HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-SJC-2010-09-08 SJC MEETING
September 8, 2010
SJC Members Staff
Wade Wykstra, Chair
Mayor Carolyn Peterson
Supervisor Herb Engman
Supervisor MaryAnn Sumner
Rich DePaolo
Joel Zumoff
Ellen McCollister
Pat Leary
Eric Whitney
Bill Gray
Scott Gibson
Dan Ramer
Steve Thayer
Absent
Guests
Dan Hoffman, City Attorney
Jose Lozano, IAWWTF Staff
Tim Logue, City Engineer
James Edwards, GEI Consultants
Wade called the meeting to order at 12:36PM
NYSEG Access Agreement – Dan Hoffman (Addendum and Resolution attached)
Dan presented the addendum to the access agreement and the proposed resolution for the
relocation of the fence along the IAWWTF property line for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and the
future coal tar remediation project. GEI Consultant, James Edwards was introduced to the board
as the representative for NYSEG. A work plan has been proposed and the original agreement
provides for NYSEG to protect the City if problems arise. Attorney Thomas Fucillo cautiously
accepts the proposed work plan. Susan Brock agrees to the Addendum. There are time
constraints due to weather changes. Mr. Edwards and Tim Logue explained the work plan in
relation to coal tar in the area of the planned construction.
Herb moved to accept the resolution. Seconded by MaryAnn, the motion passed 7-1 with Rich
opposed.
Approval of August 2010 minutes –
Financial Report – Steve Thayer absent
The current financial reports and the 2011 budget request were distributed. Steve noted that the
2011 budget has been presented to the Mayor and should be discussed by this body in the next
month. A meeting was scheduled for 2:00 on September 14th at the Town Hall.
Septage service revenue will be above budget projections.
1
Unclassified revenues are invoices to partners in October for their share of debt service and
offset by an expense line in the budget.
Hourly part-time account is over budget due to student interns being hired for the summer and
will be covered by the salary of a resigned operator trainee.
Insurance comes due in October. Health insurance is currently running above budget and will
also be impacted by the national health care reform.
We are currently $510,000 revenues over expenditures.
The Miscellaneous Plant Improvements is our only active Capital project and there has been no
activity in the past month.
We have a healthy fund balance. This has not been included to offset the budget costs but can be
used for that purpose. Consumption has gone down. This can be discussed at the special budget
meeting.
Approval of August 2010 minutes
MaryAnn moved to accept the minutes and Ellen seconded the motion. Rich noted that he wants
to see more detail in the minutes (reports now attached). Dan and Terry will work toward that
end. The motion passed 7-1 with Rich opposed.
Operator/Engineering Report Summary – Dan Ramer, Scott Gibson
Scott presented his response to MRB’s invoice and request for more compensation for additional
work done on the headworks loading study (see attached). He is recommending payment of
$5,200 to be accepted as full payment.
MaryAnn moved to accept the recommendation as presented. Joel seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
Dan would like to draft a letter to DEC and NYSEG to outline our concerns with the delay in
building the new septage facility in regards to the coal tar clean-up. This would be reviewed by
the attorneys prior to sending it out.
The RFP for the Energy Performance contract includes the NYSERDA grant.
Our new operation, CJ Kilgore, starts work on September 27th.
Dan and Erik discussed the policies and issues with the Information Technology department.
MaryAnn asked about the possibility of a separate website for the plant.
On a motion, the meeting adjourned.
The next meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2010
2
MEMO TO: Special Joint Committee (SJC) for Ithaca Area Waste Water Treatment
Facility
FROM: Daniel L. Hoffman, City Attorney for City of Ithaca
DATE: September 7, 2010
RE: Proposed Addendum to Access Agreement (between City and NYSEG)
This memo is intended to provide some background for the proposed resolution that will be on the agenda
of the SJC meeting scheduled for tomorrow (September 8th).
The City has been working for years to move ahead with Phases 2 and 3 of the very popular Cayuga
Waterfront Trail. For various reasons, it was decided to work on Phase 3 (between the Ithaca Farmers
Market site and Stewart Park/Visitors’ Center) before Phase 2. The precise route and design of Phase 3
(which is completely on public property) have been fully approved, and the City is prepared to proceed
with site preparation and construction.
A portion of Phase 3 of the Trail crosses the northerly part of the IAWWTF site, approximately parallel to
the bank of Cascadilla Creek and in the vicinity of the existing, rough path just outside the current
IAWWTF fence. The route of the improved Trail will diverge slightly in some places from the existing
path, on the IAWWTF site.
