-------
the potential to create severe groundwater pollution from
ammonia and/or nitrate nitrogen.

     The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book XII) assumed that a 1000 foot (305 m)
buffer zone would be needed to control odors.  This impact
can be estimated more quantitatively by assuming 3 mg/1
sulfide in the sludge, a pH of 6.0, and relatively calm
wind conditions (i.e., stability class F at 1 m/s wind
speed).  Under these circumstances, concentrations of^hydrogen
sulfide at the site boundary could approach 4000 ug/m .
The odor threshold of hydrogen sulfide is about 0.6 ug/m^.
Even if far less conservative assumptions are made (i.e.,
sludge pH = 8.3, stability class A, 2m/s wind speed), the
concentration of hydrogen sulfide at the site boundary
will still exceed the threshold odor concentration by at
least a factor of ten.  Thus, it is concluded that the
lagoons, as designed, will result in a detectable odor
beyond the site boundaries.

     Unit costs of this alternative as presented in Table
5.6-A are $55 per ton.

     It is possible that groundwater pollution could be
avoided by constructing an underdrain system and collecting
the leachate.  Approximately 6 mgd of leachate would be
collected for treatment by land application.  A preliminary
estimate of costs indicates leachate collection and treatment
could increase annual costs by approximately $3,500,000/yr.
or about $9 per ton of sludge.

     Many technical matters concerning this alternative
have not been resolved.  These include:

     •  Reliability of transport system;
     •  Quantity and quality of leachate;
     •  Movement of groundwater at the site;
     •  Need for leachate collection and treatment, and
          if necessary, type of treatment and cost of treatment
          and collection;
     •  Dewatering characteristics of the sludge; and
     •  Effectiveness of the anaerobic lagoons in stabilizing
          sludge.

     All of the above would have to be resolved through
further studies.
                          5-125

-------
5.6.1.4  Pyrolysis with Disposal of Char in a Sanitary
         Landfill

     The Redker-Young pyrolysis process involves heating
and compressing sludge in a retort generating volatile
oils, methane and char.  This process has been tested and
successfully pyrolyized raw sludge from the DWWTP in a
demonstration unit at Okemos, Michigan (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1978, Book XII).  Figure 5.6-B shows the process
diagram.

     In order to establish the suitability of the pyrolysis
process for the Detroit situation, the facilities planning
consultant (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) recom-
mended that,  if this alternative is adopted, that a 100
ton per day pilot plant, costing $3 to $3.5 million, first
be constructed.  This would also serve as a production
unit, should the process prove successful.

     Assuming that a 100 ton per day pilot/production unit
is successful, full scale units of 250 tons per day capacity
would then be constructed through conversion of existing
incinerators or complete reconstruction.  Applying the
same reliability criteria to the pyrolysis units as were
applied to incinerators, six (6) 250 ton per day units
will have to be added to process 1064 tons of sludge per
day.

     Because the pyrolysis process loses relatively little
heat to excess air (a major heat loss for incineration),
it is expected to operate nearly autogenously for Detroit's
sludge.  However, cost estimates assume that powdered coal
will be used both to condition the sludge and provide energy
for pyrolysis.  It is also assumed that char would have
little commercial value and would be hauled to a sanitary
landfill, the same as incinerator ash.

     Unit costs at the pyrolysis alternative, including
the pilot unit and the landfill are $64 per ton.

5.6.1.5  Incineration

     •  Incineration Alternative #5

     This alternative includes construction mandated by
the plant's NPDES permit:

     •  PC400 modification to Complex I;
     •  Construct tall stacks; and
     •  Construct Complex III as designed.
                          5-126

-------
                             Figure 5.6-B

                   REDKER-YOUNG PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
VACUUM
fo\
 FILTER
SLUDGE
*x ^
rj / i
it
CONVEYOR



-- /,
O| IS
1
! COAL-
SLUDGE
BLEND
^

           PYROLYSIS  UNIT
ft
^
3V~\V^""/^/^'



-t— ,^- rLf-nr-
t ir ir^T if—

y^^^^^^^
L,


11 II II
JJI
_J GASES V


GAS
RECOVERY
DRYER
\



Ullib [

METHYL ALCOHOL CARI
PRODUCERS GAS BLA(
ACETIC ACID FERr
ACETONE BASI
#6 TYPE FUEL OIL CHAI
1 r
BY PRODUCTS

STATIONARY
=. — - — I INTERNAL COMBUST
ENGINE
~^X
inn

s$®> >=4|
] |
|UU JsC
^
A,x-
3ON
:K
PILIZER
^
^COAL
\ >


ION

                                                         COAL
                                                      RECEIVING
                                                         PIT
                                                      (IF REQ'D),
                                                        ELECTRICAL
                                                        GENERATOR
                              5-127

-------
     Assuming unit reliability criteria defined in the
evaluation phase, this alternative will be able to process
1714 dry tons per day (1/555,000 kg/d)  of sludge, well
above the required capacity of 1064 tpd (965,000 kg/d)
for the year 2000.

     The extra incineration capacity of this alternative
could provide a reserve for incineration of solids eventually
to be removed from combined sewer overflows.

     The combined capacities of Complexes I and II alone,
(see Table 5.5-B), under this alternative, are capable
of treating the sludge from 959 mgd (3,630,000 m3/d).
Therefore, even with additions of CSO storage, Complex
III does not appear to be needed for quite a few years.

     Studies in connection with the segmented facilities
plan identified deficiencies in control equipment, sludge
feeding, and emissions control; many of these will be corrected
by PC 400.  No basic structural deficiencies were identified
which would compel replacement of Complex I incinerators
in the near future.

     This alternative will continue to violate the 24 hour
peak standard for particulates, but it will be an improvement
over existing conditions.

     As this alternative would make relatively few changes
to the combustion process, auxiliary fuel will still be
required for incinerating sludge, although better operating
procedures could reduce fuel consumption.  The use of after-
burners, however, adds greatly to the energy demands of
this alternative.  It is estimated that auxiliary fuel
requirements will amount to the equivalent of 19,100,000
gallons of #2 fuel oil per year  (72,293,500 liters).

     To estimate landfilling costs on an  equal basis, it
was assumed that all ash would be hauled  to a landfill
in Brandon or Oxford Townships in Oakland County.  This
is the same site identified for landfill  of compost,  except
that the smaller volume of ash requires only  310 acres of
landfill.  Design of the sanitary landfill would be the
same as for compost, i.e. an impermeable  liner,  ash stacked
in 5 layers of 2 feet  (0.6 m) each, separated by 6 inches
(0.15 m) of cover material, and a final layer of 1.5  feet
(0.46 m) of cover material.

     Unit costs of this alternative are $99 per  ton.

     •  Incineration Alternative  #7
                          5-128

-------
     This alternative includes the following items:

     •  Combustion air modification to all those complexes
          (Giffels/Black and Veatch,  1977, Book IX);
     •  Addition of PC-400 type scrubbers to Complex II;
     •  PC-400 modifications to Complex I, excluding after-
          burners; and
     •  Construction of Complex III incinerators with scrubbers
          as designed.

     The capacity of this alternative is 1745 tpd  (1,583,000
kg/d).  The discussion of Incineration Alternative #5 concerning
excess capacity also applies to this alternative.  Elimination
of the afterburners on Complex I, however, raises the combined
capacities of Complexes I and II to the equivalent of 988 mgd
(3,740,000 m3/d) of sewage flow.

     Implementation of this alternative would require a
pilot study, to test the proposed combustion modification
on one incinerator, before converting the others.

     This alternative is expected to comply with air quality
standards for particulates for the effects of the incinerators
themselves.  However, other industrial sources may still
cause air quality standards to be violated.

     Sanitary landfilling of ash will be exactly the same
as described in Incineration Alternative #5.

     The elimination of afterburners and the ability of the
incinerators to incinerate sludge autogenously greatly
reduce fuel requirements for this alternative.  Estimated
unit costs are $63/ton.

     •  Incineration Alternative #9

     Evaluation of the previous two incineration alternatives
determined that Complex III incinerators will not be needed
until after 1995.  This alternative optimizes Complexes I
and II and uses land application of compost for any remaining
sludge.  This includes:

     •  Combustion air modifications to Complexes I and II
          (Giffels/Black and Veatch,  1977, Book IX);
     •  Addition of PC-400 type scrubbers to Complex II;
     *  PC-400 modifications to Complex I, excluding after-
          burners; and
     •  Composting and land application of any excess sludge.
                          5-129

-------
     The firm incineration capacity of this alternative
is 1051 tpd C953,000 kg/d),  which is equivalent to a sewage
flow of 959 mgd (3,630,000 m3/d).  A 13 tpd (12,000 kg/d)
composting site would be located next to the treatment
plant, and compost would be hauled to land application sites
45 miles away.  The costs of disposal at this site are
relatively high, as shown in Appendix 11.3 because it is
based on the "worst case" situation.  Costs could be reduced
by shortening the haul distance,  since the quantity of com-
post for disposal is small and finding in any case, it would
not be necessary to implement composting until after 1995.

     A particular advantage of this alternative is that it
minimizes the need for capital investment and still maintains
the flexibility to implement other incineration options.
For example, should sludge quantities prove to be greater
than anticipated, and composting prove infeasible for any
reason, Incineration Alternative #7 could be implemented
at little or no penalty cost.  A similar variation could
be to only build part of Complex III when it is needed.

     The incinerators in this alternative will comply with
air quality standards for particulates.

     Sanitary landfilling of ash would be exactly the same
as described for Incineration Alternative #5.

     Excellent auxiliary fuel economy and a small capital
investment give this alternative the lowest unit cost of
$51 per ton.

     Archaeological and historical sites would be minimally
affected, if at all; however, a survey before completion of
any Step II construction Grant is required.

5.6.2  Environmental Analysis of Feasible Alternatives

     Table 5.6-B presents an environmental analysis matrix
of the feasible residuals disposal alternatives.  The matrix
presents the differential impacts between alternatives.  The
following discussion presents the impacts common to all
alternatives.

     Additions to the DWWTP will cause any vegetation present
to be destroyed.  The limited area impacted and the nature
of the sites suggest this impact is really insignificant.

     Due to the widely different sludge residuals disposal
alternatives, very few environmental impacts are common to
all alternatives.
                          5-130

-------
5.6.3  Summary of the Analysis of Feasible Alternatives

     The major impacts of the alternatives are generally
due to three factors:

     •  Land requirements;
     •  Cost;  and
     •  Energy requirements.

     The land requirements are in direct proportion to
the volume of residuals to be disposed.  Due to incineration
reducing the sludge to ash, the landfill requirements are
significantly less than for any of the other types of disposal.
The two compost alternatives will require the largest amount
of land, 3800 acres for landfill of compost, and 83,400 acres
for the land application of compost.  The incineration alter-
natives require 260 acres for landfill of ash by contrast.

     The costs of the alternatives per ton of sludge processes
range from $51/ton for Alternative #9  (incineration) to
$99/ton for Alternative #5  (incineration).  The other alter-
natives cost somewhere between the two extremes, the anaerobic
lagoons being slightly more than Alternative #9 (incineration).

     The energy usage for each alternative system shows that
on a BTU's/ton of dry sludge processes Incineration Alternatives
#7 and #9 and pyrolysis have the lowest energy requirements.
The Incineration Alternative #5 has the highest energy
requirements.

     The evaluation shows that Incineration Alternative #9
has the lowest costs, land requirements and energy requirements
and provides the greatest amount of flexibility for future needs.
Alternatives other than Incineration Alternative #9 have greater
costs and impacts in at least one category.  Therefore, Inciner-
ation Alternative #9 is the most feasible alternative for
sludge residuals disposal.

5.7  Institutional Alternatives Evaluation

5.7.1  Management Alternatives

     Alternatives for management of the DWSD regional system
are presented and analyzed in the following section.  Due to
the complexity of the existing system and its management
problems, a more satisfactory solution may be developed.
However, the implementation of any change may be most difficult.
These alternatives have been presented and analyzed by the
facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book XIII).  Table 5.7-A presents an evaluation of all the
management alternatives on one page for convenience.
                          5-131

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                           Environmental Analysis Matrix of
                       Feasible Residuals Disposal Alternatives
Impact Category

AIR
Incineration and Landfill
   (3 subalternatives)

Alt.  #5 - Particulate level
lower than present but
still in violation of 24 hr.
peak standard.
                              Alt.  #7 - Particulate air
                              quality standards will be
                              met.
 Pyrolysis and Landfill

Negligible odor at treat-
ment site and landfill.
Contribution to particulate
air pollution not determined
but likely less than incin-
eration.
SOILS
Erosion
                              Alt. #9 - Compliance with
                              air quality standards for
                              particulate.

                              ALL:  Potential odors from
                              poor operation.  Potential
                              air quality violations
                              from poor O&M.
Erosion to soil and land
area currently being exca-
vated in landfill - exact
amount not known.
Erosion to soil and land
area currently being exca-
vated in landfill - exact
amount not known.
Heavy Metal Contamination
Proper landfill design in-
cludes impermeable liner
to minimize soil contamin-
ation.
Proper landfill design in-
cludes impermeable liner
to avoid soil contamin-
ation.
Nutrients Added
Organics Added
Minimal nutrient value of
ash.  Further minimaliza-
tion of significance due
to depth  (24 in.).  Only
trees will have the neces-
sary roots to possibly
realize any benefits.

Not applicable
Minimal nutrient value of
ash.  Further minimaliza-
tion of significance due
to depth  (24 in.).  Only
trees will have the neces-
sary roots to possibly
utilize any of the benefits.

Not applicable
                                      5-132

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                                      (continued)
  Compost and Landfill

Some odor anticipated at
composting site, landfill
and during transport of
sludge.
Insignificant odor prob-
lems from composting site
if properly designed and
operated.

Insignificant odor prob-
lems at landfill site.
   Compost and Land
Application to Ag. Land

Some odor anticipated at
composting site, landfill
and during transport of
sludge.
Insignificant odor prob-
lems from composting site
if properly designed and
operated.

Insignificant odor prob-
lems at landfill site.
 Anaerobic Lagoons and
 	Drying Beds	

Detectable odor beyond
site boundary.  Hydrogen
sulfide odor threshold
exceeded by at least a
factor of 10.  1000 ft.
buffer zone required.
Moderate odors during
transport of sludge to
compost site - temporary
Moderate odors during
transport of sludge to
compost site - temporary
Erosion to soil and land
currently being excavated
in landfill - exact amount
not known.
Proper landfill design in-
cludes impermeable liner
to avoid soil
contamination.
Of minimal benefit to
plants other than trees,
because of root depth
(24 in.)
Normal erosion from
agricultural land -
exact amount not known.
Composted sludge applica-
tion rates based on heavy
metals limitations.
Annual application rates
based nitrogen (as nitrate)
limitation.  3000 Ib/acre
approximately in top 6"
soil.
Erosion from construction
of 12 lagoons (total volume
1704 million gallons; 6,449,640
m3) and 16 drying beds
(32 x 106 sq. ft.)

Lagoons design includes
impermeable liner.  Leaching
of materials in drying beds
to lower soil levels is
restricted.

Not applicable.
Of minimal benefit to
plants other than trees,
because of depth (24 in.)
Beneficial as soil condi-
tioner; dependent on site,
but usually improved prop-
erties of soils.
Not applicable.
                                      5-133

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                                      (continued)
Impact Category

SURFACE WATER

Nutrient Contamination
Incineration and Landfill
   (3 subalternatives)
Negligible impacts at
landfill site assuming
proper controls.
 Pyrolysis and Landfill
Negligible impacts at
landfill site assuming
proper controls.
Stream Rerouting
Assume all streams would
be rerouted around site.
Assume all streams would
be rerouted around site.
Heavy Metal Contamination
LAND VALUES
Land Acquisition/Rental
Negligible impacts
assuming proper operation.
Collection and treatment
of runoff would further
minimize this impact.
Purchase 260 acres for
landfill - total land
needed to 2000.  All in
one township - equivalent
to 1.35% of township area.
Exact site not chosen.
Negligible impacts
assuming proper operation.
Collection and Treatment
of runoff would further
minimize this impact.
Purchase 260 acres for
landfill - total land
needed to 2000.  All in
one township - equivalent
to 1.35% of township area.
Exact site not chosen.
Land Use Conflicts
No site selected at this
time.  Potential conflicts
depending upon site loca-
tion and present land use.
Some limitations on future
use of landfill site.
No site selected at this
time.  Potential conflicts
depending upon site loca-
tion and present land use.
Some limitations on future
use of landfill site.
Surrounding Land Values
Some limitations on land
use may restrict land
values, but ultimately use
of the site for aesthetic
purposes will enhance sur-
rounding land values.
 Some  limitations on  land
 use may restrict land values,
 but ultimately use of the
 site  for aesthetic purposes
 will  enhance  the surrounding
 land  values.
                                      5-134

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                                      (continued)
   Compost and Landfill
   Compost and Land
Application to Ag. Land
  Anaerobic Lagoons and
  	Drying Beds .
Stormwater runoff from com-
post site discharged to
sewers.  Negligible impacts
at landfill site assuming
proper controls.

Assume all streams would
be rerouted around sites.
Stormwater runoff from com-
post site discharged to
sewers.  Proper application
rate will avoid nutrient
contamination.

Assume a buffer zone
would be established
near streams.
Potential for contaminated
groundwater beneath drying
beds to reach surface water
because of rapid percolation
in sandy soils.

Assume all streams would
be routed around sites.
Negligible impact at land-
fill assuming proper oper-
ation.  Collection of
Stormwater runoff at com-
post site.
Impacts unlikely with
proper application tech-
niques.  Collection of
Stormwater runoff from
compost site.
Not applicable.
Purchase 400 acres for com-
posting site and 3,400
acres for landfill - total
land needed to 2000.
Landfill site equivalent
to 14.76% of one township.
Purchase 400 acres for com-
post site.  Rent up to
83,000 acres of existing
agricultural land for com-
post application (total
needed to 2000).  Exact
sites not chosen.
Purchase 2,460 acres
existing agricultural land
for lagoons and drying beds.
Pipeline easement on 250
miles.  Exact site not chosen.
No site selected at this
time.  Greater potential
conflicts than A and B due
to greater amount of land
required.  Some limitations
on future use at landfill
site.
No site selected at this
time.  Crop restrictions
to existing agricultural
land due to heavy metals
in compost.
No site selected at this
time.  Conflict with
existing agricultural land
use.  Future land use re-
stricted to sludge storage
site.
Some limitations on land
use may restrict land
values, but ultimately
using the site for
aesthetic purposes will
enhance the surrounding
land values.
No effect if participation
in program is voluntary.
No effect to lands outside
of program, except near the
composting site.
Odor will make surrounding
land undesirable for resi-
dential, commercial or
recreational use, thus
depressing land values.
                                      5-135

-------
                                      Table  5.6-B

                                      (continued)
   Impact Category

ECONOMY
Incineration and Landfill
   (3 subalternatives)	
Fertilizer value of sludge   Not applicable.
  Pyrolysis and Landfill
                               Not applicable.
Employment generated
 - primary
425 jobs with not as many
new jobs requiring highly
skilled labor as pyrolysis
alternative.   Proportion
of low:high skilled jobs
similar to existing situ-
ation .
384 jobs with greater pro-
portion requiring highly
technical personnel to oper-
ate facilities.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Disruption of community
Insignificant to the com-
minity as a whole.
Insignificant to the com-
munity as a whole.
                             Potential to significantly
                             affect a small number of
                             residents causing them to
                             relocate.
                               Potential to significantly
                               affect a small number of
                               residents, causing them to
                               relocate.
GROUNDWATER
Nitrate Leaching
Impermeable liner designed
to minimize leaching.
Impermeable liner designed
to minimize leaching.
Toxic Materials Leaching
Adequate protection from
liner would minimize
leaching of heavy metals.
Adequate protection  from
liner would minimize
leaching of heavy metals.
                                      5-136

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                                      (continued)
  Compost and Landfill
   Compost and Land
 Application to Ag. Land
  Anaerobic Lagoons and
  	Drying Beds	
Minimal - insignificant.
Provides supplemental source
of nutrients for 10,000 acres
of cropland annually.
Not applicable.
462 jobs with the greater
proportion requiring low
to moderately skilled
labor.
631 jobs with the greater
proportion requiring low
to moderately skilled
labor.
107 jobs with the majority
requiring low skilled
labor.
Disruption probable if
single site chosen for
3,400 acre landfill.
Few if any relocations re-
quired on existing agricul-
tural land.
Few if any relocations re-
quired on existing agricul-
tural land.
Impermeable liner designed
to minimize leaching.
Potential for slight ground-   Conservative estimate of
water contamination via        inorganic nitrate concentra-
leachate, which can be largely tions leaching from drying
controlled by the choice of    beds is 200 mg/1.  Exceeds
sites.                         drinking water standards for
                               nitrate by 20 times.  Extent
                               of leachate impacts not
                               known without further
                               study.
Adequate protection from
liner would minimize
leaching of heavy metals.
Application rates based on
heavy metals limitations.
No plans for leachate collec-
tion and treatment have been
made; toxic materials may also
be present in leachate.
Extent of leachate impacts
not known without further study.
                                       5-137

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                                      (continued)
   Impact Categories

AQUATIC BIOTA

Loss of habitat
Incineration and Landfill
   (3 subalternatives)
Minimal loss of aquatic
habitat due to stream
rerouting.  Approximately
.5 miles of intermittent
stream occur in any 260
acre site  (at the example
site).
  Pyrolysis and Landfill
Minimal loss of aquatic
habitat due to stream
rerouting.  Approximately
.5 miles of intermittent
stream occur in any 260
acre site (at the example
site).
Changes in species com-
position due to runoff
Aquatic habitat lost via
wetland removal is more
substantial.  Approximately
102 acres of wetlands will
occur in any 260 acre
parcel selected (at the
proposed location).

These impacts can be largely
mitigated by strategic
placement.

Negligible impact if surface
runoff is controlled and
buffer zone is maintained.
Aquatic habitat lost via
wetland removal is more
substantial.  Approximately
102 acres of wetlands will
occur in any 260 acre
parcel selected (at the
proposed site).

These impacts can be largely
mitigated by strategic
placement.

