1 / 35

Integrated Planning and Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development

Integrated Planning and Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development. Workshop for CSO Permittees Thursday, June 27, 2013 Princeton, NJ. Topics Covered. How is Integrated Planning different from traditional CSO Permit programs? Program Tool Box – Building a Program

manon
Télécharger la présentation

Integrated Planning and Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integrated Planning and Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development Workshop for CSO Permittees Thursday, June 27, 2013 Princeton, NJ

  2. 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

  3. Introduction of Case StudySpringfield System Key Facts • Population Served: 250,000 • 500 miles of sewer and combined sewer • 220 miles of storm drains • 23 CSO regulator structures • 7 Flood Control pump stations • 27 Sanitary pump stations • Bondi Island SRWTF: Serving Springfield and 7 Satellite Communities

  4. Comparative Context – Sample CSO Communities in NJ

  5. There has to be a better way…. • Prior to Development of Final Long Term Control Plan SWSC Spent $88M on CSO Reduction in 12 Years • Resulting in the Elimination of 3 CSO Outfalls and 84 MG +/- of CSO Removed in the Typical Year • Spent $1,050,000 +/- Per MG Removed • Little to No Money Was Spent on Other Obligations • Results were not cost effective and the program was not sustainable

  6. Traditional vs. Integrated Planning Model • Traditional: • “Adversarial” • Regulatory Enforcement silo through AO’s • Definitive, retrospective (“stationarity”) • Affordability basis: CSO Implementation Plan Only • Grey Infrastructure BMPs • CSO Impacts on WQ metrics • Integrated Plan Model: • Collaborative • Permitting/Enforcement coordination • Adaptive/Iterative (climate change) • Affordability basis: considers all CWA reqmts • Green Infrastructure & Hybrid Solutions • Dev. Plan for best WQ improvements • Holistic Asset Management Approach

  7. Select the Best Scenario • Collect Data to Support Analysis • Evaluate the Scenarios • Input to Analysis Framework • Update Models • Develop weights and scoring • Develop alternatives scenarios • OUTCOME: Recommended CSO Control Plan • Maximum environmental and system benefits with limited resources • Include “Green” elements • Water Quality Impacts • Human Health Impacts • Financial Requirements • Timeline to Implement Approach to Compliance: Steps and Timeframes • 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 • 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 • Models : • System Hydralic Model • Water Quality Model • Treatment Plant Hydraulic and Process Models • Risk Model • Benefits Model • Financial Model • etc • Develop Work Plan • Perform Benchmarking • Data Collection Duration : 6 Months Duration : 9 Months Duration : 9 Months Duration : 9 Months

  8. Monitor & Communicate Success Implement Projects Finalize the Recommended CSO LTCP Stakeholder Outreach • Community Driven • Involves key community groups • Involves Stakeholders and Partnerships • Phase implementation over 20, 30 or 40 year time frame (or as appropriate) • Monitor and measure results • Share lessons learned with the community, EPA, and other municipalities • Adapt controls as indicated • Environmental • Economic • Water Quality • Social • OUTCOME: accepted plan, path for implementation Steps and Timeframes – Cont.’d Throughout project (or as preferred by client) with public meetings and hearings included Start: as projects completed Duration : 3 Months Submit CSO Draft/Final LTCP: Public CommentPeriod Negotiated and memorialized in permits or AOs

  9. Integrated LTCP • Screening of Recommended Hybrid Alternatives for Control of CSOs: • Sewer Separation Was Screened Out Due to High Cost • Storage and Satellite Treatment Was Less Expensive Than Separation But Was Screened Out Due to Less Desireable O&M Implications • 0 Activations Was Screened Out Due to High Cost

  10. Integrated LTCP • LEAVING: • The Preferred Hybrid Alternative with 4 Activations was Determined – Cost = $312M • The Preferred Hybrid Alternative with 8 Activations was Determined – Cost = $196M

  11. Develop Integrated LTCP • Evaluation of Alternatives (Benefits Modeling):

  12. Non-CSO Plan and Cost – Asset Management 10 Steps DATA GATHERING PHASE PLANNING PHASE

  13. Develop Integrated LTCP Develop Non-CSO Capital Improvements Plan

  14. Develop Integrated LTCP • Combine CSO and Other Non-CSO Costs: • CSO Costs Ranged from $196M to $312M • Non-CSO Capital Costs Were Approximately $315M Total Program Costs Ranged from $511M to $627M

