Basis of Design Memorandum: CSO 181 Real Time Controls

11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,1/29
BASIS OF DESIGN
MEMORANDUM
FINAL DESIGN UPDATE
CSO 181 Real Time Controls

Project No. 11240020
Metropolitan Sewer District

of Greater Cincinnati
April 7, 2016
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,2/29
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Objective ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Changes Since 30% Design ................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.5 Changes Since 60% Design ................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.6 Project Schedule ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-3
2. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Jurisdiction and Property ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Geotechnical ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3 Environmental ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4.1 Sanitary and Storm Sewers ..................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4.2 Water ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.4.3 Gas, Electric, Telephone and Cable ...................................................................................................... 2-3
3. Design Considerations.................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Concrete Structure ................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Bending Weirs ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2.1 TRU-BEND Weir .......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 ACU-BEND Weir........................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Gates ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.1 Latching Flap Gates .................................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.3.2 Slide Gates ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.4 Actuators ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Cleaning ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.5.1 Tipping Bucket ............................................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.5.2 Pivoting Drum .............................................................................................................................................. 3-6
3.5.3 Flushing Gate ................................................................................................................................................ 3-6
3.5.4 Water Cannon ............................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.5.5 Yard Hose Bibbs........................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6 Instrumentation & Controls ................................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.6.1 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.6.2 Control ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-8
3.6.3 Remote Communications......................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.7 Control Building ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-9
3.8 Hydraulics .................................................................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.8.1 Restrictions.................................................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.8.2 Modeling .......................................................................................................................................................3-10
3.8.3 Hydraulic Performance ..........................................................................................................................3-11
3.9 Operations .................................................................................................................................................................3-13
3.10 Maintenance ...........................................................................................................................................................3-15
3.11 Permitting ...............................................................................................................................................................3-15
i
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,3/29
Table of Contents
3.12 Constructability ....................................................................................................................................................3-16

3.13 Risks...........................................................................................................................................................................3-16
3.14 Construction Cost .................................................................................................................................................3-18
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. The existing CSO 181 outfall ................................................................................................................ 1-1
Figure 2-1. The existing CSO 181 outfall project area. ..................................................................................... 2-1
Figure 3-1. Typical TRU-BEND bending weir installation. ............................................................................. 3-2
Figure 3-2. Typical ACU-BEND weir installation. ............................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3. Typical tipping bucket installation ................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-4. Typical pivoting drum installation .................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-5. Typical flushing gate configuration .................................................................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-6. Water cannon installation..................................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3-7. Hydraulic Profile of Trunk Sewer, Peak Typical Year Storm ...............................................3-12
Figure 3-8. Hydraulic Profile of Trunk Sewer, 10-Year Storm....................................................................3-12
Figure 3-9. CSO 181 RTC Facility Component Flows for Peak Typical Year Storm ...........................3-14
Figure 3-10. CSO 181 RTC Facility Component Flows for 10-Year Storm .............................................3-15
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Subsurface Investigation Summary .................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 3-1. Hydraulic Performance Summary .....................................................................................................3-13
ii
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,4/29
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement

The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSDGC) is under a federal Consent Decree to
eliminate or capture for treatment 85% of the combined sewage volume collected by its combined sewer
system during wet weather events on an annual average basis. This is determined using the 1970 Typical
Year continuous simulation rainfall data. More than half of the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in the
MSDGC service area occur in the Lower Mill Creek watershed. The Lower Mill Creek Partial Remedy
(LMCPR), developed by MSDGC and approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
developed a solution to eliminate 1.78 billion gallons of CSO annually into Mill Creek by 2018. The Bloody
Run watershed and collection system is part of the Lower Mill Creek watershed. This watershed is drained
by a predominantly combined sewer system and its main outfall is CSO 181, which discharges CSO into the
Bloody Run channel and ultimately into Mill Creek during wet
weather. Planning phase model results revealed that the
Bloody Run watershed currently contributes 352 million
gallons (MG) of CSO discharge to Mill Creek annually based on
the Typical Year.
1.2 Objective
MSDGC seeks to reduce combined sewer overflows from CSO
181 as a part of its LMCPR. MSDGC has developed a project as
part of the Phase 1 Wet Weather Improvement Plan to meet
Consent Decree obligations. This project is intended to
implement a real time control (RTC) facility at the CSO 181
location to provide in-system storage. The CSO 181 RTC
facility must reduce the magnitude of overflows into the Figure 1-1: The existing CSO 181 outfall after an
overflow event. The outfall will be modified to
Bloody Run channel in a cost-effective manner, while not include a structure that will increase system storage
creating surface flooding or sewer back-up (SBU) and reduce CSO discharges to the Bloody Run
occurrences upstream. channel.
1.3 Project Description

In order to achieve the LMCPR’s requirement to eliminate of 1.78 billion gallons of CSO from Mill Creek by
2018, CSOs from the Bloody Run watershed must be reduced. The “Bloody Run Watershed Strategic
Separation Project” (CDM Smith, June 2012) evaluated the feasibility of stormwater separation in the
Bloody Run watershed and other alternatives to contribute to the LMCPR’s CSO reduction obligation. This
evaluation resulted in three projects in the Bloody Run watershed: 31,400 feet of new separated storm
sewers, a 53 MG stormwater detention basin, and an RTC facility at CSO 181. Of these three projects, only
the CSO 181 RTC was identified as a Phase 1 Wet Weather Improvement Plan project and required to be
operational by the end of 2018. The separated storm sewers and stormwater detention basin were
assigned to Phase 2, a schedule for which has not yet been determined.
MSDGC retained CDM Smith to design and develop construction documents for the CSO 181 RTC. The final
design was to build off the conceptual RTC facility configuration resulting from the “Bloody Run (CSO 181)
Real Time Control Facility, Siting Analysis/Conceptual Design Report” (MSDGC, October 2013). The RTC
1-1
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,5/29
Section 1 Introduction
facility will consist of a series of bending weirs in a concrete structure to temporarily retain wet weather
flows in excess of the existing underflow sewer capacity, storing it in the Bloody Run combined sewers. The
facility will include new slide gates on the underflow branch pipe to replace the existing Brown & Brown
regulator and allow the combined sewer to be fully drained and convey flow to the Auxiliary Mill Creek
Interceptor (AMCI). Increased instrumentation and controls at the facility will help operations by
monitoring water levels and controlling the underflow control gates to maximize storage during wet
weather events, maximize flow from the combined sewer when water levels are low in the AMCI, and
prevent high flows in the AMCI from backing up through the branch pipe and releasing through CSO 181.
To increase storage, the proposed CSO 181 RTC facility will be constructed off and to the side of the existing
CSO outfall, at the end of the existing 15-foot by 10-foot box culvert, located to the west of Prosser Avenue
and north of Murray Road. The RTC channel will be constructed at a 60-degree angle to the southwest of
the existing outfall with a length of approximately 100 feet to provide the necessary length for bending
weirs to convey the wet weather flows while not creating surface flooding or SBUs upstream. The
maximum water level that can be attained is limited by the elevation of residences on Prosser Avenue,
whose sanitary laterals connect to a 24-inch sewer that enters the combined sewer by blind connection.
This in turn will help establish the maximum storage volume and the overall CSO reduction possible. The
90% Design incorporates and builds upon conceptual plans developed as a part of the “Bloody Run (CSO
181) Real Time Control Facility, Siting Analysis/Conceptual Design Report”, the 30% Design submitted in
August 2015, the 60% Design submitted in January 2016, and subsequent meeting discussions with
MSDGC. The 90% Design drawings are included as Appendix A.
The need to provide floatables control for the remaining overflows that will occur after construction of the
CSO 181 RTC facility was reviewed in consideration of Consent Decree commitments during the 30%
Design effort. It was determined by MDSGC legal counsel to not be a requirement for this facility at this
time, as this project is just the first of multiple projects that will achieve the needed CSO reduction in the
Bloody Run watershed. Thus, no screening or other floatables control were provided in the 30% Design.
However, because some form of floatables control will likely be required at this facility in the future, it was
determined by MSDGC subsequent to the 30% Design submittal that incorporating baffles would provide a
relatively inexpensive and effective form of floatables control. Consequently, baffles were added
immediately upstream of each bending weir in the 60% Design. Additionally, space has been provided
between the diversion chamber and bending weirs should additional floatables control measures be
required in the future.
1.4 Changes Since 30% Design

