Wastewater Coalition Meeting 12 14 00

Slide1: 

Wastewater Master Plan December 7, 2000 Prepared By: Camp Dresser andamp; McKee City of Norman, Oklahoma

Slide2: 

Wastewater Master Plan: Mission

Slide3: 

Master Planning Master Planning Goals Wastewater Master Plan: Development

Slide4: 

Conveyance: Network of pipes and pumping stations necessary to transport wastewater from generator to treatment plant and then to disposal in South Canadian River. Wastewater Treatment: Removal of pollutants from wastewater. Wastewater Disposal: After removal of pollutants, treated effluent is discharged to the South Canadian River. Wastewater System Components

Slide5: 

In the Ground Service Area: Area 'in the ground' which is in use today. Obligated Service Area: Area including 'on the ground' components, plus current obligation andamp; contractual development. Future Service Area: Area including 'on the ground' components, current obligation andamp; contractual, plus future growth in undeveloped areas. Key Definitions

Slide6: 

Baseline Development

Slide7: 

Complete Wastewater System

Slide8: 

Current/Future Wastewater Service Areas

Slide9: 

Naturally Occurring Drainage Basins Indian Hills Franklin Tecumseh Rock Creek Robinson Alameda Imoff Cedar Lane 48 TH 12 TH 24 TH 36 TH 36 TH Porter 12 TH 24 TH Lindsey

Slide10: 

P On the Ground System Wastewater Generation Rate

Slide11: 

P Obligated System Wastewater Generation Rate

Slide12: 

Indian Hills Franklin Tecumseh Rock Creek Robinson Alameda Imoff Cedar Lane 48 TH 12 TH 24 TH 36 TH 36 TH Porter 12 TH 24 TH Lindsey Future System Wastewater Generation Rate

Slide13: 

Collection System Assessment Sanitary sewer overflows occur in existing 'on the ground' collection system. Previous studies revealed major collection system defects through flow monitoring and visual inspection. Studies resulted in I/I reduction programs, of which a majority of the proposed improvements are in place. Economical I/I reduction alternatives have been exhausted.

Slide14: 

Collection System Upgrades Versus Effective I/I Reduction I/I Mitigation Efforts No Repair Conventional System Upgrades Complete System Replacement Cost $$$ System I/I (Gallons) Point of Diminishing Returns I/I Reduction Cost of Upgrade

Slide15: 

P On the Ground WWTP Capacity Assessment

Slide16: 

Current Wastewater Treatment Plant (12 MGD) Sludge to Digesters

Slide17: 

P Treated Wastewater disposal Assessment

Slide18: 

Slide19: 

Hydrodynamic model was developed and calibrated using 1998 data. Calibrated model was used to determine dry weather andamp; wet weather flows using a 5 year storm for determining wet weather flows. Analysis of existing collection system identified multiple overflows from the system during design storm event. System needs were identified for eliminating sanitary sewer system overflows.

Slide20: 

Pipe Manhole Ground Surface Level of Adequacy vs. Cost $19.3 million $29.5 million

Slide21: 

Improvements Cost Opinion* (x 1000) Existing Service Area Collection System Assessment Service Basins Bishop Brookhaven Castle Rock Rock Creek Polo Imhoff Woodcrest York Ashton Grove Carrington Eastridge Sutton Place Total $6,442 $8,677 $125 $92 $1,902 $351 $1,022 $307 $292 $57 $51 $19,317 * Maintains a minimum of 1 ft. freeboard.

Slide22: 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment

Slide23: 

Current Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment Obligated service area wastewater generation = 13.9 MGD. Current 'in the ground' treatment capacity = 12 MGD. Treatment capacity deficit = 1.9 MGD. Existing headworks facility (35 yrs) in need of replacement. Sludge dewatering for more efficient sludge management is necessary to allow handling of sludge during wet weather.

Slide24: 

Current Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment Additional 1.9 MGD capacity: $3.2 million. Headworks improvements: $3.5 million. Improved sludge handling efficiency: $3.5 million.

Slide25: 

Alternatives Evaluation

Slide26: 

Indian Hills Franklin Tecumseh Rock Creek Robinson Alameda Imoff Cedar Lane 48 TH 12 TH 24 TH 36 TH 36 TH Porter 12 TH 24 TH Lindsey Infrastructure Drivers: Treatment Pumped Gravity (South)

Slide27: 

Indian Hills Franklin Tecumseh Rock Creek Robinson Alameda Imoff Cedar Lane 48 TH 12 TH 24 TH 36 TH 36 TH Porter 12 TH 24 TH Lindsey Infrastructure Drivers: Treatment

Slide28: 

Infrastructure Drivers: Discharge / Reuse Norman Norman WWTP South Canadian 21.5 MGD Advanced Treatment South Canadian River

Slide29: 

Norman Norman WWTP South Canadian River Little River Northside WWTP Infrastructure Drivers: Discharge / Reuse

Slide30: 

Future Strategies Collection System: Flow to the South One WWTP 21.5 MGD Collection System: Flow to the North andamp; South Two WWTPs 17.0 MGD 4.5 MGD Strategy II

Slide31: 

Plan Alternatives: Plan A

Slide32: 

Plan Alternatives: Plan B

Slide33: 

Plan Alternatives: Plan C

Slide34: 

Plan Alternatives: Plan D

Slide35: 

Plan Alternatives: Plan E

Slide36: 

Plan Alternatives: Plan F

Slide37: 

Plan Alternatives Collection System Treatment System Discharge / Reuse Plan Alternative A B C D E F Single Single North South North South North South Lower S. Canadian 21.5 MGD Advanced WWTP 21.5 MGD Advanced WWTP 17 MGD Advanced WWTP 4.5 MGD Advanced WWTP 17 MGD Advanced WWTP 4.5 MGD Advanced WWTP 17 MGD Advanced WWTP 4.5 MGD Advanced WWTP 17 MGD Advanced WWTP 4.5 MGD Advanced WWTP North South Lower S. Canadian / Urban Irrigation Lower S. Canadian / Urban Irrigation Upper S. Canadian Little River (Lake Thunderbird) Lower S. Canadian / Urban Irrigation Lower S. Canadian / Urban Irrigation Wetlands andamp; Little River

Slide38: 

Plan Selection Matrix Selected Plan Analysis Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D Plan E Plan F

Slide39: 

Plan Selection: Matrix Analysis Monetary Non-Monetary Total Plan Alternative A B C D E F 4 4.5 2 1 3 5 3 6 2 4.5 1 4.5 7 10.5 4 5.5 4 9.5 Final Ranking Ranking: 1 = Most Favorable ; 6 = Least Favorable

Slide40: 

Plan Development

Slide41: 

Proposed Wastewater Master Plan: Plan C

Slide42: 

Question / Discussion