, as we heard earlier today “oh no it is simply going to add water to the south end of Cayuga Lake and will dilute the phosphorus.” Well Cornell’s own monitoring stations have proven that there is a great deal more phosphorus being added to the south end of Cayuga Lake by Lake Source Cooling. This is at the same time when the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Cayuga Heights Treatment Plant, have spent millions and millions of dollars to clean up our phosphorus loading. So the DEC now proposes to allow Cornell to continue to add phosphorus to the south end of Cayuga Lake at the same time the rest of us in the municipalities have had to spend millions of dollars to clean up our contribution. And its TB 11 13 2012 Page 7 of 9 not just the Town of Ithaca that’s saying this. This is a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the DEC on October 11, 2012; it says in part “the discharge from the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Facility contains phosphorus in amounts that may cause or contribute to an exceedence of water quality standards” Cornell has never admitted, never admitted that they are contributing phosphorus to the south end of Cayuga Lake. That has got to change and the place to change it is in the permitting procedure so that we can have an independent study of what’s really happening in the lake and not one controlled by an organization, Cornell University, that has refused to recognize what it’s doing to the south end of Cayuga Lake. That’s my comment. Anybody else? Yes Rich. Mr. DePaolo – I’d like to add to that very briefly. Just to go to Gary’s point about this being a last-minute deal and feeling shut out of the process; I don’t recall getting invited all these many years when apparently this deal was being constructed between Cornell and the DEC. It takes some time to prepare a Frequently Asked Questions of this magnitude. It takes time to develop a watershed modeling approach, complete with personnel and a budget. We didn’t hear about this until three weeks ago, so, I think that now that the shoe is on the other foot, unfortunately we are under a time constraint and we don’t have time to go back and forth. I think that the discharge data speaks for itself. I think that the history of the project speaks for itself. There are other issues in the permit that have either been inadequately addressed or haven’t been addressed at all; issues related to bio-entrainment, for example, the bio-entrainment mitigation system hasn’t been functional for 10 years that Cornell, again, argued that, after having told the community what a great mitigation it was going to be, after selling us on the idea that a low-level light mitigation system would keep these little fresh water shrimp out of the intake; they are now telling us that there is no evidence that that works. So who knows what to believe at some point, but all I can tell you is that for the past ten years the mitigation system that we were promised hasn’t been in place and Cornell hasn’t made any effort to replace it and hasn’t made any effort to develop another mitigation system and is now being given 4 or 5 years to study that again. So 15 years would have gone by and a major tenent, a major component of the project that was promised in 1998 simply doesn’t exist, it’s vaporware. So I am sorry that we haven’t had an opportunity to sit down, I sure wish you would have called us up a few meetings with DEC. Then we could have all figured out how to do this in a cooperative manner, but to impose your will on the State of New York and then by extension to municipalities who are going to be left holding the bag once your TMDL is developed, you know, unfortunately we have an obligation to protect our citizens, we have an obligation to protect our taxpayers, and I think that we have plenty of residents on the shore of Cayuga Lake who have witnessed a degradation in water quality; now granted, there are plenty of synergistic forces down there, but I don’t think that any scientist in their right mind would tell you that drawing soluble phosphorus from a stratified part of the lake and dumping it in 10-feet of water during the middle of the summer is good for the lake. So, that’s were we are. Mr. Engman asked if there was any further discussion and Mr. Goodman made one more minor change to the resolution on the table to add the title of the analysis in the last TB 11 13 2012 Page 8 of 9 further resolved to be clear. No objection from the mover and a vote was called for the revised resolution. The vote was unanimous. TB Resolution No. 2012-198: Opposing the Approval of the Proposed Permit for Lake Source Cooling by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation WHEREAS the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has proposed to modify the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Facility and WHEREAS in 1998 the southern end of Cayuga Lake was identified on the federal 303(d) list as an impaired water body due to excessive phosphorous and turbidity and WHEREAS the draft SPDES permit allows Cornell to continue to cause or contribute to existing water quality standards violations and allows for a significant increase in its phosphorus contribution and WHEREAS the draft SPDES permit also provides for Cornell University to develop a Cayuga Lake Water Quality Model Plan for the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to address the phosphorus impairment for the southern zone of Cayuga Lake and WHEREAS the draft SPDES permit also requires a study and subsequent technology requirements for minimizing adverse impact from impingement and entrainment of aquatic life and WHEREAS the draft SPDES permit allows for the removal of the existing LSC seasonal ambient permit compliance monitoring protocol Now therefore be it RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca opposes theapproval of the proposed permit for LSC by the DEC and FURTHER RESOLVED that the DEC or a consultant other than an involved permittee or affiliate, hired and supervised by the DEC, conduct the study to determine the TMDL for Cayuga Lake and FURTHER RESOLVED that the DEC honor its “anti-backsliding” regulations and require Cornell to immediately implement new procedures such as changing the outfall location for LSC or constructing a closed-loop system to eliminate its contributions to phosphorous loading to the south shelf of Cayuga Lake and FURTHER RESOLVED that modification of the existing permit compliance monitoring not be considered until the TMDL is determined and TB 11 13 2012 Page 9 of 9 FURTHER RESOLVED that the systems originally developed to mitigate impacts upon aquatic life be required to operate throughout the life of the study and until more effective means are researched and adopted and FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution and the Analysis of the Draft SPDES Permit for Lake Source Cooling, which together serve as SEQR comments on the draft permit, be sent to the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Governor, the Town's state-level elected officials, the Environmental Protection Agency and the President of Cornell University. Moved: RichDePaolo Seconded: Bill Goodman Vote: Ayes - Rich DePaolo, Bill Goodman, Herb Engman, Tee-Arm Hunter, Pat Leary Absent: EricLevine Motion made to adjourn by Mr. DePaolo, seconded by Ms. Hunter. Respectftffly submitted by. Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk ! ) f » ( \ t 1 f \ w|v^\i5- Analysis of the Draft SPDES Permit for Lake Source Cooling Permit #NY0244741 Town of Ithaca, NY November, 2012 The proposed SPDES discharge permit for Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling facility. Including the university's potential lead role In the development of Total Maximum Dally Load parameters for southern ^ ^ Cayuga Lake, does not protect water quality, aquatic life, nor ensure equal participation by stakeholders or equitable distribution of potential future costs associated with water quality restoration. Introduction Southern Cayuga Lake serves as the drinking water source for 30,000 residents and a recreational destination for residents and tourists. In 1998, the southern 5,000 acres of Cayuga Lake were Included on the federal 303(d) list of waterbodles where existing pollution controls are Insufficient to allow the waters to attain their designated uses. Also In 1998, Cornell University received a discharge permit for Lake Source Cooling (LSC), a once-through non-contact cooling system used In conjunction with the university's electric chiller system to alr-condltlon portions of campus. Since July, 2000, LSC has been withdrawing water enriched with soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) from a depth of approximately 230 feet and discharging It Into 9-12 feet of water a few hundred feet offshore from Its heat exchange facility. The receiving waters, particularly during the summer months when LSC flows are highest, are relatively low in soluble phosphorus due to the rapid uptake of SRP by weeds and algae. The southern shelf of Cayuga Lake regularly suffers from excessive weed growth and algal blooms In the summer months. During the development of LSC, Its potential to exacerbate weed