Home Page
 

Panel members in attendance are Wayne Clough, Cecil Lue-Hing, Mike Marcotte, Larry Roth and Nancy Wheatley. Participating via conference phone were Billy Turner and Jeff Hilliard.

Dr. Clough called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. He announced that minutes from each meeting will be available to public. Dr. Clough then introduced Clair Muller, a member of the Atlanta City Council. She thanked the panel for the work they are doing.

Dr. Clough asked everyone in the room to introduce themselves and say which group they were representing.

The Panel had a few questions that they would like for Joe Basista and Mike Mynhier of the PMT to respond to before the next meeting.

1) The Panel wants to understand all the players and how they fit, such as consultants, city engineers, city employees, etc.

2) Thoughts on delivery issues and how they are going to organize themselves to deliver the systems that were discussed at the June 28 meeting.

3) What has been done in the way of public education and information? Is there a summary?

4) What has been done on the studies of disruption issues associated with separation?

5) What kind of capabilities do we have in the workforce to carry out construction, because it has to be done in a short period of time. The Panel wants the PMT’s best assessment of capability to get everything built.

6) What will be done with storm water issues if they do go to separation?

7) Has the question of separating conveyance and storage been considered? Particularly where they might look at storage downtown as opposed to storage in tunnels out in the suburbs.

Dr. Clough listed speakers whom the Panel would like to hear from at the next meeting. They include a Region 4 EPA representative, Harold Reheis or one of his people from EPD, someone from the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, someone representing

Metro North Georgia Water Planning District, someone from Minneapolis/St. Paul and someone from Milwaukee.

Regarding today’s presentations, Dr. Clough reminded the presenters that the Panel needs to understand questions relating to cost, water quality issues and standards, feasibility (must get done by 2007), quality of life, and public acceptance of their system.

Dr. Jackie Echols, representing the Clean Streams Task Force, was the first presenter. She is a resident of Atlanta and has taught public management at Clark Atlanta University for eight years. Dr. Echols said that Clean Streams is comprised of informed citizens that support complete sewer separation and storm water greenways. She noted that Clean Streams is supported by more than 13 community groups.

It is their sincere belief that separating the last 15% of Atlanta’s combined sewer system is the most efficient and effective way to handle the CSO problem. Atlanta should fix its CSO problem once and for all with 100% sewer separation and storm water greenways.

Dr. Echols said that the setting of a 2007 deadline to get all the work done has resulted in an option – the tunnel – that is not the best nor the most cost effective. She said that currently the cost analysis for sewer separation is $500 million and the cost of the tunnel is estimated to be $627 million. She said the data shows that complete separation is the most cost effective option and provides the best water quality.

Separation alone is not enough. It is critical that the City recognizes that failure to integrate storm water greenways in the sewer separation scenario will only exacerbate the water pollution problem in Atlanta.

Her presentation focused on explaining why they support sewer separation with storm water greenways, review cost and benefit data, and provide visual support for the practicality and beauty of separation and greenways.

She said that one consultant estimates the cost for storm water greenways at $300 million and another estimates it at $1.2 billion. The City promotes the $1.2 billion approach and has brushed aside serious evaluation of a more cost effective storm water greenways option.

She said that storm water greenways will help to rebuild the crumbling city infrastructure. It brings the sewer systems in the oldest 15% of the City to modern standards currently enjoyed by 85% of the City.

It also eliminates raw sewage flooding homes, parks, streets and streams, reduces raw sewage disease sources, and eliminates chlorine disinfecting which adds priority pollutants to streams and rivers. It eliminates disruptions caused by collapsing sewers and overflows. It also brings 600 acres of new parkland and greenways with spring and rainwater ponds, which revitalizes the face of the City with redevelopment opportunities.

She contends that the City’s consultants say 611 acres are needed, of which 272 acres would be storm water ponds and the balance would be park land. Clean Streams has identified 631 acres for this and will work to identify more.

Environmental advantages – the complete separation and storm water greenways option produces cleaner water faster. It removes three million pounds more pollution per year than tunnels and it eliminates 100% of human sewage from urban streams. It also eliminates heavy chlorinating which creates priority pollutants. It also reduces flooding – greenways will capture a 10-year rain event and maybe a 25-year rain event. The tunnel does not address localized flooding.

Sanitary sewage is a source of 77% of the pollution flowing from Atlanta’s CSOs into urban streams and rivers. Only 23% comes from storm water. Greenways will remove 83% of storm water pollution.

Dr. Echols said there are economic benefits to this plan. It is a point of revitalization that the storm water greenways can be a catalyst that spawns redevelopment in the center city. It could lower property tax rates because of an increased tax base, create more unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, lower capital and O&M costs, thus moderating sewer rates. Other economic benefits would be to have more time to raise federal, state and private funding, moderating sewer rate increases, and eliminating financial risk. She said complete sewer separation is the only solution to meet the mandates of the Clean Water Act.

She contends that, from a cost standpoint, it makes more sense to commit funds to the solution that will not only solve the problem but will also pay dividends to the City and its citizens.

Joe Basista asked Dr. Echols to tell him the total estimated capital cost to implement their plan. She said it is their belief that it can be done within the $950 million budget. Their estimate says that 100% separation will cost $500 million and storm water greenways will cost $300 million.

When asked what would be the proposed schedule to implement this plan, Dr. Echols said that most of it could be done by 2010 or 2012.

Mike Marcotte asked about their assumptions regarding land issues including the cost and time to acquire land. Dr. Echols said much of the land is owned by the City already and several other parcels are in very depressed areas. Land acquisition costs are included in the $300 million.

Her plan calls for the existing CSOs to be used as storm water screening devices only for some of the water. The upstream ponds would have their own screening facilities. That cost is built into the estimates.

She was asked by the Panel if she believed disruption to businesses can be managed while separating the urban core. She responded that this would be problematical.

Joe Basista said that by the next meeting they will have a comparative analysis summarizing the status of the storm water management refinement evaluations to date that will raise some questions and stimulate discussion.

The next presentation was by Edith Ladipo on behalf of the NPU (Neighborhood Planning Unit) Environmental Advisory Committee.

The Environmental Advisory Committee was established by the Atlanta Planning and Advisory Board (APAB) to address this issue. The APAB is a charter-mandated citizen-involvement and participation program. It was established in the 1975 charter and was approved by the state legislature. It was established by city ordinance in 1977 by the City of Atlanta.

The ordinance provides for the preservation of information. It says that the Bureau of Planning should make available to NPU’s basic information including, but not limited to, the areas of land use, transportation, community facilities, environmental quality, open space and parks, and citizen involvement in planning and zoning to assist them in neighborhood planning activities.

APAB has 24 NPUs. Within in the NPUs are neighborhood associations – citizens, businesses, faith-based organizations. Each NPU represents approximately 16,000 people.

In October 2001, the NPUs began working on this issue and a resolution was developed by the APAB and it voted to support the idea or concept of sewer separation. The Environmental Committee was established in order to educate the general public about sewer separation.

During nine meetings held thus far, the committee has reviewed the CSO Remedial Measures Report Volumes 1 and 2, CSO Court Order, Water Quality of Georgia 1998-1999 Planning Report, Environmental Justice Presentation from USEPA, Affordability Analysis, CSO Geo-Technical Report, W.L. Jorden Pre-Design, Maps and Graphics, Environmental and Constitutional Laws, Statutes and Executive Orders, Presentation by Dr. Thomas Debo entitled “Using Natural Systems to Control Storm Water” and other supporting documentation.

In their examination of these documents, the APAB found a lack of communication with the City because the preferred option the City was considering did not include complete sewer separation. They found inconsistencies with the time analysis, cost analysis, and technical analysis, as well as inadequate funding strategies which did not include other funding sources. There was a failure to include the organized citizens in the planning process, unintended environmental justice issues, limited access to pertinent information, no consideration for the importance of best management practices (BMP), no evidence of an Environmental and Health Impact Assessment, no environmental education or outreach and no pollution prevention program.

To date, they have informed the NPU’s of the Consent Decree, the Remedial Measures Report, the sewer separation resolution, the BMP for storm water control, refinements of Option C and 100% sewer separation, new pre-design options and affordability of all options. She contends there is continued refinement to the City’s option because of citizen involvement.

The Committee wanted to know the evaluation criteria and determined that they needed to look at cost, schedule, water quality and quality of life. They didn’t want a plan that is effective for today but not tomorrow.