Negligible impact if surface
runoff is controlled and
buffer zone is maintained.
TERRESTRIAL

Vegetational loss or
disruption
Gradual but temporary loss
of cover on 260 acres of
landfill.  Minimal signifi-
cance because the sites are
typical of abandoned farmland
being taken over by native
vegetation.  Replanting
after landfill completion
will largely mitigate this
impact.
Gradual but temporary loss
of cover on 260 acres of
landfill.  Minimal signifi-
cance because the sites are
typical of abandoned farmland
being taken over by native
vegetation.  Replanting
after landfill completion
will largely mitigate this
impact.
                                       5-138

-------
                                      Table 5.6-B

                                      (continued)
   Compost and Landfill
    Compost and Land
 Application to Ag. Land
   Anaerobic Lagoons and
   	Drying Beds	
Will be determined by
number and type of stream
reroutings on 3,800 acres
when site(s) are selected.
Will be determined by
number and type of stream
reroutings on 400 acres
when site(s) are selected.
Will be determined by num-
ber and type of stream
reroutings on 2,640 acre(s)
(4 sections) when sites are
selected.  Number of stream
crossings by pipeline not
known.
Negligible impact if sur-
face runoff is controlled
and buffer zone is main-
tained.
Impact of surface runoff
on aquatic species is mini-
mized by good agricultural
practices and adherance to
buffer zones.
Impact on aquatic species
is dependent upon movement
of potentially contaminated
groundwater into streams and
adherance to buffer zone
regulations.
Loss of cover on 400 acres
composting site for at
least the length of study
period.  Gradual but tem-
porary vegetation loss of
cover on 3,400 acre land-
fill site(s) .
Loss of cover on 400 acres
composting site for at least
the length of study period.
Permanent loss of cover to
that portion of 2,460 acres
that will become lagoon and
drying bed site(s).
                                       5-139

-------
     Impact Categories
      Table i>. b-B

       (continued)

Incineration and Landfill
   (3 subalternatives)
Wildlife, Endangered Species  Temporary disruption to
                              some wildlife at landfill.
                      Pyrolysis  and  Landfill

                   Temporary disruption to
                   some  wildlife  at landfill.
PUBLIC HEALTH
Air, Water
Alt. #5 will not meet 24
hr. peak air quality stan-
dards for particulates.
Other 2 alternatives are
within air quality standards.
Alt. #5 hazardous to public
health.  Minimal public
contact with approved land-
fill.
                    No air quality hazards  ex-
                    pected from pyrolysis.
                    Minimal public contact
                    with approved landfill.
PUBLIC SERVICES

Disruption to delivery
of service
Some disruption is antici-
pated from construction at
DWWTP and operation at the
landfill but no more than
normal urban disruptions.
Impact is site dependent.
                    Some disruption is antici-
                    pated from construction at
                    DWWTP and operation at the
                    landfill but no more than
                    normal urban disruptions.
                    Impact is site dependent.
ENERGY
Total equivalent energy
used BTU/ton dry sludge
Equivalent gallons #2
diesel fuel
Other resource commit-
ments
Alt. #5
Alt. #7
Alt. #9

Alt. #5
Alt. #7
Alt. #9
8,700,000
1,100,000
1,100,000

60
7.6
7.6
Auxiliary fuel requirements
#2 diesel  (gallons/yr).

Alt. #5 - 19,100,000
Alt. #7 - 51,700
Alt. #9 - 51,700
1,100,000
7.6
                    Powdered coal needed
                    to condition sludge and
                    provide initial energy for
                    pyrolysis.
COST

Unit cost dollars/dry
ton sludge  (based on 1064
tons/day dry weight of
sludge)
 $51 to  $99 per ton for 3
 subalternatives

 Alt. #5  - $99
 Alt. #7  - $63
 Alt. #9  - $51
                    $64/ton
                                        5-140

-------
                                    Table  5.6-B

                                     (continued)
   Compost and Landfill

Temporary disruption to
some wildlife at landfill.
     Compost and Land
 Application to Ag. Land

Minimal disruption to
agricultural land.
   Anaerobic Lagoons and
   	Drying Beds	

Potential disturbance to
Kirtland's Warbler at
the Lake County site.
With proper operation,
contact with public should
be minimal in compost and
landfill operations.
Slight possibility for
public contact with com-
posted sludge.
Slight possibility for
public contact with sludge
because of distance from
population centers.
Disruptions are antici-
pated from construction
at DWWTP and operation of
landfill and composting but
no more than normal dis-
ruptions .  Impact dependent
upon site (s).

1,900,000
Disruptions are antici-
pated from construction at
DWWTP and operation of
landfill and composting but
no more than normal dis-
ruptions .  Impact dependent
upon site(s).

1,300,000
Gradual and temporary dis-
ruption from construction
of 250 mile (400 km) pipe-
line, assume 15 ft.
corridor.
7,000,000
13
9.0
49
2.75 cu. yd. wood chips
required per ton of sludge
for composting.  Differing
quantities of material
needed if corn husks,straw
or shredded refuse are
used.
2.75 cu. yd. wood chips
required per ton of sludge
for composting.  Differing
quantities of material
needed if corn husks, straw,
or shredded refuse are used.
Approximately 250 miles
 (400 km) of 20" diameter
sewer pipe and materials to
build 50 in-line pumping
stations.
$80
$83
$55
                                       5-141

-------
























1

•
LO
w
CQ
 |
JO M
<] s
*»
*. ^
en «j E
0) ?
> >
•H 3
4-1
m
n Altern
SDI-»EOIO«
Dtitdvtntttot
O =
3!
^ 5S
4J 2S
•H °s
-P 3
W
C
M

= 1
B i

2
s
9
C» Ł
g 1
5







-
Ht ! i| = i s *lr !U 5 5
>^;i T. Is * is ss Is? Ill * ]L
:s:Ł. °s ss •; cS ?i.? SSi »st - 8^
-SS't Ł| T.5 " -. |^'« S-" 583- Ss -Si
lilt's s* Is i =E -sill 5J|, |"jS Is s|
lilltiJlrllliilJllIfllMHIf
>* >*
1 1 fl sSl :1?|1 III l!!t

t Js f|l Hs|-s ||> 1 If e

s si li. I1J1 ";&"•;'! i:^ I! *•*•!;
Ł S| |EI ;S|~ |si|s| cSf^ | sf||

S! |_. iH || |Ss.
4*^BOu— e ou awcxo
— •» • •*-< L • « • O»l- AC I*

51 s? Ill ilir |"i 5st5
* • O *• ». >,•.<• k. W C » A MK-n
i . Ji .
. ; i, ii i if !
i~ •] || *| || 1
1 1 1 fi |l.i if ! } I
S ll Js ll? S5 »S 1=
> . Ł5
Is 1- I lŁ IA
|jŁ ^3 S 55 -|
:s °? •? ir 55*
MM — T» * r* *a tt~ u
— v o« u> 5 *• o c jt

^
5 -s. .^ . isi !i t=
3. » If is"«= 15 k IsT =1. si
Ik 8 :.3 'eJS*? i: u E ^S 8^* ~^5.S ^«
•=s ?^ ss sfTcl ssl •;•« |i-=? ;sl 5s
J = t 3S iS SiSSS SSS Si J^-ik. 3^8 d:

5 IS
I S ^^ •;.. w«.i
I 11 1! N *ff
|| II i| fl {Js
Is Si Łss ssi III
» ' *? i
. .*_ 1 is-:ls K lib

* 5 S 5 2 Ł ii — 5> "E 5 S * S p "5 — ? ? 5 ° ^— '
_J (. « fl •Ł«*'><• MW —V «•Ł 0. *. •- * C— — M*
1 ' •
» .. .*• Ł•--«-— Ł 1 i
i i ii||. || ||||i iii
"?"»•*» AU'COO _2a "Sac ic "" * -X
is ?s ^i!^5r 5s| ijS^-si Jfil
jniili^liHliiiiiHli

f. , i ?4 is i- il I
^i i \ ll :l i| il 1
111 ° ^ *i? 1^ ll- 1^ 1-
H!i?||||:i! |f^ s? i;
•ll S II 151 12 Ł-5 15 as

^

«
S
*

- .9
1 I!
? 1?
illl

i .
"« >
•«»* —
'* 1
r" |?
Is « |
S •- •> c
1
ii
c
_t**
ff?
ll

*s*
111
"if
* 5 S

• «*
II
11
«5
|s|

. |5 i
1 ^1 il
"g g"™^ °5 5
I- 5*! jll

1. ? Is? ir
i? •:." t-
=2 a^as ss




5 si ? ^

iiPj j-LSs
*•>"•*«?•- ~jŁ— **^
s&|i2! c"ss 3"
Il«l= lllf il

*r
11
- sr
5—o
•33


g

5
C

•- Ox
«° 11
? 8S.
2 -*S
•* -11
11 1 II

I.
s i
_ •
Ss
Ł S
i!
11
|
•^
"" S
Ł^s
• 2
il
,
° S5 SS
1 y g
e, I| 15s
=.? le sE?
si 3; Iss.
^ .
i ll
• ~ ^ o'; ^ g"^
ll isll ill

0
.e
— "e
»°
If

i
s^
il
;•:
** e
i S
i N l« 5
i C k. C J— 0
••o » - ; 2 * 2h
-s «= -5 -S
ss I-ss •;> ;_
el s?; || |S

?
te|!
S| 5|
8— S «
•- -^
!Ł Ii
f
',
*
f
ll
Is
M
^ S

» E5
5 3s

- c
; ss •;
i| :$ .5
!j ft fl
** ** »A • § r
* * Ł~ Tt 2^
9 e Ł • o " S
?Ł |S I^S^








—
s
t
?

1!
(
! h
I ^
lllll
i _
!i
t 5.
a 1!

1
*
II

:
|
E.
I:

*: u
-!
Ii
-r=
5s=






• ? .
:1 :•
» * — •
5 8 It
Illh

5s sk
|
So

II
s-
3
S ~-
:i| ||.P
HI |ji p
>.8 »- Ł 3 "-* ° Ł E
H!l JiJiSI

•s
i]

• h.
St.5
°ŁŁ
5:5





- •=
ll it g| |;

ll t^U ll ll
-.'... |1| t^ ii

.
Ji: Ir= jfs
=rs =:s Isz
SS- »>- S3"
=iL iii ill
js*t ?5i ^^r.
1111 ail! lill

:s
^? y
111

J= sfs it6
il! =*= III
fl! i«! *!f
lill ill fill









Is i

ll 1^ ?|||s
|-s- sl| it. Ef|.

?•*? ^S2— *">S"^
••O — V •- • — —
•-•« **OC Mk^kM
= -S Si3 Ł1 lii

-j «t

|i II

- 2""
s
» ••
o —
8:
W M
II









V




•c^
!l
K
;I
Ł 5
•^ o





si
!t
•25
I?
5s

1!
a o
li
•|
* >
^j
^

i=
J*
i
S






T
**
1
o
s
3



u
g
st
5-142

-------
5.7.1.1  Metropolitan Wastewater Authority

     This institutional arrangement consists of creating a
single metropolitan wastewater authority with responsibility
for the entire spectrum of wastewater activities.   This
authority would own and operate the interceptors and treatment
plant while leaving the operation and maintenance of the
collection system to local governmental units.

     The formation of an authority has some very specific
advantages over the "status quo" alternative.  An authority
offers economy of scale, recruitment of qualified personnel
without residency requirements, as well as the ability to
apply uniform policies and standards throughout the region.
Some of the more decisive disadvantages of forming an authority
are the inherent problems of creating and operating a new
institution, serving multiple political entities, and the
initial funding required for its creation particularly if
existing facilities must be purchased and existing debts
assumed.  Enactment of a new state statute would probably
be necessary to establish initial funding and to form an
authority with well defined powers.

     This alternative's value appears particularly great when
comparing it to the status quo, when DWSD's problems in managing
and operating the regional wastewater treatment system are con-
sidered.  Therefore, the formation of an authority is considered
to have sufficient value to be considered further as a
feasible alternative.

5.7.1.2  Drainage Basin Subregion

     This form of management would involve the establishment
of a separate authority for each drainage basin subregion.
Each of the subregions is formed by natural drainage boundaries
which is applicable to drainage and disposal issues.

     The drainage basin subregion arrangement offers a limited
economy of scale, real boundaries which would generally
coincide with wastewater issues, and probably some reduction
in administrative cost over the status quo alternative.  How-
ever, this alternative has several major shortcomings with
only minor offsetting benefits.  New institutions would
have to be established which could create coordination
difficulties between new and existing institutions.  The
overlapping of political boundaries with drainage basin
subregions could make financing a major difficulty.  The
arrangement would most likely require the new agencies
to have initial funding for the purchase of existing facilities
and assumption of existing debts.
                          5-143

-------
     This institutional arrangement offers limited gain
in benefits with several major disadvantages,  and is,  therefore,
eliminated from further consideration.

5.7.1.3  County Governments

     The existing county governments can be used to operate
countywide wastewater disposal systems.   This alternative
would provide limited economy of scale,  existing institutions
could be utilized, and responsiveness to local governmental
units should be relatively good.  The economy of scale will
be limited since some cities handle their own wastewater and
county activities would have to increase to include coordinating
wastewater related activities between the counties and its
municipalities.  Counties can only require their municipalities
to accept wastewater services by contractual agreements, thus,
services would be limited by the municipalities desire
for the services.

     This alternative offers little benefit when compared
to the status quo and results in some of the same coordination
problems that presently exist.  Therefore, this alternative
is eliminated from further consideration.

5.7.1.4  Single Purpose Regional Agency

     This institutional alternative is similar to the metropolitan
authority except responsibilities would be more limited in
scope.  A single purpose regional agency would have to be
created to handle wastewater collection and disposal or special
problems such as sludge disposal or industrial waste treatment.
A single purpose regional agency would have the benefit of
economy of scale, administrative efficiencies and uniform
policies.  However, several major obstacles and disadvantages
are inherent in this alternative.  Regional agencies are
created only by petition of interested municipalities and
any expansion of jurisdictional area for the regional agency
could occur only by the addition of consenting municipalities.
A single purpose agency would have a narrow perception and
would need a source of initial funding.

     This alternative, while affording some benefits in
a narrow framework, has some great obstacles attached to
its formations.  Thus, this instituional arrangement is
eliminated from further consideration.

5.7.1.5  Multiple Agencies  (Status Quo)

     The status quo of the  insitutional  arrangements consists
of multiple agencies providing wastewater  collection,  treat-
ment and disposal services within the area.  Presently, eight
                          5-144

-------
governmental units provide 98 percent of the services to
the region.  There is minimal coordination among agencies
and no formal mechanism to control the actions of individual
agencies.  The SEMCOG point source management study suggests
the formation of a regional coordination institution.  However,
in the Detroit area, some centralized control has existed.
DWSD has been effective in controlling the operation of major
interceptors while minimizing the impacts on local communities
and minimizing stormwater overflows.  This amount of centralization
should not be reduced.

     The major advantage of this alternative is that the
institutions already exist and have some administrative
and technical knowledge for handling the wastewater systems.
Some internal management changes need to be made to enhance
the DWSD capabilities for handling the wastewater systems.
However, the basic insitutional structure exists and operates
and will be considered more extensively.

5.7.2  Operation and Maintenance Alternatives

     Alternatives for operation and maintenance are presented
in the following section.  These alternatives have been
developed by the facilities planning consultant.  The results
of this analysis will provide a feasible plan(s) for improvement
of operation and maintenance of the DWSD plant.

5.7.2.1  Existing Procedures (Status Quo)

    This no-action alternative would mean that the existing
problems in procurement time, training, parts inventory,
lack of key supervisory personnel, personnel recruitment,
and organization and maintenance would be allowed to continue.
Some action has already been taken to improve these difficulties
and with the DWWTP not meeting its NPDES permit requirement
the problem areas must be rectified.  It is the opinion of
both the facilities planning consultant  (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book XVII) and EPA, that even with upgrading
of physical facilities, the DWWTP cannot reliably meet its
effluent limitations without improved operation and maintenance
procedures.  The consent judgment has already required improve-
ment and continued emphasis upon improving DWSD's O&M operations.
Therefore, the existing procedures are not feasible.

5.7.2.2  Improvements to Existing Procedures

     This alternative is to utilize the existing facilities
and institutions but optimize their operations.  A number
of recommendations have been made by the facilities planning
consultant (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XV) for
improving the operations of the existing system.  The primary
recommendation is that DWSD remain as the primary wastewater
agency in the study area, but that DWSD be provided with much
more autonomy.  Some secondary recommendations include:
                          5-145

-------
     •  Establishment of a strong internal training program;
          and
     •  Reorganization of DWSD to place existing talent
          in the most critical areas.

     Most of the improvements will occur as a result of
the consent judgment; therefore, this alternative is partially
implemented.  The remaining recommendations should be considered
as a feasible alternative.

5.7.2.3  Contract for Operation and Maintenance

     The arrangement would mean DWSD could, on a permanent
or temporary basis, contract with a private enterprise or
with an outside agency for operation and maintenance.  This
option offers the opportunity for a highly technical and
business minded organization to run the DWSD treatment plant.
This has been done for specialized equipment such as the
computer but substantial obstacles exist for the implementation
on a large scale.  There is no precedent for an operations and
maintenance contract of this magnitude.  There would be
serious questions on what performance standards are necessary
and the structure of the contract.  The nature of operating
a wastewater treatment plant requires minimizing present costs
to meet permit requirements, yet providing sufficient mainten-
ance to mechanical equipment to allow an economic useful life.
Such balancing of long-term vs. short-term costs would be
difficult to incorporate into a management contract.  There
would be the possibility for disruption of service at the end
of a contract, and communities would have to approve such
an arrangement.

     This option on a limited scale or for specialized
equipment is feasible.  However, for the scale of DWSD,
this alternative is not considered feasible and will be
dropped from further consideration as a long-term solution.

5.8  Summary

     Collection and treatment alternatives were analyzed
separately from residuals disposal alternatives in this
chapter.  A three phase analysis was used to  (1) identify
possible components of the system, (2) combine the system
components into alternatives for screening to determine
the feasible alternatives, and  (3) evaluate the feasible
alternatives to arrive at a recommended plan.  Section 5.3.3
summarizes the evaluation of the four feasible collection
and treatment alternatives.  Section 5.6.3 summarizes the
evaluation of the residuals disposal alternatives.  Insti-
tutional alternatives are evaluated in Section 5.7 as are
operation and maintenance alternatives.  The results of
these separate evaluations will be brought together as an
entire recommended plan in Chapter 6.0.
                          5-146

-------
    6.0   RECOMMENDED PLAN

    The recommended plan is described in this section.
The description includes a discussion of the selection
process and compares the recommendations of the facili-
ties planning consultant to U.S. EPA's position concern-
ing certain specific elements.  The section concludes with
a discussion of the Future Studies required in the facili-
ties planning process.
                             6-1

-------
     6.0  RECOMMENDED PLAN

6.1  Selection Process

     The recommended plan is a consensus plan.  It is the
result of compromises by EPA, MDNR, and DWSD, each of which
has different "publics" as their primary concern.  The plan
does not solve all pollution problems and therefore it is not
a final plan.  Further study, additional analysis, and the con-
tinued cooperative involvement of all parties is required.

     The plan was developed after the OP/EA was drafted and a
hearing was held on the recommendations of the OP/EA.  The
formulation of the recommended plan within this segmented
facilities plan involved negotiations prior to the signing of
a Consent Judgment and discussion between the U.S. EPA, MDNR,
DWSD, SEMCOG, Wayne County Air Pollution Control Division, the
facilities planning consultant, and the EIS consultant.

6.1.1  Overview Plan  (Draft)

     The OP/EA presented recommendations which provided for
improvements to the DWWTP to allow for optimum operation of
the existing facilities.  The recommendation was a hybrid of
alternatives B and C.  This included the construction of the
"Givens" discussed in Sections 1.0 and 3.0; upgrading and
redesign of existing facilities, and major system improvements
to provide 2300 mgd primary treatment.  Residual disposal was
to continue to utilize incineration as a volume reduction
technique, and included the construction of Sludge Complex III
and tall stacks.  A 100 ton/day pyrolysis plant was recommended
as a pilot project.

     Collection system improvements included the construction
of major relief sewers, retention basins, and the Lakeshore
Arm, the Romeo Arm, the Armada Arm, and the Richmond Arm in
the Oakland-Macomb district.  Management and staffing changes
were included to improve operations and maintenance operations.

     At the hearing on the OP/EA, questions were raised by
U.S. EPA and MDNR which required reanalysis of data.  The major
issues raised included:  the method of air quality modeling;
the introduction of separate sanitary waste into combined sewer
interceptors, which is prohibited by Michigan law; and the
sufficiency of data required to make decisions concerning the
control of CSO .

6.1.2  Consent Judgment

     The  Consent Judgment negotiated  on September 9,  1977,  and
signed by DWSD,  MDNR and U.S.  EPA (Appendix 11.8)  impounded
$399,055,250  of  the  Federal  construction  grants program dollars
                             6-3

-------
and placed several requirements on DWSD.   The issues addressed
in the Consent Judgement include:

     •  Financing.  The Consent Judgment details a schedule
        by which DWSD must have developed various portions of
        a continuing revenue system.   This includes a user
        charge system, an industrial  cost recovery system, a
        sewer ordinanace, and a local capital cost funding
        system;

     *  Industrial Waste Control.   A schedule for implementa-
        tion of an industrial waste control plan is detailed
        in the Consent Judgment;

     •  Staffing, Training, Operation and Maintenance.  A
        schedule is provided for the implementation of DWSD's
        staffing plan and training program.  An 0 & M manual
        is to be prepared and specific details are outlined
        for operation and maintenance, and for procurement;

     •  Facilities Planning.  A schedule for the completion
        of the segmented facilities plan and the final faci-
        lities plan is described;

     •  Sludge Disposal.  The steps required and the timing
        of interim and final sludge disposal plans are out-
        lined;

     •  Secondary Treatment.  A description of and the schedule
        for the contracts required to obtain secondary treat-
        ment by 1980  is outlined;

     •  Phosphorus Removal.  Target dates for the construction
        required to reach a one milligram per liter phospho-
        rus limits by 1982 are outlined; and

     *  Effluent Limits.  Staged improvements in effluent
        between 1978  and 1981 are described.

6.1.3  Resolution of  Issues

     During the months from July 1 through November  30, 1977,
meetings were  held to resolve those issues.  Parties  to the
discussions includes  representatives of  the  following organi-
zations :

     DWSD
     U.S. EPA, Water  Division
     U.S. EPA, Air Division
     MDNR
     Wayne County Air Pollution Control  Board
     facilities planning consultant
     EIS Consultant
                             6-4

-------
The issues discussed included the wastewater treatment plant
site plan, air quality, sludge disposal, and the West Arm.

6.1.3.1  Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan

     The OP/EA recommended expansion of the treatment plant
site into an area north of the existing site.  New primary
treatment with a capacity of 2300 mgd was recommended.  Follow-
ing the hearing, DWSD informed the facilities planning con-
sultant that expansion to the north would violate a city council
policy which discouraged conversion of residential land to pub-
lic uses.  Several alternative site plans were then developed
which allowed for  expansion to the west of the existing site
on land presently used by industries.

     The Consent Judgment changed the requirements of the
OP/EA.  The OP/EA was modified to develop a segmented facili-
ties plan for the treatment plant with a secondary capacity of
1050 mgd.  The revised plan for the plant did not require ex-
pansion of the site, but the facilities planning consultant
noted that a better layout would be possible if additional land
was available.