As you may recall, in the Fall of 2009 the City approached the SJC with regard to the need for testing of
the soil along the proposed route of the Trail, on the IAWWTF site. Per a stipulation with the State, New
York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) is responsible for the remediation of any contamination
on the property resulting from its former operation of a coal gasification plant at the site. Therefore,
NYSEG must approve and be involved in any activity that would affect contaminated soil. In order to
test the soil along the proposed Trail route, NYSEG needed consent from the landowner to enter upon the
property and dig test holes and borings, to collect soil samples. The SJC approved an Access Agreement
to that effect (which was drafted by its attorney, Susan Brock) on November 18, 2009, and authorized
Mayor Carolyn Peterson to sign it on behalf of the municipal partners in the IAWWTF. The Agreement
was fully executed in December 2009.
NYSEG’s contractor (GEI Consultants) has performed the necessary investigation and testing of soils
along the proposed path of the Trail, the results of which are contained in a report to the NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), dated June 23, 2010. GEI notes that “the area in which the
trail will be constructed contains low concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the
surface and near-surface (0-2 feet bgs) soils…” These soils will be disturbed by certain activities
associated with the development of the improved Trail, including grading of the newly-aligned sections,
movement of parts of the existing fence, installation of a silt fence and the planting of new trees.
The report also includes a 27-step Work Plan for dealing with the soil-disturbing activities, noting that
“the objective of this Work Plan is to provide for the protection of human health and the environment in
conformance with the NYSDEC Division of Environmental Remediation document entitled, ‘DER-10,
Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation,’ dated May 2010, with respect to the
construction and use of the recreation path within the impacted soil area. The intent is for the final path
construction to be acceptable for Passive Recreational Uses. This will be accomplished by engineering
controls, physical barriers, air monitoring, and proper disposal of excess soils, if necessary.” As defined
in the referenced NYSDEC document, Passive Recreational Use includes uses with limited potential for
soil contact, such as (among several other examples) “paved (raised) bike or walking paths.”
3
The proposed Work Plan was approved by NYSDEC (and the NYS Department of Health) by letter dated
August 11, 2010. Both departments also approved a small modification to the Work Plan (“Addendum
#1), dated August 2, 2010. According to that Addendum, the area in which one foot of new soil cover is
required (for any disturbed area) is slightly reduced (now including only the portion where testing showed
concentrations of certain “compounds of concern” exceeding “Unrestricted Use” standards), and, where
trees are cut down to accommodate the improved Trail, stumps would be cleared using a root grinder,
rather than by excavation, to minimize soil disturbance.
As you know, the City was named last year as a “third-party defendant” in a lawsuit between NYSEG and
FirstEnegery Corporation, regarding liability for coal-tar contamination on the IAWWTF site. That case
is expected to go to trial within a few months, with the City taking the position that it was an “innocent
purchaser” of the property in 1959, and that any actions taken since then (e.g., construction of the
IAWWTF in the 1980s) did not spread or exacerbate the pre-existing coal tar contamination. The City
retained special counsel (with Thomas Fucillo as lead attorney) for this litigation.
Last week, I discussed the proposed addendum to the Access Agreement with Attorney Fucillo. He is of
the opinion that approval of the addendum (and implementation of the State-approved Work Plan) will
not cause problems for the City in the context of the FirstEnergy lawsuit. In fact, he sees this type of
cooperative arrangement involving the City, NYSEG and the State regulators as being exactly the type of
evidence the City can present (in the lawsuit) to demonstrate its prudent and proper approach to
addressing the contamination problem.
The only effect of the Addendum (drafted by myself and Attorney Brock, and already approved by
NYSEG) is to specify that NYSEG and/or its agents can carry out the activities specified in the Work
Plan, on the IAWWTF site. Per the original Agreement, NYSEG continues to indemnify the City as to
any claims that may arise on account of NYSEG’s work. In order to complete construction of the Trail
this year, as planned, work must begin very soon.
I expect to be present at your meeting tomorrow, along with Tim Logue from the City’s Engineering
office, and a representative of NYSEG and/or GEI, to answer questions. I have asked Tom Fucillo to be
available by telephone, if possible; his availability is not yet confirmed.
Cc: Daniel Ramer Tim Logue John Ruspantini
Susan Brock, Esq. Lorraine Moynihan-Schmitt, Esq. Mahlon Perkins, Esq.
Thomas Fucillo, Esq.
