Floatable Control Facility Plan

Imagine the result

Onondaga County Department of Water

Environment Protection

Floatable Control Facility Plan

November 16, 2010

Revised April 28, 2011

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Prepared for:

Onondaga County Department of Water

Environment Protection

Prepared by:

ARCADIS of New York, Inc.

6723 Towpath Road

P.O. Box 66

Syracuse

New York 13214-0066

Tel 315.446.9120

Fax 315.446.7485

Our Ref.:

B0000380.0007

Date:

November 16, 2010

Revised April 28, 2011

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc i

Table of Contents

1. Project Background 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Fourth Stipulation and Order to Amended Consent Judgment 1

1.3 FCF Plan Goal 2

2. Summary of Combined Sewer Overflows 3

2.1 Introduction 3

2.2 CSO Overview 3

2.3 CSO Treatment Requirements 3

2.4 CSO Discharges to be Treated 3

2.5 CSO Assessment 7

3. Floatables Control Technology Evaluation 8

3.1 Introduction 8

3.2 Floatables Control Technology Overview 8

3.2.1 Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens 9

3.2.2 Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens 10

3.2.3 Horizontal Band Screens 12

3.2.4 Low Profile Overflow Screens 13

3.2.5 Rotary Drum Sieve Screens 15

3.2.6 Pump Action Screens 16

3.2.7 Brush Screens 17

3.2.8 Oscillating Static Screens 18

3.2.9 Static Screens 19

3.2.10 Drum Screens 20

3.2.11 Continuous Deflection Separation 21

3.3 Evaluation of Floatables Control Technologies 22

3.4 Selected Floatables Control Technologies 24

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc ii

Table of Contents

4. FCF Abatement Approaches 25

4.1 Introduction 25

4.2 Potential CSO Groupings 25

4.3 Harbor Brook In-stream FCF 26

4.4 Most Viable Floatables Control Alternatives 26

4.5 Present Worth Cost Evaluation 28

4.5.1 FCF Costs 28

4.5.2 Sewer Separation Costs 28

4.5.3 Conveyance Costs 29

4.5.4 In-stream FCF Costs 30

4.5.5 Present Worth Costs 30

5. Recommended FCF Plan 32

5.1 Introduction 32

5.2 Recommended FCF Plan 32

5.3 Preliminary Basis of Design 33

5.4 Identification of Required Permitting 33

5.5 CSO Discharge Flow Monitoring 34

5.6 Operation and Maintenance Requirements 34

5.6.1 FCF – Static Screen 35

5.6.2 FCF – Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens 35

5.6.3 Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screen 35

5.6.4 CSO Conveyance and Sanitary Sewer Pipelines 35

5.7 Green Infrastructure 35

5.8 Implementation Schedule 36

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc iii

Table of Contents

Tables

Table 2-1 Summary of CSO Floatables Control

Table 2-2 FCF Plan CSOs

Table 2-3 Minimum Rainfall Intensity to Trigger CSO Activation

Table 3-1 CSO Technology Evaluation Metrics

Table 3-2 Floatables Control Technology Non-Cost Evaluation

Table 4-1 Summary of the Most Viable Floatable Control Alternatives

Table 5-1 Preliminary Basis of Design

Table 5-2 CSO Flow Monitoring

Figures

Figure 2-1 CSO Floatables Control Overview

Figure 2-2 Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area Project Area

Figure 2-3 Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area Project Area

Figure 5-1 Alternative 5 CSO 063 Site Plan

Figure 5-2 Alternative 5 CSO In-stream FCF

Figure 5-3 Alternative 5 CSO 014 and 015 Site Plan






Appendices

Appendix A Cost Curves

Appendix B Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates Memorandum

Appendix C Construction Costs

Appendix D ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide Memorandum

Appendix E Present Worth Cost Spreadsheets

z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 1

Floatable Control

Facility Plan

1. Project Background

1.1 Introduction

The Onondaga County Department of Water Environment Protection (County) provides wastewater

conveyance and treatment services to the County of Onondaga, New York, including the City of Syracuse.

The County has retained ARCADIS of New York, Inc. (ARCADIS) to prepare a Floatable Control Facility

(FCF) Plan for select Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) locations in the Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook

Sewer Service Areas.

1.2 Fourth Stipulation and Order to Amended Consent Judgment

In January 1989, Onondaga County entered into a Judgment of Consent with the State of New York and the

Atlantic States Legal Foundation (ASLF) in settlement of litigation initiated in connection with alleged

violations of state and federal water pollution control laws. The conditions of the Judgment of Consent

required the County to perform a series of engineering and scientific studies to evaluate the need for

upgrading the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro) and providing treatment of CSOs

that occur within the Metro service area.

Based on the results of those studies, and in consultation with the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),

the County developed a plan for upgrading the Metro plant and providing treatment of CSOs. The County

submitted a proposed Municipal Compliance Plan (MCP) to NYSDEC and ASLF on January 11, 1996.

Subsequent negotiations with regard to the proposed MCP resulted in the execution of an Amended

Consent Judgment (ACJ) between the parties, which was executed by the U.S. District Court on January 20,

1998. This ACJ replaced and superseded the Consent Judgment entered on February 1, 1989.

In an effort to incorporate the addition of green infrastructure projects to reduce the frequency and volume of

CSOs, the County, working with the NYSDEC, EPA and ASLF, amended the ACJ and on November 16,

2009, the Fourth Stipulation and Order Amending the County’s ACJ (Fourth Stipulation and Order) was

adopted.

As a result of the Fourth Stipulation and Order, the County must submit to the NYSDEC and ASLF a plan for

the assessment of all the County’s CSO outfalls, as well as a proposed implementation schedule to address

floatables controls on the remaining untreated CSO outfalls.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

1.3 FCF Plan Goal

The goal of this FCF Plan is to identify and evaluate viable floatable control technologies for future

installation with the end result being the elimination of floatables discharge to surface waters during CSO

events. This FCF Plan has been prepared to summarize preliminary planning for the project. A separate

engineering report will be prepared at a later date to describe the project(s) in detail, clarify project scope

and issues, and present the basis of design to be used in preparation of Contract Documents for the

construction of the project(s). Additionally, the County will provide the NYSDEC with floatables capture

information from each existing and proposed FCF as new facilities are activated and data becomes

available.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

2. Summary of Combined Sewer Overflows

2.1 Introduction

This section provides a summary overview of the County’s current CSO floatable control approach, the

CSO treatment requirements, identifies the FCF Plan CSOs, provides CSO discharge characteristics

including the associated sewershed area, peak flow rate and volume, activation frequency and CSO

regulator description.

2.2 CSO Overview

Figure 2-1 provides a summary overview of how the County is addressing each of its CSOs for floatables

control. Table 2-1 provides a listing of drainage basin, current CSO status and floatable control approach for

each of the County’s CSOs.

2.3 CSO Treatment Requirements

The Fourth Stipulation and Order requires the County to address floatables controls as necessary, on all

remaining CSO outfalls which currently are not being provided treatment. Although the Fourth Stipulation

and Order does not dictate a specific level of floatables control, the County has stated that CSO outfalls shall

be provided floatables control to capture floatables up to the 1-year, 2-hour design event.

2.4 CSO Discharges to be Treated

As a result of the Fourth Stipulation and Order, the County is addressing floatables control at remaining

untreated CSOs through several separate projects, including the following:

• Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility: CSOs 003 and 004

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

• Midland Avenue Regional Treatment Facility: CSO 044

• Addressed through a separate detailed CSO Facilities Plan per the Fourth Stipulation and Order: CSOs

022, 027, 029, 052, 060/077 and 067

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

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

• Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area CSOs: 063, 005, 006, 006A, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 013, 014, 015,

016, 017, 018, and 078

METROPOLITAN

SYRACUSEÿWWTP

ONONDAGAÿLAKE

HARBORÿBROOK

HIAWATHAÿBLVD.ÿTRUNK

JAMESÿTRUNK

BUTTERNUT/GRANTÿTRUNK

BURNETÿTRUNK

ERIEÿBLVDÿSTORMÿSEWER

FAYETTEÿTRUNK

JEFFERSONÿTRUNK

HARRISONÿTRUNK

TALLMANÿTRUNK

KENNEDYÿTRUNK

MIDLANDÿTRUNK

COLVIN/SKYTOPÿTRUNK

BRIGHTONÿTRUNK

AINSLEY/MATSONÿTRUNK

MAINÿINTERCEPTORÿSEWER

EMERSONÿTRUNK

GENESEEÿTRUNK

TOMPKINSÿTRUNK

WESTÿSTREETÿTRUNK

ONONDAGAÿTRUNK

DELAWAREÿTRUNK

BELLEVUEÿTRUNK

ELMHURSTÿTRUNK

SOUTHÿAVE.ÿTRUNK

ROWLANDÿTRUNK

PROPOSEDÿCLINTON

STREETÿSTORAGE

TANKÿLOCATION

PROPOSEDÿLOWER

HARBORÿBROOKÿSTORAGE

TANKÿLOCATION

PROPOSEDÿEXTENSIONÿOF

MIDLANDÿCONVEYANCEÿTO

CSOÿ044ÿ(PHASEÿ3ÿSECTION)MIDLANDÿAVE.

CONVEYANCEÿPIPE

(PHASEÿ2ÿSECTION)

MIDLANDÿAVE.ÿRTF

MIDLANDÿAVE.

CONVEYANCEÿPIPE

(PHASEÿ1ÿSECTION)

WESTÿSENECA

TURNPIKEÿTRUNK

SALINAÿTRUNK

ONONDAG

AÿCREEK

LEMOYNE/DARLINGTONÿTRUNK

HIAWATHAÿBLVD.ÿRTF

LEYÿCREEK

TEMPORARYÿIN-STREAMÿFCF

VELASKOÿROAD

DETENTIONÿBASIN

HARBORÿBROOK

INTERCEPTORÿSEWER MALTBIEÿSTREETÿFCFBURNETÿAVE.ÿFCF

TEALLÿBROOKÿFCF

BUTTERNUTÿSREETÿFCF

KIRKPATRICKÿSTREET

PUMPÿSTATION

FIGURE

CSOÿFLOATABLEÿCONTROLOVERVIEW

ONONDAGAÿCOUNTYÿÿDEPARTMENTOFÿWATERÿENVIRONMENTÿPROTECTION

FLOATABLEÿCONTROLÿFACILITYÿPLAN

2-1

IMAGES:XREFS: PROJECTNAME:ÿÿ ----

CITY:SYRACUSE,ÿNYÿÿÿDIV/GROUP:ENV/141ÿÿÿÿDB:T.RITSCHEL,ÿK.SARTORIÿÿÿÿÿÿPIC:J.PERRIELLOÿÿÿÿPM:J.PERRIELLOÿÿÿÿTM:D.GROFFÿÿÿÿLYR:(Opt)ON=*;OFF=*REF*

G:\ENVCAD\SYRACUSE\ACT\B0000380\0000\00012\DWG\FACILITY\00380B01.DWG LAYOUT:ÿ 2-1 SAVED:ÿ 4/19/2011ÿ11:28ÿAM ACADVER:ÿ 18.0Sÿ(LMSÿTECH) PAGESETUP:ÿ PD2B-PDF PLOTSTYLETABLE:ÿ PLTFULL.CTB PLOTTED:ÿ 4/26/2011ÿ10:27ÿAM BY:ÿSARTORI,ÿKATHERINE

Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan

TABLE 2-1 – Summary of CSO Floatables Control

CSONumber Drainage Basin

CSOCurrent Status Floatable Control Approach

003 Harbor Brook Active Proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage

004 Harbor Brook Active Proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage

005 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan



006A/079 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan


008 Harbor Brook Closed





013 Harbor Brook Active Proposed Separation



016 Harbor Brook Active Proposed Separation



019 Onondaga Creek Closed Upgraded Kirkpatrick Street Pump Station Capacity

020 Onondaga Creek Active Butternut Street FCF

021 Onondaga Creek Active Burnet Avenue FCF

022 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan

024 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)

025 Onondaga Creek Closed



028 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage














039 Onondaga Creek Active Midland Avenue RTF



042 Onondaga Creek Active Midland Avenue RTF

043 Onondaga Creek Closed Midland Avenue RTF

044 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Conveyance to Midland Avenue RTF

045 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Separation

046A Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)

046B Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)










061 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed FCF Plan




066 Onondaga Creek Active Maltbie Street FCF



073 Teall Brook Active Teall Brook FCF




074 Ley Creek Active Hiawatha Boulevard RTF

075 Onondaga Creek Active Upgraded Kirkpatrick Street Pump Station Capacity

076 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed FCF Plan



080 Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080A Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080B Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080C Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080D Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080E Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080F Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080G Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080H Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System

080I Onondaga Creek Active Erie Boulevard Storage System



Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Subsequent to the initiation of the FCF Plan project, the following CSOs were being addressed through

separately administered sewer separation projects: 013, 016 and 045. Sewer separation projects for CSOs

013 and 016 are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2011. Sewer separation of CSO 045 is

scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012. In addition, it was discovered during the site investigations,

that CSO 008 has been closed, i.e., mechanically plugged for an extended period of time, as the County had

previously determined that this CSO does not activate. The County plans to install a permanent plug in

CSO 008, i.e., concrete bulkhead, in summer 2011. Since CSOs 008, 013, 016 and 045 are currently being

addressed they are not included in the FCF Plan.

