400 likes | 563 Views
Overview. CSO/SSO Performance MeasuresSSOCSOFrequency of ActivationPercent CaptureProjects
E N D
1.
Consent Decree Performance Measures and Schedules
April 22-24, 2009
Paul Calamita
AquaLaw
2. Overview CSO/SSO Performance Measures
SSO
CSO
Frequency of Activation
Percent Capture
Projects & performance
Phase/Iterative/Adaptive
Other performance Approaches
Miscellaneous Considerations
3. Overview Sewer Overflow Control Program Schedules
SSO Schedules
CSO Schedules
Schedules and Rates – Is a level playing field desirable & what would it look like
4. CSO/SSO Performance Measures
Comprehensive approaches
5. Comprehensive Approach - SSO Fairly typical approach:
No capacity-related overflows to a defined level of service (i.e., 2-year storm)
Elimination of constructed outfalls
SSES
Develop & implement CMOM program
Address satellite systems
Address excessive inflow & infiltration
N.B.: only “excessive” I/I is a regulatory issue and then a gray area
6. Comprehensive Approach - SSO
Sometimes annual volume limit
Stays out of the details and, instead, focuses on system wet weather performance
Volume limits tied to average year
7.
CSO Comprehensive Approaches
8. CSO Frequency of Activation Individual commitment for each CSO outfall
This is the hardest performance measure to meet both technically and financially
Rarely makes sense except in a system with few outfalls which discharge to sensitive waters
9. CSO Frequency of Activation Maximum # that no outfall will exceed, or
Average activation number
System-wide
by tributary
NB: Average activation approach is similar in benefits to system-wide percent capture (see below)
10. CSO Frequency of Activation Systems with
Few outfalls
Solid hydraulic models
Few satellite systems to deal with
Money (especially if outfall-by-outfall commitment)
Sensitive waters and/or small CSO receiving streams
Risks having to correct/repeat/reengineer controls non-cost-effectively
11. CSO Percent Wet Weather Capture Overall system wide percent capture (usually by wet weather volume)
Systems:
Often without sensitive waters
Often discharging to larger rivers
With limited financial capability
NB: Avoids hole-in-the-donut performance risk because if percent capture comes up short you can close the gap with the most cost-effective controls from anywhere in your system.
12. CSO Percent Wet Weather Capture Percent capture is usually coupled with infrastructure construction commitments
This applies to both capture of wet weather volume and equivalent mass from 85% of Wet Weather Volume
13. Projects and Performance Criteria
Under this approach the LTCP commitment is a list of well-defined projects
Specific performance measures are associated with each project such as volume, throughput, time for draining (if a tunnel), etc.
14. Projects and Performance Criteria Attractive approach where a modular program would work
Example: series of storage facilities sized and built over time in response to other system improvements
Compare: tunnel requiring diameter certainty before construction and which can’t be readily changed after the fact
Attractive where system modeling not advanced
15. Phased/Iterative/Adaptive In general: commitment to reasonable further progress given:
Community resources
Impact of CSOs on receiving waters
Sensitive areas, large versus small streams, etc
Any meaningful public use
Competing environmental/societal needs
Impact of other sources/realistic LOCs for same
Other considerations
16. Phased/Iterative/Adaptive Commitment to implement a known project or group of projects or a Phase of a community’s LTCP.
Followed by additional study and/or implementation of later phases
Appropriate where:
Community faces significant financial restrictions
Program can be iterative - avoids the risk inherent with programs that make programmatic commitments (especially number of activations)
17. Other Performance Approaches Volume reduction of SSO/CSO at key schedule milestones
Annual spending commitment with routine reevaluation
Level of control with State finding that residual overflows along with public notification won’t interfere with designated uses
18. Other Performance Approaches Green Infrastructure
Need LTCP and order/decree language that promotes rather than tolerates green
Green acceptance should be on less than an equivalent basis with gray
Green provides multiple benefits as to gray
19. Other Performance Approaches Green Infrastructure (con’t)
Green needs special accommodations and opportunities for trial and error
Where good faith green efforts don’t meet performance measures, more time must be provided to implement gap-filling grey solutions
20. Performance Measures the Agencies Want Frequency of activation in typical year, and
As few activations as possible, and
Balanced outfall performance
Why the above?
