Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOVEMBER 20,2019 Michael A. Gillenwater ATTORNEY AT LAW 411 Watt Street JEFFERSONVILLE,INDIANA 47130 (812)288-4442 Fax Number(812)288-4451 Michaela gillenwater.us November 20, 2019 Lila Jones U.S. Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resource Division 4 Constitution Square 150 M Street,N.E. Suite 2900 Washington, DC 20002 Sent Via Email:Lila.jones(a�usdoi.gov Original follows by U.S. Mail RE:RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 6,2019 EMAIL UNITED STATES AND STATE OF INDIANA VS CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AND LTCP MODIFICATION Ms. Lila Jones, Thank you to you and your client for taking the time to speak with my client on October 29. This letter is in response to the 5 additional questions/recommendations contained in your November 6,2019 email.Per that call and email,we are optimistic that the number of outstanding areas that require additional clarity are decreasing. This email is to provide you with a response to the questions asked during the call to ensure we are all on the same page about the information sought during the call. 1. Would the City be willing to eliminate references to 2.2 month storms and 3 month storms and instead replace all with references only to 4 CSOs? We are concerned that the reference to the storm numbers will create confusion about the level of control. • Response All of the references to the 2.2 month and 3 month storms have been changed throughout the City's modifications to the LTCP. The relevant Sections of the LTCP are being sent via an electronic transfer. 2. Your letter indicated that you would prefer not to make changes to Section 9 until after the Agencies reviewed your responses to questions 9-11 from our September 19,2019 letter. The agencies have reviewed your responses and request that you please incorporate your clarifications and explanations provided in response to questions 9-11 into Section 9. The additional detail they provide is helpful to understanding the City's reasoning. Response All of the comments contained in our October 15, 2019 response to questions 9, 10, & 11 have been incorporated into the revised Section 9. Page I JUDY 16`Data'Jefrersonville Sewer Board\Litigation EPA'11-20-19 Response Letter to DOJ.docx 3. Can you please provide clarification in your response to question 9 about the City's actual anticipated expenditures? Our understanding from your response is that the City is using a figure that represents what could be spent if all necessary funds were made available. A more accurate figure would reflect actual anticipated expenditures for each year 2020-2025. Response The City provided actual expenditures that where available and actual anticipated expenses in the middle column of the chart(labeled"R&R Expenditures') in its response to question 9 in the October 15, 2019 letter. The amount actually spent on R&R in 2017 was$1.851 million; in 2018, the amount actually spent was$3.535 million;while the budgeted and projected spend in 2019 was $4.6 million. The City now has 2020 budget numbers. For 2020, the City has budgeted a total of$5.680 million for R&R—but this figure does not include any expenditures for any of the new plant and equipment coming on line as a part of the LTCP and Line[103J of the FCA is specifically provided for the future cost of the new projects required by the CD, that is why the City's actual anticipated expenditures for 2021-2025 are best reflected in the $8.679 million annual R&R figure provided in the response to question 9. It is important to remember that this number is an average, and actual expenditures will likely be either higher or lower than this each year — but particularly higher in years where there are large, unanticipated repair costs. The City has had several sewers that have failed or were about to fail that were replaced which were not included in the budget i.e. Penn St. From 10'h St. to 8th St., Main St.from 8"' St. to Fredrick St., the lining of 1,250 linear feet of sewer, and several other replacement projects. Fund availability will also cause fluctuation in the actual R&R budget and actual expenditures each year. 4. The revised proposal indicates that results are based on the assumption that the Cane Run outfall will have sufficient capacity. What modeling has been,or will be,done to confirm this assumption? Relatedly,what information other than confirmative modeling can you share with us that supports your assumption about Cane Run's capacity? Response Cane Run Creek, which was previously explained,consists of a 96"dia.pipe that extends from the upper reach of the ponding area to the effluent side of the TSPS in Jeffersonville. The Cane Run ponding area works in conjunction with Flood Control Pump Station No. 5. This system is affected by the flooding stages of the lower pool of the Ohio River. In essence, there are two(2)conditions that affect the hydraulic capacity of the 96"pipe, these are: 1. When the ponding area is empty, then the 96"pipe flows freely and has sufficient capacity to handle not only CSO, but also stormwater. 