4
Proposed SJC Resolution:
Authorization to Execute Addendum to Access Agreement between City of Ithaca and
NYSEG, to Permit Certain Soil Management Work at IAWWTF Site by NYSEG, in
Connection with Construction of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail
WHEREAS, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (“NYSEG”) and the City of Ithaca
entered into an Access Agreement, dated December 18, 2009, permitting NYSEG temporarily to
use, occupy, excavate and travel over the premises of the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment
Facility (IAWWTF), the title owner of which is the City, and which facility is operated by and
on behalf of the City, the Town of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden (through the auspices of the
Special Joint Committee – “SJC”), in order to perform sampling and evaluation of soil, ground
water, bedrock and soil vapor and other investigations, assessments and related work activities;
and
WHEREAS, said sampling and evaluation has been duly performed by NYSEG (or its agents), in
part for the purpose of determining the feasibility of constructing and operating a portion of the
City’s proposed Cayuga Waterfront Trail across the northerly area of the premises; and
WHEREAS, based on the results of said sampling, NYSEG has developed a Soil Management
Work Plan that sets forth all steps to be carried out in the preparation for and construction of the
Trail, and in the treatment and handling of any soil on the site that is disturbed by that work, such
that the Trail as constructed is acceptable for Passive Recreational Use, as that term is defined by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (in the document entitled
“DER-10, Technical Guidance for Site Investigation and Remediation”); and
WHEREAS, this Soil Management Work Plan, dated June 23, 2010, and as amended by
Addendum #1 thereto, dated August 2, 2010, has been approved in writing by the NYSDEC and
by the New York State Department of Health; and
WHEREAS, the SJC representatives of the three participating municipalities are willing to
permit NYSEG to carry out the additional activities at the IAWWTF site, as described and under
the conditions set forth in said Addendum; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the SJC hereby approves the terms and conditions of Addendum #1 to the
Access Agreement; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Mayor of the City of Ithaca, subject to the approvals of the attorney for the
IAWWTF and the City Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute said Addendum #1, on behalf
of the SJC representatives of the participating municipalities.
5
Operator and Engineer’s Report
SJC Meeting
September 8, 2010
1. CJ Kilgore has accepted our offer to be an operator. CJ was an operator for several years,
left to take a position with NYS Thruway Authority and decided to return. When CJ left
over two years ago he was at the maximum salary range. The determination for his
returning salary is only at the midpoint. No specific explanation from HR regarding my
analysis has been received. Our hope is that some type of reanalysis can be made that
makes some sense of this issue.
2. The NYSEG cleanup of our site and the Septage Receiving facility construction delays
require our attention. We feel that a letter to NYSEG and NYSDEC from our ownership
is suggested requesting an expedited cleanup of the area where we want to build our
septage facility. NYSEG and DEC seemed to be able to do this for the trail, why not for
the septage building project.
3. The Energy Performance Contract RFP was issued on September 2nd. The proposals are
due on the 15th. Staff will review and make recommendations and prepare a resolution
for the October SJC meeting.
4. ED Gottlieb made a presentation to the Tompkins County Coalition of Governments on
behalf of the coalition involved in planning the Unwanted Household Pharmaceutical
Collection and Disposal event held in March. The next event is planned for October 16th.
5. The Hydrolysate Disposal Permit is in Cornell’s hands for review. I am meeting with
them regarding technical issues on Friday the 10th.
6. During September IT is rolling out a new phone and computer usage policy. I requested
a copy of the policy for review prior to the information meetings. My request was
denied. I am concerned that this policy may affect aspects of how we conduct business.
As last months report outlined several other issues staff has been dealing with IT on, this
policy needs to be carefully reviewed. I will keep you informed as this policy progresses
towards enactment. Our creative use of information technology must be encouraged at
all phases of any IT policy development.
7. MRB has provided an itemized list of additional services conducted during the
headworks loading project for staff consideration. Please see the attached memo from
Scott Gibson to the SJC for details and other recommendation on this review.
6
DATE: 9/6/2013
TO: IAWTF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
CC:
FROM: SCOTT GIBSON
RE: IAWTF HEADWORKS LOADING ANALYSIS
MRB GROUP REQUEST FOR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS
ADDITIONAL FEES FOR SERVICES
PRIORITY: MED
As you are aware, the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (IAWTF) recently received the
final report on a headworks loading study that was conducted by MRB Consultants. Their
original scope followed a typical approach for projects of this type including travel and
reproduction expenses, sampling program design and oversight, consultation, meeting expenses,
and report packaging. The contracted fee was a not to exceed $13,000.
