Alternatives evaluation by subsystem 039 056 035 206 101 103 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Alternatives evaluation by subsystem 039 056 035 206 101 103 104 105 201 202 203 204 205 207 thru 211 213 – 214 217 107 220 212 215 216 218

BPSA FPSA • Alternative 2 – West River Interceptor 056 039 BAI WR SG SG • Alternative 1 – Hybrid Sewer 056 039 BAI Separation & GSI SS SS • Baseline – Sewer Separation 056 039 BAI

West River Interceptor 6-ft dia 4,600 LF

056, 039 Volume Captured: 0.88 0.88 0.88 039 Sewer Hybrid GSI / West River separation Sewer separation Interceptor Evaluation Criteria Factor Environmental Criteria Water quality (bacteria) impacts 14% 0.5 0.5 0.5 Water quality (nutrients) impacts 7% 1 2 6 Flooding risks from stormwater systems 7% 0 3.5 6 Scalability & adaptability 7% 5 6.5 6 Economic Criteria Capital costs 14% Operations & Maintenance costs 8% 9 4 7 Constructability / Construction ‐ phase risks 3% 1 1 2 Cost per gallon captured 3% Operational flexibility for optimization 3% 5 5.5 7 Social Criteria Fishable, shellfishable & swimmable waters 6% 0.5 0.5 0.5 Co ‐ benefits & quality of life 5% 8 8.5 5 Operations & maintenance impacts and risks 4% 4 3.5 4 Construction ‐ phase disruptions 4% 0 1.5 2 Implementation Criteria Administrative / Institutional considerations 7% 3 2.5 5 System reliability / Operational robustness 5% 7 5 7 Climate change resiliency & recovery 5% 5 5.5 6 Composite Rating & Ranking: 2.7 2.7 3.6

BPSA FPSA SW • Alternative 1 – Stormwater control & storage 035 • Baseline – Sewer Separation SS 035

035 Volume Captured: 0.77 0.77 Hybrid GSI / SW 035 Sewer Tank / Sewer separation separation Evaluation Criteria Factor Environmental Criteria Water quality (bacteria) impacts 14% 0.5 0.5 Water quality (nutrients) impacts 7% 1 4 Flooding risks from stormwater systems 7% 0 3.5 Scalability & adaptability 7% 5 6.5 Economic Criteria Capital costs 14% Operations & Maintenance costs 8% 9 4 Constructability / Construction ‐ phase risks 3% 1 3 Cost per gallon captured 3% Operational flexibility for optimization 3% 5 5.5 Social Criteria Fishable, shellfishable & swimmable waters 6% 0.5 0.5 Co ‐ benefits & quality of life 5% 8 8.5 Operations & maintenance impacts and risks 4% 4 3.5 Construction ‐ phase disruptions 4% 0 1.5 Implementation Criteria Administrative / Institutional considerations 7% 3 2.5 System reliability / Operational robustness 5% 7 5 Climate change resiliency & recovery 5% 5 5.5 Composite Rating & Ranking: 2.7 2.9

206 Volume Captured: 0.14 0.14 Hybrid GSI / 206 Sewer Parking lot separation stormwater tanks Evaluation Criteria Factor Environmental Criteria Water quality (bacteria) impacts 14% 0.5 0.5 Water quality (nutrients) impacts 7% 3 7 Flooding risks from stormwater systems 7% 0 8 Scalability & adaptability 7% 5 7 Economic Criteria Capital costs 14% Operations & Maintenance costs 8% 9 6 Constructability / Construction ‐ phase risks 3% 1 2 Cost per gallon captured 3% Operational flexibility for optimization 3% 5 7 Social Criteria Fishable, shellfishable & swimmable waters 6% 0.5 0.5 Co ‐ benefits & quality of life 5% 8 10 Operations & maintenance impacts and risks 4% 4 2 Construction ‐ phase disruptions 4% 0 1 Implementation Criteria Administrative / Institutional considerations 7% 3 0 System reliability / Operational robustness 5% 7 2 Climate change resiliency & recovery 5% 5 6 Composite Rating & Ranking: 2.8 3.3

101 R BV • Baseline – Upper High & Cross Street interceptor to Pawtucket 103 Tunnel UHI 101 R BV • Alternative 1 – Pierce Park Combined Volume Tank 103 PP • GSI can optimize tank sizing • Treatment & discharge not compatible with available site

Central Falls High Street Railroad Underpass High/Cross St Interceptor Pawtucket

101, 103 Volume Captured: 5.26 5.26 Upper High & Cross High Street Tank St interceptor Evaluation Criteria Factor Environmental Criteria Water quality (bacteria) impacts 14% 3 3 Water quality (nutrients) impacts 7% 6 6 Flooding risks from stormwater systems 7% 5 5 Scalability & adaptability 7% 6 6 Economic Criteria Capital costs 14% Operations & Maintenance costs 8% 6 4 Constructability / Construction ‐ phase risks 3% 1 2 Cost per gallon captured 3% Operational flexibility for optimization 3% 7 7 Social Criteria Fishable, shellfishable & swimmable waters 6% 3 3 Co ‐ benefits & quality of life 5% 5 5 Operations & maintenance impacts and risks 4% 5 3 Construction ‐ phase disruptions 4% 3 3 Implementation Criteria Administrative / Institutional considerations 7% 6 3 System reliability / Operational robustness 5% 7 3 Climate change resiliency & recovery 5% 6 6 Composite Rating & Ranking: 4.1 3.5

• Baseline – Lower High & Cross Street interceptor to 104 105 Pawtucket Tunnel LCI 104 105 • Alternative 1 – Webbing Mills Combined Volume Tank WM • GSI can optimize tank sizing • Treatment & discharge not compatible with available site • Requires Pierce Park Tank for 101 103

