-------
the sludge, the location and type of disposal site, and
the degree of management control exerted. This section
will describe the possible land application systems that
could be used, based on the projected quality of Detroit's
sludge, and the land that is available.
• Application Methods
Land application methods are determined by the consistency
of the sludge. For the anticipated situation in Detroit,
the following sludge application methods are feasible:
• Liquid sludge
application by spray, via pipeline or truck tanks,
application by subsurface injection;
• Dewatered sludge
application by spreading and plowing; and
• Composted sludge
application by surface spreading.
• Land Requirements
Using constraints previously described in Section
5.4, the amount of land necessary for disposal of liquid,
dewatered, and composted sludge was calculated. Table 5.5-E
shows the minimum amounts of land necessary for land application
of sludge, taking into account the nitrogen balance and
heavy metals limitations. An additional 25 percent will
be needed for buffer zones, roadways and working areas.
The primary difference among the alternatives is in
the initial land requirements. Sod farming, for example,
only needs 6060 acres (2450 ha) for the initial year of
compost application, compared to 60800 acres (24,600 ha)
for liquid sludge applied to forests. However, in the
longer term, heavy metals limitations determine total land
requirements. The harvesting of sod constitutes a heavy metal
withdrawal from the soil, and correspondingly its life as a
disposal site.
• Land Availability
In order to preserve the environmental quality of
the disposal site and provide an effective utilization
of the sludge, soil characteristics that are the most advanta-
geous for sludge disposal were identified. These are:
• Moderate permeability;
• Cation exchange capacity greater than 15 meq/100 g soil;
• Greater than 3 feet (.1 m) of soil to groundwater;
• Greater than 1.5 feet CO.5 m) of soil to bedrock;
5-106
-------
TABLE 5.5-E
Minimum Amount of Land Necessary for
Land Application of All DWSD Sludge to Year 2000
Type of Sludge
Liquid, digested
Liquid, digested
Liquid, digested
Dewatered, digested
Dewatered, digested
Composted
Composted
Composted
Crop
Forest
Corn & Cover
Sod
Corn & Cover
Sod
Forest
Corn & Cover
Sod
Land Requirement
(Excluding Buffer)
acres (ha)
116,000 (46,900)
95,000 (38,300)
79,000 (31,900)
93,000 (37,600)
74,000 (30,000)
96,000 (39,100)
88,000 (35,500)
86,000 (34,800)
5-107
-------
• Slope less than 6 percent; and
• 600 feet (180 m) distance from surface waters.
Using these characteristics, the soils that are suitable
for land application have been identified within a twelve
county area around Detroit. These areas are discussed
in the segmented facilities plan (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book II).
If the assumption is made that suitable land may be
available outside of the twelve county area, or that sites
that are slightly less suitable are used, the different
types of sludge may have different environmental impacts.
The impacts of the following sludge application systems
will be discussed:
• Liquid application
forests, croplands (e.g. corn), non-cropland (e.g. sod);
• Dewatered sludge
croplands, non-croplands; and
• Compost
wooded areas (orchards, tree farms), croplands,
non-croplands.
• Conclusion
Recycling of nutrients by land application of liquid,
dewatered, or composted sludge can be a significant environmen-
tal benefit that could become increasingly important in
future years. Although land requirements have been computed
based on total sludge production, this would not preclude
land application as part of a hybrid disposal alternative
(.Incineration Alternative 9) , whereby only part of the
sludge would be applied to land. It is, therefore, considered
desirable to include a land application alternative for
the evaluation analysis.
A truly optimal land application program for all of
Detroit's sludge would probably use a combination of several
alternatives to take advantage of different land characteristics
and cropping practices. Such optimization would be a subject
for further study. For the evaluation analysis, however,
it was desirable to select a specific alternative to allow
more precise cost estimates to be made.
The land application method which was considered most
feasible was to apply compost to corn and cover crops,
and sod farms. The reasons for this choice were:
5-108
-------
• The relatively low capital investment in sludge
processing required for composting, compared to
the high investment that would be needed for
aerobic digestion, if liquid or dewatered
digested sludge were chosen;
• The high flexibility of composting to change site
capacity, since construction is minimal and little
specialized equipment is needed;
• The high quality of compost will help in public
acceptance and marketability; and
• Minimal storage requirements for compost.
Forest application was eliminated because of:
• Large initial land requirements compared to cropland;
• Uncertainties regarding effects on wildlife; and
• Long transport distances.
Application of ash to land was eliminated because
it would entail risks of heavy metals contimination without
providing the benefits of nutrient recovery.
5.5.2.2 Retail Sales and/or Municipal Uses
Two kinds of sludges were considered suitable for
retail sales, dried sludge and composted sludge. Subsequently,
sludge drying was eliminated as a processing alternative
because of excessively high energy demands. Composting
remains a feasible processing alternative and retail sales
and/or municipal uses of composted sludge will be evaluated
in this section.
Municipal usage of the compost, primarily by the Park
Department, could provide a readily available market for
sales. By selling the compost to this agency or others,
disposal costs and problems could be reduced while filling
the soil additive needs of municipal agencies. However,
due to the large quantities of compost being produced,
municipal usage does not provide a reliable enough method
of disposal.
A retail sales program would sell composted sludge
to the small suburban consumer in garden supply retail
stores (bulk users would be handled under a land application
program). Compost serves both as a source of nutrients
and as a soil conditioner, and composted sludge would compete
directly with similar commercial products.
5-109
-------
Actual application of composted sludge would be by
the individual consumer. It is not necessary to plow compost
into the soil; therefore, it is suitable for ornamental
vegetation and lawns. A consumer information program would
be needed to instruct users on maximum application rates,
etc.
Existing regulations on land application of sludge
do not specifically address retail sales. Once sludge
is sold, the municipal agency has little control over its
application. There appears to be no mandatory controls
that would prevent excessive or improper sludge applications
by private individuals on private land, as long as any
crops grown are not sold.
Land requirements for retail sales are essentially
the same as for other land application alternatives. Depending
upon how compost is used, a minimum of 6100 to 21,000 acres
(2500 to 8500 ha) would be required for application of all
of DWSD's sludge in 1980 with a total of 77,000 to 112,000
acres (31,000 to 45,000 ha) needed through 2000. These
acres would be greatly reduced if retail sales of compost
were combined with another disposal alternative so that
only part of the sludge would be sold.
A retail sales program would be oriented to the suburban
lawn and garden market. This would make use of land not
otherwise available to a municipal sludge spreading program.
Physical requirements of the land are the same as for other
land spreading alternatives.
