FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DETROIT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM:
SEGMENTED
FACILITIES PLAN
PROPOSED BY
DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
DETROIT WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT
AND
EcolSc iences, inc.
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
H West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, ft 60604-3590
Valdas v7 Adamkus;
Acting Regional
U.S. Environments^ Protection Agency
-Ranters
roit Water
iwerage Department
September 1978
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page No,
Cover Sheet i
Table of Contents iii
Summary 1
Summary of Proposed Action 3
Summary of Alternatives Considered 5
Summary of Impacts of Proposed Action 7
Public Hearing Comments and Responses to Review
Agencies 14
Appendix A 81
Draft EIS (not included) 83
List of Preparers 85
111
-------
SUMMARY
( ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
1. Name of Action
Administrative (x)
Legislative ( )
2. The applicant's proposed action involved federal financial
assistance for the upgrading and expansion of the existing
Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) to a capacity
of 1050 million gallons per day (mgd). The proposed action
also includes expansion of the associated collection system.
Federal financing is requested under the statutory authority
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500).
The facilities planning consultant estimates that the pro-
posed action will cost $514 million. Average annual oper-
ation and maintenance costs of the facilities are estimated
at $36 million.
3. The recommended plan proposes that the existing regional
wastewater treatment plant be upgraded to provide for
optimum operation of facilities. Plant capacity would be
sufficient to treat an average daily flow of 600 mgd with
a 48 hour sustained peak flow of 1050 mgd. The plant will
continue to use the activated sludge process to provide
secondary treatment and ferrous chloride or another chemical
to precipitate phosphorus in the primary or secondary clari-
fiers. Sludge processing will continue to include mechanical
dawatering of raw sludge followed by incineration. Final
disposal of the fly ash in approved landfill sites is
recommended.
The recommended plan also outlines changes which will be
required to improve operation and maintenance procedures.
Financing and management changes are included as well as
modifications to existing contracts and ordinances.
4. The majority of the environmental impacts of the plan are
related to the construction process. Major construction
project cannot be undertaken in an urban setting without
some disruption to the local residents. The construction
impacts will be localized near the plant and at the
access points of the tunnel interceptors.
-------
Sludge processing will have major impact on the environ-
ment. The incinerators will meet stack emission standards
and reduce the plant's contribution to the air quality
problems in the region. Because of its size, the landfill
site will be a major impact, but proper mitigating measures
can greatly reduce the severity of these impacts.
5. Information used in this EIS was solicited from federal,
state, and local agencies as well as the public and local
organizations. A list of parties receiving a copy of the
Draft EIS is listed in Appendix A.
-------
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed plan is a result of an involved process.
The Overview Plan and Environmental Assessment (OP/EA), 1977,
presented a recommended plan on which a hearing was held during
July, 1977. Concurrent with the OP/EA, a court suit was filed
which led to a Consent Judgment plan. The proposed plan as
set forth in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the
Segmented Facilities Plan (SFP) is a concensus plan developed
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department (DWSD), their consultants, and the Federal
Court.
Treatment Facilities
Optimization of existing facilities is the alternative
recommended for action. This action included continued construction
of the secondary treatment facilities plus rehabilitation of
pump/grit units and controls, flow metering devices, primary
sludge pumping and piping, final clarifiers, chlorine feed systems,
secondary filtered effluent system, solids handling system,
vacuum filters, incinerators, polymer and ferrous chloride systems,
plus supplementary ferric chloride feed.
Collection System
Collection system construction within Detroit would be for
the relief of combined sewers during stormwater conditions.
Construction in the suburban collection system would include
the Mt. Clemens Arm and parts of the Lake Shore and Richmond
Arms. Additionally, interceptor reliefs have been proposed by
the facilities planning consultant.
Residuals Disposal
Residuals include treatment plant sludge, grit, screenings,
and scum and grease. The proposed action recommends continuation
of the present disposal methods for grit and screenings (landfill),
and scum and grease (incineration and landfill of ash).
Incineration is recommended for processing of the sludge,
with ultimate disposal of the ash in landfills. When incinerator
(contract CS 400) modifications are completed and Sludge
Complexes I and II are upgraded to 1981, the capacity will
accommodate the sludge produced from dry weather flows through
the year 2000.
Management
In order to satisfactorily maintain and operate the treatment
plant, certain management changes are recommended as grant
conditions for DWSD. A definition of the chain of command
-------
within DWSD is necessary to ensure proper operation of sewerage
systems. Staffing at the plant and the training of treatment
plant operators must be upgraded to provide an adequate level
of skill to properly run the system. The ongoing training pro-
gram will partially satisfy the need for skilled employees.
The procurement system for parts must be changed to allow for
rapid repair of machinery. These changes would facilitate
proper operation and maintenance of the treatment plant.
Legal and Institutional
It is recommended that suburban contracts be renegotiated
to reflect the actual needs of the communities and the capacity
of the treatment plant. This would allow better control over
industrial flows and the development of cost recovery and user
charge systems.
-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Summary of Treatment and Collection Alternatives
A number of collection and treatment components were
reviewed including those required in the facilities planning
process, such as land application of liquid effluent and a
UC/ICR system. Components were then organized into workable
treatment and collection system alternatives. Four major
categories of system alternatives were synthesized: a) No
Action Alternatives, b) Optimization Alternatives, c) Major
Additions to Existing System Alternatives, and d) Unconven-
tional Systems Alternatives. Several alternatives were
evaluated within each category. A screening process based
on major engineering aspects, costs, and human and environ-
mental impacts was used to select feasible alternatives.
Four feasible treatment and collection system alterna-
tives were carefully evaluated in more detail than the pre-
vious analysis. Alternative A2b involved mandated construc-
tion at the existing plant but no upgrading of existing
facilities. Effluent quality would not meet NPDES permit
levels but evaluation of a no action alternative is required
in the facilities planning process. Alternative B2 involved
mandated construction at the existing plant plus any further
construction necessary to bring the DWWTP to design capacity.
Alternative C2b included optimization at design capacity, as
in Alternative B2, plus a new pumping station of 2,400 mgd
(9,084,000 mVd) which would expand preliminary treatment
capacity at the main plant to 2,730 mgd (10,333,050 m3/d).
Alternative D3 replaced conventional secondary treatment
at the DWWTP with a split chemical/physical treatment.
Secondary effluent standards would be met with this combin-
ation of processes.
The four feasible alternatives were compared and ranked
on the basis of environmental impacts, costs, and annual
energy consumption. Alternative A2b was dropped from con-
sideration because of non-compliance with PL 92-500. The
remaining three alternatives met water quality standards.
Alternative B2 had lower costs than the other two options.
Alternatives C2b and D3 counterbalanced higher costs with a
slight improvement in water quality along some points of the
River Rouge. Alternative D3 was the most energy efficient
system.
Various alternatives for the NI-WA were considered
but a decision was made by U.S. EPA, Region V, that in-
sufficient information was available to properly evaluate
those options. Final resolution of the NI-WA will be made
in the final facilities plan.
-------
Summary of Residuals Processing and Disposal Alternatives
Residuals processing and disposal components were reviewed
separately until the final evaluation phase. Individual unit
operations for residuals processing were described and briefly
evaluated in terms of optimizing the performance of the existing
DWWTP and/or a new 50 mgd (189,000 m3/d) installation. Engin-
eering input from the facilities planning consultants, in the
form of unit costs or recommendations, was included in some
but not all cases. Component alternatives for residuals dis-
posal were discussed in relation to processed sludge charac-
teristics. Consideration was given to all federal regulations
regarding specific disposal choices, such as land application
and sanitary landfill.
The screening phase evaluated residuals processing com-
ponents on environmental, cost, and engineering criteria.
Screening of residuals disposal alternatives took into con-
sideration sludge quantities from various processing alter-
natives and the composition of the waste material. Certain
sludge characteristics are necessary for the optimal operation
of a disposal alternative. Some processing and disposal com-
ponents were eliminated during this screening. Unit processes
which were most suitable to Detroit's situation were combined
into feasible processing systems and then matched to an appro-
priate disposal method.
Five major alternatives with three subalternatives were
evaluated as feasible systems for sludge processing and disposal:
• Land application 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 landfill;
• Incineration alternative #7 (Combustion Modification
to All Three Complexes) with landfill of ash; and
• Incineration Alternative #9 (Combustion Modifications
to Complexes I and II, No Construction of Complex III),
Composting with Land Application of Excess Sludge,
and Landfill of remaining ash.
