You are on page 1of 79

Capacity Improvements and

Wet Weather Storage

Prepared by
Michael N. Young, P.E.

Michael N. Young, P.E.


BS in Civil Engineering - University of Illinois
MS in Environmental Engineering University of
Illinois
Wheaton Office Principal/Branch Manager - RJN
Group, Inc. Since 2008
19 Years Experience in Wastewater Collection and
Treatment
ACEC-IL - MWRDGC Committee Member
Project Director or Manager of Five Capacity
Improvement or Storage Projects in Past 2 Years

Why Address Inflow and Infiltration?

Basement Backups, SSOs, & CSOs


Regulatory or District Pressures
Chronic Problem Areas
Lift Station or WWTP Capacity
CMOM
Proactive Small Steps

Comprehensive Sanitary Program


Existing Conditions Flow Monitoring
Mapping Updates, GPS Locating, and GIS
Integration
Modeling of Sewer System
Evaluate Capacity Improvements and Storage
Options
Comprehensive SSES & Flow Balancing
Public Sector Rehabilitation
Private Sector Flow Reduction
Post-Rehabilitation Flow Monitoring
Long-Term Sewer System O & M - CMOM

I/I Mitigation Options


Increase the Capacity

Lift station & force main expansions


Treatment facility expansions
Wet-Weather storage / treatment facilities
Relief sewers

System Storage

Pumped to above ground storage


Gravity storage below ground

Reduce the Flows

Public Sector I/I identification and reduction


Private Sector I/I identification and reduction
Private Sector backflow prevention programs

Reduce Flow - Flow Balance

Level 1 Rehabilitation
Public Sector

Manhole defects
Mainline defects
Cross connections

Private Sector

Direct sump pumps


Diverter valves
Downspouts
Cleanouts
Window Well Covers
Possibly other area drains or combination sumps

Level 2 Rehabilitation
Combination Sumps
Unsealed Sanitary Sumps
Area Drains
Tributary drainage area
Options to remove
Driveway drains

Difficult, but major source


Does it drain street?

Stairwell drains
Window wells not cost effective
Various other

Level 3 Rehabilitation
Laterals

Pilot area
Pre-inspections
Full or short?
All or some?
Cost sharing?
Storm rehab?

Prevalence?
Isolate to manageable area
Combine with overhead sewer?
Cost sharing?

Foundation Drains

Increase Capacity
Treatment Facility Expansions
Very expensive to treat Clean water

Wet-Weather Facilities
Major improvements due to new regulations?

Lift Station / Force Main Capacity


Sewer Capacity
Sewer Upsize
Relief Sewer
Flow Diversion

Capacity Improvements - Considerations


Frequency and Severity of Backups
Downstream Capacity
Interceptor
WWTP
Downstream control?

Flow Monitoring and Modeling


Regulatory Limitations
Best Option When Feasible
Immediate improvement
Get flow out of system

Villa Park Background and Study

Central Combined (Partially Separated)


North and South Separate Systems
Consistent Annual Flow Reduction
Wet-Weather Facilities
Closing Ordinance
Isolated Issues

Villa Park Sanitary Master Plan

Flow Monitoring
Hydraulic Model
Public Sector SSES
Evaluate Wet-Weather Facility Operation
Focus South Villa
Flow reduction
Lift station upgrades
Capacity improvements

Villa Park - Existing Conditions

Villa Park Proposed w/o LS Upgrade

Villa Park Proposed w/ LS Upgrade

Villa Park Solution


Flow Reduction
Point repairs and lining
MH rehab
Multi-year Closing Ordinance

Myrtle Relief Sewer


Existing backyard sewer kept as local sewer
Upsize from 10 to 12
Other minor flow diversions to minimize creek crossings

South Villa LS Capacity Improvements


Added second force main, but not pump upgrades
May need in future if new annexation

Villa Park

Wheaton - Background
Regional Basement Backups
Significant Public Sector Rehab
2006 Joint Study District and City

Large scale overview


Flow monitoring and skeletal modeling
District interceptor upgrades
City focus on Basins 1, 3, and 4

City Basin 4
Capacity improvements
40% flow reduction target

Wheaton Study and Options


Basin 4 Focused Study

Local flow monitoring and modeling


Public SSES Smoke, MH and TV
Private SSES BI, Dye and Lateral TV
Comprehensive flow balance

Flow Reduction
Complete Level 1 and Level 2
Laterals vs. Foundation Drains
Lateral Rehab Pilot

Refined Capacity Improvements

Wheaton Flow Balance

Wheaton Flow Reduction

Wheaton - Solution
Pilot Results
~30% flow reduction
Some Level 2 remains
Lining challenges

Full Scale Program

Level 1 and 2 removal


Lateral lining
Capacity improvements
Coordination w/ District

Palatine - Background

Basement Backups Specific Location


Level 1 Flow Reduction
Improvement, But Backups Persist
Level 2 and 3 Defects
Overload System Downstream
Options:
Local storage
Level 2 and 3 Flow Reduction
Other?