The total amount of vegetated land in single-family
residential areas in urbanized portions of the study area
is approximately 220,000 acres (89,000 ha). Thus, it appears
that a significant potential market exists for retail sales
of composted sludge.
The environmental impacts of retail sales of composted
sludge are:
• Useful recycling of nutrients; and
• Possible heavy metals due to individual misuse.
This can be minimized by a consumer information
program.
In conclusion, it appears that a retail sales program for
composted sludge, while feasible, needs further development
work in two specific areas:
• Market analysis; and
• Consumer information.
5-110
-------
Therefore, retail sales will not specifically be analyzed
further, but will be considered a possible sub-alternative of
a land application program.
5.5.2.3 Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary landfilling was evaluated as a disposal method
for dewatered, dried, and composted sludges, ash and char.
Sanitary landfill design for sludge disposal is similar
to sanitary landfill design for other refuse. It was assumed
landfills would be constructed as follows (U.S.EPA, 1974):
Impervious liner;
Limited public access;
Waste layers not exceeding 2 feet thick;
Compaction of each layer, and covered by a minimum
of 6 inches of soil at the end of each working
day;
0 When landfill is completed, coverage with a minimum
of 2 feet of soil;
0 Suitable plant cover established to prevent erosion;
0 Monitoring of groundwater and surface waters for
heavy metals, persistent organics, pathogens,
and nitrates; and
0 Collection and treatment of leachate.
All sites would require monitoring and control of
runoff. Groundwater tables would, where necessary, have
to be lowered by drain fields. The MDNR regulates the
design, site preparation and operation of sanitary landfills
(State of Michigan, 1965). The U.S. EPA's draft guidelines
for sludge management also address sanitary landfills.
There are few natural limitations to the placement of
sanitary landfills. However, such features as low to moderate
slopes, adequate depth to groundwater, lack of flood hazards,
and availability of suitable cover soils are desirable.
Table 5.5-F presents the estimated land required to dispose
of each type of sludge to the year 2000.
It is assumed that the same areas could be used for each
type of sludge and that the same operational procedures could
be used. Vegetational loss, wildlife disruption, soil loss,
and population relocation are related to the land area that
must be cleared. Impacts on surface water quality relate to
soil loss and the quality of the sludge. Raw sludge, both
liquid and dewatered, would have the greatest impacts, as
it has the greatest potential for pathogens. The nitrate
levels of stabilized sludge and the potential for particulates
5-111
-------
Table 5.5-P
Estimated Land Requirements for
Landfilling of Sludge to the Year 2000
Sludge Characteristics
Dewatered, Raw**
Dewatered, Digested**
Dewatered, Lime Stabilized**
Dried
Ash
Char
Compost
Land Required
in 1980,
Acres*
51
37
64
34
13
13
150
Total Land Required
by Year 2000,
Acres*
1160
798
1450
750
320
320
3400
* 1 acre = 0.405 ha
** Dewatered sludge assumed 40 percent solids
5-112
-------
of dried sludge, ash and char to be carried by runoff water
results in a moderate level of impacts. Compost has reduced
pathogen levels and lower nitrogen and heavy metals concentrations
per unit of surface area when compared to the other sludge
conditions and would result in less potential hazard to
surface waters than dewatered sludge.
Groundwater should not be impacted if an impermeable
liner is used for the landfill. Nitrate is of the most
concern for leaching, as it readily contaminates groundwater
and causes health problems. Heavy metals from landfilled
sludges have not been found to be a problem for groundwater.
Sludge that has not been stabilized will have an offensive
odor, resulting in a significant adverse impact. Stabilized and
dried sludge, with only a minor odor during dry atmospheric
conditions, will have a stronger odor after a rain. Ash
and char have had all or most of the organic matter removed,
resulting in a negligible odor problem. The composting
process also results in a relatively odor-free product.
The impact on aesthetics is a combination of visual impacts
of the operation and odor impacts.
5.5.2.4 Trenching
Trenching is the equivalent of sanitary landfilling
for liquid sludges, and was evaluated for both raw and
stabilized liquid sludge.
Trenches were assumed to be 2 feet (0.6 m) wide and
5 feet (1.5 m) deep, filled with 2 feet (0.6 m) of liquid
sludge, and spaced at 6 feet (1.8 m) intervals; the lengths
of trenches would fit the site requirements. All trenches
would be recovered with the original soil material. Site
limitations for trenching are basically the same as for
sanitary landfilling.
Using the above design assumptions, the land required
for trenching all of the sludge produced to the year 2000
is 130,000 to 230,000 acres (54,000 to 93,000 ha), depending
upon whether sludge is stabilized.
Environmental impacts associated with trenching of
raw and stabilized sludge are similar to those listed under
sanitary landfill. Vegetational destruction, soil loss
and operational nuisances such as dust, noise, and odors
will occur. Groundwater may be affected as impermeable
liners are not normally used for trenching operations.
Nitrates in the sludge would be able to leach into the
water table. The higher pathogen level of raw sludge would
not be a major problem, as bacterial and viral transmittal
through the soil is minor. However, Ascaris (roundworm)
5-113
-------
eggs can survive in the soil for several years after intro-
duction. This would require monitoring of their concentration
in the sludge and the controlled use of the disposal site
to reduce the potential health hazard.
As moisture leaves the sludge, some settling of the
soil cover will occur. This may require some recontouring
of the site.
5.5.2.5 Sludge Disposal in Remote Drying Beds
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book XII) has proposed an alternative whereby
liquid sludge would be transported by pipeline to sludge dry-
ing beds located in Lake County, Michigan. Officials there
have been receptive to the idea as a means of increasing
employment in the area. U.S. EPA has awarded Lake County
officials a $100,000 grant to study the feasibility of
implementing this or other land disposal schemes in the
County.
Raw sludge would be pumped by a 250 mile (400 km)
pipeline from Detroit to Lake County, where it would be
stored in anaerobic lagoons for at least six months to
stabilize. The sludge would then be placed in drying
beds where most of the water content would drain through
sandy soils into the groundwater.
The design of the drying beds is regulated by MDNR
which follow the "Ten States Standards" for design guid-
ance. Some variance from these guidelines may be necessary
because of the nature of this alternative.
The facilities planning consultant has estimated that
the drying beds will require a total area of 2560 acres
(1036 ha) to hold sludge to the year 2000.
In order to determine the impact potential of this
alternative, four sections of land in Lake County, Michigan
identified by the facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book IX) were studied. These sections
located in Pere Marquette State Forest are representative
of the biota in the region, but are not necessarily the
sections that would be used should this alternative be
implemented.
