kleinfelder confidential integrated planning and combined sewer overflow program development...

KLEINFELDER CONFIDENTIAL

Integrated Planning and Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development

Workshop for CSO PermitteesThursday, June 27, 2013

Princeton, NJ


Topics Covered

• How is Integrated Planning different from traditional CSO Permit programs?

• Program Tool Box – Building a Program• Other Applications: the Stormwater Challenge

• Applying the Framework in New Jersey


Key Facts

Population Served: 250,000500 miles of sewer and combined sewer220 miles of storm drains23 CSO regulator structures7 Flood Control pump stations27 Sanitary pump stationsBondi Island SRWTF: Serving Springfield and 7 Satellite Communities

Introduction of Case StudySpringfield System


Comparative Context – Sample CSO Communities in NJ

City Population No. of Combined Sewer Outfalls

Median HH Income1

% Families below Poverty Level2

Springfield, MA 152,082 25 $30,417 19.3%

Jersey City, NJ 240,055 21 $37,862 16.4%

Bayonne, NJ 61,842 28 $41,566 8.4%

Paterson, NJ 149,222 24 $32,778 19.2%

Camden, NJ 79,904 31 $23,421 32.8%

Newark, NJ 273,546 17 $26,913 25.5%

Elizabeth, NJ 120,568 34 $35,174 15.6% 1 US Median HH Income is $41,994 based on Census 2010 figures. 2Percentage of families in America living below the poverty line is 9.2% based on Census 2010 figures.


There has to be a better way….

Prior to Development of Final Long Term Control Plan SWSC Spent $88M on CSO Reduction in 12 YearsResulting in the Elimination of 3 CSO Outfalls and 84 MG +/- of CSO Removed in the Typical Year Spent $1,050,000 +/- Per MG RemovedLittle to No Money Was Spent on Other ObligationsResults were not cost effective and the program was not sustainable


Traditional vs. Integrated Planning ModelTraditional:

“Adversarial”Regulatory Enforcement silo through AO’sDefinitive, retrospective (“stationarity”)Affordability basis: CSO Implementation Plan OnlyGrey Infrastructure BMPsCSO Impacts on WQ metrics

Integrated Plan Model:CollaborativePermitting/Enforcement coordinationAdaptive/Iterative (climate change)Affordability basis: considers all CWA reqmtsGreen Infrastructure & Hybrid SolutionsDev. Plan for best WQ improvementsHolistic Asset Management Approach


Benchmarking : What are YOUR program’s goals?• CSO Control• SSO’s• FOG Issues• I/I Issues• Development of an Asset Management Program• Nutrient Issues at Plant• Stormwater Management• Vulnerability Assessments (i.e. Security;

Redundancy; Climate Change)• Sustainable Infrastructure (Upgrades and/or

Repair/Rehabilitation/Replacement)• etc

Approach to Compliance: Steps and Timeframes

Collect Data to Support Analysis

• Develop Work Plan

• Perform Benchmarking

• Data Collection

Input to Analysis Framework

• Update Models

• Develop weights and scoring

• Develop alternatives scenarios

Evaluate the Scenarios

• Include “Green” elements

• Water Quality Impacts

• Human Health Impacts

• Financial Requirements

• Timeline to Implement

Select the Best Scenario

• OUTCOME: Recommended CSO Control Plan

• Maximum environmental and system benefits with limited resources

Duration : 9 Months Duration : 6 Months

Duration : 9 Months

Duration : 9 Months

Data Collection : To Support the Analysis Framework that support YOUR Goals:

• Flow Metering• Pipe Assessment (Structural and O&M)• Other Field Investigations• Socio-Economic Data • Other Asset Condition Assessments (Pump Stations;

Treatment Plant)• WWTF Process and Capacity Data• Water Quality Data• GIS and Existing Conditions Records• etc

Models :• System Hydralic Model• Water Quality Model• Treatment Plant Hydraulic and

Process Models• Risk Model• Benefits Model• Financial Model• etc


Steps and Timeframes – Cont.’d

Stakeholder Outreach

• Community Driven

• Involves key community groups

• Involves Stakeholders and Partnerships

Implement Projects

• Phase implementation over 20, 30 or 40 year time frame (or as appropriate)

Monitor & Communicate Success

• Monitor and measure results

• Share lessons learned with the community, EPA, and other municipalities

• Adapt controls as indicated

Finalize the Recommended CSO LTCP

• Environmental• Economic• Water Quality• Social• OUTCOME:

accepted plan, path for implementation

Start: as projects completed

Throughout project (or as preferred by client) with public

meetings and hearings included

Duration : 3 Months Submit CSO

Draft/Final LTCP: Public Comment

Period

Negotiated and memorialized in permits or AOs


Integrated LTCP

Screening of Recommended Hybrid Alternatives for Control of CSOs:

