City of Akron Combined Sewer Overflow

1
City of AkronCombined Sewer Overflow
Long Term Control Plan (LTCP)
Ohio EPA Presentation June 6, 2001, Columbus Ohio
2
City of AkronCombined Sewer Overflow

• Malcolm Pirnie
• Dan Markowitz

• City of Akron
• Dave Crandell
• Mike McGlinchy
• Pat Gsellman
• Jeff Bronowski
• George Bozeka

• DLZ
• Geary Visca

• RA
• Terry Finn

pg
3
Agenda

• Introduction
• CSO Strategy
• Program Evaluation
• Facilities Plan 98
• CSO Alternatives
• LTCP Implementation
• Summary of Benefits

pg
4
Introduction

• City of Akron
• Receiving Streams
• Cuyahoga River
• Little Cuyahoga River
• Camp Brook
• Ohio Canal
• Existing Facilities
• Water Pollution Control Station
• Collection System

pg
5
IntroductionCity of Akron

• Planning Area of 183 sq.mi.
• Service Area Population 356,000
• 5 Cities, 4 Villages and 7 Townships
• Planning Area has decreased from the 1980 Akron
  Facilities Plan
• All the CSOs are located in City of Akron

pg
6
IntroductionCity of Akron

• Medium Income (Akron) 22,279
• Average Monthly Residential Sewer 27.39
• Average Yearly Residential Sewer 328.68
• Current Revenue 33,000,000

pg
7
IntroductionCity of Akron
Annual Residential Water/Sewer Rates, Ohio EPA
pg
8
IntroductionCity of Akron
Annual Residential Sewer Rates, Ohio EPA
pg
9
IntroductionCity of Akron

• SSO Elimination 25,000,000
• Competive Action Program
• Significant Reduction in Operating Costs
• Studies

pg
10
IntroductionReceiving Streams

• Cuyahoga River
• Little Cuyahoga River
• Ohio Canal

Cuyahoga River Watershed
pg
11
IntroductionReceiving Streams

• Cuyahoga River

pg
12
IntroductionReceiving Streams

• Little Cuyahoga River

pg
13
IntroductionReceiving Streams

• Ohio Canal

pg
14
IntroductionExisting Facilities

• Water Pollution Control Station
• Activated Sludge Process
• Daily Average Flow 71.6 mgd
• Peak Flows 250 mgd
• Preliminary Treatment 210 mgd
• Primary Treatment 150 mgd
• Secondary Treatment 110 mgd

pg
15
IntroductionExisting Facilities
pg
16
IntroductionExisting Facilities

• Collection System
• 1,165 miles of sewer
• 638 miles separate sanitary
• 246 miles storm sewer
• 188 miles combined sewer
• 94 square miles
• 37 CSOs

pg
17
IntroductionExisting Facilities

• Typical Rack

Rack 34
pg
18
IntroductionExisting Facilities
Rack 18
pg
19
IntroductionExisting Facilities

• Rack 18 Video

pg
20
CSO Strategy

• CSO Recent History
• Strategy Development

pg
21
CSO StrategyCSO Recent History

• CSO Operation and Maintenance Plan
• Nine Minimum Control Document
• NMC Projects
• Rack Improvements
• Maintenance Plan
• Rack 16 Screen
• Monitoring System
• Northside Interceptor Cleaning
• Rack 39 Separation

pg
22
CSO StrategyStrategy Development
Ohio Canal Phase I 1993 - 130,000
Rain Gauge System 69,000
Data Monitoring System 2,422,000
In-Stream Monitoring Stations 772,000
Enclosure Inspection
Cuyahoga , Little Cuyahoga Phase I II 1994 -
975,000
Ohio Canal Phase II 1994 - 660,000
Prior to FOs
System Wide Study 1995 - 2,145,000 DATA
COLLECTION - MODEL - BIOLOGICAL - COORDINATION /
OM PLAN RACK MODIFICATION
pg
23
CSO StrategyStrategy Development
System Wide Study, Phase II, Data Assessment 1997
- 356,920 DATA COLLECTION - MODEL - BIOLOGICAL -
COORDINATION
Stress Testing AWPCS In-House
Facilities Plan Update 1997 - 378,900 COLLECTION
SYSTEM - WPCS - COMPOST - COORDINATION -
COLLECTION SYSTEM JEDD
Facilities Plan 98, Long Term Control Plan 1998 -
3,271,540 DATA COLLECTION - MODEL - BIOLOGICAL -
COORDINATION - SYSTEM TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - WPCS
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
pg
24
Program Evaluation