During construction and preparation of the site, the
vegetation would be completely removed, stream re-routed
wildlife displaced, and the soil surface eroded. In the
sections of Webber Township in Lake County that are being
5-114
-------
used as an example, a well-established oak-pine forest
is present. The soil is sandy and plant growth indicated
excessively drained conditions. Trees are second growth
and do not appear healthy. Dense underbrush occurs in
some areas while others have been cleared and are being
reforested. Jack (Pinus banksiana), red (P. resinosa)
and Eastern white (P. strobus) pines are the dominant
confiers, while white (Quercu's alba) , and bur CQ. ellipsoidalis)
oaks are the major deciduous species. This forest type
is the habitat of Kirtland's Warbler, an endangered species.
Found in Lake County in the past, a survey is being made
by MDNR to determine if they are still present (F. Ignatoski,
Personal Communication, 1977). Fauna observed during field
investigations included a vulture, an unidentified species
of hawk, a whitetailed deer and various songbirds. Removal
of the vegetation would force the wildlife to migrate to
adjacent natural areas. Although a large section of land
is involved, it is not a unique habitat. A significant
portion of the county has this type of vegetation, much
of it in state or federal parks. Should subsequent study
discover any rare or endangered flora or fauna in the area,
modifications to this alternative will be necessary.
Re-routing of streams would have a major impact. The
streams are small, but re-routing would result in the loss of
aquatic biota downstream of the construction area from sedi-
mentation and loss of water. Depending on the number of
streams and their location, re-routing may result in diversions
of water from one stream to another. This could have a
significant impact for the downstream areas, especially
during periods of low flow.
Groundwater impacts will occur from drainage of the
sand beds. The nitrates contained in the sewage would
readily be carried with the liquid fraction to the groundwater
layers. The sandy soils found in Lake County would not
renovate the effluent effectively for nitrate removal.
Nitrate levels in the groundwater presently range from
0 to 3 ppm (Lake County, Health Department, Personal Communica-
tion, 1977). Adding any nitrates would degrade the existing
quality. Runoff from the lagoon site would be controlled,
resulting in negligible impacts to surface waters from
this source.
Relocation of families in the study area would result
in a moderate impact. Many homes are house trailers that
could be transported with relative ease. The population
density is low, further reducing the impacts.
5-115
-------
5.5.2.6 Industrial Reuse
The following section discusses the use of sludge
by industries as a fuel or a construction material. The
sludges considered for industrial reuse were:
• Fuel
dewatered sludge,
dried sludge,
char, and
compost; and
• Construction material
ash.
Sludge could be used as a fuel to produce steam or
electric power or could be used in an industrial fuel appli-
cation, such as coking. Use of sludge for coking could
be particularly advantageous because the Allied Chemical
Corporation operates large coke ovens near the DWWTP.
The primary disadvantages of sludge as an industrial fuel
are its low net heat value because of its water content
(dried sludge has a high heat value, but requires energy
for drying), its high ash content, heavy metals content,
and the variability of sludge properties. These disadvan-
tages are sufficient to eliminate from study the use of
sludge in coking ovens.
The inconsistent properties of sludge ash are a serious
disadvantage for use as a construction material. Industrial
users would require contractual commitments with respect
to both quality and quantity, and such commitments could
only be met in a limited manner by DWSD.
The environmental impacts associated with the use
of raw, stabilized dewatered or dried sludge, char or compost
as a fuel source would be similar to those described under
incineration and sanitary landfill. Burning would produce
an ash which would require disposal. Land requirements
for disposal of this ash would be the same as those for
sanitary landfill.
5.5.2.7 Land Reclamation
The purpose of using sludge to reclaim strip mines
or other denuded areas is to utilize the organic matter
and nutrients of the sludge to establish a suitable topsoil
which will permit natural vegetation to become re-established.
The vegetation, in turn, slows erosion, increases evapotranspir-
ation, and reduces acid mine drainage.
5-116
-------
The amount of land that could be reclaimed by using
DWSD's sludge can be estimated by assuming 3000 lb./ac
(3400 kg/ha) of nitrogen is required to restore strip mine
spoils to full productivity. This would be applied in
a one-time application of sludge, accompanied by regrading
as necessary and plowing the sludge into the spoils. Using
composted sludge, approximately 69,000 acres (28,000 ha)
of land could be restored.
The application of sludge to strip mines has adverse
and beneficial environmental impacts. The addition of
organic matter to the soil would have a beneficial impact,
as it would encourage plant growth which would act to reduce
erosion at the site. As these areas are not used for agri-
cultural purposes, higher loadings of sludge are possible.
The heavy metals would not be a concern for plant uptake.
To prevent problems from runoff to surface waters, a collec-
tion and drainage system would be desirable.
The amount of land available for reclamation within
the study area totals only 9400 acres (3800 ha). It is
not feasible to cross state boundaries with large quantities
of sludge because of implementation difficulties. Therefore,
using sludge for reclaiming strip mines will be considered
only as a limited sub-alternative of land application.
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book IX) also proposed using incinerator
ash to create artificial islands in Lake Erie or Lake St.
Clair. These islands would be used for recreational purposes,
Assuming a typical near-shore lake depth of 10 feet (3.0 m),
allowing 10 feet (3.0 m) for lake bottom soils consolidation
and an island height of 15 feet (4.6 m), about 90 acres (36
ha) of islands could be created by the year 2000.
Building islands of incinerator ash in lakes may have
a significant impact on aquatic biota. The amount of ash
to be disposed of would result in a significant loss of
lake area, as well as natural shoreline. The native biota
would be lost, although some may be replaced by growth
along the sides of the cofferdams. The greatest potential
for impact would result from a storm rupturing the dam,
spilling the heavy metal concentrated in the ash into the
lake. This would have a significant adverse impact on
lake biota.
The disposal of sewage sludge in oceans by similar
means as proposed here have been prohibited by U.S. EPA.
Many of the reasons for that action are also applicable
here.
5-117
-------
The water quality standards of the International
Joint Commission, navigable water requirements and storms
all combine to make this alternative not feasible.
5.5.2.7 Co-Disposal
Detroit Edison Power Company disposes of approximately
1,600,000 tons per year (1.5 x 10^ kg/yr) of residuals,
principally ash and fly ash, at four landfill sites. They
are already searching for additional disposal sites because
more coal will be used in the future in lieu of gas or
oil. Sludge ash would add another 500 average tons per
day (454,000 kg/day) to disposal quantities (see table
5.5-C) and would add additional quantities of heavy metals.
For these reasons, Detroit Edison was not interested in
disposing of the DWSD's ash.
Dewatered and stabilized sludge, dried sludge, compost,
ash or char could be landfilled along with municipal refuse.