Detailed descriptions and evaluations were conducted for
each system alternative on the basis of cost energy require-
ments, and environmental impacts, particularly land require-
ments. Evaluation and ranking demonstrated that Incineration
Alternative #9 (see above) had the lowest costs, land require-
ments, energy inputs, and also provided the greatest flexibility
for future needs.
-------
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
Beneficial Impacts
The major beneficial impact of the proposed plan is
that the DWWTP will provide secondary treatment and a phos-
phorus effluent concentration of 1 mg/1 for all dry weather
flows and some wet weather flows. The DWWTP will be in com-
pliance with its staged NPDES permit. Loadings of phenols
and other toxic chemicals will decrease as treatment improves
and the industrial monitoring and pretreatment requirements
are implemented. Interceptor modifications and relief sewers
will increase transport of combined sewage from the City of
Detroit to the DWWTP. Basement flooding will be reduced by
interceptor improvements in some areas. Reduced phosphorus
loadings to the Detroit River may contribute to a decrease
in production in the western basin of Lake Erie over the
long term.
Incineration modification and improvements will reduce
the particulate and putrescible solids contribution to the
region's airshed. Requirements for supplemental incinerator
fuel will be reduced by the incinerator modifications.
Jobs will be created by the construction of the needed
facilities. The unemployment rate in the City of Detroit
could be reduced by as much as 2.6% by the multiplier effect
of the construction. Operations and maintenance staffing
has and will increase to operate and maintain the proposed
facilities.
Adverse Impacts
The recommended plan of improvements and modifications
to the DWSD wastewater system will cause minimal impacts to
the Detroit metropolitan area. Few of the primary impacts
can be avoided, however, the mitigating measures described
in the Draft EIS (Appendix A) will reduce the severity of the
impacts. The following discussion summarizes the primary and
secondary impacts from the proposed action. For convenience,
the collection and treatment impacts are separated from the
residuals processing and disposal impacts.
Collection and Treatment
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 demon-
stration control structure will be modified during construc-
tion. Soil erosion damage at these sites may also result
in sediment deposition in rivers and local streams and sub-
sequent water quality degradation. Suspended sediment in
stormwater runoff that flows into sewers will impact the
collection system and the wastewater treatment facilities.
7
-------
The spoil from the tunneled sewer excavations will have a
major impact on the topography of the selected spoil dis-
posal site.
Destruction of vegetative cover during construction,
including grasses, shrubs, and trees, will adversely im-
pact urban wildlife habitats. Construction machinery will
cause local air quality degradation from increased particu-
lates, hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, and also cause compaction
of soil. Dust, noise, traffic disruption, and vibrations from
tunneled sewer excavation are short-term nuisances.
Access sites for the tunneled sewer construction will
cause changes in existing land use. Two proposed access
sites are on recreational land and one access site is near
a hospital. The tunnel access sites will be locally dis-
rupting and disturbing. Temporary inconvenience to trans-
portation and access to facilities and services will result
from construction of the recommended collection improvements.
Tunneled sewers may, in some areas, reach below the ground-
water table. Contamination of groundwater during and after
construction from exfiltration may occur.
Secondary Impacts; The recommended plan will not pro-
vide additional sewerage service to the study area. There-
fore secondary impacts are not anticipated to be significant.
Limited local development may occur with or without the
recommended improvements and modifications.
Residuals Processing and Disposals
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 im-
prove slightly. Approximately 260 acres (104 ha) are needed
in a relatively undeveloped location for the landfill disposal
of incinerator 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
although restoration and mitigating measures will reduce these
impacts. The topography at the site will be changed, modi-
fying 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 impact
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.
Secondary Impacts: The completed landfill may be utilized
as a recreation area. The recreation use could cause limited
service development in terms of secondary impacts. No other
secondary impacts have been identified as a result of the
recommended plan.
8
-------
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
The following discussion summarizes the adverse effects
that the proposed project will have on the beneficial site 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.
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 to agricul-
tural, 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 plants will be required for landscaping disturbed
areas. Operation of the system will require chlorine for
effluent disinfection, chemicals, and fossil fuels to gener-
ate the electricity required to operate the DWWTP, including
incineration and disposal of residuals.
Secondary Resource Commitments; No discernible commit-
ment of regional resources is anticipated as a result of
secondary impacts. Secondary impacts are a result of urban-
ization; by definition, those impacts related to induced
growth. The rate, character and direction of urban develop-
ment will not be affected by the recommended plan. Exten-
sions 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 collec-
tion, treatment, and disposal systems may be needed for the
following circumstances:
• Future upgrading of treatment requirements may dic-
tate expanding the treatment plant or abandoning
it in favor of a more economical solution. There-
fore, proposed facilities may have to be altered
significantly 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 be-
come too costly or scarce.
-------
Mitigating Measures
The adverse impacts of the recommended plan and their
severity have been discussed in detail in the Draft EIS
(Appendix A). The severity of many of these impacts can
be reduced by implementing mitigating measures. The miti-
gating measures needed for the recommended plan are divided
into two main areas: collection and treatment and residuals
processing and disposal.
Collection and Treatment: Construction, operation and
maintenance of the DWSD collection and treatment system re-
quires mitigating measures to minimize the unavoidable ad-
verse impacts. The necessary mitigating measures may be sub-
divided into those necessary for construction related activi-
ties and those relating to the continuous operation and main-
tenance 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 reduction of
attractive nuisances. Dust control could include covering
trucks as needed, keeping streets free from spoil, and spot
control of dust at construction sites as needed. Noise re-
duction measures should include proper maintenance and
operation of equipment. Routing of trucks and other heavy
equipment along 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 the length
of time soil is exposed.
Efficient routing of trucks and heavy construction equip-
ment through arterial roads would also reduce safety hazards
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 ser-
vices to residents.
Attractive nuisances such as open trenches, equipment
storage sites, and above ground structures should have re-
stricted access to reduce the safety hazards to construction
workers and the public.
10
-------
Restoration of disturbed areas would reduce impacts by
hastening the return of disturbed areas to their previous
condition 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
revegetated with native vegetation. Disturbed areas may be
converted to recreational space in areas where this type of
land use is needed.
Planning for spoil disposal would assure construction
spoils are placed in an appropriately selected location and
in the proper manner. The disposal site should be properly
selected to minimize the adverse affects of the spoil accumu-
lation. Beneficial uses of spoils such as fill for construc-
tion or cover for landfills should be sought.
Residuals Processing and Disposal: Mitigating measures
are necessary to reduce the impacts of residuals processing
and disposal systems. The mitigating measures necessary in-
clude selection of the landfill site, relocation of displaced
residents, and proper design and planning of the landfill.
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, and socio-
economic conditions. Comparison of the potential sites will
allow selection of a site(s) which has the lowest overall
impact and is without any serious impacts in any one area.
This site selection study will be part of the final facilities
plan EIS.
Relocation assistance for any displaced residents is
required by Federal Law. Assistance is in the form of fi-
nancial help to find habitation and employment. Adequate
notification of relocation and just, fair compensation for
displaced persons is also required.
Proper design and planning of the landfill would allow
the impacts of the landfill to be reduced by incorporating
mitigating measures into the design. Proper design and
planning should include erosion and sedimentation control,
buffer zones, proper operation and maintenance and site
restoration.
Erosion and sedimentation control should comply with the
intent and requirements of the Michigan Erosion and Sedimenta-
tion Control Act (Act 347 of 1972). Compliance with this act
would reduce and/or eliminate soil loss from erosion, resulting
topographical changes, and aquatic habitat damage from sedi-
mentation. Erosion and sedimentation control could consist
of such measures as site grading to reduce runoff, revegeta-
tion of disturbed areas, runoff barriers at the margins of
disturbed areas, and scheduling large earth moving activities
during periods of low erosion hazard.
11
-------
Buffer zones would protect surface water from direct
impacts of the landfill and create a visual screen for the
landfill.
Proper operation and maintenance of the landfill would
reduce impacts by controlling dust, covering the ash promptly,
reducing public health risks, and minimizing the area dis-
turbed at any one time. Daily covering of the ash would mini-
mize the potential of public health risks due to exposed ash.
The potential for erosion and transport of the ash would be
similarly reduced. The final layer of ash in any compartment
would receive 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 prevent leach-
ate from the landfill from percolating into the groundwater
and contaminating this resource. If necessary the leachate
could be collected and treated prior to discharge.
Site restoration of disturbed areas would reduce the
erosive forces of wind and water and create an aesthetically
pleasing landscape. Restoration includes spreading a topsoil
layer as the final covering of the landfill, contouring the
surface for topographical variety, and planting native vege-
tation consisting of trees, shrubs, and grasses.
