cso long-term control plan presentation to neorsd trustees 2010 1118

2Kingsbury Run 2009

Netting facility, floatable debris from combined sewer overflow 2010

2007

2008

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 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

Automated Regulators

CSO Control Program 1970s-1990s

CSO Treatment Facility



• New interceptors constructed– Northwest

– Southwest

– Heights/Hilltop


• Floatables control

– 10 facilities

Easterly:

1998-2002

Mill Creek:

1995-1997Southerly:

2000-2002

Westerly:

1997-1999

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.

Many projects have been constructed as a result.


21

Low-Income & Minority Population Areas

22


Mill Creek CSO PlanApproved 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


• 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


• 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


• 2006: CSO LTCP Negotiations Continue

• 2007

– CSO LTCP Negotiations Continue

– U.S. Department of Justice Litigation:

• 308 Order: Bacteriological Sampling

• Case settled


• 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 LTCPCapital Costs ($M)

Additional Gov't Requests $0 $0 0 $0

Total $1,610 $1,769 $2,341 $2,651

Year EscalationOriginal LTCP

2009 9,647 $2,198

2007 8,518 $1,941

2005 7763.33 $1,769

2002 7067.13 $1,610

$1,610$1,769

$1941

$2,198

$400

$453

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Original CSO LTCP (2002$$)

2005 Board Adopted 30-Year Schedule (2005$$)

Original CSO LTCP (2007$$) Original CSO LTCP (2009$$)

Additional Gov't Requests

Cost Refinements

Original CSO LTCP

$2.7B

$2.3B

$1.8B

$1.6B

2009J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008F M A M J J A S O N D

Recent Negotiations TIMELINE

2002: District submits original LTCP

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

2010J F M A M J J A S O

December2010

Negotiations KEY TECHNICAL ISSUES

• Level of control

• Wet-weather treatment at WWTP

• Plant bypasses

• Green infrastructure

• Affordability

Original CSO LTCP & Bypasses

February 2008

GovernmentJuly 2009

Technical AlignmentFebruary 2010

Easterly District

Easterly System Level of Control

4 overflows/year0 overflows/year @

―priority‖ CSOs2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs

EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated Eliminated

CSO-001 3 overflows/year400 MGD Actiflo + UV

Disinfection400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2

Disinfection

Southerly District

Southerly System Level of Control

4 overflows/year3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs

3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs

SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection

Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition,

Settling Tank & 70 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection

Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition &

Settling Tank

Westerly District

Westerly System Level of Control


priority CSOs2 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs

CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD450 MGD Actiflo + UV

Disinfection411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2

Disinfection

Green Infrastructure N/A N/A44 MG and

at least $42 M

Remaining Volume 813 MG 251 MG 494 MG

Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

Chemical Disinfection

CEPT & CI2 Disinfection

Lifecycle GHG* EmissionsProvided Leverage to Reduce Government Demands

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Original LTCP & Bypasses

Government July 2009 Proposal District September 2009 Proposal

O&M Emissions

Construction Emissions

Lifecy

cle G

HG

Em

issi

ons

(Tons

CO

2e)

74,566 Tons

236,015 Tons

112,188 Tons

* GHG = Greenhouse Gas

CSO LTCP & BypassesFebruary 2008

GovernmentJuly 2009

Negotiated agreement

Easterly District



―priority‖ CSOs2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs

EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated Eliminated

CSO-001 3 overflows/year400 MGD Actiflo + UV

Disinfection400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2

Disinfection

Southerly District



3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs

SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 Disinfection

Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition,

Settling Tank & 70 MGD Actiflo + UV Disinfection

Parallel Operationw/ Chemical Addition &

Settling Tank

Westerly District



priority CSOs3 overflows/year@ "priority" CSOs

CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD450 MGD Actiflo + UV

Disinfection411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2

Disinfection

Green Infrastructure N/A N/A44 MG and

at least $42 M


Program cost $2.7 Billion $3.7 Billion $3 Billion

Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS

CSO LTCP Negotiation HistoryCapital Costs (in 2009 dollars)

$2.7 B

$3.3 B

$3.7 B

$3.0 B

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

LTCP & BypassesFebruary 2008

GovernmentJuly 2009

DistrictSeptember 2009

GovernmentDecember 2009

DistrictJanuary 2010

Negotiated Agreement

$2.9 B

$ M

illio

ns

$331 M

$652 M

Original CSO LTCP & Bypasses

February 2008Negotiated Agreement Additional Cost

Easterly District


4 overflows/year2 overflows/year @ "priority" CSOs

$13 M

EWWTP Bypass Chemical Disinfection Eliminated $48 M

CSO-001 3 overflows/year400 MGD CEHRT + Cl2

Disinfection$123 M

Southerly District



$9 M

SWWTC Bypass CEPT & Cl2 DisinfectionParallel Operation

w/ Chemical Addition & Settling Tank

$ 47 M

Westerly District



$40 M

CSO-002 (CSOTF) 400 MGD411 MGD CEHRT & Cl2

Disinfection$9 M

Green Infrastructure N/A 44 MG and at least $42 M $42 M


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

Technical AlignmentCSO LTCP Negotiations – Negotiated Agreement

Green infrastructure

UpsizedWesterly Tunnel

411 MGD

CEHRT

Expansion of secondary

capacity and CEHRT

Upsized consolidation

sewers

400 MGD

CEHRT

Expansion of secondary capacity

Upsized consolidation

sewers

CSO LTCPFebruary 2008

Government Proposal July 2009

NegotiatedAgreement

Easterly District

Euclid Creek/Dugway Storage Tunnels

24' Diameter 24' Diameter 24’ Diameter

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

Negotiations TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS6 of 7 tunnel sizes remained unchanged

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

Dis

tric

t P

rop

ose

d G

ray C

SO

Ca

ptu

re

Million

Gallons

District

Enhanced

Proposal

Dis

tric

t P

rop

ose

d G

ray C

SO

Ca

ptu

re

District

Enhanced

Proposal +

Green

Infrastructure

LOCa

44

MG

LOCb

Tier 1a

Tier 1b

Tier 1 GI Projects = $42M

X

MG

Tier 2Y

MG

“Green-for-Gray”

credit against Gray

CSO Capture Volume

Saylor Grove, PA BEFORE

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

45Saylor Grove, PA AFTER

Tanner Springs Park, Portland, OR46

52

25-Year Implementation Schedule Addresses Low-Income & Minority Population Areas First


53


54


55


56


57


58


59


60


CSO LTCP Consent Decree Civil Penalty

$2.80 M

$1.00 M

$2.20 M

$1.50 M

$2.05 M $2.00 M

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

GovernmentDecember

2009

DistrictJanuary

2010

GovernmentFebruary

2010

DistrictApril 2010

GovernmentMay 2010

Negotiated Agreement

$ M

illio

ns

Civil Penalty Demands

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




– Low-Income & Minority Population Areas Considerations


• Proposed Program Costs– Affordability



District CSO LTCP in Combination with Non-CSO CIP Deemed High Burden

High Burden

USEPA Financial Capability Threshold

% M

HI

How will it impact rates?

• 25-year projectionsOTHER CAPITAL

PROJECT CLEAN LAKE

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CAPITAL

50% 26%24%

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


• 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


EmploymentLabor

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


• 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




– Low-income & Minority Population Area considerations


• Proposed Program Costs– Affordability



Key Elements of Consent DecreePermanent 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

cso long-term control plan presentation to neorsd trustees 2010 1118

Documents