Solid wastes generated in the study area total about
9000 tons per day (8.1 x 106 kg/day). The addition of
the sludge generated at the wastewater treatment plant
would increase the landfill requirements 10 to 40% depending
on the nature of the sludge (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book XII). Existing landfills within the study area
have a remaining useful life of only three to five years,
which could be reduced to as little as two years if sludge
is added. Procedures for landfilling a mixture of sludge
and refuse would differ from refuse landfilling only in
that an impermeable liner is not necessarily required for
refuse alone. Disposal of dewatered or dried sludge or
compost with municipal refuse may result in odor and leaching
problems not normally associated with refuse landfills.
Economy of scale, and improved handling properties of the
refuse/sludge mixture could result in lower costs. Imple-
mentation of a co-disposal alternative would require formation
of a regional solid waste disposal agency. Although co-
disposal of sludge and municipal refuse does not appear
feasible at this time because of the shortage of sanitary
landfills, sludge could utimately be considered in planning
solid waste disposal for the region.
Disposal of sludge incinerator ash or pyrolysis char
with industrial fly ash would result in one sanitary landfill
instead of two. However, the required amount of land in any
one place would be larger than the constituents of the in-
cinerator ash may differ enough from fly ash to require
different control systems.
5-118
-------
5.5.2.8 Co-Incineration with Municipal Refuse
Three of the four municipal refuse incinerators in
the City of Detroit have been shut down since 1970 as the
result of stricter air pollution laws. The fourth is
utilized only for processing pathological wastes (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IX). Thus, any co-incineration
alternative would require construction of entirely new in-
cineration facilities or costly improvements of the existing
ones for the combined sludge and refuse. This would con-
stitute a new source of particulates in an area already
designated as an air quality maintenance area. Co-incineration
is, therefore, rejected on the basis of air pollution impacts.
Besides impacts associated with air pollution, other
environmental impacts to be considered are the landfill
requirements needed for the ash produced by the incineration
process. The characteristics of the product may be sufficiently
different from municipal refuse to require a different design
system. The impacts to be expected in landfill were previously
discussed.
5.5.2.9 Export from the Region
The alternative of exporting sludge from the Great
Lakes region presumes that the importer would have a beneficial
use for the sludge, such as land application or industrial
reuse. Chicago currently exports sludge to Florida and
Texas for use in orange groves, but this is not feasible
for Detroit's situation because of the high heavy metal
content of the sludge. The facilities planning consultant
was not able to identify any other importers of sludge,
and this alternative was eliminated from further consider-
ation.
5.5.2.10 Contract Hauling
The present system of contract hauling of ash places
responsibility for disposal on entities other than the DWSD.
There are not assurances that the hauler will dispose of
the ash in an environmentally sound manner. Contract hauling
would, therefore, be acceptable only as an institutional
alternative for implementing a disposal method discussed
previousely.
The environmental impacts of these alternatives would
depend upon the disposal method. Impacts for the various
methods available have been discussed in Section 5.5.
5-119
-------
5.6 Evaluation of Residuals Management Alternatives
5.6.1 Sludge Processing and Disposal
Sections 5.4 and 5.5 consisted of all the possible sludge
processing and disposal alternatives that were presented and
initially screened to determine their feasibility. In many
cases, this initial screening eliminated all but one of the
alternatives, or based on engineering judgment, one was chosen,
This section will serve as a final evaluation for those por-
tions of the sludge systems which are considered feasible.
A total of five major alternatives with three sub-
alternatives remain feasible systems for sludge processing
and disposal:
• Land applications of composted sludge:
• Sanitary landfilling of composted sludge:
• Digestion of liquid sludge in remote anaerobic
lagoons and disposal on sludge drying beds;
• Pyrolysis with disposal of char in a sanitary land-
fill;
• Incineration Alternative #5 Mandated Construction;
• Incineration Alternative #7 Combustion Modification
to All Three Complexes; and
• Incineration Alternative #9 Combustion Modifications
to Complexes I and II; No Construction of Complex
III and Composting with Land Application for
Excess Sludge.
Each of these alternative systems have different costs,
energy, and environmental impacts which will be evaluated
in detail in this section. A detailed description of each
of these systems is presented as follows.
5.6.1.1 Land Application of Composted Sludge
Under this alternative, sludge incineration would
be abandoned and all sludge would be composted and applied
to agricultural lands. For preliminary analysis, it was
assumed that half of the compost would be used for growing
corn and cover crops, and half would be used for sod farms.
Using the maximum allowable compost application rates based
on nitrogen and heavy metals limitations and assuming that
no industrial pretreatment will occur during the planning
period, it is estimated that a minimum of 14,000 ac (5700
ha) would be needed for land application in 1980 and that
83,000 ac (34,000 ha) would ultimately be needed by the
year 2000. Acreage receiving compost would average 21,000
ac (8500 ha) each year. By comparison, 215,000 ac (87,000
ha) in the study area are used for agriculture.
5-120
-------
For cost and energy analysis, it was postulated that
two composting sites would be needed to serve areas west
and north of the study area; one in Brandon Township, 45
miles from the DWWTP, and another in Canton Township, 25
miles from the DWWTP. It must be emphasized that these
are only preliminary locations selected so that reasonable
estimates can be made of costs and energy impacts of this
alternative. By the year 2000, each site would be 200
acres (81 ha) in size and would process 532 tons/day (483,000
kg/day) of dewatered sludge into 766 tons/day (699,000
kg/day) of compost. Site design would use the aerated
pile process developed at Beltsville, Maryland (Colacicco
and Christensen, 1976). This process uses perforated
plastic pipes connected to blowers to draw air through
piles of sludge and wood chips (the wood chips are used
to add bulk). The composted sludge is reported to be sta-
bilized and essentially pathogen-free after 21 days in
the pile (Epstein et al., 1976). The compost is then spread
out to dry, and stored for 30 days to remove any remaining
offensive odors. Finally, the compost is screened to re-
cycle part of the wood chips. Each site would include
stormwater runoff controls to retain stormwater for gradual
discharge to sewers.
Hauling costs would be extremely high because the
DWWTP is located far from the agricultural areas. Capital
costs of composting comprise only 15 percent of total costs.
Unit costs of this alternative are $83 per ton of sludge,
as shown in Table 5.6-A. Municipal usage and consumer sales
and pickup could partially defray these costs.
5.6.1.2 Sanitary Landfilling of Composted Sludge
This alternative would use the composting process
to stabilize raw dewatered sludge before placing it in
a sanitary landfill. Because of the large areas required
for the composting and landfill operations, it was assumed
that both the composting site and the sanitary landfill
would be located in Brandon and Oxford Townships, approximately
45 miles from the DWWTP. Again, it must be emphasized
that this is only a preliminary selection to allow cost
and energy comparison of sludge disposal alternatives.
