Download - Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
1/244
The City of Lansing
2012 Wet Weather Control
FINAL DRAFT
June 2011
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
2/244
THE CITY OF LANSINGWET WEATHER CONTROL PLAN
JUNE 2011PROJECT NO. G080700XI
FINALDRAFT
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
3/244
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................2.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................3.0 CURRENT WET WEATHER CONTROL PROGRAM AND FACILITIES ..................
3.1 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Program .......................................3.1.1 1991 Project Plan ........................................................................................3.1.2 Project Plan Amendment No. 3 ...................................................................3.1.4 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit ...........
3.2 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Control Program......................................................3.2.1 2003 Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan ................................................3.2.2 Administrative Consent Order (ACO) .........................................................3.2.3 2008 CSO Program Evaluation Report ......................................................
3.3 SSO and Emergency Bypasses .......................................................................3.4 Basement Backup Protection ..........................................................................3.5 Storm Water Program ......................................................................................
3.5.1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) - General Permit .......3.6 WWTP .............................................................................................................
3.6.2 Permit Requirements ..................................................................................3.6.3 Historical Wet Weather Flows .....................................................................
4.0 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE...........................................................................................5.0 WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT - CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ..............
5.1 Hydraulic Model Development .........................................................................5.1.1 Conveyance System Capacity ....................................................................
6.0 WET WEATHER CONTROL ALTERNATIVES - ANALYSIS ..................................6.1 Balanced System Approach ............................................................................6.2
Wet Weather Control Measures ......................................................................6.2.1 Combined Sewer Areas ..............................................................................6.2.1.1 Preliminary Analysis of Combined Sewer Areas ..............................6.2.1.2 Combined Sewer Separation ............................................................6.2.1.3 RTBs ..................................................................................................6.2.1.4 CSO Control Cost Estimates ............................................................
6.2.2 SSO Control ...............................................................................................6.2.2.1 Balanced System Approach .............................................................6.2.2.2 Peak Flow Equalization .....................................................................6.2.2.3 Source Removal - Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD) ...................
6.2.3 Emergency Bypasses .................................................................................6.2.4 Basement Backup Prevention .....................................................................6.2.5 WWTP .........................................................................................................6.2.6 Storm Water Management .........................................................................
7.0 RECOMMENDED WET WEATHER CONTROL PLAN ............................................7 1 Priority Projects
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
4/244
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.3.2 Financing Options ......................................................................................7.3.2.1 Project Plan Amendment ...................................................................
8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ...............................................................................8.1 Integrated Regulatory Compliance Strategy ...................................................
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................9.1 Prioritization ......................................................................................................9.2 Schedule ...........................................................................................................9.3 WWCP Updates and Administration ................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.0 Recommended Wet Weather Control PlanFigure 3.1 Remaining CSO RegulatorsFigure 3.3.1 Historical Bypass PumpingFigure 3.4.1 Sewer Complaints 2007 - 2009 ReportFigure 3.5.1 City of Lansing Storm Water OutfallsFigure 3.6.3.1 WWTP Peak Hourly Flows and Average Daily FlowFigure 3.6.3.2 Peak Hourly Flows and Effluent NH3-N
Figure 5.1.1 System SurchargeFigure 6.1 Collection System CapacityFigure 6.2.1 Remaining Combined Sewershed LocationsFigure 6.2.2.1 Hybrid AlternativeFigure 6.2.2.2 Regional Equalization AlternativeFigure 6.2.2.3(a) Building Construction EraFigure 6.2.2.3(b) FDD Target AreasFigure 6.2.3 Emergency Bypass LocationsFigure 6.2.5.1 WWTP Hydrograph
Figure 6.2.5.2 Process DiagramFigure 6.2.5.3 Process Diagram with HRTFigure 6.2.5.4 Process Diagram with 23 MG Equalization BasinFigure 6.2.5.5 WWTP Sewers and BasinFigure 9.1 Project Prioritization Flow Chart
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.0 WWCP Project CostsTable 3.1.1 Lansing Combined Sewer Separation CompletedTable 3.6 Lansing WWTP Summary of Unit ProcessesTable 3.6.3.2 Lansing WWTP Treated Effluent Characteristics for the Past 24 MonthTable 4.1.1 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Business AreaTable 4.1.2 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Residential AreaTable 4.1.3 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - Separated Sanitary AreaTable5 1 1 Unrestricted25 Year Peak Flow vs Capacity
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
5/244
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Basement Flooding PreventionAppendix 2 City of Lansing Storm Water ProgramAppendix 3 Model DevelopmentAppendix 4 Cost Data
a. CSOb. Hybrid Alternativec. Equalization Basin Alternatived. Pump Stationse. Wastewater Treatment Plant
Appendix 5 Emergency Bypasses
Appendix 6 Footing Drain Disconnection PlanAppendix 7 Financial Analysis
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
ACO Administrative Consent OrderBMP Best Management PracticeBOD Biochemical Oxygen DemandCity City of Lansing
COC Certificate of CoverageCSO Combined Sewer OverflowDO Dissolved OxygenELAC Engineering, Legal, Administration, and ContingenciesFDD Footing Drain DisconnectionGLRC Greater Lansing Regional CommitteeGPM Gallons Per MinuteHRT High Rate TreatmentIDEP Illicit Discharge Elimination Plan
I/I Inflow/InfiltrationLAPS Lansing Avenue Pump StationLBWL Lansing Board of Water and LightLID Low Impact DevelopmentMDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental QualityMDNRE Michigan Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentMDOT Michigan Department of TransportationMG Million GallonsMGD Million Gallons per DayMS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer SystemNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNPS Nonpoint SourceNREPA Natural Resources and Environmental Protection ActO&M Operation and MaintenancePPC Project Performance CertificationsPPP Public Participation ProcessRTB Retention TreatmentBasin
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
6/244
TABLE OF CONTENTS
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWAS Waste Activated SludgeWMP Watershed Management PlanWWCP Wet Weather Control PlanWWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
7/244
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Lansing (City) has been working to create a cleaner, greener Lansing for moreWorking to separate sewers through the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) program
substantial impact on the environment and the overall support of the Citys commitment to t
Since 1991, the CSO program has made sewer improvements in 72 percent of the a
combined sewers. These improvements have resulted in the reduction of 952 million gall
overflows to the rivers each year.
The Citys entire sewer system is affected by rainfall and snowmelt by increasing flow
systems. This in turn increases the potential for basement flooding and sewage overflow
and Red Cedar Rivers. Current rules for wet weather flows in the sewer system require s
and prevention of overflows from separate sewer systems, also known as Sanitary Se
(SSO). In recent years there have been more
requirements of the City as part of our storm waterPhase II permit. These three required federal programs
do not come with any grant monies and or matching
funds. Each of these wet weather programs has
regulatory program requirements, separate permits,
schedules, and compliance procedures. These separate
programs are administered by the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and create inefficiency
and costs that are not affordable for the City sewer
customers.
The City has developed a new Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP). This new program wi
its kind in the State of Michigan, if not the nation, to join all three unfunded mandates of the
Water Act (CSO, SSO, and storm water programs) into a coordinated approach. This WWC
ALL costs for all the programs to be spent in a responsible way that prioritizes public healt
protect the rivers and lakes using the same federal requirements, and allow the triple bott
to guide the program priorities as well. By joining the three wet weather programs into one
and encourages a plan that will work for each other. The impact of joining these three plan
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
8/244
The measure of the WWCP programs success is rooted in the three bottom line factors of
Economic Environmental
Social
This triple bottom line evaluation resulted in the best and most cost-effective solutions t
problems in the sewer system. A phased approach is proposed in order to package proje
cycles. Results from each five-year cycle will be used to prioritize projects for the next
focus will be on protecting public health by preventing basement flooding. Also, improv
made to the sewer system so that it can be as efficient as possible.
The projects for the first five-year cycle (2012 to 2017) are explained in detail in Sectio
described below:
1. Basement Backup Protection Program - A program to help homeowners avoid se
and reduce footing drain overflows.
2. Siphon 11 and 12 Improvements - Increase capacity in these important siphons.
3. Tecumseh River and Frances Park Pump Stations - Provide pumping an
improvements to increase pumping capacity.
4. Emergency Bypass Facilities - Install new sewers that will allow the sewer system
wet weather flow during very heavy rainfall in order to prevent basement backups.
5. Storm Water- Continue to improve storm water quality and reduce storm water flow b
public and private green infrastructure projects. In addition, revision of the storm wate
encourage and reward the use of green infrastructure improvements in private develop
6. Combined Sewer Separation - Eliminate Regulator 033
The total cost for these proposed projects is more than $15 million for the initial five-year pl
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
9/244
Long-term Wet Weather Control Plan
The recommended long-term WWCP contains a blend of projects that will:
Continue to make improvements to the existing sewer system, pump stations, an
treatment plant (WWTP) in order for it to run efficiently.