• CSO Policy
• Strategy

pg
25
Program EvaluationCSO Policy

• Presumptive Approach
• no more than 4-6 overflows per year, or
• elimination or the capture for treatment of no
  less than 85 by volume of the combined sewage
  collected in the CSS, or
• elimination or removal of no less than the mass
  of the pollutants, identified as causing WQ
  impairments for the volume eliminated or captured
  above (85)

pg
26
Program EvaluationCSO Policy

• Demonstrative Approach
• adequate to meet WQ and protect designated uses
• CSO discharges will not precluded the attainment
  of WQS
• maximum pollutant reduction benefit reasonable
  attainable
• allow for cost effective expansion or retrofitting

pg
27
Program EvaluationStrategy

• Demonstrative Approach to Presumptive Approach

...at the end of the day, it must be shown that
the CSOs are not the impairment to WQS
pg
28
Facilities Plan 98

• Facilities Plan
• WPCS Alternative
• Data Collection
• Benefit Effective Controls

gv
29
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• Update the Old Facilities Plan
• Current Conditions
• Technical Advisory Group

gv
g
30
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan
Facilities Plan Update

• Original Facilities Plan - 1980
• Adjustments to the Planning Area
• Update Population and Flow Projections
• Assess Current Condition of Collection System and
  WPCS

gv
g
31
Facilities Plan Update - Planning Area
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• Original Planning Area - 188 Square Miles (78.7
  Square Miles Serviced)
• 1998 Planning Area - 183 Square Miles (93.8
  Square Miles Serviced)
• Added JEDD Areas
• Subtracted Medina County and Cuyahoga Valley
  National Park

gv
g
32
Facilities Plan Update - Population
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• 1996 Projected Planning Area Population - 356,454
  (FP98, LTCP)
• 2016 Projected Planning Area Population - 361,679
  (FP98, LTCP)
• 1980 Projected Planning Area Population - 384,100
  (FP80)
• 2000 Projected Planning Area Population -430,900
  (FP80)

gv
g
33
Facilities Plan Update - Flows
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• 1996 Projected Dry Weather Flow - 56.61 MGD
  (FP98, LTCP)
• 2016 Projected Dry Weather Flow - 57.53 MGD
  (FP98, LTCP)
• 1980 Projected Dry Weather Flow - 76.75 MGD
  (FP80)
• 2000 Projected Dry Weather Flow - 89.80 MGD (FP80)

gv
g
34
Facilities Plan Update - Flows
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• More Accurate and Extensive Collection System
  Flow Monitoring
• Suburban Customers have Permanent Master Meters
• Majority of Planning Area is Developed
• Slow Growth is Projected for JEDD Areas
• Loss of Major Industrial Users

gv
g
35
Facilities Plan Update - WPCS
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• Current ADF (1992 - 2000) - 60 to 80 MGD
  (Rainfall Dependent)
• Current ADF Capacity - 90 MGD
• Current Peak Flow Capacity - 110 MGD (Complete
  Treatment/From Stress Test of Facility)
• Current Peak Flow Capacity - 250 MGD (Flows above
  110 MGD Receive Primary Treatment)

gv
g
36
Facilities Plan Update - WPCS
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• Expenditures for Improvements have Totaled over
  83 Million since 1987
• Type of Improvements
• Headworks and Grit Chambers
• DCS (Distributed Control System)
• Replacing Coarse Bubble Diffusers with Fine
  Bubble Diffusers in Aeration Tanks
• Disinfection (Chorination/Dechlorination)
• New Secondary Settling Tank Covers

gv
g
37
Facilities Plan - Technical Advisory Group
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan

• 5 Local Government Entities
• Summit County
• City of Fairlawn
• City of Tallmadge
• City of Cuyahoga Falls
• Village of Lakemore
• 2 Parks
• Cuyahoga Valley National Park
• MetroParks Serving Summit County

gv
g
38
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan
Facilities Plan - Technical Advisory Group

• 6 Local Environmental Groups
• Cascade Locks Park Association
• Cuyahoga Valley Communities Council
• Friends of the Crooked River
• Little Cuyahoga River Conservancy
• Ohio Erie Canal Corridor Coalition
• Cuyahoga River RAP
• 1 Regulatory Agency
• Ohio EPA

gv
g
39
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan
Facilities Plan - Technical Advisory Group

• 4 Industries
• Goodyear
• Gen Corp.
• A. Schulman
• B.F. Goodrich Company Chemical Group
• City of Akron
• Administration
• City Council
• Engineering Bureau
• Public Utilities Bureau

gv
g
40
Facilities Plan 98Facilities Plan
Facilities Plan - Technical Advisory Group

• 9 Meetings
• Started in February of 1998
• Covered Project Progress
• Technical Presentations
• Participated in Selection of Integrated Plan

gv
g
41
Facilities Plan 98WPCS Alternatives

• Additional Storm Retention Basins
• Septage Receiving Station
• Tertiary Treatment
• Effluent Pumping
• Disinfection Improvements
• Post Aeration

gv
g
42
Facilities Plan 98WPCS Alternatives

• Additional Storm Retention Basins
• 4 Alternatives were Evaluated
• Maximum Size was Set at 40 MG
• Land Area
• Manpower
• Performance
• Selected Alternative was to Locate Basins after
  Preliminary and Primary Treatment

gv
g
43
Facilities Plan 98WPCS Alternatives

• Disinfection Improvements
• Increase Efficiency During Storm Events
• Post Aeration
• Eliminate Minor DO Violations
• Implemented Liquid Oxygen Feed System

gv
g
44
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection

• Flow Monitoring Program
• Collection System
• Streams
• Sampling Program
• Discrete Sampling
• Decay Rate Sampling
• Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program

gv
g
45
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Flow Monitoring

• Short-Term Flow Monitoring
• 8 Stream Sites for 60 Days
• 13 Sewer System Sites for 60 Days
• 8 Interceptors
• 2 Racks (CSOs)
• 3 Storm Sewers

gv
g
46
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Flow Monitoring

• Long-Term Flow Monitoring
• 21 Permanent Flow Meters
• 9 Stream Sites
• 8 Interceptors or Trunk Sewers
• 4 CSOs
• 13 Rain Gauges

gv
g
47
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Flow Monitoring

• Discrete Sampling Events
• 3 Wet Weather Events
• 28 Locations
• 11 Grab Samples per Site over a 72 Hour Period
• Tested for Fecal Coliform, E. coli, CBOD,TKN,
  TSS, and Ammonia
• Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring
• 16 Long-Term Sites (6 Month Duration)
• 8 Temporary Sites (2 Week Duration)

gv
g
48
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Flow Monitoring

• Decay Rate Sampling
• 1 Dry Day
• 2 Wet Weather
• 5 Stream Segments
• Tested for CBOD, NBOD, Ammonia, and TKN Decay
  Rates

gv
g
49
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection

• Water Quality
• Chemistry
• River Biology
• Model
• Sewer System
• Receiving Stream

dm
d
50
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Water Quality - Chemistry

• Water Chemistry
• Weekly Grabs 17 Events
• Dry Weather Sampling 2 Events
• Wet Weather Sampling 4 Events
• No Violations of Numeric Chemical Criteria
  Measured Instream
• Fecal Bacteria Upstream and Downstream of CSOs
  Exceed Recreational Use Criteria

dm
d
51
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Water Quality - River Biology