The effectiveness of the CSO 181 RTC facility is closely tied to the hydraulics within and around the facility.
Real time control facilities can be labor-intensive from an operations and maintenance (O&M) standpoint,
due to many moving parts during wet weather events. As design evolved during and after the 30% Design
effort, the design team sought opportunities for improvements to the CSO 181 RTC facility hydraulics and
future O&M needs. Many of these changes were vetted with MSDGC and incorporated into the 60% Design,
including the following:
 The channel of the bending weir chamber was 10 feet wide in the 30% Design facility. Because of
the hydraulic head loss associated with the transition from an existing 15-foot wide culvert to a 10-
foot wide channel, this channel was increased in width to 15 feet.
 The bending weir chamber is aligned at a 60-degree angle from the existing 15-foot by 10-foot box
culvert. However, the configuration in the Conceptual and 30% Designs consisted of closing off the
outfall at the end of the culvert and cutting a hole in the side of it to allow high flows access into the
bending weir chamber. This essentially required a 90-degree turn for high flows to enter the
1-2
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,6/29
bending weir chamber, and was the source of significant head loss. The 60% Design modified the
end of the existing box culvert to produce a true 60-degree bend to reduce the head loss associated
with entering the bending weir chamber.
 Conceptual and 30% Designs included a 6-foot by 7-foot slide gate to serve as an emergency
release for the upstream collection system during extreme wet weather events. Concern was
caused by the cost (capital and O&M) and risk accompanying an infrequently used large gate that
will endure forces and debris associated with combined sewage flows greater than 1,000 cfs on an
annual basis. This was eliminated in favor of a fixed weir above the series of bending weirs.
Adequate freeboard has been maintained to ensure no upstream SBUs or increased surface
flooding. This passive emergency system relief solution eliminated the cost and maintenance
associated with an infrequently used large slide gate.
Detailed discussion on the hydraulic impacts of these changes is included in Section 3.8. Other changes
incorporated in the 60% Design included relatively minor refinements such as facility dimensions and
elevations.
1.5 Changes Since 60% Design

Two significant changes to the CSO 181 RTC facility occurred since the 60% Design, and both were made to
make O&M activities simpler and easier. These changes have been incorporated into the 90% Design and
include the following:
 A 7 feet by 7 feet prefabricated enclosure was added during the 60% Design stage to house
electrical and control equipment. The 60% Design also included a public water supply to the
flushing reservoir, activated by a solenoid control valve in an underground vault. However,
MSDGC expressed the desire to have all control equipment above ground. This resulted in a new
Control Building that the solenoid control valve will share with the electrical and control
equipment. The building will be divided with an interior wall to separate the solenoid control
valve and water piping from the electrical and control equipment. The design team elected to
propose a pre-engineered, pre-assembled concrete building due to cost and fast construction. This
building is further discussed in Section 3.7.
 In order to provide better access to the downstream side of the bending weirs for cleaning and
maintenance, a ramp has been provided to the facility’s discharge channel. While backwater in the
Bloody Run channel is expected to be infrequent, there is the potential for settlement of floatables
and debris in the channel immediately downstream of the RTC facility. Previously, provisions for
cleaning this area consisted of a yard hydrant.
These changes are discussed in detail in ensuing sections of this Basis of Design Memorandum. Minor
refinements and additional details are also included in the 90% Design.
1.6 Project Schedule

In accordance with the Consent Decree, all improvements under the LMCPR must begin construction before
December 31, 2017 and must be operational one year from that date. In order to meet these deadlines, this
project will meet the following milestones:
 Complete and submit 90% design and permit applications to MSDGC by April 7, 2016
 Conduct Reliability Centered Maintenance Workshop by June 15, 2016
 Obtain permit approvals, including Permit-to-Install (PTI) from Ohio EPA, by August 4, 2016
1-3
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,7/29
 Obtain easements and/or property by February 2, 2017
 Bid project between March and April, 2017
 Begin construction in summer of 2017
1-4
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,8/29
Section 2
Existing Conditions
2.1 Jurisdiction and Property

The CSO 181 outfall lies on the border of the Villages of Saint Bernard and Elmwood Place. An existing
easement, approximately 70 feet wide, extends from the Prosser Avenue right of way to the adjacent
property to the west, and encompasses the entire CSO 181 outfall and regulator structure. Interstate 75
runs approximately parallel to and east of Prosser Avenue. The existing CSO 181 project vicinity is shown
in Figure 2-1.
CSO 181 Outfall
Ex. Regulator
Ex. Easement
(approx..)
Figure 2-1: The existing CSO 181 outfall project area.
The proposed RTC facility weir chamber will be constructed at a 60 degree angle to the southwest of the
existing CSO 181 outfall, approximately 100 feet in length, putting it almost completely within Saint
Bernard. The new diversion chamber will lie on the border of Saint Bernard and Elmwood Place. Property
acquisition, either in the form of permanent easements or fee simple purchases, will be required on at least
two adjacent parcels.
2.2 Geotechnical
Infrastructure Development Engineering (IDE) conducted a geotechnical exploration and engineering
evaluation at the project site to analyze subsurface conditions and provide design recommendations. The
results of these efforts are contained in IDE’s Geotechnical Engineering Report (June 12, 2014), included as
Appendix B. A summary of the four geotechnical borings is provided in Table 2-1.
2-1
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,9/29
Section 2  Existing Conditions
Table 2-1: Subsurface Investigation Summary

Ground Elevation Bore Depth Groundwater
Test Bore
(feet) (feet) Elevation (feet)
B-1 528.67 25 510.67
B-2 531.77 35 512.77
B-3 528.64 35 510.14
B-4 528.84 35 510.34
Uncontrolled fill in the area of the new RTC facility was encountered and will need to be completely
removed and replaced with suitable compacted fill. Groundwater and slope stability are also concerns of
note, and appropriate precautions will be necessary during construction as stated in the Geotechnical
Engineering Report.
2.3 Environmental
Per Work Order Authorization No. 344002001, Environmental Site Assessments were not included as part
of this project and environmental contamination issues are not believed to be a concern. The existing CSO
location is not known to have been previously developed or had historic industrial activities that could
have led to contamination. However, as discussed in Section 3.11, an Environmental and Biological Survey
is required as part of a Pre-Construction Notification to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
for coverage under Nationwide Permit No. 7. This work is being proposed as a Work Order Amendment,
which has not been authorized as of the time of the 90% Design submittal.
2.4 Utilities
2.4.1 Sanitary and Storm Sewers
The CSO 181 outfall is at the base of a 15 feet wide by 10 feet high combined trunk sewer that has a
drainage area of over 2,000 acres. The sewer terminates at the CSO 181 diversion chamber, which consists
of a 4-foot high dam to divert flow through a regulator into a 42-inch underflow branch pipe and ultimately
to the AMCI.
An 8-inch reinforced concrete pipe sanitary sewer exists along the west lane of Prosser Avenue, serving
residences on Prosser Avenue. The sanitary sewer begins at Manhole #36502006 in front of 5605 Prosser
and drains north approximately 125 feet to Manhole #36507017, where it is then directed south along the
east lane of Prosser Avenue via a 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe combined sewer. This 24-inch combined
sewer discharges into the 15 feet by 10 feet combined trunk sewer with a blind connection, approximately
60 feet upstream of the CSO 181 outfall, and provides a hydraulic connection between CSO 181 and
basements of homes along Prosser Avenue. Separated storm sewers exist on Prosser Avenue near the
Murray Avenue intersection but will not interfere with the RTC facility operations or construction.
2.4.2 Water
An existing 8-inch water main runs behind the east curb of Prosser Avenue. Water service for the RTC
facility is proposed from this main. An abandoned 24-inch water main runs generally along the center of
Prosser Avenue, crossing above the 15 feet by 10 feet combined sewer before turning west and leaving the
Prosser Avenue right of way. This main followed the previous Murray Avenue alignment before its
reconstruction. A portion of this main outside the Prosser Avenue right of way will likely be encountered
during construction of the RTC facility.
2-2
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,10/29
Section 2  Existing Conditions
2.4.3 Gas, Electric, Telephone and Cable

