Behind the $740 M: Building a Technical Consensus for ... · Behind the $740 M: Building a...

Behind the $740 M: Building a

Technical Consensus for Indianapolis

Consent Decree Amendment No. 2

David Sherman, MWH

Chris Ranck, P.E., BCEE, D.WRE, RW Armstrong

Mark Jacob, Citizens Water

Steve Nielsen, P.E., Citizens Water

Doug Reichlin, P.E., Strategic Partners

Bob Masbaum, P.E., Citizens Water

June 21, 2012

Agenda

• Background

• Technical Basis for Amendment No. 2

• Summary

• Discussion

Background: Indianapolis Wastewater

System • Two Advanced Wastewater

(AWT) Plants

• Combined Sewer Area

with ~ 55 square miles,

130 outfalls

• ~ 3000 miles of sewers

• ~ 300 lift stations

• Service area population of

~ 800,000

• 20-year Combined Sewer

Overflow Long-Term

Control Plan (CSO LTCP)

approved January 2007

• Amended April 2009

• Amended December

2010

Background: 2007 Consent Decree (CD)

2007 Projects

• Central Deep

Tunnel

• Shallow Interplant

Connector (tunnel

flow pumped again)

• Rest of System

conveys to Deep

Tunnel

• Both Plants to 300

MGD

Background: Amendment No. 1

• CD Amendment No. 1

– Interplant Connector 90% Design One of

three projects representing $300 M over budget

– Original CD required NTP by 12/31/2008

– Presented to EPA Region 5 in May 2008

– Approved April 2009

– Set the stage for Amendment No .2

Southport

AWT

Deep Tunnel

Pump Station

Upper Pogues Run

Storage and Interceptor

Belmont

AWT

Upper Pogues Run

2021 Fall Creek

2025

White River

2021 Pleasant Run

2025

DTPS

2021

CSO 117

2012

DTPS

2016

CSO 117

2016

Eagle Creek

2018

CSO 008

2019

PE 007

2012 Temp Pump

Station

CD Amendment No. 1

CSO 008

2016

• 54 MG storage

• CSO 117 (4 years later)

• CSO 008 (3 years early)

• Eliminates three pump

stations

• 1 BG of additional

sewage captured

Technical Basis

• Hydraulic Modeling & System Data

• Benefits of Amendment No. 1

• Benefits of non-CD Projects

• Reliability & Sustainability

• Sewage Out Sooner

Control Measure Affected

(scope/method/size/schedule)

SWMM

Model

DRTC

Benefit

Non-CD

Project

Benefits

Plant &

System

Data

Sequencing

and

Reliability

15- FC Tunnel (size) ● ● ● ●

16- DRT (Pump station size) ● ● ● ●

18- Lower Pogues Run Box Conversion

(scope/size/schedule)

● ●

20- White River Tunnel PS (size) ● ● ● ●

22- Southport ANS Expansion (size/schedule) ● ● ● ●

23- Southport Disinfection (scope/size) ● ● ●

24- Southport Primary Clarifiers (scope/size) ● ● ● ●

25- Belmont Headworks (scope/size) ● ● ● ● ●

26- Southport Headworks (size/schedule) ● ● ●

27- Southport CSO Pump Station (scope already

addressed with DRTC pump station)

●

28- Southport EHRC (scope) ● ●

29- Pleasant Run Interceptor (method/schedule) ● ● ●

30- Eagle Creek: Belmont West Cutoff (scope) ● ● ●

31- Upper Pogues Run (size) ●

Technical Basis

2002 2009

> 100 Miles Sanitary

Interceptor Expansions

Hydraulic Modeling & System Data

> 240 Meters

(previous calibration was 23) > 1,300 MH Survey


• 2007 CD is based on 2004 Analysis (2002 model)

• Need to be consistent with CD Post-Construction

Monitoring approved in 2007:

– Apply detailed SWMM model for 1996-2000

representative precipitation period

– Post-process 5-year simulation results to determine

compliance with performance criteria (Frequency and

Percent Capture)

• Total model simulation time = ~ 70 days

– Beware of weekend network reboots

– Alternate approach: < 24 hours via

supercomputer


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Original CD Current SWMM Model

Ave

rage

An

nu

al D

isch

arge

Vo

lum

e (M

G/y

ear

)

Comparison of Systemwide Average Annual CSO Volume: 2004 LTCP v. 2009 SWMM

Belmont PE Bypass

CSO Volume

7.7 BG/year - 2004 LTCP

5.4 BG/year - 2009 SWMM

• ~ 30% Lower CSO Volume than previously

modeled

• Planning-Level to

Detailed Modeling

• Constructed Early

Action Projects

(2004-2009)