and algae problems on the shelf of Cayuga Lake was controversial and widely discussed. Also considered at that time was the project's potential Impact on aquatic life as a result of entralnment, entrapment and Impingement of organisms by ^ the intake structure and pipe. The Impact of Lake Source Cooling's thermal plume on fish migration and , , propagation was never researched and the project was permitted to discharge Into shallow water. In the twelve years following Inception of the discharge, water quality monitoring data has shown a statistical link between the LSC discharge and the Increase of Chlorophyll-a on the shelf (Chlorophyll-a Is considered to be the most reliable Indicator of trophic status), the light mitigation system designed to reduce entralnment of micro-organisms was destroyed by a boating accident (In 2002) and never repaired, and the effect of the cold-water plume on aquatic life has still not been Investigated. Proposed Phosphorus Limits The New York State narrative water quality standard for phosphorus Is, "None in amounts that result in the growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages." Not only do the total phosphorus (P) limits proposed In the draft SPDES permit allow Cornell to continue to cause or contribute to existing water quality standards violations, as defined above, they allow for a significant Increase In Its phosphorus contribution. As campus cooling demand has grown, so too has the LSC contribution of phosphorus to the shallow shelf of southern Cayuga Lake. According to discharge data In the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) ECHO database, the average contribution of phosphorus from LSC has nearly doubled since Its Inception and now stands at 2.78 pounds per day, year-round. Moreover, the contribution during the high-flow summer months of June ^ ^ through September, when algae and weeds proliferate, now stands at 4.56 pounds per day (see graphs \ below). 3.so -TP/dayL(TMRA) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 CM r>j m pfv (*)^ s < ^"sr iA in Ln vows 99<?c?9999S> ' ^ " S- -S 1 a S- G050 S<--z r>»co oo oo «nCT»ooot-H «-<cN ®''cc>fcQ.j5 "3y ^"K Is J5-a» Qi ^ ro " ^< (/> u. O 5 O 5 5.00 TP/day-June through Sep By contrast, since the year 2000, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (historically, the area's single largest point-source discharger), has reduced it's average daily discharge from approximately 30 [ ^ pounds to under 7 pounds, and its June through September average daily contribution to 4.8 pounds (despite a 5.2% increase in population served since 2000). Similarly, the Cayuga Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant has reduced its phosphorus load from approximately 11 to 4 pounds per day, and from roughly 8 to 3 pounds per day during the summer growing season. The Lake Source Cooling phosphorus discharge exceeded the Cayuga Heights discharge by 48% and 23% In the last two summer seasons respectively, and now equals the Ithaca Wastewater Treatment Facility during the summer months. In short, taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to reduce point-source phosphorus contributions to the shelf while Cornell, a tax exempt multi-billion dollar institution, has increased its contribution and resisted efforts to offset or mitigate its effects. The effluent limitations proposed by the LSC draft SPDES permit do not create any meaningful safeguards. A quick look at the historical discharge data shows that, on a monthly average basis, LSC exceeded the proposed "final" daily average limit only 4 times in 144 months (all 4 times during the high- flow summer months). The proposed "final" limit represents a 70% increase over the facility's average year-round daily contribution of 2.78 pounds. Of even greater concern is the fact that the "interim" daily limit of 6.4 pounds, which would inexplicably be in effect for 5 years, would allow for a phosphorus loading increase of 22% over the highest single-month daily average on record (5.26 pounds/day in Juiy, 2011). The interim limit allows a 40% increase over the facility's high-flow summer average and a staggering 130% increase over the year-round daily average. i \ I \ In summary, even though there is now no effiuent limit for phosphorus in the LSC SPDES permit, it's hard to imagine how the proposed permit limits comply with NYSDEC anti-backsliding provisions, as they allow for significant increases over the system's historical averages. To the contrary, it appears as though permit writers simply looked at the system's design capacity and influent phosphorus concentrations and came up with effluent limitations that would allow for flows to expand to full design capacity, without risking effluent violations. NYSDEC Evidence of Deteriorating Water Quality and Probable LSC Impact Shortly after inception of the Lake Source Cooling discharge, and to comply with permit requirements, Cornell proposed a study protocol that would analyze post-op ambient water quality against baseline data in order to measure potential impacts. NYSDEC agreed to Cornell's proposed methodology. Subsequently, a Before-After-lmpact-Control (BACI) analysis was conducted and a report issued by Cornell's monitoring contractor. Upstate Freshwater Institute. Correspondence between NYSDEC and Cornell indicates that the Department was aware of the southern basin's widespread water quality deterioration, and had concluded that Lake Source Cooling had most likely been contributing to a decrease in water quality on the southern shelf since its inception. A May 28, 2009 letter from NYSDEC Engineer James Burke to Cornell's Senior Director of Utilities, James Adams is excerpted below: f ^ ' "The statistical findings from the BACI Study, while open to interpretation, are deemed i \ by the NYSDEC to demonstrate the likelihood of adverse water quality impacts (specifically, increased primary production) in the southeast portion of the southern end of Cayuga Lake (Shelf), as well as possible adverse effects to the northwest of the discharge, since start-up of the LSC facility when interpreted on an environmentally conservative basis." "It is possible/probable that the LSC discharge has in part been contributory to that decline in water quality." (emphasis added) "It should also be emphasized that regardless of the causative mechanism(s) responsible for the observed SRP increases which the authors of the BACI report rightly point out is uncertain at this juncture, the concern remains with regard to the transfer of a substantial volume of nutrient enriched water to the photic zone of an impaired water body segment." (emphasis added) ''First, the fact that these reports occurred in 2007, suggests that concerns about the south lake continue even subsequent to implementation of advanced P removal at the Ithaca-Area WWTP (lAWWTP), and suggests that this environmentally important step has apparently not been sufficient to resolve many of the issues of concern in the south lake." In summary, Cornell designed and submitted an impact analysis protocol that was approved by NYSDEC. NYSDEC communicated to Cornell that Lake Source Cooling was likely contributing to a deterioration of ' ^ water quality in southern Cayuga Lake. Cornell then argued against using its own statistical methodology. Now, however, NYSDEC seems to be ignoring its own conclusions by designing permit values that allow a known polluter to expand its discharge into a waterbody segment that was recognized to have been degraded at the time its original permit was issued. NYSDEC should abide by its own findings and require prompt mitigation and/or offsets to Cornell's discharge. Studying the lake for 5 more years isn't going to change what the Department has known since 2007. Bio-entrainment The impact of Lake Source Cooling on aquatic life was widely discussed during project development. The Environmental Impact Statement for Lake Source Cooling (EIS) dealt with these concerns in depth. It was proposed, based on field research, that a 2 millimeter wedge wire screen and low-intensity light would deter and prevent organisms from approaching and entering the intake. Of particular interest was Mysis relicta, a small freshwater crustacean essential to the aquatic food chain. The following excerpts from EIS Section 2.3.4 show the extent to which LSC developers were promoting the light mitigation system in response to public concern: "M. relicta will avoid artificial light at low levels. Installation of a light on the LSC intake would create a region surrounding the intake that M. relicta would actively avoid (an exclusion zone). A low power, eight-watt bulb on the intake will create an exclusion zone large enough to enable M. relicta to avoid the flow field induced by the LSC intake and of low enough intensity not to attract other species." "The LSC team investigated the effectiveness of light of different intensity in repelling M. relicta in a series of experiments conducted during the 1995 field season." ^ "The effectiveness of artificial light as a mitigating measure was confirmed during this series of experiments. The layer of M. relicta was depressed in the zone of influence of the light." (emphasis added) In direct contradiction to the