Dewatered sludge would be hauled to a single large
composting site 400 (162 ha) acres in size. Design of
this site would be similar to those two sites described
for land application of compost, but it would be as large
as both sites combined.
5-121
-------
TABLE 5.6-A
Estimated Unit Costs and Energy Consumption
of Sludge Processing and Disposal Alternatives
Alternative (1)
Land application of
composted sludge
Sanitary landfilling of
composted sludge
Cost Per Dry Ton
of Sludge (2)
$83
80
Digestion of liquid sludge
in remote anaerobic lagoons
and disposal on sludge
drying beds 54.72
Pyrolysis with disposal of
char in a sanitary landfill 64
Incineration Alternative #5:
(Mandated construction) PC-400
on Complex I, tall stacks, and
Complex III as designed, with
disposal of ash in a sanitary
landfill 99
Incineration Alternative #7:
Combustion air modifications to
all incinerators, PC-400 type
scrubbers on Complexes I & II,
scrubbers as designed on Complex
III, disposal of ash in a
sanitary landfill 63
Incineration Alternative #9:
Combustion air modifications and
PC-400 type scrubbers on Complexes
I and II for 1051 tpd of sludge;
land application of 13 tpd com-
posted sludge; no construction
of Complex III 51
Energy Consumption
Per Dry Ton of
Sludge (BTU/Ton)
1,300,000
1,900,000
7,000,000
1,100,000
8,700,000
1,100,000
1,100,000
(1) All alternatives, except for liquid sludge disposal,
include vacuum filters.
(2) Based on 1064 tpd, dry weight of sludge.
5-122
-------
Assuming a compacted density of 40 Ib./cu. ft. (640
kg/m3) for compost, approximately 8300 cu. yd/day (6300
m3/dl) of landfill volume will be required by the year
2000. Design of this landfill would include an impermeable
liner, compost stacked in five layers of 2 feet (0.6 m)
each, separated by 6 inches (0.15 m) of covered material,
and a final layer of 1.5 feet (0.5 m) of compacted cover
material. With this configuration, the landfill will cover
3400 acres (1400 ha) by the year 2000.
Costs of sanitary landfilling of composted sludge
are shown in Table 5.6-A. The unit cost of this alternative
is $80 per dry ton.
5.6.1.3 Digestion of Liquid Sludge in Remote Anaerobic
Lagoons and Disposal on Sludge Drying Beds
This alternative would use a pipeline to transport
sludge from the DWWTP to Lake County, Michigan for further
processing and disposal. Lake County was chosen because
of their interest previously shown in land disposal schemes,
and their desire to generate employment opportunities.
The pipeline would be 20 inches (0.5 m) in diameter
and 250 miles (400 km) long, with a flow time of approximately
four days from Detroit to Lake County. About 50 in-line
sludge pumping stations would be required.
The site tentatively selected for evaluation purposes
in Lake County is comprised of Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8
of Township 18 North, Range 13 West, located in the northwest
corner of Webber Township. This land is part of the Pere
Marquette State Forest. At the end of the pipeline, the
raw liquid sludge would be distributed to one of 16 lined
anaerobic lagoons about 30 feet (9 m) deep, and stored
for at least six months. After this retention period,
the sludge will overflow to sludge drying beds. The site
plan is shown in Figure 5.6-A.
In the drying beds, water in the sludge will be lost
through evaporation, or seepage to groundwater. Evaporation
losses will then be approximately equal to pan evaporation
rates less rainfall, and would account for a net average
loss of 0.1 mgd (400 m3/c3ay) Or 2 percent of the sludge
water content. The remainder of the water can be expected
to eventually seep into the groundwater. Assuming an inor-
ganic nitrogen fraction of 0.5 percent dry weight in the
sludge, and neglecting any mineralization of organic nitrogen,
the inorganic nitrogen content of the leachate could approach
200 mg/1. Without extensive analysis, it is not possible
to determine the exact impacts of this leachate. It can
be concluded, however, that this alternative has (at least)
5-123
-------
SECTION
: © 2
<
s
LU
O
a
o
u.
1
TO DETROIT ?
" I
\
1 \
o SECTION^
en \2/ o
w z
UJ v-
§ \
^N
4 Af.'AE
LAGOON
MILLION 0
8 SLUDGE
BEDS-2,0<
SQUARE 1
8 ANAEROBIC
98,000,000
8 SLUDC
BEDS-2
SQUARE F
4 ANA
LAGOC
MILLION G
?OBIC
S - 115
ALS. EACH
DRYING
>0,000
:EET EACH
p LAGOONS
GALS. EACH
E DRYING
000,000
EET EACH
EROBIC
NS-II5
ALS. EACH
i
i
SECTION
©
i
s
CM
IT)
IT
O
LJ
_J
2
IMILE OR 5280'
SECTION
PROPOSED LAKE
COUNTY DISPOSAL
AREA SITE
LAYOUT
Figure r. fe-A
LEGEND
Y/////X
— s —
ADMINISTRATION/LABORATORY BLDG.
SLUDGE PIPELINE
GATE VALVE
TEE OR ELBOW
SECTION LINE
SECTION NUMBER
LAGOON DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
5-124
-------
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
SLUDGE
COAL
RECEIVING
PIT
(IF REQ'D)
COAL-
SLUDGE
BLEND
1
METHYL
ALCOHOL
PRODUCERS GAS
ACETIC
ACID
ACETONE
#6 TYPE FUEL OIL
CARBON
BLACK
FERTILIZER
BASE
CHARCOAL
I
BY PRODUCTS
™^P
STATIONARY
INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINE
Q]
1
j
1 1
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 ragd
(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
CGiffels/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 (953,000 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; 6,449,6'
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.
Negligible impact at land-
fill assuming proper oper-
ation. Collection of
Stormwater runoff at com-
post site.
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.
Impacts unlikely with
proper application tech-
niques. Collection of
Stormwater runoff from
compost site.
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.
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.
Pyre-lysis 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 alsc
be present in leachate.
Extent of leachate impacts
not known without further stuc
5-137
-------
Table 5.6-B
(continued)
Impact Categories
AQUATIC BIOTA
Loss of habitat
Changes in species com-
position due to runoff
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).
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.
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).
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
•i'arue 3. t>-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
ENERGY
Total equivalent energy
used BTU/ton dry sludge
Equivalent gallons #2
diesel fuel
Other resource commit-
ments
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.
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
COST
Unit cost dollars/dry
ton sludge (based on 1064
tons/day dry weight of
sludge)
Auxiliary fuel requirements
#2 diesel (gallons/yr).