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

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the FCF Plan CSOs, their associated drainage areas, peak design flows

and volumes (1-year, 2-hour design event) and overflow frequency during the typical year rainfall.

A description of each CSO regulator is provided below:

Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area CSO Regulators

063 – The CSO 063 regulator is located in the sidewalk on the north side of Emerson Avenue and the outfall

is located approximately 500 feet northeast of the regulator structure. The regulator and outfall are located

west of Harbor Brook. The influent to the regulator is by a 48-inch-diameter pipe and a 6-inch-diameter

storm sewer. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather

flow is controlled by a weir and flows in excess of dry weather sewer capacity are directed to a 48-inch-

diameter overflow pipe. Currently CSO 063 discharges to a swale located on a mix of privately owned

property located north of Erie Boulevard West.

005 – The CSO 005 regulator and outfall structure is located in the middle of West Genesee Street east of

Harbor Brook. The CSO regulator and outfall structure are located adjacent to the covered portion of Harbor

Brook. The influent to the regulator is by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the

regulator by an 8-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a square orifice located in the wall

between the regulator and outfall structure. Flows in excess of the dry weather sewer capacity are directed

to the adjacent outfall structure. Wet weather flow in excess of dry weather capacity is directed to Harbor

Brook by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Excess flows from Harbor Brook are prevented from entering the

regulator structure by a flap gate mounted over the orifice in the outfall structure.

006 - The outfall structure for CSO 006 is located on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Sackett

Street. Flow is directed to CSO 006 from manhole No. 79 located approximately 500 feet west of the

regulator structure in the center of Park Avenue. The influent to manhole No. 79 is by a 22-inch by 15-inch

conduit. Dry weather flow is conveyed from manhole No. 79 by a 22-inch by 15-inch conduit. Wet weather

#

##

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

INTERSTATE690

W. GENESEE ST.

ERIE BLVD.

ONONDAGA LAKE

W. ONONDAGA ST.

063

078

018

017

015

014

011

010009

007

006

005

006A

014

018

063

078

015

017

007

009

011

005

010

006 006A

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000)

0 1,250 2,500

FeetGRAPHIC SCALE

Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds.mxd - 4/26/2011 @ 2:51:58 PM

ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

HARBOR BROOK SEWER SERVICE AREAPROJECT AREA

FIGURE

2-2

FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN

LEGEND:

# CSO REGULATOR LOCATION

CSO DRAINAGE BOUNDARY

HARBOR BROOK OPEN PORTION

HARBOR BROOK COVERED PORTION

#

#

W. COLVIN ST.

CREHANGE ST.

ELMHURST AVE.

ON

ON

DA

GA

CR

EE

K

HA

TC

HS

T.

HO

PE

AV

E.

MID

LA

ND

AV

E.

W. BRIGHTON AVE.

076

061

076

061


0 200 400

FeetGRAPHIC SCALE

Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_east.mxd - 4/26/2011 @ 2:53:10 PM

ONONDAGA CREEK SEWERSERVICE AREA PROJECT AREA

FIGURE

2-3

LEGEND:


CSO DRAINAGE BOUNDARY




TABLE 2-2 – FCF Plan CSOs

CSONumber CSO Regulator Location

DrainageArea(acres)

1-Year, 2 HourDesign Event

1 Number ofOverflowEvents(TypicalYear

Rainfall)2

PeakFlow(mgd)

Volume(MG)

Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area

063 Emerson Avenue 122 37 0.6 23

005 West Genesee and Sackett Streets 13 10 0.2 25

006 Park Avenue and Sackett Street (west) 10 5 0.1 23

006A Park Avenue and Sackett Street (east) 7 4 >0.1 6

007 Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street 24 3 >0.1 10

009 West Fayette Street (west) 28 6 0.1 4

010 West Fayette Street (east) 16 8 0.1 31

011 Gifford Street at Fowler High School 20 8 0.1 16

014 Delaware and Amy Streets 196 67 1.0 18

015 Herriman Street and Grand Avenue 40 18 0.3 18

017 Hoeffler Street 25 17 0.3 24

018 Rowland Street 149 17 0.7 40

078 Bellevue Avenue and Velasko Road 86 28 0.4 23

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area

061 Crehange Street 3 2 0.1 423

076 Brighton and Midland Avenues 86 23 0.2 2

Notes:

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

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

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

4. mgd = million gallons per day, MG = million gallons


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

flow in excess of dry weather capacity is directed to the outfall structure by a 24-inch-diameter pipe. CSO

006 discharges to the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

006A – The CSO 006A regulator and outfall structure is located in Park Avenue just east of the Sackett

Street intersection on the east side of Harbor Brook. The CSO regulator and outfall structure are located

adjacent to the covered portion of Harbor Brook. CSO 006A functions as an interceptor relief overflow as

the regulator is located on the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the

regulator by the Harbor Brook Interceptor. Wet weather flow is controlled by a square orifice located in the

wall between the regulator and outfall structure. Flows in excess of dry weather capacity are directed to the

adjacent outfall structure. The outfall structure consists of a short section of 18-inch-diameter overflow pipe

that empties directly into the covered portion of Harbor Brook. Excess flows from Harbor Brook are

prevented from entering the regulator structure by a flap gate mounted over the orifice in the outfall

structure.

007 – CSO 007 is located at the intersection of Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street on the east side of

Harbor Brook and consists of adjacent regulator and outfall structures. The CSO regulator and outfall

structure are located adjacent to the covered portion of Harbor Brook. CSO 007 functions as an interceptor

relief overflow as the regulator is located on the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer. Wet weather flow is

controlled by a square orifice located in the wall between the regulator and outfall structure. Flows in excess

of dry weather capacity are directed to the adjacent outfall structure. The outfall structure consists of a short

section of 24-inch-diameter overflow pipe that empties directly into the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

Excess flows from Harbor Brook are prevented from entering the regulator structure by a flap gate mounted

over the orifice in the outfall structure.

009 – CSO 009 is located in the middle of West Fayette Street on the west side of Harbor Brook. The

influent to the regulator is by a 24-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by a

12-inch-diameter pipe into the Harbor Brook Interceptor. Wet weather flow is controlled by a leaping weir

and is discharged to the covered portion of Harbor Brook via a 24-inch-diameter overflow pipe.

010 – CSO 010 is located in the middle of West Fayette Street on the east side of Harbor Brook. The

influent to the regulator is by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed out of the regulator by

a 15-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by an orifice equipped with a flap gate and

discharged via an 18-inch-diameter overflow pipe into the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

011 – CSO 011 is located adjacent to the Fowler High School athletic fields on the east side of Harbor

Brook. The influent to the regulator is by a 24-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the

regulator by an 8-inch-diameter drop connection. Wet weather flow is controlled by a leaping weir and

discharged by a 24-inch-diameter pipe to the covered portion of Harbor Brook.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

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

The influent to the regulator structure is by a 66-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the

regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 66-

inch-diameter pipe to the covered portion of Harbor Brook.

015 – CSO 015 was located on the north side of Grand Avenue just off the pavement at the intersection of

Grand Avenue and Herriman Street on the east side of Harbor Brook. The existing regulator was recently

replaced as part of the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement and CSO Abatement Project by a new

regulator located in Herriman Street. Influent to the regulator is from a 30-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather

flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir

and discharged to a downstream manhole by a 30-inch-diameter pipe. The flow exits the manhole by a

trapezoidal channel and enters Harbor Brook.

017 – CSO 017 was located to the south and adjacent to Harbor Brook on Hoeffler Street. The existing

regulator was recently replaced during the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement and CSO

Abatement Project by a new regulator located at the intersection of Hoeffler Street and Hartson Street.

Influent to the regulator is from a 30-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by

an 18-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 30-inch-diameter

pipe to a downstream manhole (the old regulator located adjacent to Harbor Brook) approximately 400 feet

downstream where it then discharges to Harbor Brook.

018 – CSO 018 is located in the Velasko Road Detention Basin near Rowland Street. The influent to the

regulator structure is by a 48-inch-diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by a 10-

inch-diameter drop pipe connection. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 48-inch-

diameter pipe and by 48-inch by 45-inch pipe to Harbor Brook. During conversations with County personnel

it was noted that this CSO is located in the flood plain and has been submerged in the past during large wet

weather events.

078 – CSO 078 is located in the intersection of Velasko Road and Bellevue Avenue. The influent to the

regulator is by a 36-inch-diameter pipe and a 15-inch diameter pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the

regulator by a 15-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled by a weir and discharged by a 27-inch-

diameter pipe to the outfall in Harbor Brook located approximately 1,300 feet north/northwest of the regulator

structure.

Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area CSO Regulators

061 – CSO 061 is located at the intersection of Crehange Street and Kirk Park Drive on the east side of

Onondaga Creek. The influent to the regulator is by a 12-inch-diameter pipe and an 8-inch diameter pipe.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by an 8-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is controlled

by a leaping weir and discharged by a 12-inch-diameter pipe to the adjacent outfall in Onondaga Creek.

076 – CSO 076 is located in the right-of-way on the corner of the intersection of Brighton Avenue and

Midland Avenue on the east side of Onondaga Creek. The influent to the regulator is by a 54-inch-diameter

pipe. Dry weather flow is conveyed from the regulator by a 15-inch-diameter pipe. Wet weather flow is

controlled by a weir and discharged by a 54-inch-diameter pipe to an outfall in Onondaga Creek located

approximately 1,350 feet west of the regulator structure.

2.5 CSO Assessment

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

As required under the Metro State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit, the County

conducts visual inspections of each CSO. These CSO inspection sheets are included as part of the monthly

Metro Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to the NYSDEC. Further assessments by the

County of any remaining problematic CSOs will be done after projects such as the Harbor Brook Interceptor,

and the Clinton and Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facilities are completed.

In general, all of the FCF Plan CSOs are active and discharge according to different rainfall intensities. Table

2-3 provides the minimum rainfall intensity necessary to trigger CSO activation by CSOs addressed in this

FCF Plan.

Model information for CSO 061 indicates a rainfall intensity of 0.15 inches per hour will trigger this CSO to

activate. Based on County observations, it is believed that this CSO does not activate as frequently as

predicted by the model and as a result the County installed an area velocity flow meter in the CSO 061

outfall on January 21, 2011. The flow data will be used to verify model predictions and help to refine model

calibration. The County will continue to monitor CSO 061 to determine if the model predicted activation

intensity is consistent with actual results.