Provide temporary storage of peak flows.
Remove sources of wet weather flow through combined sewer separation anddisconnection.
Continue installation of new sewers that will allow the sewer system to bypass high we
during very heavy rainfall in order to prevent basement backups.
Recognize the importance and effectiveness of storm water projects and watershed
planning as part of the schedule and project priorities.
The estimated overall cost for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan-eligible City
recommended WWCP remains a staggering $420 million. However, this is $230 million les
for the previous separate approaches to wet weather flow control.
Table 1.0 - WWCP Projec t Costs
(Capital Cost including 35% engineering, legal, administration, contingencies. ENR =8641)CSO Areas
Separation $198,547,000
Retention/Treatment Basins 52,549,000
SSO Areas
Sewer System Capacity Improvements 56,955,950
Siphon Improvements 9,315,000
Pump Station Improvements 20,043,600
Equalization Basin Improvements 30,632,600
Footing Drain Disconnection/Basement Disconnection 2,000,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant 35,630,000
Emergency Bypass Facilities 5,000,000
Storm Water 10,000,000
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
10/244
The current federal requirements of the CSO, SSO, and storm water programs are costly,
include separate permits, schedules, and compliance procedures. The 2012 WWCP unif
requirements for the City by including the plans for the wastewater permit, the SSO long
well as the Citys storm water permit. During the WWCP study, a financial analysis of the im
ratepayers was completed. The costs of the long-term plan are above the near-term finan
the City. Therefore, a phased approach to implementation is required. This comprehensive
program will need to be implemented over at least a 40-year period to avoid placing
financial burden on the region and the City sewer customers.
Overall, it is critical to provide City residents a cleaner, greener community where improve
the importance of public health, while remaining cost-effective and efficient.
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
11/244
Figure 1.0 - Recommended Wet Weather Control Plan
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
12/244
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the basis for a holistic approach to managing wet weather flow in the (City) wastewater service area. The need for this comprehensive approach has resu
realization that the Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) must be affordable and support
growth of the region and not be a severe burden on the rate payers. Other factors supporti
more comprehensive approach to managing wet weather flows include the greater aw
critical importance of protecting public health by preventing basement flooding, and the fac
has clearly documented the cost effectiveness of storm water quality initiatives for the pr
rivers and streams in terms of pollutant removal costs.
The 2008 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Program Evaluation Report recommends int
CSO, Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), and storm water programs. Prior to this evaluation
management programs were handled independently which reduced efficiency and effe
holistic and integrated WWCP maximizes the resources devoted for controlling CSOs, SS
water discharges in a cost-effective manner. An integrated approach to meeting t
environmental, economic, and social needs of the City can be affordable while protectin
and improving water quality. The WWCP can unify the existing legal requirements
Administrative Consent Order (ACO), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy
permit, and storm water permit. A recommended schedule and sequence for the recomm
is outlined based on these goals.
The WWCP report content and organization is as follows:
Section 3 provides history on the extensive amount of work already completed by the
sewage discharges and explains the current regulatory compliance and WWCP.
A triple bottom line assessment of the economic, environmental, and social im
alternatives for the implementation of the WWCP is presented in Section 4.
Updated modeling results and information on capacity limitations in the collection syste
in Section 5.
Section 6 explains the scope and cost for various alternatives to control wet weather flo
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
13/244
The proposed process for prioritization and implementation of the WWCP pro
administration of future updates to the WWCP is provided in Section 9.
The purpose of the WWCP is to provide a planning tool for the ongoing management and i
the wastewater and storm water facilities in the City service area. Significant detail is p
projects that are scheduled within the period of the current NPDES permit and the NPDES
next five-year reissuance cycle. A planning level program is provided for the remaining wo
CSO and SSO control including cost estimates and schedules. Prioritization of inves
weather control projects will be an ongoing process, which is appropriate because the be
managing wet weather flow may change as information is collected on the effectiveness
disconnection, the prevention of basement flooding, and measured impacts of syste
projects. As the program is updated and implemented, assessment of the most criti
cost-effective approaches will be completed.
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
14/244
3.0 CURRENT WET WEATHER CONTROL PROGRAM ANFACILITIES
3.1 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) CONTROL PROGRAM
3.1.1 1991PROJECT PLAN
A project plan to obtain funding under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program wa
April 1991 and approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1992. At th
27 percent of the City of Lansing (City) was served by combined sewers. Forty combined
discharged into the Grand River and the Red Cedar River. The project plan evaluated
control CSO and determined that combined sewer separation was the most cost-effec
Since this plan was prepared, the City has separated 72% of the combined sewer area an
average volume of combined sewage overflow by 952 million gallons annually. In additio
eliminated 25 of the 40 CSO regulators through sewer separation. The location of the r
regulators is shown on Figure 3.1., while Table 3.1.1., below, summarizes sewer se
completed to date.
Table 3.1.1 - Lansing Combined Sewer Separation Completed
Phase Segment SRF No. 5005-Area
Separated,Acres
CSO Area Separated
I 1 01 298 028, 029, 030, 031, 035, 036, 038,039, 040
I 2 02 56 043
II 1 03,04 11 Foster Avenue Sanitary InterceptorSouth and Pere Marquette Street
II 2 05, 06 156 041, Foster Avenue SanitaryInterceptor *North
II 3 07, 08 678 Area I, J , and Tollgate Drain
II 4 09 251 022 West**
II 5 10 18 Red Cedar Area K SanitaryInterceptor (by MDOT)
III 1 11 352 Northeast Sanitary Interceptor andRed Cedar Areas G and H
III 2 12 347 Moores Park Trunk Sewer and RedCedar Area K
III 3 13 211 013 South
III 4 14 276 037
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
15/244
Table 3.1.1 - Lansing Combined Sewer Separation Completed
Phase Segment SRF No. 5005-Area
Separated,
Acres
CSO Area Separated
IV 5 21 573 018 Southwest, 013 Northeast, 034A,045, Downtown-Grand Avenue /Walnut Street
V 1 22 ***382 034B, 015 North, Downtown-Allegan/Chestnut 015, 034B
TOTAL 4,868
*Construction of the Foster Avenue Interceptor provided a separate sanitary sewer outlet for 347 acseparated area north of Hopkins Avenue that had been flowing into the CSO regulator 042 service a
**Separation of 022 West provided a separate sanitary sewer outlet for 96 acres of previously separhad been flowing into the CSO regulator 022 service area.
*** The indicated Area Separated for Phase V, Segment 1 reflects the total separated acreage for segment, including the 015 North Project, which is still under construction. A large percentage of theconstruction associated with the 015 North Project is already complete, and construction of the projeschedule for completion by the date indicated (November of 2011).
3.1.2 PROJECT PLANAMENDMENT NO.3
Project Plan Amendment No. 3 was prepared on behalf of the City in 2007 to continue
loans for the next five years of CSO control projects. This document concludes that se
remains the most cost-effective alternative to control CSO in Lansing. Although separat
determined to be higher in the downtown areas, this Amendment concludes that sew
remains more cost-effective than providing combined sewer relief and CSO retention. Th
includes Phase IV, Segments 4 and 5 and Phase V, Segments 1 through 3. The estimate
eligible work in these segments was $102.6 million. The estimated cost for all of the r
Control Program was $240.8 million. (ENR 7880)
3.1.4 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)P
NPDES Permit No. MI 0023400 for the Lansing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
December 1, 2008, and expires on October 1, 2012. Part I.A.5, Discharges from Co
Systems, permits 23 CSO outfalls in the City. The permits deadline for elimination of the r
outfalls requires completion on or before December 31, 2019, with an interim deadline fo
Outfalls 009, 010, 014, 015, 032, and 034, by December 31, 2014. Locations of the r
regulators are shown in Figure 3.1. The City may, in accordance with Part I.A.5.d. of the
seek modificationof thepermit toaddress prevailingsituations includingaffordability
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
16/244
Figure 3.1 - Remaining CSO Regulators
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
17/244
3.2 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL PROGRAM
3.2.1 2003SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
A Sanitary Sewer Master Plan was completed for the City in 2003. The study evaluated
control Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) and basement flooding, which was believed
primarily by footing drain connections and private property inflow sources. Approximately
the 27,940 acre wastewater service area is served by separated sanitary. A model of
sewer system was developed and calibrated to determine wet weather flows and evalu
controls. The model predicted a peak 25-year, 24-hour wet weather flow at the WWTP gallons per day (MGD). The projected flow volume in excess of the WWTP secondary treat
was 113 MGD. The study evaluated a number of strategies to control SSO including trans
storage, and source removal. WWTP improvements could include additional storage vo
rate treatment (HRT) system for wet weather flow.
