Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Combined Sewer Overflow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lancaster outlines long-term plan to reduce combined sewer overflows, cites cost and upstream limits
Summary
City of Lancaster staff described options for a second long-term control plan to reduce combined sewer overflows into the Conestoga River, noting five overflow locations, past investments of about $88 million, an EPA/DEP consent decree from 2017 and the need to balance water-quality gains with residential cost burden.
Chris Hildich, deputy director of public works for utilities for the City of Lancaster, outlined options and constraints as the city develops a second long-term control plan to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) into the Conestoga River.
Hildich opened the presentation by saying, “We're here tonight for our combined sewer overflow control plan,” and summarized the city's work to date, regulatory obligations and next steps toward a preferred alternative that will be negotiated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The city has five marked CSO outfalls: a North CSO near the McCasky campus on Clay Street, one at Stevens Avenue, two near the county park at Susquehanna and Strawberry streets, and the largest at Ingleside off New Danville Pike. Hildich said the system, built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, can produce CSO events “55 to 65 times a year on average,” with event durations from minutes to several hours depending on storms.
He described the scale of wet-weather flow: “On an average day, we can take in about 20,000,000 gallons a day of wastewater that we treat. When it rains, we can go up to 55, 60 million gallons a day.” The plant discharges treated effluent to the Conestoga River; Hildich noted the river’s water quality is also affected by upstream nonpoint pollution from agriculture.
Lancaster previously prepared a long-term control plan in 1998 and, Hildich said, has invested about $88 million since then in wastewater-plant upgrades, pump stations, collection-system maintenance, street sweeping, FOG (fats, oils and grease) programs and debris screens. Despite that work, the city entered a consent decree with the EPA and DEP in 2017 that requires an updated plan and further CSO reductions; Hildich said the LTCP will need approval from both agencies.
The city’s evaluation has modeled a typical year (based on 1962 rainfall patterns used in the model), baseline conditions, planned projects over a 30-year horizon and a suite of candidate controls. Hildich summarized the primary categories under consideration: gray infrastructure upgrades (for example, enlarging pump stations and force mains), green infrastructure (rain gardens, porous pavements, street trees and bump-outs), underground storage (tanks under McCasky soccer fields were mentioned as an example) and targeted sewer separations in key basins such as Duke Street to reduce overflows at nearby outfalls.
He said some options, such as very large deep tunnels used in other cities, were evaluated but dismissed because of cost and local geologic constraints. The city has grouped potential investments into “buckets” (examples cited in the presentation included roughly $30 million, $50.1 million, $63 million and $73 million levels of investment) and modeled the incremental CSO reductions achievable at each level. Hildich emphasized the need to balance effectiveness and affordability: “We want...the best return on our investment,” he said.
A distinct financial-capability analysis (FCA) will be part of the LTCP submittal; Hildich described the EPA metric that compares typical sewer and stormwater charges to median household income. Using the city’s modeling of a 30-year program, he reported a residential-indicator baseline of about 2.26% of median income, which he said the EPA would classify as a “high burden.” He said negotiations with EPA and DEP could extend compliance schedules and influence required spending based on demonstrated affordability.
Hildich also described water-quality objectives the LTCP must address, including bacterial contamination affecting recreation, dissolved-oxygen impacts on aquatic life and suspended solids. He noted the model can predict improvements in these indicators but cautioned that the Conestoga is heavily impacted upstream of the city, so local CSO reductions may only modestly change overall river water quality.
The city is collecting public comment during and after the meeting; Hildich closed with directions for further input and outreach. He said more detailed alternatives and engineering specifics will be presented at a subsequent public meeting before the city selects preferred measures.