Regarding cost, they wanted to look at capital cost, annual O&M costs and life-cycle cost. Regarding the schedule, can the CSO Consent Decree be met by 2007 and can the SSO Consent Decree be met by 2014? The Consent Decree deadlines can be adjusted by agreement of EPA/EPD and the federal court.

Regarding water quality, the NPUs looked at reduction in pollutant load to downstream streams and rivers, total suspended solids (TSS), the biological oxygen demand (BOD), fecal coliform, phosphorus, ammonia and metals (copper and zinc).

They looked at quality of life issues including impact of CSOs along miles of streams through neighborhoods, health and safety impacts, risk of pollution to aquifers, impact of combined sewer system backups into businesses and residences, mental health impact, short-term construction impact, long-term operation and maintenance impact, impact to property valuation, impact to rate payers, construction jobs creation, O&M jobs creation, creation of jobs in impacted neighborhoods, storm water as a resource, economic development opportunities associated with storm water management, and creation of live/work/recreation areas through storm water management.

The next steps for the Environmental Committee include continued open dialogue between the Clean Water Advisory Panel and APAB’s Environmental Committee, follow-up presentations as the pre-design phase continues, timely notice as selection criteria evolves, study of health and environmental justice issues, study of storm water utilities, continued study of BMP’s for storm water management, continued study of funding options and Clean Water Act review and training.

Ms. Ladipo emphasized that citizens need to be involved – the City must include stakeholders. Education and community involvement is vitally important. Having accurate information – making sure everything you read and all the decisions that are made are based on accurate information – that is something they haven’t had in the past.

She was asked by the panel if there are any metrics for the Quality of Life criteria. Ms. Ladipo indicated that there are none yet, but that is the next step for them to do so.

She was asked if they have methods for assessing impacts on small businesses. She indicated more work is necessary to do this.

The panel asked her suggestions on moving forward. Ms. Ladipo responded that the citizens need to be involved, and that accurate and timely technical information needs to be provided to them.

The next presentation was by Dr. James Brooks, pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, which is in the affected area. His congregation became interested in this issue when former Mayor Bill Campbell said that their sewer bills could go up $100 per month. He is joined in his plan by James Aton, a professional engineer, and Haywood Currie, who owns his own engineering firm in Marietta. They are collectively known as the ABC Group.

The ABC Group idea is the installation of an aerobic system that will solve the City’s CSO problem. Since not much money has changed hands so far toward the tunnel plan, Rev. Brooks thinks the table should still be open to other plans.

The aerobic option would cost less than 5% of the current $3 billion plan. It would be a $150 million maximum expenditure. No streets would need to be torn up and it would take care of Atlanta’s civic waste.

In his explanation of aerobic bacteria, he said there is a family of microscopic bacteria that has an enormous appetite for human waste. These aerobic bacteria are in our waste and need only the city’s sewer system (which is already in place) to thrive. These bacteria separate all the components of our waste into its original state which results in a “slightly stained, but otherwise completely clear and odor-free water” in four and a half hours.

There is no separate installation required for the system. The bacteria need three things – a safe setting, a constant type of protection from their enemies, one of which is chlorine, and a supplemental source of fresh oxygen. We would aerate the sewer.

Everyone could have a system installed on the property for $7,500 – 1/20th of the tunnel plan cost. There are three tanks underground – a settlement tank, a treatment tank where the bacteria go to work and a disposal tank where the odorless and colorless water would be. Then it could be expelled to the sewer system or through underground emitters that would fertilize the yard.

Regarding runoff, the same rules apply. They would be biodegraded by bacteria. Fast food wrappers, cigarette butts, etc., should be picked up in advance by school children – or prisoners – who could be given a reward for how much they bring in. Also, motorized vehicles could vacuum gutters regularly and make the City look very clean.

They would use aerobic bacteria in the sewers up to the center part of the city. Then at about six miles out from the rivers, we would begin to have aerobic tanks. In general, the estimate would be below a $100 million range for the entire city.

Pictures in the presentation materials are from Dr. Brooks’ own experiment. Mr. Marcotte asked him where the solid material went in the third picture. There were some large particles – he thinks they are minerals – that went to the bottom, which he disposed of before the picture was taken. He got cloudy water instead of absolutely clear water.

