Kingsbury

2 Run
2009
Netting facility, floatable debris from
combined sewer overflow
2010
 2008

2007 2007
Presentation overview
• Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) history
and responsibilities
• CSO regulatory requirements
• CSO LTCP approval history
• Consent Decree/Negotiated Agreement
• Consent Decree negotiations process
Key responsibilities
• WWTP Operation
– Easterly, Southerly, Westerly
• Combined and Separate Interceptors
– Construction, Operation and Maintenance
• Regional Stormwater Management
• Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Control
District Service Area
Regulating structures allow excess
stormwater to overflow

Side-spill weir Overflow pipe

Combined Sewer Area:
126 CSOs, 75 sq. miles
Prevalence of combined sewer systems in the US
 Lake Michigan near Gowanus Canal, Cranwood Creek,
Milwaukee, WI 2004 Brooklyn, NY 2010 Cleveland, OH 2009
CSO Regulatory Requirements
• OEPA CSO NPDES Permit
• Clean Water Act—CSO Control Policy
• Nine Minimum Controls Compliance
• Development/Implementation of Long-
Term CSO Control Plan
• Development/Implementation of Feasible
Alternatives to minimize WWTP Bypasses
CSO investment since 1972
• $900 million has cut CSO volume in half
since 1972
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s

Automated Regulators
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s
CSO Treatment Facility
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s

• New interceptors constructed

– Northwest
– Southwest
– Heights/Hilltop
CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s
• Floatables control
– 10 facilities
CSO Control Program 1990s-2000s

Federal CSO Control

Policy adopted in
1994 – Part of
Clean Water Act

CSO Facilities Plans

were developed
between 1995 and
Easterly: 2002 at a cost of
1998-2002 $35 million.

Many projects have

Westerly: been constructed as
1997-1999 a result.

Southerly: Mill Creek:

2000-2002 1995-1997
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

21
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

22
Mill Creek CSO Plan
Approved by Ohio EPA in 1997
CSO LTCP Approval Process
HISTORY

• 1997: Mill Creek Facilities Plan Submitted to

Ohio EPA
• 1999: Westerly CSO Facilities Plan Submitted to
Ohio EPA
• 2002: Final CSO Facilities Plans Submitted to
Ohio EPA (Easterly, Southerly)
• 2003
– U.S. EPA Nine Minimum Controls Inspection
– CSO LTCP Presentation to U.S. EPA Region 5
CSO LTCP Approval Process
HISTORY

• 2004
– Ohio EPA Consent Decree Discussions
– Ohio EPA rejects 30-year schedule
– U.S. EPA 308 Requests (bacteria sampling
results, CSO sampling, LTCP information)
– Meeting with U.S. EPA Region 5/DOJ
CSO LTCP Approval Process
HISTORY

• 2005
– Ohio EPA denies CSOTF Permit To Install
– U.S. EPA / U.S. DOJ / Ohio EPA CSO Plan
Approval Working Sessions Begin
– Additional U.S. EPA 308 Requests (additional
CSO sampling, economic information)
– Board approves 30-year Long-Term Control
Plan
CSO LTCP Approval Process
HISTORY

• 2006: CSO LTCP Negotiations Continue

• 2007
– CSO LTCP Negotiations Continue
– U.S. Department of Justice Litigation:
• 308 Order: Bacteriological Sampling
• Case settled
CSO LTCP Approval Process
HISTORY

• 2008-2010
– CSO LTCP negotiations continue
• Level of CSO control
• Wastewater treatment plant bypasses
• Financial capability issues
• Schedules
CONSENT DECREE Negotiated Agreement
CONSENT DECREE Negotiations Recap
• Currently Proposed CSO Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)
– Level of Control
– Wet-Weather Treatment at Plants
– Green Infrastructure
– Implementation Schedule
– Low-Income & Minority Population Area Considerations
– Penalty and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Proposed Program Costs
– Affordability
– Discussion of potential impact on rates
• Consent Decree Provisions and Timing
 District’s Original LTCP
Capital Costs ($M)