Following site restoration the landfill site could be-
come an open space resource for the region such as a golf
course or passive recreation park.
Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment
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 the 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
emission standards will minimize the adverse effects of dis-
persing wastewater and residuals to the environment. The
sewage treatment facilities will have capacity to treat pro-
jected wastewater flows during the planning period. The in-
dividual pieces of equipment have a life expectancy equal to
or greater than their financing period. Operation and main-
tenance of the facilities is required but these costs will be
12
-------
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 com-
posting becomes feasible in the future, the existing incinera-
tors may be abandoned. The final facilities plan includes a
CSO study and a stormwater management plan.
13
-------
PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO REVIEW AGENCIES
Public Hearing
The public hearing for this statement was held on
June 16/ 1978 in the City-County Building, Two Woodward
Avenue, Detroit Michigan, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing officer
was Sara Segal, Chief of Michigan Planning, Water Division,
Region V, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The proceedings
were recorded by a court reporter. Copies of the transcript
are available for review at the U.S. EPA in Chicago and DWSD
in Detroit. Following a presentation by Ms. Segal, John
Baldwin, Project Manager for EcolSciences, inc., and John
P. Ranters, Director of DWSD, comments from the public were
reviewed.
Two persons presented oral comments: Doris Grimsley,
Director of DelRay City Hall and Mildred Culter, resident of
DelRay. Ms. Grimsley requested clarification of the content
of the DelRay Neighborhood Study proposed by the Draft EIS.
Ms. Grimsley further suggested that the residents of the DelRay
neighborhood are committed to improving their nieghborhood
and want to stay.
Ms. Culter disagreed with Ms. Grimsley. She stated that
pollution from many sources was very high in DelRay. She
felt that the people in DelRay are not fearful, of change and
would welcome a chance to move if relocation assistance
were provided.
The hearing was then held open for an additional
45 minutes in order to allow persons who might arrive late a
chance to speak. The hearing was closed at 11:15 a.m. Written
comments were received until July 3, 1978.
The hearing notice and the responses to written comment
are presented on the following pages.
Summary of Letter Comments
All written public comments and appropriate responses
have been included in the following section. Responses to
the comments are arranged on facing pages. A number of letters
questioned specific points discussed in the Draft EIS (Appendix A)
which needed further clarification. Some comments referred to
studies or questions that will be resolved in the final
facilities plan. None of the comments raised questions of
such a magnitude or nature that the U.S. EPA considered any
modifications of the proposed plan necessary.
14
-------
^^^ ^ UNITED STATES
** ^^ \ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
$ REGION V
^ 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
"^ tO^ CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
"V PRO^
9 WAY VJft
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAPING
The United States Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public
hearing on Friday, June 16, 1978, to receive public comment on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Overview and Segmented
Facilities Plans for the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department of
Detroit, Michigan.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for review at the following
locations:
1. Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Water Board Building, Detroit
2. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Book Building, Detroit
3. Oakland County Drain Commissioner
One Public Works Drive, Pontiac
4. Oakland County Department of Public Works
1200 N. Telegraph, Pontiac
5. Macomb County Drain Commissioner
115 Grossbeck Hwy, Mt. Clemens
6. Wayne County Department of Health
1311 E. Jefferson, Detroit
7. Public Libraries in Oakland
Macomb and Wayne Counties:
a. Detroit Public Library, Main Branch
5201 Woodward at Kirby, Detroit
b. Harper Woods Library
19601 Harper, Harper Woods
c. Detroit Public Library, Downtown Branch
121 Gratiot at Farmer, Detroit
15
-------
d. Detroit Public Library, Reference Branch
1004 City-County Building, Detroit
e. Southfield Library
26000 Evergreen Road, Southfield
f. Macomb County Library
County Service Center, Mt. Clemens
g. Dearborn Library
16301 Michigan, Dearborn
Copies of the Draft EIS are also available from the Planning Branch, EIS
Preparation Section of Region V, at the above address.
The Public Hearing will be held in the City-County Auditorium, 13 Floor,
City-County Building, Two Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226 at
10:00 a.m.
Persons or groups wishing to make oral presentations or submit prepared
statements on the Draft EIS may do so at these sessions. Everyone is
encouraged to have their presentation in writing, with a copy to be sub-
mitted for the record to EPA officials. Oral presentations should be
brief to allow all parties to participate. A time limit may be imposed,
based upon the number of those wishing to speak. Interested persons who
are unable to attend may submit their comments to Gene Wojcik, Chief,
EIS Preparation Section, Planning Branch, at the above address. The
deadiyie for all comments on the Draft EIS is Monday, July 3, 1978.
Sincerely your/s,
i
Valdas V. Adamki
Deputy Regional(Administyradbr
16
-------
9 MAY 1978
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Detroit Water Pollution Control System: Segmented Facilities
proposed by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations
promulgated by this Agency (40 CFR 6, April 14, 1975) any comments on
this statement should be submitted by Monday, July 3, 1978. Comments or
inquiries should be forwarded to the above address marked for Attention:
Planning Branch—EIS Preparation Section.
I appreciate your interest in the EIS process.
Sin9^rely yours
,1
Valdas V. Adamkjus
Deputy Regional
Enclosure
17
-------
RECEIVED
JUN221978
EPA REGION 5
OFFICE OF REGIONAL
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Water Board Building
Detroit, Michigan 48,.'26
(313) 224-4800
Coleman A. Young, Mayor
City of Detroit
June 19, 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dc-srborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Gentlemen:
Regarding:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Detroit Water Pollution Control System
Segmented Facilities, Detroit, Michigan
The City of Detroit through its Water'and Sewerage Department (DWSD) is pleased
to have the opportunity to present its comments on the draft Environmental
Impact Statement of the Detroit Water Pollution Control System: Segmented Facili-
ties to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This draft
is recognized as the product of the USEPA's consultant firm ECOLSCIENCES,
INCORPORATED who are to be commended for their efforts which led to this document.
The culmination of this phase of facilities planning and environmental assessment
concludes nearly two years of effort. During that time very complex issues have
been analyzed and many alternatives considered. Results have been gained through
concentrated effort on the part of all parties involved. We endorse the work of
both the Segmented Facilities Plan consultants and the Environmental Impact
Statement consultants. They have made recommendations in many areas to improve
both the environment and the level of service provided to our customers. Many of
these recommendations are now being implemented.
The only differing recommendation is the USEPA position on the West Arm Interceptor.
They require that further study be conducted under the Final Facilities Plan prior
to design and construction. This further study will be completed in March 1981.
The DWSD has reservations regarding the USEPA position on the West Arm. However,
we will abide by the present decision to defer design and construction of the West
Arm and do everything in our power to justify the need for this interceptor under
the Final Facilities Plan.
Sincerely yours,
John P. Kanters
Director
MS/mlb
original: Enforcement
cc: Water/
Errrian C. Fisher
Deputy Director
18
-------
RESPONSE
(none)
19
-------
VILLAGE OP RINGHA.' FARMS
,3 ~f * SUITE 14.6? - 30^00 TELEGRAPH HD
fc^i. *---' BIRMINGHAM, MICH. J|8010
J1JM151978
EPA REGION. 5
::r. John P. banters, Director
Detroit Water £ Sewage Department
:. a tar Board Building
735 Randolph Street
4.0226
Re: Draft £jtvironmental Impact State-
ment, Detroit Water Pollution Control
Dear Lr. Kantersi
e are writing in response to the £raft ^nvironraental Impact State-
ment prepared in connection with the Detroit -later Pollution Control
.-;?> stem* Sesi-asnted Facilities Plan proposed by the Detroit Water and
^ average ^e^srtuent. ,te would like fco .if.ke «vo observations s
Despite the Tact that our Village is presently installing
and water facilities at a coat of alnost C2,5 million, x/e did
not oven receive a copy of the Draft E. I. S» After having on-
tactod SHIiCOG, your >ffic9s and Fcolaciencea, Inc. in SouVa Lend,
Indiana, we finally received a copy directly from Bcolacioncas,
Ino. this paat week-end.
Ma nota f'rora the -yoluwe that copies ware sent to moat of our
neighboring eomrrunitiea. Thus, we would appreciate your adding
ou? Village's name and acciresa to your records so that wo nay
receive such items on a timely basis* In that way, we nay have
a reasonable tixne in which to review and reply,
2. yrora our r.ocessarily liiait,«d review clu® to the timing, we note
that there appears to be so-ns question on the part of tha VJrdtec
States .nvironmental Protection Agency regarding tha so-called
";!orth Interceptor - West Arm" construction timetable or feasi-
bility. because that Interceptor ia a vital link to those of us
in the jivergrsan-Pamington District, and because local analysis
indicated its benefit to water quality generally, and in the
*iouga itiver specifically, t.:3 hope that such construction will
proceed as planned and supported locally.