research cited above, however, the Biological Factsheet prepared by Michael Calaban of NYSDEC in October, 2012, draws an entirely different and unsubstantiated conclusion; "A freshwater crustacean, a mysid shrimp {Mysis relicta), is found throughout Lake Cayuga in the deep cold regions {i.e., hypolimnion). Though found near the lake bottom during the day, the species does migrate vertically at night. This species is considered to be an important component of the Lake Cayuga ecosystem and was studied extensively prior to the operation of the LCS (sic)." "A low intensity light was also installed to keep freshwater mysids {Mysis reiicta) away from the intake. However, studies have not shown this deterrent system to be effective, and it is no longer in use." (emphasis added) To set the record straight, the light mitigation system was not discontinued due to its ineffectiveness; it was discontinued, reportedly, due to it having been destroyed when a boat anchor tangled and yanked its marker buoy near the surface. It was not repaired due to cost concerns and Cornell's sudden about- ^ face regarding its effectiveness (despite earlier assurances). The accident occurred in 2002. NYSDEC has , , since dragged its heels for 10 years while countless organisms have been needlessly killed. The effect on the eco-system can only be estimated. But, whatever it is, it's more than we were promised it would be. It is unacceptable that, after wasting 10 years, NYSDEC now sees fit to grant Cornell another 5 years to study the problem. Moreover, it is unconvincing that the Department now references uncited "studies" to contradict what Cornell strenuously claimed it proved in 1995. Either the Department is wrong or Cornell is wrong about the effectiveness of light mitigation. Either way, the facts do not instill confidence in the Department's ability to regulate, or in Cornell's ability to develop effective mitigation strategies. By now, Cornell should have plenty of baseline data regarding the effects of its unlit intake structure on micro-organisms. It should be compelled to immediately install light mitigation as Best Available Technology, and assess its effectiveness over the next 5 years, not continue with the status quo. Thermal Discharge Criteria Part 704 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law governs thermal discharge criteria. §704.2(3)(iii) specifies: "In lakes subject to stratification as defined in Part 652 of this Title, thermal discharges that will lower the temperature of the receiving waters shall be discharged to the hypolimnion..." (emphasis added) Cayuga Lake is "subject to stratification" during the summer. As permitted, LSC is allowed to withdraw up to 46 million gallons per day of cold hypolimnetic water (39 degrees F) and discharge the effluent in 9 r \ to 12 feet of water at temperatures between 51 and 56 degrees (F). ' The thermal modeling data in the LSC EIS indicated that the largest thermal plumes associated with the / \ outfall would be cold water plumes during the maximum-flow summer months (June through October). ^ See EIS Figure 2.3.2-23E. Compare EIS Figure 4.7-4 Alternative Discharge: 30 Meters Deep. LSC was projected to discharge 76% of its annual effluent during the months when the discharge would be colder than the receiving waters. The average temperature differential when the discharge would be co/cfer than the receiving waters was projected to be -11.1 degrees (F). The average temperature differential when the discharge would be warmer than the receiving waters was projected to be +3.8 degrees (F). ECL §704.4 outlines the mechanism for applying for a modification to one or more of the thermal discharge criteria set forth in §704.2. Section 704.4(b) specifies: "Upon receipt of such application, the commissioner shall confer with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and shall transmit to that agency information to enable the administrator to fulfill responsibilities under Federal Law." Section 704.4(e) states: "A public hearing shall be held upon the application." The modification to the deep water discharge criterion set forth in §704.2(3)(iii) appears to have been granted without regard to the procedure the Department must legally follow in order to consider such a variance. Representatives of NYSDEC initially involved with the environmental review and permit administration of LSC were unable to produce an "application" by Cornell requesting circumvention of the thermal discharge criteria and had no recollection of such a variance application process ever having been followed in New York, presumably due to the scarcity of cold thermal discharges. In the case of LSC, an application was never filed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was not conferred with nor provided with information as required by §704.4(b), and a public hearing was not ^ "held upon the application." The EIS for LSC indicated that a variance would be needed to allow a cold water discharge into shallow waters: "Because the return flow is cooler than background water temperatures during the summer, a variance to the state's discharge criteria is required." See DEIS Chapter Summaries, page 15. However, the variance was not mentioned in LSC DEIS Table ES-4, the list of required permits and approvals. The original (now administratively extended) SPDES permit, which allows a discharge of cold hypolimnetic water into the epilimnion, was fashioned outside of a legally mandated procedure which involves a specific application, a separate public hearing, and the involvement of the USEPA. Since the draft SPDES permit is again silent on the issue of thermal discharge criteria and, in light of the fact that an application was never filed, a joint review with USEPA never coordinated, and a dedicated public hearing never held, NYSDEC should immediately implement the requirements of ECL §704.4 before a final permit is issued. Alternate outfall locations must be considered before a final permit is issued and consideration must include a thermal analysis. Cornell and NYSDEC must provide, with USEPA involvement, a justification for allowing the contravention of the thermal discharge criteria in state law. Permit Compliance Monitoring The ambient water monitoring program for Lake Source Cooling consists of 8 monitoring stations, 7 distributed throughout the southern shelf and one deep water site north of the shelf. Cornell has regularly sought to curtail or eliminate its permit compliance monitoring, presumably for cost reasons, and possibly, to reduce the risk of assuming responsibility for causing or contributing to water quality standards violations. The Town of Ithaca strongly objects to the discontinuance of permit compliance monitoring, as proposed in the draft SPDES permit, particularly in light of its effectiveness at correlating LSC impacts, as indicated [ ^ during the BACI study. As recently as 2008, Cornell proposed to reallocate money spent on permit compliance monitoring toward community-based monitoring efforts if monitoring organizations would support its effort to dismantle LSC monitoring. The Town of Ithaca opposed that quid pro quo then, and does so now for the same reasons. Cornell should be encouraged to donate generously to community monitoring efforts, but not at the expense of permit compliance monitoring. TMDL Development The nutrient and silt impairments of southern Cayuga Lake have been widely recognized for decades and were formally recognized as requiring a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in 1998. In 2002, the impaired segment was identified as having a "High Priority" on the federal 303(d) listing. It has taken NYSDEC14 years to propose any course of action that would result in a TMDL. The proposed course of action is not in the best interest of all stakeholders and should be reconsidered. It is no secret to the public, to NYSDEC or to USEPA Region 2 that Cornell has vociferously argued against any outcome that would alter its LSC discharge or implicate it in the deterioration of water quality. It strains credibility now, given its regular defense of Lake Source Cooling, that Cornell would be entrusted with spearheading the TMDL initiative with such an expensive conflict of interest hanging in the balance. The Town of Ithaca is well aware that resources are scarce at NYSDEC. The Town is also aware of the inter-connectedness of NYSDEC and Cornell University, which, as the state's land grant university, has an inextricable affiliation with the State of New York. In keeping with the spirit of the USEPA 1999 proposal that Cornell offset its phosphorus contribution to Cayuga Lake by financing mitigations elsewhere in the watershed, Cornell should direct the resources it identified for TMDL development to a wholly independent entity, determined by public process, that would be charged with coordinating stakeholders and research efforts. NYSDEC and USEPA would, presumably, retain their respective oversight roles. Conclusion The Town of Ithaca recognizes the importance of combating climate change and continues to take steps to reduce its carbon footprint and advance energy saving and green initiatives in practice and legislation. The reductions in greenhouse gases achieved