6.1.3.2  Sludge Disposal

     The OP/EA recommended the construction of the third in-
cineration complex.  The basis for the recommendation was that
the complex was a "given", the incinerators in Complexes I and
II have a limited useful life, and the sludge from the recom-
mended new primary would tax the capacity of Sludge Complexes
I and II.  The change in emphasis from an overview plan to a
segmented facilities plan required that sludge volumes be re-
calculated.  During the reanalysis, it was determined that for
average flows, the rated capacity could be obtained with im-
proved operation and maintenance of the existing vacuum filters
and incinerators.  Additional capacity for sludge disposal or
storage is required to cope with the sludge produced during
maximum flow  (1050 mgd) periods.  This will be addressed as a
part of the permanent residuals disposal program and will be
studied under contract CS-823.

6.1.3.3  Air Quality

     In August, 1976, the City of Detroit entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Wayne County Department
of Health to modify the existing incinerators to ensure com-
pliance with the particulate emission limitations and improved
particulate dispersion.  This agreement has since been re-
examined in lieu of anticipated wastewater charges,O&M charges
and revised incinerator capacities.  By utilizing a standard
gaussian diffusion model, Giffels/Black and Veatch determined
that air pollution standards could be met by:

     •  Continued construction of the improved emissions abate-
        ment system for Complex I per PC-400 to achieve emis-
                            6-5

-------
        sions  equivalent  to  New Source  Performance  Standards;

     •   Provide stack gas reheat to  300°F.  to  preclude  induced
        draft  fan deterioration and  increase plume  buoyancy;

     •   Increase gas exit velocity to 4500  feet/minute;  and

     •   To renegotiate the 250 foot  tall  stacks requirements
        to allow a 146 foot minimum  stock height.

It is further  recommended that DWSD  engage  a consultant to:

     •   Determine the optimum combination of exit  temperature,
        exit velocity and height;  the existing short stacks
        can be extended with nozzles; and

     •   Pilot  test the retrofit of an existing incinerator to
        separate the drying zone and burning zone,  extract the
        exhaust gases from the burning zone through an  unfired
        external afterburner and employ heat recovery to pre-
        heat the combustion air and  reheat  the exit gas stream.
        The pilot test period will also provide the opportunity
        to evaluate the effectiveness of the venturi scrubbers
        installed in Complex I prior to making any modifica-
        tions  to the emissions abatement system of Complex II.

     These recommendations and a strict schedule of implemen-
tation  (see Appendix 11.1) have been agreed to by MDNR, U.S.
EPA, DWSD as well as the Wayne County Department of Health Air
Pollution Control Division,  and supersede the  1976 MEmorandum
of Understanding.

6.1.3.4  West Arm Interceptor

     The near drought conditions which occurred during the first
portions of the study and the limited available data did not
provide sufficient data for U.S. EPA to make a decision concern-
ing the West Arm.  Therefore, U.S. EPA cannot  support that ele-
ment of the recommended plan until such time as sufficient data
is available to determine the water  quality benefits of the
interceptor.

     The interceptor remains a part of DWSD's  plan in order
to comply with the Michigan law which does not allow separate
sanitary sewage to be comingled with combined sewage.  Con-
struction of the interceptor was requested by Oakland County
at the OP/EA public hearing as a means of increasing their out-
let capacity to the DWSD  system and eliminating the direct over-
flow of sewage to the River Rouge during rainfall events.  Con-
struction of the interceptor is also supported by SEMCOG.
                             6-6

-------
6.2  Description of the Recommended Plan

     This section presents a brief outline of the recommenda-
tions presented by the facilities planning consultant.   Tech-
nical details of the recommended plan can be found in the SFP
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1978, Book I).

     A number of programs are proposed for the SFP which can be
grouped in the following categories:

     •  First Category (1977-1981) Optimization of Existing
        Facilities;

     •  First Category (1977-1981) New Major Construction
        Programs; and

     •  Continuing Programs.

The descriptions presented in this section are taken from the
SFP  (Giffels/Black and Veatch 1978, Book I).

6.2.1.  First Category (1977-1981) Optimization of Existing
        Facilities

     The objective of First Category work is rehabilitations of
the existing facilities to eliminate problems which have
plagued past operations.

6.2.1.1  Primary Treatment

     •  Modify scum building serving rectangular clarifiers to
        include a portable scum container.  This scum con-
        tainer will allow either hauling scum to off-site dis-
        posal or pumping from the container to present scum
        handling facilities;

     •  Redesign and replace scum removal arms in circular
        clarifiers Al and A2.  After placing the proposed
        primary tanks A3 and A4 in service, additional modi-
        fications to Al and A2 include the redesign of the
        scum beach and the scum hopper depending upon A3 and
        A4 performance;

     •  Replace electrical equipment and controls for rectangu-
        lar clarifiers.  New equipment is to be isolated from
        pipe tunnel atmosphere to eliminate equipment for ex-
        plosionproof equipment; and

     •  Based on the results of primary sludge verification
        studies modify primary sludge piping.

6.2.1.2  Secondary Treatment

     •  Modify peripheral influent lines in final clarifiers
        based on performance and testing on one unit;
                             6-7

-------
     •   Provide new cable  and  raceways  for  cables  at  inter-
        mediate lift pumps 1 and 2;

     *   Modify electrically operated discharge  valves in
        sludge lines with  mechanical check  valves  in  build-
        ings Bl, B2, B8, BIO,  and B14;

     •   Provide a centrally located  ventilation failure alarm
        for final clarifier buildings,  and  ventilation facili-
        ties for the aeration  tank buildings;

     *   Renovate aeration  tank gates used to maintain liquid
        level in the aeration  tanks; and

     •   Seal 0  aeration tank  #1 deck.

6.2.1.3  Disinfection

     •   Provide improvements  to existing chlorine  feed system
        to assure reliability.  Provide leak detection device
        with alarm in feed room.

6.2.1.4  Phosphorus Removal

     •  Provide new chemical  feed pumps in existing chemical
        feed building and  piping to  temporarily feed to influent
        pump suction lines.  Provide temporary mixers at  the
        collection channel downstream of the original grit
        channels;

     *  Replace existing flow metering equipment and control
        valves in pickle liquor storage and feed system;  and

     •  Provide engineering studies  for flocculation to enhance
        phosphorus removal.

6.2.1.5  Sludge Treatment

     •  Replace mechanical mixing system in one blending tank
        with an air mixing system.  Replace two constant speed
        blending tank pumps with variable speed units;

     •  Modify piping to improve flexibility in operation of
        sludge thickening, blending, and storage facilities;

     *  Provide sludge thckening complex main control panel
        renovation, ultrasonic generators for cleaning magnetic
        flowmeters, and air filters and dryers on vacuum filter
        instrument air;

     *  Conduct pilot test coaluation of test scale and full
        scale filter presses to arrive at desired configuration
        for additional sludge disposal facilities;
                             6-8

-------
     •  Optimize operation of  existing vacuum filters by use
        of conditioning and/or filter aids;  and

     •  Provide additional interim dewatering facilities to
        allow modification of existing facilities while hand-
        ling all sludge generated within the time stipulated
        in the Consent Judgment.

6.2.1.6  Sludge and Grease Incineration

     •  Continue construction of  emission devices for Sludge
        Complex I per PC-400;

     •  Replace oxygen analyzers  and calibrate existing incine-
        ration instrumentation in Sludge Complex II;

     •  Repair the scum and grease incinerator and rectify de-
        ficiencies.  If grease is incinerated satisfactorily
        then provide emission controls;

     •  Consider or continue pilot studies for gas stream re-
        trofit of one incinerator in Sludge Complex II to
        achieve autogenous burning; roller press on existing
        vacuum filters; addition  of powdered coal as a filter
        aid; use of filter press; various incineration tech-
        niques for disposal of sludge, grease and scum; and
        use of scum and grease in sludge incinerators as
        auxiliary fuel; and

     •  Provide stack gas reheat  and increase gas exit velocity.

6.2.1.7  Solids Handling

     •  Rebuild sludge handling conveyor system in Sludge
        Complex II to provide redundancy and reliability;

     •  Renovate the ash handling system in Sludge Complex II
        by separating west ash system from dry ash system;

     •  Renovate ash storage silo discharge to provide closed
        feed to covered trucks;

     •  Rebuild sludge handling system in Sludge Complex I in
        accordance with PC-400;

     •  Complete grit studies under Contract CS-816 and imple-
        ment recommendations;

     •  Provide improved weighing system; and

     •  Provide ash volume measurement.
                                6-9

-------
6.2.1.8  Flow Measurement and Sampling

     •  Modify existing venturi meters and flow control  gates
        on the four primary influent conduits;

     •  Provide flow metering and sampling capability in re-
        cycle piping from incinerator scrubbers,  vacuum  fil-
        ters, and sludge thickeners;

     •  Modify flume from intermediate pumping  station into the
        aeration tanks 1 and 2 with open channel flow metering
        devices and place samplers at these locations;

     •  Provide sampling lines and sinks to sample primary
        sludge from each clarifier;

     •  Improve existing raw wastewater sampling stations and
        renovate other sampling stations as required;

     •  Provide engineering studies for DWWTP effluent flow
        measurement; and

     •  Provide engineering studies for metering influent flow
        in DRI and 0-NWI.

6.2.1.9  Maintenance and Plant Staffing

     •  Provide preventive maintenance for electrical equip-
        ment and controls of main pumping station, screen
        racks, grit collectors, and other areas;

     *  Implement proposed maintenance  program and provide
        chain of command with specific areas of responsibility;

     •  Determine areas where contract maintenance could be
        justified when compared with in-house maintenance;

     •  Implement proposed organization, training, and  staff-
        ing program to provide adequate supervisory  structure;
        upgrade existing level of worker competence with an on-
        going training program; and provide an ongoing  entry
        level training program; and

     •  Develop and implement system for inventory control and
        build up.

6.2.1.10  Miscellaneous  Improvements

     •  Completion of all  "Given"  contracts  (see  section 1.0)
        except Sludge Complex III  as presently  set forth in
        PC-295 and except  "Tall Stacks" as set forth  in CS-802;

      •  Construct clarifiers A3 and A4 as described  in  Construe^
        tion Contract PC-276 to provide adequate  primary clari-
        fication capacity  to treat 1050 mgd peak  flow and  to
        satisfy timing requirements of the Consent Judgment.
        It is anticipated  that a  new primary system  may be


                             6-10

-------
        constructed in the future and that the existing pri-
        mary system (excluding tanks Al and A2)  would then be
        available for combined sewage overflow treatment,  as
        required; and

     •  Provide central laboratory for DWWTP and industrial
        waste monitoring program.

6.2.1.11  Interceptor Sewers

     •  For optimization items see Construction Programs;

     •  Study existing combined sewer regulators and back"
        water gates and design improvements; and

     •  Design in-system storage devices.

6.2.1.12  Financing

     In accordance with rate increase policy initiated August 1,
1977,  an interim rate increase was established and additional
rate increases will be put into effect in 1978 and 1979.  The
revenue created by this rate increase will finance the First
Category Construction and Optimization Program.

     During this interim period the following work will be per-
formed for incorporation into a permanent rate model:

     •  User Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery, in accordance
        with Consent Judgment and Local Capital Cost Funding
        program; and

     •  Local Capital Cost Funding, in accordance with DWSD
        program for permanent rate model and with Consent
        Judgment.

6.2.1.13  Management

     •  Staffing.  Upgrade number and capabilities of staff for
        treatment plant and collection system.  Particular em-
        phasis should be on supervisory personnel for 24 hour
        operation;

     •  Training.  Establish stronger internal training program.
        Recognize that a massive ongoing training program is
        required in order to retain an adequate number of skilled
        staff;

     •  Personnel Recruitment.  Make greater efforts to recruit
        and retain qualified supervisors and skilled tradesmen.
        The recruiting and retention of qualified personnel
        must be assured by aggressive recruitment using all re-
        sources to draw personnel from the widest pool of po-
        tential employees;
                             6-11

-------
     •   Purchasing.   Improve  purchasing  procedures.   Increase
        direct purchase  limit through revision  in  ordinance.
        Consider transferring some  purchasing authority  to
        DWSD by ordinance as  provided in the City  Charter;

     •   Construction Management.  Contract  some construction
        management services to conserve  middle  management
        staff for other  duties;  and

     •   Operation Review.  Increase opportunities  for communi-
        cation between designers and operating  personnel.

6.2.1.14  Institutional

     •   Contract Modifications.   Develop changes in existing
        sewage disposal  service contracts to  improve ability
        to meet changing conditions as defined  in  the SFP  and
        provide for installation of low metering and control
        devices at points of  connection with  the DWSD system;

     •   Waste Control Ordinances.  Develop more detailed and
        enforceable ordinances as required by regulatory
        agencies;

     •   Disinfection.  Review requirement for disinfection in
        the light of the receiving  waters use;  and

     •   Effluent Limitations.  Be prepared for  changes by  main-
        taining flexible planning posture.

6.2.1.15  Industrial Waste Control

     •   Implement an industrial wastewater control program
        based on pretreatment at the source in  accordance  with
        the City Ordinance administered by DWSD.  The industrial
        waste control program will  be in compliance with the
        pending "Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New
        Sources of Pollution" guidelines to be  published by
        the U.S. EPA; and

     •   Organize and staff the DWSD Industrial  Waste Control
        Section as proposed or as may be required to implement
        pending U.S. EPA "pretreatment standards".

6.2.2  First Category (1977-1981) New Major Construction Programs

6.2.2.1  Treatment Plant

     The new facilities contained in this section are designed
to improve overall plant operation and phosphorus removal.  For
the purpose of design of facilities for 1981,  the average dry
weather flow is 600 mgd and the peak flow  (assumed sustained
for 48 hours maximum) is 1050 mgd.
                             6-12

-------
     •   Construct a new 2,350  mgd  (firm  capacity)  raw waste-
        water pumping station.   The  initial  firm  capacity  will
        be 1300 mgd.   This  pumping station will separate West
        Arm and East Arm Interceptor flows from DRI  and 0-NWI
        flows.   The pumping station  will also  contain raw  waste-
        water screening,  grit  facilities and flow measurement
        equipment;

     *   Construct a new disinfection facility  with the capacity
        to supply 10 mg/1 of chlorine to a flow of 1,050 mgd,
        with provision for  expansion;

     •   Expand laboratory into abandoned chlorination facilities
        area;

     •   Construct a new chemical building for  phosphorus removal.
        This building will  contain storage,  transfer and feed-
        ing facilities for  iron (both ferrous  and ferric)  and
        polymer.  Provide temporary  iron and polymer feed  lines
        from this building  to  the original pumping station and
        preliminary treatment  facilities. First  stage chemical
        building will be designed with firm  capacity to treat
        1,050 mgd;

     •   Provide an addition to the existing  maintenance building
        and provide facilities for light maintenance of non-
        affixed equipment including  vehicles;

     •   Construct sludge blending and storage  tanks  proposed  in
        PC-295;

     •   Provide additional  dewatering units;

     •   Construct ash lagoons  to provide space for proposed pump
        station.

     When this construction and the  First Category optimizations
are completed the plant will be operated in  the  following  manner:

     •   Due to the scheduling  of interceptors  and the  new  pump-
        ing station, an interim operation plan must  be  provided
        to continue complete treatment of dry  weather  flows and
        overflow of combined wastewater brought to the  plant  in
        excess of 1,050 mgd.  This plan may  include  double pump-
        ing of flows received  from the new pumping station to
        the existing pumping station plus closure of remote regu-
        lators to the East  and West  Arms during wet  weather flows;

     •   Ferrous and ferric  iron from the new chemical  building
        will be added at the original raw wastewater pumps, and
        polymer, also from  the new chemical  building, will be
        added downstream of the original grit  channels.  The
        exact chemicals,  dosages, and addition points will be
        determined by studies  conducted under  contract  CS-822;
                             6-13

-------
     *   Secondary treatment  will  receive  flow from the  primary
        clarifiers up to  a maximum of  1,050  mgd.   Due to  pri-
        mary clarifier optimization and the  construction  of
        the new chemical  feed facilities,  the phosphorus  level
        in the  secondary  effluent should  be  1.0 mg/1 or less
        in this period.   It  may also be beneficial to feed
        iron salts to the secondary influent as determined by
        CS-822;

     •   Recycle flows from the sludge  treatment processes may
        continue to flow  to  the original  pumping  station  as
        determined by CS-822; and

     *   Based on the results of the primary  sludge study  primary
        sludge  from the circular  and rectangular  primary  clari-
        fiers should be gravity thickened or sent directly to
        the sludge blending  tanks.  All waste activated sludge
        should continue to undergo gravity thickening.

6.2.2.2  Interceptor Sewers  and Combined  Sewer Overflow Systems

     •   North Interceptor, West Arm (NI-WA).  Construct the
        North Interceptor, West Arm (NI-WA)  to provide  inter-
        ceptor capacity to western Detroit,  portions of the
        western and northern suburbs,  and reduce  combined sew-
        er overflows to the  River Rouge.   This construction
        will allow the western interceptor system to comply
        with the MDNR policy that sewage  from areas having
        separate sanitary sewers  shall not be discharged with
        combined sewer overflows.  The U.S.  EPA does not con-
        cur with the facilities planning  consultant's recommen-
        dation concerning the NI-WA and feels that sufficient
        data has not been developed to determine  the benefits
        of this recommendation;

     •   Detroit River Interceptor Relief   (DRI-R).  To reduce
        combined sewer overflows, a force main and gravity inter-
        ceptor will relieve  a bottleneck in the DRI between the
        Connors Creek pumping station and Helen Avenue.  The
        routing parallels the existing interceptor.  There will
        be six construction access points to the tunnel.   The
        tunnel length will be about 14,200 feet  (4300 m)  long
        and 48,000 yd3 (36,700 m3) of excavation will be re-
        moved;

     •   Oakwood-Northwest Interceptor Relief  (0-NWI-R).  A 6 ft.
        diameter relief sewer will relieve a bottleneck in the
        Oakwood-Northwest Interceptor between McNichols Road
        and Puritan Avenue.   This relief will be constructed by
        tunneling parallel to the existing interceptor.  Two
        access points are anticipated for this tunnel which will
        be 2500 ft. long.  About  3600 yd3 (2700 m3) of excava-
        tion will be removed;
                            6-14

-------
Pumping Station Improvements. The Connors Creek Pump-
ing Station will be upgraded through electrical im-
provements and renovation, and installation of a new
90mgd sanitary sewage pump.  The station will be con-
nected to the Detroit River Interceptor Relief, which
provides a bypass of the Fairview Pumping Station.

The Oakwood Pumping Station will also be improved by
adding two new 100 mgd pumps and renovating the oil
skimming facilities.

Install a new 300 cfs pumps at the Bluehill Pumping
Station.

All improvements to the Connors Creek and Oakwood
Pumping Stations will be within the existing struc-
tures.  No new land acquisition is needed.

Fabridam Installations.  Fabridams, which may increase
insystem storage, along with instrumentation controls,
will be installed at:

Telegraph Road and Puritan Avenue
Seven Mile Road and Shiawassee
Frisbee and Woodbine Avenue
McNichols Road and Bramell Street  (McNichols Relief
outfall)

Construction areas for fabridam installation will be
20 x 20 x 30 ft.  (6 x 6 x 9 m).

Sluice Gate Installations.  Sluice gate instrumentation
and remote controls, will be installed to increase in-
system storage for the Wyoming Relief at the intersection
of Kercheval and Manistique.  Construction areas will be
approximately 20 x 20 x 30 ft.  (6 x 6 x 9 m);

Ashland Sewer Bulkhead and Flow Diversion.  The Ashland
Sewer will be bulkheaded immediately upstream of the
Fox Creek Backwater Gate Structure.  Flows will be diver-
ted either  by constructing a drop manhole at the inter-
section of Kercheval Avenue and Ashland Street to route
flow from the Ashland Sewer into the Fox Creek Relief
Sewer, or by constructing about 300 feet of tunnel to
the Manistique Sewer;

Suburban Interceptors.  The following interceptors will
be constructed:  Mt. Clemens Arm, Lakeshore Arm  (Joy to
21 Mile Road), and Richmond Arm  (21 Mile Road, Gratiot
to 1-94); and control facilities for Mt. Clemens and
NE Clinton Township, for Clinton Township at 15 Mile
and Little Mack, for Fraser at 15 Mile and Hayes, for
NE Shelby Township, and for Chesterfield Township at 21
Mile Road and 1-94; and
                    6-15

-------
     •  System Control Center.   Determine  the  needs  of  the
        System Control Center to adequately perform  its func-
        tion when the additional facilities designated  herein
        are completed.  Revise,  expand,  and/or relocate the
        System Control Center as may be  necessary to achieve
        operational efficiency.

6.2.3  Continuing Programs

6.2.3.1  Treatment Plant

     No new continuing programs  are listed for the treatment
plant; see Optimization Programs.  The continuing programs
identified in First Category (1977-1981),  Optimization  of
Existing Facilities, shall be continued.

6.2.3.2  Collection System

     Continue the established program of repair,  replacement,
and relief of lateral sewers.  A annual budget item should  be
provided for this general work.

     Continue the established program of sewer maintenance
which is to include the monitoring and remote control system.
This is an annual budget item.

6.2.3.3  Management

     •  Training.  Long-range training programs to provide
        proper operation and upward mobility within DWSD; and

     •  Review.  Periodically review and evaluate the effect-
        iveness of ongoing activities.

6.2.3.4  Institutional

     •  Contract Modifications.   Periodic updating of agree-
        ments ; and

     •  Areawide Cooperation.  Work closely with other area
        wastewater utilities in  solving common problems.

6.2.3.5  Public Relations

      •  Public Meetings.  Carry  message of DWSD to the customers;

      •  Media.  Utilize the media to tell a positive story;  and

      •  Industrial Waste Cooperative.   Involve industry  in
        meeting proposed industrial waste limitations.
                            6-16

-------
6.3  Unresolved Issues

     As discussed in section 6.2.2.2 the facilities planning
consultant and DWSD have recommended the West Arm of the North
Interceptor be constructed.  Due to the lack of date on com-
bined sewer overflows which the West Arm is designed to reduce,
the benefits of this proposal cannot be determined at this
time.  Program Requirements Memorandum 75-34 requires that the
benefits to the receiving waters be analyzed for a range of
levels in pollution control and the costs of the plans are com-
mensurate with the benefits derived.

     The final facilities plan includes a detailed study of the
River Rouge CSO, and creation of a model to predict the re-
sponse in the River Rouge to varying conditions.  The model,
when established and verified, will provide the required estimate
of water quality benefits for the available alternatives.  The
completion of this analysis will permit a decision to be made
by U.S. EPA as to the eligibility of the proposals for Federal
Funding under PL 92-500.

6.4  Future Studies

     The SFP and this EIS represent a part of the studies re-
lating to the DWSD system.  The Consent Judgment  (Appendix 11.8),
PL 92-500, and NEPA all require various documents and informa-
tion contained in projects such as these.