-.o undaratarrl that thers will ba a Jione 16, 197$ Public Hearing on
L;ij funeral subject, and we tvould appreciate :;our having this
'1 -,ou3r ftsJa -i part of tha official record of that tnae);ing to docu-
v;ie U'hank you very -,r.uch.
Water/ ^,.^11, ^, L^-^^S;, ^l^ n~, .^^133 A. Ash'
-------
RESPONSE
Bingham Farms has been added to the mailing list for
distribution of the final EIS.
The North Interceptor-West Arm is the subject of the Final
Facilities Plan and the Final Facilities Plan EIS. Insuffi-
cient information is available at this time to allow the
U.S. EPA to approve the grant request.
21
-------
Bowling Green State University „ 9epartment of Ceol°gy
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
Telephone (419) 372-2886
May 23, 1978
Mr. Gene Wojcik
EIS Preparation Section
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Public Affairs, Region V
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Wojcik:
An announcement of the June 16 hearings dealing with Detroit
water and sewerage in your Public Participation Printout for
May 15, 1978, caught my eye. Does this mean that Detroit is
really moving to upgrade its sewage treatment, so that Detroit
River waters entering Lake Erie will be less polluted????
Indeed, perhaps you can tell me approximately what percentage
of sewage effluent released from Detroit has only received primary
treatment (still high, I am afraid)? Is the proposed change to
add secondary treatment? If these plans go through, how
much will that percentage lower?
I will not be attending the June 16 hearings, but I would very
much like to know the answers to the above questions. I hope that
I am not being too demanding on your time to ask for a letter
from you with the answers. As a resident near Lake Erie, and a
professor of environmental geology, I am concerned.
Sincerely,,
J^rte L. Forsyth
Pirofessor
JLF/cm
22
-------
RESPONSE
Comment: 64 % of effluent receives secondary treatment
at the present time. The Segmented Facilities Plan will
provide secondary treatment for 1050 mgd. In 1981, all
dry weather flows (approximately 600 mgd) and up to
1050 mgd of storm flows will receive secondary treatment.
23
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE
RICHARD H. AUSTIN
June 9, 1978
SECRETARY OF STATE
LANSING
MICHIGAN 48918
MICHIGAN HISTORY DIVISION
ADMINISTRATION, ARCHIVES.
HISTORIC SITES, AND PUBLICATIOI
3423 N Logan Street
517-373-0510
STATE MUSEUM
SOS N Washington Avenue
517-373-0515
Mr. V. V. Adamkus, Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attn: Planning Branch - EIS Preparation Section
Dear Sir:
Our staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Detroit
Mater Pollution Control System: Segmented Facilities. We do not believe
that the statement has adequately addressed the problem of archaeological
resource impacts. The records search which we have repeatedly requested
was not performed, and the proposals to halt construction if sites are
discovered (pp. 7-12, 7-21) are unworkable and hence unacceptable
mitigation proposals. We strongly urge you to proceed with the records
search as outlined in our letter of January 10, 1978, to Mr. P. E. Jeselnik
of Black and Veatch, Inc., so that the need, if any, for mitigative measures
may be assessed.
If you have further questions, please contact Dr. Lawrence Finfer,
Environmental Review Coordinator for the Michigan History Division.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
Martha M. Bigelow
Director, Michigan History Division
and
State Historic Preservation Officer
BY: Micha£PJLJ5asl
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
MJW/LF/cw
original: Water,
RECEIVED
JUM 1 A 1978
EPA REGION 5
OFFICE OF REGIONAL
24
-------
RESPONSE
After review of the correspondence on this matter, the
U.S. EPA finds that the Segmented Facilities Plan has been
certified by the State of Michigan and forwarded to the
U.S. EPA. State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO)
approval of this plan was required before State certifi-
cation. Additionally, the State of Michigan requests
appear to be beyond the Federal Requirements (36 CFR Part 800)
No major interceptors are planned outside of urban areas and
planned interceptors are located along road right-of-ways
to minimize impacts. As specific construction sites and
interceptor routes are determined during the design
(Step 2) process, they will be forwarded to the SHPO
for evaluation. If the SHPO determines that a preliminary
field survey is needed, the U.S. EPA requires that it
be completed and approved by the SHPO prior to awarding
the Step 3 grant.
25
-------
115 S. GROESBECK HIGHWAY, MOUNT CLEMENS, MICHIGAN 48043 PHONE: (313) 469-5285
uJ J. Bsnnst!
June 13, 1978
Wilrard 0. Back
Vice Chairman
Jusepn S. Raich
Secrjtdiy
Wii'ier Franci~iu!<
JaiiiSj p. G^uryj
Tyrone Medley
Georye W. Ptikins
Hubert A. VeiKuiioii
Edwin E. Whedon
Bernard £. Ciarnpttrom
Director
Riehiiid C. Kousi
Assistant Director
Mr. Michael M. Glusac
Executive Director
Southeast Michigan Council
of Governments
800 Book Building
1249 Washington Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226
Re: Notice of Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Overview and Segmented Facilities Plan
U.S. Environmental Protected Agency
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Dear Mr. Glusac:
In accordance with established A-95 Clearinghouse proce-
dures, we have reviewed the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department's Notice of Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Macomb County Office of Public Works Commissioner has
been contacted with regard to this proposal. Enclosed is
a copy of the comments from that agency.
We note the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
utilizes data presented in the draft Overview Plan with
Environmental Assessment and the Segmented Facilities
Plan. Further, in compliance with the Consent Judgement
dated September 9, 1977, implementaion of the Segmented
Facilities Plan is basically limited to upgrading the
Detroit Regional Waste Treatment Plant to a capacity of
1050 MGD peak flow. This work is to be completed within
the time frame and criteria as approved by the Federal
Court over the next three years. Other improvements and
additions to the system as contained within the Segmented
Facilities Plan are considered preliminary and future pos-
sibilities rather than adopted alternatives.
A cursory review of the Draft Environmental Statement
indicates some of the data contained in the report are
Robert A VerKuilen
Chairman
Robert A VerKuilen District 1
Joseph Mayermk District 2
Mark A. Steenbergh District 3
Richard D Sabaugh • District 4
Sam J Petitto District 5
Macomb County Bc£&d of Commissioners
Alex DUIKO Districts
Walter Dilber. Jr • District 7
James E. McCarthy • District 8
CharlesChalghian Districts
Ralph A Caruso District 10
Joseph P Pluttor District 11
Raymond F. DtGien.tel District 12
Walter Franchuk District 13
Raymond K Troinblay - District 14
Mary Louise Daner District 15
William J. Bailor District 16
Janus J. Sharp - Disirict 17
Harokl E. Grove District 18
Caroline Skupny District 19
Donald G. Tarnowski • District 20
James E. McCarthy
Vice Chairman
Herbert P. McHenry • District 21
Willard 0. Back • District 22
Hubert J. Vander Puttrni • District 23
Thomas L. t'omlmson • District 24
Patrick J. Johnson • District 25
-------
RESPONSE
(none)
27
-------
Mr. Michael M. Glusac Page 2
June 13, 1978
dated and does not reflect the existing and future
development of Macomb County. Figure 2-11-B, Major
Institutional Centers, fails to list Macomb County's
hospitals and community college sites (8 hospitals with
1,574 beds and two community college campuses). Figure
2-11-D, Major Manufacturing Centers, fails to represent
the industrial intensity in Macomb County including
those facilities between Van Dyke Avenue and Mound Road
and extending throughout the Cities of Center Line,
Sterling Heights and Warren, as well as the R.C. Schmidt
Industrial Park in Chesterfield Township and others.
Figure 2-12-C, Existing and Proposed Park and Recrea-
tional Facilities, Game Preserves and Agricultural
Reserves, list large portions of northern Macomb County
as agricultural reserves. In the past, the County as
well as its local communities, have raised serious ques-
tions concerning the designation of "static areas" with
its economic ramifications. Furthermore, a large
unidentified park has been shown in northern Chesterfield
Township. Our office is not aware of such a proposed
facility.
We would suggest current information be utilized in the
Environmental Impact Statement which indicates the
existing and future development of the County.
