EPA's new strategy on gi region v partner

893 views
744 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Sports
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
893
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
178
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Created in 1972 by Court Order Political subdivision of the State of Ohio Governed by a seven-member Board Has a 355 square-mile service area Serves all or part of 62 communities Serves over one million people Treats 230 million gallons of wastewater per day
  • Collinwood Rec – basins in front on Lakeshore and in rear by Humphey Park, bioswales in parking lots, 15000 gallon cistern for roof runoff and collecting back portion of Humphey Park because of past wet areas – added swale to bring into basin. Designed to LEED standards.2.4 MG of CSO reduction
  • EPA's new strategy on gi region v partner

    1. 1. EPA’s New Strategy on Green InfrastructureRegion V Partner: Cleveland/Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Kellie C. Rotunno, P.E., BCEE, M.ASCE Director of Engineering & Construction
    2. 2. Agenda• NEORSD CSO Plan Overview• How NEORSD’s Consent Decree Turned Green• Cleveland’s GI Opportunities• Cleveland’s GI Realities – Lifecycle Cost Comparisons• Pathway to Compliance
    3. 3. Service Area (355 sq. mi.)Combined Sewer Area (81 sq. mi)
    4. 4. Combined Sewer Area
    5. 5. Combined Sewer OverflowsNEORSD CSO PLANOVERVIEW
    6. 6. NEORSD CSO Plan Level of Control 97% Capture 98% Capture 2002 Plan 2010 CD
    7. 7. 400 MGD Chemically Enhanced High- rate Treatment Expansion of secondary Treatment capacity to 400 MGD 411 MGDChemicallyEnhanced High-rateTreatment Expansion of secondary capacity and Chemically Enhanced High-rate Treatment 7
    8. 8. NEORSD CSO LTCP Consent Decree $3B Investment in CSO Control Measures over 25 Years $230,000,000 Tunnels $14,000,000$370,000,000 Sewer Improvements (consolidation sewers, relief sewers) Green Infrastructure (Minimum Amount of Investment) Plant Improvements $310,500,000 $1,530,000,000 Pump Stations $486,000,000 Storage Tanks$52,500,000 Other
    9. 9. Combined Sewer OverflowsTHE GREENING OF A CSOENFORCEMENT ACTION
    10. 10. Increased Tunnel Sizes Considered to Further Enhance LOC December Original 2009 Difference Plan Proposal Increased Add’l Vol.Ctrl. Cost / Addl Dia OF Dia OF Cost (MG) GalShoreline Storage Tunnel 21’ 3 25’ 1 $63.8 M 14.62 $4.36Doan Valley Tunnel 17’ 3 20’ 1 $42.5 M 12.73 $3.34Westerly Tunnel 18’ 4 28’ 1 $75.7 M 35.04 $2.16 Totals $182 M 62.39 MG $2.92
    11. 11. Doan Valley Tunnel Sizing Maintained (upsized consolidation sewers) Shoreline Tunnel Sizing Maintained (upsized consolidation sewers)Westerly Tunnel IncreasedFrom 18’ to 24’ 11
    12. 12. Additional Levels of Control Achieved Through Traditional Gray and GI Tunnel System Additional Capital Additional Annual Costs ($M) CSO Capture (MG)Shoreline Tunnel $11 3.07(Upsized Consolidation Sewers)Doan Valley Tunnel $2.27 1.12(Upsized Consolidation Sewers)Westerly Tunnel $39.87 14.02(Upsized tunnel from 18’ to 24’) Subtotal $53.14 18.21 Additional Annual CSO 62.39 Capture Goal Remaining Annual CSO $42M 44.18 Capture Goal
    13. 13. Green Infrastructure (GI) Proposed In-lieu of Bigger Tunnels LOC b 44 LOCa District Proposed Gray CSO MG District Proposed Gray CSOMillion Capture CaptureGallons District District Proposal Proposal + Green Infrastructure
    14. 14. CONSENT DECREE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE Appendix 3: 44 million gallons ComponentsAppendix 4: Green for Gray  Appendix 3: 44 REMAINING MG of additional CSO control through GI  Appendix 4: GRAY CAPTURE Opportunity to 4,037 million gallons replace gray with green infrastructureConsent Decree Requirements
    15. 15. Consent Decree Timelines Appendix 3 Appendix 3 Compliance GI Plan Review Submittal Appendix 3 Post Construction Monitoring Plan Submittal2010 GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE TIMELINE 2035
    16. 16. USEPA Region V GI Partner Cleveland/NEORSDGreen Infrastructure USEPA works with partnerspartners – Austin as model communities – Boston • Advance GI – Cleveland – Denver • Inform and guide – Jacksonville national policy – Kansas City – Los Angeles – Puyallup, WA – Syracuse – Washington, DC