by Lake Source Cooling appear to be significant over conventional electrical chillers, as are the resultant long-term cost savings to Cornell. However, reductions in air pollution must not come at the expense of water quality, particularly where mitigations, such as outfall relocation, a closed-loop system and pre-treatment are possible. The draft SPDES permit for Lake Source Cooling is an insult to taxpayers, an affront to the environment and serves as continued evidence of the regulatory failure of NYSDEC in this matter. The Town of Ithaca urges NYSDEC to scrap the draft permit and restart the permit process and TMDL initiative with all stakeholders, in an open, public process. ' ^ 6U 1. Corrections/Clarifications: a. "The town is alarmed that the DEC is proposing that the permittee, Cornell University, be charged with conducting a study that will determine the fate of its own permit " Cornell will not be conducting a study that will determine the fate of the permit for the Lake Source Cooling facility. Rather, Cornell is being required to fund the development of a water quality model of Cayuga Lake and its watershed; the model will be completed in an open and collaborative manner, under DEC direction and full oversight. Once the modeling effort is complete and accepted, DEC will use this tool to evaluate potential limits on phosphorus inputs to southern Cayuga Lake. The lack of a model has prevented DEC from meeting their obligation to complete a TMDL for phosphorus in southern Cayuga Lake. b. "This is a clear conflict of interest" A cooperative effort is common for TMDL development in cases where the state does not have adequate internal resources to develop a complex water quality lake model. A current local example is the phosphorus TMDL for Onondaga Lake in Syracuse NY. Onondaga County Water Environment Protection, which operates the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant, funded development of the lake water quality model, under DEC oversight. Once completed, DEC used the model to develop a TMDL and issue effluent limits. c. "It is irresponsible for the DEC to allow Cornell University to increase its phosphorus effluent limits and to abandon its monitoring requirements prior to completion of the study." The draft permit language would restrict, not increase, phosphorus circulated by the LSC facility. At present, the LSC facility does not have any phosphorus effluent limit. The draft permit would impose a phosphorus limit on the LSC return flow for the first time. The draft interim phosphorus limit (6.4 pounds per day) is based on current operations; DEC calculated this value using a statistical analysis; the limit represents the upper 95% percentile of historical operations. Operation of the LSC facility may need to be limited on the peak warm weather days for Cornell to meet the proposed interim limit. Lake monitoring will extend through 2013, and include the entire lake. d. "Allowing an increase in Cornell-produced pollution prior to completion of a study is unacceptable." As explained above, the proposed interim phosphorus limit on the LSC facility will effectively cap operations at a maximum of 95% of the historical water circulation rate. However, scaling back the LSC facility may have the unintended consequence of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, as Cornell may have to use electrically-driven chillers to replace the diminished cooling capacity on peak days. ■•U-'i ' »wy! F'-oni;b07-e~3'58?^ F ifteJc'c ITHACA TOWN BOARD TO REVIEW UKE SOURCE COOLINO PERMIT [ ^ Fur lniine<i)p.tc Release ^ The Town Board t>r ihc Town of Itliaca wil) hold a special mcciing Tuesday, Novembei 13 Qi 3:00 at the Ithaca Town Hall to rev iew .he pending application fur mudifieotion of Cornell University's Lake Soiircc Cooling pcnnii from the NYS Depatimem of Enviromnental Cunservuiiim. The Town Board wili determine if ii should oh;eei to the permit inodirita'.ion and request a hearing on the matter. Herb Engman, Town Supervisor, stated. *Tbe Town i.s alanncd that the DEC is propo.^ing that ihepcnrtiiice, Cornell Umversity, be charged with conducting o study thai will determine the fate of its own permii. This is a clear conflict of intere.sl. Tltc DEC should conduct the study itself or contract for on independent study." Engman continued: "It is inx^spoosible for the DEC to allow Cornell University to increase its phosphorus effluent limits and to abandon its monitoiing requirements prior to completion of a study. Lake Souruc Cooling has substantially added soluble reactive phosphorus ui the suuUi end of Cayuga Lake at the same lime that the Itliaca Area Wnsiewaier Treatment Plant and the Cayuga Heiglits Wastewater Treaimeni Plant have spend millions of dollars to reduce the amount of phosphorus in the lake. Allowing an increase in CoroclLprv'xluced pollution prior to completion of a study is unacceptable." rhe Town Board encourages the public to review and respond to the proposed permit modincation. Tlic draft permit is available for rcvicw or. the DEC/s web.sitc ar: ' ^ hitn!//ww\v.dec.nv.pov/enh/enb.himl. Comments to the DF.C are due November Id to: ' Teresa Dichsncr NYSDEC 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233 (51H) 402-9167 Media contact; Herb Engman Town Supervisor (607) 273-1721. F.xt 125 HaiemanS'iown.ithacfl.nv.iiii 2IS NorUi Tioga Street Ithaca. NY 148SU / > i ^ vt| ^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYI I region 2 I SEZ ^ 290 BROADWAY NEWYORK. NY 10007-1886 OCT1U012 Mr. Mark Klotz Director Division of Water New York Stale Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-3500 Dear Mr. Klotz: On August 2,2012, EPA Region 2 water program staff and their counterparts at the New York State Department of En vironmental Conservation met by videoconference to discuss the establishment of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for Cayiiga Lake and the renewal of the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling facility, both of which are a high priority for the EPA. We are writing this letter to ensure that there is an understanding of the necessary steps to move forward on addressing the pollutants impairing the recreational uses in Cayuga Lake. NYSDEC first identified Cayuga Lake as threatened due to silt and nutrients in New York's 1998 Clean Water Act section 303(d) list, under the section "Waterbodies Needing Verification." In 2002, NYSDEC identified Cayuga Lake as impaired due to phosphorus and silt/sediment from municipal and nonpoint sources and ranked Cayuga Lake as a high priority for TMDL development. In 2008, NYSDEC added pathogens from.municipal and.nonpoint sources to the list of pollutants impairing this waterbody. As you are aware, NYSDEC is the lead agency for addressing Southern Cayuga Lake impairments through the development of TMDLs and the lead agency for the renewal of the SPDES permit for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling facility. The EPA expects NYSDEC to provide a schedule for the establishment of a TMDL, particularly given the passage of time since the original impairment listing in 2002, and to issue a draft SPDES permit for the Cornell facility. TMDL/Walershed Management Approach Given the multiple point and nonpoint sources in the watershed, the NYSDEC should assess the available data and more fully understand water quality dynamics within the southern portion of the lake and develop remedial measures (e.g., development of a total maximum daily load, implementation of watershed control measures, etc.) to address these concerns. The sources of pollutant loadings are numerous and occur throughout the watershed. In addition to the discharge from the Cornell Lake Source Cooling facility, multiple municipal wastewater discharges and urban/storm water runoff from the City of Ithaca also contribute to impairment of the lake. Agricultural activity in the Southern Cayuga Lake watershed includes significant levels of dairy farming, poultry operations and cropland. Nonpoint source loadings from increasing development, stream erosion and roadbank erosion are also identified as ^ sources of pollutants to the tributaries and lake. Internet Address (URL) • hltp://www.epa.gov Rscycled/Rscyclible *Prtnt«<l with Vsoatabls OM Bswd Inks on Racyotad Papar {Minimum S0% Poatconaumar contani) NYSDEC should organize a group of stakeholders including Cornell University, other point and nonpoint source dischargers to the lake, other state and local governments and agencies, non-governmental organizations, and Indian Nations with a history of interest in the improvement of ^ ^ Cayuga Lake water quality. This workgroup would be charged with assessing available data; identifying ' ^ data gaps; choosing hydrodynamic and water quality models; and developing a plan designed to achieve water quality standards in Cayuga Lake, including the establishment and implementation of EPA-approved TMDLs as necessary and a watershed management approach capable of addressing water quality problems in Cayuga Lake. The EPA will work with NYSDEC as part of the group of interested parties to provide technical, regulatory and policy-based support towards the establishment of TMDLs, or other agreed upon watershed management