If there are any questions concerning our comments,
please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Bernard E. Giampetroni, AIP, PCP
Director
BEGrJWB:jk
cc: Gene Wojcik
Environmental Protection Agency
Enclosure
28
-------
RESPONSE
The Final Facilities Plan EIS has a specific study
within the EIS to assess the need for sewers in northern
Macomb County (p. 6-20).
The additional data is appreciated and does not affect
the analysis of impacts as presented in the Draft EIS.
The information used in the Draft EIS was the best
available for the study.
29
-------
115 S Groesbeck P.O. Box 806 Mt. Clemens, Michigan 480-13 Telephone .109-5323 • 293-1120
THOMAS S. WELSH
Macomb County
Public Works Commissioner
June 13, 1978
Mr. Bernard E. Giampetroni, AIP, PCP
Director
Macomb County Planning Commission
115 S. Groesbeck Highway
Mount Clemens, Mich. 48043
RE: Notice of Environmental Impact
Statement - Pollution Control
System, Detroit Water & Sewerage
Department
Dear Mr. Giampetroni:
The Public Works Commissioner for Macomb County has received a Notice
of Intent regarding the above stated Environmental Impact Statement.
It is acknowledged that the Overview Plan for the Detroit Sewerage
Treatment Facility is an enormously complex undertaking.
The communities represented by Macomb County are late comers to the
Metropolitan Sewerage System and are restricted to a top limit dis-
charge of 0.4 cfs/1000 population.
We wish to state that the proposed design plant capacity flow of 1050
is too high, is a peak dry weather flow estimate obtained from table
4.3-A for the year 2000 and does not reflect the limitation placed on
Macomb County communities. Older communities with high inflow infiltra-
tion rates, including the City of Detroit, are creating the need for
higher volumes of less concentrated wastewater treatment. Present
rate structures do not reflect this one sided condition.
Contractural limitations placed on Macomb County to obtain extensions
to the system within our service area are such that we may never see
any further construction to the Romeo Arm, Armada Arm or Richmond Arm
of the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department facility. The combination
of annual guarantee volumes, existing population census and E.P.A.
restriction on developed areas after 1972 will prevent construction
of all but the most meager interim facilities.
-1-
30
-------
RESPONSE
The 1050 mgd capacity for the DWWTP is the capacity
mandated by the Consent Judgment. The capacity is for
600 mgd average dry weather flow with the capacity to
treat 1050 mgd for a sustained peak flow for 48 hours.
The treatment charges to Macomb County Sewer District
and all other sewer districts served by DWSD are determined
by the flow measured, in most cases, at the point of
connection to the DWSD system. The restrictions placed
upon Macomb County communities are due to contractual
limitations on flow due to the interceptor capacity
limits. The present rate structures are under review
and will be approved by the U.S. EPA prior to 80% completion
of the proposed facilities design (Step 2).
This EIS addresses and approves initial portions of these
interceptors. Additionally, the Final Facilities Plan EIS
will specifically address the needs of the northern Macomb
County area to determine the sanitary sewage disposal
requirements for that area.
31
-------
-2-
Mr. Bernard E. Giampetroni
Other than reference to forced construction by "Federal Court Order"
which we have always objected to as an unbalanced project/ we can ob-
serve no environmental impact statement. Without a positive recom-
mendation for a specific project, this draft is but a bibliography of
several alternative proposals.
Russell T. SI
Engineer
RTS/jf
32
-------
RESPONSE
The Segmented Facilities Plan and this EIS do propose
specific actions, much of which are mandated by the Consent
Judgment. (See pages 6-1 and 6-2 and the Summary of the
Draft EIS). This proposed plan is an interim solution,
to be finalized by the court mandated Final Facilities
Plan (p. 1-5 through 1-8 of the Draft EIS).
33
-------
35357 Eldon
Rockwood, Mich. 48173
M*y 22, 1978
Veld as V. /d^mkus
Deputy Regional /'dministrstor
U. S. E. P. A. Region V
2jX; S. De- rborn St.
Chicago, 111. 60604 REsEIS Detroit W-ter Pollution
Control System.
Dean Mr. Adsmkus;
I can not qgree with Allowance of Industrial Wast*
to be treated in a municlple w^atewater collection system
ns the above captioned c-»*. You can not pin point the
violptro if there is mechanical failure and why should
the tax payer have to pay for treating Industrial Waste
when Industry can get a tax reduction or rebate for treat-
ing their own
Also, the inceneratoor method definitely pollutes
the sir (Wyandotte Treatment Plant).
I thank you for giving me the opourtunity to comment
on the cbove captioned c-jse.
Sincerely,
Jo- nne Gemoil
original: Water
2 *» 1978
REGION 5
OFF.CE or- REGION*'
34
-------
RESPONSE
Industrial discharge of sewage is monitored and the cost
of treatment and capital necessary is charged to the user
under the Industrial Cost Recovery requirements of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217. PL 95-217 requires the Industrial
Cost Recovery program to be reviewed. Monitoring of the
industrial flows and requiring notification of failures
or spills assures proper treatment.
The Wyandotte plant is not the subject of this EIS. The
incinerators at the DWWTP, when modified, will be a very
small contributor to the region's air pollution.
35
-------
STATE OF MICHIGAN
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
CARL T. JOHNSON
E. M. LAITALA WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
HARRY H. WHITELEY STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING, BOX 30028, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909
JOAN L. WOLFE HOWARD A TANNER, Director
CHARLES O. YOUNGLOVE
June 29, 1978
«ect,
•**
Mr. Valdus V. Adamkus
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Planning Branch, EIS Preparation Section
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality Division has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Detroit Water Pollution
Control System; Segmented Facilities. The following is our comment for the
record: Residuals Management: The EIS has determined in Chapter 5 that
incineration alternative #9 is the most feasible sludge disposal alternative
through the year 1995. However in Chapter 6 which is the Recommended Plan
the recommendation on Sludge Disposal is that further study is needed under
contract CS-823 which is a part of the Final Facility Plan. In view of this
recommendation it is somewhat confusing to have any method of sludge disposal
determined to be a feasible alternative until these further studies are
completed.
Very truly yours,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU
W. G. Turney
Bureau Chief
JR:djh
original: WATER
R1026 10/76
-------
RESPONSE
- The recommendation of Chapter 6 was made on the basis of
the original data in the SFP. During the period July, 1977
through November, 1978 a reevaluation of sludge quantities
and the Consent Judgment requirements determined that some
minor modifications may be required but that the alternative
#9 is the proposed action.
37
-------
COUNTY <)!<" OAKLAND REGEi /F:.O
JUN b-19,7i =
SOU.HL,
COUNCIL (
'I'. MCKIMli", <•<(! NTV I. V l'( ' < "I I V i:
June 5, 19/8
Mr. Carl D. Harlcw
Scuthciart Michigan Council
of Governnr?nts
8th Floor - Book Building
1249 Waslmv-'jon Blvd.
Detroit, MLcliigan 48226
Re: Detroit Wat^r Pollution Control System: Segm-- ted Facilities
County Cr.rat.rol No. : 78-93
SEKCOG Code No. : EN 760255
De''t Mr.
Our staff has received arid reviewed the Draft E.l.S. for the
Detroit Water Pollution Control System: Segmented Facilities.
As a part of our review procers, our agency sent in format ion
on this project to the Oakland County Drain Commission and the
Oakland County Department of Public Works. Frank Naglich, Assistant
Chief Engineer, from the Oakland County Department of Public Works
telephoned our office indicating that the D.P.W. would like to
submit formal written conments but because of the severe time
limitations is unable to complete them by the June 8th deadline.
Their written conroents will be forwarded to you as soon as
possible.
Although this project does not appear to conflict with
the plans or policies of the Division of County Planning, we
would advise extending the deadline for conments until the
Department of Public Works can submit theirs.
T->
Sincerely,.
Philip wrQpndero, Manager
Division of County Planning
PWDrhak
cc: Deborah Schutt, Intermediate Planner, Division of County Planning
Frank Naglich, Assistant Chief Engineer, Dept. of Public Works
D. Suhre, Detroit Water & Sewerage Department
Division of Planning, Administrative Annex II
1800 NORTH TKLKOKAPU ROAl). PONTIAC, MICHIGAN 48OS3
-------
RESPONSE
Comments from the Oakland County Department of Public Works
(Mr. Snow) and the Oakland County Drain Commission (Mr. Ringler
and Mr. Kuhn) ar included in this Final EIS.
