March 1, 2012 Presentation to: Ohio WEA

Transcription

1 March 1, 2012 Presentation to: Ohio WEA

2 2 Integrated Planning Framework Lima Background Current Lima Proposed Plan Opportunities for Integrated Planning

3 3

4 4 Municipality has the flexibility of balancing existing and future CWA obligations to get the most cost-effective use of limited environmental dollars EPA Headquarters encouraging a new way of doing business partners vs. adversaries Improvements to receiving stream are accelerated and costs may be reduced Schedule and plan flexibility

5 5 EPA realize there are financial implications to municipalities Municipalities Be serious about improving water quality Stakeholders Forge the plan that is best for the community

6 6 Maintain Existing Regulatory Standards Balance the CWA requirement in a manner that addresses most pressing public health issues Responsibility is with the Municipalities to develop the plan Incorporate Innovative Solutions (Green, etc) Have a Financing Strategy in place

7 7 #1 Addressing Water Quality Issues #2 Existing Systems and Performance #3 Stakeholder Involvement #4 Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives #5 Measuring Success

8 8 Water Quality and Human Health Regulatory Issues to be addressed in plan Identification and characterization of Water Quality, Human health and regulatory issues. (No drinking water at this time) Metrics for evaluating human health and water quality objectives

9 9 Describe existing performance Identify the utilities Pollutant impact of wastewater and storm water systems

10 10 This is the heart of the Integrated Plan Plan Key Stakeholders EPA Regional Utilities Communities May change over time with new regulations, nutrients, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)

11 11 Document process used to compare alternatives, costs, and pollutant reductions Establish the schedule and financing strategy Schedule may need to be stretched to ease ratepayer burden

12 12 Proposed performance criteria and measure of success Compliance Monitoring Plan to track improvements Adaptability can be incorporated into the plan as environmental goals may change in the future

13 13 Considerations for incorporating integrated plan into permits Compliance schedules for meeting WQBELs need to be consistent with 40CFR Water Quality trading with nonpoint sources Integrated plan can be adjusted with NPDES Permit renewals

14 14 All or part of an integrated plan may be able to be incorporated into the remedy of an enforcement action Compliance schedules prioritize most environmental significant needs first Green Infrastructure & innovative approaches Parties needed to effectuate a remedy are involved

15 15

16 16

17 17 City of Lima Economic Challenges Environmental Challenges History of Investments Environmental Results

18 18 Declining population Exodus of middle-class residents Concentration of poor within City Increasing unemployment Balanced City budget, but with substantial reduction in force

19 19 City population: 38,771 Wastewater utility service area population ~47,000 City MHI $30, % of City residents below poverty level Unemployment 16.7%

20 20 Financial Capability Matrix, Table 3, USEPA Guidance Increasing utility costs disproportionately affect low income community Risk losing 25% of base if rates not competitive with Allen County Increasing cost of water-related obligations threatens viability of necessary public works projects Permittee Residential Indicator Financial ( Cost per Household as a percentage of MHI ) Capability Indicators Score ( Socioeconomic, Debt & Low Mid-Range High Financial Indicators ) ( below 1.0 % ) ( between 1.0 and 2.0 % ) ( greater than 2.0 % ) Weak ( Below 1.5 ) Mid-Range ( Between 1.5 and 2.5 ) Strong ( Above 2.5 ) Medium Burden High Burden High Burden Low Burden Medium Burden High Burden Low Burden Low Burden Medium Burden Key: = Lima score

21 Lost ALLEN CO. 21 Ottawa River Watershed City Suburban sources Industrial sources Agricultural sources Elida WWTP Bresler Res. Kalida Creek Elida American-Bath WWTP Allentown Lima Lima CSOs WWTP Col. Grove WWTP Columbus Grove PUTNAM CO. ALLEN CO. Creek Metzger Dam HANDCOCK CO. HARDIN CO. Ada No. 28 Ditch Fitzhugh Ditch Ada WWTP Shawnee WWTP Lost Ft. Shawnee

22 22 Real-time control $36 million since 1975 for WWTP improvements Over $10.3 million since 1995 for CSO improvements $3 million toward SSO abatement $8.3 million per year in current wastewater costs $2.1 million per year currently allocated for storm water improvements $1.3 million per year in current asset management costs

23 23 Achieves over 90% treatment of annual CSO discharges Ottawa River health improvements Ensured City s ability to increase capacity without adverse environmental impacts

24 Lost ALLEN CO. Ottawa River 1996 (Source: OEPA) 24 Kalida Creek Col. Grove WWTP Columbus Grove PUTNAM CO. ALLEN CO. Monitoring Station Watershed Boundary Stream Trace Low-head Dam NPDES Discharge Municipal Area Aquatic Life Use Attainment FULL PARTIAL NON Elida WWTP Bresler Res. Elida Allentown Lima WWTP American-Bath WWTP Lima CSOs Creek Metzger Dam HANDCOCK CO. HARDIN CO. Ada No. 28 Ditch Ada WWTP Fitzhugh Ditch Shawnee WWTP Ft. Shawnee Lost Lima Refining Co. PCS Nitrogen

