• Like
LTCP meeting 11-18-04
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

LTCP meeting 11-18-04

  • 356 views
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
356
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Ottawa River Public Meeting Long Term Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plan Input November 18, 2004
  • 2. Discussion Agenda
    • Program Overview
    • Combined Sewer Overflows in Ottawa River
    • Identification of Alternative Types
    • Potential Siting of Control Facilities
    • Opportunity for Input
  • 3. CSO Control Planning
    • The City must control CSO discharges according to the consent decree
    • Alternatives are being evaluated with respect to their feasibility, associated benefits and costs
    • Public input on alternatives considered is sought in tonight’s meeting
  • 4. Project Timeline
    • The Long Term Control Plan Document is scheduled to be submitted to USEPA in July 2005
    • A review and modification period will follow the plan submittal
    • The work identified in the plan is to be completed by August 31, 2015
  • 5. Ottawa River Combined Area
  • 6. Ottawa River Overflow Frequency 13 67 14 65 21 64 2 63 25 62 12 61 Annual Frequency Outfall
  • 7. Ottawa River Overflow Volume 6.1 67 5.3 65 39.9 64 0.2 63 52 62 2.5 61 Annual Volume (MG) Outfall
  • 8. Type of Alternatives
    • Alternative selection is a combination of performance and suitability considerations. There are a number of types of alternatives.
  • 9. CSO Control Options
    • There are three basic control options
    • Storage (holds excess flow until capacity is available)
    • Treatment (cleans flow before it is discharged – disinfects and removes pollutants)
    • Separation (provides new sanitary or storm sewers so that combined sewers are eliminated)
    • Flow reduction/ rerouting can enhance the above options
  • 10. Storage Basin Facility Basic Information
    • Type of facility: concrete tank either concealed or visible
    • Land area required: 3 – 10 acres
    • Typical siting locations: waterfront property, parks, other vacant parcels near rivers
    • Other requirements: some sewer work to bring flow to the site; building for support functions
  • 11. Basin Storage Facilities Storage alternatives can be below grade as basins or tunnels. Generally some access hatches or support structures are present.
  • 12. Storage Basin Facilities -Pros and Cons
    • Pros
      • Most work is limited to one location and the adjacent areas are not disturbed
      • Volume and frequency of discharge to the river is reduced
      • Site can be designed to be aesthetically pleasing
    • Cons
      • Use of land for other activities is limited
      • Construction activities are generally 2 – 3 years in duration limiting the use of sites during that period.
      • A building is required for support facilities
      • Some untreated overflow will remain.
  • 13. Storage Tunnel Basic Information
    • Type of facility: below ground tunnel
    • Land area required: limited land requirements – most work is along a linear corridor and is not visible from the surface.
    • Typical siting locations: about 60 – 75 feet below grade; linear corridors (such as streets)
    • Other requirements: drop shafts and discharge points with pump stations and control of floatables
  • 14. Storage Tunnel Facilities Pros and Cons
    • Pros
      • Most work is performed underground and at construction shaft locations, minimizing land needs
      • Volume and frequency of discharge to the river is reduced
      • Toledo has successfully constructed similar projects
    • Cons
      • Difficult to clean and access
      • Some untreated overflow will remain.
      • A building would be required to house support facilities
  • 15. Storage Tunnels Storage tunnels primarily consist of large underground pipes 12 – 15 feet in diameter. There are additional support structures that would be located at the end of the tunnel.
  • 16. Treatment Facility Basic Information
    • Type of facility: smaller concrete tank with screening and disinfection capability
    • Land area required: 2-5 acres
    • Typical siting locations: waterfront property, parks, other vacant parcels near rivers
    • Other requirements: some sewer work to bring flow to the site; above ground building to house equipment
  • 17. Treatment Facilities Pros and Cons
    • Pros
      • Most work is limited to one location and the adjacent areas are not disturbed. Facility footprint is smaller than storage facility.
      • Small storms are stored. Larger storms discharge partially treated water.
      • Water that goes to the river has been treated for bacteria.
    • Cons
      • Treatment generally requires construction of a good size building, this building is larger than required for a storage only alternative due to more equipment.
      • Facility is more complex to operate and maintain than a storage only basin.
  • 18. Treatment Facilities Three large treatment facilities in the Detroit Area. These facilities generally require a fairly large building.
  • 19. Sewer Separation Basics
    • Constructs a new sewer to separate flow
    • Generally requires 3 – 6 months to complete work on a street; 1 – 2 years to complete work in an areas
    • Generally doesn’t involve land acquisition
  • 20. Sewer Separation Pros and Cons
    • Pros
      • Upgrades the sewer system
      • Eliminates CSO discharges
      • Minimal property requirements
    • Cons
      • May increase total amount of pollutants to the waterways
      • Disruptive to individual property owner
  • 21. Sewer Separation Sewer separation requires construction of new sewers in areas where a single pipe system exists
  • 22. Flow Reduction / Rerouting Pros and Cons
    • Pros
      • Addresses problem at the source
      • Could be considered best environmentally
      • Could reduce basement or surface flooding
    • Cons
      • Generally not adequate to solve the entire problem
      • Most disruptive to individual property owner
      • Administratively intensive program
  • 23. Flow Reduction / Rerouting Photos
  • 24. EPA Criteria
    • The primary concern in other CSO Plans around the country is the frequency at which CSO’s discharge
    • The control of bacteria of bacteria is important
    • Other items of concern
      • Volume of discharge
      • Pollutants in discharge
      • Measureable impacts on waterways
  • 25. Ottawa River Evaluation – probable storage/ treatment
  • 26. Ottawa River Evaluation – probable sewer separation
  • 27. Siting Issues/ Concerns
    • Consider
      • Areas of open space (sites), reasonably close to outfalls
      • Current use of existing sites & associated impacts due to construction or long term use
      • Ownership of sites
      • “Fatal flaws” such as environmental or geotechnical issues.
      • Opportunities for secondary benefit – e.g. brownfield reuse, coordination with other projects.
  • 28. Ottawa River Potential Sites
    • Potential sites
      • Potential sites have been identified based on location of open space
      • Currently evaluating the feasibility of these sites
      • No decisions have been made about the use or non use of any site
  • 29. Ottawa River Potential Sites
  • 30. Ottawa River Potential Sites –Joe E. Brown Park
  • 31. Ottawa River Potential Sites - Jeep
  • 32. Ottawa River Potential Sites – Central Ave.
  • 33. Ottawa River Potential Sites – Willy’s Park & Liberty Park
  • 34. Storage Sizing Required Storage Size and Overflow Frequency – Ottawa River; CSO 61, 62, 63, 65, 67
  • 35. Treatment Sizing Required Treatment Rate and Untreated Overflow Frequency – Ottawa River; CSO 61, 62, 63, 65, 67 1.3 MG 2 MG
  • 36. Impact on Footprint
  • 37. Cost projections
    • Cost projections are under development
  • 38. Evaluations Are Continuing
    • Additional cost development and comparison to benefits are ongoing
    • Better definition of potential sites and discussions with property owners/ operators
    • More technical evaluations (will support cost assessment)
  • 39. How you can help
    • Provide feedback on the alternative types through the various stations. Let us know what you like and don’t like and the type of alternative.
    • Give us feedback on the potential sites.
    • Provide other comments on what is important to you.
    • Ask questions at the various station locations.