39
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NORTH CENTRAL REGION
2510 DEMPSTER STREET
DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS 60016
ER 78/473
July 12, 1978 ; j;_ } ; \^
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus Cp/, pcp_|Qf,| 5
Deputy Regional Administrator x,, ni~ KtGioNA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ~- <• -Tt>*-"
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the Detroit Water Pollution Control System Segmented Facilities proposed
by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department as requested in your letter
of May 9, 1978. Our comments are as follows:
Resource data indicate that implementation of the proposed project
would have no adverse effect on the mineral resource potential, mineral
related manufacturing facilities, or mining activities in the area.
The statement should indicate at least in general terms possible
mitigation of the impacts of exfiltration of sewage from tunneled
areas into aquifers, including both techniques of minimizing exfil-
tration and monitoring.
-Many of the system maps, which depict various alternative proposals
to construct new sewer lines and related facilities, do not possess
the degree of clarity or level of detail needed for evaluation of
specific individual sites. It would be desirable to improve these
maps in the final document.
The draft statement conveys an impression of bias toward a centralized
system. The statement and recommended plan appear to be concerned
mainly with meeting the minimum requirements of the law and are not
adequately concerned with water quality improvement in the study area,
as demonstrated by statements such as: "Aquatic biota would be
minimally affected by any of the alternatives. The existing biotic
community reflects the degraded water quality conditions and future
water quality is not expected to undergo any major improvements"
(page 5-71), and "Growth, development and their corresponding water
quality degradation are expected in the study area regardless of the
improvements to the DWWTP" (page 7-6). These statements are true,
if the recommended plan is implemented. A decentralized plan, however,
operating in conjunction with a combined sewer overflow plan which
provides adequate storage capacity and a good non-point source
original: Water
40
-------
RESPONSE
Construction specifications require a maximum allowable
infiltration of 250 gallons per inch, mile diameter of
pipe. Tunneled sewers in this area are below the groundwater
table creating an infiltration problem. Leakage into sewers
may occur rather than an exfiltration problem.
The recommended plan is an interim plan calling for reha-
bilitation of existing facilities and new construction at
the plant. Some minor interceptor construction is proposed
to relieve existing sewers. The DWWTP will meet the
applicable federal and state standards as required by
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217.
41
-------
-2-
pollution abatement plan, could provide a basis for improvement of
the water quality of the study area and Lake Erie. Mention is made of
the fact that meeting the effluent standards for point sources will
not bring phosphorus levels down to the recommended levels for Lake
Erie, since non-point source pollution contributes as much phosphorus
to the lake as point sources. Point source pollution abatement is
only one facet of an overall plan to reduce phosphorus levels in the
Great Lakes Basin.
The EIS does not take an entirely holistic approach to pollution
abatement. For example, no consideration of tertiary treatment was
given at the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP). No substan-
tive consideration has been given potential benefits to fish or
wildlife resources when analyzing treatment alternatives or different
levels of sewage treatment. We recommend that the applicant consider
potential benefits to these resources for each of the alternatives
presented in the draft EIS. The concerns expressed by the applicant
are largely for flooding basements and the amount of land required for
treatment plants. More attention should be given to the degraded
nature of the water in the planning area.
PARKS AND RECREATION (2.12.3):
There are literally hundreds of parks in the project area, many of
which have been acquired or developed with assistance from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act (P. L. 88-578) provides as follows:
"No property acquired or developed with assistance under this
section shall, without the approval of the Secretary, be converted
to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary
shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be in accord
with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation
plan and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary
to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at
least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent
usefulness and and location."
In Michigan the Land and Water Conservation Fund Program is administered
by Mr. 0. J. Scherschligt, Deputy Director, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources,Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909. We suggest that
final selection of facility locations for this project be closely
coordinated with him, in order to minimize potential conflicts with
parklands. Early coordination is essential, especially in the case of
those parklands which have been acquired or developed with LWCF assis-
tance. The final document should include evidence that proper proce-
dures are established and arrangements made for the identification of
parklands, for taking measures to avoid conflicts, and finally for
replacement of parklands where taking is unavoidable.
42
-------
RESPONSE
A detailed review of these types of alternatives is contained
within the SFP and the EIS. The scope of this EIS as defined
in the Notice of Intent and Memorandum of Understanding does
not consider these non-point source issues.
These factors have been considered by the State and Federal
Agencies setting water quality standards. PL 92-500 and
PL 95-217 do not require such stringent effluent limitations
in this case. The Detroit River has adequate assimilative
capacity. Treatment at other sites for sanitary flows would
require tertiary plants or water would be degraded and
fish and wildlife values would decrease. Most of DWWTP
facilities are already in place but require rigorous
upgrading and improved O&M.
This information was considered in the EIS. When specific
routes are delineated during Step II, these measures
mentioned will be followed. It is the intent of U.S. EPA
to avoid such conflicts in identifying recreation lands.
43
-------
-3-
CULTURAL RESOURCES (2.12.4);
Although the draft document evidences an awareness of the presence
of cultural resources, i.e., archeological, historic and architectural
resources, the document does not explain what actions are proposed
to avoid damage to such resources, as required by the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 11593, "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment". Given the magnitude of this
project and the potential number of cultural resources impacted, we
suggest that the sponsoring agencies contact the following offices to
develop a programmatic approach to cultural resource protection for
the project:
Dr. Martha Bigelow
State Historic Preservation Officer, and
Director, Michigan History Division
Michigan Department of State
Lansing, Michigan 48918
Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1522 K Street
Washington, D.C. 20005
The final environmental impact statement should spell out the approach
developed for cultural resource protection.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS (5.0)
In the evaluation of alternatives, no mention is made of beneficial
impacts to recreational or fishery resources. The impact of land
requirements for treatment plants is the only impact stressed.
RECOMMENDED PLAN (6.0)
The recommended plan is the least desirable plan, in our opinion,
from a fish and wildlife point of view. A decentralized system would
have a more favorable impact on the fish and wildlife resources of
the study area and western Lake Erie, the receiving body of water.
In a decentralized system, the potential for large amounts of untreated
sewage to be discharged in the event of system failure would be less,
44
-------
RESPONSE
The EIS does consider these resources. Dr. Bigelow has
been contacted and comments from the SHPO Office are
contained in this EIS.
The alternatives analysis identifies major impacts. No
major beneficial impact to fishery resources was identified
in the analyses. Limited beneficial impacts to the Detroit
River and Lake Erie are anticipated as the effluent quality
improves. Inland lakes and streams are not affected by
this study. Further analyses are included in the CSO study
and Final Facilities Plan.
The study analyses of both the SFP and the EIS do not support
such a claim but show that additional improvements to the
system may be necessary as will be defined in the Final
Facilities Plan and the Final Facilities Plan EIS.
45
-------
-4-
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presently favors a plan such as
that proposed in Plan A-l, with the DWWTP operating optimally or
with tertiary treatment. In addition the location of the Point
Mouillee Plant should be adjusted to a different location upstream
on the Huron River, and the degree of treatment increased to
tertiary. This type of plan is the most ecologically compatible
alternative, and allows for flexibility in the future to ensure its
continued compatibility.
We ask that you contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
further coordination regarding use of a centralized or decentralized
system, and other fish and wildlife concerns expressed above. The
designated point of contact is the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities,
Minnesota 55111. The lead Service staff person for such coordination
is Mr. Raymond St. Ores, at 612-725-3536 (FTS 725-3536).
The Service will withhold comments on the combined sewer overflow
system until adequate data is collected to analyze the system and
prepare the EIS. This is consistent with the approach you are
taking.
Sincerely,
David L. Jervis
Regional Environmental Officer
copies to:
Mr. 0. J. Scherschligt, Michigan DNR
Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
46
-------
RESPONSE
This degree of treatment is not required by PL 92-500 and
PL 95-217 and is not eligible for U.S. EPA grants in this
situation. Any plant located near Pointe Mouille would
be constructed by Wayne County Department of Public Works,
not DWSD. When decentralization occurs, either sufficient
land for land application or a waterway with sufficient
assimilative capacity must be available to treat wastes
and discharge to the environment. For the DWWTP, there
are not enough land parcels available for land treatment.
47
-------
9333 Dearborn Street
Detroit, Michigan 48209
313 842-4600
Peerless
Cement Company
June 30, 1978
United States Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Mr. Douglas Ehorn
Subject: Comments on Draft of Environmental Impact Statement,
Detroit Water Pollution Control System Segmented Facilities
Plan, prepared by Region V, U.S. EPA, Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department, and Ecolsciences, Inc.
Gentlemen:
Please excuse the last minute response to your environmental
impact statement draft. I attended the June 16 public hearing in Detroit
expecting to get a copy of the statement but was disappointed. I have
just now been able to locate the document.