The recommended SSO control program consisted primarily of disconnecting footing d
26,000 homes and adding an additional 1 million gallons (MG) of storage at the WW
capacity for footing drain flows would be provided in conjunction with future combined se
projects and some pump station and sewer capacity upgrades would be provided in the se
area. The estimated capital cost for the recommended program was $373 million (
SSO control.
3.2.2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT ORDER (ACO)
The City agreed to an ACO with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDE
9, 2004, to complete a program to control SSOs and basement flooding by December 31,
required submittal of an approvable long-term SSO control work plan on or before Decem
Although the City submitted the work plan in compliance with this schedule, subseq
Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE, formerly the MDEQ) review a
the work plan is on hold pending completion of this Wet Weather Control Plan (WWC
required design criteria for prevention of SSOs is for collection, storage, and treat
generated during any rainfall event less than or equal to a 25-year event, occurring dur
season and for normal soil moisture conditions. The MDEQ subsequently provided writt
that the associated design storm event for SSO control is the 25-year 24-hour prec
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
18/244
3.2.3 2008CSOPROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
An integrated consideration of the CSO, SSO, storm water, and WWTP was completed
Prior to this evaluation, the wet weather management programs for these programs
independently with an estimated capital cost of over $676 million (ENR 8641). This cost
sewer rates that exceed affordability criteria developed by the U.S. Environmental Pro
(USEPA). An alternative approach was presented that included CSO and SSO tunnels, lim
sewer separation, and footing drain disconnection. Allowances were included for sew
rehabilitation and storm water treatment. The estimated capital cost for this alternative
$639 million (ENR 8641).
Key findings and considerations from this report include:
The wet weather management program approach and regulatory compliance strat
enhanced by using an integrated program for CSO, SSO, storm water, and the WWTP
Innovative storage and treatment technologies for wet weather control should be consid
An integrated Wet Weather Control Program may reduce cost by providing more cost
of control.
The ongoing development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation p
monitored to manage the effect on the City.
Although CSO separation has been found to remain the correct solution in the past, c
other CSO control facilities is warranted.
A review of the cost-effective level of protection for SSO control and emergency overf
performed, including application of a continuous simulation model.
Ongoing evaluation of the WWTP processes is necessary to evaluate both peak wet
and expected high flow duration.
Continue with a watershed-based approach for storm water management with an em
impact development (LID) techniques. A budget of at least $10 million for storm water
the next 15 years was recommended.
An integrated wet weather approach will require that the City negotiate with the MDEQ
the NPDES Permit and ACO. Preparation of an amended project plan was recommend
SRF financing.
A continuing public relations program is important to maintain communication about th
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
19/244
3.3 SSO AND EMERGENCY BYPASSES
Emergency bypasses of wastewater are necessary to protect public health in respons
caused by a collapsed pipe or blockage of the sewer or when the sewer is overloaded durin
weather events. The City has used portable pumping equipment at critical locations
duration and severity of basement flooding. Locations where bypass pumping has historic
is shown on Figure 3.3.1.
The City has prepared updated procedures for notification of untreated or partially t
discharges. The document outlines statutory and regulatory requirements for notificat
discharges in accordance with Section 3112a (i.e., MCL 324.3112a) of the Natural R
Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Act 451 of 1994, as amended. The procedure
process; specifically, an initial notification to assure compliance with statutory a
requirements, and a final report with detailed data specific to the discharge/overflow event.
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
20/244
Figure 3.3.1 - Historical Bypass Pumping
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
21/244
3.4 BASEMENT BACKUP PROTECTION
Sewage backups into basements create a difficult situation and can present a health and
residents. Sewer backups can lead to illness, destruction of valuables, damage to houses,
electrocution. The City is actively implementing programs to prevent basement floodin
entitled Basement Flooding Cause & Effects was prepared in March 2010 to help
understand the cause, prevention, and cleanup methods for basement flooding. The broch
for public education in response to reports of basement flooding and is available on the
Standard operating procedures (SOP) for City employees are also being updated for use
at orientation and periodic meetings.
Sewer backups can be caused by either a problem in a private sewer line lateral or in th
system. Repair and maintenance of the sewer lateral is the responsibility of the private p
Sewer backups caused by private sewer laterals commonly include: roots, broken pip
obstructing the flow. The City may be responsible for sewer backups resulting from the
sanitary system. A collapsed sewer main, blockage, or excessive wet weather flow to sewalso cause backups into basements.
The City responds to citizen reports of backups into basements. City staff investigates
occurrence and determines if the backup is caused by the private lateral or public syst
public system is surcharged, City staff takes appropriate actions in accordance with their
includes maintaining records for each reported event. Locations where property ow
basement flooding between 2007 and 2009 are shown on Figure 3.4.1.
The City is working to prevent basement flooding through ongoing sewer maintenanc
bypass pumping, public education, and training of municipal employees. The City is al
upgrading the wastewater collection system to provide capacity for wet weather flow and
basement flooding and SSOs.
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
22/244
Figure 3.4.1 - Sewer Com plain ts 2007 - 2009 Repor t
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
23/244
3.5 STORM WATER PROGRAM
The current storm water program in the City was developed for compliance with NPDES re
section provides a review of the current storm water NPDES permit which is based
Management Plans (WMPs) for the Grand, Red Cedar, and Looking Glass Rivers. Discus
historic water quality data and the potential impact of TMDLs are included in Appendix 2.
3.5.1 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4S)-GENERAL P
On March 10, 2003, any municipality within the Lansing Urbanized Area (UA) was require
NPDES Phase II storm water permit for MS4 discharges. Because of this requirem
participated in establishing the Greater Lansing Regional Committee (GLRC) that allows th
municipalities to use a watershed approach for securing the necessary storm water NPDE
committee has prepared three WMPs covering the Upper Grand River, Lower Red Ce
Middle Looking Glass River. The primary areas covering the City are the Upper Grand R
Red Cedar River. The locations of storm water outfalls in the City of Lansing are shown on
The first Certificate of Coverage (COC) under storm water General Permit No. MIG619000
the City on November 6, 2003. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) re
permit was submitted on September 30, 2006.
Key components of the storm water permit involve implementing action items as specified
and reporting progress in an annual report submitted to the MDEQ. Six categories of con
are included in the SWPPI, including:
1. Public Education
2. TMDL
3. Illicit Discharge Investigations and Elimination
4. Construction Project Erosion and Sediment Control
5. Post-Construction Controls for New Development and Redevelopment Projects6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
Combined sewer service areas are excluded from coverage under this permit until sewe
complete. As sewer separation work is completed, coverage for the new storm sewer o
dd d h i i j i i h h i l i f d d l
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
24/244
Figure 3.5.1 - City of Lansing Storm Water Outfalls
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
25/244
3.6 WWTP
The Lansing WWTP is composed of the North Plant and the newer South Plant. The des
existing facilities is 35 MGD. This is based on the design capacity of the secondary treat
The WWTP has seen peak flows of over 100 MGD but recent peak flows have been around
average daily flow is approximately 16 MGD.
The North and South Plants each have facilities for grit removal, primary sedimentation, flo
activated sludge biological treatment including final clarification, and chemical phospho
Facilities for screening, tertiary filtration, effluent disinfection, and solids handling are partNorth Plant that were not duplicated in the South Plant. Together, the systems provide an
of treatment for residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater prior to discharge to the
summary of unit processes is shown in Table 3.6.
3.6.2 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Treated and wet weather effluent from the Lansing WWTP system is discharged under MI0023400. The permit identifies three outfalls within the Lansing WWTP. Filtered and
effluent is discharged to Outfall 001A. Permit limits for this outfall vary seasonally, with th
between May 1 and November 30. During this time, the monthly limits for cBOD5, TSS, an
20, and 0.5 mg/L, respectively. The daily limits for cBOD5 and NH3-N are 10 and 2 mg/
Load limits for these parameters are based on a flow of 35 MGD. In addition, the Lan
permitted to discharge the North and South Plant Retention/Equalization Basin overflows t
002A and 003A, respectively. The fecal coliform concentrations are not-to-exceed a da
cts/100 ml and a monthly limit of 200 cts/100 ml. Other pollutants only need to be repor
from the retention basin is authorized when flows are in excess of the rated design capac
and flows at the headworks of the treatment facilities exceed 50 MGD during storm even
permit that expires on October 1, 2012, also requires the concentrations of conventional p
reported.