• CSO Area Model

Recalibrations


• Spreadsheet post-processing tools developed

based on future AWT process flowcharts

• Utilized model results from CSOs and AWTs

• Utilized historical AWT recycle data

Headworks300 MGD

WWPS30 MGD

WWSB No. 130 MG

Primary320 MGD

Secondary320 MGD

PEPS35 MGD

Recycle 20-30 MGD

008 to Tunnel

PDPS20 MGD

0-10 MGD

WWSB No.24 MG


• Incorporate Tunnel

System

• Incorporate findings

of hydraulic profile

analysis

y = -0.047x2 + 2.871x + 22.99R² = 0.997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Vol (MG) Flow (MGD)

25 65

12 50

4 35

1 25

White River Tunnel

CSO 008, Pleasant Run, Lower Pogues Run, White River CSOs

No overflowcriteria

Deep PS60 MGD

Headworks180 MGD

PEPS

Primary225 MGD

Secondary225 MGD

EQ25 MG

Recy

cle

10 M

GD

WWPS75 MGD

WW

PS

to O

NS/

AN

S

Fall Creek Tunnel

White River Tunnel

CSO 008, Pleasant Run, Lower Pogues Run, White River CSOs

Fall Creek CSOs

2 OF/yr

4 OF/yr

Deep PS90 MGD

Headworks180 MGD

PEPS

Primary120+ MGD

Secondary250 MGD

EQ25 MG

Recy

cle

10 M

GD

WWPS75 MGD

WW

PS

to O

NS/

AN

S


Belmont PEPS

Belmont Headworks, Primary,

Secondary

PEPS to Southport Step 1:

Belmont CSO 008 to Tunnel

Step 2:

Southport

& Tunnels

Tunnel Volume & Dewatering

Confirm Sizes

Southport Headworks, Primary,

Secondary

Step 3:

Compliance

Achieve Performance Criteria?

(CSO frequency / % Capture) Analysis Complete

Yes

No

Confirm Sizes

Confirm Sizes


• Opportunity for Southport Secondary Expansion

300 300

277

252 251 258243

250 250 250233 236 238 238

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Seco

nd

ary

Flo

w R

ate

(MG

D)

Days at Treatment Rate

Figure 1-4: 1996-2000 SWMM Post ProcessingMaximum Secondary Treatment Rate at Southport

300 MGD Secondary Treatment -120 MGD Dewatering

250 MGD Secondary Treatment -90 MGD Dewatering


• Updated LTCP Configuration can

achieve the same performance criteria

with significant facility reductions

• Deep Tunnel: 224 MG 180 MG

• Deep Tunnel PS: 150 MGD 90 MGD

• Belmont AWT: 300 MGD 300 MGD

• Southport AWT: 300 MGD 250 MGD

• Final Configuration of CD Amendment

250 MG



ONS

Aeration

Primary

Clarifiers

ONS

Clarifiers

Bio-Roughing

120 MGD

350 MGD

60 MGD

200 MGD

60 MGD

150 MGD

120 MGD

150 MGD

WW Disinfection

& Discharge

Outfall 007

TF/SC

Aeration

8.3 MG

TF/SC

Clarifiers

135,000

sqft

Return Activated Sludge

Final Effluent

Outfall 006

0 MGD

200 MGD

60 MGD

0 MGD

120 MGD

150 MGD

Exist

New

Modify

• Original Trickling Filter/Solids Contact (TF/SC)

Process – Parallel to Oxygen Nitrification System


• Step Feed / Contact Stab Process - Final

ONS

Aeration

Primary

Clarifiers

ONS

Clarifiers

120 MGD

330 MGD

120 MGD

0 MGD

0 MGD

330 MGD

120 MGD

330 MGD

0 MGD

0 MGD

PE Bypass

Outfall 007

Final Effluent

Outfall 006

ANS

Step Feed

Contact Stab.

Aeration

17 MG

120 MGD

330 MGD

Exist

New

Modify



X


Southport

AWT

Deep Tunnel

Pump Station

Belmont

AWT

Fall Creek

2025

White River

2021 Pleasant Run

2025

DTPS

2021

CSO 117

2012

DTPS

2017

CSO 117 & 118

2017

Eagle Creek

2018

CSO 008

2019

CSO 008

2017

PE 007

2012

Temp Pump

Station

• Better sequencing of

projects

• Utilized non-CD projects

• Early capture CSOs 008

and 118

• 6.2 BG of additional

sewage captured

Upper Pogues Run

Storage and Interceptor

Upper Pogues Run

2021

Reliability & Sustainability

Reliability & Sustainability

• Improved Reliability

– Extension of Deep Tunnel System: 7 Miles to

25 Miles

– Replaces in-line storage in Pogues Run Box

and eliminates 3 pump stations

• Sustainability

– No raingardens, etc. formally added to CD

– Reductions in pumping and treatment

expansions estimated to reduce carbon

footprint by ~ 6,000 – 20,000 tons CO2/year

414 MG/year

• EPA Review of proposed amendment weighed

project acceleration v. long term benefit

•

– Storage Tunnel Size: 224 MG

– Tunnel Dewatering: 150 MGD

– Southport Secondary: 300 MGD

– DRTC Completion: N/A

– Pleasant Run Completion: 2025

– Residual CSO Volume: 445 MG/year

– Sewage Captured Sooner:

