Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Combined Sewer System Permit and Long-TermControl Plan Update
Public MeetingFebruary 5, 2015
Bill Skrabak, Deputy Director
Lalit Sharma, PE, Division Chief
Department of Transportation and Environmental Services
City of Alexandria, Virginia
AGENDA
Purpose
City’s Combined Sewer System (CSS)
Compliance with Federal/State Laws and Regulations
Investing In Infrastructure
Public Participation and Input
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Purpose
Educate. Develop basic understanding of the Long TermControl Plan Update and combined sewer controltechnologies.
Inform. Increase stakeholder awareness of the City’scombined sewer system and the Long Term Control PlanUpdate program.
Be Responsive. Awareness, consideration andresponsiveness on the Long Term Control Plan.
Seek Input. Solicit feedback on the combined sewer controltechnologies and the City’s evaluation approach.
Goals of Today‘s Meeting
4
Develop list of CSOcontrol strategies, establishevaluation criteria, set upbasis of costs
Evaluate CSO controlstrategies based on evaluationcriteria and cost.
Develop short list ofalternatives for furtheranalysis including feasibilityof construction.
Finalize recommendedalternative and complete LTCPUpdate report for submissionto VDEQ
Phase 1Feb 2015
Planning Timeline
2014 2015 20172016
Phase 3 (Public Hearing)May-June 2016
LTCP UpdateSubmission
Phase 2May-June 2015
PermitPublicOutreachAug 2013
InitiateOutreach
OngoingOutreach
CSO: Combined Sewer OverflowLTCP: Long Term Control PlanVDEQ: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Alexandria’s commitment to environmental stewardship
Alexandria’s commitment to the public participation processand civic engagement (What’s Next Alexandria)
Community input and support is essential to the success of theprogram
Public input helps the City make the best decision
It’s the Law!
City’s Combined Sewer Discharge Permit Requirement
Why We Need Your Participation
6
Cost
The Long Term Control Plan projects will be part of the City’sbudgeting process
Potential sewer rate impacts
Construction Impacts
Noise, dust, road closures
Improved water quality in Hunting Creek
Potential for ancillary benefits
How the Long Term Control PlanUpdate Might Affect You
7
City of Alexandria, Virginia
City’s Combined Sewer System(CSS)
Combined sewercommunities areconcentrated in oldercommunities in the NorthEast and the Great Lakesregions.
Currently, 772 authorizeddischarges from 9,348combined sewer outfalls in32 states and DC
Nearby combined sewercommunities includeWashington, DC,Richmond, and Lynchburg.
Location of Combined SewerSystem (CSS) Communities
9
Photo/Graphics Source: www.theodorelim.gov
10
11
12
City of Alexandria: 15.2 square milesCombined Sewer Area: 0.85 square miles
(540 acres)
Combined Sewer System
13
Four permittedoutfalls:
• CSO-001 toOronoco Bay
• CSO-002 toHunting Creek
• CSO-003 toHooffs Run
• CSO-004 toHooffs Run
Combined SewerService Area
Duke St.CSO-003 & CSO-004
Pendleton St.CSO-001
Royal St.CSO-002
Hunting Creek
Hooffs Run
Poto
mac
Riv
er
Combined SewerOverflow (CSO)
Locations
14
Hunting Creek: CSO-002
Hooffs Run: CSO-003 & 004Oronoco Bay: CSO-001
CSO Frequently Asked Questions
15
What factors influence the frequency, duration, and volume of overflows?• number of rain events• frequency of the events• intensity of the events• characteristics of the sewershed• characteristics of the specific outfall
How frequently do the overflows take place?Typically 30 to 60 times/year
How long the overflow events last?Typically 2 to 5 hours typically
What is the total number of hours this occur over a year?Equivalent of 3 to 12 days, depending on the outfall
How much of the overflows is stormwater, and how much is wastewater?Greater than 90% of the overflows is stormwater
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Compliance with Federal/StateLaws and Regulations
CSO StudiesEarly 1990’s
First Permit IssuedApril 1995
Long Term Control PlanSubmitted
Permit Re-IssuedAugust 2001January 2007
OngoingSystem Monitoring
Increased Reporting ofCSS O&M
WE ARE HERERequires reduction in CSOs to
meet Hunting Creek TMDL
National CSO Policy1994
CSO System Built and ExpandedStarted in late 1700’s
Permit Re-IssuedAugust 2013
Nine MinimumControls Adopted &
Accepted as LTCP
Regulatory History of Alexandria’s CSS
Hunting Creek TMDL issuedNovember 2010
City in compliancewith water quality
standards
Alexandria’s Current Long TermControl Plan
18
Conduct Proper O&MPrograms
Maximize flow to the POTW
Maximize use of the collectionsystem for storage
Control solid and floatablematerial Prohibit CSOs during Dry Weather Public Notification
Develop & Implement a pollutionprevention program
Previous Combined Sewer System Permits (before 2013):
City’s Long Term Control Plan based on best practices foroperation and maintenance of combined systems
Monitoring and modeling of combined sewer overflows
Current and Future Combined Sewer System Permits:
New regulations due to Hunting Creek Total Maximum Daily Load
Must address new regulations and incorporate required reductionsin CSO bacteria discharged
Paradigm Shift
19
Clean Water Act goal that all waters of the United States be“fishable” and “swimmable”
State develops impaired waters list and total maximum daily loads