Alt. #5 - 19,100,000
Alt. #7 - 51,700
Alt. #9 - 51,700
$51 to $99 per ton for 3
subalternatives
Alt. #5 - $99
Alt. #7 - $63
Alt. #9 - $51
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.
1,100,000
7.6
Powdered coal needed
to condition sludge and
provide initial energy for
pyrolysis.
$64/ton
5-140
-------
Compost and Landfill
Temporary disruption to
some wildlife at landfill.
Table 5.6-B
(continued)
Compost and Land
Application to Ag. Land
Minimal disruption to
agricultural land.
Anaerobic Lagoons and
Drying Beds
Potential disturbance
Kirtland's Warbler at
the Lake County site.
to
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
$55
5-141
-------
1
p»
in
W
CQ
EH
jjjj •; fi - i . si, *|i i *
~ Jiiss. 5i Ii: 1; |£ 5slS "si? Jssi ii 4
tu
« ^ M « ^ 1 . ^
5 * ^ ~ v £ ^ S S E » ?^.£ ( — 'e
w i S«l_.i*i l| Pi:
(« a ! 2 .?! js3 Is:s 5.t IIs-!;
-P "5 I* •?= ~il ~'=l i?- s"ls
§•1" il II a-titfl Jllllfi
> :
•0 E § s | S : s
10 1 . - £~ 1% *• =s -
3E 1 i *t 51 il I- 5
Q =f X £ f- It If Cx 5
* * 51 If j|i -f ?l f-s
W 0 -
rtl X o • **u^*
g1 i Ills I ill!
±> 1 II il ^ ^ i^i
C TS .s -^ 1- :^ tit
<$ ^s ^? 1s •?* ]c sis
> § SiS3Z3s**a>
< 1 . ' . = .! il
wi| ft i S ijiljjl.il ||| III \\
^ 1 IS, » ll Ji?I" S'| $t \~.~i\ *sl ii
•H S-i S» SS S-i-SS -5SS .!= S.!J_3 -SS-S "So
, I — — y ••* *• > > C ~ fc 5 y «* Ai «« 9 ? •• O y 0 » — •
•P a>* 2S JS 3-S£8 5!! 5i Hit 3-S J :
S • . * * i?
3 *. II |°l"5 ". jllll F?2 If *'l
c Bl II jll?l si Illli li!*lls!
H ijj
; s I-;L H 52*^i ^*i
^ * v o o •- "• — S* "8 * i" - ~ f * ^
E~ 1 3^j~£J* ^!T *"^i-I si**
!* Ilifiil^i i^l !i!«!ii!i
£
«
* V " *-
\ . 1 • i ; H i? *| il ?
t? 'I Sj ?1 "?*!. '"5
Ci 5 S- o ^ l"s SS J|_ ^X |-
"s ?H s it ]|? Is |*f || t|
ill III Isin«s«s5s
^
uj
;
riKinclnt Mdiuitwi lUnr M*4 fl*«^ettT
trt«d ttr»My «znt rtlUf
TIfht control ev»r B«n4t4 irWtktcdnctt
fiWtciftf li«iti in • ^r»b)t«
1!
It
n
ill
if?
111
Ii
!?,
72*
II!
i ,
S tt .-
IJ! 11
II iff III
5 *
— ^ x> 5 • S
1 •StS'E S
1 :-*???
is* r i
i«!i ?fj !
I- ' I £?5 : 5-
= l|f!| s||| jr
S52I5S JiiS 4!
fc.
^1
;£
f •; ^
ill
si!
s
«J
-: 5?
_s
-s Is
! «i
• ^ * u £
II ill
s
«!
If
J!
•!
i!
t i? ii
f j] j!
= Is "^.
Jl l| !l|
t ^
* • • e I
:• J5I i*
1 Jtl if.
•• 3*5 . ir?
Il i?!i *-!t
^
a!
43
II
t
^
5=
., E
W »
il
, s
! *$ I. i.
!! lil!!i!
|] §if |f If
» |.
•7 ? —
ii ??
J* IS
i= i<
».S k.5
^
^
;
s
]|
I--
S!
= ii
a a
— e
^* !! 1 s
JSiJl!
$
i
L
** e —
1 1*
1 Ir5
iiill
s
= s
i i
1 [
: s.
a I:
•
*
T:
:
i
i
t
J:
f s
-1
S?
~r
In
X
— ^ i
i| s*
*S iT
2? J ".
= ? 1^1
w*
52
u=
9
-rl
If II
il
1!
l?i
111
(
> • •
it;
=i*L
m|
Iiii
-is
• MO
tiS
*5^
=|f
lili
t ^
? *
_ ?
• •
sTI
jl|
=1!
•- «>
11
l«l ?U
• c
III
7- 5 -
I— *» V—
V.^-0 § > ^ »
e •»•>••
sll s^ ii
r:s ?i ^Vf
llJIilll
t » t
1^! Ill
ill »lf
jsi -l^r.
all! l5ll
::
r|
Iri
SS.S
r
• — * * c S
=s= isj
III
^,
I? ! =
Xr -J =
t^* I? U-
s** i" *f^
- " j „•? 4tt
i :i E • •? st
HS IS 1-1
=|
C2
5"
i
~
i
.2
^
t
1
i
5>
i
f
5
t
\
•
•£'
a;
ii
•^
j
r
J
2
~
a
u3
rf"
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
D; TNR and U'S> EPA ^PPendix 11.8) impounded
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 tcmk 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 O-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 Construc-
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 clarifiers' 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 (Fraser);
• 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
7-1
-------
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 Purnp 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 of Labor, 1977).
7-12
-------
7.1.11.2 Employment
The SFP 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 Introduction
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.
-------
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.
-------
8.0 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
i-4
-------
control could consist of such measures as site grading to
reduce runoff, revegetation of distrubed areas, runoff bar-
riers st the margins of disturbed areas, and timing large earth
moving activities during periods of low erosion hazard.
Buffer zones would protect surface water bodies from di-
rect impacts of the landfill, create visual amenities, and if
designed along public access, create a visual screen for the
landfill.
Relocation assistance for any displace residents is re-
quired by Federal Law. Assistance is in the form of financial
help to find habitation and employment if required. Adequate
notification of relocation and just, fair compensation for dis-
placed persons is also required.
Site restoration of distrubed areas would reduce erosion,
both wind and water caused, and provide aesthetic improvement.
Restoration could include grading to create visually conform-
ing landforms, planting of native vegetation including shrubs,
trees and grasses and placing topsoil as the final covering
over the landfill.
Proper operation and maintenance of the landfill would
reduce impacts by controlling dust, covering the ash promptly,
and reducing public health risks, and minimizing area disturbed
at any one time.