Rev. Brooks introduced Randy Chelette, president of Southern Aerobic Systems. He said Houston, Texas has many on-site aerobic wastewater treatment plants. This technology is the same thing they do in most municipal wastewater treatment plants; they are just doing it on site. He said installation would actually run about $4,500 without a disposal bill because you’re treating the water on-site and putting it back in your existing sewer.

This probably won’t work for the downtown area with high-rise buildings and this area would need to be handled in a more traditional approach. Jim Aton, a consulting engineer, said of the 12,000 acres in the City which has combined sewers, 32% of that is residential. There is a good deal of greenspace in these basins and that greenspace can be used to locate the on-site treatment plants. Each plant comes with a computer that can be called and told when to pump and when not to pump.

This is highly adjustable storage. Mr. Marcotte pointed out that, in effect, instead of building a big tunnel, you build little increments of a tunnel at everybody’s house. Mr. Chelette said that you aren’t dealing with the sewer water – only with water coming from the home. Leaving the aerobic tank is a clear, odorless fluid that can be directly discharged to rivers and streams because it meets EPA requirements.

The presenters clarified that these systems would achieve advance secondary treatment, but not tertiary.

Nancy Wheatley asked how sensitive the bacteria are to household chemicals that include chlorine, such as Clorox. Mr. Chelette said a small amount won’t hurt the system but a large amount would kill the good bacteria.

Mr. Aton said the major downtown district where we have combined sewers needs to be dealt with in a traditional approach, but that is only 12% of the total service area.

Dr. Clough invited a few visitors to speak to the Panel. Steve Carr, a resident of Grant Park who has been involved with the Neighborhood Planning Units for many years and is the former chairman of APAB’s Environmental Committee, spoke first.

At his own building, which is a former industrial building, he has tanks set up, including screening and filtration, and he catches storm water from the roof and uses this water in a variety of applications. He suggested that this can be used in the core of the City particularly for landscaping, window washing, etc. The water in these on-site storage tanks, which can be put in parking lots, can be used on-site or can be metered out into a separate storm water collection system or a tunnel or whatever.

He is 100% in favor of full separation. He has grandfathered into an aerobic system in his building and uses enzymes. He puts as few solids into his system as possible.

He says the distrust between the City and its citizens is still ongoing, but citizens groups are getting more information now than in the past. They have had problems with wrong numbers, including wrong land figures in which the City’s $1.2 billion equates to $330,000 per acre for greenspace. They are not looking for prime land; they are looking for the “scrap” land – for the low land in the flood plains because that is where gravity forces water to go. This is unbuildable land that could be used for greenspace.

Mr. Carr said that they have repeatedly asked for accountability on the CH2MHill contracts and have not gotten that. Regarding the time issue, he said the City should have immediately started mappings of the entire sewer system when Bill Campbell signed the Consent Decree in 1998, but that has only been done recently. He charged that the City has delayed the process to the point that they now say they are out of time and must make a decision and the quickest way is with the tunnel.

His group was presented with information about the Bain Report – they have not been given the actual report, which evaluates four separate areas of City operations. They are sewer, storm water, greenways and parks. He thinks they are all interconnected.

Dr. Harry Leon, a professional engineer and citizen activist, said the tunnel storage system does not solve the CSO problem. It extends the combined sewer another thousand feet or more. He outlined the specifications and why 100% sewer separation is the best option. It meets the clean water standards, it corrects deteriorated sewer pipes, it conserves storm water as a natural resource, it poses no potential hazards to aquifers, it makes neighborhood creeks safe for children, and there are low maintenance and operation costs.

He contends the problem is a political problem instead of an engineering problem and said that certain politicians have been influenced by companies that will directly benefit from the tunnel solution. “They have told consultants to obscure the data to make tunnels to appear to be the lowest cost and quickest to build. They don’t let the consultant even talk about solving all the CSO problems.”

Nashville separated its downtown section of sewers – which is built on solid rock. They did it in less than two and a half years and the system had over 100,000 square feet, which is comparable in size to Atlanta’s Clear Creek area. Nashville did it for less than $300 per foot. The consultants in Atlanta estimated $1,400 per foot.

Dr. Leon said the ultimate question for the Panel is, do they want to side with “greedy contractors who don’t care about what happens to our City but only look for their maximum profit, or to keep your integrity and side with the citizens and common sense for 100% sewer separation?”

Lunch Break

The next presentation was by Justin Wiedeman, an engineer and NPU “A” Board Member, and PMT Program Manager Joe Basista. They presented a conceptual modification to the City’s Authorized CSO Plan. It gives an option on sewer separation and storm water management with an emphasis on flood control.

This came about because in discussing Mr. Wiedeman’s refinement, the PMT found that the plan is similar to the original 80% separation option in the Remedial Measures Report (RMR) in that it looks at sewer separation and storm water management (flood control). The PMT has been advancing their refinement options and one of the options they have explored is 80% separation. While reviewing the PMT’s refinement plans and Mr. Wiedeman’s plan, Mr. Basista found differences but also found similarities, including the combination of full and partial separation in the West Area, a smaller West Area tunnel system and flexibility to offer relief to existing Peachtree sanitary trunk sewers.

Based on all these similarities, they agreed to identify a single integrated refinement option. It is not yet known how much it will cost or if it can be completed by 2007. They are still working on that.

It consists of two refinement options. The important points were to prioritize public health with a focus on eliminating sanitary overflows and provide adequate protection against flooding upstream and downstream of existing CSO facilities, establish a system of components that provide flexibility to adapt management schemes, meet future regulatory standards, minimize risk, provide incremental benefits and clean water, consider a phased program that is flexible and can accommodate time requirements for additional data needs, and promotes fair and equitable rate structuring.

The Wiedeman/PMT refinement option for 80% separation would separate all combined sewers except for in the downtown core.

Currently, the six CSO facilities discharge to small streams that flow through neighborhoods and recreational areas for miles, prior to reaching rivers. A fair amount of urban drainage runs through small streams and neighborhoods. There are 60+ CSO discharges per year on the West side and 20 per year on the East side.

There is insufficient storm water capacity within the combined system that contributes to localized flooding, impaired quality of life, impacts to public health, threatened economic development and real estate values. Mr. Wiedeman contends that you have to look at storm water management upstream and downstream of CSOs. Also, the Consent Decree does not address significant flooding problems downstream of the CSOs.

They agreed to evaluate full separation of the East Area and partial separation of the West Area with a target to provide separated conveyance infrastructure for all but the urban core. If the East Area is separated, no deep tunnel system is needed. If a smaller West Area tunnel system is constructed – if only sewage from the urban core is handled, which is about 20% of the combined sewer area – the tunnel system would be about 40% smaller than in the current authorized plan. Mr. Wiedeman’s plan is that you could look at the possibility of future tie-ins with existing Peachtree sanitary trunk sewers.

Mr. Wiedeman also looked at constructing a West combined sewage treatment facility for ultimate incorporation into the R.M. Clayton WRC. The existing CSO facilities would be utilized for treating storm water. Where sewers are separated, it’s a great opportunity to coordinate separation construction with planned construction from other agencies – water, streets, parks, etc.

It is generally believed that with separation you get two new systems. Generally, in the smaller diameter combined sewer they would make that a sanitary sewer, and downstream where there is the larger combined sewer, it seems to be working pretty well as a storm sewer. However, some of the combined sewer is converted into some sanitary and some storm sewer is converted into some new sanitary and some new storm sewer.

Each refinement plan includes about $100 million for rehabilitation and capacity improvements of the existing combined system.

Mr. Wiedeman’s plan would address surcharging and flooding in combined areas upstream of existing CSO facilities and as a result also address downstream flooding. It would determine the magnitude of recurrence and water quality issues for overflows upstream of CSO facilities and develop hydrologic models to simulate conditions downstream of CSOs and coordinate flood control infrastructure both upstream and downstream.

Regarding separation on the East Side (ultimately to the Ocmulgee), this option would focus the separation effort on the non-urban core and the combined urban core, which may be easier served by an extended West Side tunnel system. The plan would convert combined sewers to storm sewers (downstream) and sanitary sewers (upstream) within each basin, beginning downstream. The plan would coordinate separation construction with planned construction from other agencies and utilize existing CSO facilities as storm water screening facilities.