Aspirational goals of CleanWater Act versus actualconditions of Hunting Creek
Clean Water Act GoalsTotal Maximum Daily Load
20
Sources of Bacteria in HuntingCreek TMDL
21
Virginia Bacteria Water Quality Criteria 126 E.coli counts per 100mL
Sources of Bacteria: Stormwater Wildlife Pets
Combined Sewer System Sanitary Sewer Overflows AlexRenew Water Resource
Reclamation Facility Septic Systems
Hunting Creek Bacteria TMDL and CSOs:
Total overall bacteria reduction from CSO dischargesof 86%:
99% reduction from Outfalls 003 and 004 (Hooffs Run)
80% reduction from Outfall 002 (Hunting Creek)
Applicable to Outfalls 002, 003, and 004 only
CSS Permit issued in August 2013 requires City toaddress TMDL through update to its Long Term ControlPlan
Hunting Creek BacteriaTotal Maximum Daily Load
22
Comply with the new regulations
Develop a plan that best meetsthe unique needs of Alexandria
Active participation bystakeholders
Limit impacts to residents andbusinesses
Preserve the historic character ofthe City
Improve and address legacyinfrastructure
Remain fiscally responsible
Long Term Control Plan Goals
23
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Investing in Infrastructure
CSO Control Impacts andChallenges
Construction in old and historic area
Significant conflict with existing utilities
Existing infrastructure is old and antiquated andmay require rebuilding beyond planned sewer work
Quality of life: temporary disruption to communityand businesses
Economic: potential for temporary loss to businessand tax revenue
Cost to implement CSO controls
25
Store and treat: build CSO storage and send towastewater treatment facility after CSO event for highlevel of treatment Storage tanks (aboveground or underground) Deep tunnels
Sewer separation: build new sewers to separate all stormand sanitary sewers in Old Town
Reduce stormwater runoff: green infrastructure Disinfection: kill the bacteria in the overflow Outfall Relocation: redirect outfalls directly to Potomac
River (out of Hunting Creek embayment) Combination of the above strategies
CSO Control Strategiesto be Evaluated
26
Storage Tunnels
27
DC Water: Tunnel Boring Machine
Advantages: Captures and stores the
combined sewer overflow andthen sends it to the wastewatertreatment plant for a high levelof treatment
Minimal aesthetic impact andspatial requirements, as thefacilities are largelyunderground
Generates credits forstormwater
Storage Tunnels
28
Disadvantages:
Complex construction project
Easement acquisition likelyrequired
Construction impacts at tunnelaccess shafts
Storage Tanks
29
Toronto: Keelesdal-Hyde AveUnderground CSO Storage Tank
Arlington: Water Pollution Control Plant
Advantages:
Captures and stores thecombined sewer overflow andthen sends it to the wastewatertreatment plant for a high level oftreatment
Anticipated to be one of the lesscostly infrastructure controlstrategies
Generates credits for stormwater
Storage Tanks
30
Disadvantages:
May be difficult to site due to lackof available space
Easement acquisition likelyrequired
Sewer Separation
31
Alexandria: King & WestDiversion Structure
Advantages:
Over time will eliminate thecombined sewer system(separate storm and sanitarysewers)
New sewer infrastructureconstructed
Sewer Separation
32
Disadvantages: Design complexity – significant
conflicts with existing utilities Anticipated to be the most costly
control strategy Anticipated to be the most
disruptive to the local residentsand businesses as constructionwill be throughout entire Old Townarea
Will take longer to implement Additional stormwater discharges
to be regulated
Green Infrastructure
33
Bioswales Rain Gardens Planter Boxes
Permeable Pavement Rainwater Harvesting Downspout Disconnects
Advantages:
Reduces the stormwater enteringthe combined sewers
Provides ancillary environmentaland community benefits
Green Infrastructure
34
Disadvantages:
May not achieve bacteriareduction requirements as astand-alone strategy
Highly site specific – existingsoils, utilities, and communityneeds will dictate effectiveness.
Disruptive to local residents andbusinesses as multiple projectswill be required
Will take longer to implement
ADD EXAMPLE PHOTOS FROM DETROIT
Disinfection
35
Detroit: Hubbell-SouthfieldCSO RTBNYC: Spring Creek CSO
Disinfection Facility
Advantages:
Disinfects (i.e. kills) the bacteriaassociated with the combinedsewer overflow
Smaller footprint than storagetanks
Disinfection
36
Disadvantages:
May be difficult to site due to lack ofavailable space
Easement acquisition likely required
Requires storage of chemicals in anurban/residential area (chlorine)
Requires significant electricalinfrastructure (UV)
Does not reduce volume ofcombined sewer overflows
Does not treat other pollutants andnutrients
Outfall Relocation
37
Richmond: CSO-001Relocation
Advantages: Captures and stores some of
the combined sewer overflowand then sends it to thewastewater treatment plant
Removes all overflows from theHunting Creek embayment
Minimal aesthetic impact andspatial requirements, as thefacilities are largelyunderground
Generates credits forstormwater
Outfall Relocation
38
Disadvantages:
Complex construction project
Requires a significantly longertunnel and construction of a newoutfall on the Potomac River
Regulatory and permittingchallenges.
Easement acquisition likelyrequired
Construction impacts at tunnelaccess shafts
Long Term Control Plan Update will also consider acombination of strategies presented
Advantages:
Can evaluate combined sewers outfalls both individually orgroup together
Takes into account differences in the each combined seweroutfall including surrounding location
Can result in the most cost-effective solution
Combination of CSO ControlStrategies
39
Evaluation Criteria
40
Criteria Description
Capital Cost The capital cost category of the evaluation criteria measures the relativecost of each CSO control strategy.
Combined SewerOverflowReduction(Volume)
One of the most effective ways to reduce the bacteria load to thereceiving waters is to limit the volume of combined sewer overflow. Insome instances there may be a reduction in the bacteria load (e.g.,disinfection) without a reduction in CSO volume.
Effectiveness The effectiveness criterion is a rating of how well a control strategy meetsthe Hunting Creek TMDL requirements. The reduction in bacteria will bedetermined for each control strategy.
ImplementationEffort
The implementation criterion is the feasibility with which all the projects ina CSO control strategy can be successfully completed.
Impact toCommunity
The CSO control strategies will result in capital projects that will impactthe businesses and citizens of the City of Alexandria duringimplementation (i.e., construction). Alternatives that result in improvedquality of life for residents and business and with minimal negative impactduring implementation will receive more favorable ratings. The strategiesthat could have disruptive impacts to the community and businessoperations during implementation will receive less favorable ratings.
Evaluation Criteria
41
Criteria Description
Expandability The expandability criterion describes how well a strategy will adaptto future updates and expansion to the sewer and stormwaterinfrastructure in the City of Alexandria.
NetEnvironmentalBenefit
The net environmental benefit criteria observes how the potentialnegative environmental impacts of constructing the projectscompares to the overall environmental benefits the projects providein the long-term.
Credit Trading It may be possible to implement combined sewer controls that willcapture both sanitary flow and storm flow to be treated at theAlexRenew Water Resources Reclamation Facility (i.e., thewastewater treatment plant). Due to the high level of treatment atthe wastewater plant, the pollutant reduction associated with thetreatment of stormwater could potentially be applied to the City’sstormwater program.
RequiredOperation andMaintenance
This criterion is a rating of the predicted operation and maintenancea completed project will need over its lifetime.
Assign weighting to each criteria
Rank alternatives based on criteria
Develop short list of alternatives for further analysis
Alternatives evaluation and short list to be presented May-June2015
Evaluation Criteria
42
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Next Steps
43
Next Steps
44
May-June 2015: Public Meeting
Present results of alternatives evaluation
Present short list of alternatives for further study includingfeasibility of construction
Receive public input and comment
May-June 2016: Public Hearing
Present recommended alternative and costs
Receive public input and comment
City Council adoption of Long Term Control Plan Update
August 2016: Submit updated Long Term Control Plandocuments to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Long Term Control Plan Update due August 2016 Must include schedule for implementation
Schedule based on cost and complexity of recommendedalternative(s) Implementation likely to be done in phases
Phases likely to coincide with 5-year permit cycles
All phases must be fully implemented (completed) no laterthan 2035
Recommended alternative(s) and schedule will be futurepermit requirement(s)
Total Estimated Cost: $150-300 million
Implementation
45
Planning: 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan for Sanitary Sewers and
Stormwater Management
Potential Funding Sources: Existing Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund User Fees – paid by customers
• City fee: $1.25/1000 gallons of water usage
Connection Fees – paid by developers
Potential funding from a future stormwater utility
State revolving loans
Grant funding
Earmarks through legislative efforts
Planning and Funding
46
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Public Participation and Input
Follow “What’s Next Alexandria”
Information on City’s website Presentations from public meetings
Annual reports to VDEQ
Long Term Control Plan Update (2016)
General Public Outreach Phase 1 Public Meeting - February 5, 2015
Phase 2 Public Meeting – May-June 2015
Phase 3 Pubic Hearing– May-June 2016
Targeted Outreach and Ongoing Dialog Civic and Neighborhood Associations
Environmental Policy Commission
Agenda Alexandria
Public Participation Process –Educate – Inform – Be Responsive
48
1. Were the goals of this project clearly explained?
2. Did this meeting meet with your expectations?
3. Please provide us with your thoughts about the importance ofthe proposed evaluation and any criteria you would suggest.
4. Based on your understanding of the preliminaryadvantageous and disadvantages of each of the potentialsewer overflow control strategies presented.
5. Are there other Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) ControlStrategies the City should consider evaluating or do you havespecific concerns about the strategies listed above?
6. For future community meetings, what information would youlike the City to present? Are there changes to the meetingformat that the City should consider?
7. Other thoughts?
Community Feedback Form
49
For more information, contact:
www.alexandriava.gov/sewers
Questions/Suggestions
50
