Kingsbury Run 2 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 Milwaukee, WI 2004

Gowanus Canal, Brooklyn, NY 2010

Cranwood Creek, Cleveland, OH 2009

CSO Regulatory Requirements
• • • • OEPA CSO NPDES Permit Clean Water Act—CSO Control Policy Nine Minimum Controls Compliance Development/Implementation of LongTerm 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 2002 at a cost of $35 million.

Easterly: 1998-2002 Westerly: 1997-1999 Southerly: 2000-2002 Mill Creek: 1995-1997

Many projects have been constructed as a result.

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 $0 $3,000 Total $1,610 $0 $1,769 0 $2,341

$0 $2,651 $2.7B
$2.3B Escalation Original LTCP 2009 9,647 $2,198 2007 8,518 $1,941 2005 $400 7763.33 $1,769 2002 7067.13 $1,610

$2,500

Year

$453

$2,000

$1.8B

$1.6B
$1,500 Additional Gov't Requests Cost Refinements

$2,198 $1,000 $1,610
$1,769 $1941

Original CSO LTCP

$500

$0 Original CSO LTCP (2002$$) 2005 Board Adopted 30-Year Schedule (2005$$) Original CSO LTCP (2007$$) Original CSO LTCP (2009$$)

Recent Negotiations
2002: District submits original LTCP

TIMELINE
J F M A 2010 2009 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

F

M

A

2008 M J J A S O N D

December2010

Negotiations
• • • • •

KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES

Level of control Wet-weather treatment at WWTP Plant bypasses Green infrastructure Affordability

Negotiations
Original CSO LTCP & Bypasses February 2008 Easterly District Easterly System Level of Control EWWTP Bypass CSO-001 Southerly District Southerly System Level of Control SWWTC Bypass Westerly District Westerly System Level of Control CSO-002 (CSOTF) Green Infrastructure Remaining Volume 4 overflows/year 400 MGD N/A 813 MG 4 overflows/year

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
Government July 2009 Technical Alignment February 2010

0 overflows/year @ ―priority‖ CSOs Eliminated 400 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection

2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs Eliminated 400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2 Disinfection 3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs Parallel Operation w/ Chemical Addition & Settling Tank

Chemical Disinfection Chemical Disinfection 3 overflows/year

3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs Parallel Operation w/ Chemical Addition, CEPT & CI2 Disinfection & Cl2 Disinfection Settling Tank & 70 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection 4 overflows/year 0 overflows/year @ priority CSOs 450 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection N/A 251 MG

2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs 411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2 Disinfection 44 MG and at least $42 M 494 MG

Lifecycle GHG* Emissions
Provided Leverage to Reduce Government Demands
250,000

236,015 Tons

Lifecycle GHG Emissions (Tons CO2e)

O&M Emissions

200,000
Construction Emissions

150,000

112,188 Tons
100,000

74,566 Tons

50,000

0

Original LTCP & Bypasses
* GHG = Greenhouse Gas

Government July 2009 Proposal

District September 2009 Proposal

Negotiations
Easterly District Easterly System Level of Control EWWTP Bypass CSO-001 Southerly District Southerly System Level of Control SWWTC Bypass Westerly District Westerly System Level of Control CSO-002 (CSOTF) Green Infrastructure Remaining Volume Program cost 4 overflows/year Chemical Disinfection 3 overflows/year

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
Government July 2009 0 overflows/year @ ―priority‖ CSOs Eliminated 400 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection Negotiated agreement

CSO LTCP & Bypasses February 2008

2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs Eliminated 400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2 Disinfection 3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs Parallel Operation w/ Chemical Addition & Settling Tank

3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs Parallel Operation w/ Chemical Addition, CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection Settling Tank & 70 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection 4 overflows/year 0 overflows/year @ priority CSOs 450 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection N/A 251 MG $3.7 Billion

4 overflows/year
400 MGD N/A 813 MG $2.7 Billion

3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs 411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2 Disinfection 44 MG and at least $42 M 494 MG $3 Billion

CSO LTCP Negotiation History
Capital Costs (in 2009 dollars)

$4,000 $3,500 $3,000

$3.7 B $3.3 B $3.0 B

$652 M $331 M

$2.7 B

$2.9 B

$ Millions

$2,500
$2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0

LTCP & Bypasses February 2008

Government July 2009

District Government September 2009 December 2009

District January 2010

Negotiated Agreement

Technical – Negotiated Agreement CSO LTCP Negotiations Alignment
Original CSO LTCP & Bypasses February 2008 Easterly District Easterly System Level of Control 4 overflows/year 2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs $13 M Negotiated Agreement Additional Cost

EWWTP Bypass
CSO-001 Southerly District

Chemical Disinfection
3 overflows/year

Eliminated
400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2 Disinfection

$48 M
$123 M

Southerly System Level of Control
SWWTC Bypass Westerly District Westerly System Level of Control CSO-002 (CSOTF) Green Infrastructure Remaining Volume Program cost (2009$$)

4 overflows/year CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection

3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs
Parallel Operation w/ Chemical Addition & Settling Tank

$9 M $ 47 M

4 overflows/year 400 MGD N/A 813 MG $2.7 B

3 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs 411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2 Disinfection 44 MG and at least $42 M 494 MG $3.0 B

$40 M $9 M $42 M 319 MG $331 M

411 MGD CEHRT Upsized Westerly Tunnel

Upsized consolidation sewers

400 MGD CEHRT
Expansion of secondary capacity

Upsized consolidation sewers

Expansion of secondary capacity and CEHRT

Green infrastructure

Negotiations

TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

6 of 7 tunnel sizes remained unchanged

CSO LTCP February 2008 Easterly District Euclid Creek/Dugway Storage Tunnels Shoreline Storage Tunnel Doan Valley Tunnel Southerly District Southerly Tunnel Big Creek Tunnel Westerly District Westerly Tunnel 18' Diameter 23' Diameter 20' Diameter 24' Diameter 21' Diameter 17' Diameter

Government Proposal July 2009

Negotiated Agreement

24' Diameter 27' Diameter 39' Diameter

24’ Diameter 21’ Diameter 17’ Diameter

23' Diameter 20' Diameter

23' Diameter 20’ Diameter

36' Diameter

24’ Diameter

Green Infrastructure (GI)
Proposed by District in-lieu of bigger tunnels
Tier 1 GI Projects = $42M LOCb LOCa District Proposed Gray CSO Capture
44 MG X MG Y MG

Tier 1a Tier 1b Tier 2 “Green-for-Gray” credit against Gray CSO Capture Volume

Million Gallons

District Enhanced Proposal

District Enhanced Proposal + Green Infrastructure

District Proposed Gray CSO Capture

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Saylor Grove, PA BEFORE

45

Saylor Grove, PA AFTER

46

Tanner Springs Park, Portland, OR

25-Year Implementation Schedule Addresses LowIncome & 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 $2.00
$1.50 $1.00
$1.00 M

$2.20 M $2.05 M $1.50 M

$2.00 M

$0.50 $0.00

Government December 2009

District January 2010

Government February 2010

District Government Negotiated April 2010 May 2010 Agreement

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 Income

Employment # of jobs Northeast Ohio (7-County Area) Total Impact Cuyahoga County Total Impact 16,600 31,500

Value Added

Output

Tax

In Millions of Dollars

1,600

2,200

4,600

443

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.