     The studies that are the subject of this section are por-
tions of the facilities planning process of PL 92-500.  However,
the studies are items specified in the Consent Judgment.  During
the negotiations of the Consent Judgment certain items were
singled out as requiring special emphasis.

     While the special studies mentioned in the Consent Judg-
ment are not the entire nor most important elements of any fa-
cilities plan, all of the elements of a facilities plan con-
tribute to the recommended plan of action, each contributing
to a logical thought process that results in the final recommended
plan  (Appendix 11.1 Outline of Facilities Plan).

     Among the requirements of the Consent Judgment are the
completion of the segmented and final facilities plans.  The
segmented facilities plan is the subject of this EIS  (Section
1.0) as required by NEPA and implemented by U.S. EPA.  The
final facilities plan will have an EIS prepared as stated in
correspondence from the Water Division Director of U.S. EPA,
Region V, to the Director of DWSD on October 20, 1977.

     The following discussion groups the future studies by their
source.  There are four sources:   (1) requirements of all fa-
cilities plans, (2) special studies part of the SFP and/or
                            6-17

-------
current studies, (3)  final facilities plan studies,  and (4)
reports required to satisfy the requirements of NEPA.   These
studies are discussed in more detail in Appendix 11.1.

6.4.1  Facilities Planning Studies

     The facilities planning process specifically requires that
an 0 & M manual, sewer use ordinance, user charge and industrial
cost recovery systems and industrial waste control program be
in force before final completion of any facilities plan.

     An 0 & M manual is required for all facilities constructed
under the FWPCS (40 CFR 35.925-10) and specifies the procedures
necessary for adequate maintenance and operation.  Normal and
extreme operation procedures are to be presented along with the
periodic maintenance necessary to assure that the facilities'
performance conforms with its design.

     Sewer use ordinances limit the type and design of connec-
tions to public sewers  (40 CFR 35.927-4).  The ordinance is
required to prohibit new sources of inflow from being connected
to the sewer system and ensure that new connections are proper-
ly designed and constructed.

     The user charge and industrial cost recovery systems are
required to fund the local share of the facilities cost  (40
CFR 35.925-11).  The industrial cost recovery system retrieves
the capital costs attributable to industrial users.  User
charges provide funding for the local share of the facilities
cost and the operation and maintenance costs.

     A local capital cost funding study is a portion of the
user charge/industrial cost recovery system.  However, the
Consent Judgment specifically calls for a report detailing the
source of funding for the local share of the facilities cost.

     The industrial waste control program is designed to en-
force existing  local, state, and  federal regulations  (PL 92-500-
Section 308-C)  and to monitor industrial discharges to the sew-
er system.  The monitoring assures equitable user charges based
on flow and flow characteristics.  Flow characteristics  include
sampling for toxic pollutants and/or constituents which may
adversely affect the facilities operation.  The goal of  this
program is to reduce toxic and/or adverse pollutant discharges
to the system.

6.4.2  Special  Studies

     The special studies have been identified by the Consent
Judgment as items needing immediate attention.
                            6-18

-------
     The final clarifier study is required to permit upgrading
of the final clarifiers1 performance to design parameters.
Problems with the clarifiers1  design necessitate some modifi-
cations.  This study is to determine requisites for improving
the final clarifiers1 performance.  A portion of this study
will be performed under contract CS-822.

6.4.3  Final Facilities Plan Studies

     The final facilities plan comprises many elements
(Appendix 11.1, Outline of Facilities Plan), some of which
were specified in the Consent Judgment.  While the following
studies are important components of the facilities plan, equal-
ly important segments of the plan were not mentioned.  A few
components of the facilities plan not mentioned include a
sludge disposal program for any additional sludge above the
1050 mgd plant, a forecast of future flow and waste load, the
evaluation of the future interceptor repair and replacement
needs, a stormwater management plan, and an energy conservation
evaluation.

     The Consent Judgment specifically requires a CSO study.
The CSO study will determine the volume and water quality of
the CSO.  This study will provide a quantifiable estimate
of needed improvements for a stormwater management plan.

     A study to determine the capacity and capability of the
existing plant is required by the Consent Judgment.  This
study will determine both the hydraulic capacity of the plant
and the constraints limiting that capacity.  The capability of
the plant to treat a given hydraulic capacity of wastewater
will also be evaluated to determine what problems need to be
corrected to meet the NPDES permit limitations.  The infor-
mation regarding the existing plant will determine what addi-
tional measures are required to meet future demands upon the
DWWTP.

     The influent and flow characteristics study required in
the Consent Judgment is to determine the present flow to the
DWWTP and its characteristics.  The flow and characteristics
of flow will allow more precise determination of the needs of
the DWWTP and will allow refinement of the true capacity and
capability of the plant.

     The Consent Judgment states that the facilities required
be identified and described in advance of the final facilities
plan completion.  That interim report published prior to the
final facilities plan will outline the facilities required to
satisfy the DWSD needs for the planning period.
                           6-19

-------
     An integral part of the facilities plan,  the environmental
assessment is also required by the Consent Judgment.   The en-
vironmental assessment will outline current conditions,  eval-
uate the proposed alternatives including "no action",  and de-
scribe the environmental impacts of the recommended plan.

     Each of the studies discussed in Section 6.4.3 will be
published as an interim report.  The purpose of these interim
reports is to allow review and negotiation of the issues that
will be a part of the final facilities plan report.

6.4.4  NEPA Reports

     The environmental assessment required as a part of the
final facilities plan is a portion of the NEPA requirements
as implemented by U.S. EPA.

     The final facilities will require an EIS to fulfill the
requirements of the federal government.

     The final EIS will address several important issues al-
ready identified, and others as necessary.  Issues identified
at this point include selection of landfill site for ash dis-
posal, north Macomb County sanitary needs survey, and a DelRay
neighborhood analysis to include odor problems.  Additional
issues that will be addressed  include plant expansion beyond
the existing site, stormwater management and the current in-
cinerator pilot studies.

6.5  Summary

     The selection process and recommended plan were described
in this section.  Recognition  of both the facilities planning
consultant's and U.S. EPA's views are made.  The Further
Studies section briefly outlines the unresolved issues of this
SFP that will be answered in the final facilities plan.  The
specifics of the recommended plan will be used to estimate
impacts in Chapter 7.0.
                            6-20

-------
     7.0  IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

     This chapter presents the environmental impacts of the
recommended plan upon the future environment of the area.
The severity and duration of the impacts are discussed and
evaluated.  The impacts of the collection and treatment sys-
tem recommendations have been separated from the sludge pro-
cessing and disposal recommendation.  This analysis incor-
porates the information developed in the preceding chapters
of this statement.  Information developed in this chapter
will be the basis for the Chapter 8 discussion of long-term
versus short-term considerations.
                            7-1

-------
     7.0  IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

7.1  Treatment and Collection Impacts

7.1.1  Climate

     The proposed collection and treatment system will have
no discernible primary impact upon the climate in the study
area.

7.1.2   Geology and Topography

     The geology of the study area should not be impacted by
the proposed plan.  Tunneled sewer construction will occur in
areas of unconsolidated glacial lake plains and will not like-
ly reach bedrock.  Grading and major construction work along
the interceptor routes will temporarily impact the existing
urban topography.

     The site chosen for the one demonstration CSO control
structure will receive both short and long-term primary ad-
verse impacts.  The site location will determine the degree
and type of impact.  Impacts will be more severe and mitiga-
ting measures more imperative if a wooded park site is chosen
over an "eyesore" vacant area.

     The excavation of tunneled sewers, cut and cover sewers
and the CSO control structure will create nearly 2.0 million
cubic feet (56,600 m ) of spoil.  Disposal of this spoil in
a haphazard,  uncontrolled manner will cause significant long-
term, adverse impacts.

7.1.3  Soils

     The soils of the area will be minimally impacted on an
areawide basis by the recommended plan.  However, construction
may cause localized adverse, short-term impacts.  Potential
soil erosion damage exists at the following small construction
locations in the study area:

     Three pumping station expansions

     •  Conners Creek;

     •  Bluehill; and

     •  Oakwood.
                            7-3

-------
     Eight flow control  facilities  involving  20"  x  20'  x  30'
     excavation:

     •   Mt.  Elliott and  Gratiot  (NI-EA);

     •   Meldrum and Gratiot (NI-EA);

     •   Stimson and Fourth (NI-EA);

     •   Mt.  Clemens;

     •   N.R.  Clinton Township;

     •   15 Mile and Little Mack  (Clinton Township);

     •   15 Mile and Hayes (Eraser);

     •   N.E.  Shelby Township;  and

     •   21 Mile and 1-94 (Chesterfield Township).

     Three service gates of approximately 20" x 20'  x 30':

     *   Kirkwood and Lonyo (Wyoming Relief);

     •   Joy Road and Livernois (Upper Livernois Relief);  and

     •   Kercheval and Manistique (Ashland Relief).

     One sewer bulkhead approximately 20' x 20' x 30':

     •   Ashland Sewer.

     Other areas of potential erosion are the DWWTP where
construction of new buildings and facilities will occur,  the
site of the one pilot CSO control structure/  the 15 one-acre
access  sites needed for 35,700 linear feet 10,880 m) of tun-
neled sewer construction, and the spoil disposal site(s).

     Eroded material will either be washed directly into local
streams and rivers, or more likely, because of the urbanized
nature  of the study area, will be carried into combined sewers.
This sediment burden clogs sewers and regulators, reduces sew-
er capacity, and puts an additional strain on treatment facil-
ities at the DWWTP.  Where sewer capacities are exceeded and
overflow points exist, this sediment may be discharged into
the major rivers aggravating the adverse impacts of CSO to
water quality.  These impacts are insignificant when compared
to erosion impacts from the Detroit urban area.  Residential,
commercial, and industrial construction probably contribute a
far greater erosion impact than that of the proposed construction,
                           7-4

-------
7.1.4  Hydrology

7.1.4.1  Surface Water Quantity

     A beneficial impact of the proposed collection system
will be increased transport of combined sewage away from
populated areas to the main treatment plant.  Flooded base-
ments due to sewage backups will be ameliorated by increased
collection capacity from new interceptors, relief sewers, and
control facilities.

     None of the 82 combined sewer overflow points identified
within the study area (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book
VII) will be eliminated.  The quantity of overflows will be
reduced somewhat by the improvements to the collection system,
however, none of the control measures will be completed by
1981.

     Any reductions in CSO along the Detroit River from the
DRI-Relief will have a minimal impact on the river water quan-
tity because flows discharged from the DWWTP will correspond-
ingly increase.

     The impacts of increased surface runoff from urbanization
will occur in the suburbs with or without implementation of
the recommended plan.  Population increases are predicted for
the suburbs regardless of the recommended plan.  A further ex-
planation of land use changes in the study area is discussed
in Section 7.1.8 Land Use and Developmental Trends.

7.1.4.2  Surface Water Quality

     Primary short-term, adverse impacts are anticipated but
should be localized and not severe.  During the construction
phase, 1977 to 1981, water quality degradation may occur lo-
cally due to suspended and dissolved material that has washed
into sewers from construction areas and subsequently over-
flowed.  Turbidity will increase when soil particles wash into
streams.  Deposition of sediment will occur in the less turbu-
lent waters of the study area.  Adverse consequences of in-
creased sedimentation include the deposition of channel bars,
obstruction of flow and increased flooding, alteration of
channel configuration, and destruction of aquatic biota through
disruption of benthic habitats.  The nutrients contained in
sediment may stimulate algal and macrophyte growth.  The extent
of these adverse impacts will not be widespread because the
majority of silt-laden runoff flows into sewers or streams
with stabilized channels.

     The DWWTP will be in compliance with its effluent limits
by December 31, 1981, as outlined in the Consent Judgment
(Appendix 11.9).  Compliance with these effluent limits will
have a slight primary long-term, beneficial impact upon the
                            7-5

-------
Detroit River and its downstream receiving waters.   Final
effluent limitations will be met in four stages providing a
realistic pollution abatement program for the City  of Detroit.
One result of these staged deadlines is that improvements in
the Detroit River's water quality will occur slowly.

     Water quality modeling (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book VI) indicates that concentrations of most substances
will increase by the year 2000 despite improved effluent
quality from the main plant.  This is mainly attributed to
increases in non-point source pollution from changes in land
use.  Growth, development, and their corresponding  water qual-
ity degradation are expected in the study area regardless of
the improvements to the DWWTP.  Limits on growth in the suburbs
are not a function of DWSD.  Sufficient developable land is
available within the service area to support the forecasted
growth without DWSD sewerage service.  The magnitude of the
adverse impacts of land use changes will be greater than that
of the beneficial primary impacts of the proposed action on
an area-wide basis.

     River Rouge water quality will not improve because of
surface runoff and CSO.  No existing CSO points will be elim-
inated.  The quantity of overflows per year will be the same as
at present since plans for construction of the West Arm and its
associated overflow control measures will be a part of a final
facilities plan.  Continued urbanization and land use changes
will increase the pollutant loads in surface runoff.

     Clinton River water quality is not expected to improve
because the proposed plan will have minimal emphasis on the
Clinton River basin.  Suburban interceptors will collect sewage
north of the Clinton River and transport it to the  DWWTP through
the Detroit River Interceptor  (DRI and the NI-EA).

     Total loading of nutrients, such as phosphorus, and toxic
materials, such as phenol, from the DWWTP to the Detroit River
will decrease.  By 1982 daily loadings of phosphorus will  be
reduced from 27,783 Ib/day  (12,600 kg/day)to 5007 Ib/day
 (2271 kg/day) for a flow of 1050 mgd and a discharge concen-
tration of 1 mg P/l.  As the  largest point source contributor
of phosphorus to the Detroit  River and the western  basin of
Lake Erie, the impact of reduced phosphorus loading from the
DWWTP should be beneficial to those waters over the long-term.
Based on water quality modeling  (Giffels/Black and  Veatch,  1977,
Book VI), phosphorus concentration at all monitored points in
the river will decrease, however the concentration  at the  mouth
of  the  Detroit River  (Mile Point 3.9) will still not  be  in com-
pliance with the recommended  phosphorus  limitations.

     The western basin of Lake Erie  should receive  primary
long-term beneficial impacts  from reduced phosphorus  loading.
                            7-6

-------
It should be realized,  however,  that nutrient concentration
rather than nutrient supply will control the standing crop
of phytoplankton (and macrophytes)  in a lake, and therefore
the eutrophication process (Dillon, in press).  Since nutrient
concentration is a function of nutrient loading, lower load-
ing of total phosphorus to the western basin should be re-
flected in a somewhat lower concentration.  Estimates of the
response time of Lake Erie to phosphorus control programs
indicate that a delayed response can be expected.  Phosphorus
effluent reductions from the DWWTP by 1982 will probably not
affect algal biomass until 3 to 5 years later  (IJC, 1975).

     Modeling studies by the Army Corps of Engineers indicate
that phosphorus concentrations in the western basin must be
reduced from 0.037 mg P/l to 0.020 mg P/l to reach a mesotro-
phic state.  Since 40 percent (40%) of the present loadings
are from diffuse sources such as surface runoff, point source
reduction alone will not be sufficient to achieve the 0.020 mg
P/l level  (IJC, 1976) .

7.1.4.3  Groundwater Quantity and Quality

     No major primary impacts to groundwater are foreseen.
It is possible that some tunneled sewers will reach ground-
water tables and create a potential adverse impact.

     Some adverse impacts to groundwater resources will occur
from increased urbanization but are not directly attributable
to the proposed project.  Groundwater recharge areas primarily
outcrop areas of glacial drift aquifers, will be reduced as
more land surfaces in the outlying portions of the study area
become paved or covered with buildings.  This impact will not
be locally severe since groundwater, presently does and will
continue to only supply a small fraction of the municipal
water demand in the future.  Anyone can purchase DWSD water.

     Streams which derive a portion of their flow from ground-
water may have lowered flows if groundwater tables are lowered,
Corresponding increases in surface runoff, however, may off-
set this impact so that stream flow will not noticeably change.

7.1.5  Biota

7.1.5.1  Terrestrial

     Impacts to terrestrial flora and fauna should be negli-
gible.  Most sewers will be tunneled in urbanized areas and
the DWWTP construction and pumping station expansions will be
contained within existing DWSD property.

     Impacts to vegetation and urban wildlife from construc-
tion activities at the 26 one-acre access sites and the CSO
control structure site are potentially disruptive, depending
                            7-7

-------
upon the locations chosen.   Plant and animal habitats at the
spoil disposal site(s)  will be affected by changes in soil
structure and topography.  Urban plant and animal species
are characteristically able to cope with such disruption and
will recolonize an area if it provides suitable food, shelter,
or breeding area.

7.1.5.2  Aquatic

     Any change in aquatic habitats that will encourage more
pollution-intolerant species must result from significant im-
provements in water quality in the study area.  Based on pre-
dictions of future water quality, no such improvement in aqua-
tic habitats is anticipated  (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book VI).

     The overall emphasis of the water quality related impacts
is on less degradation rather than on improvement of existing
conditions.  There will be less degradation to benthic habitats
in the Detroit River when BOD and SS loadings are eventually
lowered to meet the discharge criteria.

     Fish species diversity in the Detroit River will not sig-
nificantly improve or degrade as a result of the recommended
plan.  Good  upstream water and vast assimilative capacity
will remain assets of the Detroit River and the aquatic life
it supports.  Predictions about fish species diversity and
abundance are difficult because of the numerous interactions
that determine population dynamics.  Existing populations of
pollution-sensitive walleyes or the introduced Chinook salmon
and steelhead trout will be good indicators of habitat quality.

     Until CSO are significantly lowered, the long term adverse
impact of high BOD loadings will continue to reduce dissolved
oxygen levels and stress aquatic life in the River Rouge.   Im-
pacts to aquatic biota in the Clinton River will be minor be-
cause very few of the collection improvements are being con-
structed within that watershed.  Aquatic biota of that water-
shed will be most affected by water quality degradation due
to increased urbanization  (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book VI).  Despite improvements to and optimum operation of
the DWWTP and the collection system, point and non-point source
pollution from industrial discharges and runoff will continue
to adversely affect aquatic  habitats.

     The long-term consequences of reduced BOD, SS, and phos-
phorus  loadings from DWWTP will eventually be realized in the
western basin of Lake Erie.  Algae and macrophytes  (large water
plants) should gradually respond to lower nutrient inputs with
slower growth rates and  less biomass.  Improved oxygen levels
at the  sediment  surface  will encourage oxygen tolerant benthic
                            7-8

-------
species to become more numerous.   The degree of lake recovery
that can be attributed to the DWWTP effluent upgrading is spec-
ulative.

7.1.5.3  Rare and Endangered Species

     Thirty-five terrestrial fauna and seventy aquatic fauna
species are listed in Appendix 11.2 as rare, threatened,  or
endangered in the study area or receiving waters.   The recom-
mended plan is not expected to adversely impact any habitats
currently used by these species.   Collection and treatment
improvements are in urbanized areas and it is highly unlikely
that sensitive habitats exist within the service area.  Changes
in water quality resulting from the recommended plan will prob-
ably not be great enough to encourage the introduction or pro-
liferation of sensitive, pollution tolerant species.

7.1.6  Air Quality

     The recommended collection and treatment plan would have
little if any effect upon the region's air quality.  All im-
pacts relating to incineration and air quality at the DWWTP
will be discussed in Section 7.2,7  Air Quality.  Localized
impacts, however, may occur.

     Optimum operation of the main treatment plant will reduce
undesirable odors from septic material.  Unpleasant odors along
overflow points will continue until CSO control measures are
implemented.

     A primary adverse impact will be increased particulates,
hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide loadings from construction
activities.  The most concentrated area of this impact upon
air quality will be at the DWWTP.

     Rerouting of traffic during sewer construction may result
in traffic congestion with local, temporary degradation of air
quality.  All of these impacts are insignificant when compared
to the overall impact of an urban area such as Detroit upon
the region's air quality.  Automotive, industrial, and other
sources of poor air quality will continue to have an adverse
impact upon the region.

7.1.7  Aesthetics

     Implementation of the recommended plan would have impacts
to a very small portion of the DWSD service area.  The local
impacts are a result of construction and will be short-term.
Construction related impacts that will be aesthetically un-
pleasant, and affect housing quality as well, are dust, noise,
traffic disruption, and vibrations from tunneled sewer con-
struction.  St. John Cantius Church is a sensitive noise
                            7-9

-------
receptor adjacent to the DWWTP.   Ambient noise levels around
the DWWTP and the surrounding industrial area are usually
high and construction has been going on around the church for
years.  Adverse aesthetic impacts,  therefore, will probably
be minor.

     Proposed interceptor routes have more potential for aes-
thetic disruptions than the area around the DWWTP.  The DRI-
Relief has proposed tunnel access sites along Jefferson Avenue
which is predominantly commercial and industrial.  The access
site which will produce the greatest impact from construction
is the one near Jennings Memorial Hospital.

     Several schools located in Clinton Township may be affected
by the Macomb County interceptors:

     Clintondale High School;
     Clintondale Intermediate School; and
     Little Mack Elementary School.

     Construction of the Lakeshore Interceptor and Richmond
Arm would eliminate the need for the Chesterfield Township sew-
age lagoons.  Residents have complained of noxious odors from
these holding basins.

     The noise impacts from increasing the pumping capacity
at the Connors Creek and Oakwood Pump Stations will be minor.
Both pump stations are located in partially  industrial areas
with few sensitive noise receptors.  No major noise impacts are
expected from increasing pump capacity at the Bluehill Pumping
Station.

     The Connors Creek Pump Station  is located on Jefferson
Avenue, a main thoroughfare.  Construction access from Freud
Street will minimize traffic disruption.  Access  to the Oak-
wood Pump Station from the unpaved road to the east of Liddes-
dale will minimize disruption to residents on Liddesdale, which
is a narrow street.

7.1.8  Land Use and Developmental Trends

     Implementation of the recommended plan  will  have little
if any regional affect upon land use and developmental trends.
The trend of growth and development  in the suburbs  is antici-
pated in the future.  Land is available for  such  development
but will undergo changes from its present use.  Sewerage ser-
vice to  these newly developed areas  may be provided by DWSD
or some  other entity.  This rationale forms  the basis for
believing that few secondary impacts will directly  result  from
this recommended plan.
                            7-10

-------
     Localized short-term, adverse impacts will occur at
construction sites.  Construction of 35,700 lineal feet
(10,880 m)  of tunneled sewer will require temporary easements
to 15 one-acre sites.  Residential, institutional, or recre-
ational land uses at these sites or adjacent to these sites
may be temporarily disrupted.  Tentative access sites along
the DRI-Relief indicate land use conflicts with two parks
(Memorial Park and Waterworks Park) and Jennings Memorial
Hospital along Jefferson Avenue.  The suburban interceptor
access sites are located near low density residential land
and along major highways.  Access sites adjacent to highways
should create minimal land use conflicts. Land use conflicts
arise when normal land uses are disrupted.  These conflicts
include visual distractions that may result in traffic in-
conveniences or hazards and odors and noises that are dis-
ruptive to normal activities in that area.