TABLE 2-3 – Minimum Rainfall Intensity to Trigger CSO Activation

CSO Number CSO Regulator LocationDrainage Area

(acres)Trigger RainfallIntensity (in/hr)

1, 2


063 Emerson Avenue 122 0.20

005 West Genesee and Sackett Streets 13 0.40

006 Park Avenue and Sackett Street (west) 10 0.50

006A Park Avenue and Sackett Street (east) 7 0.50

007 Richmond Avenue and Liberty Street 24 0.75

009 West Fayette Street (west) 28 0.75

010 West Fayette Street (east) 16 0.85

011 Gifford Street at Fowler High School 20 0.10

014 Delaware and Amy Streets 196 0.15

015 Herriman Street and Grand Avenue 40 0.15

017 Hoeffler Street 25 0.15

018 Rowland Street 149 0.05

078 Bellevue Avenue and Velasko Road 86 0.20


061 Crehange Street 3 0.153

076 Brighton and Midland Avenues 86 0.70

Notes:

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

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

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3. Floatables Control Technology Evaluation

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to review potential floatables control technologies for CSOs located in the

Onondaga Creek and Harbor Brook Sewer Service Areas.

This section presents technologies that were considered for evaluation, and the criteria and methodologies

used to identify, assess and evaluate technologies for CSO floatables control on a non-cost basis. Further

evaluations will be presented in Section 4 to include construction costs and present worth costs during the

evaluation of FCF abatement approaches. This section includes the following:

• Floatables Control Technology Overview

• Evaluation of Floatables Control Technologies

• Selected Floatables Control Technologies

3.2 Floatables Control Technology Overview

For the evaluation of floatables control technologies, the following list of technologies were identified to

determine those most appropriate for further evaluation. All these technologies have been utilized for CSO

floatables control in the United States and Europe.

• Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

• Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

• Horizontal Band Screens

• Low Profile Overflow Screens

• Rotary Drum Sieve Screens

• Pump Action Screens

• Brush Screens

• Oscillating Static Screens

• Static Screens

• Drum Screens

• Continuous Deflection Separation


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

It is important to note that disposable nets and floating booms are not included in the above listing of

floatables control technologies. Due to the nature of the CSOs being evaluated, characteristics of the

receiving water bodies and the County’s previous operating experience with these floatables control

technologies, they are not being considered for this project.

The following section provides a brief description of the floatables control technology and their operating

characteristics and a concise list of advantages and disadvantages.

3.2.1 Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

Mechanically raked CSO bar screens are stationary fine screens that are mechanically cleaned and

arranged in either a horizontal or vertical position to the CSO flow and are typically installed below ground.

The screen consists of modules of horizontal or vertical fixed bar rack and cleaning assembles mounted

along a weir wall. Each module is made of stainless steel bars with pre-determined spacing. Bar spacing

options include 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 millimeters (mm) with 4 mm being the most commonly used for CSO

floatables control. The rake assembly consists of a series of combs that are powered by a hydraulic pack.

As storm flow enters the system, the comb begins its raking operation before the overflow to the effluent

channel occurs based on a signal from a level sensor. In the horizontal configuration, the flow is upward

through the screen bars to an effluent conduit discharging to the receiving body of water, while the solids

and floatables are retained in a continuous flow to the dry weather sewer. When the water level drops below

the effluent weir, the sensor signals the rake assembly to stop. The screens are mechanically cleaned, but

require periodic cleaning with a high-pressure hose wash by the facility operators in order to dislodge

accumulated stringy materials. This type of screen was installed at the Teall Brook FCF in 2000 and has

performed well based on discussions with the County. Figure 3-1 presents a typical mechanically raked

CSO bar screen installation.

• Advantages

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

– County experience - Teall Brook FCF

– No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

– Below ground installation

• Disadvantages

– Requires large excavation

– Requires power


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Potential manufacturers include the following:

• Westech - ROMAG

• EIMCO – COPA

• Hydro International

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

3.2.2 Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

Mechanically cleaned conventional screens are typically mounted in aboveground facilities and utilize

numerous mechanical cleaning methods to keep the stationary screen mounted in the flow channel free of

debris accumulation. This screen type is used for the removal of floatables and other debris from open

channels. A bar screen spacing of ½-inch is typically used for CSO floatables control. Mechanically

cleaned conventional screens include the following types:

• Climber-type Screen Machines

• Perforated Panel Screens

• Catenary Screens

• Chain and Rake Screens


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Mechanically cleaned conventional screens collect floatables from the face of the submerged bar rack and

transfer them to a receptacle where they are accumulated. Following a CSO event, containerized residuals

must be transported by truck for further processing. The County has had extensive experience with this type

of screen as a number of climber-type screens have recently been installed at numerous County sanitary

sewer pump stations and the Metropolitan Syracuse Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro). The screens

installed at Metro have performed well treating CSO from the County’s main interceptor sewer. Figure 3-2

presents a typical mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen.

• Advantages

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

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

• Disadvantages

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

– Requires power

– May require water based on screen type

– Requires residuals management after a CSO event

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

– Potential odor generation from screenings receptacle


• Veolia /John Meunier

• Headworks

• JWC

• Andritz

• EIMCO

• WSG Solutions

• Degremont


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

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

3.2.3 Horizontal Band Screens

This type of screen is a mechanically cleaned rotating fine screen that is oriented horizontally to the

wastewater flow. Flow enters the screen in an upward direction where it is screened and directed over a

weir to the outfall. The screen has perforated stainless steel panels with openings of 6 mm that travel

around the screen. A rotating brush positioned on the downstream end of the screen removes screened

material from the rotating perforated panels and directs the collected debris back into the wastewater flow.

Figure 3-3 presents a typical horizontal band screen.

· Advantages

o Proven technology – 246 installations in Europe

o No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer

o Below ground installation

· Disadvantages

o Requires large excavation

o Requires power


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

o Drive train exposed to wastewater flow

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

o Only 2 U.S. CSO installations for this technology


· Veolia/John Meunier

· JWC

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

3.2.4 Low Profile Overflow Screens

The low profile overflow screen is a mechanically cleaned fine screen consisting of a profiled weir assembly,

modular curved bar rack and a motor driven rake mechanism. The screen retains floatables from the CSO

flow by means of a curved bar rack located on a profiled weir assembly. Flow is routed over the profiled

weir and down through the screen into the effluent channel. The profile weir assembly is used to evenly

distribute the wastewater flow across the entire width of the screen. Floatables and debris are directed by

the rake to a collection trough located behind the screen. The screenings are then flushed to the

wastewater flow. Figure 3-4 presents a typical low profile overflow screen.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

· Advantages



· Disadvantages


o Requires power

o Drive train exposed to wastewater flow

o Only one manufacturer

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

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

PROFILEDWEIR

RAKEMECHANISM

MOTORSCREENED

OVERFLOW TORECEIVING WATER

SCREENINGSTO WWTP

DRY WEATHERFLOW TO WWTPSCREEN

COMBINEDINFLUENT

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.5 Rotary Drum Sieve Screens

This type of screen consists of a large perforated stainless steel cylindrical rotary sieve mounted on a weir

wall. The sieve is turned slowly by a hydraulic motor on a gear wheel in a direction such that the clean side

is facing the oncoming flow. A brush adjacent to the sieve rotates in the opposite direct from the sieve and

directs the collected material back into the wastewater flow. The sieve sizes are available in 4 mm, 5 mm or

6 mm wide slots. Figure 3-5 presents a typical rotary drum sieve screen.

· Advantages



· Disadvantages


o Requires power


o No U.S. installations (84 in Europe)


ROTATINGDRUM

ROTATINGBRUSH

COMBINEDINFLUENT

SCREENEDEFFLUENT TO

RECEIVING WATER

DRY WEATHER FLOW/SCREENINGS TO

WWTP

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.6 Pump Action Screens

Pump action screens (PAS) are fine screens fabricated from stainless steel plate consisting of 6 mm

perforations typically mounted on the flow side of an overflow weir just below the weir level. There are no

mechanical moving parts within the screen itself. The PAS is kept clean using a pump that entrains air into

the wastewater flow. The power of the air/water mixture scours the underside of the screen, transporting

debris past the end of the screen and on into the wastewater flow preventing the screen from blinding.

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

· Advantages



· Disadvantages


o Requires power


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

CSO Technik is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.7 Brush Screens

Brush screens consist of fine bristles that provide removal of floatables and debris. The brush screen is

mounted horizontally on a shaft that rotates countercurrent to the flow being treated. The rotating brush is

cleaned by a fixed comb that directs captured material into a collection trough where it is then carried back

into the wastewater stream. The rotating action of the brush screen is provided by the flow action on a water

wheel drive that is connected to the brush. Figure 3-7 presents a typical brush screen.

· Advantages


o No power required

· Disadvantages

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


o No U.S. installations

Hydrok UK is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

Figure 3-7 – Brush Screen (Hydrok Hydroclean)


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.8 Oscillating Static Screens

Oscillating static screens are comprised of welded bar rack modules supported on an elevated bar and are

designed to hang downward and pivot in the CSO effluent flow. When an overflow event occurs, flow is

routed through the back side of the screen and is directed over an effluent weir. As flows increase and the

screen captures more floatables, the headloss increases on the screen resulting in a rotation of the screen

upward toward the effluent weir. The rotation prevents the upstream sewer from surcharging while still

screening floatables on the upstream side of the screen. After the CSO event subsides the retained

floatables are manually cleaned off the screen and directed back to the dry-weather sewer. Figure 3-8

presents a typical oscillating static screen.

· Advantages



o No power required

· Disadvantages

o May require more extensive cleaning after an event than other technologies


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


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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.9 Static Screens

A static screen has no moving parts or electrical requirements. Static screens are comprised of a bar rack

that may be mounted vertically in the wastewater flow or horizontally above it. Static screens may be

designed with self cleaning features that direct collected material into the wastewater flow to the WWTP or

they may require manual cleaning and collection of residuals after each CSO event. Since static screens

are susceptible to blinding, they are typically used for CSOs with smaller peak flow rates and infrequent

activation frequencies. Figure 3-9 presents a typical static screen.

· Advantages



o No power required

· Disadvantages

o Could be susceptible to blinding

Potential Manufacturers include the following:

· Hydro International

· EIMCO

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.10 Drum Screens

A drum screen is a non-powered perforated screen that consists of a cylindrical sieve mounted on a weir

wall. The drum screen rotates counter to the flow by means of a water wheel located on the interior of the

drum. This rotational action keeps floatables in the wastewater that is directed to the dry weather sewer.

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

drum screen.

· Advantages



o No power required

· Disadvantages



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

EIMCO COPA is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.

Figure 3-10 – Drum Screen (EIMCO COPA)


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.2.11 Continuous Deflection Separation

Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) is a variation of the vortex separation technology. The CDS

consists of a cylindrical tank that uses a physical barrier, typically a fine screen, between the influent flow

and outlet discharge. Flows enter the CDS tank tangentially and are deflected from the discharge by

entering a deep sump. Flows are conveyed into the center of the sump and must pass through a screen

before proceeding to the discharge. The continuous swirling action in the sump causes heavier solids to fall

to the bottom and keeps them away from the screen, thereby eliminating the need for a cleaning

mechanism. After an event, the trapped floatables and solids retained in the sump require removal by

maintenance personnel via vacuum truck or clamshell bucket. This technology was developed for solids

removal in stormwater systems. Figure 3-11 presents a typical CDS installation.

· Advantages


o Smaller excavation than other technologies

o No power required

· Disadvantages

o Requires residuals management after an event

o Not a proven technology for CSO applications

Potential Manufacturers include the following:

· CONTECH Construction Products, Inc.

· Hydro International

Figure 3-11 – Continuous Deflection Separation (CONTECH)


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

3.3 Evaluation of Floatables Control Technologies

Each of the floatables control technologies identified were evaluated to determine their feasibility for

controlling floatables in CSOs. Floatables control technologies cannot be reviewed solely for their ability to

capture floatables; therefore, other non-cost factors such as operation and maintenance requirements,

equipment availability and public factors must also be considered. Evaluation criteria were therefore

developed to assess the overall impacts of applying each technology to the following non-cost criteria:

· Water Quality

· Residuals Management

· Equipment Maintenance

· Energy Usage

· Proven and Reliable Technology

· Multiple Manufacturers

· Public Acceptance

Each of the identified floatables control technologies were evaluated with the above criteria. The following

were used in the evaluation of the criteria:

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

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

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

A progress meeting was conducted with County personnel on July 15, 2010 to review the screening criteria

and determine which criteria should carry a greater weight. The meeting resulted in a decision to place a

greater weight (i.e., a positive impact would carry a +2 score and a negative impact would carry a -2 score)

on the following three criteria:

· Equipment Maintenance

· Residuals Management

· Proven and Reliable Technology

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

floatables control technology.