• River Biology
• 25 Biology Sites 1994
• 9 Additional Sites 1996
• Habitat and Urban Modifications Correlate with
  areas of low scores
• Some areas with high CSO volume have attainment
  or partial attainment

dm
d
52
Little Cuyahoga Fish
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Water Quality - River Biology
dm
d
53
Macroinvertebrates In Urban LCR
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Water Quality - River Biology
dm
d
54
Improved Cuyahoga River Macroinvertebrates
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Water Quality - River Biology
dm
d
55
Improving Cuyahoga River Fish
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Water Quality - River Biology
dm
d
56
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Model

• XPSWMM For CSO System linked to WASP 5 For Stream
  Water Quality
• SWMM output Defined WASP input
• WASP used to Model Bacteria and CBOD loading
• Annual and Event Simulations for loading
  comparisons

dm
d
57
Facilities Plan 98Data Collection
Model

• WASP Defined DO risks to System
• WASP Results defined BENEFIT EFFECTIVE Level of
  Control.
• Provides Optimal Reduction of
• CBOD
• Events
• Hours

dm
d
58
Model Used to Determine Benefit Effective Controls
Facilities Plan 98Benefit Effective Controls
dm
d
59
Facilities Plan 98Benefit Effective Controls
At this point the more cost effective of the two
choices was Selected, 3.4 month Treatment vs.
5.2 month Storage
dm
d
60
CSO Alternatives

• Alternatives
• Integrated Alternatives
• Decision Maker
• Ultimate Integrated Plan

dm
d
61
CSO AlternativeAlternatives

• Separation
• Detention
• Treatment
• Tunnel Storage
• Express Sewers

dm
d
62
Separation (Partial)
CSO AlternativeAlternatives

• Cost Prohibitive for Entire System
• 960,000,000
• Benefits similar to Storage / Treatment Basins
  for CBOD Loading from some sewersheds
• Benefit to Recreational Use Negligible
• Cost Effective for some areas
• Seven Basins are Good Candidates for Separation

dm
d
63
Detention
CSO AlternativeAlternatives

• 100 capture up to design limit
• Bar Screen
• Odor Control
• Pump Return to System
• Cleaning required
• This and other storage alternatives limited by
  total system capacity
• Evaluation of available land area critical to
  implementation

dm
d
64
Treatment
CSO AlternativeAlternatives

• Generally Smaller than detention basins
• Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection
• Provides equivalent of primary treatment
• Less limited by total system capacity
• Higher OM than Detention

dm
d
65
Tunnel Storage
CSO AlternativeAlternatives

• Benefits
• Minimizes Surface Construction
• Cost Effective for Large Storage
• Provides Dry Waether Conveyance
• Only Applicable to Ohio Canal and NorthSide
  Interceptor Areas
• Pipe in pipe for conveyance
• Gravity Outlet to LCI possible
• Limited by Total System Capacity

dm
d
66
Express Sewers
CSO AlternativeAlternatives

• Evaluated to Address Upstream Separate Areas
• Characterization does not show substantive
  differences between CSO rack basins
• Limited Industrial Discharge in Upstream Separate
  areas, Good Pretreatment Program
• Do not provide benefit equivalent to tunnels or
  storage combinations in load reduction
• Causes Significant Increase In Secondary Bypass
  at the Plant
• Routing and Construction Difficulties

dm
d
67
CSO AlternativeIntegrated Alternatives

• No. 1 Separation
• No. 2 OCI, NCI, Detention/Treatment
• No. 3 OCI, Detention/Treatment
• No. 4 NSI, Detention/Treatment
• No. 5 Detention/Treatment

gv
g
68
CSO AlternativesIntegrated Alternatives

• WPCS Improvements
• Retention Basins
• Disinfection
• Post-Aeration
• Non-Traditional Stream Improvements
• Little Cuyahoga River Stream Restoration
• Cuyahoga River Re-Aeration Structures
• Infiltration/Inflow Elimination

