The Sewer Authority of the City of Scranton Scranton, PA

Transcription

1 The Sewer Authority of the City of Scranton Scranton, PA Updated CSO Long Term Control Plan Stakeholders Meeting June 1, 2010 Preserving Your Heritage Through Environmental Protection

2 Agenda Introduction Background on CSOs and SSA Stakeholder Participation Areas of Special Interest Water Quality Goals Financial Capability of Community Future Meetings

3 Introduction Scranton Sewer Authority Team SSA Executive Director Lackawanna River Corridor Association Gannett Fleming, Inc. Stakeholders

4 Background on CSOs and SSA Facilities CSO 101 What is a Combined Sewer System (CSS)? What is a CSO? Why are They Important? Who has CSOs? USEPA Requirements What is Being Done Nationally?

5 Combined vs. Separate Sewer Systems CSSs Convey both Sewage and Stormwater through a Single Pipe to a Treatment Facility Combined Separate

6 What is a CSO? Combined Sewer System Discharge of Untreated Sewage and Stormwater Directly to Receiving Stream

7 What is a CSO Regulator? Controls Volume of Combined Sewage Entering Interceptors and Receiving Streams

8 Who Has CSOs? CSOs are remnants of mid-1900 infrastructure 772 Communities containing 46 million people Mostly in Northeast and Northwest 155 Communities in Pennsylvania have CSOs

9 What are the Risks From CSOs? Sewage carries a variety of bacteria and viruses that can cause illness if there is human contact Untreated sewage contains other pollutants, such as nutrients and oxygen consuming material, which degrade water quality Floatables in combined sewage are highly visible solid waste that remains in receiving stream

10 US EPA Role and Requirements EPA Charged with Enforcement of the Federal Clean Water Act Clean Water Act Requires all Waters of the US to Meet Established Water Quality Standards to Protect Human Health and to Maintain the Water s Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity EPA Developed its 1994 CSO Control Policy to help bring CSSs into Compliance with the Clean Water Act

11 US EPA Role and Requirements CSO Control Policy Established 2 Main Objectives for CSO Communities: 1. Implement the Nine Minimum Controls (NMCs) 2. Develop and Implement a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) that includes adequate measures to achieve Water Quality Standards

12 CSO Control Policy Objectives CSOs only Occur as a Result of Wet Weather Waters Receiving CSOs Discharges Comply with Water Quality Standards Established by Clean Water Act

13 CSO Control Policy and Water Quality Standards (WQS) CSO Control Policy Identifies 2 Approaches to Attainment of WQS; the Demonstration Approach and the Presumptive Approach 1. Demonstrative Approach by Monitoring of Receiving Streams 2. Presumptive Approach requires either 85% capture by volume of all wet weather discharges or no more than an average of 4 overflow events per year at any CSO

14 What is Being Done Nationally? Based on EPA Website, at the end of FY 2009: 1. 49% of CSO Communities with Populations above 50,000 had adequate LTCPs. 2. Investments in CSO Pollution Control Totaled $8 billion in 2007 to 2009 (estimated costs to comply with consent decrees). 3. Untreated CSO Discharges estimated at 850 Billion Gallons/Year. 4. EPA originally estimated (in 1994) it would require $42 billion (1994 dollars) to control CSOs.

15 Background on SSA and its Facilities SSA History Combined Sewer System (CSS) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Service Area Characteristics Past Actions to Address CSOs Challenges Facing SSA and its Service Area

16 SSA History 42 Years of Service Brought Modern Wastewater Treatment to Scranton Area Legacy of Aging Infrastructure Acquired in 1968 Extensive Rehabilitation During Early Years of Service Re-established Historic Management Structure in 2005 Managing CSS is Major Commitment, $6.2 million spent in 2009 (40% of service cost)

17 SSA Sewer System 275 Miles of Sewer Main; 8000 Manholes/Pipe Segments 7 Pumping Stations 172 miles (63%) of Collection Sewers are Combined 80 Permitted CSOs 12 Mile Main Interceptor Sewer