On the East side, Mr. Wiedeman is stressing storm water management and flood control. Mr. Wiedeman’s plan would require determination of the scope, magnitude and water quality issues of overflows upstream of CSO facilities and development of a hydrologic model to evaluate constraints and downstream controls (upstream and downstream of CSO). Given the relative locations of the combined sewer basins within the larger Ocmulgee basin, downstream flooding does not appear to be an issue for separation.

The plan would construct limited detention upstream of McDaniel and Custer CSO facilities based on hydrologic concerns and construct energy dissipation and detention as appropriate adjacent to CSO and/or downstream of existing CSO facilities.

The West side is more complicated. The West tunnel storage and conveyance system would be much smaller and would serve the combined flow for the entire urban core – about 20% of the combined sewer area and 3% of the total City’s area.

Mr. Wiedeman’s original thought was that if the West tunnel could be aligned to provide future tie-ins with the sanitary system, it could provide relief to the Peachtree sanitary sewer trunks. The alignment of the West tunnel should consider extension options to serve the small portion of the urban core on the East, allowing easier full separation of East basins.

Mr. Wiedeman’s option looks at making the flexibility of a smaller West tunnel and looking at the option of any separate treatment facility at the R.M. Clayton site - that could ultimately be incorporated into the WRC there. This is different than the RMR option, which provides a separate wet weather treatment facility. It is not yet determined if there is available treatment capacity available at the R.M. Clayton WRC to accomplish this.

In the plan both the East and the West side have a hybrid separation issue. The plan would need to address storm water capacity limitations upstream of the CSO facilities. There may be “targets of opportunity” – the non-urban core combined sewer areas in the downtown area that they could be separated after the plan is implemented. There are developments throughout the combined sewer areas that are actually separated that “discharge” back into the combined sewer system.

The emphasis on flood control in the West looks a little different. His plan would develop a hydrologic model and constraints to coordinate storm water flows in the larger Peachtree Creek basin and incorporate conditions downstream of CSOs and upstream into DeKalb County (not addressed by current plan).

The current authorized plan does not address downstream flooding in Peachtree Creek, based on upstream flows outside City of Atlanta. Mr. Wiedeman’s plan considers this earlier than the PMT plan. He would also construct limited detention upstream of West CSOs based on hydrologic concerns and upgrade downstream conveyance capacity, energy dissipation and additional detention.

Mr. Basista characterized Mr. Wiedeman’s plan as a holistic plan that is oriented toward flood management instead of storm water treatment. Mr. Wiedeman agreed saying that they would still be mechanically treating some component of the storm water, but in the future, if there are opportunities to separate, it may get to a point where it is possible to selectively treat storm flows and concentrate on first flush. There is some storm water treatment and some limited decentralized detention facilities.

Mr. Basista reiterated that he doesn’t know if we can do this plan but he thinks it is worth pursing to see what it would cost and how much time it would take.

In summary, the Weidman option is to separate all but the urban core – which is about 80% separation. That would be done by separating the entire East side and Greensferry on the West, and partially separating North Avenue, Tanyard and Clear Creek. These are the three basins that comprise the urban core. Instead of fully separating those basins, the plan would partially separate them, which hasn’t been looked at before. This could achieve 97% separation of the entire City.

The smaller West tunnel may allow use of R.M Clayton WRC to treat combined sewage. If this is possible, the plan would eliminate the new treatment plant for the West. If the West side is discharged tothat smaller tunnel to the WRC for advanced treatment, all the sanitary flow can possibly be routed to the three partially separated basins.

Mr. Basista said that our separate sanitary system also has capacity limitations that we are addressing in a separate consent decree. If this smaller tunnel runs the flow to the WRC, this would eliminate the flow that goes from North Avenue and Clear Creek going to the Peachtree trunk. That would significantly relieve the Peachtree trunk. This is potentially a solution that could solve two problems.

Dr. Clough asked about the life span of this system. Mr. Basista answered that it has the same life span as any other scenario. The design life of the PMT plan is 25 years but the tunnel is 50 or 100 years.

The Plan refinement options the PMT is evaluating differs from the Wiedeman plan in that under the Consent Decree the sizing of the storm sewers and the sanitary sewers does address some surcharging and flooding upstream of CSO facilities. That’s $100 million of additional work. The refinement would utilize the CSO screening facilities for storm water. And any additional storm water management improvements will require a future storm water utility.