Daily covering of the ash would minimize the potential
of public health risks due to exposed ash. The potential for
erosion and transport of the ash would be similarly reduced.
The last or final layer of ash in any compartment would re-
ceive a significantly thicker soil covering. This top layer
of soil would then be a substantial medium for planted and
native vegetation to grow.
An impermeable liner would be installed to protect ground-
water. The impermeable liner would prevent leachate from the
landfill percolating into the groundwater. If necessary the
leachate could be collected and treated prior to discharge.
Restoration of the landfill site(s) after completion of
operations could create an open space resource for the region.
Final site restoration could include planting trees, grading
irregularities to create visual differences, and recreational
use plans. Ultimate use of landfill sites could be parks,
golf courses, passive recreations, etc.
8.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The recommended plan of improvements and modifications
to the DWSD wastewater system will cause minimal adverse im-
pacts to the Detroit metropolitan area. Few of the primary
impacts can be avoided, however, the mitigating measures
i-5
-------
described in Section 8.1 will reduce the severity of the im-
pacts. The impacts of the recommended plan and their severity
have been described in Chapter 7.0. The following discussion
summarizes the primary and secondary impacts from collection
and treatment and residuals processing and disposal. For con-
venience, the collection and treatment impacts are separated
from the residuals processing and disposal impacts.
8.2.1 Collection and Treatment
8.2.1.1 Primary Impacts
Adverse impacts resulting from the recommended treatment
and collection plan are primarily a result of construction.
Topography at the tunnel access sites, at the DWWTP, and at
the site of the one CSO demonstration control structure will
be modified during construction. Soil erosion damage at these
sites may also result in sediment deposition in rivers and
local streams and subsequent water quality degradation. Sus-
pended sediment in stormwater runoff that flows into sewers
will impact the collection system and the wastewater treat-
ment facilities. The spoil from the tunneled sewer excava-
tions will have a major impact on the fcepography of the selec-
ted site (Section 7.1.2).
Destruction of vegetative cover during construction, in-
cluding grasses, shrubs, and trees, will adversely impact ur-
ban wildlife habitats. Construction machinery will cause lo-
cal air quality degradation from increased particulates, hy-
drocarbons, carbon dioxide, and also cause compaction of soil.
Dust, noise, traffic disruption, and vibrations from tunneled
sewer excavation are short-term nuisances from construction.
Access sites for the tunnel sewer construction will cause
changes in existing land use. Two proposed access sites are
recreational land, one access site is near a hospital, and
two potential access sites are recreational land. At and
adjacent to the access sites construction will be disrupting
and disturbing. Temporary inconvenience to transportation
and access to facilities and services will result from con-
struction of the recommended collection improvements. Tunneled
sewers may, in some areas, reach below the groundwater table.
Contamination of groundwater during and after construction
from exfiltration may occur.
With few exceptions, the primary adverse impacts from the
proposed collection and treatment system will be short-term.
If the proposed mitigating measures are not implemented, some
short-term impacts may become long-term.
8.2.1.2 Secondary Impacts
The recommended plan will not provide additional sewer-
age service to the study area. Therefore secondary impacts
8-6
-------
are not anticipated to be significant. Limited local develop-
ment may occur with or without the recommended plan improve*-
ments and modification.
8.2.2 Residuals Processing and Disposals
8.2.2.1 Primary Impacts
The primary impacts of residuals disposal will be long-
term and result from project operation rather than project
construction. Air quality at the DWWTP will improve slight-
ly. Approximately 260 acres (104 ha) are needed in a rela-
tively undeveloped location for the landfill disposal of in-
cinerator ash. Soil structure at the landfill site will be
permanently disrupted and heavy metals, nutrients, and salts
will concentrate. Denuded portions of the landfill site will
suffer soil erosion and associated aesthetic detriments al-
though restoration and mitigating measures will reduce these
impacts. The topography at the site will be changed, modify-
ing runoff patterns. Aesthetics of the area will be changed
by operation of the landfill. Land use changes at the land-
fill site will eliminate existing residences. This impa,ct
is significant to the households concerned, although it is
an insignificant land use change on a regional or county wide
basis. Unknown archaeological artifacts at the landfill site
may be uncovered during landfill operations.
8.2.2.2 Secondary Impacts
The completed landfill may be utilized as a recreation
area. The recreation use could cause limited service develop-
ment as a secondary impact. No other secondary impacts have
been identified as a result of the recommended plan.
8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
The following discussion summarizes the adverse effects
that the proposed project will have on the beneficial use of
the environment by permanently committing land, construction
materials, and biological, human, and economic resources.
These resource commitments have been separated into primary
and secondary commitments.
8.3.1 Primary Resource Commitments
Land necessary for the landfill site cannot be used for
other purposes during the life of the project. Rights-of-way
which are not located along highways will restrict land use
activities across them to agricultural, recreational or open
space.
Labor will be irreversibly committed to the construction
and operation of the system. A partial list of materials and
natural resources required include rock, concrete, steel, glass,
putty, clay, wood, plastic and asbestos compounds. Seeds and
8-7
-------
plants will be required for landscaping disturbed areas.
Operation of the system will require chlorine for effluent
disinfection, chemicals, and fossil fuels to generate the
electricity required to operate the DWWTP including inciner-
ation and disposal of residuals.
8.3.2 Secondary Resource Commitments
No discernible commitment of regional resources is an-
ticipated as a result of secondary impacts. Secondary im-
pacts are a result of urbanization, not the recommended plan
(by definition, secondary impacts are those related to in-
duced growth). The rate, character and direction of urban
development will not be affected by the recommended plan.
Extensions of service areas and/or increasing capacity of the
treatment plant is not recommended, effectively restricting
secondary impacts of the plan.
Changing environmental situations may necessitate flexi-
bility in the recommended plan within the planning period.
Flexibility in the operation and maintenance of the collection,
treatment, and disposal systems may be needed for the follow-
ing circumstances:
• Future upgrading of treatment requirements may dictate
expanding the treatment plant or abandoning it in
favor of a more economical solution. Therefore,
proposed facilities may have to be altered signifi-
cantly during the financing period:
• Accommodation to changes in the availability and cost
of fuel as energy demands increase and fossil fuel
supplies decrease; and
• The use of land application of sludge or liquid effluent
for nutrient recovery if fertilizers become too cost-
ly or scarce.
8.4 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environ-
ment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity
The recommended plan for the DWSD system will reduce the
rate of environmental degradation and provide facilities for
the enhancement of long-term growth and productivity of the
Detroit Metropolitan area. The costs of the project, the
short-term environmental disruption and the long-term commit-
ment of limited resources are believed necessary. The total
cost of the plan is less than the cost of the 1975 facilities
plan rejected by U.S. EPA.