No gas mains present a conflict with the RTC facility construction. The nearest gas mains are a 6-inch main
to the south along Murray Avenue and a 2-inch main along Prosser Avenue from the north, which ends in
front of 5605 Prosser. Electric, telephone and cable services are available on overhead utility poles. An
electric transformer exists across Prosser Avenue from the project site. Three-phase electric service is not
available in the immediate vicinity. Fiber optic cable service is not available in the immediate area.
2-3
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,11/29
Section 3
Design Considerations
MSDGC does not have design standards for RTC facilities. CDM Smith will use its own design standards for
this project. These will be conformed to MSDGC’s sewer design standards where possible. Technical
specifications are included as Appendix C.
3.1 Concrete Structure

A subsurface concrete structure will be constructed at 60-degree angle from the existing 15-foot by 10-foot
box culvert. The overall structure will be approximately 114 feet long and 29 feet wide, and consist of a 15-
foot wide channel to convey combined sewage to five bending weirs, each located within its own 16-foot
wide bay along the channel’s northern edge. A partial wall at the end of the bending weir channel creates a
10-foot by 15-foot reservoir, which is intended to hold water for use in flushing the channel floor of
accumulated sediment after a wet weather event. A majority of the bending weir channel will be open-air,
providing access for maintenance and cleaning equipment. Fencing and handrails will be provided for
safety and security purposes. The flushing reservoir and bending weir bays will be covered with concrete
slabs. The slab over the bending weirs will also serve as an emergency relief for the upstream collection
system during extreme storm events, or should a bending weir become inoperable. Elevations and wall
heights were designed with consideration for hydraulics and grade control for the surrounding site.
Geotechnical conditions and dynamic hydraulic forces factored into the design of footers, foundations, and
slabs.
3.2 Bending Weirs

A bending weir is a constant-level control gate that operates with few moving parts and no active operator
control necessary. The weir is hinged, allowing it to pivot and open as hydraulic head builds up behind the
gate with increasing water levels. Once the design depth is reached, the weir begins to bend open under the
hydraulic force, allowing water to be conveyed to the receiving stream and maintaining a constant water
level in the upstream sewer. Counterweights compensate for the changes in hydraulic forces acting on the
weir as it rotates from the fully closed to fully opened positions.
There are two basic types of bending weirs: those that open from the top, and those that open from the
bottom. Both types operate on the same principle of differential head, but have different design
considerations. This section describes the types of these bending weirs based on those offered by Grande
Water Management Systems. The “Bloody Run (CSO 181) Real Time Control Facility, Siting
Analysis/Conceptual Design Report” recommended a RTC facility layout with five 4-foot high by 14-foot
long bending weirs in conjunction with an emergency release gate. These recommendations were revisited
during the succeeding design milestones.
3.2.1 TRU-BEND Weir

The TRU-BEND weir opens from the top and functions as a more traditional style of bending weir. This type
of weir consists of a stainless steel body that is hinged at the bottom, allowing the top to lower to the open
position. This unit is counterweighted using a pulley system. As the design hydraulic grade line (HGL)
behind the weir is reached, differential hydraulic head begins to exceed the force of the counterweights,
causing the weir to open from the top and release water. As more flow enters the system and the water
level in the combined sewer rises, the hydraulic force increases to further open the weir and release a
3-1
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,12/29
Section 3  Design Considerations
greater flow to maintain a constant HGL behind the weir. The counterweights are designed to provide the
resistance necessary to maintain the desired maximum upstream HGL that will provide system storage
without surcharge or SBU occurrences. As the forces behind the weir begin to exceed those of the
counterweights, the top of the weir moves from the fully closed position to an open position, allowing
water to pass. A typical TRU-BEND installation is shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1: Typical TRU-BEND bending weir installation (www.grandeinc.com).

The pulley and counterweight configuration is shown on the left.
TRU-BEND type bending weirs offer some design advantages. The TRU-BEND operates at a broad range of
HGLs, accommodating a design depth of up to 5 feet above the bottom of the weir. Also, the TRU-BEND weir
is unlikely to encounter problems with seepage as part of normal operation or due to debris preventing the
weir from closing properly. The TRU-BEND weir lacks an elastomeric seal, eliminating the need for periodic
replacement of this component.
The TRU-BEND also has numerous limitations. Most notably, the configuration of the TRU-BEND weir is
complex, employing a system of pulleys to transfer the forces from the counterweights. The pulley system
has the potential to snag floatables and debris during normal operation, which could impede the opening of
the weir. And although unlikely, a cable could break or jump the pulley causing the counterweight system
to fail and the weir to remain in the fully open position.
3.2.2 ACU-BEND Weir

The ACU-BEND weir is a bottom-opening type weir and is more common in CSO applications than the TRU-
BEND weir. It is hinged at the top and consists of a stainless steel body with an elastomeric seal along the
bottom and sides. Counterweights hang from the outer face of the weir forcing a watertight seal along the
bottom. Similar to the TRU-BEND weir, the weights counteract the hydraulic forces behind the weir, up to
the design depth. As the design HGL behind the weir is reached, differential hydraulic head begins to exceed
the force of the counterweights, causing the weir to open from the bottom and release water. As more flow
enters the system and the water level in the combined sewer rises, the hydraulic force increases to further
open the weir and release a greater flow to maintain a constant HGL behind the weir. The counterweights
are designed to provide the resistance necessary to maintain the desired maximum upstream HGL that will
provide system storage without surcharge or SBU occurrences. A typical ACU-BEND installation is shown in
Figure 3-2.
3-2
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,13/29
The ACU-BEND weir offers several design advantages over the TRU-BEND type of weir. The design is
simple, with the counterweights physically attached to each weir. The counterweights stay out of the path
of flow, reducing the likelihood of damage by debris or catching floatables. Furthermore, the
counterweights can be fitted with floats which will close the weir under backwater conditions, reducing the
amount of water entering the RTC facility from the receiving stream. Modeling results indicate that such
conditions may exist at this site during the 10-year and greater storm events.
ACU-BEND weirs also have

limitations. This type of weir
operates within a narrow
range of HGLs as compared
to TRU-BEND weirs, only
accommodating a maximum
depth of 3 feet from the weir
crest to pass more extreme
events. Furthermore, as the
design HGL is reached, the
counterweights are balanced
and the seal is not sufficient
to retain all of the water; this Figure 3-2: Typical ACU-BEND weir installation (www.grandeinc.com)
results in seepage of approximately 1% to 2% of the design flow. In addition, debris can become trapped as
the unit closes, resulting in the weir becoming stuck partially open or damage to the elastomeric seal. This
would allow additional flow to discharge from the facility, reducing its storage effectiveness, and leading to
otherwise avoidable CSO discharge. The seal on this type of bending weir is subject to wear and tear,
having an expected life of about 10 years.
Due to its simplicity and other advantages, the ACU-BEND weir has been selected for this facility. The
bending weir counterweights will use concrete instead of stainless steel where possible to deter theft. If
desired to further reduce the likelihood of theft, the weights can be locked to the counterweight arm. As
noted previously, the “Bloody Run (CSO 181) Real Time Control Facility, Siting Analysis/Conceptual Design
Report” resulted in a RTC facility layout with five 4-foot high by 14-foot long bending weirs. Because ACU-
BEND weirs are not available in heights greater than three feet, the RTC facility was modeled using the
1970 Typical Year continuous simulation rainfall with five 3-foot high by 14-foot long bending weirs. This
evaluation showed a slight increase in the upstream water levels, yet did not threaten SBU situations nor
impact the facility’s expected CSO volumetric reduction. Further information on the hydraulic restrictions
and modeling is included in Section 3.8.
3.3 Gates
The CSO 181 RTC facility will require the ability to control flows to the AMCI and maximize in-system
storage. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to regulate flows through the RTC facility’s underflow
pipe. When levels in the downstream AMCI reach predetermined set points, the RTC facility must be
equipped with the capability to restrict flows in order to prevent surcharging of the interceptor. It is also
possible that downstream interceptor levels could rise to the point where backwater needs to be blocked
from reaching the CSO 181 RTC facility. In addition, it may be desired to restrict flow from the RTC facility
to maximize in-system storage during wet weather events. These needs will be met with gates capable of
modulating to convey a desired flow to the RTC facility’s underflow pipe. Modulation will be based on level
sensors placed at key locations in the RTC facility, with the ability to be controlled remotely based on
system-wide information. The gates are capable of being activated through MSDGC’s master wet weather
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. Two types of gates were considered for these
design components: latching flap gates and slide gates.
3-3
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,14/29
The Conceptual and 30% Designs included a 6 feet by 7 feet emergency release gate at the end of the
existing 10 feet by 15 feet box culvert. Its purpose was to open when the capacity of the bending weirs was
exceeded and upstream water levels began to threaten SBUs or increased surface flooding. The activation
of this gate was to be triggered by a remote level sensor east of Interstate 75 and was expected to occur
infrequently, during extreme wet weather events such as the 10-year and greater storms. After the 30%
Design, the design team developed an alternate that eliminated this gate in favor of a fixed weir spanning
the length of the series of bending weirs. This change was incorporated in the 60% Design drawings and
refined during the 90% Design. The hydraulic impacts are described in Section 3.8.
3.3.1 Latching Flap Gates

Conventional flap gates are common in flood control and backwater applications. Hinged at the top, the
gate opens and closes based on differential head on each side of the gate. As water levels on the upstream
side rise, the gate swings open. Conversely, if downstream receiving waters rise, the gate will begin to close
to prevent backwater from entering the facility. Latching flap gates have similarities when considering
materials and function; however, they remain latched in the closed position until activated by a
programmable logic controller (PLC), sending a 120-volt signal to unlatch it. These gates were considered
for the RTC facility’s underflow control and emergency release, but dismissed for both because of their
disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that the gates use their own weight to close, re-latch, and seal
when water levels subside, and cannot be forced to do so. Additionally, the latch gates could remain
slightly open if floating debris were to get lodged between the gate and its seat. Both of these instances
could result in loss of flow control and/or additional CSO volume being discharged to the Bloody Run
channel.
3.3.2 Slide Gates

Slide gates, also commonly referred to as a sluice gates, are common in the water and wastewater
industries. A gate opens and closes along guides, with a stem extending to some form of lifting device. The
gate includes a seal to minimize leakage when in the closed position. When partially open to throttle flow,
the slide gate must be designed to withstand the force of the flow. Full length guides is preferred for this
application instead of the wedge system customary for heavy duty cast iron gates. Slide gates with full
length guides are most common in aluminum, stainless steel, and metal-reinforced plastic. For the
modulating gate needs on the RTC facility underflow pipes, one or more slide gates could be utilized to
control flows through the facility. In order to provide for redundancy, which may be considered a
functional requirement of the Consent Decree, it is recommended that two slide gates be provided. Each
gate must be of a minimum size to convey dry weather flows independently. A PLC would initiate the gates
to open or close. The gates would modulate vertically based on data received from in-system level sensors.
Each gate would be controlled by an actuator at grade.
Due to their control flexibility and limitations of latching flap gates, it was decided that the facility
underflow pipe gates will be slide gates. Fabricated stainless steel slide gates were chosen due to their
ability to resist corrosion in a raw sewage environment, their light weight to facilitate installation and
actuator operations, and ability to operate in a partially opened or throttled position where cast iron slide
gates using wedging systems cannot perform.
3.4 Actuators
Opening, closing, and throttling the control gates will require an actuator to perform these functions. These
actuators must be capable of accepting a position command, providing position feedback, and sending
alarm status. There are multiple actuator styles available that are furnished by different equipment
manufacturers.
3-4
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,15/29
A conventional electric motor actuator can be provided in either an open/close or modulating duty service
to provide the lifting action on the gates. Typical manufacturers include Limitorque, Rotork, EIM, Auma,
and others. These electric motor actuators would require 480-VAC 3-phase power to operate, issue signals
via 4-20 mA signal wire, and are suitable for outdoor service in a hazardous environment. Upon power
loss, the actuator would not operate or issue signals unless standby power is provided. Most actuators
have a standard feature that will return the actuator position to the last known working position when
power is restored following an outage.
Another option for the actuators is an electro-hydraulic actuator that utilizes electric power and hydraulic
fluid to provide either open/close or modulating duty service. The typical manufacturer is REXA with no
similar competitor. With the benefit of hydraulic fluid, these actuators require a 120-VAC single phase
power to operate, issue signals via 4-20 mA signal wire, and are suitable for outdoor service in a hazardous
environment. Upon power loss, the actuator would not operate or issue signals unless standby power is
provided. However, the actuator can be provided with fail-safe capabilities by either a spring or nitrogen-
charged accumulator pressure system to move the actuator to either open or close the gate in the event of
power failure, depending on the facility’s operating needs.
With no other 3-phase power service required at the RTC facility, providing this power for only the
actuators would require the expense of another transformer and power conduit, and wiring that would
only be used for the gate controls. Additionally, the accumulator system could eliminate the need for a
standby power generator. These actuators could rely on uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems for
the 120-VAC needs if desired. The service life of electric motor actuators is less than the REXA electric-
hydraulic actuators as well, which may present reliability and operating issues in the future with
premature failure of the modulating actuators on the underflow gates. The additional cost for the REXA
actuators may be fully offset by eliminating the 3-phase power needs altogether and potentially eliminate
any standby power needs with an accumulator system. For these reasons, although electric motor
actuators are more common, the REXA actuators have been selected for the gate actuator equipment.
3.5 Cleaning
Because of the solids, grit, and trash associated with combined sewage, the CSO 181 RTC facility will
experience sediment and trash accumulation on its floors after wet weather events. Cleaning after each
event will be necessary to avoid odors and prevent hardening of the layer of accumulated sediment and
debris. Incorporation of an automated cleaning system in the RTC facility is preferred so that labor-
intensive manual cleaning by MSDGC staff is minimized or eliminated after each storm event. An
automated system would flush the floor of the bending weir channel with water after each storm event,
once the water level has subsided. The water for this system can be supplied either by the combined
sewage itself, the municipal water supply, or a combination of both. A connection to the municipal water
system requires a reduced pressure backflow preventer, housed in an insulated enclosure to protect from
freezing. Using combined sewage as the flushing water would allow high flow levels to move into a perched
storage reservoir inside the RTC facility. After the event, this combined sewage would be completely
released to clean the RTC facility and drain into the AMCI. Level sensors in the RTC facility will provide
indication of when the wet weather event has subsided, thus triggering the cleaning operation.
The automatic flushing devices considered for this project include a tipping bucket, flushing gate, and
pivoting drum. The flushing equipment will be located at the southwestern end of the RTC channel so that
accumulated sediment and debris can be flushed to the underflow pipe. The channel floor will have a
minimum slope of 0.5 percent and a drop of approximately one foot into the diversion chamber, forcing the
flush water to freefall at the end of the channel before conveyance to the AMCI via the underflow pipe.
Inclusion of manual cleaning devices, such as water cannons and yard hose bibbs, have been included for
supplemental facility cleaning needs.
3-5
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,16/29
3.5.1 Tipping Bucket

Tipping buckets are water storage devices that are capable of pivoting to release a flush of water when
triggered. Tipping buckets are located at an elevated position above the facility floor; the higher the bucket,
the greater the flushing energy. The bucket is designed to have a width that is the same as the channel
which it is used to clean, ensuring that water is evenly distributed along the channel bottom. After a wet
weather event, a level sensor will signal for a valve to open, releasing water from the municipal water
supply into the tipping bucket. The bucket will fill to a predetermined level at which point the center of
gravity will shift, causing the bucket to pivot and release the water. The resulting flush of water will wash
the sediment and debris from the bottom of the channel and into the underflow pipe. Tipping buckets are
proven effective in the wastewater industry, but require a municipal water supply. Figure 3-3 shows a
typical tipping bucket installation.
Figure 3-3: Typical tipping bucket installation (www.grandeinc.com)
3.5.2 Pivoting Drum

A pivoting drum is similar to a tipping bucket in design and operation. It is positioned on the channel floor
as opposed to the heightened position of a tipping bucket, which limits its flushing length. However, the
special discharge geometry and greater flush water volume of the pivoting drum allows it to achieve the
necessary energy to successfully flush smaller storage tanks, basins, reservoirs, and sewers. At the
conclusion of a wet weather event, the drum
releases its stored water, sending a wave
down the channel floor to flush accumulated
sediment and debris towards the underflow
pipe. Activation can be manual,
programmed, or automatic with the use of
floats or level sensors. An advantage of the
pivoting drum over a tipping bucket is that it
fills using combined sewer water, which
significantly reduces or eliminates the
amount of municipal water needed. Figure
3-4 shows a pivoting drum similar to what
would be used at this facility.
Figure 3-4: Typical pivoting drum installation
(www.grandeinc.com)
3.5.3 Flushing Gate
Flushing gates are also a proven technology for wastewater cleaning applications. A hydraulically operated
flushing gate functions as a latching flap gate. The same wall where the gate is mounted also creates a
reservoir, and the volume which is a function of the required flushing length. The wall is shorter than those
3-6
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,17/29
enclosing the facility. As water levels in the

facility rise above the height of the wall, the
combined sewer water spills over and begins
to fill the reservoir. However, water levels
associated with small wet weather events will
not reach the needed height to fill the
reservoir; therefore, a municipal water source
is needed. After a wet weather event is over
and the water levels have subsided, the
flushing gate is opened, releasing the water
and flushing the accumulated sediment and
debris towards the underflow pipe. The
flushing gate can be activated manually, or
Figure 3-5: Typical flushing gate configuration (www.hst.de/)
automatically using level sensors. Due to
its proven effectiveness of cleaning wastewater tank floors and its ability to reuse combined sewer water, a
flushing gate was chosen as the primary cleaning technology for the RTC facility. The flushing gate will be
mounted to a 6-foot high wall, which will provide approximately 4,800 gallons of flushwater in the
reservoir. A municipal water supply will be provided in order to fill the reservoir after small events, or if a
second flush is needed. This water supply will be activated, based on level sensor reading, by a solenoid
control valve. Figure 3-5 shows a flushing gate and reservoir actively flushing a tank floor.
3.5.4 Water Cannon

Water cannons provide pressurized water to clean solids that accumulate
after a wet weather event. This manual cleaning method exists at MSDGC’s
Lick Run RTC facility at CSO 005. A municipal water supply with
appropriate backflow preventer and water meter would be necessary to
operate this equipment. The cleaning process with water cannons can be
labor intensive with on-site personnel needs, and is less effective on large
structures or combined sewers where the water pressure cannot deliver
the needed force to re-suspend and flush the accumulated solids. Because
of the frequency of wet weather events expected to require cleaning at the
CSO 181 RTC facility, this cleaning method is not preferred as the sole
cleaning source due to the labor requirements it would place on MSDGC Figure 3-6: A water cannon
staff. However, a water cannon provides a reliable supplemental cleaning installation would include
alternate. A new 4-inch water service will be installed to provide adequate water supply piping and
pressure for two water cannons to reach the entire length of the new valve, water cannon, and
bending weir chamber. A reduced pressure backflow preventer and water ability to rotate to manually
spray the water to clean the
meter will be installed in an above-ground insulated enclosure.
facility.
3.5.5 Yard Hose Bibbs

In addition to the cleaning options within the RTC facility, hose bibbs have been added to the site for
cleaning outside of the facility. This will provide a cleaning option for the bending weirs and downstream
channel, as well as the access drive. Hoses with hose racks will be provided.
3.6 Instrumentation & Controls

3.6.1 Monitoring
Level sensors will monitor the water level at key locations in the RTC facility. These locations will include
the bending weir chamber, immediately downstream of the underflow gates in the existing regulator
3-7
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,18/29
chamber, and in the flushing reservoir. Also, five inclinometers will be added, one for each bending weir, to
measure the angular position at which each bending weir is open. This angular position can be used to
calculate the discharge flow to the Bloody Run channel. Additionally, there are three gates that will be
monitored for position, failure, and control mode status. The first two are the underflow gates that regulate
flow downstream to the interceptor. The third is the flushing gate, which is used to release a wave of
stored water for cleaning the bending weir channel after a storm event. Finally, there will be power
monitoring and building system monitoring signals. All analog signals will be hardwired 4-20mA current
signals.
An Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) is shown in the design to provide temporary battery backup power
for monitoring level and bending weir position signals in case of a utility power outage. The UPS was not
sized such that control of the underflow gates can be controlled by the UPS, per the direction of MSDGC. In
the event of a power outage, the REXA actuators will fully open the gates and hold them at that position
until power is restored or the gates are manually positioned.
3.6.2 Control
A PLC will be relied upon for local controls to provide slide gate throttling and initiating the cleaning
process. The local control PLC will be a CompactLogix 1769-L33ER. This processor was chosen over the
CompactLogix 1769-L32E, which is used at other MSDGC RTC sites, because the L32E is being phased out
by Rockwell. The L33ER provides the following advantages over the L32E to MSDGC:
 There is no need for a PLC battery; a capacitor on the controller moves memory to non-volatile
storage in the event of a power fail. This limits the amount of maintenance needed at the site and
prevents the most common failure cause in PLCs.
 Use of a USB port instead of serial port for connecting to the PLC.
 Embedded dual-port Ethernet/IP
 Additional on-board memory
 SD card memory instead of CompactFlash
The L33ER was chosen instead of the L30ER because the L33ER can handle up to 16 I/O modules, which
matches what the L32E could hold. The L30ER can only handle 8 I/O modules, which would not leave any
spare I/O slots for future expansion.
Operations will have two methods of control of the regulator gates and cleaning process at the CSO site.
The first will be using the local controls on the regulator gates and flushing gate. The second will be by
utilizing a touchscreen Operator Interface Terminal (OIT), which will be mounted on the face of the PLC
enclosure.
3.6.3 Remote Communications

A cellular modem will be used to transmit operational data on levels, gate positions/status, and alarms to
MSDGC operations for staff to remotely monitor the RTC facility operations. The cellular modem will be a
Sierra Wireless LS300 and will utilize the Sprint Cellular Wireless network. This method of
communications was chosen to mimic MSDGC’s existing RTC sites. A dual antenna setup was included as
part of the design. This was chosen because it increases cellular signal strength by mitigating the effects of
signal fading. This is called antenna diversity, and is supported by the Sierra Wireless LS300 Cellular
Modem.
3-8
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,19/29
A MicroLogix 1400 PLC is used for managing communications to and from MSDGC operations remotely.
This PLC was also selected to follow the pattern of the existing RTC sites. The intent of the MicroLogix PLC
is to provide physical isolation of the CompactLogix local control PLC from the cellular network for security
reasons. If security to the MicroLogix communications PLC was compromised, this physical isolation would
make it more difficult for a hacker to connect to and control the CompactLogix local control PLC. The
communications protocol that will be used for messaging from the CompactLogix PLC to the MicroLogix
PLC will be Ethernet/IP Explicit Messaging. Communications from the MicroLogix PLC back to MSDGC
operations via the Sprint Cellular Network will be with DNP3 over IP.
3.7 Control Building