As is also typical with these studies, occasionally the evaluation will yield data which requires
additional scrutiny to determine whether the information is accurate or in need of further
clarification. In my experience, these investigations are usually included in the overall scope
unless the work goes above and beyond expectation or is specifically requested by the owner.
In working with Mr. Bill Davis of MRB Consultants, it was explained that additional fees in the
amount of $5,890.50 should be considered by the Special Joint Committee (SJC) for added tasks
on this project. Mr. Davis also indicates that the actual cost expended on the job was $8,324.00
over the contracted price however, the firm acknowledges the fact that time spent during
transitional periods between engineering representatives during the job was not included.
In consideration of Mr. Davis’ concerns, I have listed each item below along with my
commentary and recommendations accordingly:
1) Thallium sample results came back positive and additional time was spent to determine
what was ultimately shown to be laboratory error.
It is my opinion that this type of data fact checking should be included in a typical scope.
The consultant is hired to identify outlier data and make recommendations to revisit the
information accordingly. In this case, the positive Thallium results were found to be related
to laboratory error and the IAWTF should not be held liable for covering the additional
expense for re-analysis or for the review time in reaching that conclusion.
2) Heptachlor sample results came back positive which led to further analysis of the influent
and effluent sampling points. It was discovered that limitations in the method detection
level could not accurately produce results down to the water quality standard. Therefore
no further testing could confidently identify actual concentrations at those levels.
Similarly to Thallium, the additional time expended to conduct investigative analysis on a
data point outlier should have been included within the original scope. The topic was mainly
7
discussed during general meetings on draft reporting presentation and during SJC visits and
should not have required anything above and beyond normal project expectations. As such, I
do not feel that additional fees are warranted for this parameter.
3) Formaldehyde was detected in both influent and effluent samples requiring an additional
investigation on such items as the method detection level which was above water quality
standards. MRB identified a more reliable laboratory method, a lower detection level,
and also oversaw further sampling to ensure accurate results. It was determined that the
parameter is not of immediate concern however, additional monitoring was
recommended to support the conclusion.
Similarly to the investigation of Thallium and Heptachlor, there were some expectations
carried within the scope for MRB to research the outlying data points that were discovered
during sampling analysis review. There was keen interest by the public and SJC to understand
the relationship between those concentrations found in the plant wastestream and anticipated
amounts in proposed hydrolysate discharges. Plant staff as well as MRB explained to those
concerned that formaldehyde readily reacts with aminoacids, a normal hydrolysate constituent
which is a stable and harmless compound and therefore would not pose a problem with the
plant. Regardless, MRB was required to go above and beyond their scope by defending their
data conclusions, reinforcing their findings on plant loading, addressing concerns by the public,
rewriting reporting narrative to accommodate those concerns and researching laboratory
methods to address additional sampling requirements, the need for which was likely contrary to
some of their original conclusions. In my opinion, the firm is owed additional fees for these
services.
4) Plans for evaluating hydrolysate were originally included in MRB’s scope. This involved
reviewing sampling results and determining their individual effect on the treatment
process. MRB’s initial conclusions within the loading study indicated that hydrolysate
would not pose an issue with pass through, interference, operator safety, plant process
operations, or the environment. Due to public concern as well as direct mandates by the
SJC, hydrolysate underwent a significant amount of additional intense evaluation that
was well above and beyond the scope.
An additional 25 hours was spent on hydrolysate by MRB even though their initial
conclusions indicated that the wastestream was not a concern to plant process operations or
the environment. The consultant reviewed correspondence by public input, participated in
additional meetings, made report modifications, defended sample results, conducted phone
conferences, and had several hours of face time with staff. In my opinion MRB went above
and beyond their scope to not only reinforce their original conclusions but participated in a
lengthy exercise at a time when technical and political debate of the material were at their
peak. This expended more of MRB’s time than would normally have been needed and in the
end, revisiting the original report conclusions did not change the outcome of the study. As
such, MRB should be awarded additional money for these services.
Mr. Davis also provided a cost breakdown for their proposed overages including hourly
expenditures for each concern. As stated above, in my opinion time spent on Thallium and
Heptachlor should have been included in the original proposal and I would recommend that these
8
9
not be paid out as requested. The additional items including Formaldehyde and all costs
associated with hydrolysate went above and beyond the typical scope and should be awarded.
Based on the hourly rates provided to us by MRB, I would recommend that the consultant be
paid for $5,200.00 of the $5,890.50 that was requested.
Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott D. Gibson
Environmental Engineer
SJC Staff Member