To make it clear as to why I am commenting and what background
I have in environmental matters, let me introduce myself as the Director
of Environmental Control of Peerless Cement Company. Peerless Cement
is located next to the Municipal Water Treatment Plant in Detroit. Peerless
is a division of Amcord, Inc., a national company in cement and other
businesses.
In my position, I have pressed a plan for providing a PCB destruction
facility in Michigan which is badly needed. This has been done in the
context of a general philosophy of not only controlling our own potential
pollution but reaching out to find areas where we can usefully solve the
pollution problems of others. Our proposal has caused us to become well-
informed on the issues and has created much controversy in the Detroit
area, much of which is well documented. It is with this background that
I write comments on the environmental impact of our neighbor, the Detroit
Municipal Water Treatment Plant.
To start, let me say that I find some very serious omissions in this
impact statement in some specific technical areas. These topics must be
addressed directly and correctly in your final statement or you will be
clearly subject to accusations of evasions or perhaps even "cover up".
48
-------
RESPONSE
The PCB's presently transported to the DWWTP are of industrial
origin. All industrial users of the system are required to
control the discharge of toxic materials to the plant.
The June 26, 1978 Federal Register (Part IV) contains the
U.S. EPA regulations requiring a publicly owned treatment
works to regulate discharges of substances which may affect
its operations. The industrial monitoring effort by DWSD
as required in the Consent Judgment will effectively eliminate
this substance as a problem at the QWWTP, due to the
pretreatment requirements and the lack of additional
manufacture of PCB's.
49
-------
.3.
United States Environmental Protection Agency June 30, 1978
It is unfortunate that these issues have to be dealt with in this manner
but our efforts to resolve them in more professional ways have been
fruitless so far.
Toxic Chemical Emissions
The first major issue is that of toxic, thermally stable organic
compounds. PCB is the most common and the one on which information
is available. There may be others that have never been looked for.
I refer you to the Giffels, Black, & Veach report, Book IX,
published 1-31-78. On Page 51, PCB emissions at the present incinerators
are reported as Complex I: 8. 82i^g/m3 and Complex II: 12 /^g/m3.
The following is quoted from the text: "The presence of PCBs in the
emissions is due to particulate and condensibles being driven off in the
incinerator drying zone where there is insufficient temperature for PCB
destruction and by reentrainment from the screened final effluent water
used in the scrubbers. The PCB emission rates are included in this
report because of current concern regarding the affect (sic) of PCBs on
the human body and the entrance into the food chain. There is, however,
no existing or proposed regulation for PCB emissions.
The Solids Disposal Section (p. 7, Table 2) goes on to report PCB
concentration in the sludge (adj. to dry weight) of :
Primary 5.9 PPM
Secondary 1.6 PPM
Combined Filter Cake 5.1 PPM
In the subject EIS there is no reference to this PCB problem at
any point. The basic assumption in the EIS appears to be that the only
air quality impact of the incinerators worth note is that on particulates
and odors.
It has been long recognized that the simple statement in the GB&V
report that the multiple hearth incinerators are incapable of destroying
PCBs is correct. The emission measurements confirm only what must be
true based on the properties of PCB and the incinerator conditions. But
they also demonstrate one other thing - that PCB is reaching the Detroit
Water Treatment Plant in measurable quantities, and that PCB that
reaches the sewage treatment plant is being emitted to the air in Southwest
Detroit.
The statement by GB&V that there are no emission limits on PCBs
is technically correct, but grossly misleading. PCBs are expressly
regulated in the Toxic Substance Control Act , and in response to that
legislation, the EPA recently promulgated regulations (Federal Register
FEB. 17, 1978) that impose stringent requirements for PCB disposal
that cannot be met by either the existing or proposed incinerators. In
fact, the concern about uncontrolled PCB emissions is accelerating in that
-------
RESPONSE
The U.S. EPA document Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incinera-
tion (U.S. EPA 625/4-75-009) 1975 states:
"Tests on municipal sludges showed that total destruction of
PCB was possible when oxidized in combination with sewage sludge
and with an exhaust gas temperature of 1100°F versus 1600°F re-
quired when PCB's are handled separately. Ninety-five percent
destruction of PCB's was achieved in a multiple-hearth furnace
with no afterburning at the normal exhaust temperature of 700°F."
Therefore, when the DWWTP incinerators are modified as under
this EIS recommendation, they will most likely cause destruction
of the PCB's.
51
-------
.3.
United States Environmental Protection Agency June 30, 1978
recent information (Lake Michigan Confernece, June 5, Chicago) indicates
that 80% of the environmental contamination with PCB is by way of air,
mostly from inadequate incineration.
Further, hazards of PCB vapors have been mentioned in testimony
to the City Council of Detroit on October 6, 1977, by Dr. Perry Stearns,
Director of the Wayne County Health Department (complete copy attached).
As background, I should say that Dr. Steams' remarks were made at this
public hearing without knowledge of the existing PCB emissions at the
water treatment plant. I was aware of the measurements at that time
by personal communication, and so testified at that hearing. The data
has since been published in the GB&V report as referenced above. Keep
in mind that Dr. Stearns was testifying about a tested process in which
the PCB emissions were measured substantially less than the measured
emissions subsequently reported for the sewage treatment plant next door.
Item 2, Page 3 "Since we are dealing with a chemical that is known
to be dangerous, are we justified in approving a procedure that could
potentially endanger these people?"
Item 5, Page 4 "The effect of PCB in human beings is not fully
understood. The long term effectos on humans from chronic, low grade
exposure is even less well understood. PCB is known to cause disease
of the skin and the liver. What is not known is the minimum level of
exposure and the length of exposure before the disease is likely to be
caused There are no firm figures available on the amount of PCB
that is needed to cause disease if inhaled from the air or absorbed
through the skin."
Item 8, Page 5 "Inadequate testing has been done "
Additional tests should be run, including:
(A) The ambient air in the neighborhood
(B) Dust collected from the ground in the neighborhood
In the GB&V study, it is documented that the Wayne County Health
Department has signed an agreement to allow expansion of incinerators.
This agreement was reached before data on PCB emissions was available.
The question should be raised if that whole agreement should be reviewed
in light of this new data.
In particular:
1) In light of revelation of data on PCB emissions, it is simply
not adequate for the EIS to avoid comment on this critical
issue. The EPA must take a position on it.
2) The question that must be answered is: Are Dr. Stearns1
comments on the potential hazards to the area correct?
-------
RESPONSE
The process discussed by Dr. Stearns has not been proven
to be an economically feasible or environmentally sound
technique for the disposal of PCB's.
The agreement with Wayne County Health Department concerned
the recommendation to modify the existing DWWTP incinerator
complexes I and II in order to improve their capacity and
emission quality. PCB's are not being manufactured or used
in new facilities. Residual PCB is entering the system and
should not be of long-term duration or likely affect the
capabilities of the incinerators to function.
Inherent in this EIS and the Segmented Facilities Plan is
a recommendation that all toxic and non toxic substances
which are or may be harmful to the DWWTP's operations from
industrial sources must be eliminated at the source.
53
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency June 30, 1978
If Dr. Stearns is wrong and PCB emissions pose no hazard to us
that work and live in this area, then the EPA should so state along with
supporting evidence and reconciliation with the rationale and conditions
for operating PCB disposal facilities.
If there are concerns about the health implication of PCB emissions
in this area, then the EPA should clearly state why it is in the public
interest to not only continue operation of sludge incinerators but expand
them. We should also have a statement as to whether Dr. Stearns is correct
on calling for ambient testing for PCBs in the air and dust of this area.
In fact, should an extensive program of testing for the environmental
effects of PCBs be completed before final conclusions be made as to
environmental impact?
To be clear where we stand on this issue, we are of the opinion
that the PCB emissions are undesirable but of doubtful hazard. Further,
that the operation of the incinerators is necessary and that PCB emissions
are an unavoidable effect of such operation. However, a very substantial
improvement has been proposed and been available to the City of Detroit
for over two years - that is a fully tested and approved PCB disposal
facility using our cement kiln next to the sewage treatment plant. The
existence of such a facility will do everything that is feasible to avoid
improper PCB disposal in the sewage system.
In effect, pending seeing the technical position the EPA takes on the
hazards of PCB emissions, we are proposing that the facilities plan be
approved only if an approved local, convenient toxic chemical disposal
facility be permitted, as we have applied for. Any environmental position
short of this is not making use of every opportunity to minimize the
environmental impact of the subject plan.
£and Application of Sewage Sludge
The alternative of land application of sludge raises some question
in the light of the PCB content of the sludge.