18 SSA CSOs CSOs Discharge to: Lackawanna River Leggetts Creek Keyser Creek Little Roaring Brook Lucky Run Meadow Brook Stafford Meadow Brook Roaring Brook

19 SSA CSO Receiving Streams Keyser Creek, Little Roaring Brook, Stafford Meadow Brook, and Roaring Brook

20 Scranton Wastewater Treatment Plant 20 mgd Annual Average Permitted Capacity 39 mgd Wet Weather Capacity (first hour) Interceptor at WWTP has capacity of about 110 mgd 2009 Average Daily Flow about 12.2 mgd Dry Weather Flow about 10.5 mgd

21 SSA Service Area Characteristics Serves Scranton, Dunmore, and portions of Taylor, Dickson City, and Moosic (20 sq.miles) Residential Customers 35,300 Dwelling Units Estimated service area population of about 80, mgd average water consumption 69 % of total water consumption Commercial Industrial Customers 1,608 Accounts 2.2 mgd average water consumption 31% of total water consumption

22 SSA Past Actions Developed Nine Minimum Controls (NMC) Plan in Proper O&M of CSS 2. Maximize Use of CSS for Storage 3. Modify Industrial Waste Pretreatment 4. Maximize Flow to WWTP 5. Stop Dry Weather CSOs 6. Control Floatables 7. Pollution Prevention 8. Public Notification 9. Monitor CSO Impacts and Controls

23 SSA Past Actions (Cont d) Updated NMC Plan in 2003 and 2005 Conducted Comprehensive CSO Regulator Inspections in 2004 and 2009 Monitor CSO Regulators Biweekly Now Meter Discharges from 25 CSOs Permanently Eliminated 6 CSOs Working Since Oct to Update LTCP

24 SSA Past Actions (Cont d) Typical CSO Meter at Outfall #23(Luzerne St)

25 Challenges Facing Scranton Meeting the Increasing Requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act Balancing the Needs of: Regulatory Compliance Economic Affordability Community Acceptance

26 Total Population Challenges Facing Scranton Declining Population City of Scranton Population 160, , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Financial Distressed Community High Capital and O&M Costs to meet Presumptive Criteria of 4 Activations/year Year

27 LTCP Background Required Plan Components Previous Action By and On Behalf of SSA EPA Actions and Deficiencies Schedule and Scope of Current Plan Update

28 Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) Components System Characterization Develop and Evaluate Alternatives for CSO Controls Financial Capability Assessment Public Participation Select Approach and Schedule for Implementation Regulatory Approval

29 SSA CSO LTCP History Original LTCP Approved by DEP in Administrative Order AWS, System Manager Scranton Sewer Authority City of Scranton Lackawanna Watershed 2000 Lackawanna County, Grantee US EPA Grant MWH as LW2000 Contractor prepared 2006 LTCP Nov Terminated AWS Contract SSA Resumed System Management SSA Expanded Staff by over 30 and Enhanced Program Responsiveness

30 2006 CSO LTCP Scope ($3,146,000) via LW2000 & MWH CSS Model GIS Mapping CSO LTCP WQ Sampling Period of Activity: Submission to US EPA Directly by MWH in December 2006 SSA Intent to Accept MWH LTCP with Modified Executive Summary Revised Implementation Schedule US EPA Advice to Not Proceed with Public Hearing or Plan Adoption (2007)

31 SSA Concerns on 2006 Plan System Characterization Sewer Database Quality Flow Metering Questionable 8 mgd Flow Loss Anomaly (US EPA presentation Aug 14, 2006) Model Calibration and Development Consensus on Presumption Approach Sequence of Implementation Financial Capability Assessment Water Quality Assessment Sensitivity to Local Areas of Interest Minimal Early Public Participation