Palatine Study and Options


Study

Problem and system understanding


Interceptor options
Flow Monitoring and Modeling
Interceptor history research

Rohlwing Interceptor - Overloaded


Brockway Interceptor - Underloaded
Area Originally Intended for Brockway
Submit Report Findings
Coordination with MWRD

Palatine Reallocation Area

Palatine - Solution
Flow Diversion
MWRD Conceptual
Approval
Population Equivalency
Flow Mitigation

Village Mitigation
Preliminary Design

Interceptor Connection
Deep Sewer On Grade

Final Design

Palatine - Trenchless Construction

Palatine - Trenchless Construction

Palatine - Trenchless Construction

Des Plaines - Background


Basement Backups
Regional severe storm only
Local moderate also

Some Level 1 Removal


Limited Local Capacity
All Options:

Upsize local interceptor


Divert flow
Local storage
More flow reduction

Des Plaines Study and Options


Study

Problem and system understanding


Interceptor options
Flow monitoring and modeling
Severe capacity limitations
Flow reduction only likely not sufficient

Submit Report Findings


Coordination with MWRD

Downstream Control

Basin

Severity of
DS Control

Pipe Size

DS Control DS Control
Flow
Minimum
Minimum
Flow Depth Precipitation Restriction

(Inches)

(Inches)

(Inches)

(mgd)

Discrete 3-Yr, Max Flow


2-Hr PF
Depth

Downstream
System

(Feet)

DES-1

MOST
SEVERE

15

0.45

0.8 OR LESS

6.5

7.2

DES-2

DES-2

SEVERE

18

12

0.55

1.5

9.0

8.8

DES-4

DES-3

SEVERE

12

15

0.65

1.0 - 1.5

6.9

10.1

DES-4

DES-4

SEVERE

24

12.5

0.55

2.5

2.5

9.3

DES-6

DES-5

MODERATE

18

0.40

2.5 - 4.0

5.8

8.6

DES-6

DES-6

NONE

28

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

NONE UP TO
3.6

3.8

2.5

MWRD

Des Plaines Solution


Storage Limited Options
Flow Reduction Needed, But Long Duration
Capacity Improvements Best First Step
Relief Sewer MWRD rejected
Flow Diversion MWRD conceptual approval

Flow Diversion

Determine population equivalency


18 Diversion Sewer MWRD conceptual approval
Route challenges
Trenchless Construction

Des Plaines Flow Diversion

Current Conditions - South

Proposed Conditions - South

Storage
Significant Downstream Control

High excess flows


Limited interceptor capacity
Reverse flow
Limited treatment capacity

Quick Solution Needed


Above Ground Storage

Upgrade existing pump station


New pump station

Below Ground

Regional open land and deep sewers


Local oversize and/or parallel sewers

Storage - Considerations

Frequency and Severity of Backups


Downstream Capacity Reverse Flow?
Flow Monitoring and Modeling Critical
Regulatory Limitations
Storage Details

Available locations
Gravity or pumped flow
System overflow
Cleaning and maintenance
Odor control

Fresh Express - Background


Industrial Facility
Wash and process fruits and vegetables
Current wastewater flow: 400,000 gpd
Potential wastewater flow: 700,000 gpd

Current Facility - Combined Sewer System


Proposed Facility - Streamwood

Separate sewer system


Limited capacity
I/I concerns
No negative impact

Fresh Express Study and Options


Initial Desktop Study
Capacity analysis
Potential, but more information needed

Second Study - Flow Monitoring and Modeling


Check Dry- and Wet-Weather Capacity

Options
2 Mile Force Main: No Village Restrictions
Mile Force Main: Address Capacity Limitations
Additional MWRD Requirements

Fresh Express Route Options

Fresh Express Solution


Village and MWRD Requirements
No negative impact
Downstream level monitoring
No flow during surcharged conditions

Storage

Volume risk analysis


800,000 above ground tank
Constant flow pump station
Automatic surcharge shutdown
Secondary containment
Clean and TV downstream sewer

Fresh Express Volume Risk Analysis

Elmhurst - Background
Formerly a Combined Sewer System
Underwent Separation in the Post-War Era
Primarily Used Existing CS System for Sanitary
Flow
Essentially Built Out by 1972 (CWA)
Used EPA Grants for Major Sewer Improvements
Private Sector I/I Source Disconnection in 1980s
Current Issues Particularly One Area
Numerous Foundation Drains

Elmhurst Study and Options


Study

Citywide flow monitoring


Hydraulic model skeletal with detailed areas
Smoke Testing and MH Inspection
Resident surveys from storm event
Review of 1988 building inspection record

All Available Options Needed


Capacity improvements
Storage
Flow reduction

Elmhurst Flow Analysis

Elmhurst Storage Volume

Balancing Storage and Flow Reduction

Elmhurst Solution
Local Focus Area

Lift station upgrades


Influent line upsize from 18 to 24 and increase slope
Dry- and wet-weather pumps and force mains
Wet-weather FM to 2 million gallon storage tank

Regional and Full City Improvements

Level 1 and 2 plus select Level 3 flow reduction


Long-term flow monitoring
Enhanced closing ordinance
New construction requirements
Overhead sewer cost sharing program

