LTCP meeting 11-18-04

548 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
548
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LTCP meeting 11-18-04

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

×