Sewer Separation Was Screened Out Due to High CostStorage and Satellite Treatment Was Less Expensive Than Separation But Was Screened Out Due to Less Desireable O&M Implications0 Activations Was Screened Out Due to High Cost


Integrated LTCP

LEAVING:The Preferred Hybrid Alternative with 4 Activations was Determined – Cost = $312MThe Preferred Hybrid Alternative with 8 Activations was Determined – Cost = $196M


Develop Integrated LTCPEvaluation of Alternatives (Benefits Modeling):

Hybrid 4

Hybrid 8

Hybrid 0

Storage 0

Total Separation LOC 0

Storage 4

Storage 8

Treatment 4


Treatment 8

Treatment 0


Capital CostReduction of CSO'sRenewal of Existing InfrastructureConstructabilityOperation and Maintenance RequirementsRisk/Reduction BenefitRegulatory ConsiderationsConveyance RedundancyDisruptionSchedule BenefitsCSO Control OptimizationBacteria ReductionSecondary Community Benefit

Capital Cost16%

Reduction of CSO's15%

Renewal of Existing Infrastructure

12%

Constructability10%

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

10%

Risk/Reduction Benefit

8%

Regulatory Con-siderations

7%

Conveyance Redundancy

6%

Disruption5%Schedule Benefits

4%

CSO Control Opti-mization

3%

Bacteria Reduction2%

Secondary Community Benefit

2%

Weights


Non-CSO Plan and Cost – Asset Management10 Steps

DATA GATHERING PHASE

PLANNING PHASE


Develop Integrated LTCPDevelop Non-CSO Capital Improvements Plan


Develop Integrated LTCP

Combine CSO and Other Non-CSO Costs:CSO Costs Ranged from $196M to $312MNon-CSO Capital Costs Were Approximately $315M

Total Program Costs Ranged from $511M to $627M


Affordability Analysis – a Key Component

Process Focused on Balancing Total Future Costs to Provide Wastewater Collection and Treatment With Rate Payers Ability to “Afford” Improvements

Impact on Typical Households – Residential Indicator = Typical Household Bill as Percent of Median Household IncomeAlso Consider Broader Financial Capabilities of Community such as Ability to Raise Capital, Unemployment, MHI Trends and Strength of Tax Base


Affordability Analysis

Set a Boundary Condition of RI = 2% MHIResulted in $225M - $266M Available Over 20-40 Planning HorizonTotal Identified Costs $627M Exceeded Affordability by $361MTotal Identified Non-CSO Costs $315M Exceeded Affordability by $49MDetermined That Plan Needed to Prioritize Non-CSO and CSO Related Improvements within an Integrated Plan


What Does “Affordable” Mean?

Affordability Considerations Indicated that 0 to 4 Overflow Scenarios Were Not AffordableUsed Water Quality Modeling to Further Justify That there was Very Little Cost Benefit in Going from 8 to 4 Overflows


CSO Components

Recommended Improvement

Estimated Cost

Date

Washburn CSO Control

$15,000,0002012 -

2014

York Street PS and River Crossing $49,240,000

2015 - 2020

Locust Transfer $8,000,0002015 -

2016York to Union Box Culvert $30,400,000

2020 - 2027

Union/Clinton Conduit $14,400,000

2025 - 2029

Worthington/Clinton SWM and Separation $18,903,000

2027 - 2031

Totals$135,943,0

0020 years

Recommended CSO and Wastewater Capital Program(>85% CSO Volume Reduction, >95% Water Quality Compliance)

Existing Wastewater Components

Recommended Improvement

Estimated Cost

Date

Capital PS Improvements

$2,200,0002012 -

2021

Pre/Primary Treatment $17,250,000*

2018 - 2022

Bar Screen Facility $200,000*2015 -

2017Intermediate Term Treatment Plant $1,300,000*

2018 - 2020

Continued Pipeline Diagnostics $14,800,000

2015 - 2031

Pipe Rehabilitation $28,267,0002012 -

2031

Additional Pipe Rehabilitation $56,700,000

2032 - 2041

Long Term Diagnostics $8,800,000

2032 - 2041

Long Term Treatment Plant $48,800,000*

2032 - 2041

Long Term PS Improvements $70,000,000

2032 - 2052

Totals$248,317,00

040 years*Springfield portion of SRWTF work is 50%


Final Plan Achievements

Integrated the CSO and Non-CSO Elements into a Prioritized Plan:

20 Year CSO Plan - $136M and 40 Year Non-CSO Capital Improvement Plan - $248MCSO Plan Included:

Greater Than 89% Volume Reduction (EPA Goal = 85%) – Baseline Volume = 536 MG; Final Plan Volume = 58 MG; 478 MG Removed95% Water Quality Attainment$136M Planned + $88M Spent to Date = $224M Spent on CSO Reduction$496,000 / MG Removed

RI AT 2% MHI in < 20 YearsCSO and Non-CSO Components Provide Renewal to Critical Infrastructure and CSO Control While Reducing Risk