Table 3.6 - Lansing WWTP Summary of Uni t Processes
Treatment Step Treatment TypeCharacteristics
North South
Mechanical Bar
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
26/244
Table 3.6 - Lansing WWTP Summary of Uni t Processes
Treatment Step Treatment Type
Characteristics
North South
Equalization/Retention Offline, Aboveground V =4 MG V =9 MG
Secondary
Activated SludgeAeration Tanks
4 ea. 4-pass 124 x 209 x15 SWD; 11.7 MG
5 ea. 1-pass 48 x20 SWD; V =8.1 Space provided foadditional aeratio
Activated Sludge
Settling Tanks
2 ea. 110-ft.- x 14 SWD;SA =19,000 sf, V =2.0 MG
4 ea. 90-ft.- x 9.4 SWD;SA =25,600 sf, V =2.4 MG
4 ea. 110-ft.- x SWD; SA =38,00
4.0 MGBuild-out: +2 tank
Tertiary
ChemicalPhosphorous Removal
Ferric ChloridePumping: 120 gphStorage: 20,000 gal.
Ferric ChloridePumping: 80 gph
Rapid Sand Filters14 ea. 900 sf w/sand mono-mediaSecondary effluent firm pumping capacity =75 MTertiary filter firm capacity =101 mgd
Effluent Disinfection Ultraviolet Fischer Porter UV Disinfection system
3.6.3 HISTORICAL WET WEATHER FLOWS
Dry weather flows are approximately 16 MGD. A review of two years of historic plant flow d
through May 2007) reveals that high peak hourly flows up to 70 MGD have been reco
number of storm events due to high infiltration and inflow in the collection system. This pla
listed in Table 3.6 and shown in Figure 3.6.3.1. A flow of over 100 MGD was received
during a storm event in May 2004 (note: this flow does not include a portion of flow from
Interceptor that bypassed preliminary treatment where the flow meters are located and wa
South Plant). During the two-year period, hourly flow exceeded 50 MGD on 35 occa
J une 2004 and J une 2007, including eight events when 50 MGD was exceeded for four
The peak day flow during this period was 49.8 MGD. A summary of influent flows for the 2
is shown in Table 3.6. The magnitude of future peak wet weather flows is depend
improvements to the collection system.
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
27/244
Figure 3.6.3.1 - WWTP Peak Hourl y Flows and Average Daily Flow
Preliminary treatment and primary treatment capacity is 93 MGD, including recycle flow
flows above 50 MGD exceed the treatment capacity of secondary and tertiary systems and
the retention/equalization basins. If storm flows do not subside before the basins bec
necessary to bypass secondary treatment by directing basin overflow to a chlorinated disc
under current conditions, all flows entering the WWTP receive at least primary treatment a
The flows to the various unit processes are shown in the process flow diagram (Figure 6
weather flows less than 50 MGD receive secondary and tertiary treatment and UV disinfect
In anticipation of storm flows, treatment plant operators take the following steps to impr
high-strength and odorous first-flush materials and to optimize wet weather treatment overa
Dewater equalization/retention basins
S t d it l t l ti t ti l
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
28/244
Once flow subsides, equipment is set back on auto operation and flow captured in the equ
is pumped back to secondary treatment. According to plant staff, handling of excess grit tha
in the grit tanks and primary clarifiers during storm events periodically causes maintenancgrit and sludge conveyance equipment. Based on recent plant performance, treatment p
have successfully managed storm flows without violating permit requirements. For exa
ammonia is maintained safely below permit limits even on days when high rates of in
recorded (Figure 3.6.3.2). Average effluent characteristics for the two-year period,
Table 3.6.3.2, indicate that the Lansing WWTP provides a high-level of treatment overall.
Figure 3.6.3.2 - Peak Hour ly Flow s and Effluent NH3-N
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
29/244
Table 3.6.3.2 - Lansing WWTP Treated Effluent Characteristi cs for the Past 24 Months
Month/Year
EffluentFlow
CBOD5 NH3-N TSS TPFecal
Coliform
(MGD) (mg/L) (#/100 mL)
J une 2005 15.86 1 0.121 0.5 0.471 2
J uly 2005 15.27 2 0.089 0.7 0.997 2
August 2005 13.27 1 0.072 0.6 0.846 1
September2005
13.09 1 0.079 1.0 0.620 3
October 2005 11.38 1 0.043 1.2 0.350 3
November2005 13.21 1 0.049 0.7 0.312 4December2005
12.94 1 0.082 0.5 0.310 13
J anuary 2006 21.20 1 0.076 0.5 0.452 10
February 2006 19.66 1 0.045 0.4 0.496 21
March 2006 21.16 1 0.061 0.4 0.511 8
April 2006 16.72 1 0.047 0.3 0.479 4
May 2006 20.90 1 0.096 0.4 0.518 5
J une 2006 14.25 1 0.056 0.4 0.723 1
J uly 2006 13.58 1 0.091 0.3 0.733 3
August 2006 14.69 1 0.065 0.3 0.824 4
September2006
14.06 1 0.051 0.2 0.746 3
October 2006 14.98 1 0.051 0.3 0.763 3
November2006
16.01 1 0.054 0.4 0.409 4
December2006
19.68 1 0.057 0.3 0.303 7
J anuary 2007 19.71 1 0.036 0.4 0.307 6
February 2007 14.72 1 0.033 0.5 0.638 2
March 2007 21.54 1 0.078 0.5 0.274 7
April 2007 20.64 1 0.034 0.4 0.255 3
May 2007 18.86 1 0.046 0.5 0.318 4
Average 16.56 1.04 0.063 0.49 0.53 5.13
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
30/244
4.0 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE
A triple bottom line evaluation considers the social, economic, and environmental imp
weather control strategy. Basement flooding presents social impacts on public health and
lead to illness, destruction of valuable possessions, and damage to houses. Sewage di
direct environmental impacts to the receiving stream. Sewage overflows and untreated st
degrade the water quality of the Grand River and the Red Cedar River. Sewer separation
economic consequences when they disrupt businesses and residential services. Excess
increases impact economic growth and the available income of rate payers. Imple
operation factors have a direct link to long-term cost. These are just some examples
environmental, and economic factors that were taken into consideration when evaluatin
control alternatives. The cost effectiveness of the alternative strategies based on capital an
is evaluated separately in this report.
A triple bottom line evaluation was applied to compare the benefits of peak flow equaliz
Footing Drain Disconnection (FDD) and transport/treat in separated sewer areas anCombined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Retention Treatment Basins (RTB) to sewer separatio
sewer areas. The evaluation also recognized the benefits may be different in residentia
areas. Implementation and operation factors were also considered in the evaluation. W
importance of each factor was applied. Either a numeric or a positive/negative value was a
factor and were summed to provide a composite score.
It is necessary to schedule and coordinate the projects required under all the current regula
into a holistic and integrated program in order to adequately meet and balance the social,
environmental issues resulting from wet weather flow. The projects should be prioritiz
maximum effectiveness with an emphasis on protecting public health. The overall
implementation plan must be responsive to the affordability of the projects to prevent puttin
financial burden on the City sewer customers. Recognition of the cost effectiveness of th
benefits that result from investments in storm water projects is important to achienvironmental benefits from the Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP). Tables 4.1.1 throug
examples of some of the issues that were considered in this Triple Bottom Line ev
evaluation process is consistent with the content of a project plan submittal for State R
(SRF) funding where relevant environmental and social issues are identified in the proje
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
31/244
reliability of FDD source control lowered the total score for this alternative in the separate
Tables 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 present the results of the Triple Bottom Line evaluation.
