DEP Environmental Protection Invoices, 1999-2001

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

JAN-16-2001 1534 MAYOR'S OFC of ENV. COORD 1 212 788 2941 P.05/11

only accept existing flow from existing occupied structures (not new development). Finally, we have allowed for the Project to be sized to accommodate specific, identified "focus areas" (these will need to be ideatified and agreed upon), with the understanding that (i) the City will not pay for any incremental costs associated with bringing these areas in (we did not discuss anything other than Yorktown Heights, Riverwoods and Random Farms originally and our financial analysis makes no allowance for these "focus areas"); and (ii) the flow to be accepted is again limited to existing flow to scptics from existing occupied structures (not new development).

4 - We accept the 36 month timetable you suggested in our last telephone conversation. We feel that the Project must have a set start date, which we believe should be pegged to execution of the formal lntermunicipal Agreement. However, we recognize that delays in obtaining permits may slow the Project down and require an extension of time. The City will agree to a reasonable extension if the Project is delayed for this reason, so long as the County has diligently pursued the necessary permits, the delay is not due to its own acts or omissions, and EPA and the State have agreed in advance to the extension. We also feel that first priority should be given to design work and permitting for the Yorktown Heights portion of the Project.

5 - We believe the language should stay as originally written, As I have explained, the City cannot and will not commit to simply write a check for an agreed-upon amount each year, in respect of O&M. We would commit to make payments, up to the agreed-upon amount each year (for 15 years), against proof of actual and reasonable O&M expenses incurred by the County during such year. Given your projections of O&M expenses, this should not prove to be burdensome.

6 - We have made the changes you requested. 7 - See (2) above. We have provided for a review fee of $200,000, which will ultimately be applied towards the capital costs of the Project. In this way, we can reach a 50/50 sharing of the capital "gap" as well as preserving a review fee.

7 - We feel very strongly that basic review of Regulatory Upgrade plans can and should be completed in 21 days, except in cases where a plant poses unusual/complex issues. In effect, the County has already accepted this time frame by taking delegation of N'YSDEC's review and approval role re WWIPs in the watershed portion of the County (as per a prior MOU between the City and NYSDEC, NYSDEC committed to a 21-day turnaround on plans). Nonetheless, we recognize that circumstances associated with certain plants may require more time, perhaps as long as 60 days (your suggested text would allow for a review period of 60 days, at maximum). There are a number of ways this flexibility can be built in (we are uncomfortable with general language dealing with "administrative burden'; the test should be facts and circumstances associated with a given plant). We suggest that the County identify, in advance, those plants where, due to size, age or other unique factors, a longer review period would be appropriate, if necessary.

8 - We have altered the language to make clear, as per previous discussions, that the County may approach the City with other projects whenever it chooses. However, the City's

1.:

NYC-WTC 000137765