TABLE 3-1 – CSO TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION METRICS

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

Evaluation Criteria Positive Impact (+) Negative Impact (-) Neutral Impact (0)

a. Water Quality

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

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

Technology cannot significantly reduce the amount of waterquality pollutants of concern currently discharged to theenvironment

Provides nominal reduction in water quality pollutants

b. Residuals Management

Residuals management is defined as any activities that requirepersonnel to perform any of the following; removal of residuals fromequipment, heavy cleaning of equipment after an event, containerizationof residuals, transportation and disposal of residuals.

Technology requires minimal post event residuals management Technology requires extensive post event residuals management Not applicable

c. Equipment Maintenance

Maintenance includes routine maintenance and any other maintenanceneeded to keep equipment running properly. Maintenance also includesa subjective review of potential or inherent maintenance issues due to atechnologies/ strategies design or construction, complexity, priorexperience with similar installations, sustainability, and safetyconsiderations (i.e., confined space entry).

Technology requires minimal maintenance Technology requires frequent maintenance Technology requires infrequent but regular maintenance

d. Energy Usage

Energy usage only includes power needed for the equipment/technologyto operate.

Technology does not require mechanical equipment requiringenergy usage

Technology requires mechanical equipment requiring energyusage

Not applicable

e. Proven and Reliable Technology

This criteria defines whether the equipment/technology has a number ofsuccessful installations in CSO applications in the United States.

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

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

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

f. Multiple Manufacturers

Equipment is readily available from 2 or more manufacturers.Technology available from 2 or more manufacturers Technology has only one manufacturer Not applicable

g. Public Acceptance

Public acceptance includes a number of factors that affect publicperception including but not limited to; disruptions due to constructionand ongoing O&M activities, property acquisitions, noise and odors, andabove grade facilities.

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

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

Depending on application, this technology may requireproperty acquisition, may result in an above-grade structureand may generate noise and odors


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

In addition to evaluating potential impacts, each technology was also reviewed to determine possible

applications for controlling floatables in an in-channel application (i.e., installed in Harbor Brook). This

application is based on a “yes” or “no” to the criteria (i.e., would the technology be applicable to an in-

channel configuration).

The County currently operates an in-stream FCF in Harbor Brook that is located approximately 1,700 feet

upstream of its confluence with Onondaga Lake. This facility utilizes net bag technology as a means of

floatables capture. During discussions with County personnel, it was stated that the facility performs

adequately but that the facility is subject to blinding during periods of high flow and that removal and

replacement of the bags is cumbersome and labor intensive. To eliminate the blinding and O&M issues

associated with the current temporary facility, a permanent, mechanically-cleaned, in-stream facility will be

evaluated. A single, permanent in-stream FCF has the following advantages over stand alone underground

FCFs:

· In addition to capturing floatables associated with CSO, a permanent in-stream FCF would

capture floatables and debris that make their way into the uncovered portion of Harbor Brook from

other sources (i.e., windblown debris, street litter, yard wastes, etc.).

· An in-stream FCF would continue to capture floatables in Harbor Brook and prevent them from

reaching Onondaga Lake even during dry weather flow periods.

· A single in-stream FCF would decrease the amount of required maintenance associated with

numerous stand alone facilities.

· An in-stream FCF would provide redundancy. A stand-alone facility equipped with a single

screen that becomes inoperable will allow the discharge of floatables or cause sewer surcharging.

An in-stream FCF equipped with at least two screens would allow for continued floatables capture

should one of the screens become inoperable or be offline due to maintenance.

· An in-stream FCF would eliminate the need to construct numerous underground FCFs and the

continued disruption of neighborhoods that have already endured numerous months of

construction related disruptions associated with other ongoing CSO projects (i.e., Harbor Brook

Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project and CSO Abatement Project).

An in-stream FCF would eliminate numerous employee health and safety concerns during construction and

the subsequent operation and maintenance that are normally associated with underground facilities (i.e.,

confined space entry, access in busy streets and intersections, protection of the public during construction,

ventilation, and debris removal).


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Each of the technologies were scored utilizing the CSO technology evaluation metrics (Table 3-1) and the

net scores for each screening criteria were summed. Table 3-2 presents the results of the floatables control

technology non-cost evaluation.

3.4 Selected Floatables Control Technologies

The purpose of the floatables control technology non-cost evaluation was to score all of the identified

floatables control technologies versus the screening criteria to determine the most appropriate floatables

control technologies on a non-cost basis. At the conclusion of this evaluation, technologies resulting in the

highest net summation of impacts were considered the most preferred technologies for floatables control.

The evaluation resulted in mechanically raked CSO bar screens and static screens having the highest net

impact of all the technologies evaluated and these technologies will be retained for further evaluation.

Though the mechanically cleaned conventional screen did not score well in some of the criteria compared to

the above retained technologies, this technology will be retained because it is the only technology evaluated

that could be utilized effectively in an in-channel application (i.e., Harbor Brook) should the combined

treatment of floatables for several CSOs discharging into the covered portion of Harbor Brook be deemed

acceptable by the regulatory authorities.

In addition to the floatables control technologies being evaluated, three other floatables control strategies

(sewer separation, green technology, and convey to treatment/storage facility) were also evaluated based

on their ability to effectively remove floatables. As a result, sewer separation and convey to

treatment/storage facility will be retained for further evaluation. Although green technologies are effective as

CSO abatement controls, they are not deemed effective based solely on a floatables removal basis.

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

evaluation:

· Floatables Control Technologies

o Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

o Static Screens

o Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screens

· Other Strategies

o Sewer Separation

o Convey to Treatment/Storage Facility


TABLE 3-2 - FLOATABLES CONTROL TECHNOLOGY NON-COST EVALUATION

Z:\bek10\212011386 Table 3-2.docx

Screening Criteria

TechnologiesOther Strategies

(5)

Powered Equipment Unpowered Equipment

MechanicallyRakedCSOBarScreens(1)

MechanicallyCleanedConventionalScreens(2)

HorizontalBandScreens

LowProfileOverflowScreens

RotaryDrumSieveScreens

PumpActionScreens

BrushScreens

OscillatingStaticScreens

StaticScreens

DrumScreens

ContinuousDeflectionSeparation

SewerSeparation

GreenTechnology

ConveytoTreatment/StorageFacility

Water Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + +

Residuals Management(4)

++ -- ++ ++ ++ ++ -- -- ++ ++ -- ++ -- ++

Equipment Maintenance(4)

0 -- -- -- 0 -- -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ -- ++

Energy Usage - - - - - - + + + + + + + +

Proven and Reliable Technology(4)

++ ++ -- 0 0 0 -- 0 ++ -- -- ++ 0 ++

Multiple Manufacturers(3)

+ + + - - - - - + - + N/A N/A N/A

Public Acceptance + - + + + + - + + + 0 + + 0

Net Impact +5 -3 -1 -1 +1 -1 -7 +1 +9 +3 0 +9 -1 +8

In Channel Floatables Capture No Yes No No No No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A

Retained for Further Evaluation Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes

Notes:1. Includes horizontal and vertical CSO screens2. Includes climber type, band/perforated panel, chain and rake, and catenary type screens. Although this technology did not score well it is

being retained as it was deemed most appropriate for an in-channel floatables control facility (i.e., installed in Harbor Brook).3. Applies to technologies only4. In the July 15, 2010 Progress Meeting these criteria were deemed to have a greater importance and; therefore, the weights for

these criteria were doubled.5. The technology non-cost evaluation in addition to evaluating floatables control equipment also included evaluations of the following

floatables control strategies: sewer separation, green technology and conveyance of flows to an adjacent treatment and/or storage facility.

Key

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

4. FCF Abatement Approaches

4.1 Introduction

As presented in Section 3.4, the following CSO floatables control technologies and strategies were

determined to be the most feasible for achieving compliance with the Fourth Stipulation and Order.

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

o Mechanically raked CSO bar screens

o Static screens

o Mechanically cleaned conventional screens for an in-stream application

· Sewer Separation

· Convey to Treatment/Storage Facility

Recognizing that multiple combinations of the above control technologies and strategies exist, this section

presents the most viable floatables control alternatives and presents a present worth cost analysis for the

most viable floatables control alternatives.

4.2 Potential CSO Groupings

By utilizing the flow information presented in Table 2-2, site inspections and review of available sewer

mapping and construction documents, CSO groupings were developed based upon combining CSOs which

are in close proximity to other CSOs. In general, minimizing the number of facilities maximizes the total

length of consolidation pipelines required to convey overflows to floatables control facilities, and vice versa.

Therefore, CSO groupings were developed where CSOs were in close proximity to one another and

consolidation pipeline requirements were minimal. In addition, CSOs located on opposite sides of Harbor

Brook were eliminated from consideration from grouping together due to the requirement that a siphon

connection would be required to convey flows under Harbor Brook to the FCF and recognizing that

maintaining a siphon designed for intermittent flows is not desirable from an operational and maintenance

standpoint. CSOs not in close proximity to other CSOs or opposite sides of Harbor Brook from one another

will be evaluated for stand alone, individual FCFs. Based on a review of the FCF Plan CSOs, the following

groupings were identified:

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

· A FCF located at CSO 014 combining CSOs 014 and 015


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

4.3 Harbor Brook In-stream FCF

Another potential CSO grouping would include controlling the floatables from the CSOs which discharge

directly into the covered portion of Harbor Brook at an in-stream FCF located near the outlet of the covered

portion located adjacent to State Fair Boulevard. The covered portion of Harbor Brook begins at Delaware

Street and daylights downstream at State Fair Boulevard and includes discharges from the following FCF

Plan CSOs (listed in order from upstream to downstream): 014, 011, 010, 009, 007, 006A, 006 and 005.

Due to its proximity to the covered portion of Harbor Brook, CSO 015 could also be conveyed to CSO 014

and included in the in-stream FCF. Under the in-stream FCF grouping, CSO 015 would be closed and

redirected to the CSO 014 outfall which discharges into the covered portion of Harbor Brook. The in-stream

FCF would be located in Harbor Brook to capture floatables in the stream via mechanically cleaned

conventional screens with disposal of the screenings into a receptacle for removal by County personnel. The

new in-stream FCF would be constructed to replace the existing temporary in-stream FCF currently located

north of Hiawatha Boulevard and would need to be constructed in the existing stream bed and be equipped

with bypass channel(s) to convey excess flows above the design storm frequency. In addition, the

equipment and screenings receptacle would require a building enclosure for protection from the elements

and to minimize potential odors. The construction of an in-stream FCF will require approval of the regulatory

agencies as the facility would be located within Harbor Brook and its associated flood plain. The in-stream

FCF would be sized to convey the projected 100-year stream flow (1,310 cfs, FEMA Flood Study, November

1981) and treat floatables up to the 1-year, 2-hour design storm event. Based on annual peak stream flow

records from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station 04240105 located on Harbor

Brook, north of Hiawatha Boulevard, the average annual peak flow is equal to approximately 428 cfs (based

on 30-years of record 1980-2009).