Table 4.1.1 - Triple Bottom Line Evaluation - CSO Busi ness Area
Alternat ive
Weight Impact Separation Environmental Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score
Storm Water Treatment 30 8.1 0 0.0
Green Solutions Opportunities 30 8.1 + 8.1
Water Quality 30 8.1 + 8.1 Score (Range -19.4 to 19.4) 16.2
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is th
the negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scorWeight Impact Separation
Social Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Long-Term Impacts
Housing and Property Value 20 5.4 + 5.4
Health and Safety 20 5.4 + 5.4
Private Inflow Cost to Property Owner 10 2.7 - -2.7 Visual Aesthetics 10 2.7 + 2.7
Odor 10 2.7 0 0.0
Historical Preservation 10 2.7 0 0.0 Short-Term Impacts
Employment and Income 20 5.4 + 5.4
Traffic Impacts 30 8.1 - -8.1
Noise 10 2.7 - -2.7
Business Disruption 30 8.1 - -8.1 Score (Range -50 to 50) -2.7
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is ththe negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scor
Weight Impact Separation
Implementation & Operation Factors (0-10)Constructability 20 5.4 8.0
Easements & Land Acquisition 20 5.4 10.0 Reliability 20 5.4 10.0
Maintenance Requirements 20 5.4 10.0
Flexibility 10 2.7 10.0 Operational Ease 20 5.4 10.0 Score (Range 0 to 30.6) 28.6
The best alternative in each category is awarded a 10. All others are then compared to the best. Exa
constructability of Alt. 2 is 85% of Alt. 1, it would receive an 8.5. Multiple alternatives can score a 10 Composite Alternative Scores
Separation
42.2
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
32/244
Table 4.1.2 - Triple Bot tom Line Evaluation - CSO Residential Area
Weight Impact Separation Environmental Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score
Storm Water Treatment 30 8.11 0 0.0 Green Solutions Opportunities 30 8.11 + 8.1
Water Quality 30 8.11 + 8.1 Score (Range -19.4 to 19.4) 16.2
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is ththe negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scor
Weight Impact Separation Social Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Long-Term Impacts
Housing and Property Value 20 5.41 + 5.4
Health and Safety 20 5.41 + 5.4 Private Inflow Cost to Property Owner 10 2.70 0 0.0 Visual Aesthetics 10 2.70 + 2.7
Odor 10 2.70 0 0.0
Historical Preservation 10 2.70 0 0.0 Short-Term Impacts
Employment and Income 20 5.41 + 5.4 Traffic Impacts 30 8.11 - -8.1
Noise 10 2.70 - -2.7
Business Disruption 30 8.11 0 0.0 Score (Range -50 to 50) 8.1
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is ththe negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the scor
Weight Impact Separation Implementation & Operation Factors (0-10)
Constructability 20 5.41 8.0
Easements & Land Acquisition 20 5.41 10.0
Reliability 20 5.41 10.0 Maintenance Requirements 20 5.41 10.0
Flexibility 10 2.70 10.0 Operational Ease 20 5.41 10.0 Score (Range 0 to 30.6) 28.6
The best alternative in each category is awarded a 10. All others are then compared to the best. Exaconstructability of Alt. 2 is 85% of Alt. 1, it would receive an 8.5. Multiple alternatives can score a 10
Composite Alternative ScoresSeparation
53.0
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
33/244
Table 4.1.3 - Triple Bot tom Line Evaluation - Separated Sanitary Area
Weight Impact FDD Transport & Environmental Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating S
Storm Water Treatment 30 8.11 0 0.0 0 Green Solutions Opportunities 30 8.11 0 0.0 0
Water Quality 30 8.11 + 8.1 +Score (Range -19.4 to 19.4) 8.1 8.1
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is th"+, the negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the
Weight Impact FDD Transport & Social Evaluation (+,0,-) Rating Score Rating SLong-Term Impacts
Housing and Property Value 20 5.41 + 5.4 +
Health and Safety 20 5.41 + 5.4 +Private Inflow Cost to Property Owner 10 2.70 - -2.7 0 Visual Aesthetics 10 2.70 0 0.0 +
Odor 10 2.70 0 0.0 0
Historical Preservation 10 2.70 0 0.0 0 Short-Term Impacts
Employment and Income 20 5.41 + 5.4 +Traffic Impacts 30 8.11 0 0.0 - -
Noise 10 2.70 0 0.0 - -
Business Disruption 30 8.11 0 0.0 - -Score (Range -50 to 50) 13.5 0.0
Each category is rated "+" (positive impact), "-" (negative impact), or "0" (no impact). The score is th"+, the negative impact value for a "-, or zero for a "0. The alternative score is then the sum of the
Weight Impact FDD Transport & Implementat ion & Operation Factors (0-10)
Constructability 20 5.41 0.0 8.0
Easements & Land Acquisition 20 5.41 10.0 10.0
Reliability 20 5.41 5.0 10.0 Maintenance Requirements 20 5.41 7.0 10.0
Flexibility 10 2.70 8.0 10.0 Operational Ease 20 5.41 8.0 10.0 Score (Range 0 to 30.6) 18.4 28.6
The best alternative in each category is awarded a 10. All others are then compared to the best. Exaconstructability of Alt. 2 is 85% of Alt. 1, it would receive an 8.5. Multiple alternatives can score a 10
Composite Alternative ScoresFDD Transport &
40.0 36.8
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
34/244
5.0 WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT - CAPACITY NEEDSASSESSMENT
The adequacy of the wastewater collection and treatment system was evaluated for the g
25-year, 24-hour event as presented in the Administrative Consent Order (ACO). The AC
collection and treatment system capacity must convey all rainfall events up to and includ
event during the growing season with normal soil moisture. Previous studies evaluated pe
flows for both the growing and dormant conditions and concluded that the collectio
deficiencies. Capacity needs for the Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) are evaluate
combined and separated sewer portions of the City of Lansing (City) based on provi
capacity for the 25-year event during the growing season with normal soil moisture. Im
address the capacity needs are analyzed in Section 6 and presented as recommended im
Section 7.
5.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The Citys computer model has been developed and updated since the late 1980s and m
concerning the computer model history and development is included in Appendix 3.
separation projects have been completed since the system-wide monitoring program wa
2004. Therefore, the model has been updated to include recent sewer separation im
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) areas 013, 018, 020, 023, 025, 044, and 045. In additi
sewer separation plans for the remaining CSO areas were incorporated.
The additional pipes required revising sewersheds which generate dry and wet weather f
weather flows (both sewage and groundwater infiltration) were redistributed based on a
match the previous calibrated model (i.e. a comparison of the previous model results wit
model results are presented in Appendix 3).
Wet weather flows for revised sewersheds were determined based on Project Performan
(PPC) results and previous RTK parameters. At this time, no future development or lan
were evaluated because of the uncertainty associated with locations and schedule.
5.1.1 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM CAPACITY
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
35/244
In general, the model includes sanitary sewers that are 12-inch diameter and larger. 8-in
sanitary sewers are not expected to have wet weather capacity issues based on compla
City staff observations, and a pipe length analysis. The pipe length analysis assumed 8-inpipes are at minimum slope, the peak flow is 4.0 gallons per minute (GPM) per parcel, the
frontage per parcel is 70 feet, and parcels on both sides of the road contribute flow. Th
estimated pipe length (8-inch equals 3,000 feet and 10-inch equals 4,500 feet) for determin
pipe may be under capacity. This analysis was completed for SSES Areas A, F and H.
The unrestricted 25-year peak flow versus capacity at critical locations is presented
Sanitary sewers with capacity deficiencies are identified based on surcharge results and th
the deficiency is presented based on a comparison to unrestricted peak flows. The unrestri
2005 Model was limited by the Lansing Avenue pumping capacity, which then forced mo
the Westside Interceptor. The 2010 Model did not include pumping restrictions, which is r
the increased flow at Lansing Avenue Pump Station (LAPS), Siphon 3, and Siphon 11. T
differences occur at Harton Street Pump Station and HH North because additional g
information (historic flow monitoring data) was used to update the RTK parameters.
Table 5.1.1 Unrestric ted 25-Year Peak Flow vs. Capacity
Capacity, MGD2010 Model,
MGD2005 Mod
MGD
Wastewater Treatment Plant 100 189.1 176.7
LAPS 66.5 93.4 69
Westside Interceptor 65 81.8 90.6Frances Park Pump Station 12.7 29.9 32.5
WWTP Pump Station 8.7 15.8 17.1
Tecumseh River Pump Station 4.8 8.8 9.2
Harton Street Pump Station 27.3 33.6 60.3
Siphon 3 51.1 67.8 45
Siphon 11 33.3 60.9 49.2
Siphon 12 7.6 16.8 16.6HH North 8 13.8 5.2
HH South 11.4 12.6 15
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
36/244
Figure 5.1.1 - System Surcharge
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
37/244
6.0 WET WEATHER CONTROL ALTERNATIVES - ANALY
An analysis of improvement alternatives to manage wet weather flow in the wastewater
treatment system was completed. The work completed in prior studies and project plan am
reviewed. The objectives for the wet weather control alternatives are to maximize the contr
Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and storm water dis
cost-effective manner. Section 5 presents the feasible alternatives that were evaluated in
the estimated capital and present worth cost. Capital costs (construction cost plus 35% fo
legal, administration, and contingencies [ELAC]) for the alternatives are presented using a
6841 (December 2009). Analysis of the improvement alternatives must also consider
environmental impacts of the control strategy. The discussion of a triple bottom line
considers economic, social, and environmental issues is included in Section 6.