     The potential exists for changes in land use at these
tunnel access sites after construction is finished.  Since
recreational land is in high demand in Detroit, a potential
beneficial impact would be the creation of neighborhood parks
at the access sites.

     No land acquisition is scheduled for the pumping station
expansions; therefore, no land use conflicts are foreseen.
Proposed expansions should not affect adjacent land use.

     There is a potential land use conflict at the site of the
one pilot study CSO control structure.  Site locations for the
CSO control structures discussed in earlier alternatives
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XIV) were primarily exist-
ing recreational land.

     Secondary impacts of growth and development will be mini-
mal since most collection improvements will occur in highly
urbanized areas.  The proposed suburban interceptors into
Macomb County may stimulate limited local urban development.

7.1.9  Population and Demographics

     The land acquisition necessary for the 15 one-acre access
sites along the tunneled DRI-R and suburban sewers may in-
volve relocations of households.  It is not known how many
access sites are currently available without relocation.

     Construction from 1977 to 1981 at the existing DWWTP site
may encourage residents in the adjacent DelRay neighborhood to
relocate.  It is more probable, however, that residents will
wait for housing reimbursement if their neighborhood is selec-
ted for the DWWTP expansion site.
                            7-11

-------
7.1.10  Cultural Resources

7.1.10.1  Recreational

     Since no major changes in water quality or river habitats
are anticipated, any beneficial impact from localized river
impoundments will be minor.

     Two tunnel access sites for the DRI-R are near recrea-
tional areas, Waterworks Park and Memorial Park.  Up to one acre
of each of these parks may be temporarily, but adversely,  im-
pacted by construction activities while the sewer is tunneled.

7.1.10.2  Cultural

     No known cultural areas will be impacted.

7.1.10.3  Archaeological and Historical Sites

     The proposed route of the DRI-R will pass two sites
listed in the National Register of Historic Places.  They are
the Hurlbut Memorial Gate and the Pewabic Pottery Building
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV).  Neither of these
locations is a tunnel access site but some assessment of the
exact tunneling route, structural strength of each historic
site and the amount of vibration from tunneling activities
would need to be made prior to construction.

     No known archaeological sites exist in any area of pro-
posed construction.  Any construction involving excavation
may lead to the discovery of such sites.  Since these sites
could increase knowledge of the archaeological history of the
area, construction would be halted until an evaluation of the
discovery is made.

7.1.11  Socioeconomics

7.1.11.1  Economics

     A construction project of the magnitude and duration of
the recommended plan will  have a beneficial effect on the con-
struction industry.  The peak year expenditures  (year 1979)
will be 239.5 million to construction or approximately ten
percent of the  region's income during that year.   If a mul-
tiplier of 2.5  is assumed  this will account for $598.75 million
in the regional economy.   Further, if 30% of the construction
costs are assumed to be labor dollars with an average wage of
$15,000/year, then the proposed action will produce approxi-
mately 4,790  jobs/year during the peak year.  Although less
than one percent of region's employment,  it could  account for
a  1.1% reduction in unemployment.  Assuming the 2.5 multi-
plier for employment then  the effect is a  2.6%  reduction in  the
1976 rate of  unemployment  (U.S. Department ot Labor, 1977).
                            7-12

-------
7.1.11.2  Employment

     The SPP recommends staffing levels of 476 fully trained
and qualified employees with many maintenance services con-
tracted to private companies.  DWSD,  realizing that such a
theoretical work force cannot be achieved and wishing to re-
duce the amount of contracted maintenance, has projected an
employment of 1,000.  It is likely that the actual operation
and maintenance staff level will fall somewhere between the
two figures.

     Competent workers are necessary for the optimum operation
and maintenance of the existing DWWTP facilities.  A concerted
effort should be made to achieve the SFP recommended staffing
level.  A difference of 500 additional staff, which may be
less than qualified, would make a significant difference in
the amount of money budgeted for salaries.  For purposes of
illustration, 500 jobs at an average salary of $15,000/year
would add an extra $7.5 million/year to operating costs and
$150 million over the next 20 years.

     The federally mandated user charge/industrial cost re-
covery system will increase costs to residential, commercial,
and industrial customers.  Since the costs to the users will
remain below the national averages, such increases are not
expected to affect industrial location.  In addition, ade-
quate wastewater collection and treatment will be provided
so there will be little or no influence on investments in
the region.

7.1.11.3  Sociology

     An adverse impact of sociological significance is the
effect of construction at the DWWTP upon the adjacent ethnic
Hungarian neighborhood of DelRay which includes St. John
Cantius Church.  Construction has been going on around this
neighborhood for years and the severity of impacts from the
1977-1981 first category construction should be no worse than
at present.  A special DelRay neighborhood analysis will be
one of the subjects of the final facilities plan.

7.1.12  Energy

     Increase consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels will
result from the short-term but intensive use of heavy machin-
ery and other equipment during construction.  Use of electrical
power will increase during tunnel construction activities, but
these impacts will be short-term and not significant on a
regional basis.

     A primary long-term beneficial impact to energy use may
come from more efficient operation of the DWWTP incinerators.
                            7-13

-------
Upgraded incinerators may be capable of autogenous burning
and thereby consume less fuel during their operation than at
present.  Further discussion is found in Section 7.2.13 Energy,

     Present energy consumption,  including electricity, natural
gas, and diesel fuel, is approximately 2.6x10   BTU/year. En-
ergy consumption will increase as a result of this project.
Estimated energy demands are equivalent to 5.09x10-^ BTU/year
or 35.35x10^ gallons of #2 diesel fuel.  More electrical power
will be needed for the optimum operation and maintenance of
the existing facilities and the expanded pump stations.  En-
ergy increases are also attributed to the Unox activated sludge
process which utilizes pure oxygen.  Energy is needed to sep-
arate oxygen from the air and also to mix the pure oxygen with
sludge.

     Energy impacts should not be significant when compared to
power consumption increases in the study area as a whole in
the next 20 years.

7.1.13  Public Health

     The recommended plan will have localized beneficial im-
pacts to public health.  One of the objectives of the proposed
collection system is to reduce flooding in basements.  Elimi-
nation of the nuisance flooding will protect residents from
contracting enteric diseases through direct contact with any
combined sewage.

     Continued poor surface water quality in the area's rivers,
particularly high fecal coliform levels after storm events,
will remain a public health hazard for any recreational uses
of the rivers.  Exceedingly high fecal coliform counts have
been predicted for all three rivers.  The main sources of these
bacteria for the River Rouge and the Detroit River will be CSO
and surface runoff, and in the Clinton River, surface runoff.
Further studies on CSO will be addressed in the final facili-
ties plan.

     Potential safety hazards exist to motorists and pedes-
trians, particularly children, from construction activities at
access sites.  As previously noted, some tunnel access sites
are located near schools, a hospital, and public parks.

7.1.14  Public Facilities

     Traffic disruptions from sewer construction during  the
years of first category construction  (1977-1981) may adversely
affect public facilities and services, such as garbage collec-
tion.  Emergency services response time may be increased by
the collection system construction.  These temporary disturb-
ances will be localized around access sites and not significant
to the study area as a whole.
                            7-14

-------
7.2  Residuals Processing and Disposal Impacts

7.2.1  Introduc tion

     The recommended plan designates specific operational
and structural improvements to the existing sludge process-
in  facilitities at the DWWTP.  Landfilling is recommended
as the disposal technique for the incinerator ash and scum/
grit by-products of the DWWTP process.  At this stage of the
planning process detailed plans have not been formulated for
the operation of this landfill.

     The environmental impacts of a landfill operation are
potentially significant, therefore impacts have been analyzed
for an example site based on several assumptions as to the
type of landfill operation.  These impacts should provide
guidance to the grantee in developing his future landfill
operations.

     For the purpose of this analysis, an example landfill
site was located 45 miles north of Detroit within a 4 sec-
tion area in Brandon and Oxford Townships, Oakland County.
This site was chosen because it is typical of the
natural environment of the area, beyond urban centers,
readily available at reasonable costs ($l,200/acre as shown
in Oakland County Tax Records) and has access to a major
highway.

     Major assumptions for this analysis are based on proper
landfill design and operation.  These assumptions include
daily covering of the ash and a thicker covering of the final
composite, use of an impermeable liner to protect groundwater,
and ultimate plans for an aesthetic use of the land after
completion of the project.

     A detailed landfill site analysis will be prepared during
the final facilities plan on areas within and outside the study
area.

7.2.2  Climate

     Although the recommended incineration-landfill plan will
not significantly change the overall climate of the study area,
certain minimal impacts will occur.

     The structural improvements designated for the incinera-
tion process, will supply a beneficial impact to the climate
of the area.  The effects of air pollution on climate are well
documented.   Emissions of particulates supply an unnatural
abundance of nucleus around which moisture collects and con-
denses, falling as rain or snow.  By reducing the particulate
emissions from the incinerators, downwind precipitation patterns
will achieve a minimal degree of normalcy.
                            7-15

-------
     The structural components dictated in the recommended
plan will minimally add to the current "heat island"  con-
dition occurring in the Detroit area.   Due to the amount of
construction anticipated,  this impact will be insignificant.

7.2.3  Topography

     The example landfill  site in Oakland County is located
within a "rough morainic belt characterized by ridge-like
hilly deposits interspersed with nearly level or gently rol-
ling till plains or ground moraine,  and generally broad, flat,
sand and gravel outwash features pitted with water-retaining
depressions" (Giffels/Black and Veatch, Book II, 1977).
The particular topography of the example site includes
slopes ranging from 7 to 18%  (USDA,  1975) as well as inter-
spersed water-retaining depressions.  The elevation of the
example site ranges from 1050 feet in the basins to 1170 at
the areas highest point.

     The proposed residuals disposal plan will have a primary
adverse impact of permanent duration on the landfill site.
Due to the nature of the excavation and refill process, the
current topographical features of the landfill site will
change.  It is difficult to predict the exact nature of change
at this stage of the planning process, but its significance
is expected to be minimal.  By implementing the proper land-
fill techniques, the topography can be nearly restored to its
original condition.

     The consequences of the  topographic change are twofold.
The first is that topographical changes will influence sur-
face water quantity, and the  second is that localized drain-
age problems may create nuisance conditions hindering the
landfill operations.  During  the operation of the landfill,
a working area  (i.e., an area capable of containing 4 days
of refuse) will constantly remain disturbed.  Stormwater
ponding and erosion in the work areas is likely to occur.
Although this will have no significance to the overall area,
it may create conditions which make proper operation difficult.

     Construction of the structural components designated in
the recommended incineration  plan will not affect the topog-
raphy of the DWWTP site.

7.2.4  Soils

     The soils at the example landfill site can be generally
described as well drained, coarse to moderately coarse texture,
and underlain by sand and gravel  (USDA,  1975) .  These  soils
tend to be developed to a shallow depth, low on organic matter
and nutrients, and have a well defined structure.
                             7-16

-------
     The soil structure and its characteristic properties
will be permanently changed as a result of the landfilling
process.  In its place will be a layering of incinerator
ash and soil with a thick cover layer of homogeneous top-
soil.  In an area which now experiences moderate to poor
agricultural production, rapid permeability, and lack of a
well defined soil structure, these impacts will be minimal,

     A primary adverse impact of the landfill process is
soil loss by erosion.  For the duration of the landfill oper-
ations  (20 years) exposed areas at the site will be more sus-
ceptible than vegetated areas to wind and water forces carry-
ing away soil.  This impact is minimized by restricting the
exposed areas of the site to that needed for 4 days of land-
filling (an operational requirement established before licen-
sing) .

7.2.5  Hydrology

7.2.5.1  Surface Waters

     The proposed project will influence the surface waters
of the study area.  Minimal primary impacts affecting both
the quantity and the quality of the waters are expected as
well as minimal secondary impacts.  These impacts are gene-
rally limited to the landfill site and immediately adjacent
areas.

     Contamination of surface waters with incinerator ash is
a primary adverse impact which may occur during the life of
the landfill.  Incinerator ash contains less than 10% of the
nitrogen content of sludge, along with heavy metal oxides and
salts (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII).  Runoff
containing this material will degrade surface water quality.

     Surface water contaminants can result from incinerator
emissions, ash lost in transport to and operation of the
landfill, and runoff or leaching from the landfill site.  Fly
ash discharge from incinerator operation is expected to be
minimal because of the required air pollution control devices.
Ash in its dry state is very difficult to handle.  As a result,
substantial losses may occur during transport and landfilling.
Proper landfill process design, which includes handling and
disposal of the ash in a water slurry form  (Pavoni et al., 1975),
will reduce loss to an insignificant amount.  Compacted refuse
layers are covered daily with a layer of soil and a final
thicker layer of soil covering the completed composite  (Pavoni,
et al.,  1975).

     Soil erosion damage may result from construction activi-
ties at the landfill site, the DWWTP, and secondary develop-
ment areas.  Eroded soil particles may ultimately be deposited
in streams and degrade water quality.
                            7-17

-------
7.2.5.2  Groundwater

     Groundwater is not substantially utilized in the region,
however, it is important as a local drinking water source and
as a source of surface water flows.  At the example site, bed-
rock and glacial drift are both sources of groundwater.   The
quality of this water ranges from generally good to poor (see
Section 2.5 Hydrology).

     Groundwater levels at the example site, seasonally rise
to as high as 3 feet below the surface (USDA, 1975).   Therefore
the potential for stormwater leachate percolating through the
landfill and into groundwater reservoirs is high.  In order
to protect the groundwater quality, the recommended landfill
will be lined with an impermeable material and fitted with
a drainage system.

     Implementation of the recommended incineration plan will
not affect the groundwater situation in the study area.

7.2.6  Biota

7.2.6.1  Terrestrial Biota

     Operation of the landfill at the selected site will re-
sult in a temporary loss of vegetation and the wildlife  it
supports.  Current vegetation and wildlife of the area are
typical of cropland undergoing succession to forest.  The
most significant long-term impact that will occur is the loss
of few large, old trees.

     Operation of the landfill will result in forcing exist-
ing wildlife populations to find suitable new habitat.   While
similar habitat exists nearby, displaced individuals will be
forced to compete for the existing food supply and cover.
As a result of the increased competition for food and cover,
populations of wildlife may decrease in the  immediate area.
The expected decrease will not be  significant on a region-
wide basis.

     Construction of new sludge processing facilities at the
DWWTP will have a permanent but insignificant impact because
the existing plant site contains little, if  any, suitable
habitat for animals.

7.2.6.2  Aquatic Biota

     As with surface water quality, the aquatic  biota will
be only minimally affected by construction or operation  of
the landfill.
                            7-18

-------
     A primary adverse impact to stream habitats within the
landfill site may be increased turbidity and siltation from
soil erosion.  Soil particles in the water may reduce light
and inhibit photosynthesis, cover spawning areas, and cause
respiratory difficulties in fish and invertebrates.   This
impact should be minimal.

     Incinerator ash loadings may act to fertilize aquatic
habitats with nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus that
stimulate plant growth.  This impact should be minimal because
available nutrients are very limited in the ash  (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) and proper landfill construction
and operation will prevent most contamination.

7.2.6.3  Rare and Endangered Species

     The facilities planning consultants note that 35 terres-
trial fauna species and 70 aquatic fauna species have been
designated as endangered, threatened, or rare within the gene-
ral study area  (Appendix 11.2).  Although no search was made
of the example landfill for these species, the proposed site
may contain suitable habitat within its varied topography.
Before such a landfill operation can be licensed though, a
complete survey of the site must be done.

7.2.7  Air Quality

     Implementation of the recommended plan will provide
the structural controls necessary to substantially reduce
air pollution from the existing incinerators.  As a result,
the localized ambient air quality will be significantly im-
proved , but the overall study area air quality will not be
noticeably affected.  Landfill operations will minimally affect
localized air quality. During the 3 year period of incinerator
optimization  (timetable for recommended plan implementation)
certain impacts which are unique only to this period of ope-
ration will occur.

     These short-term impacts are primarily due to construc-
tion activities.  Particulates from wind blown dust and con-
struction vehicle exhaust will contribute minimally to air
pollution.  Odor and noise increases from diesel powered equip-
ment at DWWTP and at the landfill.  These impacts will be lim-
ited to daylight working hours.  Also during the 3 year opti-
mization program, the incinerator of Complex I will continue
to function.  Emissions from these sources will continue at
their present rates, violating county and state regulations
and creating a less than desireable ambient air quality situa-
tion.  By mid-1979, the ambient air quality will begin to show
signs of improving as the first of the incinerators is completed
with structural improvements.  By mid-1981 all six incinerators
of Complex I will meet standards and the ambient air will show
corresponding changes in quality.
                            7-19

-------
     The long-term air quality impacts of the recommended
plan are primarily beneficial.  The most significant of these
is that once proper controls are installed (mid-1981),  emission
standards will be met.  This will be a significant improvement
over the existing conditions despite the anticipated rise in
sludge loadings.  It is important to note that despite the im-
provement in incinerator emissions, the overall ambient air
quality of the Detroit area will be relatively unchanged.
Violations of ambient air quality standards will continue due
primarily to the high background level of pollutants caused
by numerous air pollution sources throughout the city.

     A second long-term effect will be fugitive dust from ash
transportation and landfill operation.  This will contribute
to particulate loadings.  These emissions will be widely dis-
persed and if proper measures are taken, they will be insig-
nificant.  By transporting ash as a water slurry in covered
trucks, and prompt revegetation of exposed areas at the land-
fill site will largely mitigate these emissions.

     Another long-term effect is that odors from the inciner-
ators will be largely eliminated. Zero hearth afterburners
which are being installed in the incinerators will reduce
particulate emissions and especially control emissions of
undestroyed putresible material.

7.2.8  Aesthetics

     Major impacts to aesthetics will result from landfill
operations, transportation of ash to the disposal site, con-
struction activities at the DWWTP, and future secondary de-
velopment around the landfill site.  Fugitive dust, litter,
and degraded roads and landscape unless controlled, will create
a significant adverse impact for local residents.

     Earth moving will be a visual detraction at the site for
the duration of the project.  Noise from trucks and earth
moving equipment will produce a minimal, localized impact.
This impact will affect only the residents of the immediate
area only during working hours.  Aesthetic impact will be high-
ly localized and therefore insignificant to the overall  study
area.

7.2.9  Land Use and Developmental Trends

     The landfill operation would significantly affect only
the existing residents on the site.  There are approximately
85 residential  homes  located within the example site  (U.S.
Department of Interior, 1968).  These homes are primarily well-
kept, mid-priced residences and farms.  Implementation of the
recommended plan would require that these residences be moved,
and is likely to meet with strong opposition.
                            7-20

-------
     The area itself does not lie within the short-termed urban
expansion plans of either Detroit or Oxford.  The locations may
be included on the extreme outer edge of the Detroit urban
sprawl.

     A landfill at this example site will not greatly jeopar-
dize the future suitability of the land for other use.  The
area is classified primarily as Hie and Vis by the USDA  (USDA,
1975).  Classification Hie indicates that the soils have se-
vere erosion limitations that reduce the range of plants grown
and their productivity and require special conservation prac-
tices.  Because of soil shallowness the soils are generally un-
suited to cultivation and limited in their use to pasture,
range, woodland, or wildlife habitat Vis.  This situation is
evident from visual inspection of the area.  The land was once
cleared for cultivation but has since been either abandoned or
used for pasture.  Today the bulk of the example site is in
various stages of succession and is considered open space and
pastureland.  Further limitations to existing land use of the
area are presented in Table 7.2-A.

     Implementation of this project will have no significant
primary impacts on land use in the area except to the residents
now living at the landfill site.  Future secondary development
is possible, depending on the ultimate use of the landfill,
thus changing some land use from open space to residential.

7.2.10  Population and Demographics

     Private residences within the boundaries of the landfill
and buffer zones are prohibited.  This restriction will impact
a relatively small number of people  (see Section 7.2.9 Land Use).
The aesthetic detriments created by the landfill will affect a
number of people adjacent to the site.  Depending on the ulti-
mate use of the landfill site, an aesthetically pleasing develop-
ment could eventually attract residents.

7.2.11  Archaeological and Historical Sites

     No archaeological or historical sites are known to exist
in the example landfill.  Excavation of the landfill may lead
to the discovery of archaeologically important information on
the area.  Construction would be halted until an evaluation of
the discovery was made.

7.2.12  Socioeconomics

     The landfill site will require acquisition of the land
prior to commencing operations.  The land at the example site
is privately owned and assumed taxable.  The taxes from the
sale will be offset by the loss of real estate or property
taxes for the planning period to local units of government.
                            7-21

-------
               TABLE 7.2-A
           LIMITATIONS FOR USE
Agriculture




Forestry



Home Sites




Septic Tanks



Park and Play Areas




Camp Areas



Open Land Wildlife




Wood Land Wildlife



Wetland Wildlife
Moderate to Severe



Moderate



Moderate



Moderate



Moderate




Moderate



Moderate



Moderate



Severe
                  7-22

-------
     The costs of acquiring the site and transporting the
ash to the landfill are less than other alternatives.  Owners
of the acquired property would be justly recompensed for their
property.

     The residuals disposal (ash) will create some new jobs,
mostly at the DWWTP, although personnel will be required at
the landfill.  Most jobs will be skilled to semi skilled oper-
ators and laborers.  Section 7.1.11 presents the economic im-
pacts of the recommended plan including the residuals dis-
posal requirements.

7.2.13  Energy

     Proper implementation, operation, and maintenance of the
recommended sludge processing plan will require an estimated
33.2 x 1010 BTU/year by 1980 and 41.6 x 1010 BTU/year by 2000
of energy.  These figures include electrical energy for the
vacuum filters and incinerators, auxiliary fuel for the incin-
erators  (start up) and diesel fuel required to haul ash to the
landfill.  By upgrading the existing incinerators, autogeneous
burning may be possible.  The significance of reaching this
condition is that a substantial savings in auxiliary energy
will be realized  (over current situation).  Only during oper-
ation start up will auxiliary fuel be necessary.

     Despite the anticipated increase in sludge volumes, the
number of truckloads of incinerator ash being hauled may go
down or stay relatively the same.  Due to better operation
techniques, structural improvements and improved reduction
efficiencies, ash loads should not increase.

     The energy requirements for landfill operations are
anticipated to be 250,00 gallon #2 fuel oil per year, reflecting
the earthmoving vehicle needs.  Currently DWSD does not oper-
ate residuals disposal facilities, therefore this impact is
adversed and long-term.

7.2.14  Public Health

     The incineration process completely eliminates pathogenic
organisms from the sludge.  The result is a sterile ash resi-
due which is relatively safe for human contact.  The land-
filling process will have no significant impact on the public
health of local residents.