2. When the Ohio River's lower pool water surface elevation is at. 415.0 ft.and above, the flap gate at the lower end of an existing 84"gravity culvert which carries Cane Run under the flood protection levee closes, and the ponding area begins to fill up. Once the water surface elevation starts rising above the crown elevation of the 96"pipe at its outlet in the ponding area, the hydraulic capacity of the 96" pipe can be affected due to "tailwater conditions". Page I 2 JUDY 16`.DataJeffersonville Sewer Board\LitigationiEPA\11-20-19 Response Letter to DO3.docx The water surface elevation in the ponding area is controlled by the pumping range of the Cane Run Flood Control Pumping Station No. 5. This pump station, originally designed in the early 1940's when the flood protection system was first developed, is now obsolete, mainly because the pumping range (the elevation at which the pumps start and stop), is so high, that the ponding area fills up until the 96"pipe is completely submerged, and its hydraulic capacity becomes very limited. Extensive studies and hydraulic modeling have been completed over the years to determine how much the high-water elevation in the ponding area can be lowered and controlled, the necessary pumping capacity required to accomplish this, and the costs associated with the upgrades. The invert elevation at the outlet end of the 96"pipe at the ponding area is 417.411., and crown elevation is 425.4 ft. The pumping range of the existing pumping station, which has a maximum pumping capacity of 18MGD: All of the pumps are [at elev. 429.8 ft. (4.4 feet above the crown of the 96", which results in the pipe being submerged). At elevation 433.511. the pumps on resulting in a pumping range of 3.7 feet. All of the elevation occurs above the crown elevation of the 96" Cane Run pipe. Following the studies, hydraulic and hydrology modeling, it has been determined that a new Flood Control Pump Station No. 5 with a maximum pumping capacity of 58 MGD,pumping at a range of pumps pif elevation of 420.Of1., and pumps on elevations of 421.0 ft. (pump 1 on), 422.0 ft. (pump 2 on) and elevation 423.0 ft. (pump 3 on), will maintain the maximum high water ponding elevation in the ponding area well below the crown of the 96"Cane Run Pipe, thus guaranteeing full flow conditions and providing maximum hydraulic capacity to handle CSO discharge as well as stormwater discharges. The maximum hydraulic capacity of the 96" pipe is estimated to be approximately 260 MGD under free flow conditions. The CSO model estimates that the peak flowrate being discharged into Cane Run during the typical year to be approximately 80 MGD, or about 30% of the available capacity of the 96" pipe. This results in 70%capacity remaining to handle stormwater. It should be noted that historical records show that during the ORSANCO Typical Year, the Ohio River was at or near normal pool and the ponding area was empty. Attached please find two(2)sketches that depict the flooding conditions in the ponding area during low or empty conditions and surcharged or high-water ponding during Ohio River flood stages and the effect of the existing and proposed pump stations 5. Have your engineers incorporated the volume of the five proposed stormwater basins into the hydraulic modeling of the 8th and I Oth Street Sewer Separation projects to result in the predicted maximum of 4 CSOs in a typical year to the Ohio River and Cane Run performance scenarios? Please describe how these basins will perform (i.e. passive weir regulators,etc.) and list the volume of each. Please explain how will the basins be drained and operated. Will the construction dates of the basins be identical to the dates of completion for the sewer separation projects? As discussed on our call,please add these projects to the Amended LTCP Design Criteria,Performance Criteria,and Implementation Schedule for the "Modified"Plan spreadsheet. Response Page 3 JUDY'6DataJeffersonville Sewer Board\Litigation.EPA,1 1-20-19 Response Letter to DOJ.docx Of the five (5) stormwater detention basins shown on the drainage area drawing that was included in our July 26, 2019 response, (and also included herein) only the largest basin located near the intersection of 8`r'and Ohio Streets(the southwestern most basin shown in the drainage area drawing)can affect the.flowrate and timing of stormwater runoff competing for capacity in the 96"Cane Run outfall pipe. The detention volume of this basin, which will entitle detention basin #1, is approximately 365,000 cubic feet(2.7 MG)and is being designed to detain stormwater runoff from drainage areas 2 and 2A and to capture current surface ponding that has occurred in the past at the intersection of 8"and Ohio Streets. This basin is to be controlled by restricted outlets(passive weir regulators). Another function of this detention basin is to establish some real time control or priority of what discharge takes precedence in using the hydraulic capacity of the 96"Cane Run outfall first. As explained in response #4, it has been determined that the Cane Run outfall has sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey all o fthe expected flows. Step are being taken to further attempt to regulate and time whatflowgoes out and when. The remaining four(4) detention basins are small regional basins and are being designed to preserve the hydraulic capacity of the existing 36-inch storm sewer located on 8"St. and will serve the storm sewer extensions. As such, they have no effective role in the overall functionality of the main detention basin (#1) or the 96"Cane Run outfall. We have added these companion projects to the implementation schedule, which also is attached. Hopefully,this response has provided all of the requested changes and appropriate answers to your comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions,concerns,or comments,please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Michael A. Gillenwater Enclosures c: Jeffersonville Sewer Board Page 14 JUDY 16',Data`Jeffersonville Sewer Board',Litigation\EPA'I I-20-19 Response Letter to DOJ.docx