6.1 BALANCED SYSTEM APPROACH
The existing City of Lansing (City) wastewater collection system has numerous locations
limitations restrict the ability to utilize the full available capacity of the main interceptors
weather flow. The focus of the balanced system approach involves the identification of the
and determining the improvements needed to optimize the conveyance of upstream flows
facilities. The overall goal is to maximize conveyance of the 25-year, 24-hour growing sea
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). When capacity is not available to achieve that g
improvements have been identified. The City has two large interceptors (Central and
convey flow to the Lansing Avenue Pump Station (LAPS) and WWTP. All flows are pumpe
headworks and the pumping capacity is approximately 135 million gallons per day (MGD).
peak flows greater than 120 MGD have been observed by City staff during wet weather eve
The balanced system approach attempts to maximize the peak wet weather flow t
Alternatives for managing wet weather flows at the WWTP are discussed in Sect
investigation to eliminate bottlenecks in the wastewater collection system identified serestrictions. These restrictions result from inadequate pump station or siphon capacity wh
upstream and downstream trunk sewers have adequate capacity. Removing these b
increase the flows to the WWTP. These bottlenecks are presented in Figure 6.1 and includ
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
38/244
Figure 6.1 - Collection System Capacity
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
39/244
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
40/244
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
41/244
6.2.1.1 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF COMBINED SEWER AREAS
Preliminary analysis found sewer separation to be the obvious cost-effective solution fo
sewersheds. This analysis built upon the 2008 CSO Evaluation Report findings. The analy
the amount of storage (treatment shafts), relief/transport sewers, road rehabilita
improvements, and sewer separation costs. The analysis completed as part of the
considered treatment shafts as the selected RTB facility.Sewersheds in which large areas are already separated are generally not conducive to app
facilities because the size of the basin required is disproportionate to the work of separating
sewer system. The regulator areas where the preliminary analysis found the obvious
solution to be separation, all have the characteristic of being partially separated.
The following identifies specifics for each of the six areas where a financial analysis of an R
was not prepared. Regarding four of these areas, the alternatives analysis conducted as p
CSO Evaluation Report indicated a significant disparity between the associated sewer se
and RTB costs, so a new financial analysis was not prepared (see below).
Regulator 015: Sewer Separation $14 million, RTB $18 million (2008 CSO Evaluation R
Regulator 019: No budget prepared. A 62-inch combined sewer, which includes storm
015 sewershed is tributary to the regulator. Due to the huge disparity of separated
combined sewer area within the sewershed, engineering judgment found that an RTB
sense.
Regulator 021: Sewer Separation $7 million, RTB $13 million (2008 CSO Evaluation Re
Regulator 022: Sewer Separation $13 million, RTB $26 million (2008 CSO Evaluation R
Regulator 033: No budget prepared. All known sanitary sewer sources within the 0
have been removed through the demolition of facilities. Thus, the sewershed is s
anticipate new sanitary sewers will be constructed as part of future redevelopment.
Regulator 034: Sewer Separation $24 million, RTB $28 million (2008 CSO Evaluation R
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
42/244
operation and maintenance (O&M) of the collection system and WWTP, environmenta
public health benefits.
City collection system improvements include the construction of new water-tight sanita
rehabilitation and upgrades to the existing sewers that remain in the rebuilt system. The re
upgrades of the existing system ensure that all sanitary sewers are structurally sound a
Furthermore, the rehabilitation ensures that all storm sewers are structurally sound.
Infrastructure improvements are a part of every sewer separation project. Most notably, the
advantage of the new sewer construction to reconstruct the impacted streets. This appinfrastretching, has resulted in leveraging sewer construction funds to offset road reconst
great advantage. Road improvements have also addressed City traffic calming efforts. In a
infrastructure, the City has leveraged the separation projects to facilitate other C
non-City-owned infrastructure improvements. This additional infrastructure includes
sidewalks, and other utilities, to name a few.
The Lansing WWTP and O&M operations may benefit from sewer separation. When comp
approach, sewer separation will result in reduced flow to the WWTP and less di
Furthermore, when comparing RTBs to sewer separation, the latter has lower O&
environmental and public health benefits of combined sewer separation result in less
discharged to the river.
Fifteen CSO regulators are currently in operation within the Citys combined sewer colCombined sewer separation was evaluated as an alternative for control of CSO for th
regulator sewersheds. The analysis uses a separation approach consistent with rece
separation project practices. An opinion of present worth cost of all remaining regulator s
been calculated based upon historical City sewer separation costs.
The combined sewer separation alternative includes the complete separation of sewe
remaining combined sewershed. Standard practice is to construct new sanitary sewers a
generally larger combined sewer pipes to storm sewers. The construction of new s
provides a tight system with minimal infiltration. Capacity increases are included when req
the existing regulator and the receiving interceptor sewer. Sewer separation design is base
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
43/244
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
44/244
Table 6.2.1.3 - RTB Sizing Data
Subcatchment10-year/1-hour
Peak FlowFooting Drain
Flow
Flow Rate (cfs) Flow Rate (cfs) RTB Size (MG)008 227.8 5.13 3.0
009/012 297.65 12.01 3.8
016/017 111.28 1.86 1.5
024/046 154.32 2.80 2.0
026 28.66 3.33 0.3
032 327.58 16.50 4.2
6.2.1.4 CSOCONTROL COST ESTIMATES
The methodology for calculation of capital and present worth costs for the CSO contro
included in Appendix 4a. Table 6.2.1.4 presents the City capital and present worth costs for
sewer separation and RTB alternatives.
Table 6.2.1.4 - CSO Cont rol Al ternative Cost Esti mates
Regulator ENR = 8641 (December 2009)Alternat ive #1 Alternat
SewerSeparation
RT
REG-008 City Capital Cost $22,030,000 $28,
City Adjusted Present Worth $16,473,000 $24,
REG-009/012 City Capital Cost $41,515,000 $40,
City Adjusted Present Worth $31,040,000 $34,
REG-016/017 City Capital Cost $12,289,000 $22,
City Adjusted Present Worth $9,175,000 $19,
REG-024/046 City Capital Cost $38,280,000 $38,
City Adjusted Present Worth $30,170,000 $32,
REG-024 City Capital Cost $31,790,000 $32,
City Adjusted Present Worth $25,060,000 $27,
REG-046 City Capital Cost $9,290,000 $10,
City Adjusted Present Worth $7,459,000 $8,
REG-026 City Capital Cost $7 494 000 $10
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
45/244
Table 6.2.1.4 - CSO Cont rol Al ternative Cost Esti mates
Regulator ENR = 8641 (December 2009)Alternat ive #1 Alternat
SewerSeparation
RT
REG-034D City Capital Cost $11,928,000 NA
City Adjus ted Present Worth $8,910,000 NA
REG-015S City Capital Cost $18,216,000 NA
City Adjus ted Present Worth $13,617,000 NA
REG-019 City Capital Cost $7,502,000 NA
City Adjus ted Present Worth $5,605,000 NA
REG-021 City Capital Cost $7,224,000 NA
City Adjus ted Present Worth $5,395,000 NA
REG-022 City Capital Cost $17,768,000 NA
City Adjus ted Present Worth $13,275,000 NA
6.2.2 SSOCONTROL
Alternatives to prevent SSO and basement flooding include optimizing the use of the existin
to convey wet weather flow to the WWTP, providing storage for equalization of peak flow r
treatment capacity, and removal of the source of wet weather flow by disconnecting foot
following section presents the results of the analysis of these wet weather control altern
originating from the separated sewer system. The analysis is based on providing capacity
24-hour growing season event.
6.2.2.1 BALANCED SYSTEM APPROACH
The existing City collection system has numerous locations where capacity limitations restr
utilize the full available capacity of the main interceptors to convey wet weather flows
Capacity improvements at the following locations will balance upstream and downstream
reduce basement flooding, and are consistent with the overall goals of the Wet Weathe
(WWCP).
Tecumseh River Pump Station (TRPS)
Frances Park Pump Station
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
46/244
Table 6.2.2.1 - Force Main and Pump Station Design Flows
PumpStation
Pump
StationRatedCapacity
(MGD)
Force
MainDiameter
(in)
ExVelocity(fps)
FutureFlow(MGD)
Pump
StationCapacityDeficiency
(MGD)
Future
ForceMainDiameter
(in)
FutureVelocity(fps)
TRPS 4.8 16/12 9.5 9.0 4.2 24 4.4
FrancesPark
12.7 24 6.3 16.0 3.3 24 7.9
WWTP 8.7 20 6.2 16.0 7.3 24 7.9
Rivers Edge 1.3 16 1.4 4.0 2.7 4.4
Willard 1.5 12 3.0 3 1.5 5.9
Ravenswood 0.7 8 3.1 2.4 1.7 12 4.7
6.2.2.2 PEAKFLOW EQUALIZATION
Peak wet weather flow equalization limits the downstream flow rate to the capacity of the
treatment facilities. The flow in excess of the downstream capacity is temporarily sto
dewatered as soon as capacity in the collection system and/or the WWTP is available. A
weather event may cause the storage facility to fill and bypass excess flow to a receiving s
facilities for peak flow equalization may consist of tunnels, treatment shafts, or storage ba
be above grade facilities where the peak wet weather flow must be pumped in and they are
gravity or a below grade basin that fills by gravity and uses dewatering pumps. The cos
peak flow equalization in this report assumes that storage will be provided by below grade s
The wet weather flow will enter the storage basin by gravity and pumps will dewater t
downstream capacity is available. The proposed storage basin sites are located where
conveyance or treatment capacity is less than the peak flow associated with 25-year, 24
season conditions. The final storage approach will be determined during design and wil
soil, groundwater, and site constraints.
