LTCP meeting 03-02-05


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LTCP meeting 03-02-05

  1. 1. Ottawa River Public Meeting #2 – Options Long Term Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plan Input March 2, 2005
  2. 2. Discussion Agenda <ul><li>Long Term Control Plan Recap </li></ul><ul><li>Control Alternatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common Elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative Differentials </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alternative Descriptions </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 Outfall Annual Frequency 61 12 62 25 63 2 64 21 65 14 67 13
  7. 7. Ottawa River Overflow Volume Outfall Annual Volume (MG) 61 3 62 52 63 <1 64 40 65 5 67 6 Total 107
  8. 8. Alternative Evaluation <ul><li>Alternative evaluation is based on reducing the frequency of overflow to 0 – 12 times a year </li></ul><ul><li>Total elimination of overflows would only occur in the most costly alternatives </li></ul>
  9. 9. CSO Control Options <ul><li>Three basic control options were considered: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Storage – holds excess flow until capacity is available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Treatment – cleans flow before it is discharged; disinfects and removes pollutants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Separation – provides new sanitary or storm sewers so that combined sewers are eliminated </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Flow reduction / rerouting can enhance the above options </li></ul>
  10. 10. Measurable Benefits of CSO Control <ul><li>Reduced frequency of CSO discharge </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced volume of discharge </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction in pollutants discharged </li></ul><ul><li>Better water quality in rivers </li></ul>
  11. 11. Alternative Definition <ul><li>General alternatives have been identified for the Ottawa River Area </li></ul><ul><li>The following are common aspects of the defined alternatives </li></ul>
  12. 12. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>The number of overflow locations would be reduced from the existing 6 to 2 </li></ul>
  13. 13. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>Remaining overflow would have less pollutant concentration </li></ul>
  14. 14. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>1 of the overflow locations would be relatively rare (occurring approximately once a year) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>The frequency of overflow from the primary discharge location would be reduced </li></ul>
  16. 16. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>The total volume of untreated combined sewer overflow would be reduced </li></ul>
  17. 17. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>Some partially separated areas would be completely separated </li></ul>
  18. 18. Alternative Common Elements <ul><li>A number of outfalls would be consolidated </li></ul>
  19. 19. Ottawa River Overall Alternative
  20. 20. Alternative Options <ul><li>There are several different options that must be considered prior to determining the final alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>These options include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Location of facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of treatment technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Degree of control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. <ul><li>Siting location – several potential sites have been identified </li></ul>Alternative Options
  22. 22. Alternative Options <ul><li>Treatment technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The level of treatment technology may vary </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Alternative Options – Level of Control <ul><li>Total frequency of untreated discharge vs. cost of various alternatives </li></ul>
  24. 24. Selection of Alternative <ul><li>Siting Options </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Windemere Blvd. – would abandon existing street and use for storage or treatment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage: lowest cost, low public disruption. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: small site – limits level of control </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Joe E. Brown Park – would use portion of park for facility siting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage: large open area </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: impacts on public use </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Old Jeep Plant parking area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advantage: industrial area – minimal public impact </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disadvantage: not city-owned property, high cost for sewers </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Selection of Alternative <ul><li>Technology Selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Storage is high cost to build, but easiest to operate; largest use of site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher level treatment technology would produce better quality effluent, but would be more complex to operate; overall lower cost than storage; treated discharges would occur from these facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Separation can accomplish control of CSO discharges; in some locations it can be cost-competitive with other options </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Selection of Alternative <ul><li>Level of Control Selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The range of level of control is between 0 – 12 overflows per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most approved plans have overflow frequencies of 2 – 6 per year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Water quality benefits are limited if frequency is reduced to 8 per year or less </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs increase exponentially as level of control goes to zero </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Selection of Alternative <ul><li>Cost </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The range of cost is large </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Every decision on level and type of control has a cost implication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There tend to be diminishing returns for larger facilities </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. How you can help <ul><li>Provide input on the following alternative elements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Site Selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Preferences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequency of Overflow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provide other comments and ask questions </li></ul>