  15. 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 Income • Also Consider Broader Financial Capabilities of Community such as Ability to Raise Capital, Unemployment, MHI Trends and Strength of Tax Base

  16. Affordability Analysis • Set a Boundary Condition of RI = 2% MHI • Resulted in $225M - $266M Available Over 20-40 Planning Horizon • Total Identified Costs $627M Exceeded Affordability by $361M • Total Identified Non-CSO Costs $315M Exceeded Affordability by $49M • Determined That Plan Needed to Prioritize Non-CSO and CSO Related Improvements within an Integrated Plan

  17. What Does “Affordable” Mean? • Affordability Considerations Indicated that 0 to 4 Overflow Scenarios Were Not Affordable • Used Water Quality Modeling to Further Justify That there was Very Little Cost Benefit in Going from 8 to 4 Overflows

  18. Recommended CSO and Wastewater Capital Program(>85% CSO Volume Reduction, >95% Water Quality Compliance) *Springfield portion of SRWTF work is 50%

  19. 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 - $248M • CSO Plan Included: • Greater Than 89% Volume Reduction (EPA Goal = 85%) – Baseline Volume = 536 MG; Final Plan Volume = 58 MG; 478 MG Removed • 95% Water Quality Attainment • $136M Planned + $88M Spent to Date = $224M Spent on CSO Reduction • $496,000 / MG Removed • RI AT 2% MHI in < 20 Years • CSO and Non-CSO Components Provide Renewal to Critical Infrastructure and CSO Control While Reducing Risk

  20. Improvements to the Plan Adaptive Management Milestone pauses and reassessment

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. Escalating Costs – Capital and Operating • Estimated between $30M - $75M in capital costs to meet phosphorus load reductions required in TMDL

  25. Conundrums and Contradictions • CSO Program Strategies vs. MS4 Regulations (Economic Reality 101) • Sewer Separation predominant approach for CSO mitigation • TMDL studies/allocations on the basis of “existing conditions” • New separated flows equal to “New” or “Additional” Discharges subject to anti-degradation requirements

  26. The Hand-off Existing Stormwater Criteria Additional Stormwater Criteria Remove first 1” of rainfall Recharge 40% of runoff volume Remove 100% total phosphorous load • Remove Infiltration/Inflow • Mitigate 25 year storm peak discharge to 2 year • 80% TSS removal

  27. Intersection at Green Infrastructure • Benefits of GI/LID • Peak flow reduction (CSO and SW benefit) • Pollutant load reduction (CSO and SW benefit) • Groundwater recharge – base flow maintenance • Community aesthetic/recreational value • Greater adaptive capacity than piped systems (CSO and SW benefit)

  28. The Challenge • EPA 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.”

  29. The Challenge • CSO 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.

  30. 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, and • Response to stakeholder’s needs and interests. Process Substance Relationships

  31. What is Risk? • The effect of uncertainty on objectives • Involves both hazard and opportunity • Objectively measured by probability, magnitude, and controls • Perception is subjectively influenced by perspective What is Risk Management? • Robust process for identifying and analyzing hazards and opportunities, and • Consistent, explicit system of controls to optimize resource allocation.

  32. Risk Management Benefits • Encourage proactive, collaborative management to identify opportunities and threats. • Establish a consistent and transparent basis for decision making and planning • Tailored to organizational need • Uniform and explicit “risk appetite” • Program and processes for monitoring, adapting, and improving • Move from reactionary to planned spending and actions – i.e. optimize performance!

  33. Industry Specific “How To” Information • ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines. • Australian–New Zealand 4360:2004 Risk Management Standard • ICLEI, International Council for Local for Environmental Initiatives • IAM, Institute of Asset Management • EPA Asset Management • Federal Highway Administration, Asset Mgt

  34. Risk Management Principles Evaluate and address community impacts Green infrastructure & sustainable technologies Analysis of alternatives and project sequencing maximize effectiveness of $ Reflect state requirements used by permission

More Related