The electrical and control equipment was proposed to be housed within a 7 feet by 7 feet prefabricated
enclosure in the 60% Design drawings. The 60% Design also consisted of the solenoid control valve
controlling the public water supply to the flushing reservoir being installed in an underground vault.
However, subsequent to the 60% Design submittal, MSDGC expressed the desire to have all control
equipment above ground. This resulted in a new Control Building that the solenoid control valve will share
with the electrical and control equipment. The building will be located at the south end of the access drive,
adjacent to the flushing reservoir, and will be divided with an interior wall to separate the solenoid control
valve and water piping from the electrical and control equipment. The design team elected to propose a
pre-engineered, pre-assembled concrete building due to cost and fast construction. The building’s exterior
walls, roof, doors, and HVAC components will be assembled prior to shipment. The HVAC system will
consist of a 10 kw electric heater with fan and thermostat, and one exhaust fan with thermostat. The RTC
contractor will be responsible for providing power, interior and exterior lighting and receptacles, and a
concrete floor slab.
3.8 Hydraulics
The purpose of the CSO 181 RTC facility is to maximize the in-system storage of wet weather combined
sewage flow in order to reduce CSO volume. Changing the hydraulic end-of-pipe operation of a collection
system with a drainage area of over 2,000 acres requires a thorough understanding of the hydraulics
associated with the existing collection system and the new RTC facility. While the facility’s CSO control
performance is demonstrated and measured using the Typical Year rainfall data, the facility cannot cause
SBUs or increase surface flooding for any wet weather event. This section will review the restrictions that
present limiting factors when raising the collection system HGL, the modeling used to simulate hydraulic
performance, and the CSO control benefits of the new RTC facility.
3.8.1 Restrictions
In order to maximize available in-system storage, areas susceptible to SBUs or surface flooding had to be
identified. The lowest basements in the drainage area are those in the immediate vicinity to the CSO 181
outfall along Prosser Avenue. The sanitary laterals from these houses are hydraulically connected to CSO
181 via the 24-inch combined sewer blind connection into the 15 feet by 10 feet trunk sewer, discussed in
Section 2.4.1. The invert of the 24-inch sanitary sewer blind connection into the combined trunk sewer is
at elevation 517.65 feet and the first upstream manhole (#36507017), approximately 190 feet north on
Prosser Avenue, has an invert elevation of 520.54 feet. The lowest basement elevation is 526.96 feet at
5609 Prosser Avenue. No other potential SBUs were identified in areas where the RTC was expected to
affect the collection system’s HGL.
Areas susceptible to surface flooding were examined upstream in the collection system as well as in the
downstream interceptor. Extents of the upstream and downstream sewers where the RTC would create an
increase in HGL were evaluated. This evaluation indicated that both upstream and downstream impacts
will be acceptable. However, if the RTC operation were to cause an increase in surface flooding upstream,
3-9
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,20/29
modifications in facility operation during those flooding events may be required to reduce peak upstream
water levels. If flows from the RTC facility to the downstream interceptor result in surface flooding during
certain large events, then the underflow gates may require programming to restrict peak water levels
during those events. The downstream evaluation included the 42-inch Bloody Run Interceptor beginning
at CSO 181 and ending at its connection to the AMCI, and then the AMCI from this connection to manhole
#36508031.
3.8.2 Modeling
CDM Smith performed hydraulic modeling to identify the expected CSO volumetric control attributable to
the CSO 181 RTC facility using the United States EPA’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), as
specified in the “MSDGC Modeling Guidelines and Standards Volume I: System Wide Model.” CSO
volumetric control is based on the 1970 Typical Year continuous simulation rainfall.
MSDGC calibrated the model by running a SWMM simulation using radar rainfall data spanning the period
between April 1, 2013 and August 1, 2013. The model results obtained from this simulation were
compared against flow monitoring data from flow monitor MC-BR-003, located in manhole #36506003.
MSDGC indicated that, since this was a Mill Creek Watershed sub-model, a downstream boundary condition
from the complete Mill Creek Watershed model should be applied at manhole #36508031, and that
different boundary conditions and rainfall input would apply for design purposes.
The upstream and downstream collection system, as well as the RTC facility, was modeled using a system of
storage nodes, weirs, and orifices. Because there currently exists two CSO locations downstream of CSO
181, flow to the interceptor was simulated to reflect the new regulator gates throttling flows to avoid the
42-inch Bloody Run Interceptor becoming surcharged. This control logic prevents a significant increase of
flow to the interceptor, and also results in an increase in the upstream HGL and thus a better utilization of
in-system storage.
The modeled RTC facility consisted of 6 storage nodes and 5 conduits representing the regulator and each
bending weir location. Five 3 feet high by 14 feet long bending weirs with an invert elevation of 517.5 feet
connected the bending weir storage nodes to the Bloody Run open channel. The conveyance capacity of
each bending weir was set at approximately 250 cfs, which was provided by the manufacturer. Control
logic to approximate the effect of the counterweights was added so that the bending weirs maintained a
water level elevation of 520.5 feet in the bending weir chamber, except when the influent flow rate
exceeded the 1,250 cfs total conveyance capacity of the bending weirs. During extreme storm events when
water levels in the bending weir chamber reach an elevation of 523.0 feet, the bending weirs are
submerged and function as orifices. The submerged bending weirs were modeled as orifices and their total
conveyance capacity increased to nearly 1,700 cfs under this condition, which exceeds the flows in the 15-
foot by 10-foot trunk sewer during the 10-year storm event. Since the fixed weir emergency overflow has a
crest elevation of 523.5 feet, it does not become overtopped during the 10-year storm event unless a
bending weir is performing below its expected hydraulic capabilities due to damage or being restricted by a
foreign object from opening completely.
The RTC facility design was modified to improve hydraulics during the 60% Design stage, as stated in
Section 1.4. Two major factors effecting the newly configured RTC facility’s hydraulic performance include
the elimination of the 6-foot by 7-foot emergency release gate, allowing water levels to continue to rise
after the conveyance capacity of the bending weirs is exceeded, and head losses associated with the 60-
degree turn into the bending weir chamber. The Conceptual and 30% Designs essentially had a 90-degree
turn into the bending weir chamber, which resulted in high head loss at this location. This caused
upstream water levels to rise as a function of the velocities in the box culvert, and took control away from
the RTC facility’s underflow gates and bending weirs. In order to reduce this head loss and allow the RTC
facility to better control upstream water levels, the entrance hydraulics at the chamber inlet had to be
3-10
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,21/29
improved. This was accomplished by widening the bending weir channel to 15 feet and providing a true
60-degree bend at the end of the box culvert. A turning vane was added to the 90% Design to further
reduce this head loss. These changes reduced the resistance coefficient at this turn from approximately 1.3
with a 90-degree bend to 0.15 with a rounded turning vane. During a 10-year, 24-hour SCS Type II storm,
when velocities in the box culvert can reach 11 feet per second, these improvements resulted in the head
loss being reduced from 2.4 feet to 0.3 feet.
While determining the hydraulic performance benefits of the changes made during the 60% Design phase,
it was realized that the model representation of the CSO 181 outfall was not accurately simulating the
existing conditions for all storm events. In reality, a 4-foot high diversion dam at the end of the 15-foot by
10-foot box culvert diverts flows into the regulator chamber and underflow pipe. This dam effectively
constricts the discharge capacity at the end of the existing 15-foot wide by 10-foot high box culvert. The
outfall was modified in the model to consist of a weir instead of the previously modeled pipe offset. While
this refinement did not significantly impact the simulated CSO volumes during the Typical Year under
existing conditions, it did result in a more accurate simulation of the HGL during larger storm events where
the influent flows exceeded the discharge capacity of the outfall.
3.8.3 Hydraulic Performance

As stated in Section 3.8.2, modifications to the CSO 181 diversion in the existing conditions model more
accurately represent the restricted outfall discharge capacity during larger storm events. When comparing
this capacity to the hydraulic capability of the RTC facility, with bending weirs that can maintain an
upstream water level of 520.5 feet while passing up to 1,250 cfs, the RTC facility will have a higher
discharge capacity than existing conditions during large storm events. As a result, upstream water levels
associated with storm events where the influent flow exceeds the discharge capacity of the existing outfall
are lowered due to the RTC facility. This condition corresponds to roughly to a 4-month or larger storm
event. This is important because it is during the large storm events where upstream SBUs and surface
flooding are threatened. Therefore, the presence of the RTC facility alone results in a reduced risk of
upstream SBUs and flooding. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 show hydraulic profiles of the 15-foot by 10-foot truck
sewer during the peak Typical Year and 10-year storm events, respectively.
3-11
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,22/29
CSO 181
Figure 3-7: Hydraulic Profile of Trunk Sewer, Peak Typical Year Storm
CSO 181
Figure 3-8: Hydraulic Profile of Trunk Sewer, 10-Year Storm
Another consequence of this increased discharge capacity at CSO 181 could be higher peak flow rates into
the Bloody Run channel during large storm events. This channel is already experiencing erosion problems
3-12
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,23/29
along its banks, so an increase in velocities could accelerate the problem. Preliminary examination of this
issue found that no significant increase in velocities were discovered during the 10-year storm event;
however, MSDGC should observe the Bloody Run channel after the RTC facility goes online to confirm that
there are no new or additional erosion issues.
Subsequent to the 60% Design submittal, consideration was given to the addition of an emergency flap gate
at the end of the 15-foot by 10-foot box culvert, set at an elevation higher than the previously proposed 6-
foot by 7-foot emergency release slide gate, to further protect from the possibility of causing upstream
SBUs. However, due to the revelation that water levels associated with large storms would be lower than
existing conditions, it was determined to be unnecessary as the RTC facility will alone decrease the
likelihood of adverse upstream hydraulic impacts without the need for an emergency release measure.
As noted in Section 1.3, the CSO 181 RTC is one of three projects identified to reduce CSO in the Bloody Run
watershed. While the RTC will greatly improve the water quality of the receiving streams by reducing CSO,
the long term benefits of the CSO 181 RTC after the Phase 2 projects are completed are even greater. Table
3-1 summarizes the hydraulic performance at CSO 181 currently, after the RTC facility is operational, and
after completion of the Bloody Run Phase 2 projects. The statistics of the RTC facility as designed in the
Conceptual and 30% Design stages is included for reference.
Table 3-1: Hydraulic Performance Summary, Typical Year

Conceptual & 90% Design (after
Existing Conditions 60% & 90% Designs
30% Designs Phase 2 projects)
Wet Weather Flow
1,053 1,053 1,053 1,053
(MG)
CSO (MG) 352 304 248 156
CSO Reduction (MG) --- 48 104 196
Surface Flooding
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
(MG)
CSO Control 1 66.6% 71.1% 76.4% 85.2%
1 Does not consider surface flooding
3.9 Operations
The CSO 181 RTC facility will maximize in-system storage during wet weather events by controlling flows
to the AMCI. To allow this, dual 24-inch wide by 28-inch high modulating slide gates will be installed at the
facility’s underflow. They will be equipped with the ability to throttle based on information from local and
remote level sensors.
In dry weather conditions, influent to the RTC facility will be allowed to flow freely through the underflow
pipe to the AMCI. During wet weather events, as flow in the 15-foot by 10-foot trunk sewer increases, the
control gates on the underflow pipe could throttle to maximize the in-system storage or to prevent
surcharging the downstream AMCI. But as flows from the combined sewer system continue to increase and
no more can be conveyed to the AMCI, water levels will rise and discharge from the facility through the
bending weirs, which will open once water levels in the bending weir channel reach an elevation of 520.5
feet. At the end of the event, as water levels subside and capacity in the AMCI becomes available, the
underflow pipe gates will open to maximize conveyance capacity of the AMCI and the bending weirs will
close.
During extreme wet weather events, the inflow to the facility could exceed the 1,250 cfs total design flow of
the bending weirs. The design flow for bending weirs is not the maximum flow which they can pass, but the
flow at which it can no longer maintain the upstream water level elevation of 520.5 feet. When this occurs,
the flow through the bending weir increases due to the upstream head. This increase in flow is sufficient
3-13
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,24/29
such that the fixed emergency weir is not expected to be overtopped during the Typical Year or 10-year
storm events, as the conveyance capacity of the trunk sewer is less than what the bending weirs can pass
when submerged with an upstream water elevation of 523.0 feet. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 present
hydrographs for the peak Typical Year and 10-year storm events, respectively, and display flow paths
through different components of the RTC facility based on flow and utilizing the modeling logic described in
Section 3.8.2. The sum is the total outflow from the facility.
During the 10-year storm, peak flows can reach approximately 1,600 cfs, as shown on Figure 3-8. Under
this condition, velocities of roughly 11 feet per second will occur in the trunk sewer entering the facility.
As noted above, the design was modified at the end of the existing box culvert to produce a true 60-degree
bend to reduce the turbulence and associated head loss of flow entering the bending weir chamber. There
will still be relatively high turbulence as this flow makes the 60-degree bend at this flow rate and velocity,
and there may be some associated air entrainment. However, turbulence issues are not expected to be
significant, as flow will be subcritical (rather than supercritical) at this velocity, thus no transition from
supercritical to subcritical flow regimes (e.g. hydraulic jumps) will occur in the facility entrance or bending
weir channel that could cause more significant turbulence issues.
Bending Weir Discharge
To AMCI
Figure 3-9: CSO 181 RTC Facility Component Flows for Peak Typical Year Storm
3-14
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,25/29
Bending Weir Discharge
To AMCI
Figure 3-10: CSO 181 RTC Facility Component Flows for 10-Year Storm
3.10 Maintenance
The RTC facility will be an open-air structure, which provides ease of access inside the facility. However, it
also leaves gates, bending weirs, and cleaning mechanisms exposed to the elements, which could accelerate
degradation of moving parts if not properly maintained. An 8-foot wide ramp to the discharge area outside
of the facility provides access for lawn mowers and bobcats. Improved access to the bending weirs has
been incorporated via hatches above each bending weir in the emergency overflow weir. A roof over the
flushing reservoir has also been added to protect this area from standing water and accumulation of grass
trimmings, leaves, and debris.
A draft Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual has been developed for the RTC facility and submitted
with the 90% Design deliverables. While the contractor will be responsible for preparing the final O&M
Manuel based on the equipment installed, the draft O&M Manual provides general relevant information for
suggested or sample equipment selections. The hydraulic modeling predicted that the RTC facility will
experience up to 57 wet weather events during the Typical Year. It was estimated that the CSO 181 RTC
facility will cost approximately $82,000 annually to operate and maintain. A detailed breakdown of facility
O&M costs, which are dependent on the specific equipment selected as well as the frequency of usage, are
included in the O&M Manual.
3.11 Permitting
Construction of the facility will require permits to construct. This includes the following:
 Ohio EPA Permit to Install (PTI) for the proposed work on the sanitary sewer system
3-15
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,26/29
 Building Permit from Villages of Saint Bernard and Elmwood Place (includes street opening)
 Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) to United States Corps of Engineers for compliance under
Nationwide Permit 7 – Outfall Structures
 Greater Cincinnati Water Works Large Branch Application (Contractor responsibility)
3.12 Constructability
Construction of the CSO 181 RTC facility will continue to require a focus on constructability, including the
following items:
 High wet weather flows will be encountered multiple times during construction where bypass
pumping is not a feasible option and accommodations will be required to allow the flows to
discharge into the Bloody Run channel. For example, the 1-month storm, which is expected to occur
12 times during an average year, results in flows of approximately 480 cfs at CSO 181. Flows of this
magnitude fill over half the 10-foot by 15-foot box culvert. Additionally, the 1-year storm is likely to
occur during the expected construction duration. The flows associated with this storm could reach
1,200 cfs, filling the entire box culvert.
 Proper use of trench boxes and sheeting/shoring shall be required for the protection of workers and
property. The contractor should provide a “competent person” on site to review the excavation
procedures and implementation of bracing during all work in process. The geotechnical exploration
reports provide some parameters and guidelines related to soil properties at the project site.
Additional borings may be taken at the contractor’s discretion.
 Installation of a temporary dam upstream of the underflow diversion structure of sufficient height to
provide suction head for temporary bypass pumping.
 Bypass pumping of dry weather flows around the existing Brown and Brown regulator structure.
 Installation of a temporary bulkhead inside of the combined sewer where the opening for the
bending weir chamber is to be made; demolish the opening.
 Placement of a temporary bulkhead inside the outfall structure to allow removal of the backflow gate
and reconstruction of the outfall headwall.
 Temporary traffic controls on Prosser Avenue may be necessary to allow for construction within the
right-of-way and roadway.
 Clearing and grubbing will be required on a portion of the site. The contractor shall minimize
clearing and grubbing activities based on the temporary construction easement/limits of
construction. In some instances, mature trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed
improvements; the contractor shall take precautions to protect property and other trees to remain
such that inadvertent damage does not occur. Because of the potential for the trees to be a habitat
for Indiana Bats, they should only be cleared between October 1 and March 31.
3.13 Risks
A Risk Register for the CSO 181 RTC project was developed during the project’s infancy, and has been
updated upon completion of each design milestone. Risks are identified and scored based on their
Consequence and Likelihood of Occurrence ratings. A Risk Response Plan is developed to mitigate each
risk. The following risks received scores of High or Very High in the 60% Design Risk Register Update.
3-16
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,27/29
 Design criteria changes (Risk Score = 70): This risk describes the possibility of differing opinions
between MSDGC and the County Monitors on the design standards/criteria, which could result in
late design stages and delays. This risk was mitigated by setting the design criteria prior to final
design to maximize in-system storage while not threatening SBUs or increasing surface flooding.
 Delay in acquiring easement(s) for RTC facility (Risk Score = 64): This risk captures the chance that
right-of-way negotiations take longer than expected, delaying the start of construction. The risk has
been mitigated by initiating negotiations slightly ahead of the 90% Design submittal.
 Project may (or be perceived to) exacerbate erosion problems of open channel/embankments
downstream of project site (Risk Score = 64): The Bloody Run channel currently experiences
erosion along its banks. The CSO 181 RTC facility could discharge higher flows during large storm
events, which may result in higher velocities in the channel. Mitigation for this risk involves
providing erosion protection within the project area. Evaluation of the entire channel is not part of
the RTC design scope, and MSDGC has acknowledged the need to monitor this issue.
 Regulations regarding floatables control change (Risk Score = 56): The RTC facility currently
consists of a baffle upstream of each bending weir. Regulations are vague on the extent to which
floatables must be removed from CSO discharges. Future regulations may result in expensive
retrofits of several CSO outfalls. The CSO 181 RTC design includes space for additional floatables
control measures between the diversion chamber and the bending weirs to mitigate this risk.
 Late delivery of project milestones (Risk Score = 56): A failure to meet the aggressive design
schedule could ultimately result in a delayed construction start. The Risk Score for this item will fall
below “High” because the project remains on schedule through the 90% Design stage.
 Conceptual alignment of future separated storm sewer changes (Risk Score = 48): This risk
describes the possibility that private property owners construct a building or structure which
interferes with the planned future separated storm sewer. The outfall for the Phase 2 storm sewer
separation project has been conceptually designed to be located immediately to the west of the RTC
facility. MSDGC cannot obtain easements for this future project, as it has no schedule. In addition,
per MSDGC instruction, the RTC facility design does not include provisions for this future storm
sewer due to concerns that the conceptual alignment is not practical. This risk has been accepted by
MSDGC.
 Trees cannot be cleared during beginning of construction (Risk Score = 48): Clearing the trees is one
of the first activities of construction, so not being able to clear these potentially bat habitat trees by
March 31, 2017 would likely delay construction. This risk has been mitigated by pushing the design
schedule, allowing right-of-way negotiations to commence early. MSDGC may also elect to clear the
trees under a separate contract prior to bidding the RTC project construction.
 Consent Decree milestone dates not met (Risk Score = 40): Because of the schedule providing very
little float, there is an increased possibility that the project will not be substantially complete by the
end of 2018. This was complicated by a delay in the execution of the final design Work Order
Amendment. This risk has been accepted and mitigated with an aggressive design schedule.
 RTC facility provides poor collection of floatables (Risk Score = 40): This risk captures the chance
that the proposed baffles do not meet current or future regulatory requirements, and the facility
must be retrofitted for more robust floatables control measures. The CSO 181 RTC design includes
space for additional floatables control measures between the diversion chamber and the bending
weirs to mitigate this risk.
3-17
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,28/29
3.14 Construction Cost