4.4 Most Viable Floatables Control Alternatives

In addition to the CSO groupings and in-stream FCF identified in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, sewer separation

was also identified as a feasible floatables control strategy. Since sewer separation has previously been

evaluated on a basin-wide approach (reference: Harbor Brook CSO Abatement Facilities Plan, dated August

2005 as prepared by Brown and Caldwell), this FCF Plan is only evaluating partial separation, i.e., for

individual CSO tributary areas. Because sewer separation has historically been a costly control method,

especially for floatables control, it has been assumed that CSO tributary areas less than 15 acres be

considered for sewer separation. This rationale is based on historical sewer separation costs in the County

which have averaged approximately $200,000 per acre resulting in a $3 million construction cost for a 15

acre area. Sewer separation for tributary areas greater than 15 acres are considerably more costly than

other FCF control alternatives, and therefore sewer separation was not considered for those CSOs with

larger tributary areas. The CSOs which were considered for sewer separation include CSOs 005, 006,

006A and 061.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Based upon discussions with the County and floatables control equipment manufacturers, it was reasoned

that for FCFs which have lower peak flow rates and/or low activation rates, that the use of static screens as

opposed to more costly and equipment intensive mechanically raked CSO bar screens would be an

appropriate technology application. Therefore, it was assumed that CSOs which have projected peak flow

rates of less than 20 cubic feet second (cfs) or 13 mgd and overflow frequencies less than 12 times per year

(based on the typical year rainfall) would be equipped with static screens including CSOs 005, 006A, 006,

007, 009, 010, 011 and 061. CSOs with greater than 20 cfs and/or overflow frequencies greater than 12

times per year would be equipped with mechanically raked CSO bar screens including CSOs 063, 014, 015,

017, 018, 078 and 076. In addition, the grouped FCFs, which have projected peak flows greater than 20 cfs,

would be equipped with mechanically raked CSO bar screens.

Due to the CSO 063 location near the proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility (which is designed to

store flows from CSOs 003 and 004), conveyance of the flow from CSO 063 to the storage facility will be

evaluated as a separate alternative. Conveyance of flow from CSO 063 will involve permanently closing

CSO 063 and installing a pipeline from the existing outfall location for CSO 063 along Erie Boulevard West

to the regulator structure of CSO 003 located at Hiawatha Boulevard West. The proposed pipeline from

CSO 003 to the storage facility will also be up-sized to handle the additional flow from CSO 063. In addition

to the upsized pipeline, the storage capacity at the proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility will also

need to be increased by 0.6 MG (1-year, 2-hour design storm event volume). CSOs 003 and 004 are being

designed to discharge flows up to the 1-year, 2-hour design storm to the proposed Lower Harbor Brook

Storage Facility. Above the design storm, flows from CSOs 003 and 004 would continue to discharge to

Harbor Brook.

Based on the above discussions, the following most viable floatables control alternatives have been

identified for further evaluation:

· Alternative 1: Individual FCFs at all FCF Plan CSOs

· Alternative 2: Individual FCFs at CSOs 063, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 017, 018, 078, 061 and 076;

Grouped FCFs for CSOs 005 and 006A, and 014 and 015.

· Alternative 3: Convey CSO 063 to proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; Grouped FCFs

for CSOs 005 and 006A, and 014 and 015. Individual FCFs at CSOs 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 017,

018, 078, 061 and 076.

· Alternative 4: Convey CSO 063 to proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; Sewer

Separation for CSO areas 005, 006, 006A and 061; Grouped FCF for CSOs 014 and 015; Individual

FCFs at CSOs 007, 009, 010, 011, 017, 018, 078 and 076.

· Alternative 5: Convey CSO 063 to proposed Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility; Harbor Brook In-

stream FCF for CSOs 015, 014, 011, 010, 009, 007, 006A, 006 and 005; Sewer Separation for CSO

061; Individual FCFs at CSOs 017, 018, 078 and 076.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

4.5 Present Worth Cost Evaluation

Preliminary construction costs and total present worth cost estimates were developed for each of the above

identified most viable control alternatives and are presented in Table 4-1. Assumptions and methodologies

used to develop the costs are provided in the following sections.

4.5.1 FCF Costs

The base construction cost for FCFs was determined by utilizing the EPA CSO screening construction cost

curve from the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Manual (1993). Construction costs are based on the

treatment capacity of the equipment in millions of gallons per day (MGD). The cost of the FCF includes the

screening equipment, structure and associated typical appurtenances (connection piping, weirs, gates,

related site work, etc). Not included in the costs provided by the curves are additional concrete due to

special configurations necessitated by site constraints, piping in excess of making connections to existing

conveyance piping, access roads or land acquisition. Additional costs associated with grouped CSO

facilities include connection piping and structures to convey flow from the upstream CSO to the downstream

CSO in the group. Additional costs associated with the grouped CSOs were added to the cost obtained

from the cost curves. Additional costs associated with the instream FCF were added to the screen cost from

the manufacturer.

Equipment replacement curves were compiled based on the screening technology (static or mechanical)

and include the cost of replacing the equipment only, installation labor and contractors overhead and profit.

Base equipment costs were obtained from equipment manufacturers for the selected screening

technologies, and were utilized to provide a replacement cost of the equipment for present worth analysis.

Operation and maintenance cost curves were adapted from the EPA Combined Sewer Overflow Control

Manual for 10 and 30 overflow events per year. Operation and maintenance curves were extrapolated for

additional overflows of 5 and 20 per year to provide some measure of the costs associated with O&M for

event occurrences outside the EPA range. O&M costs are based on the treatment capacity of the equipment

in MGD and the number of overflow events per year.

The Construction Cost Curve, Equipment Replacement Cost Curves, and the O&M Cost Curves for FCFs

are included in Appendix A.

4.5.2 Sewer Separation Costs

Sewer separation costs were calculated for CSOs that presented the opportunity for the sewer separation

alternative. To determine construction costs that could be used to calculate costs for future sewer

separation projects, at the direction of the County, Camp Dresser and McKee/C&S Engineers, A Joint


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

TABLE 4-1 – Summary of the Most Viable Floatable Control Alternatives

CSO Number Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5


063

Individual FCF

Individual FCF Convey to Storage Convey to Storage Convey to Storage

005

Grouped FCF Grouped FCF

Sewer Separation1

In-Stream FCF

006A

006

Individual FCF Individual FCF

007

Individual FCF

009

010

011

014

Grouped FCF Grouped FCF Grouped FCF

015

017

Individual FCF Individual FCF Individual FCF Individual FCF018

078


061

Individual FCF Individual FCF Individual FCF

Sewer Separation1

Sewer Separation1

076 Individual FCF Individual FCF

Number of FCFs 15 13 12 9 5

Closed CSOs 0 2 3 6 3

ConstructionCost (millions)

2 $13.4 $13.6 $14.2 $19.3 $14.7

Present WorthCost (millions)

2 $26.1 $25.7 $26.6 $32.9 $24.6

Notes:

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

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Venture (CDM/C&S), the Lake Improvement Project Manager, reviewed actual construction costs for newly

installed sanitary sewer that has been installed for several recent County sewer separation projects. In their

Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates memorandum dated August 10, 2010, CDM/C&S

recommended using a linear foot unit cost of $1,315 for sewer separation based on their review. It was

agreed at the progress meeting conducted by County personnel on July 15, 2010, that any sewer separation

construction cost estimates would utilize the linear foot cost for sewer separation developed by CDM/C&S.

The unit cost was adjusted from the July 2010 ENRCCI of 8865 to the current ENRCCI of 8920 for October

2010 which resulted in a unit cost for sewer separation of $1,323 per linear foot. This unit price was

multiplied by the linear footage of existing combined sewer, taken from County sewer maps, currently

contributing to each CSO designated for separation. The cost for sewer separation represents the

installation of a new parallel sanitary sewer adjacent to the existing combined sewer and installation of new

laterals from contributing properties to the new sanitary sewer. Also included in the cost for sewer

separation is the cost of full width street and sidewalk restoration, installation of new curbing, existing

regulator reconfiguration and the installation of new water mains and water service lines.

A copy of the CDM/C&S Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates memorandum is included in

Appendix B.

4.5.3 Conveyance Costs

Additional costs associated for piping for grouped FCFs was calculated and added to the facility costs

obtained from the facility cost curve to obtain the Construction Cost for these facilities. The additional

conveyance piping was needed to connect potential grouped FCFs together and was calculated based on

the distance from the upstream CSO to the downstream CSO of the grouping. The cost of additional piping

needed for grouped FCFs also includes any required manholes, structures and associated discharge piping.

A copy of the estimate for the proposed grouped FCFs is included in Appendix C.

The construction costs associated with the conveyance of flow from CSO 063 to the Lower Harbor Brook

Storage Facility via CSO 003 includes the following:

· Conveyance piping from CSO 063 to CSO 003;

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

· Additional storage capacity (tankage).

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


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

4.5.4 In-stream FCF Costs

The construction cost for the in-stream FCF includes:

· The construction cost for the screening facility was based on manufacturers budget pricing for

screening equipment and the cost of the building that will house the equipment (EPA cost curve

only goes to 200 MGD and does not necessarily apply for an above ground, in-stream screening

facility);

· Costs associated with additional concrete needed for reconfiguration of Harbor Brook, a stream

bypass channel, and building foundations;

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

debris;

· Costs for a conveyor needed to transfer screenings from the mechanically cleaned screens to a

screenings receptacle; and

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

A copy of the estimate for the in-stream FCF is included in Appendix C.

4.5.5 Present Worth Costs

After calculating construction costs for the identified alternatives, a present worth cost evaluation was

conducted to determine life cycle costs associated with each alternative. Calculation of present worth cost

was based on the recommendations of CDM/C&S in the Onondaga ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide

memorandum dated August 18, 2010 (Revised September 10, 2010). A copy of the CDM/C&S Onondaga

ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide memorandum is included in Appendix D. Utilizing the guidelines in the

memorandum, a present worth cost was calculated for each of the alternatives that included the following:

· Total Construction Cost – Total Construction Cost is the construction cost of the facility plus the

Contractor’s Mobilization times a 20% Construction Contingency.

· Total Project Cost – Total Project Cost is the Total Construction Cost plus 15% for Engineering and

5% for County Construction Management (CM) and Administration. Both the engineering and

County CM percentages are based on the Total Construction Cost.

· Total Present Worth Cost – Total Present Worth Cost Includes the Total Project Cost plus the

Equipment Replacement Cost plus the O&M Present Worth Cost. O&M Present Worth Cost factors


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

include the annual O&M cost based on the O&M Cost Curves, a 3% discount rate and an O&M life

cycle of 30 years. Equipment replacement is assumed to occur at 20 years.

Copies of the cost spreadsheets used to calculate the present worth for each of the identified alternatives

are provided in Appendix E.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

5. Recommended FCF Plan

5.1 Introduction

This section provides the recommended FCF plan and preliminary opinion of probable project costs, a

preliminary basis of design of the FCF Plan projects, identification of permitting and operation and

maintenance requirements and a proposed implementation schedule. In addition, a description of the

recommended CSO discharge flow monitoring plan and a description of potential green infrastructure

considerations are presented.

5.2 Recommended FCF Plan

Based on the analysis of the present worth costs for each alternative identified in Section 4.4 the following

observations can be made from Table 4-1:

· Alternative 5 is the least expensive;

· Alternative 4 is the most expensive;

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

· CSOs closed by each alternative can be evaluated to determine if an alternative that results in the

closure of more CSOs may be warranted even though that alternative may result in a slightly

increased present worth cost; and

· Number of new FCFs for each alternative.

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

· Alternative 1 is the third least costly option (based on present worth). Alternative 1 results in 15

FCFs that must be operated and maintained by the County. Additionally, no CSOs are closed

under this alternative.

· Alternative 2 is the second least costly option. This alternative results in 13 new FCF facilities and

the closure of only 2 CSOs.

· Alternative 3 is the fourth least costly option and results in 12 new FCF facilities and the closure of 3

CSOs. This alternative closes an additional CSO when compared to Alternative 2 for an additional

$900,000 (Present Worth Cost) with the construction of the 063 conveyance to the Lower Harbor

Brook Storage Facility.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

· Alternative 4 is the most costly option but results in the closure of the most CSOs (6). This

alternative also results in the second fewest new FCFs to be constructed (9).

· Alternative 5 is the least costly option and results in the closure of 3 CSOs. Compared to the other

alternatives, Alternative 5 also results in the fewest number of new FCFs (5) that would need to be

constructed and maintained. Alternative 5 also provides greater redundancy and has less health

and safety issues associated with its operation and maintenance compared to the other alternatives.

This alternative will need regulatory approval in addition to approval from the City of Syracuse due

to its proposed location in Harbor Brook and its associated flood plain.