Two system-wide approaches for peak wet weather flow equalization were co
Hybrid Alternative and the Regional Equalization Alternative. The proposed equalization b
capacities for the Hybrid Alternative were based on first optimizing the use of the available
existing sewer system Bottlenecks in the wastewater collection system such as restriction
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
47/244
The Regional Equalization Alternative places much higher reliance on regional storage
though all of the available transport capacity of the existing sewer system and intercepto
used. Storage locations and capacities for the Regional Equalization Alternative a
Figure 6.2.2.2.
An estimated cost for the regional equalization basins was developed based on recent b
Appendix 4b includes the basis for the estimated cost of the Hybrid Alternative. The est
costs for the Hybrid Alternative are included in Table 6.2.2.2(a). Appendix 4c includes th
estimated cost of the Regional Equalization Basin Alternative. The estimated cost for the
Regional Equalization Alternative are shown in Table 6.2.2.2(b).
Table 6.2.2.2(a) - Hybrid Alt ernative - Project Cost Summary
AreaSewer System
CapacityImprovements
SiphonImprovements
Pump StationImprovements
EqualizationBasin
Improvements
Estim
A $5,451,300 $0 $1,924,900 $0 $
C 7,771,950 0 7,260,300 0
H 19,975,950 0 6,129,000 10,830,400
HH North 789,750 0 0 10,830,400
HH South 5,248,800 135,000 0 0
F 7,337,250 0 0 4,485,900
SP 7,915,050 4,387,500 0 4,485,900
SLI 239,750 4,792,500 4,729,400 0
L 1,335,150 0 0 0
CI 891,000 0 0 0
Total Cost $56,955,950 $9,315,000 $20,043,600 $30,632,600 $1
(Capital Cost including 35% engineering, legal, administration, contingencies. ENR=8641)
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
48/244
Table 6.2.2.2(b) - Regional Equalization Bas in Alternative Cost Summary(Capital Cost including 35% engineering, legal, administration, contingencies. ENR=8641)
AreaSewer System
Capacity
Improvements
Pump StationImprovements
Equalization BasinImprovements
E
A $4,661,550 $0 $5,508,000
C 2,208,600 4,911,300 8,971,800
H 15,234,750 3,307,500 18,610,600
HH North 1,574,100 0 0
HH South 3,719,250 0 11,030,200
F 7,337,250 0 4,485,900
SP 1,498,500 0 15,516,100
SLI 240,300 4,729,400 6,544,300
L 1,335,150 0 0
CI 891,000 0 0
Total Cost $38,700,450 $12,948,200 $70,666,900
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
49/244
Figure 6.2.2.1 - Hybrid Alternative
Fi 6 2 2 2 R i l E li ti Alt ti
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
50/244
Figure 6.2.2.2 - Regional Equalization Alternative
6 2 2 3 SO C R O FOO G D D SCO C O (FDD)
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
51/244
6.2.2.3 SOURCE REMOVAL -FOOTING DRAIN DISCONNECTION (FDD)
The goal of the FDD Program is to cost-effectively remove Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) from the
collection system. The FDD Program will be considered as part of the overall WW
sewershed areas within the City where data supports the application of FDD as a cost-effec
A review of the historic building construction data within the City shows a correlation bet
when homes were constructed and footing drain flow to the sanitary sewer. Figure 6.2.2
building construction era information. Homes constructed between 1940 and 1959 have
have the highest contribution of footing drain flow to the sanitary sewer system.
Figure 6 2 2 3(a) Building Construction Era
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
52/244
Figure 6.2.2.3(a) - Building Construction Era
Phase 1 of the program is to develop and evaluate the overall approach while using select
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
53/244
Phase 1 of the program is to develop and evaluate the overall approach while using select
[Figure 6.2.2.3(b)] where enough homeowners volunteer to participate by accomplishing
property. As part of the Phase 1 program, the costs, performance, benefits, risks, and othe
documented and used to guide the City in its development of subsequent FDD phases.
Figure 6.2.2.3(b) - FDD Target Areas
The FDD program will have the following components:
Determine candidate neighborhood areas
Pre-disconnection flow monitoring and performance documentation
Identify volunteer participation properties and select final target Phase 1 sewersheds
Disconnection design and implementation
Post-disconnection flow monitoring and performance documentation
Observations and data collected during Phase 1 of the FDD work will be used to assess th
6 2 3 EMERGENCY BYPASSES
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
54/244
6.2.3 EMERGENCY BYPASSES
The construction of permanent facilities to allow emergency bypasses is necessary be
pumping equipment is often not a feasible strategy to prevent flooding of basements. Thfact that the sewer system often surcharges during intense rainfall events before the pump
can be mobilized and placed into operation. Simply reducing the duration of sewer surcha
not significantly reduce the cost and public health impacts associated with basement floodin
It is inevitable that a wet weather event will occur that will exceed the capacity of a wastew
system or treatment plant. Emergency bypasses of wastewater are necessary to protect pu
safety when collapsed pipes, blockage of the public sewer system, or excessive wet w
sewer mains may cause basement flooding. They are a critical strategy to protect public h
WWCP is implemented. They also allow a cost-effective basis of design for improveme
weather program facilities by allowing the basis of design for new facilities to meet or minim
compliance requirements. Additional protection for public health is realized by bypassi
before sewer surcharges cause basement flooding.
The emergency bypass facility should meet two key design criteria: first, the time and volu
will need to be measured. Second, the overflow will require a mechanical device (i.e. pump
gate etc.) be installed to separate the storm and sanitary system and control whether b
This would help prevent accidental overflows or backflow into the sanitary sewer system.
of an acceptable outlet would be a key component of the design. Typically, flow will on
diverted during a large storm when the existing storm sewer system may already be near it
hydraulic grade line of the storm sewer or receiving stream will need to be analyzed to d
overflow can discharge by gravity. If the hydraulic grade line of the system does not a
discharge, a pump station would be required. Also, the design will need to ensure that storm
backflow into the sanitary sewer system.
The basis of design for an emergency bypass would depend upon the potential upstrea
flow and the available downstream capacity. The facility could be modified or eliminated i
other improvements are completed that would affect the collection system hydraulic
Figure 6.2.3 shows possible future locations where the installation of emergency bypass
help supplement other wet weather control improvements, such as equalization/storage
Figure 6.2.3 - Emergency Bypass Locations
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
55/244
g g y yp
6.2.4 BASEMENT BACKUP PREVENTION
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
56/244
A flooded basement creates one of the most difficult situations a home owner deals with a
public health and safety issue for residents. Sewer backups can lead to illness, destrvaluables, damage to your house, and the risk of electrocution. The MDEQ has indic
protection of public health is their highest priority. The City is actively implementing progra
basement flooding. A brochure entitled Basement Flooding Cause & Effects was prepared
to help homeowners understand the cause, prevention, and cleanup methods for basemen
brochure is available for public education in response to reports of basement flooding and
the City website. Standard operating procedures (SOP) for City employees are also beinuse in training staff at orientation and periodic meetings.
A program for disconnecting basements with recurring flooding problems from a direct gra
to the sanitary sewer is recommended. This would provide an immediate and long-term
property owner. The specific approach to disconnecting the basement will be determined o
basis and could include elimination of basement service, installation of a check valve, or i
grinder pump. This would allow the public sewer to surcharge without backing up into b
were disconnected. It can avoid the need for implementing expensive sewer improvem
benefit a few homes. The basement disconnect will also include installation of a sump pu
the footing drain connection and reduce wet weather flow to the sanitary sewer.
These basement flooding prevention alternatives could be implemented by the City for
history of flooding problems. The basement disconnection program would include a pu
component, financial and technical support for homeowners, and a certification process
work was completed. The cost to disconnect basements could range from approximatel
check valve and sump pump to $12,000 to install a grinder pump.
6.2.5 WWTP
The objective for WWTP alternative development is to provide a cost-effective combinatio
and storage of future wet weather flows and loads to meet the current and anticipated
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. This evaluation
following activities:
Analysis of Design Storm Ev ent
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
57/244
Lansing WWTP treatment needs were evaluated to support treatment of increased sewa
WWTP following wet weather control improvements in the wastewater collection system
estimate flow to the WWTP following the elimination of existing hydraulic bottlenecks was
various storm events. Figure 6.2.5.1 presents the hydrograph for the 25-year, 24-hour
assess necessary improvements at the WWTP.
