View
2.180
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
For NEORSD Board of Trustees public meeting November 18, 2010 | PowerPoint presentation PDF
Citation preview
2Kingsbury Run 2009
Netting facility, floatable debris from combined sewer overflow 2010
2007
2008
2007
Presentation overview
• Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) history and responsibilities
• CSO regulatory requirements
• CSO LTCP approval history
• Consent Decree/Negotiated Agreement
• Consent Decree negotiations process
Key responsibilities
• WWTP Operation
– Easterly, Southerly, Westerly
• Combined and Separate Interceptors
– Construction, Operation and Maintenance
• Regional Stormwater Management
• Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control
District Service Area
Regulating structures allow excess stormwater to overflow
Side-spill weir Overflow pipe
Combined Sewer Area:126 CSOs, 75 sq. miles
Prevalence of combined sewer systems in the US
Lake Michigan near Milwaukee, WI 2004
Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, NY 2010
Cranwood Creek,Cleveland, OH 2009
CSO Regulatory Requirements
• OEPA CSO NPDES Permit
• Clean Water Act—CSO Control Policy
• Nine Minimum Controls Compliance
• Development/Implementation of Long-Term CSO Control Plan
• Development/Implementation of Feasible Alternatives to minimize WWTP Bypasses
CSO investment since 1972
• $900 million has cut CSO volume in half since 1972
Automated Regulators
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s
CSO Treatment Facility
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s
• New interceptors constructed– Northwest
– Southwest
– Heights/Hilltop
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s
• Floatables control
– 10 facilities
Easterly:
1998-2002
Mill Creek:
1995-1997Southerly:
2000-2002
Westerly:
1997-1999
Federal CSO Control Policy adopted in 1994 – Part of Clean Water Act
CSO Facilities Plans were developed between 1995 and 2002 at a cost of $35 million.
Many projects have been constructed as a result.
CSO Control Program 1990s-2000s
21
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
22
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
Mill Creek CSO PlanApproved by Ohio EPA in 1997
CSO LTCP Approval Process HISTORY
• 1997: Mill Creek Facilities Plan Submitted to Ohio EPA
• 1999: Westerly CSO Facilities Plan Submitted to Ohio EPA
• 2002: Final CSO Facilities Plans Submitted to Ohio EPA (Easterly, Southerly)
• 2003– U.S. EPA Nine Minimum Controls Inspection
– CSO LTCP Presentation to U.S. EPA Region 5
CSO LTCP Approval Process HISTORY
• 2004
– Ohio EPA Consent Decree Discussions
– Ohio EPA rejects 30-year schedule
– U.S. EPA 308 Requests (bacteria sampling results, CSO sampling, LTCP information)
– Meeting with U.S. EPA Region 5/DOJ
CSO LTCP Approval Process HISTORY
• 2005
– Ohio EPA denies CSOTF Permit To Install
– U.S. EPA / U.S. DOJ / Ohio EPA CSO Plan Approval Working Sessions Begin
– Additional U.S. EPA 308 Requests (additional CSO sampling, economic information)
– Board approves 30-year Long-Term Control Plan
CSO LTCP Approval Process HISTORY
• 2006: CSO LTCP Negotiations Continue
• 2007
– CSO LTCP Negotiations Continue
– U.S. Department of Justice Litigation:
• 308 Order: Bacteriological Sampling
• Case settled
CSO LTCP Approval Process HISTORY
• 2008-2010
– CSO LTCP negotiations continue
• Level of CSO control
• Wastewater treatment plant bypasses
• Financial capability issues
• Schedules
CONSENT DECREE Negotiated Agreement
CONSENT DECREE Negotiations Recap
• Currently Proposed CSO Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)
– Level of Control
– Wet-Weather Treatment at Plants
– Green Infrastructure
– Implementation Schedule
– Low-Income & Minority Population Area Considerations
– Penalty and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Proposed Program Costs
– Affordability
– Discussion of potential impact on rates
• Consent Decree Provisions and Timing
District’s Original LTCPCapital Costs ($M)
Additional Gov't Requests $0 $0 0 $0
Total $1,610 $1,769 $2,341 $2,651
Year EscalationOriginal LTCP
2009 9,647 $2,198
2007 8,518 $1,941
2005 7763.33 $1,769
2002 7067.13 $1,610
$1,610$1,769
$1941
$2,198
$400
$453
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Original CSO LTCP (2002$$)
2005 Board Adopted 30-Year Schedule (2005$$)
Original CSO LTCP (2007$$) Original CSO LTCP (2009$$)
Additional Gov't Requests
Cost Refinements
Original CSO LTCP
$2.7B
$2.3B
$1.8B
$1.6B
2009J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008F M A M J J A S O N D
Recent Negotiations TIMELINE
2002: District submits original LTCP
2005: District adopts 30-year schedule
2008:
District adds EWWTP/SWWTC Bypasses
District Proposal
2009
Focused financial capability negotiations
Government Proposals
District proposals
2010
Technical Alignment
Executive Session Presentations
Negotiate Consent Decree Terms
Consent Decree Execution Target
2010J F M A M J J A S O
December2010
Negotiations KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES
• Level of control
• Wet-weather treatment at WWTP
• Plant bypasses
• Green infrastructure
• Affordability
Original CSO LTCP & Bypasses
February 2008
GovernmentJuly 2009
Technical AlignmentFebruary 2010