Based on the above, Alternative 1 should be eliminated from further consideration due to the fact that it

closes no CSOs when compared to similarly cost alternatives and results in numerous FCFs that must be

maintained. Siting of the FCFs required for Alternative 1 may also be difficult due to the limited available

area in several of the CSO locations. Additionally, several of the CSOs are located in areas of the County

that have been recently disrupted due to the Harbor Brook Interceptor Sewer Replacement and CSO

Abatement Project and it may be desirable to limit continued disruption of these neighborhoods. Alternative

4 should be eliminated due to the highest overall cost associated with sewer separation. Alternative 2 and

Alternative 3 should be eliminated because they result in numerous new FCFs to be maintained (13 for

Alternate 2 and 12 for Alternate 3), continued community disruption, and in the case of Alternate 2 the

closure of only 2 CSOs. Alternate 5 provides a favorable mix of cost, environmental benefit, i.e., 3 CSOs

closed, and a manageable number of new FCFs (5) that must be operated and maintained by the County.

Alternative 5 also provides the additional benefit of having the ability to remove more floatables originating

from upstream separate stormwater areas and street litter and debris entering the brook from sources other

than CSOs.

For the reasons stated above, Alternate 5 is recommended for the selected alternative.

5.3 Preliminary Basis of Design

A preliminary basis of design for the recommended FCF Plan is presented in Table 5-1. Site plans for

Alternative 5 are presented on Figures 5-1 through 5-8.

5.4 Identification of Required Permitting

If the recommended FCF Plan is implemented by the County, compliance with the State Environmental

Quality Review ACT (SEQR) laws will be required. It is anticipated that the action would be considered a

Type I action under SEQR. This classification will require a full environmental review of potential impacts

under the SEQR process, including establishment of the lead agency, completion of a full Environmental

Assessment Form (EAF), determination of significance of impacts, and, if necessary based on impact

significance, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).


TABLE 5-1 – Preliminary Basis of Design

CSONumber Proposed CSO Status Preliminary Basis of Design

1

063 Closed

Convey to Harbor Brook Storage Facility – 48” diameter

PVC pipe and manholes to convey flow (37 mgd) from

CSO 063 to CSO 003, upsize pipe from CSO 003 to

storage tank from 48” diameter to 54” diameter, provide

additional storage capacity

005 Active

Grouped CSOs to discharge to Harbor Brook (combinedCSO flow 129 mgd peak year stream flow equal to 277mgd) with flow from CSO 015 conveyed to CSO 014 in30” diameter PVC pipe, in-stream facility equipped withmechanically cleaned conventional screens and conveyorsized for 277 mgd, by-pass channel sized to the projected100-year storm stream flow

006 Active

006A Active

007 Active

009 Active

010 Active

011 Active

014 Active

015 Closed (Redirected to CSO 014)

017 Active Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 17 mgd

0182

Active Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 17 mgd

0782

Active Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 28 mgd

0613

Closed Sewer separation

076 Active Mechanically cleaned CSO bar screen sized for 23 mgd

Note:

1. Conveyance pipes sized based on full flow, Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.013 and a slope of0.008 ft/ft. Conveyance pipe for CSO 063 based on existing 48” diameter influent pipe to regulator.

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

3. County verifying activation frequency and has installed a flow monitor in this CSO (since January2011). If CSO 061 is determined to be inactive, it will be closed. If CSO 061 is determined to beactive, green infrastructure may be implemented in lieu of sewer separation to control floatables.

#

#

#

#

PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOKSTORAGE FACILITY

ERIE

BLV

D. W

EST

UPSIZE PIPE: 48" Ø TO 54" Ø

48" Ø HIA

WATH

ABLV

D. W

.

EMERSON AVE.

STATE

FAIR

BLV

D.

HARBOR

BRO

OK

INTERSTATE 690

RUSINAVE.

ACCESS ROAD

IN-STREAMFCF

063

004

003

063 OUTFALL

0 300 600

Feet

CIT

Y:

SY

R

DIV

/GR

OU

P:

IT

DB

: K

. S

INS

AB

AU

GH

L

D:

P

IC:

P

M:

T

M:

T

R:

H

arb

or

Bro

ok (

B00

00

38

0.0

00

0.0

00

00)

GRAPHIC SCALE

Q:\

On

on

da

gaC

ou

nty

\De

ptW

ate

rEn

vir

oP

rote

ctio

n\F

loa

tab

leC

on

tro

lFa

cili

tie

sP

lan\m

xd

\CS

OD

rain

ag

eB

ou

nd

s_

06

3_

Alt5

.mxd

- 4

/26/2

011

@ 1

1:3

2:3

8 A

M


ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 063 SITE PLAN

FIGURE

5-1


LEGEND:


PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY

PROPOSED FCF LOCATION

ACCESS ROAD

PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE

HARBOR BROOK OPEN PORTION


ER

IEB

LVD

WE

ST

STA

TE

FA

IRB

LVD

.

RA

ILR

OA

D

HARBOR BROOK

ACCESS ROAD

FCF WITH CONVEYORAND LOADING AREA

HARBOR BROOKBYPASS CHANNEL

PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOKSTORAGE FACILITY

RUSINAVE.

0 100 200

Feet


GRAPHIC SCALE

Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\InstreamFCF.mxd - 4/20/2011 @ 2:12:29 PM

ALTERNATIVE 5IN-STREAM FCF

FIGURE

5-2

LEGEND:

BYPASS CHANNEL


PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY

ACCESS ROAD



66" Ø O/F TO HARBOR BROOK

30" Ø

30" Ø

MODIFIED DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE (CLOSED O/F)

GRAND AVE.

66" Ø

DELA

WARE

ST.

MODIFIED DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE

HARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR

HARBOR BROOKINTERCEPTOR

HARBORBROOK

015

014

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

FIGURE

5-3

LEGEND:

CSO REGULATOR LOCATION


EXISTING PIPELINES




ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 014 AND 015 SITE PLAN

0 150 300

Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

30" PIPE

HO

LD

EN

ST.

HARTSON ST.

30" Ø O/F TOHARBOR BROOK

DRY WEATHER FLOW TOHARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR

MODIFIED 017 DIVERSION STRUCTURE

HO

EF

FL

ER

ST.

LY

DE

LL

ST.


HARBOR BROOK

017

016

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

FIGURE

5-4

LEGEND:




EXISTING PIPELINES




0 150 300

Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

MODIFIED 018 DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE

42" Ø


30" Ø O/F TO CHANNELTO HARBOR BROOK

DRY WEATHER FLOW TOHARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR

HARBOR BROOKVELASKO ROAD

DETENTION BASIN

018


FIGURE

5-5

LEGEND:




EXISTING PIPELINES

PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD




0 150 300

Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

VELASKO ROADDETENTION BASIN

27" Ø O/F

36" Ø

BELLEVUE AVE.

15" Ø

VE

LA

SK

OR

D.

DRY WEATHER FLOWTO INTERCEPTOR

TO VELASKO ROAD DETENTION BASIN

078


FIGURE

5-6

LEGEND:



EXISTING PIPELINES





0 100 200

Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

PROPOSED 8" SANITARY SEWER

KIR

KPA

RK

DR

.

MODIFIED REGULATORSTRUCTURE (CLOSE O/F)

ON

ON

DA

GA

CR

EE

K

CREHANGE ST.

061

0 100 200

Feet

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR:Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000)

GRAPHIC SCALE

Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_061_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:50:47 AM

FIGURE

5-7

LEGEND:


PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER

EXISTING PIPELINES




54" Ø O/F TO ONONDAGA CREEK

REGULATOR STRUCTUREWEST BRIGHTON AVE.

DRY WEATHER FLOWTO INTERCEPTOR 62" Ø

ON

ON

DA

GA

CR

EE

K

076

076 OUTFALL

0 150 300

Feet

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR:Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000)

GRAPHIC SCALE

Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_076_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:55:23 AM

FIGURE

5-8

LEGEND:




EXISTING PIPELINES





Floatable Control

Facility Plan

The environmental impact review work should proceed concurrently with the preliminary and final design of

the recommended FCF Plan, since the design activities provide needed components and construction

information for the SEQR documents.

In addition to the requirements of SEQR, the recommended FCF Plan would require review and acceptance

by the NYSDEC for technical compliance with the “Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.”

Permits required for the selected alternative may include the following:

· NYSDEC/United States Army Corps of Engineers Joint Stream Disturbance Permit for proposed

work in Harbor Brook;

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

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

· State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Construction (GP-0-10-001) for

construction activities.

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

identified.

5.5 CSO Discharge Flow Monitoring

Based on the County’s Proposed Modifications to the Ambient Monitoring Program Work Plan (AMP) dated

May 14, 2010 all CSOs included in this FCF plan will be equipped with monitoring equipment as outlined in

Table 5-3 of the AMP. Provisions will be made during design of the FCFs to include the recommended

instrumentation and controls necessary to obtain the desired information. It should be noted that final

selection of the flow monitoring devices and locations are subject to review and approval by the NYSDEC.

Table 5-2 summarizes the recommended instrumentation and monitoring parameters for the CSOs covered

by this FCF Plan from Table 5-3 of the AMP modified to reflect CSO closures/diversions by Alternative 5. In

addition to flow monitoring at the regulator equipment structures, flow monitoring at the in-stream FCF would

monitor flow conditions and be available electronically.

5.6 Operation and Maintenance Requirements

The purpose of the FCF Plan projects is to provide effective floatables control up to the 1-year, 2-hour

design storm event. Each type of FCF will have specific operation and maintenance (O&M) requirements.

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

alternative.


TABLE 5-2 – CSO Flow Monitoring

CSO Number Flow Monitoring Plan1, 2, 3

063 Water Level Sensor

005 & 006A Water Level Sensor







014 Flow Meter, Sampler

015 Ultrasonic Level Sensor




0614

Sewer Separation


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

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

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

4. County verifying activation frequency and has installed a flow meter in this CSO (since January2011). If CSO 061 is determined to be active, green infrastructure may be implemented in lieu ofsewer separation.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

5.6.1 FCF – Static Screen

Operation and maintenance requirements for the static screen are minimal due to the nature of the screen’s

design. The static screen has no moving parts that need adjustment, replacement or lubrication. Though

this type of screen is designed to be self-cleaning it is recommended that following a CSO event, personnel

clean the screen using a high pressure water hose. The screen is installed so that personnel may walk on

the screen during cleaning operations and also inspect the screen for damage following each event.

5.6.2 FCF – Mechanically Raked CSO Bar Screens

Operation and maintenance requirements for mechanically cleaned CSO bar screens will be the same as

currently required at the Teall Brook FCF. Mechanical screens will need regular manufacturer recommended

maintenance, checking of fluids used in drive units and inspection of hydraulic hoses, and replacement of

wear parts (rake combs). Though this type of screen is mechanically cleaned, personnel should inspect the

unit following each CSO event. The use of high pressure water or manual methods may be needed to

dislodge any material that has become lodged between the screen bars.

5.6.3 Mechanically Cleaned Conventional Screen

Operation and maintenance of mechanically cleaned conventional screens for use in a CSO setting would

be similar to the numerous installations of this type of screen currently installed in County pump stations and

at the Metro WWTP. Mechanically cleaned conventional screens will require regular manufacturer

recommended maintenance which may include checking of fluid levels in drives, checking fasteners for

tightness, and replacement of wear parts such as wipers and rake teeth. Though this type of screen is

mechanically cleaned, personnel should inspect the unit following each CSO event.

5.6.4 CSO Conveyance and Sanitary Sewer Pipelines

Maintenance requirements for CSO conveyance and sanitary sewer pipelines will consist of periodic pipeline

cleaning (hydro-jetting) and cleaning of manholes and regulators of debris. Televised inspection of pipelines

should also be conducted periodically to ensure that unsatisfactory conditions are corrected.