Additional Gov't Requests

$3,000 $0 $0 0 $0
Total $1,610 $1,769 $2,341 $2,651
$2.7B

$2,500 $2.3B
Year Escalation Original LTCP $453
2009 9,647 $2,198
2007 8,518 $1,941
2005 $400
7763.33 $1,769
$2,000 2002 7067.13 $1,610
$1.8B
$1.6B

$1,500
Additional Gov't Requests

Cost Refinements
$2,198
$1,000 $1941 Original CSO LTCP
$1,769
$1,610

$500

$0
Original CSO LTCP 2005 Board Adopted 30-Year Original CSO LTCP (2007$$) Original CSO LTCP (2009$$)
(2002$$) Schedule (2005$$)
 Recent Negotiations TIMELINE
2002: District submits original LTCP
2008 2009 2010
F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O
2005: District adopts 30-year schedule

2008:

District adds EWWTP/SWWTC Bypasses

District Proposal

2009

Focused financial capability negotiations

Government Proposals

District proposals

2010

Technical Alignment

Executive Session Presentations

Negotiate Consent Decree Terms

Consent Decree Execution Target December2010

Negotiations KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES

• Level of control
• Wet-weather treatment at WWTP
• Plant bypasses
• Green infrastructure
• Affordability
Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

Original CSO LTCP &

Government Technical Alignment
Bypasses
July 2009 February 2010
February 2008
Easterly District
Easterly System 0 overflows/year @ 2 overflows/year
4 overflows/year
Level of Control ―priority‖ CSOs @ "priority" CSOs
EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection
Chemical Disinfection Eliminated Eliminated
400 MGD Actiflo + UV 400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2
CSO-001 3 overflows/year
Disinfection Disinfection
Southerly District
Southerly System 3 overflows/year 3 overflows/year
4 overflows/year
Level of Control @ "priority" CSOs @ "priority" CSOs
Parallel Operation
Parallel Operation
w/ Chemical Addition,
SWWTC Bypass & CI2
CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection
Disinfection w/ Chemical Addition &
Settling Tank & 70 MGD
Settling Tank
Actiflo + UV Disinfection
Westerly District
Westerly System 0 overflows/year @ 2 overflows/year
4 overflows/year
Level of Control priority CSOs @ "priority" CSOs
450 MGD Actiflo + UV 411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2
CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD
Disinfection Disinfection
44 MG and
Green Infrastructure N/A N/A
at least $42 M
Remaining Volume 813 MG 251 MG 494 MG
 Lifecycle GHG* Emissions
Provided Leverage to Reduce Government Demands
250,000 236,015 Tons

O&M Emissions
Lifecycle GHG Emissions (Tons CO2e)

200,000
Construction Emissions

150,000

112,188 Tons

100,000

74,566 Tons

50,000

0
Original LTCP Government July 2009 Proposal District September 2009 Proposal
& Bypasses
* GHG = Greenhouse Gas
Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

CSO LTCP & Bypasses Government

Negotiated agreement
February 2008 July 2009
Easterly District
Easterly System 0 overflows/year @ 2 overflows/year
4 overflows/year
Level of Control ―priority‖ CSOs @ "priority" CSOs
EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated Eliminated
400 MGD Actiflo + UV 400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2
CSO-001 3 overflows/year
Disinfection Disinfection
Southerly District
Southerly System 3 overflows/year 3 overflows/year
4 overflows/year
Level of Control @ "priority" CSOs @ "priority" CSOs
Parallel Operation
Parallel Operation
w/ Chemical Addition,
SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection w/ Chemical Addition &
Settling Tank & 70 MGD
Settling Tank
Actiflo + UV Disinfection
Westerly District
Westerly System 0 overflows/year @ 3 overflows/year
4 overflows/year
Level of Control priority CSOs @ "priority" CSOs
450 MGD Actiflo + UV 411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2
CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD
Disinfection Disinfection
44 MG and
Green Infrastructure N/A N/A
at least $42 M
Remaining Volume 813 MG 251 MG 494 MG
Program cost $2.7 Billion $3.7 Billion $3 Billion
CSO LTCP Negotiation History
Capital Costs (in 2009 dollars)