104, 105 Volume Captured: 2.12 2.12 Lower High & Cross Webbing Mills Tank St interceptor Evaluation Criteria Factor Environmental Criteria Water quality (bacteria) impacts 14% 2 2 Water quality (nutrients) impacts 7% 6 6 Flooding risks from stormwater systems 7% 5 5 Scalability & adaptability 7% 6 6 Economic Criteria Capital costs 14% Operations & Maintenance costs 8% 6 4 Constructability / Construction ‐ phase risks 3% 2 2 Cost per gallon captured 3% Operational flexibility for optimization 3% 7 7 Social Criteria Fishable, shellfishable & swimmable waters 6% 2 2 Co ‐ benefits & quality of life 5% 5 5 Operations & maintenance impacts and risks 4% 5 3 Construction ‐ phase disruptions 4% 3 3 Implementation Criteria Administrative / Institutional considerations 7% 6 3 System reliability / Operational robustness 5% 7 3 Climate change resiliency & recovery 5% 6 6 Composite Rating & Ranking: 3.9 3.3

202 R BVI 201 203 • Baseline – Middle Street Interceptor to Pawtucket Tunnel via the drop shaft near 205 MSI 204 205 DS 205 201 202 • Alternative 1 – East Street Combined Volume Tank R BVI EST • GSI can optimize tank sizing • Treatment & discharge not compatible with available site

201, 202 Volume Captured: 1.51 1.51 East Street Tank Middle St (Viper VoIP interceptor Corporation) Evaluation Criteria Factor Environmental Criteria Water quality (bacteria) impacts 14% 1 1 Water quality (nutrients) impacts 7% 6 6 Flooding risks from stormwater systems 7% 5 5 Scalability & adaptability 7% 6 6 Economic Criteria Capital costs 14% Operations & Maintenance costs 8% 7 4 Constructability / Construction ‐ phase risks 3% 3 2 Cost per gallon captured 3% Operational flexibility for optimization 3% 7 7 Social Criteria Fishable, shellfishable & swimmable waters 6% 1 1 Co ‐ benefits & quality of life 5% 5 5 Operations & maintenance impacts and risks 4% 5 4 Construction ‐ phase disruptions 4% 3 4 Implementation Criteria Administrative / Institutional considerations 7% 6 3 System reliability / Operational robustness 5% 7 3 Climate change resiliency & recovery 5% 6 6 Composite Rating & Ranking: 3.8 3.1

202 R BVI 201 203 • Baseline – Middle Street Interceptor & Pawtucket Tunnel Drop Shaft 205 MSI 204 205 DS • Alternative 1 – GSI throughout 201 – 205 + Front 205 GS Street Combined Volume Tank 202 R BVI 201 • GSI required due to Front Street site constraints 203 EST • Upstream Pierce Park, Webbing Mills & East Street GS tanks required due to Front Street site constraints 204 205 MSI • Alternative 2 – Screening & Disinfection FS

Alternatives evaluation by subsystem 039 056 035 206 101 103 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Alternatives evaluation by subsystem 039 056 035 206 101 103 104 105 201 202 203 204 205 207 thru 211 213 214 217 107 220 212 215 216 218 BPSA FPSA Alternative 2 West River Interceptor 056 039 BAI WR SG SG

Narragansett Bay Commission 23 October 2014 Affordability analysis Alternatives costs

Narragansett Bay Commission 23 October 2014 Stakeholder process review Affordability

Midt Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis C id Alt ti A l i Evaluation of Alternatives and

Billing Methodology Alternatives SAG Alternatives Evaluation Workshop July 10, 2014 Todays

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Community Advisory Committee Meeting November 12, 2013

Chrome: Concrete Architecture Bits Please! Agenda: 1. Derivation 2. Alternatives 3.

Criteria Decreasing number of alternatives Alternatives Increasing number of criteria

EVALUATION OF NATURAL PRODUCTS AS POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE IN SOIL FUMIGATION

Regional Alternatives Analysis Downtown Corridor Tier 2 Evaluation September 19, 2011 REVIEW

Exploiting Microarchitectural Flaws in the Heart of the Memory Subsystem Daniel Moghimi,

Simple Example of a UML Design BorrowerService Subsystem Design Robert France CSU This is a

Alternatives EVALUATION BASED ON MULTIPLE CRITERIA Many problems associated with economic methods

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES FOR STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION. Olga Sydorovych 1 ,

I-20 East Transit Initiative Public Information Meetings October 4 th and 6 th , 2011 Evaluation

LSS 2017: linux-integrity subsystem update Mimi Zohar 1 IBM Research Linux Integrity Subsystem

West Seattle and Ballard Link Extensions Level 2 Evaluation Results | September 2018 Agenda

CalABLE CALIFORNIA ACHIEVING A BETTER LIFE EXPERIENCE ACT BOARD Implementing Californias ABLE

Scaling-Up Deep Learning For Autonomous Vehicles JOSE M. ALVAREZ | | San Jose 2019 1 NVIDIA

BASWARE: SIMPLIFY OPERATIONS SPEND SMARTER NOAH Berlin June 13, 2019 GLOBAL COMPLEXITY: SONY

Philip Isell Lind af Hageby The President and CEO presentation 23 April 2020 Adapteo The

Technical and Tactical Discussion October 2018 Sasha Rearick Skills of Successful WC skiers

Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Mitja Kos Head, Chair of Social Pharmacy

vulnerabilidad y adaptacin: Conceptos bsicos de las ciencias sociales. Polo Diaz y Elma

Th The e Ma Master er Adaptive e Lea earner er in Cl Clini nical al Pract actice: