Wet-Weather Freakonomics:

A Cost-Benefit Calculus for a Sanitary

Sewer Backup Reduction Program
Presented by

Vinnie Bergl, P.E.

The Past

Knee of the Curve ca. 1984

Many I/I sources still
low-hanging fruit

Treatment capacity
more feasible

Relief capacity? Just

tell us where to send it!

 I/I sources are higher

up in the trees

Treatment capacity a
tougher sell

Relief capacity?

Theres nowhere to
send it!

+inflation

Knee of the Curve Present Day

???

+
storage

I/I Source Distribution ca. 1984

I/I Source Distribution Present Day

The Situation Today

Rare storms increasingly less rare
Single performance criteria elusive
Growing emphasis on basement backups
Infinite possibilities, finite resources

A Metric for 2014

How can we compare the costs of:
I/I reduction
capacity improvements
private backup protection
and many combinations thereof

marginal cost per potential backup

prevented

Marginal Cost per Potential Backup

Prevented
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Establish level of protection (LOP) throughout system

Determine number of properties within each LOP
Annualize potential basement backups (PBBs)
Compare to existing conditions for reduction in PBBs
Price each alternative
Divide reduction in PBBs by cost for marginal cost

AB=C
D1 = C0 C1 ; D2 = C0 C2 ; etc.
F=ED

Marginal Cost per Potential Backup Prevented

AB=C
D1 = C0 C1 ; D2 = C0 C2 ; etc.
F=DE

Level of Protection Analysis

partially full (plenty of freeboard)

Level of Protection Analysis

surcharged (danger)

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

1-year storm

Level of Protection Analysis

2-year storm

Level of Protection Analysis

5-year storm

Level of Protection Analysis

10-year storm

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

Level of Protection Analysis

(special methodology for the mayors block)

Basin-Wide Level of Protection

Basin-Wide Level of Protection

Case Study 1: City of Elmhurst Southwest

Wet-Weather Control Facility
Model run for existing conditions
Less than 1-year LOP in many locations
Level 1 flow reduction % from I/I source
data
Model used to assess improvement

I/I Source Quantification

Level 1 Flow Reduction

Existing Conditions

After Level 1 Flow Reduction

Development of Alternatives
Level 1 flow reduction short of desired LOP
Target LOP of 10 to 25 years
Additional measures considered
Option A: Level 2 flow reduction
Option B: Relief and storage
PLUS targeted overhead sewers

Option A: Level 2 Flow Reduction

Option A: Level 2 Flow Reduction

Foundation Drain Removal

Excavation around
foundation
Overhead sewer
recommended
BMPs for overland
discharge
Up to $15,000 per
home

Option A: Level 2 Flow Reduction

Option A: Level 2 Flow Reduction

Option A: Level 2 Flow Reduction

Option B: Relief and Storage

Targeted two of lowest
LOP areas

upstream of Saylor and

Jackson Lift Station
vicinity of FM discharge

Concept included:

upsizing the Saylor and

Jackson lift station
upsizing the tributary sewer
wet-weather force main
wet-weather storage

Both 10- and 25-year LOP

alternatives modeled

Option B: Relief and Storage

Option B: Relief and Storage

Analysis of Alternatives

*Each alternative included targeted overhead

sewers

Analysis of Alternatives

*Each alternative included targeted overhead

sewers

Option X: Overhead Sewers for All!

Some ideas sound great on paper
Major coordination challenge
High variability in costs
Slow, plodding process
Still wouldnt get rid of SSOs!

Cost-Benefit Analysis

blue = marginal reduction in potential backups

green = marginal cost

Epilogue
Capacity improvements under construction
24 influent sewer
18 wet-weather force main
2.0 million gallon storage tank at WRF

I/I reduction plan continues to evolve

Incentives for private sector remain crucial

Case Study 2: Village of Wilmette Harms

Road Region Wet-Weather Storage Plan
Continuation of 2012 Village-wide modeling
2012 model calibrated from flow monitoring
period with little rain
Estimated 3.2 MG storage for 10-year LOP
Model recalibrated in 2013 with 6-month
monitoring program

Case Study 2: Village of Wilmette Harms

Road Region Wet-Weather Storage Plan

What changed?
1. Larger sample to refine RTK parameters
2. Outfall conditions!

36 Wilmette sewer

MWRD
Harms
Road
Interceptor

2013 Metering

April 18
~16 hrs. reverse flow

June 26
~7 hrs. reverse flow

2013 Metering

Development of Alternatives
Need for storage more evident
How much is optimal?

Analysis of Alternatives
Storm
Event
2-Month
6-Month
1-Year
2-Year
5-Year
10-Year
25-Year
50-Year
100-Year
Total
Reduction

Average #
of Events
Per Year
6
2
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.04
0.02
0.01

Backups Per Annum by Alternative

Existing
Condition
0
116
209
473
91
4
0
0
0
893
n/a

1.5
MG
0
0
40
441
141
5
1
0
0
628
265

3.0
MG
0
0
38
97
284
3
0
0
0
422
471

4.5
MG
0
0
17
48
229
43
0
0
0
337
556

5.5
MG
0
0
7
48
54
118
5
0
0
232
661

8.0
MG
0
0
7
29
49
92
10
4
0
191
702

11.0
MG
0
0
7
29
45
92
6
2
2
184
709

9.0
MG
(P)
0
0
7
29
49
87
7
6
0
185
708

Storage Volume Optimization

5.5 MG
(optimal)
3.2 MG
(previous)

Storage Volume Optimization

Existing
3.0 MG
4.5 MG
5.5 MG

9.0 MG (P)

Existing
Condition

3.0 MG

$17,791

$35,211

$14,642
$16,643
$25,427

471

$21,615
$46,901

4.5 MG
556
85

$10,528
$53,476

5.5 MG

9.0 MG
(P)

104

151

661
190

$148,968

708
237
47

blue = marginal reduction in potential backups

green = marginal cost

Epilogue
5.5 MG storage facility under construction
Village addressing I/I sources to further increase LOP
Discussions with MWRD and neighboring communities
for regional solutions

The Future
the future, Vinnie?
Improvements to RDII hydrology and I/I
source quantification
More complete SSO and backup data
Integrated storm / sanitary modeling
Cost optimization engines

The Future