Ease of verifying system performance
Ease of public understanding
Nationwide consistency
EPA Enforcement consistency (despite CSO Policy call for site-specific CSO solutions)
21. Miscellaneous Performance Measure Considerations
Where percent capture has been proposed, sometimes EPA seeks frequency of activation at the end of the day
Sometimes EPA has sought BOTH frequency of activation and percent capture
22. Miscellaneous Performance Measure Considerations NB: CSO Policy says pick “any” of the three presumptive criteria and they are listed as (1) frequency of activation, OR (2) percent capture by volume, OR (3) capture of equivalent pollutant load for volumes captured in (2).
NB: ALCOSAN decree got this right (“or” not “and”)
23. Miscellaneous Performance Measure Considerations Sewer separation remains controversial.
Cost
Disruption
Residual state-of-the-art storm water delivery system
Nevertheless, targeted separation can be important
24. Miscellaneous Performance Measure Considerations CSO communities often end up capturing and treating large volumes of municipal storm water
CSO communities often have smaller wet weather water quality impacts than sanitary systems because of uncontrolled MS4 discharges
25.
SSO Schedules – Federal and State
26. Federal SSO Schedules US EPA OECA still pushing for consent decrees with fixed end dates for construction before the plan is known
EPA OECA trying to hold everyone to 15 years or less
NB: EPA CSO financial capability guidance still being asserted as the basis for schedules
27. Federal SSO Schedules Some have gotten 20 years but mostly where mixed CSO/SSO
Some have negotiated spending ceilings over a fixed period of years with possibility of additional time if costs exceed the threshold
Usually, OECA wants something (higher level of control) in exchange for more time
28. Federal SSO Schedules
OECA “Leap before you look” approach
Trend: communities saying “no” and only entering decrees once plan is approved
EPA FCA guidance is inadequate
29. State SSO Schedules States almost always require schedule and plan development together
Rarely is there an arbitrary fixed end date up front
States allow greater schedule flexibility – embrace reasonable further progress rather than getting hung up on predicting exactly where and when a system will finish
30.
CSO Schedules
31. CSO Schedules
OECA still wants everyone done in 20 years
OECA resisting any schedule reopeners – you will have to “pay” for any additional time they may decide to give you
32. CSO Schedules EPA more willing to make concessions on level of control rather than 20 year schedule
Reflects reality that CSO control during larger storms generally yields little real benefits
Nagging concern that they will give on LOC now only to come after you again later….
33. CSO Schedules Economy is forcing communities to resist risk of arbitrary EPA schedules and be certain of scope of program before signing federal decree
Communities seek longer than 20 years as there is limited ability to raise rates during the next several years
34. CSO Schedules EPA being pressed for schedules > 20 years
EPA will either have to:
Concede to longer schedules
Take another path (such as reasonable further progress)
Sue communities
Federal Courts are likely to be sympathetic to communities
Economy is historically weak
DOJ’s popularity with the courts has ebbed
35. CSO Schedules States allow greater schedule flexibility – willing to embrace reasonable further progress rather than predicting exactly where and when a system will finish
States also more willing to accept rate commitment approach
36.
Schedules and Rates
Do We Really Want a Level Playing Field?
37. Level playing field for sewer overflow control?
Do we really want this?
Current approach is community-specific and complicated
Complicated facilitates differing impacts/commitments
One (fully adjustable) size-fits-all approach would level the national playing field
38. Proposal: Sewer rates raised up to a presumptive 1.5% MHI Based on 5,000 gallons monthly usage for residential
Ceiling for PILOT
All funds raised spent on sewer programs.
Regional systems
1.5% of core city
higher rates, if necessary, for satellites based on cost of service
Variance for systems with non-rate funding streams
39. Funding/Schedule Proposal Advantages:
Simplicity: 1.5% using LAST year’s MHI
Reasonable (but tough)
Equitable (esp. with adjustment where rates are subsidized by other funding sources)
Avoids schedule fights
Disciplines the regulators
40. Public Financial Safeguard 1.5% MHI approach ensures as expeditious as possible.
But excellent financial safeguard against weak economic times
Rate increases track MHI so flat or falling MHI means no rate increase until MHI rebounds
41.
Other Performance Measure or
Schedule Issues?