By optimizing the facilities and correcting current de-
ficiencies, the recommended plan makes maximum use of existing
buildings and processes. Adherence to discharge permits and
8-8
-------
emission standards will minimize the adverse effects of dis-
persing waste water and residuals to the environment. The
sewage treatment facilities will have capacity to treat pro-
jected wastewater flows during the planning period. The indi-
vidual pieces of equipment have a life expectancy equal to or
greater than their financing period. Operation and mainte-
nance of the facilities is required but these costs will be
supported by annual user charges. Facilities which are not
needed during the planning period have not been recommended.
The recommended plan does not foreclose on future options.
In fact, the proposed plan requires an investigation of future
alternatives for sludge disposal. If, for example, sludge
composting becomes feasible in the future, the existing in-
cinerators may be abandoned. The final facilities plan in-
cludes a CSO study and a storm water management plan.
8.5 Summary
Chapter 8 presents mitigating measures which, if imple-
mented, will ameliorate some adverse impacts of the recommend-
ed plan. Unavoidable adverse impacts are summarized accord-
ing to primary or secondary and short or long-term effects of
the plan. Primary and secondary resource commitments are
listed. Long-term benefits of the recommended plan are weighed
against the short-ter use of man's environment.
8-9
-------
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
Missouri River Division
Ohio River Division
North Central Division
Army Engineer, Lower Mississippi River Valley
Division
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Army Engineer,
Army Engineer,
Army Engineer,
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 (MDNR). 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. Glair. 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.
Parrel, 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.
, 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
-------
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, Iq77
(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.
Ill, 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
Obliquaria 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
-------
£. 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
N_. ariommus, Popeye Shiner
1£. boops, Bigeye Shiner
N_. buchanani, Ghost Shiner
N_. dorsalis, Bigmouth Shiner
N^. emiliae, Pugnose Minnow
N_. 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
Anunocrypta pellucida, Northern Sand Darter
Etheostoma exile, Iowa Darter
E_. nigrum eulepis, Scaly Johnny Darter
Percina copelandi, Channel Darter
P_. evides, Gilt Darter
P_. shumardi, River Darter
Stizostedion canadense, Sauger
S_. vitreum glaucum, Blue Pike
Cottus bairdi. Mottled Sculpin
C_. ricei, Spoonhead Sculpin
Myoxocephalus guadricornus,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 F0 A (n) + Fi 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 + Fi
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) + [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 lo9/FZm
AH = Min — 5.60 x 10^/FCu Equation 4
2.24 x 108/FNi
2.24 x 107/Tcd
where
AH = Maximum amount of sludge, kg/ha, which. can be applied,
based on heavy metals limitations
FZm> FCU» FNJ., 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 .
1 1 _T3
-------
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 pn 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., 1976). This results in the following
limitation:
Amax <_ 2.24 x 106/Fcd Equation 5
Maximum Sludge Application Rates
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 (1) = L (1) A (1) [Equation 5a]
S (2) = L (1) A <2) + L (2) A (1) [Equation 5b]
S (3) = L (1) A (3) + L (2) + L (3) A (1) [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
Calculate
Amax(n)
(Eq.2 or 5)
Calculate
Total
Application
Terminate
Calcula-
tion
Calculate
Ns(n+1)
(Eg. 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 kg/ha.y
0.15
0.03
Calculations;
Maximum Total Application, AH
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) = IS (2) - L (1) A (2)]/A (1) [Equation 6b]
L (3) = [S (3) - L (1) A (3) - L (2) A (2}]/A (1)
L (n) =
S (n) ~"Z* (L (n-i) A U+l) /A (1) [Equation 6d]
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
-------
o
u to
C E
nj (LJ
0 0
Q>
P*
>J
4J
-H
O
rfl
a
fd
tr> "*"*
c ^*
-H *"
ij C
W 4
-.-1
X "^
W ^
0
10
o
D-J
H
P4
W
a
u
0
VI
fi,
•H
c;
CD
t
0) - |
w ** -p vi n (-; i
M W C 0) CJ G I/)
U» 0* M M d) — Cf Vl 4-> •«-* t
5 -C» 5 m K C C 0 u) -O C
•HaJRjOr a o o "w >i M.
(UO -H -H r-4
rH rH n e
i! n xo
4J O
•O 13 O -
fl) 3 O rH
-P 4J rH
13 O O -P
H i3 t > 13
•tJ rH X W
a) 13 -P 01
X O« -H X >*
-r< 3 S 13 rH
E M-l H rH .P
-.H 10 <3 -H
rH M X rH OH
r3 p O *3 -H u» .
o c: 13 o cm
-H 01 n -H 13 t) rH
.p o • c x 0 «i
n in u n) o c c
>OE Xto Ecirj
rH 3 0) rH X
CO«MO. coe cooo
rH • 1
13 Vl -P -H
> 0) O C -P
O tn "M >3 Vl
E Vj rH -O 13
0) nJ >i D* C • O*
n x -p >, c
CC C3 tnO> rj>
c3 13 0) O flj *n <1) OJ
n vi x» x n c:
Cp-UinoJX o Qi O
C -H -P tj -P O) O M
O*tj»tt> r*^ OO> OOfJ
§-r-i O O Br< EtlH
*4-IJ3r4rH 0)13 13
0) >
>• Cr» t^ o
id 3 --H o
doc 0.
-^ l/J CJ
•r\ 3 lj -,-|
rH a o n
o « in o
* 11-32
in -
•u in >i
•H Cl M rH
rH -H WOO C
in c o o p. c u
o x >i 3 -r< in c
ra-H^o -o-P-Ho
o o a» ^^ *H (3 o
S£ > O -H M 10 rH O
*O O rf* O ^* X *H i *
OEVD* to M
J-l *W -i *n o T 3 4-* o
C H^rH nJV4OM4J »O
•0 3 r^- o »H .3 fc O "^^ J-4 *O
4-*' W\Q£>i-| 3l/>COt>^4.f^tJ'
O"fO „. o m rJrH
OOMltr-ltp M-HII*HDintP
C JJ *U 4-* *- f O J * Q} 4-* .-? Vl -»H
C-) Ifl O V< O -H O rl O -^ -H 0
rH^H«H e r,H
o o in (3
01 in -a i> no
> "O -r4 » rH rH
O -H > S O -P "w
E rH O O rH D
0» O 14 rH rH Ol O
U in tu «« cs in .W
^j
r:
0) C
b <3
Cl rd
H 0
H ^j
>• -r<
r3 <3
E -<
H 0
a.