Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Community Program  Advisory Committee July 11, 2005
Today’s Meeting <ul><li>Program Update </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Point Place </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>River Road </li></ul><...
Consent Decree Costs  <ul><li>$145 million in contracts awarded to date </li></ul><ul><li>Total program estimate – $450 mi...
Long Term Control Plan <ul><li>Ongoing dialogue with EPA </li></ul><ul><li>Deadline for completion extended until at least...
LTCP - CSO Technologies <ul><li>Floatables Control </li></ul><ul><li>Flow Reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Flow Management </li...
Selection Criteria <ul><li>Frequency of overflows </li></ul><ul><li>Volume </li></ul><ul><li>Pollutant load </li></ul>
Alternatives Development Process <ul><li>Identify potential technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Size technologies for individua...
Cost Development <ul><li>Objective: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide reasonable projection of cost for City financial plannin...
Cost Development Process <ul><li>Use reference data from constructed projects with similar or same objectives </li></ul><u...
Ottawa River Area <ul><li>Water quality conditions suggest higher level of control required </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, s...
Ottawa River – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>6 active CSOs in a 3-mile span </li></ul><ul><li>26 overflows/year </li></ul>...
Ottawa River – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>Floatables  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved but require control </li></ul></ul...
Maumee River Area <ul><li>Water quality conditions generally in compliance for bacteria </li></ul><ul><li>Range of alterna...
Swan Creek – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>8 active CSOs (all diverted to tunnels) </li></ul><ul><li>11 overflow occurrenc...
Swan Creek – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>Floatables  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved but require control </li></ul></ul><...
Plan alternatives <ul><li>A variety of plan options and probable costs have been developed: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each con...
Plan Considerations <ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce the pollutants that are impacting the waterway of int...
Basis of LTCP Alternatives Evaluation <ul><li>Ohio Water Quality Standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Free of floatables and to...
Review Sample Option <ul><li>Reduction in Untreated Volume </li></ul>
Next Steps <ul><li>Preparing additional alternatives/data for EPA discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate input into draf...
Impact on Ratepayers <ul><li>Current rate plan completed Jan 06 </li></ul><ul><li>Beginning to examine rate plan for 2007-...
Next meeting <ul><li>Other issues </li></ul><ul><li>Next meeting date, time </li></ul>
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CPAC Meeting 7-11-05

550 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

CPAC Meeting 7-11-05

  1. 1. Community Program Advisory Committee July 11, 2005
  2. 2. Today’s Meeting <ul><li>Program Update </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Point Place </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>River Road </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bay View Wastewater Treatment Plant </li></ul></ul><ul><li>LTCP Update and Options </li></ul><ul><li>Sewer Rates </li></ul><ul><li>Next Meeting </li></ul>
  3. 3. Consent Decree Costs <ul><li>$145 million in contracts awarded to date </li></ul><ul><li>Total program estimate – $450 million </li></ul>
  4. 4. Long Term Control Plan <ul><li>Ongoing dialogue with EPA </li></ul><ul><li>Deadline for completion extended until at least August </li></ul>
  5. 5. LTCP - CSO Technologies <ul><li>Floatables Control </li></ul><ul><li>Flow Reduction </li></ul><ul><li>Flow Management </li></ul><ul><li>In-System Storage </li></ul><ul><li>New Storage </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Convey Flow to Treatment </li></ul>
  6. 6. Selection Criteria <ul><li>Frequency of overflows </li></ul><ul><li>Volume </li></ul><ul><li>Pollutant load </li></ul>
  7. 7. Alternatives Development Process <ul><li>Identify potential technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Size technologies for individual or consolidated outfalls </li></ul><ul><li>Review hydraulics and site feasibility </li></ul><ul><li>Identify capital and life cycle costs </li></ul><ul><li>Compare benefits </li></ul>
  8. 8. Cost Development <ul><li>Objective: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide reasonable projection of cost for City financial planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid nasty surprises </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Cost Development Process <ul><li>Use reference data from constructed projects with similar or same objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Include a special “scope contingency” </li></ul><ul><li>Use 2008 as a basis for costing </li></ul><ul><li>Add on standard ELAC allowances </li></ul>
  10. 10. Ottawa River Area <ul><li>Water quality conditions suggest higher level of control required </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, storage, treatment or elimination (through separation or express flow to plant) assumed for all outfalls </li></ul>
  11. 11. Ottawa River – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>6 active CSOs in a 3-mile span </li></ul><ul><li>26 overflows/year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>26% of system-wide CSO volume </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exceedences of bacterial standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bacterial exceedences occur upstream and in CSO reach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exceedences of DO standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sediment demand affects DO in CSO reach and watershed-impacted areas </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Ottawa River – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>Floatables </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved but require control </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Toxics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 SIUs tributary to CSOs in Ottawa River area </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-CSO pollutant sources include cropland runoff, development/nonpoint sources, industry, landfills, upstream CSOs </li></ul>
  13. 13. Maumee River Area <ul><li>Water quality conditions generally in compliance for bacteria </li></ul><ul><li>Range of alternatives evaluated included full extent from minimal reduction in existing frequency to full control assumed for all outfalls </li></ul>
  14. 14. Swan Creek – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>8 active CSOs (all diverted to tunnels) </li></ul><ul><li>11 overflow occurrences/year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14% of system CSO discharge volume </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Was 37% of volume prior to tunnels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Exceedences of bacterial standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bacterial exceedences upstream and in CSO reach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exceedences of DO standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sediment demand affects DO in CSO reach and watershed-impacted areas </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Swan Creek – Water Quality Summary <ul><li>Floatables </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved but require control </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Toxics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>8 SIUs at outfalls </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-CSO pollutant sources include agriculture, development/nonpoint sources, failing septics, upstream CSOs </li></ul>
  16. 16. Plan alternatives <ul><li>A variety of plan options and probable costs have been developed: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Each consider the water body characteristics and uses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Range of approach developed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sample Options: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High level of control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduction in untreated volume </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Plan Considerations <ul><li>Objectives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce the pollutants that are impacting the waterway of interest: bacteria, floatables, solids </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scale controls based on water quality impacts and extent of public use of the waterway </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognize the difference between “treated overflow” and “untreated overflow” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stage projects where uncertainties exist </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Basis of LTCP Alternatives Evaluation <ul><li>Ohio Water Quality Standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Free of floatables and toxicity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bacterial standard (geomean & 10% of samples) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissolved oxygen standard (daily average and minimum) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consent Decree </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment for a wide range of alternatives of: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Costs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effectiveness (pollutant load reductions) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Water quality impacts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>EPA and OEPA Policy and Guidance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative approaches: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstration: Meet water quality standards </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Presumptive: Frequency of overflow and % capture </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knee of curve </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Affordability </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Review Sample Option <ul><li>Reduction in Untreated Volume </li></ul>
  20. 20. Next Steps <ul><li>Preparing additional alternatives/data for EPA discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporate input into draft plan and submit </li></ul><ul><li>Review plan with you </li></ul><ul><li>30-day public comment period </li></ul><ul><li>Public meetings for input </li></ul>
  21. 21. Impact on Ratepayers <ul><li>Current rate plan completed Jan 06 </li></ul><ul><li>Beginning to examine rate plan for 2007-2011 </li></ul>
  22. 22. Next meeting <ul><li>Other issues </li></ul><ul><li>Next meeting date, time </li></ul>

×