It should be noted that the hydrograph does not include the 13 MG of existing storage c
plant. The peak instantaneous flow of 150 MGD is predicted to exceed the primary treatm
93 MGD rate for 10.5 hours duration during the storm event. Experience has shown the
primary treatment facilities can process flows of 100 MGD for up to 48 hours. Analysi
hydrograph was completed to estimate the treatment and/or storage capacity necessary
storm event. This analysis indicates a total storage capacity of 33.6 MG is required for th
hour storm event, or 20.6 MG in addition to the 13 MG of existing storage capacity.
Figure 6.2.5.1 - WWTP Hydrograph
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
58/244
Al ternat ives Development
Improvements at the WWTP are necessary to provide adequate treatment capacity for th
event. It is impractical for the WWTP secondary treatment to be expanded beyond 50
when the current dry weather average daily flow averages 16 MGD. Secondary biological s
capable of maintaining a viable microorganism population capable of treating wide variation
As a result, options for expanding the current plant secondary treatment capacity beyond
not considered. However, physical process capacity for processes such as scree
sedimentation, and filtration can be increased to address wet weather flows and were i
evaluation
The alternatives identified and evaluated include:
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
59/244
1. Provide HRT facilities at the WWTP for treatment of flows in excess of 50 MGD.
2. Provide added flow equalization and increase WWTP secondary capacity to 50 MGD.
The general approach to treatment for the design event was to maximize primary a
treatment at the WWTP and provide either HRT or equalization to manage the peak storm
equalization alternative, the stored flow would receive secondary treatment following th
when WWTP influent flow decreases, while for the HRT alternative, the wet weather f
receive chemically enhanced primary treatment.
A flow schematic of the existing WWTP is shown in Figure 6.2.5.2 The figure includ
capacities for each existing unit process that were used as a basis for alternative dev
capacity improvements.
Figure 6.2.5.2 - Process Diagram
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
60/244
In addition, other WWTP improvements will be needed to reliably treat increased flow
li i i f CSO i h ll i S l i h i i
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
61/244
elimination of CSOs in the collection system. Several unit processes that require improv
primary sedimentation, sludge thickening, sludge dewatering, and secondary sediment
improvements to the tertiary filters will provide added capacity for treatment of secondary e
filtered effluent is consistently low in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Sus
(TSS).
The following specific WWTP improvements will be needed to provide increased, rel
capacity to support either HRT or an equalization basin to capture and treat the 160 M
during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event:
Rehabilitate primary settling tanks 17-24
Provide chemical feed for enhanced primaries
Eliminate co-settling in primary clarifiers
Rehabilitate former digester as a waste activated sludge (WAS) storage tank
Install new WAS piping to digester
Install new belt filter press
Construct one new 110-foot diameter secondary clarifier (North plant)
Additional improvements at the WWTP must be constructed to store and treat excess
25-year, 24-hour storm that exceed the expanded plant capacity. Those added impro
include the construction of a 67 MGD HRT system including a lift station, screening, an
Alternately, a new 20.6 MG equalization basin can be constructed to capture WWTP flow50 MGD secondary treatment capacity.
Due to the high flow rates during the design storm event, the plant headworks capacity o
be exceeded. Therefore, when evaluating both HRT and equalization alternatives, flow from
interceptor will be received by a new pump station at the WWTP where the excess flow wi
the HRT or to a new equalization basin. The location of the new west side interceptor pum
20.6 MG equalization basin are shown on Figure 6.2.5.5.
The construction cost to provide HRT, equalization, and WWTP treatment improvements
Appendix 4e and are as follows:
will allow effluent blending. Pilot testing of HRT is recommended if this option is to be co
future The equali ation basin alternati e pro ides the highest le el of treatment necessa
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
62/244
future. The equalization basin alternative provides the highest level of treatment necessa
existing NPDES permit limits and has the lowest capital cost.
Figure 6.2.5.3 - Process Diagram with HRT
Figure 6.2.5.4 - Process Diagram with 23 MG Equalization Basin
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
63/244
Figure 6.2.5.5 - WWTP Sewers and Basin
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
64/244
6.2.6 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
65/244
The City has developed a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Initiative (SWPPI) cons
Watershed Management Plans (WMP) prepared by the Greater Lansing Regional Commcompliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), General Permit. As a
is accomplishing management practices to control the source of pollutants. This inclu
implement pollution prevention and good housekeeping activities for City facilities and
operations. Additional practices deal with public education and involvement, illicit discharge
removal, construction erosion and sediment control, and site development requirements to
construction management practices.
In addition, the City has successfully obtained grant monies to install rain gardens as
construction projects in the downtown area (Michigan Avenue and Washington Square). Th
capture storm water runoff from the street pavement area and provide filtration using veg
media placed over an underdrain system.
The City will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the control activities described athe annual reporting and permit renewal requirements of the NPDES General Permit.
SWPPI will need to be updated and revised based on this information. Therefore, the prim
treating storm water runoff should be to achieve compliance with the permit requirement
discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical and consistent with the Grand Riv
River, and Looking Glass River WMPs. Opportunities to accomplish this should include t
Impact Development (LID) techniques such as:
Green Roofs
Permeable Pavement
Rain Gardens
Infiltration Swales
Vegetated Filter Strips
Storm Water Wetlands
Bioretention
Sand Filters
Sources of information on these practices include the U S Environmental Protection Ag
water pollutant loads currently discharging from this area. If this alternative is selected, the
storm water permit compliance strategy will be important and should be documented in the
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
66/244
p p gy p
7.0 RECOMMENDED WET WEATHER CONTROL PLAN
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
67/244
7.1 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Integrated Wet Weather Program - Priority Projects and Implementation Strategy
Results of the collection system analysis and integrated wet weather planning process pr
for a recommended solution that is based on maximizing the use of existing conveyance
facilities in combination with selected source controls and strategic placement of stora
magnitude of that work exceeds the near term financial capacity of the City of Lansing (C
phased approach for implementation is required. The phased approach identifies priority 5-year implementation periods. Results from each implementation period will be used t
priority projects for the next 5-year project period. The proposed priority project
implementation period are briefly described below.
1. Basement Backup Protection Program - Source control is proposed as part of the
using a voluntary approach for those areas with recurring basement flooding and hig
flows. This work will involve implementing a basement sewer disconnection program
for targeted areas to protect homeowners, removing footing drain flows, determinin
removal effectiveness, and expected details on how to include basement disconnectio
drain removal work in the full plan. The City is proposing to begin this work in year 1
each year for 5 years, with the last year including an effectiveness evaluation.
2. Siphon 11 Improvements - Wide spread basement flooding in HH North and HH Souresult of Siphon 11 capacity limitations. It would be difficult to keep the 4th barrel
implement an emergency bypass program that reduces basement flooding for this l
current capacity of Siphon 11 is 33 million gallons per day (MGD) and the upstream an
sewer capacities are approximately 44 MGD. The proposed project will include cons
three barrel inverted siphon with new chambers to make it easier to operate and ma
opinion for this project is $4,800,000.
3. Siphon 12 Improvements - Increased capacity improvements for Siphon 12 will be
before separating additional areas (034C and 034D) tributary to Moores Park Trunk S
that existing basement flooding occurring in Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) A
4. Sunnyside Sewershed - Divert a portion of the Sunnyside area to the Fayette Stree
and construct upstream connection to the Sycamore-Lindbergh Interceptor (SLI
-
7/30/2019 Lansing Wet Weather Control Plan
68/244
basement flooding issues when operating the SLI at capacity or slightly surcharged c
cost opinion for this project is $1,300,000.
5. Tecumseh River Pump Station - A new force main will increase the pumping capa
with the upstream gravity sewer capacity. In addition, the proposed route will dis
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) headworks and reduce surcharging conditions
Interceptor. The force main will likely reduce energy costs, significantly reduce base
and is consistent with the overall Wet Weather Control Plan (WWCP) and meet the 25
design criteria. The cost opinion for this project is $1,500,000.
6. Frances Park Pump Station - A parallel force main will increase the pumping capac
with the upstream gravity sewer capacity. The force main will reduce SSOs at G
consistent with the overall WWCP and other improvements needed to meet the 25
design criteria. The cost opinion for this project is $3,000,000.
7. Storm Water - The City has evaluated storm water pollutant sources as part of
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit process. One area that would provide
opportunity for improving wet weather water quality is to improve storm water manage
at the Potter Park Zoo which is located along the banks of the Red Cedar River.
8. Regulator 033 - CSO separation work tributary to this regulator will allow closure of
Project Performance Certification (PPC) work will be performed to establish detaabandon this