5-Capacity Improvements and Wet Weather Storage

8/10/2019 5-Capacity Improvements and Wet Weather Storage

1/79

Capacity Improvements and

Wet Weather Storage

Prepared by

Michael N. Young, P.E.


2/79

Michael N. Young, P.E.

BS in Civil Engineering - University of Illinois

MS in Environmental Engineering University of

Illinois

Wheaton Office Principal/Branch Manager - RJNGroup, 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


3/79

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


4/79

Comprehensive Sanitary Program

Existing Conditions Flow Monitoring

Mapping Updates, GPS Locating, and GISIntegration

Modeling of Sewer System

Evaluate Capacity Improvements and StorageOptions

Comprehensive SSES & Flow Balancing

Public Sector Rehabilitation

Private Sector Flow Reduction Post-Rehabilitation Flow Monitoring

Long-Term Sewer System O & M - CMOM


5/79


6/79

Reduce Flow - Flow Balance


7/79

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


8/79


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


9/79


Laterals Pilot area

Pre-inspections

Full or short?

All or some? Cost sharing?

Storm rehab?

Foundation Drains

Prevalence? Isolate to manageable area

Combine with overhead sewer?

Cost sharing?


10/79

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


11/79

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


12/79

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


13/79

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


14/79

Villa Park - Existing Conditions


15/79

Villa Park Proposed w/o LS Upgrade


16/79


17/79

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


18/79

Villa Park


19/79

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


40% flow reduction target


20/79

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


21/79

Wheaton Flow Balance


22/79

Wheaton Flow Reduction


23/79

Wheaton - Solution

Pilot Results

~30% flow reduction

Some Level 2 remains

Lining challenges Full Scale Program

Level 1 and 2 removal

Lateral lining


Coordination w/ District


24/79

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?


25/79

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


26/79

Palatine Reallocation Area


27/79

Palatine - Solution

Flow Diversion

MWRD ConceptualApproval Population Equivalency

Flow Mitigation

Village Mitigation

Preliminary Design

Interceptor Connection Deep Sewer On Grade

Final Design


28/79


29/79

Palatine - Trenchless Construction


30/79

Palatine - Trenchless Construction


31/79

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


32/79

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


33/79

Downstream Control

Basin

Severity of

DS Control Pipe Size

DS Control

Minimum

Flow Depth

DS Control

Minimum

Precipitation

Flow

Restriction

Discrete 3-Yr,

2-Hr PF

Max Flow

Depth

Down-

stream

System

(Inches) (Inches) (Inches) (mgd) (Feet)

DES-1

MOST

SEVERE 15 8 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 9 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


34/79


35/79

Des Plaines Flow Diversion


36/79


37/79

Proposed Conditions - South


38/79

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


39/79

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


40/79

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


41/79

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


42/79

Fresh Express Route Options


43/79


44/79

Fresh Express Volume Risk Analysis


45/79


46/79

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


Storage

Flow reduction


47/79

Elmhurst Flow Analysis


48/79

Elmhurst Storage Volume


49/79

Balancing Storage and Flow Reduction


50/79

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


51/79

Elmhurst Capacity and Storage


52/79

Elmhurst Open Cut


53/79

Elmhurst Trenchless


54/79

Elmhurst Trenchless


55/79

Glenview - Background

1 Square Mile Target Area

Basement Backups

Full Road Reconstruction

MWRD Tributary Area Limited Capacity Downstream

Limited Storage Options

Flow Reduction


56/79

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


57/79

Glenview Storage vs. Flow Reduction

Rain Event Recurrence

Interval I/I Reduction (%)Amount of Storage Required

(gal)

1-Yr 0 66,200

1-Yr 20 0

5-Yr 0 318,300

5-Yr 15 184,750

5-Yr 20 165,700

5-Yr 35 66,200

5-Yr 50 0

10-Yr 0 466,400

10-Yr 20 265,250

10-Yr 30 188,05010-Yr 50 19,800

50-Yr 0 1,378,000

50-Yr 20 685,400

50-Yr 50 185,750


58/79

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


59/79

Glenview Storage


60/79

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


61/79

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


62/79

Wilmette Localized Bottlenecks


63/79

Wilmette Local Storage


64/79



65/79



66/79

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


67/79

Major Rain Event


68/79

Model Target Event


69/79

Diagnostics Model Solution

Number of Properties Subject to Backup by Alternative

Storm

Event

Average # of

Events Per

Year

Existing

Condition

1.5

MG

3.0

MG

4.5

MG

5.5

MG

8.0

MG

11.0

MG

9.0 MG

(P)

2-Month 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06-Month 2 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1-Year 1 267 40 38 17 7 7 7 7

2-Year 0.5 1,213 921 231 113 103 65 65 65

5-Year 0.2 1,669 1,626 1,651 1,258 373 308 291 308

10-Year 0.1 1,711 1,680 1,679 1,679 1,553 1,228 1,213 1,178

25-Year 0.04 1,711 1,700 1,690 1,687 1,678 1,489 1,374 1,362

50-Year 0.02 1,711 1,711 1,708 1,690 1,690 1,689 1,467 1,677

100-Year 0.01 1,712 1,712 1,712 1,712 1,712 1,695 1,681 1,700


70/79

Wilmette Harms Basin Solution

Backflow Prevention / Pump Over Station Check Valve on 36 Interceptor

1 MGD Pump Station (Flow Set by MWRD)


71/79

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


72/79

Wilmette West Park Storage


73/79


74/79



75/79



76/79

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


77/79

Princeton Basin Regional Approach

Coordination/Teaming with MWRD

Regional Flow Monitoring

Hydraulic Modeling

Downstream Control

Source

Combined Sewers

Options

Capacity

Storage

Flow Reduction


78/79

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


79/79

5-Capacity Improvements and Wet Weather Storage

Documents

Transcript of 5-Capacity Improvements and Wet Weather Storage