Improvements to the PlanAdaptive ManagementMilestone pauses and reassessmentDriver Requirement/Consideration

AO Requirements FLTCP May 2012, Washburn CSO Control September 2012 to September 2014, Remaining Plan Implementation, CMOM

Non-CSO Capital Requirements

Bondi Island SRWTF, Sanitary Pumping Stations, Wastewater Collection System, Wastewater O&M, Flood Control System

Stormwater Collection and Management

Stormwater O&M (City of Springfield)

Future Regulatory Requirements

Bondi Island SRWTF NPDES Permit, CSO Permit, MS4/Stormwater Permit, Nutrient Control, Blending Requirements


Program FindingsConclusions

• Proposed 20 Year CSO Plan meets Regulatory Criteria for CSO Control

• >85% CSO Volume Reduction System-wide.• >95% Water Quality Attainment.• CSO Plan Programmed over 20 years, Non-CSO Programmed

over 40 years.• RI at 2% in <20 years.

• CSO and Non-CSO components provide SWSC renewal to critical infrastructure and enhanced CSO control while reducing risk.


The Stormwater Nexus

CSO communities have taken the lead on Integrated Planning efforts due to heavy cost burden of wet weather solutions (e.g. sewer separation)NJPDES Stormwater Permits, TMDL pollutant reduction goals and non-point source (stormwater) mitigation are becoming a significant potential competitor for limited budget resources


Re-Calibrating The Cost of Stormwater Compliance

September 2011Final Report: Sustainable Stormwater Funding Evaluation for the Upper Charles River Communities of Bellingham, Franklin and Milford, MA.


Escalating Costs – Capital and Operating

• Estimated between $30M - $75M in capital costs to meet phosphorus load reductions required in TMDL


Conundrums and Contradictions

CSO Program Strategies vs. MS4 Regulations (Economic Reality 101)

Sewer Separation predominant approach for CSO mitigationTMDL studies/allocations on the basis of “existing conditions”New separated flows equal to “New” or “Additional” Discharges subject to anti-degradation requirements


The Hand-offExisting Stormwater Criteria

Remove

Infiltration/Inflow

Mitigate 25 year storm

peak discharge to 2

year

80% TSS removal

Additional Stormwater Criteria

Remove first 1” of

rainfall

Recharge 40% of

runoff volume

Remove 100% total

phosphorous load


Intersection at Green Infrastructure

Benefits of GI/LIDPeak flow reduction (CSO and SW benefit)Pollutant load reduction (CSO and SW benefit)Groundwater recharge – base flow maintenanceCommunity aesthetic/recreational valueGreater adaptive capacity than piped systems (CSO and SW benefit)


The ChallengeEPA guidance is clear on outputs and outcomes, but is not well developed regarding process:

“When developing an integrated plan, a municipality/community must determine and define the scope of the integration effort, ensure the participation of entities that are needed to implement the integrated plan, and identify the role each entity will have in implementing the plan.”


The ChallengeCSO and MS4 programs involve a high degree of technical and regulatory complexity. Scoping can be challenging.

The CSO permit holder for a geographic area may not be the MS4 permit holder in that jurisdiction. Collaboration can be challenging.

Multiple stakeholders with different backgrounds can have widely different notions of the problems and solutions, creating social complexity and the potential for controversy.


The Big Idea!

Integrate state-of-the-art risk management process into CSO programs to consistently produce positive outcomes despite the technical and social complexities involved.

Strategic application of effective problem solving processes that are:

Technically informed, andResponse to stakeholder’s needs and interests.

Relationships

Substance

Proc

ess


The effect of uncertainty on objectivesInvolves both hazard and opportunityObjectively measured by probability, magnitude, and controlsPerception is subjectively influenced by perspective

What is Risk?

What is Risk Management?Robust process for identifying and analyzing hazards and opportunities, and

Consistent, explicit system of controls to optimize resource allocation.


Encourage proactive, collaborative management to identify opportunities and threats.Establish a consistent and transparent basis for decision making and planning

Tailored to organizational needUniform and explicit “risk appetite”Program and processes for monitoring, adapting, and improving

Move from reactionary to planned spending and actions – i.e. optimize performance!

Risk Management Benefits


ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines.Australian–New Zealand 4360:2004 Risk Management StandardICLEI, International Council for Local for Environmental InitiativesIAM, Institute of Asset ManagementEPA Asset Management Federal Highway Administration, Asset Mgt

Industry Specific “How To” Information


Risk Management Principles

used by permission

Green infrastructure &

sustainable technologies

Reflect state requirements

maximize effectivenes

s of $

Analysis of alternative

s and project

sequencing

Evaluate and address community impacts

kleinfelder confidential integrated planning and combined sewer overflow program development...

Documents

cso implementation plan

kleinfelder confidential

cso permittees

cso reduction

cso outfalls

sustainable slide

nj slide

cso regulator structures