5.7 Green Infrastructure

As previously discussed in Section 3.4, the exclusive use of green infrastructure is not an effective floatables

control strategy; however, by utilizing green infrastructure to help reduce runoff volumes, “grey

infrastructure” can be reduced in size. The County is currently evaluating the use of green infrastructure to

reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff introduced to the combined sewer system. A reduction in runoff

quantity could reduce the overall flow in the sewer system resulting in the reduction in CSOs which could


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

result in a reduced FCF. Green infrastructure that is under consideration by the County includes, but is not

limited to, the following green technologies:

· Porous pavements;

· Green streets;

· Vegetated swales;

· Rain gardens;

· Bio-retention (constructed wetland) facilities; and

· Infiltration trenches.

Prior to design and construction of “gray infrastructure” required to control floatables, the County will

evaluate the use of green infrastructure to reduce and/or eliminate selected CSOs. This evaluation period

will take into consideration the timeline required to meet the requirements of the Fourth Stipulation and

Order. Following the installation and evaluation period for the selected green infrastructure, a determination

will be made regarding whether the selected green infrastructure was successful in reducing or eliminating

the CSOs. Based on this determination, the appropriately sized FCF will be designed and constructed.

5.8 Implementation Schedule

Per the Fourth Stipulation and Order, the County has one year from entry (November 16, 2009) to submit

this FCF Plan to the NYSDEC and ASLF for review and NYSDEC approval. Paragraph 14O of the Fourth

Stipulation and Order further states:

“The plan shall include proposed projects to address each CSO and a proposed implementation

schedule for completing said projects. Upon approval from the NYSDEC of the projects and proposed

completion dates, the completion dates shall become major milestone compliance dates under the ACJ

and the County shall be obligated to construct said projects by the designated milestone dates.”

Since the County currently has several large CSO abatement projects in various stages of design and

construction in the Harbor Brook and Onondaga Creek sewer service areas, it is the County’s intent to

monitor the impacts from these projects, e.g., Lower Harbor Brook Storage Facility and Clinton Street

Storage Facility for impacts on floatables capture prior to initiating final design of the identified FCF projects.

As such, the initiation for design services for the FCF projects will commence in 2014. In the interim,

floatables capture will be monitored at the existing Harbor Brook In-stream FCF and at the proposed CSO

storage facilities as they are activated.


Floatable Control

Facility Plan

Based upon the above, the following is the recommended implementation schedule for the recommended

FCF Plan projects.

Project Schedule

Activity Proposed Date

Acceptance of FCF Plan Assume Effective Date of

Approval (EDA) is May 2011

RFP Process for Engineering Services June 1, 2013

Initiate Design Services January 1, 2014

Complete Design, Permitting and Regulatory Review Phase January 1, 2016

Bid Advertisement April 1, 2016

Start Construction July 1, 2016

Project Completion December 31, 2017*

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

Appendices

Appendix A

Cost Curves


CSO Screening Facilities Construction Cost Curve

Cost = 0.087*Capacity0.843

$0.0

$0.1

$1.0

$10.0

$100.0

1 10 100 1,000

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

st(M

illi

on

s)

Treatment Capacity (MGD)

Cost Curve

Teall Brook

Adapted from EPA

Combined Sewer

Overflow

Control 1993

ENR CCI

Oct. 2010

8920 (Rounded)


CSO Screening Facilities Equipment Replacement Cost Curves

Cost = 2286.9*Capacity + 146543

Cost = 4083.1*Capacity + 13378

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Inst

all

ed

Co

st(E

qu

ip.

On

ly)


Mech. Raked CSO Screen

Static CSO Screen

ENR CCI

Oct. 2010

8920 (Rounded)


CSO Screening Facilities Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves

O&M Cost = 0.0659*Capacity + 3.7389




1.0

10.0

100.0

1 10 100 1000

An

nu

al

O&

MC

ost

s(T

ho

usa

nd

s)


5 O/F Events Year

10 O/F Events Year

20 O/F Events Year

30 O/F Events Year

Adapted from EPA

Combined Sewer Overflow

Control 1993

ENR CCI October 2010

8920 (Rounded)

†Extrapolated

*Teall Brook 2009 O&M

Cost $22,000 (Source:

OCDWEP). Adjusted to

October 2010.

Teall Brook*

†

†

Appendix B

Recommended Unit Costs for

Planning Estimates Memorandum

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

Salina Industrial Power Park, One General Motors Drive

Syracuse, New York 13206 - Ph: 315/434-3200 - Fx: 315/463-5100

MEMO TO: Patricia M. Pastella, Commissioner OCDWEP

FROM: Robert J. Kukenberger, P.E.

RE: Review of Sewer Separation Costs

SUBJECT: Recommended Unit Costs for Planning Estimates

DATE: August 10, 2010

CDM/C&S has reviewed the actual construction costs per linear foot of newly installed sanitary sewer for Sewer Separation projects completed under the Lake Improvement Project and evaluated the final project costs in 2010 dollars. .The projects included in the evaluation were the West Street and CSO 024, 038, 040, 046A, 046B, 047, 048, 050, 051, 053 and 054 Sewer Separation Projects (see attached Table 1). Since January of 2006, the County has completed construction of three Sewer Separation Projects that separated a total of 4 CSO Areas (047, 048, 050 and 051). The projects separated sewers serving residential section of the City located along the South Avenue Corridor from the Onondaga Creek crossing to West Colvin Street. These projects included a general shift in County policy that included more surface restoration such as full-depth, curb-to-curb pavement reconstruction; new curbing and sidewalks for the project area; and green infrastructure. The projects completed prior to 2006 included both residential and commercial areas of the City, and surface restoration was limited consisted of sewer trench pavement and subbase restoration with full width milling and paving of top course, and replacement curbing and sidewalks where directly impacted by sewer lateral installation. In addition, over the course of this period the City had changed it’s pavement restoration specification which required additional street restoration based upon the percentage of the road width impacted and proximity to curbing which would have required the County to complete additional road reconstruction regardless if they had chosen to do so or not. In consideration of the cost information from the recently completed projects, we recommend that the County use a unit cost of $1,315 per foot of proposed sewer for future sewer separation projects. These unit costs are based upon a July 2010 ENRCCI of 8865 and should be adjusted to correspond with the Cost Indices used in preparing future estimates. The unit costs do not include contingencies, engineering (design and construction inspection), legal and administrative costs.

cc: Nick Capozza, OCDWEP

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

Onondaga Lake Improvement Project

Sewer Separation Projects

Final and/or Projection of Construction Costs

Land Use Project Cost

Midpoint of

Construction

ENR at End of

Construction

Project Cost in

July 2010

Dollars

(ENR = 8865)

Linear Foot of

Sanitary Sewer

Installed

Cost Per Linear

Foot in July

2010 Dollars

Commercial 2,311,126.00$ January 2000 6130 3,342,273$ 3812 876.78$

Commercial 701,799.00$ October 2001 6397 972,557$ 1111 875.39$

Residential 2,211,605.00$ July 2003 6,695 2,928,436$ 2864 1,022.50$

038/040/046A/046B * Residential 4,087,556.00$ January 2005 7,297 4,965,902$ 6723 738.64$

Residential 1,654,022.34$ August 2006 7,959 1,842,305$ 1381 1,334.04$

Residential 4,474,888.00$ January 2008 8,090 4,903,570$ 3842 1,276.31$

Residential 5,059,909.00$ September 2009 8,586 5,224,330$ 3971 1,315.62$

Notes:

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

Sewer Separation

Project

Sewer Separation

Project

053/054

024

Table 1

047/048

050

051

West Street

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

Appendix C

Construction Costs


Construction Costs

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

Construction Costs for CSO Groups 5 & 6A and 14 & 15

CSO Group 5 & 6A Cost

CSO Screening Facility (from Cost Curve) $805,000Conveyance Pipe (400 LF of 18" @ $365/LF, 50 LF of 27" @ $482/LF) $170,000

Total $975,000

Annual O&M Cost for new conveyance pipe (400 LF @ $4.88/LF) $1,952

Rounded $2,000

CSO Group 14 & 15 Cost

CSO Screening Facility (from Cost Curve) $3,681,000Conveyance Pipe (900 LF of 30" @ $462/LF, 50 LF of 66" @ $1,011/LF) $466,000

Total $4,147,000

Annual O&M Cost for new conveyance pipe (900 LF @ $4.88/LF) $4,392

Rounded $4,000

Construction Costs to convey CSO 063 flow to Harbor Brook Storage Facility

Cost

48" PVC Pipe (2,600 LF @ $650/LF) $1,690,000Additional storage capacity (0.6 MG) $720,000Upsize pipe from CSO 003 to Storage Tank from 48" to 54" $31,000

Total $2,441,000

Annual O&M Cost for new conveyance pipe (2,600 LF @ $4.88/LF) $12,688

Rounded $13,000

Construction Costs for Sewer Separation for CSOs 005, 006, 006A, 061

CSO No. LF Cost/LF Cost

005 1725 $1,323 $2,282,000006 1671 $1,323 $2,211,000006A 1246 $1,323 $1,648,000061 321 $1,323 $425,000

Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 005 (1,725 LF @ $1.39/LF) $2,398Rounded $2,000

Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 006 (1,671 LF @ $1.39/LF) $2,323Rounded $2,000

Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 006A (1,246 LF @ $1.39/LF) $1,732

Rounded $2,000

Annual O&M Cost for sewer pipe 061 (321 LF @ $1.39/LF) $446

Rounded $1,000

Construction Costs for In-stream FCF

Cost

CSO Screening Facility (mechanical screens from manufacturers quote and building) $3,900,000Concrete (channel modifications, facility foundation, by-pass channel) $1,119,000Screenings Conveyor $400,000Trash Racks $100,000Flow By-pass During Construction $200,000Stream Restoration $50,000Access Road $20,000Conveyance Pipe from CSO 15 to CSO 14 $466,000

Total $6,255,000

Appendix D

ACJ Project Cost Estimating

Guide Memorandum

Salina Industrial Power Park, One General Motors Drive

Syracuse, New York 13206 - Ph: 315/434-3200 - Fx: 315/463-5100

MEMO TO: Patricia M. Pastella, Commissioner, OCDWEP

FROM: Robert Kukenberger, Robert Palladine, CDM/C&S

CC: Mike Lannon, OCDWEP

Nick Capozza, OCDWEP

Marty Meehan, OCDWEP

Bonnie Karasinski, OCDWEP

Bruce Munn, GHD

Rob Ganley, O’Brien & Gere

Kristin Angello, Arcadis

Matt Marko, Ch2MHill

Bill McMillan, Ch2MHill

SUBJECT: Onondaga ACJ Project Cost Estimating Guide

DATE: August 18, 2010 Revised September 10, 2010

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

memorandum.

Each consulting engineering firm that has a scope of work to develop an opinion of probable construction costs will retain the responsibility in accordance with individual engineering contracts. Each firm should follow their practices for development of costs and providing appropriate quality assurance.

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

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

· Construction Contingency – percentage of total construction costs based upon table 1 below. Percentages vary by design stage.

· Total Construction Cost – Total of construction plus contingency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1

Summary of Cost Estimating Guidelines by Design Stage

Design Stage

Cost

Component

Facility Plan and/or

Engineering Report

95% and 100%

Design Post-Bid

Construction

Contingency 20% 10% 5%

Engineering 15% Contract amount +

5% Contract amount +

5%

County Construction

Management and

Administration

5% 5% 5%

Construction

Escalation

3% per year to anticipated midpoint

of construction


of construction


of construction

If you need additional information or have any questions or comments please contact me at (315) 434-3200 x43234 or [email protected]

Appendix E

Present Worth Cost Spreadsheets


Alternative 1 - Present Worth Costs

No. of Construction Contract. Contingen Total Engineering County CM & Total Project Equip. Rep. Annual O&M Disc. Life Cycle Total Present

CSO # CFS1

MGD Events1

Technology2

Cost3

Mob (3%)4

(20%)4

Const. Cost4

(15%)4

Admin (5%)4

Cost4

Cost5

Cost6

Rate4

(years)4

O&M PW7

Worth Cost4

063 57 37 23 M $1,826,000 $55,000 $376,000 $2,257,000 $339,000 $113,000 $2,709,000 $231,000 $19,000 3% 30 $372,000 $3,312,000005 15 10 25 S $606,000 $18,000 $125,000 $749,000 $112,000 $37,000 $898,000 $54,000 $21,000 3% 30 $412,000 $1,364,000006A 6 4 6 S $280,000 $8,000 $58,000 $346,000 $52,000 $17,000 $415,000 $30,000 $4,000 3% 30 $78,000 $523,000006 7 5 23 S $338,000 $10,000 $70,000 $418,000 $63,000 $21,000 $502,000 $34,000 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $791,000007 5 3 10 S $220,000 $7,000 $45,000 $272,000 $41,000 $14,000 $327,000 $26,000 $8,000 3% 30 $157,000 $510,000009 9 6 4 S $394,000 $12,000 $81,000 $487,000 $73,000 $24,000 $584,000 $38,000 $4,000 3% 30 $78,000 $700,000010 13 8 31 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $21,000 3% 30 $412,000 $1,202,000011 12 8 16 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $14,000 3% 30 $274,000 $1,064,000014 104 67 18 M $3,012,000 $90,000 $620,000 $3,722,000 $558,000 $186,000 $4,466,000 $300,000 $25,000 3% 30 $490,000 $5,256,000015 28 18 18 M $995,000 $30,000 $205,000 $1,230,000 $185,000 $62,000 $1,477,000 $188,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,979,000017 26 17 24 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,905,000018 27 17 40 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $2,042,000078 43 28 23 M $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $89,000 $2,141,000 $211,000 $18,000 3% 30 $353,000 $2,705,000061 3 2 42 S $156,000 $5,000 $32,000 $193,000 $29,000 $10,000 $232,000 $22,000 $19,000 3% 30 $372,000 $626,000076 36 23 2 M $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $76,000 $1,815,000 $199,000 $5,000 3% 30 $98,000 $2,112,000

$13,394,000 $16,552,000 $19,866,000 $26,091,000

Notes:1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 20102. Abbreviations:

M = Mechanical ScreenS = Static ScreenGM = FCF Group with Mechanical ScreenC = Convey to Treatment/StorageSep = Sewer SeparationI = In-stream FCF

3. Construction cost for the selected technologyMechanical Screen - From construction cost curveStatic Screen - From construction cost curveFCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipeFCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipeConvey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tankSewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separatedIn-stream FCF - From construction cost curve for screening facility and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road

4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010Contractor Mobilization - 3%Construction Contingency - 20%Engineering - 15%County Construction Management and Administration - 5%Discount Rate - 3%Equipment Replacement - 20 yearsLife Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW)Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + ContingencyTotal Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and AdminTotal Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M

5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle




CSO # CFS1

MGD Events1

Technology2

Cost3

Mob (3%)4

(20%)4

Const. Cost4

(15%)4

Admin (5%)4

Cost4

Cost5

Cost6

Rate4

(years)4

O&M PW7

Worth Cost4

063 57 37 23 M $1,826,000 $55,000 $376,000 $2,257,000 $339,000 $113,000 $2,709,000 $231,000 $19,000 3% 30 $372,000 $3,312,000

005006A 21 14 25 GM $975,000 $29,000 $201,000 $1,205,000 $181,000 $60,000 $1,446,000 $179,000 $24,000 3% 30 $470,000 $2,095,000

006 7 5 23 S $338,000 $10,000 $70,000 $418,000 $63,000 $21,000 $502,000 $34,000 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $791,000007 5 3 10 S $220,000 $7,000 $45,000 $272,000 $41,000 $14,000 $327,000 $26,000 $8,000 3% 30 $157,000 $510,000009 9 6 4 S $394,000 $12,000 $81,000 $487,000 $73,000 $24,000 $584,000 $38,000 $4,000 3% 30 $78,000 $700,000010 13 8 31 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $21,000 3% 30 $412,000 $1,202,000011 12 8 16 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $14,000 3% 30 $274,000 $1,064,000

014015 132 85 18 GM $4,147,000 $124,000 $854,000 $5,125,000 $769,000 $256,000 $6,150,000 $341,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $6,942,000

017 26 17 24 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $83,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,803,000018 27 17 40 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $83,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,803,000078 43 28 23 M $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $89,000 $2,141,000 $211,000 $18,000 3% 30 $353,000 $2,705,000061 3 2 42 S $156,000 $5,000 $32,000 $193,000 $29,000 $10,000 $232,000 $22,000 $19,000 3% 30 $372,000 $626,000076 36 23 2 M $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $76,000 $1,815,000 $199,000 $5,000 3% 30 $98,000 $2,112,000

$13,623,000 $16,835,000 $20,206,000 $25,665,000









CSO # CFS1

MGD Events1

Technology2

Cost3

Mob (3%)4

(20%)4

Const. Cost4

(15%)4

Admin (5%)4

Cost4

Cost5

Cost6

Rate4

(years)4

O&M PW7

Worth Cost4

063 57 37 23 C $2,441,000 $73,000 $503,000 $3,017,000 $453,000 $151,000 $3,621,000 $0 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $3,876,000

005006A 21 14 25 GM $975,000 $29,000 $201,000 $1,205,000 $181,000 $60,000 $1,446,000 $179,000 $24,000 3% 30 $470,000 $2,095,000

006 7 5 23 S $338,000 $10,000 $70,000 $418,000 $63,000 $21,000 $502,000 $34,000 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $791,000007 5 3 10 S $220,000 $7,000 $45,000 $272,000 $41,000 $14,000 $327,000 $26,000 $8,000 3% 30 $157,000 $510,000009 9 6 4 S $394,000 $12,000 $81,000 $487,000 $73,000 $24,000 $584,000 $38,000 $4,000 3% 30 $78,000 $700,000010 13 8 31 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $21,000 3% 30 $412,000 $1,202,000011 12 8 16 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $14,000 3% 30 $274,000 $1,064,000

014015 132 85 18 GM $4,147,000 $124,000 $854,000 $5,125,000 $769,000 $256,000 $6,150,000 $341,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $6,942,000

017 26 17 24 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,905,000018 27 17 40 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $2,042,000078 43 28 23 M $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $89,000 $2,141,000 $211,000 $18,000 3% 30 $353,000 $2,705,000061 3 2 42 S $156,000 $5,000 $32,000 $193,000 $29,000 $10,000 $232,000 $22,000 $19,000 3% 30 $372,000 $626,000076 36 23 2 M $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $76,000 $1,815,000 $199,000 $5,000 3% 30 $98,000 $2,112,000

$14,238,000 $17,595,000 $21,118,000 $26,570,000









CSO # CFS1

MGD Events1

Technology2

Cost3

Mob (3%)4

(20%)4

Const. Cost4

(15%)4

Admin (5%)4

Cost4

Cost5

Cost6

Rate4

(years)4

O&M PW7

Worth Cost4

063 57 37 23 C $2,441,000 $73,000 $503,000 $3,017,000 $453,000 $151,000 $3,621,000 $0 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $3,876,000005 15 10 25 Sep $2,282,000 $68,000 $470,000 $2,820,000 $423,000 $141,000 $3,384,000 $0 $2,000 3% 30 $39,000 $3,423,000006A 6 4 6 Sep $1,649,000 $49,000 $340,000 $2,038,000 $306,000 $102,000 $2,446,000 $0 $2,000 3% 30 $39,000 $2,485,000006 7 5 23 Sep $2,211,000 $66,000 $455,000 $2,732,000 $410,000 $137,000 $3,279,000 $0 $2,000 3% 30 $39,000 $3,318,000007 5 3 10 S $220,000 $7,000 $45,000 $272,000 $41,000 $14,000 $327,000 $26,000 $8,000 3% 30 $157,000 $510,000009 9 6 4 S $394,000 $12,000 $81,000 $487,000 $73,000 $24,000 $584,000 $38,000 $4,000 3% 30 $78,000 $700,000010 13 8 31 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $21,000 3% 30 $412,000 $1,202,000011 12 8 16 S $502,000 $15,000 $103,000 $620,000 $93,000 $31,000 $744,000 $46,000 $14,000 3% 30 $274,000 $1,064,000

014015 132 85 18 GM $4,147,000 $124,000 $854,000 $5,125,000 $769,000 $256,000 $6,150,000 $341,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $6,942,000

017 26 17 24 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,905,000018 27 17 40 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $2,042,000078 43 28 23 M $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $89,000 $2,141,000 $211,000 $18,000 3% 30 $353,000 $2,705,000061 3 2 42 Sep $425,000 $13,000 $88,000 $526,000 $79,000 $26,000 $631,000 $0 $1,000 3% 30 $20,000 $651,000076 36 23 2 M $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $76,000 $1,815,000 $199,000 $5,000 3% 30 $98,000 $2,112,000

$19,336,000 $23,895,000 $28,678,000 $32,935,000









CSO # CFS1

MGD Events1

Technology2

Cost3

Mob (3%)4

(20%)4

Const. Cost4

(15%)4

Admin (5%)4

Cost4

Cost5

Cost6

Rate4

(years)4

O&M PW7

Worth Cost4

063 57 37 23 C $2,441,000 $73,000 $503,000 $3,017,000 $453,000 $151,000 $3,621,000 $0 $13,000 3% 30 $255,000 $3,876,000

005006A006007009010011014015 428 277 18 I $6,255,000 $188,000 $1,289,000 $7,732,000 $1,160,000 $387,000 $9,279,000 $780,000 $66,000 3% 30 $1,294,000 $11,353,000

017 26 17 24 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $16,000 3% 30 $314,000 $1,905,000018 27 17 40 M $948,000 $28,000 $195,000 $1,171,000 $176,000 $59,000 $1,406,000 $185,000 $23,000 3% 30 $451,000 $2,042,000078 43 28 23 M $1,444,000 $43,000 $297,000 $1,784,000 $268,000 $89,000 $2,141,000 $211,000 $18,000 3% 30 $353,000 $2,705,000061 3 2 42 Sep $425,000 $13,000 $88,000 $526,000 $79,000 $26,000 $631,000 $0 $1,000 3% 30 $20,000 $651,000076 36 23 2 M $1,223,000 $37,000 $252,000 $1,512,000 $227,000 $76,000 $1,815,000 $199,000 $5,000 3% 30 $98,000 $2,112,000

$13,684,000 $16,913,000 $20,299,000 $24,644,000

Notes:1. Brown and Caldwell August 31, 2010. Flow rate for In-stream FCF based on peak stream flow (1980-2009).2. Abbreviations: M = Mechanical Screen S = Static Screen GM = FCF Group with Mechanical Screen C = Convey to Treatment/Storage Sep = Sewer Separation I = In-stream FCF3. Construction cost for the selected technology Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve Static Screen - From construction cost curve FCF Group with Mechanical Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe FCF Group with Static Screen - From construction cost curve and estimate for additional conveyance pipe from upstream CSO and outfall pipe Convey to Treatment/Storage - Estimate includes conveyance pipe, additional storage capacity and upsized conveyance from 003 to storage tank Sewer Separation - Estimate based on sewer seperation costs provided by CDM/C&S and linear feet of sewer to be separated In-stream FCF - Estimate based on manufacturer's quotation for equipment, estimated building cost and estimate for channel modifications, concrete and access road4. The following was assumed based on the CDM/C&S Cost Estimating Memorandum dated August 18, 2010 and revised September 10, 2010 Contractor Mobilization - 3% Construction Contingency - 20% Engineering - 15% County Construction Management and Administration - 5% Discount Rate - 3% Equipment Replacement - 20 years Life Cycle Period - 30 years (for calculating O&M PW) Total Construction Cost = Construction Cost + Contingency Total Project Cost = Total Construction Cost + Engineering + County CM and Admin Total Present Worth = Total Project Cost + Equipment Replacement + PW of O&M5. Equipment Replacement Cost from Cost Curves for the appropriate technology - includes equipment, labor, O&P6. Annual O&M Cost from cost curve based on frequency and flow for equipment, O&M for conveyances based on $1.39/LF for sanitary sewer and $4.88/LF for CSO conveyance pipelines7. O&M Present Worth based on annual O&M cost, discount rate and life cycle

Floatable Control Facility Plan

Documents

Transcript of Floatable Control Facility Plan