|
|
Those of you that have figured out that Pickerington Officials have been trying to cram down the throats of this community a Sewer Plant Expansion of extreme measures (related to the maximum pollution capacity of Sycamore Creek) for residential construction you might want to consider the below listed issues;
1. How many times were you mislead to believe that the plant expansion was only doubling the capacity?
(On the ?“Our Pages?” are the facts that this expansion is actually TRIPLING the current EFFECTIVE CAPACITY.)
2. Does this increased capacity aid in the additional residential development of the lands that City Manager, Joyce Bushman had land options on ?– ?“Strickland Parcel?”?
3. Does this increased capacity aid in the additional residential development of the lands that Metro Parks Director, John O?’Meara states that he met with Homewood Representatives John Bain & Lee Gray?
4. Were current and past City officials promoting this expansion beyond reasonable needs for their own benefits?
5. Why were OEPA officials so willing to push this expansion (and comment below their desires to do so while) ignoring citizens desires to slow residential construction?
6. Why have OEPA officials ignored the past and current uses Sewer & Water Funds collected by Pickerington for such items as annexations and promotional city newsletters?
7. What do the current bond and note holders of payments due for previous sewer & water plant expansions think of funds being used in these manners?
8. Why is the proposed Hickory Lakes DEFA deal higher than the November 2002 budget proposed by City Manager Joyce Bushman for the plant expansion?
9. Why did OEPA officials deny in their answers to the last August 2002 public hearing that they and Pickerington were considering usage of public funds (loans) for this expansion when the City Manager?’s own reports to Council and the Mayor indicate that she was in efforts to procure such a loan?
10. Why has the OEPA failed to take actions against Pickerington?’s violations to place sewer lines in for additional residential users with the required PTI?’s (permits to install)?
11. Why are Pickerington officials, in their intent to raise the Tap-in-fees, so concerned at being below the costs of other area sewer providers?
12. How much debt exits on the last expansion?
By Bob Harding
|
|
|
|
|
|
And what the OEPA's been doing 1
Sewer Plant Expansion Issues
6-7-02
Weekly Briefing to the Director ?– forwarded to PATA
We received several requests for a public hearing on the NPDES renewal for
the Pickerington WWTP from the City of Canal Winchester and the public.
Canal Winchester's mayor also submitted comments on the permit. The issues
raised are the same 201/208 issue raised at the last public hearing -
whether this expansion should be approved when capacity exists at plants
operated by Designated Management Agencies. Since this hearing cannot be
scheduled before July 1, the Pickerington permit will not be issued by June
30 as previously planned.
By Bob Harding
|
|
|
And what the OEPA's been doing 2
Forwarded to PATA
Re: Weekly Briefing to the Director 10/9/02
Weekly reports to the OEPA Director from last week.
Pickerington WWTP, Fairfield County: On October 2, 2002, DSW CDO staff had a meeting with the City of Pickerington and their consultant to discuss the upgrade of their WWTP. The City of Pickerington submitted a NPDES Permit application in March 2001 to expand their WWTP from 1.8 MGD to 3.5 MGD. At the time of the NPDES Permit submittal, the City stated that they would submit a PTI application for the WWTP upgrade by June 2002. At this time, no PTI application for the WWTP upgrade has been submitted; however, numerous PTI applications for proposed subdivisions have been received by the Agency. Pickerington's WWTP has exceeded its design capacity of 1.8 MGD, and the flow from the proposed subdivisions will add an additional flow of 2.3 MGD to the WWTP.. The Agency has requested that the City submit a schedule outlining the PTI submittal date, as well as, the final construction date. The Agency had previously told the City that PTI applications in-house would be held until a schedule is received. The Agency conducted a site visit and found most of the projects proposed in the in-house PTI applications to be under construction or near completion. The City has stated that they will submit a schedule and will submit a PTI application for the plant upgrade by November 2002. The City was told that their NPDES Permit will be issued with total nitrogen and phosphorus limits due to recent stream samples taken downstream of the WWTP. (Sycamore Creek is in full attainment except for the portion of the stream immediately downstream of the Pickerington WWTP.) The City had no objections to total nitrogen and phosphorus limits in their permit.
By Bob Harding
|
|
|
And what the OEPA's been doing 3
Forwarded 12/04/02 to PATA
Fw: Weekly Briefing to the Director - DSW
DSW is close to finalizing the NPDES permit renewal for the City of
Pickerington WWTP. The renewal permit would allow an increase in plant
capacity to 3.5 MGD from 1.8 MGD currently. Several citizen groups and
local governments had sent comments opposed to this expansion. Most of
the issues that we heard concern the 1993 Water Quality Management Plan
Certification which required: a) analysis of no-discharge options and
implementation of a no-discharge option if it is judged to be
practicable and cost-effective; b) an evaluation to discourage
overlapping service areas; and c) consideration of 201/208 planning
areas in our review.
Regarding the first item, Pickerington met a de minimis exclusion under
the Antidegradation Rule and, therefore, did not need to submit a
no-discharge alternatives analysis. On the second and third issues, DSW
has evaluated the planning documents for this area and our position is
that issuance of this permit would not conflict with the planning
documents. DSW also feels that the NPDES permit, in and of itself, will
not result in duplicative sewer service for the area. That issue can be
handled in individual PTI reviews. Some of the commenters have also
expressed doubt that the effluent limits proposed for this facility (4.5
mg/l CBOD, 0.52 mg/l ammonia-N and 8.0 mg/l dissolved oxygen) can be
achieved by Pickerington. These are very stringent effluent limits and
are necessary to protect water quality.
During the public comment period, DSW re evaluated water quality
downstream of the Pickerington. The receiving stream is Sycamore Creek
which is a small stream with high nutrient loading, mainly from the
Pickerington POTW. The section of stream immediately downstream of
Pickerington's POTW is the only section of Sycamore Creek not in
attainment. Based on this nonattainment, high in-stream nutrient
concentrations, and that Pickerington proposes to nearly double their
flow to the stream from 1.8 to 3.5 MGD, DSW will be contacting
Pickerington to advise them that a phosphorus limit is needed in their
permit. This could be controversial.
A final issue with Pickerington involves PTIs we have in-house for
several large developments. Pickerington has moved forward allowing
construction of these developments without our approval. Pickerington
has been sent numerous Notice of Violations for constructing without PTI
approvals over the last 2 months. The Agency has requested that the
city submit a PTI application for the WWTP upgrade before we agree to
approve additional PTI applications for additional growth to the city's
WWTP. The city has neglected our request for the WWTP upgrade and has
allowed developers to extend the city's sanitary sewer system without
PTI approvals. Many of the sewer extensions include stream crossings.
CDO estimates that these PTI applications would raise the POTW flow to
4.5 MGD this does not include the numerous developments currently
under construction in the city without submitting PTI applications.
By Bob Harding
|