Supporting data for the 90% Design Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) is included
with this Basis of Design Memo as Appendix D. The OPCC was developed using CDM Smith’s in-house
construction estimating group and was calculated to be $2,771,000 in March 2016 dollars. Escalating to
construction mid-point (March 2018) results in a cost of $2,940,000. Costs for the items will be allocated to
standard bid items to match the proposed bid form at the Final Design stage.
3-18
s
11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,29/29

Basis of Design Memorandum: CSO 181 Real Time Controls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basis of Design Memorandum: CSO 181 Real Time Controls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11240020_90 DRP_BDM ,1/29

CSO 181 Real Time Controls

Metropolitan Sewer District

3.12 Constructability ....................................................................................................................................................3-16

1.1 Problem Statement

1.3 Project Description

1.4 Changes Since 30% Design

1.5 Changes Since 60% Design

1.6 Project Schedule

 Conduct Reliability Centered Maintenance Workshop by June 15, 2016

 Obtain easements and/or property by February 2, 2017

 Bid project between March and April, 2017

 Begin construction in summer of 2017

2.1 Jurisdiction and Property

CSO 181 Outfall

Figure 2-1: The existing CSO 181 outfall project area.

Section 2  Existing Conditions

Table 2-1: Subsurface Investigation Summary

Section 2  Existing Conditions

2.4.3 Gas, Electric, Telephone and Cable

3.1 Concrete Structure

3.2 Bending Weirs

3.2.1 TRU-BEND Weir

Section 3  Design Considerations

Figure 3-1: Typical TRU-BEND bending weir installation (www.grandeinc.com).

3.2.2 ACU-BEND Weir

Section 3  Design Considerations

ACU-BEND weirs also have

Section 3  Design Considerations

3.3.1 Latching Flap Gates

3.3.2 Slide Gates

Section 3  Design Considerations

Section 3  Design Considerations

3.5.1 Tipping Bucket

Figure 3-3: Typical tipping bucket installation (www.grandeinc.com)

3.5.2 Pivoting Drum

Section 3  Design Considerations

enclosing the facility. As water levels in the

3.5.4 Water Cannon

3.5.5 Yard Hose Bibbs

3.6 Instrumentation & Controls

Section 3  Design Considerations

 Embedded dual-port Ethernet/IP

 Additional on-board memory

 SD card memory instead of CompactFlash

3.6.3 Remote Communications

Section 3  Design Considerations

3.7 Control Building

Section 3  Design Considerations

Section 3  Design Considerations

3.8.3 Hydraulic Performance

Section 3  Design Considerations

Figure 3-8: Hydraulic Profile of Trunk Sewer, 10-Year Storm

Section 3  Design Considerations

Table 3-1: Hydraulic Performance Summary, Typical Year

Section 3  Design Considerations

Bending Weir Discharge

Section 3  Design Considerations

Bending Weir Discharge

Section 3  Design Considerations

 Greater Cincinnati Water Works Large Branch Application (Contractor responsibility)

Section 3  Design Considerations