     Minimal impact may be experienced from fugitive dust from
construction sites and the landfill operations.  This situation
may produce temporary eye and respiratory irritations to near-
by residents.
                            7-23

-------
7.3  Institutional

     Since the same institutional arrangement will continue,
the major impact remains a financial one.   Suburban jurisdic-
tions have in the past resisted any rate increases and can be
expected to resist future increases.  Failure to provide suf-
ficient monies for the local share would place construction
grants related to this plan and future plans in jeopardy.

7.4  Summary

     This chapter describes treatment and collection, resi-
duals processing and disposal, and institutional impacts of
the selected plan.  These impacts are evaluated as to their
duration and intensity.  This chapter forms the basis for the
mitigating measures in Chapter 8.0.
                            7-24

-------
     8.0   LONG TERM VERSUS SHORT TERM CONSIDERATIONS

     The following chapter presents the mitigating measures
necessary to minimize the environmental impacts of the re-
commended plan as presented in Chapter 7.  The primary and
secondary impacts of the recommended plan are summarized.
Commitments of resources required in the plan, both primary
and secondary, are presented.  The long-term impacts versus
the short-term impacts are assessed.
                             8-1

-------
     8.0  LONG TERM vs. SHORT TERM CONSIDERATIONS

8.1  Mitigating Measures

     The adverse impacts of the recommended plan and their
severity have been discussed in Chapter 7.0.  The severity
of many of these impacts can be reduced by implementing mi-
tigating measures.  The mitigating measures needed for the
recommended plan are divided into two main areas; collection
and treatment and residuals processing and disposal.

8.1.1  Collection and Treatment

     Construction, operation and maintenance of the DWSD
collection and treatment system requires mitigating measures
to minimize the unavoidable adverse impacts.  The mitigating
measures necessary, may be grouped into two broad groups -
those necessary for construction related activities and those
relating to the continuous operation and maintenance of the
DWSD system.

     The mitigating measures required for construction are
intended to minimize the adverse effects to the environment
while allowing construction of needed facilities.  Construc-
tion related measures include good construction practices,
restoration of disturbed areas, and proper spoil disposal
plans.  Other construction practices include dust control,
noise attenuation where possible and practical, erosion and
sedimentation controls, traffic control, and reducing attrac-
tive nuisances.  Attractive nuisances such as open trenches
construction, equipment storage sites, and above ground struc-
tures should have restricted access.  Restricted access would
reduce the safety hazards to construction workers and the
public.  Dust control could include covering trucks as needed,
keeping streets free from spoil, and spot control of dust at
construction sites as needed.

     Noise reduction measures should include proper mainte-
nance and operation of equipment to minimize noise.  Routing
of trucks and other heavy equipment along main arterial streets
as much as possible would reduce noise.

     Erosion and sedimentation control should comply with the
Michigan Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972 (Act 347),
Erosion and sedimentation controls would include barriers to
stop runoff, revegetation and reducing length of time soil is
exposed.

     Efficient routing of trucks and heavy construction equip-
ment through main arterial roads would reduce safety hazards
and noise in residential areas.  Emergency service organizations
should be kept notified of restricted access areas or streets
blocked off by construction to ensure prompt delivery of their
services to residents.


                              8-3

-------
     Restoration of disturbed areas would reduce impacts by
hastening the return of disturbed areas to their previous con-
dition or a more desirable state.  Sidewalks, streets and lawns
should be promptly restored to their original state.  Open
space, woodlands, and other forested areas should be revege-
tated with native vegetation where disturbed.  Disturbed areas
may be converted to recreational space in areas where the site
is located in an area with little recreational space.

     Planning for spoil disposal would assure construction
spoils are placed in a properly selected location and in the
proper manner.  The disposal site should be properly selected
to minimize the adverse affects of the spoil accumulation.
Beneficial uses of spoils such as fill for construction, cover
for landfills, etc. should be sought.

     The proper operation and maintenance of the DWSD waste-
water system should reduce the health risks, odor problems
and improve water quality insofar as possible.  Odors should
be reduced by improvements to the treatment processes at the
plant and modifications to the sludge incinerators.  Improve-
ments in maintenance and operation of the collection and treat-
ment systems should enhance overall water quality in the area
by improving the DWWTP's effluent quality.

8.1.2  Residuals Processing and Disposal

     Mitigating measures are necessary to reduce the impacts
of residuals processing and disposal systems.  The mitigating
measures necessary include selection of the landfill site, proper
design and planning of the landfill, and relocation of dis-
placed residents.

     Selection of the  landfill site will require analysis of
all natural and human  environment factors at potential sites.
Evaluation of the existing situation will determine present
geology, topography, hydrology, terrestrial flora and fauna,
archaeological and historical resources, land use,  socioeco-
nomic conditions.  Comparison of the potential sites will allow
selection of a site(s) which have the lowest overall impact and
is without any serious impacts in any one area.

     Proper design and planning of the landfill would allow the
impacts of the landfill to be reduced by incorporating mitigat-
ing measures into the  design.  Proper design and planning should
include erosion and sedimentation control, buffer zones, relo-
cation assistance, site restoration and proper operation and
maintenance.

     Erosion and sedimentation control should comply with the
intent and requirements of the Michigan Sedimentation Act
 (Act  347 of 1972).  Erosion  and sedimentation control would
reduce and/or eliminate soil loss from erosion, topography
change due to erosion  and/or sedimentation,  and aquatic  habi-
tat damage from  sedimentation.  Erosion and  sedimentation
                              8-4

-------
     9.0  AGENCIES, GROUPS, AND INDIVIDUALS NOTIFIED OF THIS ACTION

     The following chapter presents these agencies, groups, and
individuals notified of this action.   Copies of this Environmental
Impact Statement were mailed to each of the listed agencies or
parties.
                            9-1

-------
     9.0  AGENCIES,  GROUPS,  AND INDIVIDUALS NOTIFIED OF THIS ACTION
9.1  Local and Regional Representatives Notified

9.1.1  City of Detroit

     Mayor Colman A.  Young
     City Council
     City Planning Department
     Board of Water Commissioners
     Director of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.

9.1.2  City Clerks of the following jurisdictions:
     Farmington
     Orchard Lake Village
     Ferndale
     Ogle Park
     Keego Harbor
     Hazel Park
     Northville
     Melvindale
     Livonia
     Plymouth
     Wayne
     Romulus
     River Rouge
     Madison Heights
     Novi
     Troy
     Pleasant Ridge
     Rochester
     Royal Oak
     Southfield
     Center Line
     Clawson
     Huntington Woods
     Westland
     Lathrup Village
Warren
Memphis
East Detroit
Fraser
Sterling Heights
New Baltimore
Richmond
RoSeville
Wixon
South Lyon
Sylvan Lake
Walled Lake
Mount Clemans
St. Clair Shores
Grosse Pointe Farms
Grosse Pointe Woods
Dearborn Heights
Grosse Pointe
Garden City
Allen Park
Pontiac
Dearborn
Inkster
Highland Park
Harper Woods
9.1.3  Township Clerks of the following jurisdictions:
     Clinton
     Bruce
     Armada
     Canton
     Grosse Pointe
     Avon
     Springfield
     Southfield
     Independence
     Redford
     Bloomfield
     Addison
Richmond
Harrison
Ray
Van Buren
Plymouth
Orion
West Bloomfield
Chesterfield
Royal Oak
Northville
Pontiac
Brandon
                            9-3

-------
     Commerce                       Shelby
     Lenox                          Novi
     Farmington                     Oakland
     White Lake                     Washington
     Macomb                         Oxford
     Waterford

9.1.4  Village Clerks of the following jurisdictions:

     Romeo                          Armada
     New Haven                      Franklin
     Lake Orion                     Beverly Hills
     Holly                          Clarkton
     Grosse Pointe Shores           Wolverine Lake
     Lake Angelus                   Leonard
     Oxford

9.1.5  County Clerks of the following jurisdictions:

     Wayne County                   Macomb County
     Oakland County

9.1.6  County Agencies:

                        Oakland County

     Board of Health                Department of Public Works
     Drain Commissioner             Planning Commission

                         Wayne County

     Department of Health           Drain Commissioner
     Board of Commissioners

                         Macomb County

     Health Department              Planning Commission
     Road Commission                Drain Commissioner

9.1.7  Multi-jurisdictional Agencies

     South Macomb Sanitary District
     Lake St. Clair Advisory Commission
     Huron-Clinton Metro Authority
     Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority
     Great Lakes Basin Commission
     Inter-County Highway Department of Southeast Michigan
     Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
     Ohio River Basin Commission
     Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission

-------
9.2  State Representatives Notified
     The Clerk,  State Senate
     Conservation Committee, State Senate
     The Clerk,  House of Representatives
     Conservation Committee, House of Representatives
     Bureau of Management and Budget
     Department of State Highways
     Department of Natural Resources
     Attorney General
     Department of Public Health
     Department of Agriculture
     Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

9.3  Federal Representatives Notified
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Hon
     Robert Griffin,  U.S. Senate
     John Riegle,  Jr.,  U.S.  Senate
     John Conyers, U.S. House of Representatives
     John Dingell, U.S. House of Representatives
     Jack McDonald, U.S. House of Representatives
     Lucien Nedzi, U.S. House of Representatives
     James O'Hara, U.S. House of Representatives
     Charles Diggs, U.S. House of Representatives
     William Ford, U.S. House of Representatives
     William Broonfield, U.S. House of Representatives
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Region I
   Region II
   Region III
   Region IV
   Region V
   Region VI
   Region VII
   Region VIII
   Region IX
   Region X
   Facilities Requirement Branch
   Environmental Evaluation Branch
   Office of Public Affairs
   Public Information Reference Unit
   Office of Federal Activities
   Office of Legislature
Department of Defense
   U.S. Army Engineer,  Missouri River Division
   U.S. Army Engineer,  Ohio River Division
   U.S. Army Engineer,  North Central Division
   U.S. Army Engineer,  Lower Mississippi River Valley
        Division
                            9-5

-------
     Department  of  Transportation
        Region V
        U.S.  Coast  Guard
        Federal  Highway Administration
        Federal  Aviation  Administration
        Federal  Railroad  Administration
     Department  of  Interior
        Bureau of Indian  Affairs
        U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service
        National Park Service
        Bureau of Mines
        Bureau of Land Management
        Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
     Department  of  Health, Education and  Welfare
        Office of Environmental Affairs
        Region V
     Department  of  Labor
     Department  of  Housing and  Urban Development
     Department  of  Commerce
     Department  of  Agriculture
     Advisory Council on  Historic  Preservation
     Water Resources Council

9.4  Media Representatives Notified

     The Oakland Press
     Marine and  Recreation News
     Michigan Outdoors
     Detroit Free  Press
     Detroit News
     Michigan Chronicle
     Suburban Papers

9.5  Organizations  and Individuals Notified

     Center for  Urban Affairs
     Sierra Club
     Morgan Library, Colorado State University
     League of  Women Voters
     Environmental Defense Fund,  Inc.
     Izaak Walton  League  of  America
     School of  Natural Resources,  University of Michigan
     College of Engineering, University of Akron
     National Wildlife Federation
     Natural Resources Defense Council,  Inc.
     Dr. Gordon McCallum
     Boyd L. Rasmussen
     Walter R.  Courtenay
     Harold Hochmuth
     International Association of Game Fish and Conservation
     St. John Cantius Church
                            9-6

-------
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Katherine Cushman
McMillum School
Morley School
Joey's Stables
Detroit Audubon Society
Citizens for Survival
Detroit Area Coalition for the Environment
Rouge Basin Coalition
Rescue the Rouge Committee
Citizens of Environmental Action
Friends of Earth
Citizens Action for Clean Water
Limnos
Michigan Environmental Information Center
Soil Conservation Society of America
Citizens for Clean Air
Michigan Lake and Stream Association, Inc.
Michigan Association of Conservation Ecologists
United Steel Workers
United Auto Workers
                       9-7

-------
     10.0  REFERENCES

     This chapter presents the references cited in this
environmental impact statement.  Other documents have been
used but have not been cited.
                        10-1

-------
                         REFERENCES

Air Pollution Control Commission, 1976.  Air Quality Mainte-
    nance Area Analysis Documentation for Metropolitan Detroit
    and Monroe County Area.  Michigan DNR.

Applegate, Vernon C. and Harry D. VanMeter, 1970.  A Brief History
    of Commercial Fishing in Lake Erie.  U.S. Department of
    the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.  Fishery Leaflet 630.

Bingham, George R.,  1977.  Letter to Giffels/Black and Veatch
    Regarding 201 Overview Plan.  Wayne County Department of
    Public Works.

Blakeslee, Paul A.,  1978.  Personal Communication.  Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources  CMDNR).  Lansing, Michigan.

Braun, E. Lucy, 1950.  Deciduous Forests of Eastern North
    America.  Hafner, New York.  596 p.

Briggs, G.A., 1969.   Plume Rise.  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
    Office of Information Services.  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    NTIS-TID-25075.

Burge, E.D. and W.N. Cramer, 1974.  Destruction of Pathogens
    by Composting Sewage Sludge.  Progress Report - August 1,
    1973 to April 1, 1974.  Joint Project:  Maryland Environ-
    mental Services and Water Resources Management Adminis-
    tration, District of Columbia.

California State Division of Highways, 1972.  Air Quality
    Manual:  Mathematical Approach to Estimating Highway
    Impact on Air Quality.  Prepared for Federal Highway
    Administration.   NTIS PB-219-812.  63 p.

Carroll, T.E., D.L.  Maase, J.M. Geneco, and C.N. Ifead, 1975.
    Review of Landspreading Liquid Municipal Sewage Sludge.
    U.S. EPA 67-/2-75-049.  p. 24-29.

Carter, H.H., 1976.   An Evaluation of the Performance of the
    Ocean City, Maryland Diffuser.  Chesapeake Bay Institute,
    Johns Hopkins University.  Baltimore, Maryland.  Special
    Report 48.  21 p. + Appendices.

Carter, H.H., D.W. Pritchard, and J.H. Carpenter, 1966.  The
    Design and Location of a Diffuser Outfall for a Municipal
    Waste Discharge at Ocean City, Maryland.  Chesapeake Bay
    Institute, Johns Hopkins University.  Baltimore,
    Maryland.  Special Report 10.  44 p.
                            10-3

-------
Ciborowski, C.J., 1975.  The Role of the Clinton River in the
    Eutrophication of Western Lake St. Clair.  M.S. Thesis,
    Wayne State University.  Detroit,  Michigan.

Colacicco, D. and L.A. Christensen, 1976.  Sludge Composting:
    Costs and Market Development in Proceedings of the Third
    National Conference on Sludge Management Disposal and
    Utilization.  Miami Beach.

Cook, Peter L. and Ned Cronin, 1973.  Manual for Preparation
    of Environmental Impact Statements for Wastewater Treatment
    Works, Facility Plans, and 208 Areawide Waste Treatment
    Plans.  U.S. EPA, PB-235-280.  August, 1973.  35 p.

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, 1976.  Summary of
    Operating Statistics.  Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1976.
    149 p.

Dillon, P.J., in press.  The Application of the Phosphorus
    Loading Concept to Eutrophication Research.  National
    Research Council Technical Report.  Canada Centre for
    Inland Waters.  Burlington, Ontario.

Doxiadis, Constantios A., 1966.  Emergence and Growth of an
    Urban Region:  The Developing Urban Detroit Area.  Detroit
    Edison Company.  Detroit, Michigan.

Ehorn, D., 1977.  Personal Communication.  U.S. EPA, Region V.
    Chicago, Illinois.

Epstein, E., G.B. Wilson, W.D. Surge, D.C. Mullen, and N.K. Enkiri,
    1976.  "A Forced Aeration System  for Composting Wastewater."
    JWPCF.  48  (4):  688-694.

Farrel, J.F., 1973.  Sludge Incineration.  Pollution Engineering.
    p. 36

Federal Register, 1976.  Municipal Sludge Management Environ-
    mental Factors.  Technological Bulletin.   41  (108):
    22532-22544.

Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977.  West Arm Segmented Facilities
    Plan.  Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.  4 Volumes.
    Detroit, Michigan.

                 , 1977.  Overview Plan with Environmental
    Assessment.  Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.
    16 Volumes.  Detroit, Michigan.

    	, 1978.  Segmented Facilities Plan for the City
    of Detroit.  Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.   19
    Volumes.  Detroit, Michigan.
                             10-4

-------
Grant, James, 1974.  Biological Survey of the Clinton River -
    Pontiac to Mouth, 1973.  Michigan Department of Natural
    Resources (MDNR).  July.  118 p.

Great Lakes Basin Commission (GLBC), 1976.  Problem Identifi-
    cation, Great Lakes Region 1975 National Water Assessment.

Haith, D.A., 1973.  Optimal Control of Nitrogen Losses from
    Land Disposal Areas.  Journal of Env. Div.  EEB.  p. 923-937

Hartman, Wilbur L., 1970.  Resource Crises in Lake Erie.
    The  Explorer.  12  (1):  6-11.

Hecker, Stanley E. and Frederick R. Ignatovich, 1977.  1977
    Projections of Michigan Public School Enrollment.  College
    of Education, Michigan State University.  East Lansing,
    Michigan.  April 1, 1977.  28 p.

Ignatoski, Fred J., 1977.  Personal Communication.  Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).

International Joint Commission, 1975.   Great Lakes Water
    Quality - Third Annual Report, 1974.  Washington, D.C.
    24 p.

                , 1976.  Great Lakes Water Quality - 1975
    Annual Report.  162 p.

                , 1977.  Personal Communication.  Detroit,
    Michigan.

Jackson, George, 1975.  A Biological Investigation of the
    River Rouge, Wayne and Oakland Counties.  May 17 to
    October 19, 1973.  Michigan Department of Natural
    Resources.  74 p.

Knezek, B.D. and R.H. Miller (eds.), 1976.  Application of
    Sludges and Wastewaters on Agricultural Land:  A Planning
    and Educational Guide.  Research Bulletin 1090.  Ohio
    Agricultural Research and Development Center.  Wooster, Ohio.

Lake County Health Department,  1977.  Personal Communication.
    Baldwin, Michigan.

Mattila, J.M., 1973.  "A Metropolitan Income Determination
    Model and the Estimation of Metropolitan Income Multipliers."
    Journal Regional Science.  Vol. 13 (1).

Michigan Department of Natural Resources  (MDNR), 1972.  Heavy
    Metals in Surface Waters, Sediments and Fish in Michigan.
    Michigan Water Resources Commission.   59 p.
                            10-5

-------
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR),  1974.  River
    Rouge Basin - General Water Quality Survey and Storm
    Water Survey.  June to September, 1973.  Michigan Water
    Resources Commission.  89 p.

	, 1975.  Air Quality Report.  Michigan Depart-
    ment of Natural Resources Air Quality Division.  Lansing,
    Michigan.  86 p.

   	, 1976.  Municipal Wastewater Sludge Application
    to Land.  17 p.

Moor/ J.R., Jr., 1976.  An Economic-Demographic Forecasting
    Model for the Detroit Region.  Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
    Wayne State University.  Detroit, Michigan.

National Sanitation Foundation, 1976.  A Report in Sewage
    Disposal Problems.  Six County Metropolitan Area Southeast
    Michigan.  December 10, 1964.

Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, 1975.  Ohio Guide for
    Land Application of Sewage Sludge, Ohio Agricultural
    Research and Development.  July, 1975.

Pavoni, J.L., J.E. Heer, and D.J. Hagerty, 1975.  Handbook
    of Solid Waste Disposal.  Van Nostrand Reinhold.  New
    York.  549 p.

Pound, C.E., R.W. Crites, and D.A. Griffes, 1975.  Costs of
    Wastewater Treatment by Land Application.  U.S. EPA Office
    of Water Programs, Washington, D.C.  U.S. EPA-430/9-75-003.

Schelske, Claire L. and James C. Roth, 1973.  Limnological
    Survey of Lakes Michigan, Superior, Huron, and Erie.
    Great Laakes Research Division, Publication No. 17.
    Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sommers, L.E. and D.W. Nelson, 1976.  Analysis and Their
    Interpretation for Sludge Application to Agricultural
    Land.  In:  Knezek, E.D. and R.H. Miller  (eds.), 1976.
    Application of Sludges and Wastewaters on Agricultural
    Land:  A Planning and Educational Guide.  Research Bulletin
    1090.  Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
    Wooster, Ohio.

Sopper, Wm. E., 1976.  Strip Mine Reclamation with Municipal
    Sludge - Rolling Stone Reclamation Site Work No. SD-462-NE.
    City of Philadelphia Water Pollution Control Project.   47  p.
                             10-6

-------
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG),  1974.
    Small Areal Data Unit Forecasts.   Detroit, Michigan.

	,  1976A.  Population and Occupied Dwelling
    Units in Southeast Michigan - 1975.  Detroit, Michigan.

	,  1976B.  Land Use Patterns in Southeast
    Michigan:  Urbanized Area.  Land Use Policy Plan Background.
    Paper No. 3.  Detroit, Michigan.

State of Michigan, 1965.  Act 87 of 1965, as amended.  Sections
    325.291 through 325.300 of Michigan Compiled Laws and
    Rules 325.2701 through 325.2789 of the Michigan Administered
    Code.

Twenter, F.R., 1975.  Groundwater and Geology.  Southeastern
    Michigan Water Resources Study.  Department of Interior,
    U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974.  Detroit District.  South-
    east Michigan Wastewater Management Survey Scope Study
    Summary Report.  Detroit, Michigan.

	,  1975.  Final Environmental Impact Statement.
    Draft Supplement for the Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane
    Protection Program for the Atlantic Coast of Delaware.
    Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  74 p.
    + Appendix.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975.  Southeastern Michigan
    Water Resources Study.  AG.  Appendix Soil Conservation
    Service.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970.  1969 Census of Agriculture.
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    1974.  1972 OBERS Projections:  "Regional Economic Activity
    in the U.S., Series E Population.  Vol. 5:  Standard
    Metropolitan Statistical Areas."  U.S. Water Resources
    Council.  Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Interior, 1968.  Geological Survey.  Oxford,
    Michigan Quadrangle Topographic Map.  Reston, Virginia.

U.S. Department of Labor, 1977.  Geographic Profile of Employment
    and Unemployment, 1976.  Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Report 504.  65 p.
                            10-7

-------
U.S. District Court, 1977A.   Civil Action No.  771180.
    Detroit, Michigan.

                ,  1977B.  Consent Decree:   U.S.A.  City
    of Philadelphia Water Pollution Control Project.  47 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974A.  Water Pollution
    Investigation:  Detroit and St. Clair Rivers.  Environmental
    Control Technology Corporation.  U.S. EPA, Region V.
    U.S. EPA-905/9-74-013.  Chicago, Illinois.

                  1974B.  Process Design Manual for Sludge
    Treatment and Disposal.  U.S. EPA 625/1-74-006.

    	f 1975.  Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
    Construction Grants Program, References.  Washington, D.C.

    	, 1976A.  Notice of Intent to Prepare an
    Environmental Impact Statement.  U.S. EPA, Region V.
    Chicago, Illinois.

