Post on 22-Mar-2016
description
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
Figure 5-4 Alternative 5 CSO 017 Site Plan
Figure 5-5 Alternative 5 CSO 18 Site Plan
Figure 5-6 Alternative 5 CSO 078 Site Plan
Figure 5-7 Alternative 5 CSO 061 Site Plan
Figure 5-8 Alternative 5 CSO 076 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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 2
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 3
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
006 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
007 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
006A/079 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
007 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
008 Harbor Brook Closed
009 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
010 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
011 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
012 Harbor Brook Closed
013 Harbor Brook Active Proposed Separation
014 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
015 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
016 Harbor Brook Active Proposed Separation
017 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
018 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
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
026 Onondaga Creek Closed
027 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan
028 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
029 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan
030 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
031 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
032 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
CSONumber Drainage Basin
CSOCurrent Status Floatable Control Approach
033 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
034 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
035 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
036 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
037 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed Clinton Storage
038 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
039 Onondaga Creek Active Midland Avenue RTF
040 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
041 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
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)
047 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
048 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
049 Onondaga Creek Closed
050 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
051 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
052 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan
053 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
054 Onondaga Creek Closed (Separation)
060 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan
061 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed FCF Plan
062 Onondaga Creek Closed
063 Harbor Brook Active Proposed FCF Plan
065 Onondaga Creek Closed
066 Onondaga Creek Active Maltbie Street FCF
067 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan
072 Onondaga Creek Closed
073 Teall Brook Active Teall Brook FCF
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
CSONumber Drainage Basin
CSOCurrent Status Floatable Control Approach
074 Ley Creek Active Hiawatha Boulevard RTF
075 Onondaga Creek Active Upgraded Kirkpatrick Street Pump Station Capacity
076 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed FCF Plan
077 Onondaga Creek Active Proposed CSO Facilities Plan
078 Harbor Brook 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
086 Harbor Brook Closed
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 4
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
CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000)
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 REGULATOR LOCATION
CSO DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 5
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 6
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 7
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.
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
TABLE 2-3 – Minimum Rainfall Intensity to Trigger CSO Activation
CSO Number CSO Regulator LocationDrainage Area
(acres)Trigger RainfallIntensity (in/hr)
1, 2
Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area
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
Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area
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).
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 8
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 9
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 10
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 11
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
Potential manufacturers include the following:
• Veolia /John Meunier
• Headworks
• JWC
• Andritz
• EIMCO
• WSG Solutions
• Degremont
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 12
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 13
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
Potential manufacturers include the following:
· 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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 14
Floatable Control
Facility Plan
· Advantages
o No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer
o Below ground installation
· Disadvantages
o Requires large excavation
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)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 15
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
o No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer
o Below ground installation
· Disadvantages
o Requires large excavation
o Requires power
o Only one manufacturer
o No U.S. installations (84 in Europe)
Veolia/John Meunier is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.
ROTATINGDRUM
ROTATINGBRUSH
COMBINEDINFLUENT
SCREENEDEFFLUENT TO
RECEIVING WATER
DRY WEATHER FLOW/SCREENINGS TO
WWTP
Figure 3-5 – Rotary Drum Sieve Screen (John Meunier Hydrovex)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 16
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
o No screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer
o Below ground installation
· Disadvantages
o Requires large excavation
o Requires power
o Only one manufacturer
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)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 17
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 Below ground installation
o No power required
· Disadvantages
o May require additional cleaning, maintenance and removal of residuals after an event
o Only one manufacturer
o No U.S. installations
Hydrok UK is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.
Figure 3-7 – Brush Screen (Hydrok Hydroclean)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 18
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 screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer
o Below ground installation
o No power required
· Disadvantages
o May require more extensive cleaning after an event than other technologies
o Only one manufacturer
o Only 5 U.S. installations (54 outside U.S.)
Veolia/John Meunier is the only identified manufacturer of this technology.
Figure 3-8 – Oscillating Static Screen (John Meunier)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 19
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 screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer
o Below ground installation
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)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 20
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 screenings management required – directed to dry weather sewer
o Below ground installation
o No power required
· Disadvantages
o Requires large excavation
o Only one manufacturer
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)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 21
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 Below ground installation
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)
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 22
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.
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 23
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).
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 24
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 25
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 26
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 27
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 28
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
Harbor Brook Sewer Service Area
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
Onondaga Creek Sewer Service Area
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 29
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 30
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 31
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 32
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 33
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).
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 063 SITE PLAN
FIGURE
5-1
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
LEGEND:
# CSO REGULATOR LOCATION
PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY
PROPOSED FCF LOCATION
ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
HARBOR BROOK OPEN PORTION
HARBOR BROOK COVERED 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
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\InstreamFCF.mxd - 4/20/2011 @ 2:12:29 PM
ALTERNATIVE 5IN-STREAM FCF
FIGURE
5-2
LEGEND:
BYPASS CHANNEL
PROPOSED FCF LOCATION
PROPOSED LOWER HARBOR BROOK STORAGE FACILITY
ACCESS ROAD
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
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
PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
EXISTING PIPELINES
HARBOR BROOK COVERED PORTION
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
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 BROOKINTERCEPTOR
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:
CSO REGULATOR LOCATION
PROPOSED FCF LOCATION
PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
EXISTING PIPELINES
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 017 SITE PLAN
0 150 300
Feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
MODIFIED 018 DIVERSIONSTRUCTURE
42" Ø
HARBOR BROOKINTERCEPTOR
30" Ø O/F TO CHANNELTO HARBOR BROOK
DRY WEATHER FLOW TOHARBOR BROOK INTERCEPTOR
HARBOR BROOKVELASKO ROAD
DETENTION BASIN
018
CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR:Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000)Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_018_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:32:14 AM
FIGURE
5-5
LEGEND:
CSO REGULATOR LOCATION
PROPOSED FCF LOCATION
PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
EXISTING PIPELINES
PROPOSED GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 018 SITE PLAN
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
CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: IT DB: K. SINSABAUGH LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR:Harbor Brook (B0000380.0000.00000)Q:\OnondagaCounty\DeptWaterEnviroProtection\FloatableControlFacilitiesPlan\mxd\CSODrainageBounds_078_Alt5.mxd - 11/2/2010 @ 11:47:44 AM
FIGURE
5-6
LEGEND:
CSO REGULATOR LOCATION
PROPOSED FCF LOCATION
EXISTING PIPELINES
PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 078 SITE PLAN
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:
CSO REGULATOR LOCATION
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING PIPELINES
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 061 SITE PLAN
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:
CSO REGULATOR LOCATION
PROPOSED FCF LOCATION
PROPOSED CSO CONVEYANCE PIPELINE
EXISTING PIPELINES
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFWATER ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
FLOATABLE CONTROL FACILITY PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 5CSO 076 SITE PLAN
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 34
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.
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
TABLE 5-2 – CSO Flow Monitoring
CSO Number Flow Monitoring Plan1, 2, 3
063 Water Level Sensor
005 & 006A Water Level Sensor
006 Water Level Sensor
006 Water Level Sensor
007 Water Level Sensor
009 Water Level Sensor
010 Water Level Sensor
011 Water Level Sensor
014 Flow Meter, Sampler
015 Ultrasonic Level Sensor
017 Water Level Sensor
018 Water Level Sensor
078 Water Level Sensor
0614
Sewer Separation
076 Water Level Sensor
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 35
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
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 36
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.
z:\bek10\212011386 revised april 2011.doc 37
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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)
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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)
Treatment Capacity (MGD)
Mech. Raked CSO Screen
Static CSO Screen
ENR CCI
Oct. 2010
8920 (Rounded)
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
CSO Screening Facilities Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves
O&M Cost = 0.0659*Capacity + 3.7389
O&M Cost = 0.1319*Capacity + 7.4779
O&M Cost = 0.1784*Capacity + 12.606
O&M Cost = 0.2586*Capacity + 18.584
1.0
10.0
100.0
1 10 100 1000
An
nu
al
O&
MC
ost
s(T
ho
usa
nd
s)
Treatment Capacity (MGD)
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
3% per year to anticipated midpoint
of construction
3% per year to anticipated midpoint
of construction
If you need additional information or have any questions or comments please contact me at (315) 434-3200 x43234 or kukenbergerrj@cdm.com
Appendix E
Present Worth Cost Spreadsheets
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
Alternative 2 - 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 $3,312,000
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
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
Alternative 3 - 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 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
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
Alternative 4 - 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 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
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
Onondaga County Department of Water Environment ProtectionFloatable Control Facility Plan
Alternative 5 - 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 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