controls that will result in water quality standards being achieved in Cayuga Lake. Lake Source Cooling Facility SPDES Permit The current permit in effect for this facility was originally issued in 1998 prior to the Clean Water Act section 303(d) impairment listing for phosphorous, and prior to the commencement of discharge. This permit was modified in 2002, administratively renewed in 2003 with an expiration date of March 1, 2008, and is currently administratively extended. While this pennit includes both effluent and ambient monitoring requirements for phosphorous, it does not include a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL). The discharge from the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling facility contains phosphorous in amounts that may cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(d), in this renewal of the SPDES permit for this facility, NYSDEC must establish an effluent limitation that is protective of the narrative water quality standard for total phosphorous. We understand that NYSDEC uses the guidance value of 20 ug/i as a numeric interpretation of that standard. The EPA does not require end-of-pipe limits for all dischargers prior to > TMDL development. However, permitting authorities must develop water-quality based effluent limits > ! that are protective of water quality standards. The state's analysis may indeed result in a standards-based end-of-pipe limit. NYSDEC may need to require that Cornell construct an alternative such as advanced wastewater treatment, extension of the discharge pipe, or installation of a closed-loop system in order to meet water quality-based permit requirements. This facility also withdraws a significant flow of water through an intake structure to be used for cooling purposes. We expect that the SPDES permit for this facility will include a determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse impact from impingement and entrainment of aquatic life, in accordance with the requirements of Clean Water Act section 316(b). In summary, EPA will work with NYSDEC to provide technical, regulatory and policy-based support towards .the establishment of TMDLs and the renewal of the SPDES permit for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling facility. We hope to move forward on these matters expeditiously and ask that you provide a schedule for the establishment of a TMDL in the near future. We ask that you confirm that you are in agreement with the steps proposed in this letter by October 26, 2012. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at (212) 637-3873. Sincerely, ^ Jeffref F. Gratz, Deputy Dir^^er / \ Clean Water Division ' Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.com/Lake!SourceCooling/documents/ietier/2Uiz/. Phase I Environmental Database Services Letter to Governor Cuomo May 23, 2012 Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo Governor, State of New York The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Dear Governor Cuomo: I write to request that you take immediate action to eliminate massive water quality impairments in Southern Cayuga Lake caused by excessive phosphorus and turbidity that New York State has failed to remedy for more than 50 years. This matter warrants your urgent attention. Not only has your Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to clean up Cayuga Lake's long-standing pollution problems, it actually made them far worse by improperly granting a 1998 discharge permit to Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling facility in clear violation of the Clean Water Act. Lake Source Cooling's Pollution Threat to Cayuga Lake LSC's pollution threat to Southern Cayuga Lake was highlighted in a lengthy 1999 article In The New York Times: http;//www.nytimes.com/1999/03/27/nyregion/aid-environment-threat-lake-c... The Metro Section SAn/ROiiy. MAKCH It. IHt SnjcyrtuJjorkSimcs PtpNI>>~«r UU Ci)rx(*u tfitka l|cM« ^taioktia fipe«M9srwi« 4rfw bifid ••• VframtlM b^McoaiCtf* »»• UMwdiy. Aid to Environment, Or Threat to Lake? Cornell Pursues Pumping Plan, But Critics Fear Fouled Water Ay A.SDKRVCHeVKIN m(A(A h.V — II M mtatkkM'i lirmm: 4 lyftvnt ilut taa end 10 taitUcai *(|w»i« fetl CarMl DhiTanlijr 4en«iUviM, lnboialMM* ond cM^KUir r«nrB» Oy ovnyMi tncM wtttr (nA d»pchi d • mt/1rr Idt*. n«rv (tikn*- nwrfltirlwK ih* nltrtmnf tlw tfcfirt HfSM i« rtm •ri?eee*ere. *• «l*ct/R M 00 perc* 14 wdkr than Mv eeifwkmti ur •rt 10 top n VT. iAkl4< BM tKl OM Ite UU. MTvpi ««trr ttfi <nw fn» lM laki lo IW Iba place a«i *14 c''^op d MM* tf»4l CtfTVA't Rsafipf ur rvidirtvwfi U actutry m mvjwvtMaJ UiMowirt T>*y aay u tetM chokVtc Uanvk ef m4 Mofrto It 0» «eutk nd d VAtvtt LaU, «m> pf iha Litat er«at«d «brr« •rrWeoH f<r* Ywt duro^tkf UM ie« IMntif^ to Ra yean <4 »ikdMt. (houiandl at paan <9/ 4»(4. *ad ntn t^tu a «tfM pvrmki frota nr JJ 4A4 criit w/rtm. VwatU tmJ iml ihe Ml weold ad jvoi ua iW mOmI mwvy: u ««fi< rMwa ContoA'* fomntwiM l« pvvwu •wmuv tr L&t nM to ban omJ io lewTiN elKirlcXiy. for V» MM (pACBAMO <ifKt4H N«t Mi emmrantn U VMpmwi to «•( M* U$b fpar In AfdU tto $ uiiU, ttotxitfiM MiBlM at crius InB IthMJ B*iJ ■tfTwdUl Totoflkta Otototy tpya tba ittestt ftm iImiW maar hov* how WfTtoM. T>i«y pinttrM M«fon froco m W.S. (LmiyJ jvyvr, lA iht/ft otp pUa to (toosp^rpsar tram Cftyvt* tsW. 4 wmdd impr?^ t 1 of 14 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/2012/. J T Ji t [ Cornell Pumping Plan Rouses Fears for Lake Cuiiinun] mm rvu* HI Ut giv>li] u OK Kgiwkl HnwrcM IMtSM Oiilicd. a IK-ii'F Tnrinio- amlalaigtnuaibii. and RaijihNr 4tr. Thaj-aajr KawYsiti suitaiivinio mualollkula jfunM |>nmlu ter Ok pmjcct lavliilaiinitaf a [anvlOiin af Ok l>e*ral Ufu vaier Act, utlfcll piiKiiaainvK raliKMn im)- uia a lau tt i|va> ihdi la IniMci) UB a list Gd*7inpBlied " u«- Icr bolH. tCvsi laa pro)rci KOukI rMuiTC ba Uk lake cnly 0>a oalarihal II rtantnnl.Ihal niiKlderol a lUK >«huu< uailaralaua lar. 'Tim tbikh LlpcdCa>tJHa takeiaBa lu a iiii o( oiiaaiiod Ksler lisillG] iKil yrAP. OnirlaU alOi <ot* Mil Bad tru iiala ccecmil, iMiumw. <»ei iha llHltij II In a aiMlal i; aeicDvuad by itK Fakinl IiNn uil lilKhann. Ai ftHilaia lalnuia.emnasievoal dcMKitlilacai*k>»M •iihajiiaacd pipe 5l( aknit ihc laic >!>»«, a baiM ul t-nalliaiie IcucrapciBuikBl iIir UaCRl XUtl Envlmmeial friB iM'llcKi Aei«Ky ki b<4la a inww at Iba lllil iliai-nmrlf t"cat4 Dv ih» Kcc Yeik Staic UnHKiuiiL m UrnircnrncRlal Crm.arvailnn. 1>C IriieK. Khich coiJil roiull la iki'icfinnshOTerKi.taito.is etpeci- eO lu lie Hiutbcd laaaity Apill, uhl kiln* Heiira. h spakeiRiMmaa (crctK F PA Bk mill j| ytm "InliTy uii utuaj" fer Ule aiency la tuiduU lorh a muu. Nraaw Ktto an lynn Ok ainluirUy in iraci vviinr (iWay ^brra m na picftr yri aa CmelL •wicataafi tiiU whnlniilialuia my iM Ihey atceDdnl u avary <Kuil iffnMcli live ymn ill pinnate^ rr. mairk. and etiulmr. lave ifliniUmiliiriuntui inim Hit kical l^rra Club chapicr, die anuniy jnid i*aii|{ii>tninyfiilii.Fv«i(nin abtaC. nkypmlessai ac JUiacAOjILi^dMn i>w km — nM a usual aeurva or luppmHa'Ciilliall. . Bin >»e lupiisrtari o( Ike plui uy Ibcy are M nKnKr Kjieiiier anyb>gpru|a:t.goid 111 U ^ubli uivmnra "llui l> a malar aaclnil pnb- Kfsiraakl Dr. Jaka QnFar. iba Iiln1> ogy prvilniar lUtbaea Collefk *tin li'Mhni anUchslDX)' bob but li alia an aapaii n ir* ilyntailn at lakei. lit uiPlKcuaidliodiiAtiivlriMiiiim lal liBunl [luin the piuletl "We 1ui»e otlo o Ike (lomi nhtv* wr illMruU lelraalua " Dr. rniilar said 'A.intiiial myi .T anil aiiylmi) ijp Y ami y«j> ti Oiaua" • Un OX utxe skw ul iV Hue. 'MUc Hunt. Kho rail an lihaca HiClDnfi Ibit naifK mot aliti aicuiUHtw Yurk SUic.haa knihii luniponyT upariiia (a Ox oppn. aaiilicf llieOiiiieJI|irn;iei llu iim- ri rn. M yia* a Uul sllovlut ji in Ccecacd viiuld .euiliiin Ox Ocim We- ur An Tlaiuiiy iif tihia-naad o ibreaainjt Bade el aibuiban and ivrai develup mtui III ol Ike wuin pmj oI ibe w- ciillr.leat laac. Tkcre. ikr WMi'f arm lana uauiiy In the lunaniaii, evB) iMugk <kr |im nl the luke li <lei& TWs enaia [iIiuiIb llivie In anihti n'liH*: ntout U raubea pal- kniaday a( Irmivil waiier. .Clikcienicliaaa, letaial cskiriu- aKln. iiiMaii; liie uirrcuiidiiig ■own ti liNcn. drai drBliuic waici train ttelukn Cniiur rvnklvnls learlid llir C'leaeU prajair. aiwi IT il mlill iiiM » link w uw prnbkmii. Opponent* d l>w Lake Cajkija pucnpaif plan InrliKlt Whllrr Hanti ^tmt. who ruiu a buaaicai UuK iim«<iUinUi allak Riumul New Ymk SinX. Mr; Ibit| aaki CemcU Uimeraftir'a projcet woiilj violaX feiltnl law. tViee mttiu,SS aiumi -j n •; V'; -rwUerMllw A LTl milliaii |>iini[mit *y*imiwmild cftol Cnenel Uniwiily. Al ri[ht Uaythall W. Dnllaid, wiili Mi. Ibiig'iidiiiiutiy, ehKla m* ter near a clUchaifoplpe. coiiH ihreaiea ma waiw ivpply. "irjuii believe ibe la«. iMilakaa auppoaul in at aJudicd. iie: a rnim. inirmnii (lian. aol Ihert are lup. paoed ubc no run'diiiiweteii" Mr. Hani aad "Bar dice'i mil hniipcm. Iiill So cuiiraa liera have bed :o tRCIBiHr Ircal eipcria. IcHnillia, I'lNin aiiiveyeri, all li> ruKw iiiir nnd Pmloitil builHcUIca lo do wliui III ay Id >11 III) liayviSmr.unihnieNiK" Aa eiat<oyr« M liiauusipasiy. To*. KB TbriiclBW. Iipi bttua imlcms aXntairnuatuaka anwiol inalalH, ■xHtiait wuiMu o< pcllulnn ii>in( a 'UeSiX (aauiceiog lyuevn.Tliiilai peoeeilui* «i tu« art wcpml lo un- ikriake arnnnd titty water tody thai II tceTkBllyOianiiBlRnjiBiridby (uiruURi. Mr. Pakb raid. Ilia Coinilt ilair eniilixers 'wha cmctvrd Ihe cenllup plan aay Inalr Bkal all ahini wen la ludavu ilw tmnnra lAparl oe Ihe wmuuanl. act max noo pnHiiiiina The likool'i icualces Mil lend rliiil vhliuidliKinirarbicH. cr CFC'c. Ike moil onminim lafiictTaat chtcal- enl, vxre lu bi cdrmliiaied liuin lite campuibydlUklhe chcmiridalURe bam linked la a deurlurauan of ihe eaucr layer litfl Ib U« alairRi|ev.|v lllil ahlrHa the c«nk Inim karinhit ull'iivkklrwllallun.Tbara waa abo a pufli lur energyclruxnc}'. te ilt 10 m catit and pet- Biikn. tB newml New Yoit. cou l» Ifee aamBdjiI flMi a (rikci plhiix. Indadraiha lauvYrbily'a gva iiiuill larwe plm. Il •maofilyniiurallhal HcbtMnl Uiniu luaw 10 llir ivlii dbpUHd Ca. )<BU Ukn, niur iiiilr* truai the bilkliV laaou. llieaaiei iHi|i[.it>iaiutela Iba iWiip«« pun *1 ihe take la an akncBt eimaiaut ]p dey iwea. A bwrn d mtfntzch CBiBC up «ith a<liB(la lyKaia ul pipec and pmpiihai pullt rbr <luUy wawr lieni »l Imt cloRi? la Ike leUi iw a hciij ea-elumg* an alnrc. Tbete ■ mould acQ spwarmniciimnirnNBlIx canpuiIn waier elrvulMias 1n/a^pb a Iwiii lap d pTK. Tlia unly alher Uffillar I r UciB u In SiMda ^ Qhkv 11 efl ILI a ilipkl. Tliil uix icuti bulldlnpi In dMBCOwn Siixkhiilin uang ejilllral VDlir (mni Ux Ualilr tea. W.S. tunny) Joyer. itx piujml (llrwior, lahl em>' Hrp cd Uie ctui. tliuPknaMiyoiuliMdlhr cwUnu lyuea hbd tmn ih«ib*ed to mini' mue n> (mpuci. TTk Iniiike pipe, lukklwn rmtntcdlniJialjkR wnuhl hinr a itnrrd pcfleramr lu coo rilhBRuy ami IIkIiIi lo drier liny frtob. Baler ibrinip lid ia«ru umcrwiu! bttui'Vidln.lieaui Ibeihiiinp.iifl linpniliiriilieik In the (fike'ii (vuj .web. rcllramly pkw: Itpha. lie nael Tlie lake water wuiU nnar ni ii- bW wldi llu! water ilreulxliis uruum lha rcmina. ahlih heal CUiuxaii at II lu I'lvvnd lint, he inld. TTw Icui wcibU Haw imra cne lu Ux mher acrow BluJiiIeii uecl pluioA he Mid lha Ivmpnaluie ulue piped Me waOT BiuU <Ibi Id ioIS iWEinesci EDOBK ai II bbdiba ibe Ueai Rninvad Iv/ the rnmpua eoolrrp ayalem, ik ■ >•.! II weaaSbc ireurniRl lo Ibo l.ilw III iiR .ilinlkwr.'wann uilbend. Huf' lap mW innnllH tlie valyi Kkkis Ihe uodnji ivilera wcubl to nuCec thd Hut 'WMrr aiouitd llin au-iuu pipe. 10 Ihnt II weuJd no unlikely la Rfiio ihv [iiiimbd bmlcolii. Koiid. ■BialPiiiiairidnaiyili. "It seems an environmentalist's dream: a system that can cool 10 million square feet of Cornell University dormitories, laboratories and computer rooms simply by pumping frigid water from the depths of a nearby lake. No more chlorofluorocarbons, the refrigerants that can destroy protective ozone in the atmosphere. An electric bill 80 percent smaller than for conventional air conditioners. To top it off, nothing goes back into the lake, except water that came from the lake in the first place." ^'But an energetic group of local opponents insists that Corneirs $55 million plan to replace Its aging air conditioners is actually an environmental nightmare. They say it could foster choking blooms of algae and bacteria at the south end of Cayuga Lake (emphasis added)." "Pointing to five years of studies, thousands of pages of data, and more than a dozen permits from local and state agencies, Cornell scientists and engineers say the system could actually Improve conditions in the 2 of 14 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.com/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/2U12/. As you will see from the information I am providing for your review, water quality impairments are worse than ever in Southern Cayuga Lake. The problems are so widespread and extreme that the impacts could be irreparable. DEC'S profound failure to prevent or clean up the lake's hazards calls into question your agency's ability to enforce New York's environmental and public health protection laws. This does not bode well given that DEC would be in charge of regulating Marcellus Shale gas extraction activities that similarly have the potential to cause irreparable harm to New York's essential waters. With respect, if you cannot resolve the long-standing pollution problems of one of America's most historic bodies of water, a source of drinking water for more than 30,000 local residents and a mainstay of our local economy, the public can have no confidence in your administration's ability to prevent shale gas hazards. Southern Cayuga Lake Water Quality Impairments In the early 1960s, pollution problems were so widespread in Southern Cayuga Lake that public bathing was banned in Stewart Park, where swimming had been popular for decades. i i . * I . 1 , In 1998, the southern 5,000 acres of Cayuga Lake were listed in the national 303Cd) impaired waterbody registry due to excessive phosphorus and turbidity. Phosphorus promotes the growth of algae and weeds. Turbidity is suspended solid material. High bacteria levels were later identified as an additional impairment. Lake Source Cooling's Discharge Permit Granted Improperly Section 122.4(i) of the Clean Water Act specifically prohibits the issuance of permits to "a new source or a new discharoer. if the discharge from its construction or operation will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards (emphasis added)." DEC granted LSC a discharge permit even though Cornell's Environmental Impact Statement notes: "Phosphorus added to the upper waters by the LSC system during the stratified period [June through October, not in the original] has the potential to stimulate the growth of phytopiankton. Excessive growth of phytoplankton is associated with degradation of the aquatic environment; water clarity decreases with increased algal growth and the public perceives a less desirable recreational and aesthetic resource. (See page 2.3.3-20) 3 of 14 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo 1 Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooiing/documents/letter/2012/... "The LSC phosphorus load represents a small monthly Increase (between 3 and 7 percent) to the existing TP [total phosphorus, not In the original] budget of the southern lake during the stratified period." (See page 2.3.3-31) "On a daily basis, the maximum TP mass load from LSC could support 3.15 kg (6.9 lb) chlorophyll a, which would represent an undetectable increase in the southern lake basin..." (See page 2.3.3-25) In addition, the EIS notes: "The potential decrease in water clarity in the southern lake associated with this amount of additional chlorophyll a would be minimal." (See page 2.3.3-25) "LSC will increase SRP [soluble reactive phosphorus, not in the original] in the immediate vicinity of the outfall during the summer period when the background concentrations are currently low. ...The increase in concentration is very small, and any associated increase in algal production will have no discernable Impact." (See page 2.3.3-31) See: http://toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/LSC97-8pp_compil.pdf Water Pollution Documented to Have Grown Worse Since LSC Began Operation Since LSC beoan discharging ohosohorus into Cavuoa Lake. Cornell's reoulatorv compliance monitoring demonstrates that chioroohvll a levels increased up to more than 50% at seven out of eioht of the monitorino sites. See: http://toxicstargeting.eom/sites/default/files/pdfs/LSC_120515.pdf / \ I \ ' I 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo i Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/20l2/. > SIRS ^ 36^304 IikmiM "'-V ' TKughsnnock Potnl N Cornell University Cayuga Lake Monitoring Results Documenting an Increase of Chlorophyll a Exceeding More Than 50 Percent After Its Lake Source Cooling Project Began Operation*/ ♦» / / " ■ S ' / \ } . Tm>KmJxmjY .< / ,.^7"' /7. ''Z f / V . // /■'/ \ -' / v.-': •HonltoHng Points / ULVS-UiSni \ ISClntske ^ • w •OsfTwa Unftonhy *• bSBSWtf rauMTO cf algal biun.*n Sou.cs: CSTWa WUer quaX). Montcring, KcaondistrKlSCi'xiltv. IMS-nil ova.:^/0)2TwRTafv«as. Ire, Botar Point d- Blinking Wntw j viiugtBouniisrv •" r^"\ at/ Boundsiy C^l Town Boundary _County Boundaiy ' 1 1^-. LSCIntai^ - '' \-UtKS!«3/V)" --""A...!: IthM Aru WWTP .C yugs Ights U2 »lts7 WTP _\ I ICA.VIAU llUairT!!(V|.- ^ifTlIACAIct 5 of 14 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Slte3 27.9S33 Vt laaw Site 4 27.5292 <V» Increase Letter to Governor Cuomo j Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/2012/. \ ^I Stt*e(>7kml »• '/-• Approximate Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) Plume for Month of September 1997 I SDlten Point wA DrlnUnaWitor \ innk«Plp«. Honltering Points CTiZl *PP«o*. SUP Plums Vlllsgs Boundary C3,_| TownBoundsry County Boundary .LANSM}(V)' -.A ^4. I tit* 1 I «.