    	, 1976B.  Memorandum of Understanding Between
    U.S. EPA and City of Detroit, Board of Water Commissioners
    for Joint Environmental Impact Statement Preparation.
    U.S. EPA, Region V.  Chicago, Illinois.

    	, 1976C.  Handbook of Procedures, Construction
    Grants Program for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works.
    EcolSciences, inc.  U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
                             10-8

-------
11.0  TECHNICAL APPENDICES
          11-1

-------
            Appendix 11.1




DESCRIPTION OF FUTURE STUDIES REQUIRED




                 AND




      MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
                  11-3

-------
11.1  Future Studies

11.1.1  Final Facilities Plan Studies

11.1.1.1  Combined Sewer Overflow Study

     The Consent Judgment (U.S. District Court, 1977 B)  re-
quires a combined sewer overflow evaluation.  The CSO study
will require approximately 2 years to complete.  The CSO eval-
uation will determine the number, quantity, quality, and loca-
tion of  combined sewer overflows.  Concurrent with the CSO
base data collection, the effect of the CSO upon the receiving
stream will be determined, both for dry and wet weather condi-
tions .

     This data will provide a factual basis for assessment of
the impact of the CSO.  The study will identify the particular
source of the problems and determine improvements required to
ensure the receiving waters will meet applicable water quality
standards.

     The final step of the CSO study will be to develop a use-
able data base for a comprehensive stormwater management plan.
The final result of this study's efforts, after further analy-
sis, will be an acceptable stormwater management plan for the
study area.

11.1.1.2  Capacity and Capability of Existing Plant

     The Consent Judgment (U.S. District Court, 1977 B)  re-
quires DWSD to investigate the capacity and capability of the
existing plant.  The capacity and capabilities of the exist-
ing plant study will identify needed improvements as a part of
the final facilities plan design.

     The study requires a detailed evaluation of the systems
within the DWWTP to determine the limiting factors both with
regards to capacity and  capability.  The capability of the
plant will then be compared to the requirements of the 1983
NPDES permit requirements as set forth in the Consent Judgment
(U.S. District Court, 1977,  B) .  The results of this study will
determine needed improvements, replacements, and/or modifica-
tions to satisfy the 1983 requirements of the NPDES permit.

11.1.1.3  Influent Flow and Characteristics

     The Consent Judgment (U.S. District Court, 1977 B)  re-
quires that a study of the actual influent flow and character-
istics be conducted.  The results of the influent study will
provide quantitative estimates of daily, weekly, and monthly
flow fluctuations st the DWWTP.  Influent characteristics in-
cluding BOD, suspended solids, phosphorus, grit, and others as
needed, will be quantified.
                             11-5

-------
     This data will provide quantitative results for the final
facilities plan design to assure compliance with the 1983 NPDES
permit requirements.

11.1.1.4  Identify and Describe Replacement Facilities Required

     Many parts, notably the main pumping station and the retan-
gular primaries at the DWWTP are over 20 years old.  Addition-
ally, some systems in the DWWTP have never functioned properly
and may need replacement rather than modification.  Therefore,
a value engineering analysis is necessary to evaluate all sys-
tems of the DWWTP that are 20 years old or older.  Addition-
ally, all systems that have major operational and/or mainte-
nance difficulties will be analyzed using value engineering
techniques.

     Value engineering analysis determine the total costs of
each system for the design period including capital costs,
operating costs, and maintenance costs.  By performing a value
engineering analysis on the existing system and feasible alter-
natives, that system which is the most efficient and least cost-
ly will be determined.  This study is a part of the Consent
Judgment  (U.S. District Court,1977 B) and the facilities plan-
ning work required of DWSD.  The final results of the study will
provide for optimization of  the DWWTP to meet the requirements
of the NPDES permit.

11.1.1.5  Final Facilities Plan Environmental Assessment

     The Consent Judgment  (U.S. District Court, 1977 B) and
U.S. EPA require an environmental assessment to fulfill the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  The environmental
assessment and engineering planning and evaluation will become
the  final facilities plan  to submit to MDNR and U.S. EPA for
approval.

     The environmental assessment will contain an  inventory of
existing environmental and engineering alternatives analysis
and  proposed mitigating measures.  The environmental assess-
ment may be prepared concurrently with a  "piggyback" EIS to
reduce  time required for eventual review  and approval by U.S.
EPA.  The  "piggyback" process may save as much as  a year and
a  half  if  an  EIS  is required.

11.1.2  EIS on Final Facilities Plan

     Due to the complexity and controversial nature of  the DWSD
final facilities  plan, U.S.  EPA will require an  EIS  (Section  6.4)
The  Eis may be"piggybacked"  with the facilities plan to  save
the  one to two years necessary to prepare an EIS  after  the
final facilities  plan is completed.
                              11-6

-------
     The EIS will be required to address the main issues of the
facilities plan including incineration pilot studies, storm-
water management for combined sewer overflows, and plant expan-
sion.  The requirements of the NEPA of 1969 must be satisfied
by the EIS to allow federal assistance to construct the needed
facilities.

     The final facilities  plan EIS  will require several issue
oriented sub-reports including:  (1) landfill site selection
study;  (2) North Macomb County sewer needs evaluation; and
(3)  DelRay Neighborhood analysis.

     The completion of the EIS will allow federal participa-
tion in constructing the required facilities to be designed
under Step II and constructed under Step III grant(s).

11.1.2.1  Landfill Site Selection Study

     The amount of residuals generated by the DWWTP will re-
quire a substantial disposal operation.  The present analysis
has determined the landfill of residuals to be most environ-
mentally sound and least costly.

     The landfill site selection process will identify the
requirements of the landfill for the 20 year planning period.
Concurrently, the requirements for the landfill site will be
determined.

     An evaluation of potential sites from environmental,
engineering, and cost viewpoints will identify feasible sites
for the landfill operation.  The evaluation will be a several
step process.  The final result of this study will provide for
site(s) to landfill residuals, and recommendations for opera-
tion of the landfill.  A major component of the evaluation
will be regarding odors and their potential impact.

11.1.2.2  North Macomb Needs Study

     An issue not resolved in this EIS is the requirements for
sewer service in northern Macomb County.  A study is needed to
analyze the situation.  The study will analyze existing con-
ditions, trends, and projects in northern Macomb County.  Pa-
rameters that require examination include population, land use,
economics, industrial growth, and population density.  The
study of northern Macomb County will provide an independent
evaluation of the needs of the Romeo, Armada, and Richmond
areas for sewer service.

11.1.2.2  DelRay Neighborhood Analysis

     As a part of the EIS, an analysis of the DelRay Neighbor-
hood is needed to assess the existing trends and effects of the
DWWTP.  A major portion of  this study will evaluate the exist-
ing odors emitted by the DWWTP and their effect upon the neigh-
borhood.  The analysis would present tools available to preserve
                             11-7

-------
the neighborhood and evaluate their effectiveness,  The net
result would be recommendations to the City to strengthen and
preserve the neighborhood.
                             11-8

-------
11.1.3  FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF PLAN

     Outline of Plan

     The following outline for the plan is suggested.  It
meets the requirements of the Construction Grants regulation
(Appendix B) and follows the planning steps presented in this
guidance.  Items applicable to a specific case may be deleted.

1.   SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.   INTRODUCTION

     2.1  Study Purpose and Scope
     2.2  Planning Area (Map)

3.   EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS  (Section 4.1)

4.   CURRENT SITUATION  (Section 4.2)

     4.1  Conditions in Planning Area

          4.1.1  Planning Area Description
          4.1.2  Organization Context
          4.1.3  Demographic and Land Use Data
          4.1.4  Water Quality and Uses
          4.1.5  Other Environmental Conditions

     4.2  Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems
     4.3  Infiltration and Inflow
     4.4  Performance of Existing System

5.   FUTURE SITUATION (Section 4.3)

     5.1  Land Use
     5.2  Demographic and Economic Projections
     5.3  Forecast of Flow and Waste Load
     5.4  Future Environment of the Planning Area Without
            the Project

6.   ALTERNATIVES  (Section 4.4)

     6.1  Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
     6.2  Regional Solutions
     6.3  Waste Treatment Systems
     6.4  Evaluation  (monetary, environmental, implementation)

7.   PLAN SELECTION  (Section 4.5)

     7.1  Views of Public and Concerned Interest on Alternatives
     7.2  Evaluation and Ranking of Proposals
     7.3  Selected Plan (major feature summary)
            and Reasons for Selection
     7.4  Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan
                             11-9

-------
8.    COST ESTIMATES,  PRELIMINARY DESIGNS (Section 4.6)

     8.1  Description of Design, with Maps
     8.2  Summary of Cost Estimates

9.    ARRANGEMENTS FOR  IMPLEMENTATION (Section 4.7)

     9.1  Institutional Responsibilities
     9.2  Implementation Steps
     9.3  Operation and Maintenance
     9.4  Financial Requirements

10.  SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS  (Section 7)

     10.1 Existing Environmental Conditions
     10.2 Future Environment Without the Project
     10.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
     10.4 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan

     Appendices

     The following information, cross-referenced in the text
of the plan, may be placed in appendices:

a.    Preliminary designs, technical data and cost estimates
     for alternatives.

b.    Agreements, resolutions, and comments.

c.    Supplemental engineering feasibility data on the details
     of the adopted plan.

d.    Infiltration/inflow analysis.

e.    Sewer evaluation surveys.

f.    Copy of the permit for the facilities.

     For a simple planning situation, the information included
in items  (a) and  (c) may be incorporated in the main report.

     The technical appendices  (c)  should include, but not
necessarily be  limited to:

a.   Description of the configuration of collector and  inter-
     ceptor systems, profiles,  sizes, and cost breakdowns.

b.   Treatment  plant data, including site plan,  layouts of  unit
     processes, flow charts, design, and performance data.
                             11-10

-------
                       Appendix 11.1

            Detroit Water & Sewerage Department

              Air Pollution Abatement Program

This program supersedes the August 1976 Memo of Understanding
with Wayne County Air Pollution Control Division.

I.   Complex I & II Incinerators 1-14

     A.   Scrubber Upgrade and Incinerator Modifications

          1.   General

               a.  DWSD agrees to upgrade Incinerators 1 - 6 in
                   Complex I to meet an emission limit of 1.3
                   Ibs. particulate  (dry)/ton dry sludge or 0.15
                   Ibs. particulate  (including condensibles)/
                   1,000 Ibs. flue gas corrected to 50% ex-
                   cess air, whichever is more stringent.

          2.   The following schedule shall be followed in or-
               der to achieve the emission limitations in the
               foregoing section IA1.

               a.  First Incinerator

                   (1)  On-Site construction started August, 1977
                   (2)  Complete on-site construction by
                          February 3, 1979
                   (3)  Achieve compliance with said emission
                          rate by March 1, 1979
                   (4)  Submit emission test results by April 2,
                          1979

               b.  Second Incinerator

                   (1)  On-site construction started October, 1977
                   (2)  Complete on-site construction by May 21,
                          1979
                   (3)  Achieve compliance with said emission
                          rate by June 21, 1979
                   (4)  Submit emission test results by July 22,
                          1979

               c.  Third Incinerator

                   (1)  Initiate on-site construction by February
                          4, 1979
                   (2)  Complete on-site construction by
                          September 11, 1979
                   (3)  Achieve compliance with said emission
                          rate by October 11, 1979
                   (4)  Submit emission test results by
                          November 10, 1979
                               11-11

-------
Air Pollution Abatement Program

Page 2

               d.  Fourth Incinerator

                   (1)  Initiate on-site construction by
                          May 22, 1979
                   (2)  Complete on-site construction by
                          December 29, 1979
                   (3)  Achieve compliance with said emission
                          rate by January 29, 1980
                   (4)  Submit emission test results by
                          February 28, 1980

               e.  Fifth Incinerator

                   (1)  Initiate on-site construction by
                          September 12, 1979
                   (2)  Complete on-site construction by
                          April 17, 1980
                   (3)  Achieve compliance with said emission
                          rate by May 19, 1980
                   (4)  Submit emission test by June 17, 1980

               f.  Sixth Incinerator

                   (1)  Initiate on-site construction by
                          January 2,  1980
                   (2)  Complete on-site construction by
                          August 6, 1980
                   (3)  Achieve compliance with said emission
                          rate by September  8, 1980
                   (4)  Submit emission test results by
                          October 5,  1980

     B.   Enhancement  of Stack Dispersion

          1.   DWSD  shall implement further  control and dispersion
               enhancement from Complexes I  & II  incinerators  that
               will  result in a miximum 24 hour ground level con-
               centration therefrom of not more than 35_>ug/m   at
               the plant boundaries on a once in  five year  basis.
               DWSD  will optimize the control and dispersion en-
               hancement to meet the  35>ug/m goal on the sche-
               dule  outlined in  section I.E.2. below.  Future
               air quality modeling will be  identical to the model-
               ing completed in  the Segmented Facilities Plan  and
               used  to select the 35>ug/m  goal.
                               11-12

-------
Air Pollution Abatement Program

Page 3

          2.   Schedule

               a.  By April 1, 1979, DWSD shall submit a report
                   identifying methodology acceptable to the
                   Air Quality Division, Department of Natural
                   Resources  (Air Pollution Control Division,
                   Wayne County Health Department)  that the DWSD
                   will implement to achieve the aforementioned
                   goal of 35 >ug/m  .  The report shall also in-
                   clude adequate documentation to demonstrate
                   that the ground level concentration of 35jug/m3
                   can be achieved.

               b.  By June 1, 1980, DWSD shall award contracts
                   for such control and dispersion enhancement.

               c.  By June 1, 1981, DWSD shall initiate on site
                   construction of stack dispersion equipment.

               d.  Complete first two units in each complex by
                   November 1, 1981.

               e.  Complete second two units in each complex by
                   April 1, 1982.

               f.  Complete third two units in each complex by
                   October 1, 1982.

               g.  Complete last two units in Complex II by
                   December 31, 1982.

     C.   Emission Deductions - Complex II

          DWSD agrees to reduce particulate emissions to meet
          the applicable emission standard of 0.2 Ibs particu-
          late (including condensibles) per 1,000 Ibs exhaust
          gases corrected to  50% excess air.  The following
          program and schedule will be followed:

          1.   Submit final control plan by September 1, 1978.
          2.   Compliance with above emission rate by May 1, 1979.
          3.   Submit test results by June 1, 1979.

II.  Long Range Improvements  - Complexes I & II

          DWSD agrees to further implement air quality control
          improvements for Complexes I & II incinerators that
          will achieve improved emission rates, improved unit
          productivity energy conservation, higher effiency
          emissions abatement equipment, lower maintenance costs,
                              11-13

-------
Air Pollution Abatement Program

Page 4

          improved sludge feed system and elimination of down-
          wash.  All emission control equipment in Complexes
          1 & II shall at least meet a limit of 1.3 Ibs/ton
          dry sludge or 0.15 lb/1000 Ibs., whichever is more
          stringent.

III. Complex III

          Nothing in this agreement shall be construed, either
          direct or implied, that approval for any additional
          incinerator capacity beyond that presently existing
          at Complexes I and II is granted.
 (3/21/78)
                               11-14

-------
             Appendix 11.2




RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
                 11-15

-------
         Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
           Which May Be Found in the Study Area
                          Plant

Nelumbo lutea, American Lotus

                         Animals

Pelecypoda, Mussels
    Anodonta Grandis
    Carunculina glans
    Cyclonaias tuberculata
    Dysnomia sulcata or D. perplexa rangiana
    D. triqueta
    Elliptio dialatatus
    Lampsilis fasciola
    L. ventricosa
    Leptodea fragilis
    Ligumia nasuta
    Obliguaria reflexa
    Obovaria leibi or 0. subrotunda
    Pleurobema cordatum
    Ptychobranchius fasciolaris
    Quadrula quadrula
    Simpsoniconcha ambigua
    Villosa fabilis or Micromya fabilis

Gastropoda, Snails
    Amnicola binneyana or Cincinnatia emarginata
    A. Integra
    Somatogyrus subglobosus

Insecta
    Hexagenia limbata, Mayfly
    H. rigida, Mayfly
    Oecetis inconspicua, Caddisfly

Crustacea
    Limnocalanus macrurus
    Mysis relicta or_M. oculata relicta, Opossum Shrimp

Fish
    Ichtyomyzon fossor, Northern Brook Lamprey
    I_. unicuspis, Silver Lamprey
    Lampetra lamottei, American Brook Lamprey
    Acipenser fulvescens, Lake Sturgeon
    Polydon spathula, Paddlefish
    Lepisosteus oculatus, Spotted Gar
    Salvelinus namaycush, Lake Trout
    Coregonus alpenae, Longjaw Cisco
                             11-17

-------
   Ł• artedi, Cisco, Lake Herring, Shallowwater Cisco
   C.clupeaformis, Lake Whitefish
   Hiodon tergisus, Mooneye
   Esox masguinongy, Muskellunge
   Clinostomus elongatus, Redside Dace
   Hybopsis storeiana, Silver Chub
   Nocomis micropogon, River Chub
   Notropis anogenus, Pugnose Shiner
   M.- ariommus, Popeye Shiner
   N^. boops, Bigeye Shiner
   N. buchanani, Ghost Shiner
   Ifl. dorsalis, Bigmouth Shiner
   N_. emiliae, Pugnose Minnow
   M.- heterodon, Blackchin Shiner
   N_. heterolepis, Blacknose Shiner
   N_. photogenis, Silver Shiner
   Rhynichthyes cataractae, Longnose Dace
   Catostomus catostomus, Longnose Sucker
   Erimyzon sucetta, Lake Chubsucker
   Lagochila lacera, Harelip Sucker
   Moxostoma hubbsi, Copper Redhorse  (1)
   M. valenciennesi, Greater Redhorse
   Noturus stigmosus, Northern Madtom
   Fundulus diaphanus, Banded Killifish
   Lota lota, Burbot
   Aphredoderus sayanus, Pirate  Perch
   Ammocrypta pellucida, Northern Sand  Darter
   Etheostoma exile, Iowa Darter
   E_. nigrum eulepis, Scaly Johnny Darter
   Percina copelandi, Channel Darter
   P_. evides, Gilt  Darter
   E.f shumardi, River Darter
   Stizostedion canadense, Sauger
   S_. vitreum glaucum. Blue Pike
   Cottus bairdi, Mottled Sculpin
   C_. ricei, Spoonhead Sculpin
   Myoxocephalus  quadricornus,Fourhorned Sculpin (2)
(1)   Present in St.  Lawrence River
(2)   Present in Lake Ontario,  distinct deepwater form
                              11-18

-------
               APPENDIX 11.3








A Model for Calculating the Land Require-



 ments of a Sludge Application Program
                  11-19

-------
Introduction

     The two constituents of sewage sludge which most often
limit its application to croplands are nitrogen and heavy
metals.  Excessive quantities of nitrogen can cause nitrate
contamination of groundwater, while high concentrations of
heavy metals in the soil can result in their entering the
food chain.  However, if these two constituents are properly
controlled, land application can be a safe, environmentally
sound method of sludge disposal.

     This appendix presents a simple model which can be used
to calculate the minimum amount of land which is required for
conducting a sludge application program.  This will allow pre-
liminary determinations to be made of the feasibility and
cost-effectiveness of land application alternatives for sludge
disposal.

Nitrogen

     Nitrogen is present in sewage sludge in both the organic
and inorganic forms.  Typical digested sewage sludge contains
from 1 to 5 percent organic nitrogen by dry weight and from
1 to 3 percent inorganic nitrogen  (Sommers and Nelson, 1976) .

     Nitrogen is a nonconservative substance in soils and is
constantly changing form.  Biological activity will break
down organic nitrogen into the inorganic form where it will
oxidize to nitrate, which is utilized by vegetation as a
nutrient.  Numerous other reactions, such as nitrogen fixation,
also occur, and some nitrogen is contained in rainfall.

     Soil contains 400 to 10,000 kg/ha of nitrogen  (Haith,
1973), mostly in the organic form.  From 2 to 10 percent of
the soil organic nitrogen will mineralize each year.

     When sludge is applied to land, the inorganic nitrogen
fraction is readily available for uptake by crops.  Sommers
and Nelson,  (1976) estimates that 15 percent of the sludge's
organic nitrogen will become available the first year, with
3 percent of the remainder becoming available for at least
three suceeding years.

     Uptake by crops is a major mechanism for nitrogen removal
from soil.  Sommers and Nelson,  (1976), presented estimates
of the nitrogen requirements of typical crops.  Removal of
nitrogen by crop uptake assumes that the crop is removed from
the site by harvesting.
                             11-21

-------
    Leaching of soluble  nitrate nitrogen  to groundwater  is
another  removal mechanism.   Any inorganic nitrogen in excess
of that  needed for crop  uptake can potentially leach into the
groundwater.  The USEPA  drinking water  standard for nitrate
nitrogen is 10 mg/1.

    Taking sources and sinks into account, an annual nitrogen
mass balance can be expressed as:

    Soil nitrogen which  is  mineralized
  + Sludge organic nitrogen which is mineralized
  + Sludge inorganic  nitrogen
  + Other nitrogen additions, such as rainfall
  - Nitrogen uptake of crops
  - Nitrogen lost in  leachate
  = 0

This mass balance can be expressed mathematically by  assuming
that a fraction of the sludge organic nitrogen mineralizes
the first year and that  the remainder becomes part of  the
soil organic nitrogen; the soil organic nitrogen also  minera-
lizes, but not necessarily at the same  rate as the sludge
organic  nitrogen.

    b Ns  (n) + a Fo A  (n) + F^  A (n) + R - U - G = 0      Equation 1

where

    Ns (n) = Soil organic nitrogen, kg/ha, at the start of year n
    A (n)  = Amount of sludge applied, kg/ha, in year n
    a      - Fraction of the sludge organic nitrogen which is minerali-
             zed in the  first year the sludge is applied, year"^-
    b      = Fraction of the soil organic nitrogen which is mineralized
             each year,  year"-'-
    Fo     = Fraction of organic nitrogen in the sludge
    Fi     = Fraction of inorganic nitrogen in the sludge
    R      = Additions of nitrogen from rainfall or commercial fertilizer
             applications, kg/ha/yr
    U      = Uptake of inorganic nitrogen by crops, kg/ha/yr
    G      = Inorganic nitrogen lost in leachate, kg/ha/yr

Rearranging equation  1  gives the maximum  amount of  sludge
that can be applied  in any year,  based on nitrogen  limitations,

    Amax (n) = Gmax + U  - R - b Ns  (n)                  Equation 2
                a F0 +  Fj.
where
     Amax(n)= Maximum amount of sludge, kg/ha, which can be applied in
             year n
     Gmax   = Maximum allowable loss of nitrogen through leaching,
             based on water quality standards for groundwater
                              11-22

-------
The soil  organic nitrogen will be augmented by the part of
the sludge  organic nitrogen which is  not mineralized in the
first year:

    Ns (n  + 1) = [1-b] Ns (n) -f [1-a]  Fo An              Equation 3

By using  equations 2 and 3, it is possible to calculate the
maximum sludge application rate  for each successive year of
land application.  This technique will be demonstrated after
limitations on heavy metals are  discussed.