25 Lost ALLEN CO. Ottawa River 2010 (Source: OEPA) 25 Kalida Monitoring Station Watershed Boundary Significant improvements in aquatic life use attainment in last 15 years Creek Col. Grove WWTP Columbus Grove PUTNAM CO. ALLEN CO. Stream Trace Low-head Dam NPDES Discharge Municipal Area Aquatic Life Use Attainment FULL PARTIAL NON Elida WWTP Bresler Res. Elida Allentown Lima WWTP American-Bath WWTP Lima CSOs Creek Metzger Dam HANDCOCK CO. HARDIN CO. Ada No. 28 Ditch Ada WWTP Fitzhugh Ditch Shawnee WWTP Lost Ft. Shawnee Lima Refining Co. PCS Nitrogen

26 26

27 27 Integrated WWTP, CSO, and SSO issues: Increase WWTP capacity first Then implement CSO controls to achieve 97.5% capture Finally, implement SSO abatement to control for a 5-year design storm Sequenced to achieve greatest environmental benefits first

28 Total cost $143.5 million over 28 years $89 million to be spent in first 12 years 2.54% MHI per EPA guidance % MHI for one-third of City residents Affordable with steady rate base and MHI increases $ 20 M/yr $ 200 M $ 15 M/yr $ 150 M $ 10 M/yr $ 100 M $ 5 M/yr $ 50 M $ 0 M/yr $ 0 M CSO Control WTP SSO Asset Mgmt Cumulative (right axis)

29 Graph based on 1% population growth and 1% Median Household Income increase Lima will negotiate off-ramps for project postponements under certain socio-economic and cost conditions $ $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 Residential Monthly Rev. Reqt. 2% of MHI

30 30

31 31 9 MG Simmons Field CSO storage tank 30 mgd dewatering pump station RTC modification to equalize flows to plant Partial Sewer Separation at 10 CSOs DWO and weir modifications at CSOs 035A and 035C

32 32 9 CSOs/Year: 002 9/Yr 003 9/Yr 004 8/Yr 005 6/Yr 006 2/Yr < 1 overflow / year at remaining CSOs 97.3 Percent Capture Fine screening at remaining CSOs

33 33

34 34 Current capacity 53 mgd primary 33 mgd secondary 18 mgd nitrification towers Proposed improvements Headworks projects Interceptor rehabilitation Increase secondary treatment to 70 mgd

35 35 All flow will receive biological treatment Base flow meets secondary treatment standards (89.5% to 94.4% of typical year flow) Peak wet weather flow meets equivalent to secondary treatment standards (5.6% to 10.5% of typical year flow)

36 36

37 Allentown Rd. Cole Street West Street Findlay Road 37 Koop Rd. Lost Creek 15 th Street Combined Sewer Areas Lima, OH Separate Sanitary Sewer System Divided Into 7 Basins Separate Sewer Areas

38 38 SSO Basin Volume SSO Controlled Capital Cost (May 2011 $) Allentown Rd MG $ 4.55 M West St MG $ 3.05 M Koop Rd MG $ 4.81 M Lost Creek 1.32 MG $ 4.12 M Cole St MG $ 1.74 M Findlay Rd MG $ 1.51 M Recommended Improvements include parallel relief sewers, pumping station upgrades, and the addition of detention basins at pumping stations. Fifteenth St MG $ 0.22 M Total SSO System 7.16 MG $ M 38

39 39 CSO Improvements WWTP Improvements SSO Abatement Improvements Total $61.7 million $27.3 million $20.0 million $109.0 million

40 40

41 41 Example: Stormwater/MS4 efforts Currently allocating $2.1 million per year to increase and better manage stormwater capacity Green infrastructure initiatives Pervious surface-based commercial charges Credits for green efforts like bioswales Achieve reduction in peak flows from CSO areas Reduce I/I from SSO areas

42 42 Proposed to Ohio EPA: Collett Street sewer lining (12 mos) Time-critical lift station work (24 mos) Baxter interceptor lining (33 mos) Upstream CSO separation (24 mos) Allentown lift station (36 mos) $12.8 million investment within 36 months

43 Better achieve asset management needs Better address environmental justice issues Incorporate flexibility to revise priorities within community resources as future obligations arise and new information is obtained 43

44 Incorporate revised schedule of activities Include regulatory/implementation mechanisms Add any activities with greater environmental/health benefits Re-prioritize activities that exceed affordability or have fewer benefits Provide for stakeholder involvement 44

45 45 (419) (216)