<0M V. IncrasM CAVlJOAHWOHTSiVC W iavMr sannien • IMMnh CC9ir9tiBI> tMf r«ipiwo.VK. SAt4 17S79Z H In) '.CayuBtHtithtiWWTP: SH*7 SS.SOStHlncr«aia Ithaca Ana WWTF ' Chlorophyll a is a measure of algal blomass. Vast algae and aquatic weed infestations now clog the entire southern end of Cayuga Lake during summer months. The only chlorophyll a decrease was measured at Site 2, directly downgradient of the Ithaca Area Wastewater treatment plant discharge, where a facility upgrade reduced its phosphorus discharge. Unfortunately, that improvement is extremely limited In scope. CornelTsmc lisconcertina finding was that chloroohvll a increased over large areas of the southern lake all the wav to Site 8. located nearly 11 kilometers to the north. That ftnding_supports the conclusion that the southern lake is becominc As you can see from the circa 1998 photo, the algae and weed infestation spread from a relatively confined area immediately west of the Cayuga Heights sewage treatment plant approximately 800 feet south to the shoreline of Stewart Park and west across the entire lake. Many residents of that area cannot even launch their boats due to the algae and weed infestations. See: http://toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/LakeSourceCooling_12... 11/13/2012 1:54 PM or Cuomo I Tox ■ca 2000f a 'estations i utheastern •f >^•*"'1' i*3.;5^ it - . .'v-:^ •■ ■ ■ ■ v^'.,.-t?. ■ •'rwii'ilitti;,. -AV Va "-» w '■ 1 ■>??■•••! :y;J^ -;'"■■ >-4'' .... .V, -, j>-;f t-^.-:' '. ^■-i<i-i'ii,r^'* ' yj* ■ • •-^•'■'.(Ji :^St#; ^ ^ ISo.u.th:erh ':rf 1'-' _ . ,>','V'^ »•.••*'r-:'f" • •-. .. . ....... . .... - n : .y/w.'.ci'-*■-sk ,• * .v •vr^ ; • T->w -- X. ' : - • te v........,.wr'„... ^ rt -z ^ , - .t.,A -- " I; r^.r".. . ^ ^ " ^>«• •^■'. t |. ..^fv-V". j r v. / ■•■'•''• :77:-7;;7:3 9 of 14 :^-:^'Arki^: Q 5 ^ f c < ti-, *■ .•':a-^'»5>> /W- ■)• ' i«r ■ <1. ~ ■•^*" V ■? < , ,JL lAften Lake Sourc^ Cooling began operation^ homes along the shoreline in the sputheastern corner of Cayuga (.ake are often-inundated with1 a l^g ae' ahd^w^ed s.' 1 , 'S.*,? {*':(!** :rs^ .■■ Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/2012/. Public bathing at Stewart Pa has been.banned for half.iaii n ;cent,ury'-due tp-masslye :a^ a Weed ]p rp These problems could have been avoided if DEC had challenged Cornell's key assertion that phosphorus discharged by LSC would migrate north, away from the most impaired area of Southern Cayuga Lake. In reality, prevailing NW winds often prevent the northerly migration of phosphorus discharged by LSC. In addition, a 2010 Master's degree thesis by Seth Avram Schweitzer (The effects of runoff and upwelling events on the water quality of the southern shelf of Cayuga Lake, Cornell University.) reported: "\A/hen the wind blows from the south for a duration greater than the lake's uninodal horizontal seiche period (T/4), the thermocline tilts up in the vicinity of the shelf. This leads to reduced exchange between the shelf and the main basin's epilimnion, resulting in higher nutrient levels near loading sources on the shelf." This directly contradicts the fundamental assertion of the LSC Environmental Impact Statement that the facility's nutrient-loading contribution would migrate north "off the shelf." In short, the threatened impact of LSC's effluent discharge on water quality was fundamentally misunderstood by DEC. Professor Alex Home's Prescient LSC Analysis Not Heeded by DEC In contrast, the documented increase in algae and weed problems was predicted almost exactly by Professor Alex Home of the University of California at Berkeley. His scathing analysis of Cornell's EIS concluded: 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/2012/. "The eutrophication potential is underestimated in the draft ElR due to the method used to estimate the percentage increase in phosphorus, the algal growth limiting nutrient in this lake. Underestimation of phosphorus automatically underestimates the amount of algae that will grow as a result of the project." "The draft EIR states that the LSC project will increase total phosphorus (TP) in the area by an 'insignificant' 3-7%. The draft EIR omits the fact that this calculation is based on using a very large area of the lake as a dilution basin. If a more reasonable local area of the southern basin had been used based on the plume model in the draft EIR, the LSC percentage would rise by a factor of five. The other reason the draft EIR can claim that the LSC project has a small impact is that it ignores likely future reductions in TP loading [other] from other sources such as city sewage plants. If both these factors are considered, the contribution of the LSC project to the future TP budget of the area can rise to 30% and may exceed 50% in dry years (emphasis added)." See: http;//toxicstargeting.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Horne98-l-8.pdf BACI Findings After years of dithering, DEC finally succumbed to Intense public pressure and required Cornell to conduct a Before-After- Control-Impact study to determine if LSC had made existing water quality impairments worse in the area of Cayuga Lake with the worst algae and weed problems: Site 7. That studv demonstrated a statistically sionlficant correlation fo-value < 0.05 at 95% confidence Intervan between the operation of LSC and the increase of chloroohvll a at Site 7. the site In the most impaired area of the Southern Lake, compared with the control Site 4. See below. Table 6. Results from Welch t-tests comparing log-transformed chlorophyll a for the pre startup (7/9/98 - 6/29/00) and post start-up (7/6/00 - 10/24/05) intervals for the selected impact-control pairs. The 8 outliers identified in Table 2 have been omitted from this analysis. Standard deviation is abbreviated Sj. Standard deviation is abbreviated S^. Raw;r-values, Bonferroni-adjustedp-values, and Benjamini & Hochberg (1995) adjusted p-values (B&H) are. presented. Effect size represents the percent change in chlorophyll a at the impact site relative to the control site. Impact- Control - Pairing Pre sir logfuj irt-«p t'L*') Post start-up /?-val«e Effect size mean Sa mean Sa raw Bonferroni B&H sUel-site4 0.107 a 186 0.143 0.274 0.395 1.000 0.593 +9 site 1-site 8 -0.025 0178 -0.002 0.194 0544 1.000 0.653 +5 mmmwm 0.079 0192 0.183 0.317 mm 0.174 0.174 +27 6ite7-site 8 -0.047 0.260 0.021 0,276 0199 1.000 0.398 +17 sUc4-si(e8 -0.123 0221 -0.143 0.262 0668 1.000 0.668 -5 site S-site 4 0.078 0184 0.132 0.211 0.155 0.930 0.398 +13 DMR-site 8 -0.072 0151 -0.042 0.164 0.343 --+7 / ^ ' 1 / > I \ [SOURCE: "A Before-After-Control-Impact Analysis for Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling Facility." 2008. Prepared by Upstate Freshwater Institute, Syracuse, NY. Sponsored by Cornell University.] Accordinc to the LSC discharoe permit, that statistically significant conclusion reauires the facility's discharoe to be treated to remove phosphorus or the discharge pipe has to be re-evaluated to determine whether it should be moved "off the shelf" to send the wastewater back Into the depths of the lake below the photic zone. DEC'S Regulatory Inaction Despite all this documentation, DEC has done nothing to clean up Cayuga Lake's problems. It failed to require LSC's discharge pipe to be moved or for its wastewater to be treated. It failed to propose or adopt a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) comprehensive clean up plan required as a "high priority" by 2004. It even allowed LSC's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to lapse in 2008. Shockingly. DEC is reportedly now considerina delavino reoulatorv action for an additional four years and allowing Cornell, the oartv responsible for contributing to the lake's impairments, to prepare the TMDL. t \ 12 of 14 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/2012/. / N With all respect, If your administration falls to clean up Southern Cayuga Lake and safeguard the drinking water drawn from the lake and supplied to more than 30,000 local residents, It will be clear that DEC cannot fulfill its regulatory obligations and act as a steward for New York's natural resources. Immediate Request for Regulatory Enforcement Action It is entirely unacceptable that this regulatory matter has dragged on for approximately 14 years without being resolved In strict compliance with all applicable law. Frankly, LSC's Improper discharge has been managed In a manner that undermines public confidence in government's ability to safeguard the environment. Against that background, I request that you require DEC to enforce LSC's permit provision to eliminate Its phosphorus Impact on Cayuga Lake and to take further action to clean up the lake's water quality Impairments. A similar request has been submitted to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA), Lisa P. Jackson. First, DEC and EPA must require Lake Source Cooling's effluent discharge of SRP to be treated using Best Available Technology or moved "off the shelf." Second, DEC and EPA should permit an alternative solution of converting the "once-through, non-contact" cooling water discharge to a "closed-loop" system that would eliminate any transfer of SRP from the bottom of Southern Cayuga Lake to shallower areas. This would constitute an ideal resolution to the current Lake Source Cooling nutrient-loading problem. Third, DEC and EPA must tolerate no further delay In Issuing a renewal of the Lake Source Cooling discharge permit in order to Implement the provisions referenced above. Fourth, DEC and EPA must require a TMDL to be proposed and implemented within one year. Any further delay In this matter must not be tolerated. Finally, DEC and EPA must reject any proposal that allows Cornell University to delay enforcement of Its Lake Source ^ ^ Cooling permit or play any role in preparing a proposed TMDL. Either action would clearly pose an unacceptable conflict of interest. Conclusion In conclusion, Cornell University repeatedly tried to halt its In-lake water quality compliance monitoring In all likelihood to avoid documenting Lake Source Cooling's Impact on Southern Cayuga Lake. It also offered to fund local groups if they supported ending that required in-lake water quality monitoring. Cornell also repeatedly tried to avoid undertaking a BACI study involving Site 7 and later tried to skew Its findings statistically to avoid documenting Lake Source Cooling's Impact on Southern Cayuga Lake. Its raw data document a statistically significant impact finding. Cornell and the groups It offered to fund long denied the existence of algae and aquatic weed infestation problems In Southern Cayuga Lake. Ironically, those entitles are now among the most ardent advocates of applying toxic herbicides to control the growth of Hydrilla that was recently Identified in Cayuga Inlet. Hydrilla Is merely one component of a much larger algae and weed problem In Cayuga Lake. If the nutrient loading concerns documented nearly 14 years ago in Southern Cayuga lake and Its tributaries had been addressed by DEC and EPA, the Hydrilla threat could have been minimized or avoided altogether. That Is why it Is Imperative that the Hydrilla Infestation be addressed as part of the overall pollution control efforts specified herein For all the aforementioned reasons, I request your swift action to fulfill the requests documented In this letter without further delay. I look forward to your prompt reply. / \ Very truly yours, , Walter Hang 13 of 14 11/13/2012 1:54 PM Letter to Governor Cuomo | Toxics Targeting http://toxicstargeting.eom/LakeSourceCooling/documents/letter/:zu i:z/.. 215 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Cc: Honorable Barbara 8. Lifton / ^ Honorable Richard D. DePaolo ' ' Honorable Pamela Mackesey Honorable Svante Myrick Honorable Cynthia Brock Honorable Maurice D. Hinchey Honorable Lisa P. Jackson Honorable Judith A. Enck Honorable Joe Martens Honorable Robert K. Sweeney James Tierney Brian F. R. Baker John Filippelli Jeffrey Gratz Joseph J. Heath, Esq. Christopher A. Amato, Esq. Ralph Nader, Esq. David J. Skorton, M. D. Letters Search this site;Search I ' ^ ' I 1 Share I Toxics Targeting, Inc • 215 N. Cayuga Street • Ithaca, NY 14850 info@toxicstargeting.com • 607-273-3391 • toll free: 800-2-TOXICS • Fax: 607-277-8290 © 2012 Toxics Targeting, Inc. | Disclaimer I \ I \ 11/13/2012 1:54 PM (flH^ecLvwawf Cayuga Lake, 1927-2002 Davfd Bouldin, 343 Savage Farm Drive, tthaca NY. _ Statement prepared for meeting of Town of Ithaca Board, November 13,2012 ^ "^sed on analysis of about 1000 samples, the assemblage of inorganic elements in the lake is fovorable for biological activity under the light and / ^mperature conditions during the summer. In fact it is so favorable that invasive plants and animals thrive to the detriment of our wishes. The -Dst important aspects of (lake) Inoi^nlc chemistry have not changed In an Important way, between 1927 to 2002. In fact the danger to the lake from modest increases in phosphate inputs is insignificant relative to the threat from hydrilla and other invasive species. The following is a justification and amplification for these statements. There Is little doubt In my mind that Hydrilla Is a much greater menace to the lake as we know It than minor perturbations of phosphate distribution In the lake associated with lake source cooling. The analysis is concentrated on the following: total inorganic carbon (dissolved C02 plus the derived bicarbonate and carbonate (=TIC), phosphate/chlorophyll, nitrogen and oxygen, their annual averages over seasons, depth and locations, and details during the summer In the warmer, thermal stratified, surficial layers. This Is based on 86,391,168,270 samples during 1927,1968-9,1972-3 and 2002 respectively. First we examine the total inorganic carbon (TIC) content of the lake based on annual averages over seasons, depths and locations. TIC is the sum of dissolved carbon dioMde plus the associated bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Why TIC? First, it is source of carbon for photosynthesis and the repository of residual carbon from respiration; It is the heart of the energy cycle of life in the lake. Second TIC is the regulator of inorganic chemistry; the bicarbonate/ carbonate ratio maintains electrical neutrality as ions are taken up during photosynthesis/respiration, temperature changes and mixing of stream and lake water. It Is the balance wheel for Inorganic chemistry. Listed in order of importance, it is a summation over time of photosynthesis - respiration, inputs of inorganic and organic carbon from streams, interchange between air/water and water/bottom sediments. The measured TIC was 2.07,2.10,2.03,2.12 (mllll-equhralents per liter) for 1927,1968-9,1972-3 and 2002 respectively. The number of observations was 86,391,168,270, respectively and the 95% confidence limits of the averages were about 1% of the means. The annual stream inflow into the lake is about 10 to 15 percent of the lake volume so these numbers are integrations over 8 to 10 years.. Surely there are no consistent changes with time. TIC is primarily an integrated result of inputs/outputs and transformations within; dearly these have not changed in an important way 1927-2002. One important observation (not documented here is) that the lake contains more inorganic carbon than it would contain if it were in equilibrium with atmospheric C02 and the oxygen is less than expected if it were in equilibrium with atmospheric oxygen. Perhaps this inequality is a result stream inputs as well as photosynthesis -respirarion. Recall that the lake is very deep and the water column is over 400 feet so equilibration ath the air and bottom sediments is a very slow process relative to inputs and internal reactions. je above are averages over depth, season and years. But the important biolo^cal activity occurs during the summer in the surface layer (less ..lan 10% of total lake volume). Most have accepted the generalization that phosphate is the chemical parameter limiting photosynthetic transformation of TIC to organic matter and subsequently the generator of energy for non- photosynthetic biological activity. So now we turn attention to phosphate, nitrate, chlorophyll and TIC during the summer months. But first we have to deal with the troublesome problem of units; I have chosen to express all concentrations as equivalents per liter times 10 million; for phosphate this Is equivalent to about one millionth of an ounce per gallon (yes, a very small concentration). Phosphate concentrations are on the order of 0.1 to 5 of these units, nitrate 350 to750, chlorophyii 0.5 to 10 and TIC 20,000, winter through summer; the ratios Illustrate that phosphate is the limiting Inorganic element for photosynthetic green plants. Several studies illustrate that in the photic zone (where light is high enough for photosynthesis), phosphate decreases from concentrations on the order of 3 to 5 units in early spring to about 0.5 units during July-September and corresponding increases in units of chlorophyll of 2 to 50 units. (Chlorophyll is a measure of part of the photosynthetic biological machinery). Three examples: in Jan- Feb of 1969 the water-contained 5 units of phosphate and 2 unit of chlorophyll: In July - Sept the phosphate was 1 unit of P and 20 units of chlorophyll or a decrease of 4 units of phosphate and increase of 18 units of chlorophyll. In 1972-3 and 2001 corresponding decreases in phosphate of 43 and 3.6 units and increase of 38 and 46 units of chlorophyii. One important observation is that biweekly enumeration of algal species shows large changes; the size and species composition changes rapidly, indicating rapid turnover of phosphate and biomass. Another important observation is that this substantial biological activity is confined to about 4 months in the upper 10-12 feet of the lake; 30% of the season in less than 10 % of die lake volume. During winter the temperature of the lake from surface to bottom becomes uniform at less than 4 C and presumable mixes. Oxygen concentrations are uniformly above 85 % of saturation with atmospheric 02 in all samples over all depths and seasons and as much as 125% of atmospheric 02 in the surface during the summer; there is no evidence of any anaerobic conditions nor threats of such. My judgment: even doubling of phosphate inputs during the summer would be unlikely to lead to anaerobic conditions in any subregion in the lake. Where is the evidence that contradicts this statement? Several hundred samples of deep water (over 60 meters) during the period 1968-1972 demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that P ^''■^^incentrations were 5x10-7 moles per liter, 5 of the units described above. In fact during the Jan- feb period in 1969 a set of samples from surface^ 107 meters were uniformly at a temperature of about 2.6 C and contained 5 units of phosphate. By contrast, in 2001 lake source cooling analysis •low corresponding concentrations at 60 m to be about 1/3 the concentrations. WHY??????