2015-02-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

79 unnecessary treatment, costing significant money in excess fees by the 80 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for that additional volume 81 all being routed into the Pigs Eye Treatment Plant. 82 83 Staff noted two kinds of inflow: that from illegal connections (e.g. sump pumps, 84 downspouts, foundation drains) being channeled directly into sanitary sewer 85 pipes; and inflow from groundwater seeping into sewer pipes due to cracks or 86 leaky joints. Staff advised that this becomes a problem as the excess clear water 87 uses sanitary sewer capacity needed for the treatment of the city's wastewater, 88 often resulting in more back-ups and increased costs for treating that clear water. 89 Staff further noted that the MCES required communities with excess UI to invest 90 in local reduction remedies, including disconnecting sump pumps and foundation 91 drains from the sanitary sewer system and,repairing leaky sanitary sewer pipes. 92 Staff advised that the City of Roseville s one of 74 cities identified and 93 required to pay an annual surcharge fort excess UI. For the City as a whole, 94 staff reviewed what was being done to reduce UI and this additional cost to City 95 taxpayers and utility users through sanitary sewer lining, maninspections, 96 and sump pump inspections. 97 98 With the current Sewer Use and Regulation Or finance (Chapter 802) originally 99 adopted in 1969, with only minor revisions since then, staff noted the need for a 100 general update of the entire chapter, as well as incorporating the sump pump 101 inspection portion (Section 802.06.h) specific to construction requirements; and 102 additional language in Section 802.08 prohibiting certain discharges. 103 104 Chair Stenlund addressed the lack of specifics regar ing pollution prevention 105 requirements omitted in Section 802.06 during the construction process, with staff 106 advising that any and all ground water management was part of the application, 107 permitting, and review process to ensure environmental structures during 108 construction work. 109 110 noted by Me Ciha staff confirmed that other parts of City Code 111 a dressed that (e.g. permit requirements for anything utility related) with erosion 112 control addressed as part of that construction and under separate sections of City 113 Code. 114 115 Member Stenlund noted the need to address how and where soils being excavated 116 are stored and managed (e.g. no "garbage" allowed in the hole, smells, and 117 models of how to perform the work). 118 119 Staff advised that the proposed language revisions incorporated into the new draft 120 for Chapter 802 had been researched from the ordinance examples from the 121 Village of St. Anthony and the City of Golden Valley. 122 Page 3 of 14