Elmhurst Capacity and Storage

Elmhurst Open Cut

Elmhurst Trenchless

Elmhurst Trenchless

Glenview - Background

1 Square Mile Target Area


Basement Backups
Full Road Reconstruction
MWRD Tributary Area
Limited Capacity Downstream
Limited Storage Options
Flow Reduction

Glenview Study and Options


Previous Study
Flow monitoring
Storage not cost effective
Flow reduction

Road Reconstruction in Design


More Basement Backups
Review Previous Study
Review flow monitoring
New model
Storage and flow reduction options

Glenview Storage vs. Flow Reduction


Rain Event Recurrence
Interval
1-Yr
1-Yr
5-Yr
5-Yr
5-Yr
5-Yr
5-Yr
10-Yr
10-Yr
10-Yr
10-Yr
50-Yr
50-Yr
50-Yr

I/I Reduction (%)


0
20
0
15
20
35
50
0
20
30
50
0
20
50

Amount of Storage Required


(gal)
66,200
0
318,300
184,750
165,700
66,200
0
466,400
265,250
188,050
19,800
1,378,000
685,400
185,750

Glenview - Solution
Major Storage Only Not Cost-Effective
Limited Storage Cost-Effective
Storage in ROW Road Reconstruction

Critical elevations
Operation and Maintenance
Utility conflict
Flow backup into 48 sewers select locations

Flow Reduction Program


Public
Private

Glenview Storage

Wilmette - Background

Half Combined, Half Separate Systems


Two Major Separate Sanitary Basins
Backups Regional and Severe in Major Events
Backups Isolated Areas in Moderate Events
Late 1980s Flow Reduction
Princeton Basin Control Structure and Storage
Downstream Control
Physical evidence
Not found in previous flow monitoring

Wilmette Initial Study


Detailed Hydraulic Model
Utilize previous flow monitoring
Rim and invert survey of all manholes

Recommendations

Address backpitched sewer


Address two local hydraulic bottlenecks
Initiate flow reduction Kenilworth Gardens
More detailed evaluation of Harms Basin
Additional flow monitoring
Capacity and storage options

Wilmette Localized Bottlenecks

Wilmette Local Storage

Wilmette Local Storage

Wilmette Local Storage

Wilmette Harms Basin Study


Longer Term Flow Monitoring
Various size rain events
Evidence of downstream control

Improvement Options
Flow reduction
Public
Private

Storage options
Volume required?
Side stream sewers in ROW
Large scale location options

Major Rain Event

Model Target Event

Diagnostics Model Solution

Storm
Event
2-Month
6-Month
1-Year
2-Year
5-Year
10-Year
25-Year
50-Year
100-Year

Average # of
Events Per
Year
6
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.04
0.02
0.01

Number of Properties Subject to Backup by Alternative


Existing
Condition
0
58
267
1,213
1,669
1,711
1,711
1,711
1,712

1.5
MG
0
0
40
921
1,626
1,680
1,700
1,711
1,712

3.0
MG
0
0
38
231
1,651
1,679
1,690
1,708
1,712

4.5
MG
0
0
17
113
1,258
1,679
1,687
1,690
1,712

5.5
MG
0
0
7
103
373
1,553
1,678
1,690
1,712

8.0
MG
0
0
7
65
308
1,228
1,489
1,689
1,695

11.0
MG
0
0
7
65
291
1,213
1,374
1,467
1,681

9.0 MG
(P)
0
0
7
65
308
1,178
1,362
1,677
1,700

Wilmette Harms Basin Solution


Backflow Prevention / Pump Over Station
Check Valve on 36 Interceptor
1 MGD Pump Station (Flow Set by MWRD)

Wilmette West Park Storage

5.5 MG Cast-In-Place Concrete Tank


Sewer Overflow to Tank (No Mechanical / Electrical)
Provisions for Mixing and Flushing
Controls Building with Odor Control System
Pump Station to Pump Out Tank
Design-Build

IGA between Village and Park District


Phase I Excavation start two weeks after approval
Phase II Tank, Building, Lift Station and Piping
Field Area complete by September 15, 2015
Park District Field Turf

Wilmette West Park Storage

Wilmette West Park Storage

Wilmette West Park Storage

Wilmette West Park Storage

Wilmette Additional Improvements


Flow Reduction
Comprehensive manhole rehabilitation
Sewer lining
Private Sector pilot

Princeton Basin

Flow monitoring
Downstream control
Detailed Study
Model options
Village Only Option
Regional Option

Princeton Basin Regional Approach

Coordination/Teaming with MWRD


Regional Flow Monitoring
Hydraulic Modeling
Downstream Control
Source
Combined Sewers

Options
Capacity
Storage
Flow Reduction

Capacity and Storage


Fully Understand the Problem

Flow monitoring long-term if necessary


Hydraulic modeling

Evaluate Capacity Options


Downstream control
Flow diversion

Flow Reduction vs. Storage

Options for storage


Compare different ratios
Combination common for problem areas