Heavy Metals

    Unlike  nitrogen, heavy metals behave as conservative sub-
stances.  That is, once placed in the soil, they will tend  to
remain in place and accumulate.  Concentrations must not be
allowed to  become excessive and  the  soil pH must remain suf-
ficiently high to avoid solubilization of heavy metals.  -Thus,
while nitrogen limits annual  sludge  application rates,
heavy metals limit the total  amount  of sludge which can be
applied to  a given plot of land.

    Table A-l shows the concentrations of heavy metals  in
sludge from the DWWTP  compared  to ranges of concentrations
found in  other sludges.  Table A-2   shows the total amounts
of sludge metals allowed on agricultural lands; other  limits
may be appropriate for non-agricultural lands or if supported
by a monitoring program for heavy metals.

    The maximum total of sludge  which can be applied is:

                     2.27 x 109/FPb

                     1.12 x 109/FZm
           = Min
5.60 x 108/FCu                  Equation 4

2.24 x 108/FNi

2.24 x 107/Fcd
where
    AH     = Maximum amount of sludge, kg/ha, which .can be applied,
            based on heavy metals limitations
    Fpb» Fzm. FCU/ Fwi, Fed = Fractions (dry weight) of lead, zinc,
            copper, nickel and cadmium, respectively, in the sludge,
            ppm

    Note:  Equation 4 assumes a soil with a cation exchange capacity
           greater than 15 meq/100 g.  For soils with a CEC of 5 to  15
           meq/100 g, the rates shown should be halved; for CEC less
           than 5 meq/100 g, the allowable rates are one quarter those
           shown .
                            11-23

-------
Table  A-l.       Trace Element Concentrations in Sewage  Sludge  [Source:
                  "Ohio Guide for Land Application of  Sewage  Sludge,"
                  Ohio Agricultural Research and Development  Center,
                  Ohio Cooperative Extension Service,  July, 1975.]
Element                    Range (ppm*, dry wt.)    Median**      Detroit***

Boron                              6-1000              50
Cadmium                            1-1500              10           115
Chromium                          20-40,600           200          1295
Cobalt                             2-260               10
Copper                            52-11,700           500          1191
Nickel                 .           10-5300              50          1392
Manganese                         60-3900             500             -
Mercury                          0.1-56                 5             7
Molybdenum                         2-1000               5           .  -
Lead                              15-26,000           500          1090
Zinc                              72-49,000          2000          5710
  * Parts per million
 ** The median is that value for which 50 percent of the observations,
    when arranged in the order of magnitude, lie on each side.
*** Raw dewatered sludge
Table A-2.        Maximum Amounts of Sludge Metals Allowed on Agricul-
                  tural Land.   [Source:  Sommers and Nelson,  1976.]
                         Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (meg/100 g)*

Metal                  0-5                  5-15                  > 15


                             Maximum Amount of Metal  (Lb./Acre)

Pb                     500                  1000                  2000
Zn                     250                   500                  1000
Cu                     125                   250                   500
Ni                      50                   100                   200
Cd                       5                    10                    20

* Determined by  the pH 7 ammonium  acetate procedure
                                 11-24

-------
    One further heavy  metals limitation which must be con-
sidered is the need  to limit cadmium to 2.24 kg/ha/y
(Sommers et al.f  1976).   This results in the following
limitation:
    Amax  Ł2.24 x l06/FCd

Maximum Sludge Application Rates
 Equation 5
    The maximum  amount of sludge which can be applied to a
parcel of land can  be  calculated by alternately solving
equations 2 and  3   (or 5 and 3,  if Cadmium limits), as the
flow diagram in  Figure A-l  shows.  Sludge applications
must cease when  AH  is  reached.

    Maximum application rates for composted sludge from the
DWWTP  were calculated, using the assumptions shown in
Table A-3.

Land Requirements

    The minimum  amount of land required for a sludge applica-
tion program can be calculated by assuming that each parcel
of land will be  used to the greatest extent possible before
acquiring any new land.  As shown previously, the capacity
of land to accept sludge decreases each year as organic nitro-
gen is added to  the soil, and applications must eventually
cease when the heavy metals limit is attained.  Thus, even if
the quantity of  sludge produced were to remain constant,
additional land  would  be needed each year to allow for this
decreasing capacity to accept sludge.

    In the first year  of application, the maximum amount of
sludge which can be applied to a parcel of land of a given
size is described by Equation 5a.  In the second year of appli-
cation, this first  parcel of land has a smaller ability to
accept sludge, so more land is needed as shown in Equation
5b.  This process continues for each year:
    s (l)  = L (l) A (1)

    S (2)  = L (1) A (2) + L (2) A (1)

    S (3)  = L (1) A (3) + L (2) -f L (3) A (1)
[Equation 5a]

[Equation 5bJ

[Equation 5c]
    S (n)  = L (1) A (n) + L (2) A (n-1) ... L (n)  A  (1)  [Equation 5d]

where

    S (n)  = Amount of sludge,  kg, applied in year  n
    L (n)  = Amount of land, ha, for which sludge applications start
            in year n
                            11-25

-------
Figure A-l.  Flow diagram for calculating the maximum
             sludge application rate for each year.
                           n = 1
                             i
                         Calculate

                          Amax(n)

                          (Eq.2 or 5)
                         Calculate
                         Total
                         Application
                                          Terminate
                                          Calcula-
                                            tion
                          Calculate
                           Ns(n+1)
                          (Eq.  3)
                          n = n+1
                             11-26

-------
Table  A-3.
Example of calculating maximum rates  of  application.
Data and Assumptions

Type of sludge:   Composted

Characteristics:

      Organic Nitrogen
      Inorganic Nitrogen
      Copper
      Nickel
      Zinc
      Cadmium
      Lead
      Mercury

Initial Soil Organic Nitrogen, Ns(l)

Crop Nitrogen Uptake, U

Rainfall Nitrogen Input, R

Nitrogen Leaching, G

Mineralization, first year, a

Mineralization, succeeding years, b
                        = 0.99%
                        = 0.14%
                        =659 ppm
                        = 769 ppm
                        =3148 ppm
                        = 717 ppm
                        = 602 ppm
                        =   3.8 ppm

                        = 3400 kg/ha

                        =  220 kg/ha.y

                             7 kg/ha.y

                        =    2 kgAa.y

                             0.15

                             0.03
Calculations:

Maximum Total Application, Ay

Maximum Yearly Application, based on
  cadmium
                        = 291,000 kg/ha (based on nickel)
                        =  35,000 kg/ha.y
Year
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
 11...
         Rate of Application
         	kg/ha	
               35,000
               35,000
               35,000
               33,300
               31,700
               30,200
               28,900
               27,700
               26,700
                7,570
                    0
Limitation
 Cadmium
 Cadmium
 Cadmium
 Nitrogen
 Nitrogen
 Nitrogen
 Nitrogen
 Nitrogen
 Nitrogen
 Nickel
 Nickel
                                11-27

-------
    A (n) = Sludge application rate, kg/ha.yr, after n years of
           applications, defined in previous sections

Equations 5a through  5d  can  be  solved successively to find
the amount of land  needed to be added each year.

    L (1) = S (D/A (1)                               [Equation 6a]
    L (2) = [S (2) - L (1) A (2)]/A  (1)                 (Equation 6b]
    L (3) = IS (3) - L (1) A (3) - L (2) A (2)]/A (1)
S (n) -"]!*  (L (n-i) A (i+lW  /A (1)         [Equation 6d]
    L (n) =
Table A-4  presents an example of how these equations would
be used to estimate land requirements for spreading  the com-
posted sludge  of  Table A-3  .   The total amount of compost
produced was projected to increase from 3.695 x 10**  kg/y in
1980 to 4.643  x 108 kg/y in 1999.  Note how the initial land
purchased in 1980 needs only small annual increments until
1989, when it  begins to become saturated with heavy  metals;
at this point  more extensive purchases of land are necessary.

Conclusions

The ability of land to accept sludge without adverse environ-
mental impacts will vary from year to year, depending  upon
previous applications of sludge.  This variation  will  affect
the size of a  sludge application program, equipment  require-
ments and annual costs.  Because allowable annual sludge
loadings will  vary, a strong management system  is recommended
for any land application program in order to avoid adverse
impacts.
                             11-28

-------
Table A-4.
Minimum Amounts of Land Required for Applying Com-
posted Sludge from Detroit to Corn  and Cover Crops.

Year

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Land Added
to Program
ha
10 557
135
136
635
650
596
573
556
539
6 019
2 620
377
907
1 121
1 056
1 009
988
969
3 809
3 091
Active Spreading
Area
ha
10 557
10 692
10 828
11 463
12 113
12 709
13 282
13 838
14 377
20 396
12 459
12 701
13 472
13 958
14 364
14 777
15 192
15 605
18 875
15 947
Total Land
in Program
ha
10 557
10 692
10 828
11 463
12 113
12 709
13 282
13 838
14 377
20 396
23 016
23 393
24 300 -
25 421
26 477
27 486
28 474
29 443
33 252
36 343
            Compost applied in 1980:  3.695 x 108 kg dry weight

            Compost applied in 1999:  4.643 x 10  kg dry weight
                                11-29

-------
            APPENDIX 11.4




Evaluation of Existing Unit Processes




      at the DWWTP (6-1-77)
                11-30

-------
c
D



0)
O U)
Ł E
d o)
3 «-<
J A
O O
>w H
U P,
Q)
X|












Ł>J
.P
•H
O
id
Q
id
Q



.














tn-ji
r- C
H ^
"•P P!
to ft
•H ^
x S
w SI
















O)
tn
o
a
u
^J
Pi












in
tn
O)
o
o
n
P4

^)
-H
C
:n

















1
0) • |
n , *; *> H d e i
_ ^ _ ^ c fl)o)o tn
tn 0) -O -H 0) - tn H JJ -HI
5-°, Sm eccotn -d c
-HJJldO) ft 0 0 "H >, -H.
OJO -H -H .-1  M
p-f;" oi-oc H • in id ,Q
rf^^S c 3r° JOD-HO ^-1x0
UXEin w-Hinid4J-H u)O4J
n3 13
tn tn
E E in
ft
o o u-t
O CNl
CO M r-i -O
~ ~ tn
rH ^1 HE

II II >, 0
4J O
.H -H fO
"O Id O •"
 id

•d r-i j: in"
0) id -P o
X tn -H X >,
-H 3 S id rH
E OE jao Eorf
^13 0) ^1 X
CO « O C -P
O tn >n i O< C • Cii
U rH en id in 4J
H x: -P >• c
•di3 utn tno >o
cc c:^ tno rtt>
idid 0)0 id-r->  0) > - tn
CUtnO)>3= OC" OWfJ
e-r-iOO EM EO)H
3^^! ^tr-< OfJJ CJ.H.Q
C^OOPt1^-! PJ^-4 P^UId
Jj
C. D>
o) C
e -H
jj D.
id 6
o) 3
UP. rH
H id
0) >
> Cn tn O
M ^
-HO) M >-l
rH -H 0) O O C
ourt-HO-Ptno •
M C 0) O Pi C U
0 X X S -H w c
13 -H ~f O . O -P -H 0)
O O 0) 	 r-t Id O
13-H^IH'dlHH>,V1
C IM Id O O -P Q)
OiH>«W-d'H CU-HQ,
O<0)OO3OO^-I
in E -H -HO
3 r-i a> «> o •-< iir~
tntdV<-Pco -id
> o -H M to •-> o
•dOiC'O) jJ>;-H4J
OE"5lHa>CCid
oo)r^"nnoid>o
OM^'tuidOPidvo
•d
tn —
E n
.C X
O -P C
in -H id
o s -P

^ 13 H
tn id
11 E i-l
3
COO
tn O H
-H n -H
tn » o
0) rH
•d — ^r
o
tn n
c>4 tn o) id
-P -^r &1 oa in V4
M «M€N C -POJOW
id 0) II idO'n|IE>:.
^H OOo *>O 0) C--
3 raoE lOOEOrii.
tn O)
C H^^ idHOrH4J 13
id. 3r~o ^«3-O"Hl3
4J K)>D>^ 3WCO>_).i3lIJ
o»n rt o mVirH
0)WMIIrHtJ> H -H II rH tJ> 3 D<
Vi AC (d id id -\ -H id id id v^ o a
C-PO)*J^ OWtUiJ.-JM-H
C-JldOVlO-H OMO.j-HO
rH^Jti ±> 0>
•d id c o
o) -P • o) in o id
•do o c. JJ o
C rH in O K
0) M-l O -H to tn
CU -H P 13
CT -d 3 -H -H T3
3 c tr -a rH c
to ia c o id -P
o o w id
o tn -do o o
> -d -H S ^H ^
o -H > S O JJ >M
E ^1 0 0 .H 4J
Q) O M ^^ r-1 0) O
d W P4 *H Id W ,4J



4J
C
0 C
e o
-P -H
u) 4J
CD id
H O
[-1 -H
•u
>. -H
ll H
id id
E •-«
-H 0
Vl
P«

-------






""X.

in
' C
CJ
; *-"!
,Q
o
4-i V-i
Pt









Ł»-

-H
O
P-
rJ
a









_ 4-*
.. Ł

j s

i -«H
* 15

w








o
en
O
A

Ł3

















i/i
1/3
CJ
O
O

d*
*~
c
P

0)
3
OJ D) M tJ 1
W CN E f: OJ O
id >, GJ OJ • E->-i
CJ d C .-1 JJ tn >i O Q, Q,
to o rt & tn X r-i o E
tn S 0 >i C VJ CJ3-H
*d j-i w id o XlOtO
«"p aj QI JJ o ^t
r-l in • «H CX C O JJ
CN id 13 r-i id n o JJ c
.a JJ id > id >, JJ o

CJ •* *O o E 3 QJ O O •
JJ r-l -HOJU> -«-l V| in
id id tn -p to vi cj ,c o cj
E > .C id -rt in Cn-POM
-PECtuB M 3O -O
WHEOl/105 W4J4JO
O "CJ
o 
- o
o E
01  g
to in id >-t
.* n x H 3 *
3 Id O M  -H n 3 3 c
CJ Id •-* -H O r-l O
ft, J3 1-" O to WO
E
o
tn • w
CJ W "W
r-l V)
J3 CJ OJ
id -H Cn

O -H 3 to
«H W »H V^
 > -H
O g OH
E 0 E <3
OJ M O r-l
t4 >M « O
jj
c tn
O tn
U C
" -H C
g O
4J E -H
r: -H 4J
(I) >! t>
1: IO OJ
4J >H
m -a e •-!
o c; o o
S r5 -;! o

QJ O CJ
> tn GJ tn

10 0 r-l 3
g >J 0 -«
-loo w
Oi



»H
O 1 .C --1
>-t 3 C Cn ,-f
J-> JJ -H -H id
C O id JC
O 3 4J C •
O .H C T3 -H to
>n -H c C
Se id id in -H
O r-i E •-< w
rH o tn GJ id
«H > C C > ,Q
. CJ Id -H CJ
CJ tl) .H O X rH UJ
4J E -HO
id 3 -o E c
VI *H -H - CJ O
oj ja 3 to -a en -P
t) O O1 OJ O >i ^
O >-l -H JJ O X . a
o o Ł S,


QJ
" " t3 *d
c c tr> ti*
G\ tn g Ł
W WOO
  - 1 O C 1
(u I* a> M 5 u c
C^ -«H tj> -P H tT> O
w to <; 13 o >i o
D4 3 fd . X
0) g r-f 0 O H
^-1 3 - to C D> o>
JQ 04 to cj *d iH »d

•H (Xi -H QJ >,—« C 3 O

cJ ri fd O -^ w J-*
Ł> o »Q ^ *CJ -M C O
O i-l CJ CJ -H --H ^3
O O> O 4-* l* -U tJ 10 1-1
" v *. 5: O 3 cd Tj rl 4 *

n cj i
O -H OJ
"Ml C i>
4J id tn
O ^ id 01 Cn id
-H fcn UJ E >J S
C H .G M in O
id OJ Cn 4J -H C
Cn C 3 C OJ -H
H • OJ O >, Id JJ
O -H H to Cn id r-l
id o .C nj n r-i id
OJ -rl -O JJ W -H C* OE^H
OOJ t*^OJJ ^I-HQJOJ
EJJ OOOC o«JJp
oid M«Htucj -Hinrdid
CCE f^tj-iwE SnJES




^J
c
o
e
4"
rj o
CJ JJ
H id
E-t -H
•a c
> 0 Cn O
^ EC -rl
rj C -H JJ
*O CJ Dj id
c 4J e n
o c: 3 o
u w di »^
o
W

11-33

-------




















u

jl>
c
cu
.Ł
4J
4-J
fd
tn
0) ,-.
tn r-
tn r-
(U 1
U -H
0 1
V-l iJD
CM —
-P
H
c
D
Oi
C
H
-P
U)
H
X
w



























\
G)
o tn
C E
13 0)
E M
V4 J3
O 0
«H >-l
n a.
Q)
PJ






|r
-H
U
n)
a
ID
CJ








tT> 4J
c c
-H 
C
O
0
- — •

aj
c
o
E
-U

s
t
-a
c
o
in
10


C Vi
— -X a) o> id t* o t;
:* o .a t; r: -H 41 4'
($ -rt J-J -H n] -*-!
m jj ,-| 43 r3 CO
d -P QJ V4 rf - -H
tn O CU C E oj
-H C O W O -H
m 5 o .1) i ^t »T^
•00 4J r

1
•O -H
tn H M
-H Cn ^H >M
o >M E o O
H O O 4J
•• i3 O C 3 0)
C .-1 CM O O O
t? 0 - -H
-H rH .C >4 >
Q 0, 0 S "-M S
c
o
•rl O
tn 4J O
no \D
03
•H M *~-i
H4 4J
m c o a) Q)
*rt lJ »rt I
e n  [^




tl 1
O O C!


-H Ł -rH
4J x:
0 E 4J
id o
n -a
4J id
13 d)
VI tp M
i3 -O 0)
S* 5 la
10 W S




c
o
-H
4J
id
o
-.H

-H
^
13
U
"(3
C
-H
[M



E C
4) 1 O -H
tn 4' c: - 1 tn
>* C 0) O .Q 0)
-H 3
n C C 0) C
>,<« 0) C 0 i3 E
S »T-« t f^ ^
0 E GJ -P rtJ *H ^
OrJ--l-»J-HCJ WOO

VlUOE-MW Ł G*
•H 
•o -o
tr* i~i D1
I
CN r^ CN
G •-< G
D1 fd tj*
-•H ^J -rH
tn -P (o
O O Q)


to
6
id -d E t^1
C 3 K

o ~ cu *o •
13 Q) O
Vj "•"i tn ii( ty
-H rH tn
	 .-! r-i J3 3
o --' id a»
3 n  W



E
e o
o • n
n tn *M o

O -H w 3
tn  nt
0 4J .
a o id E
> -H > > 0
O 13 O -H 4J
EC e 4j w
a: >M c; n) tn









^
o c

-O 4J
3 tn *
C C 0
^ QI 4?
•*-* E 3
W D ,_(
PC D* in

11-34



in
in
0
o
X
u
•
> &
_r* "t»

>t Q*
nJ nj
Ł1 0



>,
n
\
I
a>

i
V( i>
tn o c

iu n M cu
43

fc <» o > >;
-H -H -P ri, O
M tP O -rl
r7 ^ .^ j!J j^ ^
^ 0 1 Q> o tr>
O M -H t! Q. §.
> 0 4^ G) (L> V4





o
W . i>

rH H CO
,00 a -H
5 '»M &' ^
O -H X ^
•-t W O CJ
•-* C)
C) 0 ^ C -
Ł c: -HOW
o e > tp >;

PJ *M . p^ O -P






tr

-^i
4J
cO

0
tP 0
C
"c c
H c>
•H ^
-^ X
IO o


1
id 'a!
Ł ^ S
T3 O
Nl 0 C
-H C C -H
01 C 3 -P
rO 0 ^
>i U ti ^
'"^ n
as Ti "-f O
•H Ł -P J-*

-r-l O M QJ
M O Ł -^


M
cu
«M
o
o
o M
in o



1
c
CJ


Pi t/1
o
0 3:
o o
O t— 1
r-
cT Si
"^' u
^
g Ł




J^
-ri


O 10
jj »M
13
G) O
•a -H
-H 4J
o n
(^ n)













n
o
Q
,_!
d

-------
ro
0)
U)
vi
OJ
O  r
o





\
o
U in
C Ł
rd CJ
g7?
XI
O O
*M ^
>-l P<
G>
P*





>
4J
-ri
U
«tf
D
(U
CJ







tp -p
c c:
-H O
-P E
W p,
-H -^
X 3
w tr
w








GJ
in
O
a
v^
3
a«




tn
to
QJ
0
O
V*
Pi
4J
-H
Ł
»_>



































































>,
id
J3 tl <3»
0 \
id ,Q tn
0) l-l GJ
JJ T3
to o 3 Cr>
Co c E
O O -H
JJ go
0 0
o o r~ r-t
0> r-J ^ rH
to
n
id
CJ —10
tn M I
>: n o m
C 0 JJ Q •
m JJ id u
E-i id C O tu
VJ -H JJ >
•a o n -H
id D< O JJ K
O Hi rH -H
M > .C 3 JJ
•H 0) O 13 -H
•H CO
SrH r-l OH
.H .-I CJ JJ
^j
10 0) 0)
C CJ JJ M
aj • «n jJ id o i tn
t» o> id V«  m
>,• o idCH ocft
O 1-1 -H JJ *O -H
» 0) OHC -HH>,
JJ 1-1 OOO
10 o idr-(O O^«>J
C) -P J* XI ^ XI -P
o co uuid fuutn
1 „ s
H U • i
O o) >•
*> 0 fc
Cl 01 U« r0.
0 °
•H 0) O „,
JJ C C S
0 ^1 -H 5
o) 1-1 vi rj
•" 0 0 %
c ^ •"" 5
•H XI XI "2
w u u n
-H U
a






M
o
r-l
o
It •
JJ O
C JJ
o id
0 H
M -a
O tIJ
O OJ
P.  D, Dj
o tn tr>
o o
o o o
o tn o *o
m ^ ro n
ID CM II
1
o •
— C jci tn
HI Ml -H X
O >t *H >i 13 C
,
C H H H [14 -~ H
id o oo to tn id
Ł•< *4-l *w m *M OH *H E
o e -H
tl tn to tn 3 H M
O — O Oi Ot tTt OH Cl P*
C OJ^H K E5 C E
-H r-l -H • 33- -H C S 0)
iHCJl/JJ-l QHPHH X-H»H1-I
(U  -d
"> ^ -2 "*
.-i fij fO
r; o o cr» c
° -g -g -s.s
a « <" >: JJ
g 5 55^
x:
A
11-35