    17. 17. Reshaping Cleveland’s Urban Drainage SystemsCLEVELAND’S GIOPPORTUNITIES
    18. 18. Cleveland’s CSO Area is MoreThan 80-Percent Impervious
    19. 19. Cleveland’s CSO Area Has Significant Vacant Land Available
    20. 20. Remaining CSO Volumes areGeographically Dispersed INSERT MAP
    21. 21. Identification of Priority Areas for 44 MG/$42 millionGreen Infrastructure Index Well-drained soils Available land Partnering opportunities Imperviousness Parks > 3 acres Greenways Annual CSO volume Collection system response Development opportunities
    22. 22. NEORSD’s Priority GI Areas
    23. 23. Areas of Remaining CSO Volumes Modeled to MeasureResponsiveness to Changes in DCIA
    24. 24. 1000 0% Percent Decrease in Overflow Volume (MG) 10%Remaining Annual CSO Volume (MG) 100 20% 30% 10 40% 50% 1 60% 0.1 70% 80% 0.01 90% 100% 0.001
    25. 25. CSO Reductions From Stormwater ControlStormwater Gallons Controlled 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 CSO Gallon 7 8 9 Controlled 10
    26. 26. Concept for Priority Area E-11 Green street and new storm sewer in trench Stormwater with relief sewercontrol in Beulah Park Use existing separate storm sewers
    27. 27. Concept for Priority Area E-11Incorporate GI Potential for 2.5features within million gallons of CSOTunnel/Relief Sewer reduction in typicalconstruction corridor year
    28. 28. Combined Sewer OverflowsCLEVELAND’S GI REALITIES
    29. 29. Zeroing-in on 44 MG of Additional CSO Control CSO Area: 52,000 AcresPriority Areas ~13,000 Acres GI Projects ~1,000 Acres
    30. 30. Approach within Priority Areas• Approach to site evaluation and project development – Seek stormwater offloading opportunities where possible – Incorporate community and transformational benefits – Repurpose vacant land – Support viable partners
    31. 31. Land Requirements & PartnershipsLand Requirements – Maximize use of vacant land• City of Cleveland• Cuyahoga County Land Reutilization CorporationPartnership Opportunities – Build on existing efforts• University Circle Inc.• Burten, Bell, Carr Community Development Corporation• Slavic Village Community Development Corporation• Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority• Neighborhood Progress, Inc.• ParkWorks• Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative
    32. 32. Combined Sewer OverflowsGREEN-FOR-GRAYOPPORTUNITIES (APPENDIX 4)
    33. 33. Green-for-Gray Opportunities• Consent Decree Appendix 4 allows on- going evaluation for eliminating or down- sizing of Gray Infrastructure through use of GI• No timeframe limitations other than linkage to associated gray project design
    34. 34. Lifecycle cost estimates Developed consistent with “Gray”• Lifecycle costs Lifecycle Costs Replace / Renew O&M• Design & construction Operation & maintenance  Energy costs O&M Construction  Maintenance  Operations Construction Replace / Renew  Restore effectiveness  Other Benefits: “triple bottom line” Green Gray
    35. 35. Combined Sewer OverflowsPATHWAY TO COMPLIANCEAND GREEN LESSONS
    36. 36. GI Compliance Requirements• GI Study Submittal December 31, 2011• Use of hydraulic/hydrologic model – Demonstrate Final LOC provided by CSO LTCP Projects – Demonstrate Final LOC including CSO LTCP Projects + GI Projects• Evaluation of EJ Considerations as co- benefit to GI Program
    37. 37. Next Steps in GI Program Development and Implementation Appendix 3: GIFeasibility Study Complete Appendix 4: Remaining Doan Valley Tunnel “ Preliminary(30%) Design of GI Projects Consent Decree GI GI Early Action Project CompletionIdentification, Fi Mandate nal Design & 7/8/2019 Construction Full ProgramFinal Design and Construction 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
    38. 38. Green Lessons Learned• Focus on “Additional CSO Capture” skews the type and locations of GI Projects• GI behaves differently than Gray Infrastructure throughout the range of anticipated storms• Focus on CSO volume reductions requires hydraulically different approach from traditional stormwater LID

    ×