Easterly District
Easterly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year0 overflows/year @
―priority‖ CSOs2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs
EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated Eliminated
CSO-001 3 overflows/year400 MGD Actiflo + UV
Disinfection400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2
Disinfection
Southerly District
Southerly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection
Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition,
Settling Tank & 70 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection
Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition &
Settling Tank
Westerly District
Westerly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year0 overflows/year @
priority CSOs2 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD450 MGD Actiflo + UV
Disinfection411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2
Disinfection
Green Infrastructure N/A N/A44 MG and
at least $42 M
Remaining Volume 813 MG 251 MG 494 MG
Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
Chemical Disinfection
CEPT & CI2 Disinfection
Lifecycle GHG* EmissionsProvided Leverage to Reduce Government Demands
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Original LTCP & Bypasses
Government July 2009 Proposal District September 2009 Proposal
O&M Emissions
Construction Emissions
Lifecy
cle G
HG
Em
issi
ons
(Tons
CO
2e)
74,566 Tons
236,015 Tons
112,188 Tons
* GHG = Greenhouse Gas
CSO LTCP & BypassesFebruary 2008
GovernmentJuly 2009
Negotiated agreement
Easterly District
Easterly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year0 overflows/year @
―priority‖ CSOs2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs
EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated Eliminated
CSO-001 3 overflows/year400 MGD Actiflo + UV
Disinfection400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2
Disinfection
Southerly District
Southerly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection
Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition,
Settling Tank & 70 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection
Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition &
Settling Tank
Westerly District
Westerly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year0 overflows/year @
priority CSOs3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD450 MGD Actiflo + UV
Disinfection411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2
Disinfection
Green Infrastructure N/A N/A44 MG and
at least $42 M
Remaining Volume 813 MG 251 MG 494 MG
Program cost $2.7 Billion $3.7 Billion $3 Billion
Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
CSO LTCP Negotiation HistoryCapital Costs (in 2009 dollars)
$2.7 B
$3.3 B
$3.7 B
$3.0 B
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
LTCP & BypassesFebruary 2008
GovernmentJuly 2009
DistrictSeptember 2009
GovernmentDecember 2009
DistrictJanuary 2010
Negotiated Agreement
$2.9 B
$ M
illio
ns
$331 M
$652 M
Original CSO LTCP & Bypasses
February 2008Negotiated Agreement Additional Cost
Easterly District
Easterly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs
$13 M
EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated $48 M
CSO-001 3 overflows/year400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2
Disinfection$123 M
Southerly District
Southerly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
$9 M
SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 DisinfectionParallel Operation
w/ Chemical Addition & Settling Tank
$ 47 M
Westerly District
Westerly System Level of Control
4 overflows/year3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs
$40 M
CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2
Disinfection$9 M
Green Infrastructure N/A 44 MG and at least $42 M $42 M
Remaining Volume 813 MG 494 MG 319 MG
Program cost (2009$$) $2.7 B $3.0 B $331 M
Technical AlignmentCSO LTCP Negotiations – Negotiated Agreement
Green infrastructure
UpsizedWesterly Tunnel
411 MGD
CEHRT
Expansion of secondary
capacity and CEHRT
Upsized consolidation
sewers
400 MGD
CEHRT
Expansion of secondary capacity
Upsized consolidation
sewers
CSO LTCPFebruary 2008
Government Proposal July 2009
NegotiatedAgreement
Easterly District
Euclid Creek/Dugway Storage Tunnels
24' Diameter 24' Diameter 24’ Diameter
Shoreline Storage Tunnel 21' Diameter 27' Diameter 21’ Diameter
Doan Valley Tunnel 17' Diameter 39' Diameter 17’ Diameter
Southerly District
Southerly Tunnel 23' Diameter 23' Diameter 23' Diameter
Big Creek Tunnel 20' Diameter 20' Diameter 20’ Diameter
Westerly District
Westerly Tunnel 18' Diameter 36' Diameter 24’ Diameter
Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS6 of 7 tunnel sizes remained unchanged
Green Infrastructure (GI)Proposed by District in-lieu of bigger tunnels
Dis
tric
t P
rop
ose
d G
ray C
SO
Ca
ptu
re
Million
Gallons
District
Enhanced
Proposal
Dis
tric
t P
rop
ose
d G
ray C
SO
Ca
ptu
re
District
Enhanced
Proposal +
Green
Infrastructure
LOCa
44
MG
LOCb
Tier 1a
Tier 1b
Tier 1 GI Projects = $42M
X
MG
Tier 2Y
MG
“Green-for-Gray”
credit against Gray
CSO Capture Volume
Saylor Grove, PA BEFORE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
45Saylor Grove, PA AFTER
Tanner Springs Park, Portland, OR46
52
25-Year Implementation Schedule Addresses Low-Income & Minority Population Areas First
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
53
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
54
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
55
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
56
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
57
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
58
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
59
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
60
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas
CSO LTCP Consent Decree Civil Penalty
$2.80 M
$1.00 M
$2.20 M
$1.50 M
$2.05 M $2.00 M
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
GovernmentDecember
2009
DistrictJanuary
2010
GovernmentFebruary
2010
DistrictApril 2010
GovernmentMay 2010
Negotiated Agreement
$ M
illio
ns
Civil Penalty Demands
District Civil Penalty Includes Cash and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Money remains in the region
• Proposed State SEP:
– Operations and Maintenance for Cuyahoga River/Ohio Canal Pump Station
• Proposed Federal SEP:
– Special Waste Convenience Center -Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District
CSO LTCP Negotiations Recap
• Negotiations History
• Currently Proposed CSO LTCP Plan– Level of Control
– Wet-Weather Treatment at Plants
– Green Infrastructure
– Implementation Schedule
– Low-Income & Minority Population Areas Considerations
– Penalty and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Proposed Program Costs– Affordability
– Discussion of potential impact on rates
• Consent Decree Provisions and Timing
District CSO LTCP in Combination with Non-CSO CIP Deemed High Burden
High Burden
USEPA Financial Capability Threshold
% M
HI
How will it impact rates?
• 25-year projectionsOTHER CAPITAL
PROJECT CLEAN LAKE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CAPITAL
50% 26%24%
Averages based on cost and rate projections 71
What’s the benefit?
• Improve water quality– Clean beaches, recreation
– Protecting clean-water resource
– Neighborhood revitalization• Green infrastructure
What’s the benefit?
• Regional economic impact
– Cleveland State study of 2012-2016 capital investments
– Seven counties, first five years
Cleveland State University study of regional economic impact of 2012-2016 capital projects
What’s the benefit?
EmploymentLabor
Income Value Added Output Tax
# of jobs In Millions of Dollars
Northeast Ohio (7-County Area)
Total Impact 31,500 1,600 2,200 4,600 443
Cuyahoga County
Total Impact 16,600 970 1,300 2,700 236
What’s the benefit?
• Regional economic impact– For every $1 invested…
– $2.63 return
2012-2016 capital, total value of goods and services produced in the local economy
CSO LTCP Negotiations Recap
• Negotiations History
• Currently Proposed CSO LTCP Plan– Level of Control
– Wet-Weather Treatment at Plants
– Green Infrastructure
– Implementation Schedule
– Low-income & Minority Population Area considerations
– Penalty and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Proposed Program Costs– Affordability
– Discussion of potential impact on rates
• Consent Decree Provisions and Timing
Key Elements of Consent DecreePermanent Injunction and Compliance Requirements (Section VI)
• Achieve and maintain full compliance with NPDES permits
• Implement Nine Minimum Controls
• Construction and Implementation of CSO Control Measures
• Post Construction Monitoring (Appendix 2)
• Reporting requirements
• Approval and Implementation of CE HRT Pilot Projects
• Initial Green Infrastructure Component of CSO Control Measures
• Revision of Control Measures to Incorporate Green for Gray
• Achievement of Performance Criteria (Appendices 1&3)
Deadlines
• End date – 2036
• 25-year schedule
• All improvements completed
• Achievement of all Performance Criteria
• Payment of civil penalties
• Potential for stipulated penalties
• Appendix 1 – Performance Criteria
• Appendix 2 – Post Construction Monitoring
• Appendix 3 – Green Infrastructure: 44 Million Gallons/$42 Million
• Appendix 4 – Green for Gray
• Appendix 5 – Federal SEPs
• Appendix 6 – State SEPs
Modification Provision (Section XX)
• Consent Decree cannot be modified except by written agreement signed by all Parties and approved by the Court
• Applies only to material changes of Consent Decree
• Trivial or non-material changes excepted
• Certain elements defined as non-material can be modified by the Parties without formal modification of Consent Decree in Court
• Disputes regarding modifications resolved by Dispute Resolution provision (Section XIII)
Dispute Resolution Provision(Section XIII)
• Informal Dispute Resolution
– Any dispute is first subject to informal negotiations
• Formal Dispute Resolution
– Unless otherwise provided, dispute resolution procedures are exclusive mechanism to resolve disputes
– Failure to seek resolution under this section precludes District from raising issue as a defense to an action by the US to enforce any obligation of District under Consent Decree
Next steps
• Presented to Trustees for vote
• Lodging in Federal District Court
• Federal Register notice
– EPA public comment 30 days
Recommended