2025

Sewage Out Sooner

642 MG/year

6.2 BG

Original 2007 CD First Proposal

180 MG

90 MGD

250 MGD

2021

2016

Accepted Proposal

250 MG

2017

3.5 BG

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Cu

mu

lati

ve O

verf

low

Vo

lum

e R

em

ove

d (

MG

) Original LTCP

Amendment No. 2Original LTCP: 11 BG captured 2008-2025

Amendment No. 2: 14.5BG captured 2008-2025

Sewage Out Sooner

• No

improvement

in attainment

of

recreational

use from

95% to 99%

capture

•Better

attainment at

95% capture

than for total

sewer

separation

• Performance Criteria were maintained

Sewage Out Sooner

Summary

• Amendment No. 1 Approved April 2009

• Amendment No. 2 Proposed May 2009

• Amendment No. 2 Approved December

2010

• CD Performance criteria were maintained

• CD End date of 2025 was maintained

Summary • More detailed modeling was necessary

• Importance of working with EPA and

understanding what they value

• EPA required increased CSO capture for

acceptance

– Long-term residual CSO volume most important

– Acceleration was important, but less important

– Water quality & carbon footprint not important

Control Measure Project Original Cost Current Cost Savings How

Interplant Connector (DRTC) $161 $290 -$129 Increased size allowed other facility reductions

White River Tunnel and Pump Station $327 $173 $154 Reduced size of facility due to modeling/DRTC

Fall Creek Tunnel $316 $149 $167 Reduced size of facility due to modeling/DRTC

Lower Pogues Run $33 $88 -$55 More reliable tunnel solution due to modeling

Pleasant Run Interceptor $152 $182 -$30 More reliable tunnel solution due to modeling

Eagle Creek Interceptor $63 $33 $30 Belmont West Cutoff eliminated with alternative route

Upper Pogues Run $65 $26 $39 Reduced size of facility due to modeling

Pogues Run-Forest Manor $37 $4 $33 Smaller drainage area due to modeling

Riviera Club Storage Tank $27 $4 $23 Reduced size of facility due to modeling

Belmont Headworks $67 $0 $67 Eliminated facility due to DRTC/Modeling

Belmont Wet Weather Secondary Treatment $158 $67 $91 Alternative treatment method

Belmont Wet Weather Disinfection $12 $13 -$1 Facility size due to DRTC/Modeling

Southport CSO Pump Station $16 $0 $16 Eliminated need due to DRTC/Modeling

Southport Enhanced Hi-Rate Clarification $29 $0 $29 Eliminated need due to DRTC/Modeling

Southport Headworks $68 $24 $44 Reduced facility size due to DRTC/Modeling

Southport Wet Weather Primary Treatment $49 $8 $41 Reduced facility size due to DRTC/Modeling

Southport Wet Weather Secondary $65 $24 $41 Reduced facility size due to DRTC/Modeling

Southport Wet Weather Disinfection $30 $15 $15 Reduced facility size due to DRTC/Modeling

Belmont North Interceptor $125 $35 $90 Alternative route and force main solution/modeling

Fifth Incinerator $25 $0 $25 Eliminated need due to Modeling

Various STEP VE & Non CD Projects VE $150 $100 $50 Value engineering on non CD projects

TOTALS $1,975 $1,235 $740

Summary

Belmont Headworks $67 $0 $67

Belmont Wet Weather Secondary Treatment $158 $67 $91

Belmont Wet Weather Disinfection $12 $13 -$1

Southport CSO Pump Station $16 $0 $16

Southport Enhanced Hi-Rate Clarification $29 $0 $29

Southport Headworks $68 $24 $44

Southport Wet Weather Primary Treatment $49 $8 $41

Southport Wet Weather Secondary $65 $24 $41

Southport Wet Weather Disinfection $30 $15 $15

Control Measure Project Original Cost Current Cost Savings

TOTALS $1,975 $1,235 $740

Control Measure Project Original Cost Current Cost Savings

Interplant Connector (DRTC) $161 $290 -$129

White River Tunnel and Pump Station $327 $173 $154

Fall Creek Tunnel $316 $149 $167

Lower Pogues Run $33 $88 -$55

Pleasant Run Interceptor $152 $182 -$30

Acknowledgments

• Indianapolis DPW Director

– David Sherman (now MWH)

• Citizens Water

– Mark Jacob (prev DLZ), Steve Nielsen (prev

DPW)

• Barnes & Thornburg

– Fred Andes, Erika Powers, Susan Bodine

• RebuildIndy Program Team:

– Mike Musgrave (MWH), Doug Reichlin,

Chris Ranck

Discussion

• Questions?

Behind the $740 M: Building a Technical Consensus for ... · Behind the $740 M: Building a...

Documents

Transcript of Behind the $740 M: Building a Technical Consensus for ... · Behind the $740 M: Building a...