$4,000 $3.7 B
$3,500 $3.3 B
$3.0 B
$652 M
$3,000 $2.7 B $2.9 B
$331 M
$2,500
$ Millions

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0
LTCP & Bypasses Government District Government District Negotiated
February 2008 July 2009 September 2009 December 2009 January 2010 Agreement
CSO LTCP Negotiations – Negotiated Agreement
Technical Alignment

Original CSO LTCP &

Bypasses Negotiated Agreement Additional Cost
February 2008
Easterly District
Easterly System 2 overflows/year
4 overflows/year $13 M
Level of Control @ "priority" CSOs
EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated $48 M
400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2
CSO-001 3 overflows/year $123 M
Disinfection
Southerly District
Southerly System 3 overflows/year
4 overflows/year $9 M
Level of Control @ "priority" CSOs
Parallel Operation
SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection w/ Chemical Addition & Settling $ 47 M
Tank
Westerly District
Westerly System 3 overflows/year
4 overflows/year $40 M
Level of Control @ "priority" CSOs
411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2
CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD $9 M
Disinfection
Green Infrastructure N/A 44 MG and at least $42 M $42 M

Remaining Volume 813 MG 494 MG 319 MG

Program cost (2009$$) $2.7 B $3.0 B $331 M

 400
Upsized MGD
consolidation CEHRT
sewers
411
MGD Expansion of
secondary
CEHRT capacity

Upsized
Upsized
Westerly consolidation
Tunnel sewers

Expansion of
secondary
capacity and
CEHRT

Green
infrastructure
Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
6 of 7 tunnel sizes remained unchanged

CSO LTCP Government Proposal Negotiated

February 2008 July 2009 Agreement
Easterly District

Euclid Creek/Dugway
24' Diameter 24' Diameter 24’ Diameter
Storage Tunnels

Shoreline Storage Tunnel 21' Diameter 27' Diameter 21’ Diameter

Doan Valley Tunnel 17' Diameter 39' Diameter 17’ Diameter

Southerly District

Southerly Tunnel 23' Diameter 23' Diameter 23' Diameter

Big Creek Tunnel 20' Diameter 20' Diameter 20’ Diameter

Westerly District

Westerly Tunnel 18' Diameter 36' Diameter 24’ Diameter

 Green Infrastructure (GI)
Proposed by District in-lieu of bigger tunnels

Tier 1 GI Projects = $42M

LOCb
44
MG
Tier 1a
LOCa
X
MG Tier 1b “Green-for-Gray”
District Proposed Gray CSO

credit against Gray

District Proposed Gray CSO
Million Y
CSO Capture Volume
MG Tier 2
Gallons
Capture

Capture

District
District
Enhanced
Enhanced
Proposal +
Proposal
Green
Infrastructure
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Saylor Grove, PA BEFORE
45
Saylor Grove, PA AFTER
46
Tanner Springs Park, Portland, OR
 25-Year Implementation Schedule Addresses Low-
Income & Minority Population Areas First

Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

52
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

53
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

54
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

55
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

56
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

57
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

58
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

59
Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

60
CSO LTCP Consent Decree Civil Penalty

Civil Penalty Demands

$3.00 $2.80 M
$ Millions

$2.50 $2.20 M
$2.05 M $2.00 M
$2.00
$1.50 M
$1.50
$1.00 M
$1.00

$0.50

$0.00
Government District Government District Government Negotiated
December January February April 2010 May 2010 Agreement
2009 2010 2010
District Civil Penalty Includes Cash and
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
Supplemental Environmental
Projects (SEPs)
• Money remains in the region
• Proposed State SEP:
– Operations and Maintenance for Cuyahoga
River/Ohio Canal Pump Station
• Proposed Federal SEP:
– Special Waste Convenience Center -
Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District
CSO LTCP Negotiations Recap
• Negotiations History
• Currently Proposed CSO LTCP Plan
– Level of Control
– Wet-Weather Treatment at Plants
– Green Infrastructure
– Implementation Schedule
– Low-Income & Minority Population Areas Considerations
– Penalty and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Proposed Program Costs
– Affordability
– Discussion of potential impact on rates
• Consent Decree Provisions and Timing
District CSO LTCP in Combination with
Non-CSO CIP Deemed High Burden