The benefits/impacts of an 80% separation refinement:

Achieves 97% separation of total City system
Eliminates East tunnel system; eliminates East CSO treatment facility and possibly West CSO treatment facility; and eliminates three CSOs (McDaniel, Custer and Greensferry)
Possibly offer significant relief to existing Peachtree Trunk sewers (if West tunnel flow can be routed to WRC) – eliminate current sanitary and combined sewage flow from Tanyard and Clear Creek
Possibly provides advanced treatment (at WRC) for combined sewage from urban core (arguably the most polluted 20% of combined area)
Three remaining CSOs (North Avenue, Tanyard and Clear Creek) see an average of four CSOs per year, but total sanitary flow is much reduced due to partial separation. Possibly screen storm flow during 60+ smaller storms per year.
Tradeoff – captures 99%+ of total annual sanitary flow from combined area; but captures and treats only 20% of total annual storm flow
Schedule (meets 2007 deadline?)and cost (less than Authorized Plan?) are yet to be determined

Mr. Basista indicated that in general, the ongoing pre-design of the remedial plan will develop complete separation plans for each basin and it includes a storm water management plan for each basin to develop ideas of schedule and costs. Nothing precludes storm water management from being implemented with any of these separation plans.

When asked if they have looked into the disruption all this would cause, Mr. Basista said it is one of the parameters they are trying to understand. They will be able to identify shortly the number of crews in a basin, the hours they will be working, etc. They will be able to show what level of disruption they will face if a separation option is chosen.

By the end of September, the PMT will deliver complete separation plans, cost, schedule and complete storm water management plans for each basin.

Mike Mynhier and Joe Basista then updated everyone on the status of the refinement process. This week has several Consent Decree milestones that are being met by the City – the pre-design reports for the Intrenchment Creek CSO treatment facility and the pre-design report for the dechlorination facilities. These reports will be completed and submitted on schedule.

Joe Basista distributed a summary of where the refinement process stands. This handout is an attempt to put the basic issues of each refinement option on one sheet of paper.

The authorized plan is tunnel storage and treatment in both the East and West areas. 100% of the combined sewer area would get tunnel storage and treatment to the three partially separated basins, and in addition we would separate 27% of the combined sewer.

Refinement Option 1 would still provide 27% separation by separating multiple full basins. That way it would be possible to downsize the tunnel accordingly. This would be accomplished by separating Greensferry in the West and McDaniel in the East and the Stockade sub-basin in the East. This would result in reduced tunnel length and volume. Two CSOs and one regulator would be eliminated. The estimated cost is less than the current authorized plan and it is currently believed that it can be finished by 2007 deadline.

Under this plan, wherever sewers are separated, they will not treat storm water. That is the downside of these plans. But all of these scenarios provide better water quality than today.

Refinement Option 2 is 40% separation of multiple full basins. Fully separate the East area – McDaniel and Custer basins. This would eliminate the East tunnel system, the East area combined sewage treatment facility, two existing CSO facilities and two regulators. The estimated cost of that would be about the same as the authorized plan and it is likely that it can be implemented by November 2007.

Refinement Option 3 is 50% separation of multiple full basins. It is basically the same as Option 2 but separation of the Greensferry basin is added. That may even bring the cost down a little from Option 2. This is also likely to be implemented by November 2007.

Refinement Option 4 is 80% separation of multiple full and partial basins. This will be evaluated as described in Justin Wiedeman’s proposal that was outlined earlier in the meeting. The costs and schedule are not yet known.

Dr. Clough then talked about guests and speakers for the August 23 meeting of the Advisory Panel.

The Panel would like to hear from:

Harold Reheis of the EPD

Scott Gordon or other representative from EPA Region 4

Representative from the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper

Joel Cowan of the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District

Representative from Minneapolis (to describe their separation experience)

Representative from Milwaukee (to describe their experience with tunnels and treatment)

Someone from the PMT or City to talk about the City’s storm water plan

Update from Joe Basista on refinement options

Metro Chamber of Commerce Representative (to discuss status of their evaluation of the City’s CSO Plan)

Minneapolis and Milwaukee representatives may make phone presentations. A panel of people from the EPA, EPD, Metro North Georgia Water Planning District, and Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper will come together to form a discussion group instead of having individual presentations.

Dr. Clough then adjourned the meeting until the Advisory Panel meets again August 23, 2002.