32 US EPA Comments Jan 21, 2009 Scope of Alternatives Alternative Evaluation Process Number of Activations too High

33 SSA Actions Performed Financial Capability Assessment Restructured Sequence of Implementation in Capital Improvement Plan Implementing Operational and Capital Improvements Implementing Rain Leader Diversion Program (Portland OR model) Proactive CSO Elimination via Dye Testing Contracted for Comprehensive Multi-Year Water Quality Assessment $330,000 Hawk Mtn Labs Proceeding with CSO LTCP Update

34 2010 CSO LTCP Update Complete Overhaul of LW2000 Work Product Address Various Deficiencies Correct Model Database and Calibration Incorporate Alternatives as per EPA Comments $752,000 Effort Gannett Fleming, Inc. Schedule for Completion Within 18 Months Accelerated Schedule March 31, 2011 Submission of Adopted LTCP

35 Key CSO LTCP Tasks Task 1 Project Initiation Task 2 Review Model Data Task 3 WW Generation Distribution Task 4 Update Sewer Model Task 5 Develop Database Task 6 Identify Recent Improvements Task 7 Identify CSO Technologies Task 8 Develop Cost Estimates Task 9 Flow and Rainfall Monitoring Task 10 Calibrate Sewer Model Task 11 Develop Control Alternatives Task 12 Evaluate Alternatives Task 13 Preferred CSO Alternative(s) Task 14 Document LTC Plan Task 15 Public Participation Task 16 Agency Communications Task 17 Plan Adoption / Submission Task 18 Coordination / Communication

36 CSO LTCP Schedule Data Collection Oct. 09 April 10 Update/Calibrate Model Mar. 10 June 10 Public Participation June 10 Mar. 11 Develop/Evaluate Alternatives June 10 Nov. 10 Select Approach Nov. 10 Jan. 11 Document/Submit Plan Jan. 10 Mar. 11

37 Stakeholder Participation EPA Requirements Sensitive Area Identification Community Goals Consideration of Alternatives Scoring Approach Selection of Recommended Approach

38 Public Participation Requirements Employ a Public Participation Process that Actively Involves the Affected Public in the Decision Making to Select CSO Controls. Identify Community Stakeholders and Form an Advisory Committee Establish Site-Specific Water Quality Goals Conduct Public Review

39 Sensitive Areas vs. Areas of Special Interest EPA Definition of Sensitive Areas Applicability to Scranton LTCP Identification of Areas of Special Interest

40 Sensitive Areas Must be given highest priority for CSO discharge elimination or control Defined by EPA as: Habitat for threatened or endangered species Primary contact recreational areas such as beaches and other swimming areas Drinking Water Source Waters Outstanding State Resources Waters

41 2006 LTCP Findings No Sensitive Areas Per Definition

42 Areas of Special Interest Special Interest Areas May Receive Higher Priority Ranking when Selecting Control Approach

43 Any Areas of Special Interest?

44 Community Water Quality Goals What are Your Goals? What is Possible? What Can be Achieved? What is Required?

45 Community Water Quality Goals Meeting the Requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act Balancing the Needs of: Regulatory Compliance Economic Affordability Community Acceptance

46 Financial Capability of Community EPA CSO Control Policy allows consideration of permittee s financial capability in connection with CSO controls and negotiation of enforcement schedules Financial Capability Assessment Completed in 2008 Confirmed Heavy Burden on Community if Required to Implement Draft LTCP

47 Schedule for Future Meetings July Consideration of Technologies August Methodology for Scoring Alternatives September Model Results and Scoring December Selection of Preferred Approach

48 When you ve been climbing a mountain for a long time and the summit seems to be as far away as ever, it can give you new heart for the ascent to look back and see how far you ve come. Harold Gilliam, Earth Day 1990

49 Contact Information Scranton Sewer Authority Eugene P. Barrett, Jr., Executive Director (570) ext Lackawanna River Corridor Association Bernard McGurl, Executive Director (570) Gannett Fleming, Inc. James C. Elliott, PE, Vice President (717) ext Mark A. Malarich, PE Project Manager (717) ext

50 Scranton Sewer Authority Preserving Your Heritage Through Environmental Protection Thank You for Your Participation!