High Burden

USEPA Financial Capability Threshold

% MHI
How will it impact rates?
• 25-year projections
OTHER CAPITAL

PROJECT CLEAN LAKE

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CAPITAL

50% 24% 26%

Averages based on cost and rate projections 71
What’s the benefit?

• Improve water quality

– Clean beaches, recreation
– Protecting clean-water resource
– Neighborhood revitalization
• Green infrastructure
What’s the benefit?

• Regional economic impact

– Cleveland State study of 2012-2016
capital investments
– Seven counties, first five years

Cleveland State University study of regional economic impact of 2012-2016 capital projects
 What’s the benefit?

Labor
Employment Income Value Added Output Tax

# of jobs In Millions of Dollars

Northeast Ohio (7-County Area)

Total Impact 31,500 1,600 2,200 4,600 443

Cuyahoga County

Total Impact 16,600 970 1,300 2,700 236

What’s the benefit?

• Regional economic impact

– For every $1 invested…
– $2.63 return

2012-2016 capital, total value of goods and services produced in the local economy
CSO LTCP Negotiations Recap
• Negotiations History
• Currently Proposed CSO LTCP Plan
– Level of Control
– Wet-Weather Treatment at Plants
– Green Infrastructure
– Implementation Schedule
– Low-income & Minority Population Area considerations
– Penalty and Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
• Proposed Program Costs
– Affordability
– Discussion of potential impact on rates
• Consent Decree Provisions and Timing
Key Elements of Consent Decree
Permanent Injunction and Compliance Requirements (Section VI)
• Achieve and maintain full
compliance with NPDES
permits
• Implement Nine Minimum
Controls
• Construction and
Implementation of CSO
Control Measures
• Post Construction
Monitoring (Appendix 2)
• Reporting requirements
• Approval and
Implementation of CE
HRT Pilot Projects
• Initial Green
Infrastructure Component
of CSO Control Measures
• Revision of Control
Measures to Incorporate
Green for Gray
• Achievement of
Performance Criteria
(Appendices 1&3)
Deadlines
• End date – 2036
• 25-year schedule
• All improvements
completed
• Achievement of all
Performance Criteria
• Payment of civil penalties
• Potential for stipulated
penalties
• Appendix 1 – Performance
Criteria
• Appendix 2 – Post Construction
Monitoring
• Appendix 3 – Green
Infrastructure: 44 Million
Gallons/$42 Million
• Appendix 4 – Green for Gray
• Appendix 5 – Federal SEPs
• Appendix 6 – State SEPs
Modification Provision (Section XX)

• Consent Decree cannot be modified except by written

agreement signed by all Parties and approved by the
Court
• Applies only to material changes of Consent Decree
• Trivial or non-material changes excepted
• Certain elements defined as non-material can be
modified by the Parties without formal modification of
Consent Decree in Court
• Disputes regarding modifications resolved by Dispute
Resolution provision (Section XIII)
Dispute Resolution Provision
(Section XIII)
• Informal Dispute Resolution
– Any dispute is first subject to informal negotiations
• Formal Dispute Resolution
– Unless otherwise provided, dispute resolution
procedures are exclusive mechanism to resolve
disputes
– Failure to seek resolution under this section precludes
District from raising issue as a defense to an action
by the US to enforce any obligation of District under
Consent Decree
Next steps
• Presented to Trustees for vote
• Lodging in Federal District Court
• Federal Register notice
– EPA public comment 30 days