gv
g
69
CSO AlternativesCriterium Decision Plus

• Computerized Statistical Method
• Establish a Set of Rating Criteria
• Performance (From Modeling)
• Subjective
• Cost
• Establish a Weight for Each Criteria
• Establish a Weight for the Measurements in Each
  Criteria
• Scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the most Significant

gv
g
70
CSO AlternativesCriterium Decision Plus

• Storm Water Impacts - 3
• Water Quality Improvements - 3
• Operation and Maintenance - 1
• Costs - 4
• Public Acceptance - 3
• Community Improvements - 2.5
• Construction Issues - 1

gv
g
71
CSO AlternativesCriterium Decision Plus

• Operation and Maintenance - 1
• Frequency of Cleaning - 3
• Ease of Cleaning - 5
• Location of Facilities - 1
• Improvement of Failing Infrastructure - 5
• Costs - 4
• Capital - 4
• OM - 3
• Present Worth - 2

gv
g
72
CSO AlternativesCriterium Decision Plus
Storm Water
WQ Improv
OM
Cost
Rank Alternative
Public
Community
Construction
gv
g
73
CSO AlternativesCriterium Decision Plus

• Integrated Plan No. 2 - 67.9
• Integrated Plan No. 3 - 61.4
• Integrated Plan No. 4 - 56.0
• Integrated Plan No. 5 - 48.9
• Integrated Plan No. 1 - 34.5

gv
g
74
CSO AlternativeUltimate Integrated Plan

• No. 2 OCI, NSI, Detention/Treatment
• 1998 Costs
• 248,000,000 Estimated Capital
• 1,983,000 Estimated Annual OM
• Meets the Presumptive Approach
• 94 Capture

gv
g
75
CSO AlternativeUltimate Integrated Plan

• CSO Events
• Collection System - 90 Reduction
• WPCS - 78 Reduction
• Overall - 90 Reduction
• CSO Hours
• Collection System - 88 Reduction
• WPCS - 33 Reduction
• Overall - 80 Reduction

gv
g
76
CSO AlternativeUltimate Integrated Plan

• CSO Volume
• Collection System - 63 Reduction
• WPCS - 24 Reduction
• Overall - 44 Reduction
• CSO CBOD Loading
• Collection System - 60 Reduction
• WPCS - 24 Reduction
• Overall - 50 Reduction

gv
g
77
LTCP Implementation

• Prioritization
• Rack Rankings
• Program Schedule and Costs
• Implementation Plan

pg
78
LTCP ImplementationPrioritization
79
LTCP ImplementationPrioritization
80
LTCP ImplementationPrioritization

• Group 1 (Rack 40/31, 26/28, Separations)
• CSO in sensitive area
• large volume CSO
• effectiveness of storage basin
• effectiveness of treatment basin
• avoid upstream impact on Rack 40
• negated need for monitoring at Rack 39

pg
81
LTCP ImplementationPrioritization

• Group 2 (WPCS Storage, Seperations and CR
  Re-Aeration Pilot)
• avoid upstream impact on WPCS and Secondary
  By-pass
• evaluate benefits of stream re-aeration
  structures and habitat improvement
• Group 3 (Ohio Canal Tunnel and LCR Restoration)
• large volume of CSOs

pg
82
LTCP ImplementationProgram Schedule and Costs
pg
83
LTCP ImplementationProgram Schedule and Costs
pg
84
LTCP ImplementationImplementation Plan

• Wet Weather Standards
• Use Designation
• Stream Habitat

dm
d
85
Summary of Benefits

• Approval of the City of Akron LTCP will

pg
86
Summary of Benefits
Approval of the City of Akron LTCP will

• Improve Water Quality
• Chemical
• Biological
• Reduce Number and Volume of CSO
• Provide Screening, Floatable Control and
  Disinfection on ALL CSOs

pg
87
Summary of Benefits
pg
88
Summary of Benefits
Approval of the City of Akron LTCP will

• Provide for Watershed Projects
• CR Re-aeration Pilot Study
• LCR Restoration
• WCPS Improvements
• Expanded Disinfection
• Additional Equalization
• Further the Goals of the Clean Water Act

pg