The EPA must comment on the environmental effect of spreading
sludge with PCB contamination. No such comments are found in the
subject EIS.
I have raised this issue in private correspondence with the Detroit
Water and Sewerage Department. My response referred to EPA Bulletin
Municipal Sludge Management No. 430-9-77-004 that "allows" disposal
by landfill to a maximum of 0.4 Ibs./acre. I haven't had time to track
down this publication and get its background. However, I do know that
54
-------
RESPONSE
This kiln facility as proposed has not been approved by
U.S. EPA. Under PL 92-500 the Construction Grant Program
is not an R&D program. The Construction Grant Program
does not have the appropriate mechanism to give an industry
research and development money to prove this type of suggestion,
The Office of Research and Development should be contacted
for their interest in funding such a program.
- The industrial waste control program of DWSD is the approved
method of controlling toxic substances. The PCB's found
in the DWWTP sludge is contained in the sludge and is not
readily separated. Disposal of the PCB's in the kiln
would require all sludge to be incinerated in the kiln
(approximately equal to 616 tons/day) until the PCB's were
no longer found in the sludge. Then this method would not
be necessary for disposal of the sludge. PCB's are not
anticipated to be found in the sludge for long due to the
prohibition on manufacturers and new uses.
Land application of sludge was considered as an alternative
and rejected due to the lack of sufficient, readily available
land and associated costs. The alternative analysis in the
EIS analyzed the controlling elements within the sludge and
developed a safe land application rate for land disposal.
The cost and amount of land for such a method were the major
factors in eliminating that alternative.
The landfill operation recommended in the facilities plan
and EIS is for the disposal of ash and would collect and
treat the leachate. Incineration would destroy the PCB
in the modified incinerators as previously referenced.
New PCB regulations allow 0-25 ppm PCB's in sludge applied
to land.
55
-------
.5.
United States Environmental Protection Agency June 30, 1978
at the PCB level reported in GB&V, Volume 9, of 5.1 PPM and the
1980 volume of 847 T/D of dried sludge that there will be 8.6 #/day of
PCB in the spread sludge requiring 22 acres/day.
The EIS considers only nitrogen and possibly cadmium as limitations
to the concentrations of sludge spread. In fact, the projection is for a
need of only 51 acres (p. 5-112, Table 5.5 F) in 1980. If I understand
correctly, once PCB is considered the acreage requirement expands
tremendously.
The EPA must make a statement as to whether PCB does pose
a limitation to the tons spread per acre, and, if so, what the cost and
environmental implications are. There may be other toxics that should
be considered also.
Cost of Drying (p5-87)
In 5.4.1.5 drying sludge is rejected as an option because of the
high cost (1.4 x 10* Btu/ton or $87 for fuel).
There must be some error here as this is 7000 BTU/lb., and the
theoretical heat necessary to produce water vapor is only about 1200
Btu/lb. The report also assumes a cost of $6.20 per million BTU for
fuel versus present day costs of $1.25 to $2.00 per million.
In contrast, a recent development (Chemical Engineering, August 15,
1977, P. 87) announced a new process for sludge drying for only 1600
Btu/lb. versus the customary 2400 to 2800 Btu/lb.
If drying is not rejected as a possible alternative it opens the door
to new possibilities that may be more environmentally acceptable, as
mentioned below.
Alternative Sludge Disposal Methods
The EIS runs through the sludge disposal options and considers
their comparative environmental effects. In this analysis, you are at
the mercy, of course, of the alternatives choses by GB& V as ones to
consider.
Reviewing these listed alternatives was a great disappointment to
me. Peerless experimented with sewage sludge as early as 1943.
We have had many conversations with both GB&V engineers and
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department officials in which we expressed
-------
RESPONSE
An increase in the land requirements for sludge disposal
on land would only serve to reinforce the recommendation
of the EIS to continue incineration with operable equipment,
These costs presented in the EIS are based on the cost of
disposal per dry tons of sludge, including the cost of
drying and handling. Also, after drying sludge acceptable
methods for ultimate disposal are not available due to
metals and persistent organics.
The alternatives discussed in the EIS include not only
those chosen by Giffels/Black and Veatch but also includes
analysis of alternatives suggested by U.S. EPA, MDNR, DWSD,
EcolSciences, inc., and the public as presented at the
five public workshops during the course of the study.
57
-------
.6.
United States Environmental Protection Agency June 30, 1978
interest in a cooperative venture to utilize our kiln for burning
sewage sludge. Our consultant, Mr. Jerry Remus, has put much effort
into promoting sludge burning at our plant, without success. The
problem is that an expensive period of trial and testing is necessary
to demonstrate the costs and environmental effectiveness of what can be
done.
Typically, we have been rebuffed because we don't have the
technical and cost information necessary to quote firm prices for such
an operation. We are in no position to undertake such research at our
own cost.
Particularly, if drying can be demonstrated as practical, we
could almost certainly burn sludge at disposal costs and environmental
impacts far superior to the selected alternatives. For instance, we
have highly efficient particulate collection, an operating temperature
adequate to destroy PCBs or any other organics, and an absolutely minimum
transportation distance. Finally, the ash is automatically incorporated
as a part of cement, converting it into a useful material.
I can't help but feel that an EIS that does not evaluate the
alternatives of what is possible to do here at the Peerless plant has
overlooked the best possible long term environmental case for sludge
disposal.
I will be looking forward to a direct and clear response to these
issues that I have raised.
Sincerely,
'
My^n W. Black
Director of Environmental Control
MWB/bl
Encl. 1 ) Dr. Stearns Position Paper. . . .
2) International Michigan-Ontario Air
Pollution Board- PCB Waste Disposal
at Peerless Cement
58
-------
RESPONSE
This alternative was examined and rejected by the facilities
planning consultant (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1978, Book XII)
This proposal is for a system which has not been shown to be
feasible for incineration of sewage sludge.
The kiln process has been analyzed and was rejected based on
engineering, environmental and implementation criteria (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1978, Book XII).
59
-------
Summary of: Position Paper on Peerless Cement Company's
Application to Incinerate Waste Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB's) by Perry Stearns, M.D., Director
Wayne County Health Department
This paper is a statement regarding Peerless Cement Company's
Application to incinerate PCB's in their lime kiln with cement.
The proposal is new and the only operation known to attempt this
type of an operation has been halted. Concerns raised in the
paper were the handling and safety of importing PCB's for in-
cineration. Dr. Stearn also raised questions regarding the PCB
content of the emissions and products of this proposal.
60
-------
Summary of: International Michigan Ontario Air Pollution
Board. April 3, 1978. Semiannual Report PCB
Disposal at Peerless Cement
The Toxic Substances Act requires adequate disposal of toxic
substances such as PCB's. There currently are only two facil-
ities accepting off site PCB's for incineration. The Peerless
Cement Company has applied to use their lime kiln to incinerate
the PCB's. The Wayne County Air Pollution Control Division held
a hearing regarding this proposal. At the hearing two groups
emerged, those who were for it, assuming there are conditions
imposed and they are adhered to and those adamantly opposed to
the proposal. Conclusions of the Board and its consultants were
that this proposal for destruction of PCB is viable, subject to
adequate safeguards and a stringent set of regulations regarding
operation of the facility and transport of the PCB's to the
facility.
61
-------
U S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION 5
182O9 DIXIE HIGHWAY
HOMEWOOD. ILLINOIS 6O43O
June 19, 1978
IN REPLY REFER TO
HED-05
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ATTN: Planning Branch - EIS Preparation Section
Dear Sir:
The draft environmental statement for the water pollution control
system and segmented facilities, Detroit, Michigan, has been reviewed.
Our only comment is that there are certain inaccuracies in par. 2.15.1
Transportation Facilities p. 29 that should be corrected.
Under "Planned and future expansion of the highway network" the following
changes should be made:
"Extension of M-59 north", should read "Extension of M-59 east
to 194".
. "Connection of 1-75 with US-10, 1-96, and 1-696" should be deleted
since these connections have already been made and are a part of
the existing system.
. "Completion of 1-96, and" should be deleted. 1-96 was completed
and opened to traffic in the fall of 1977.
"Completion of M-14" should be deleted from this section, because
it is all under contract.
The section "Highways Under Construction" should be revised as follows:
1-696 from 1-75 north to 1-96 should be revised to read "1-696
from 1-75 east to 1-94".
"1-96 west to 1-696" should be deleted since 196 was completed in
the fall of 1977.
An item should be added to this section which would read "M-14
from Wayne County line to 196/1275 expected to be completed in
the fall of 1978".
Sincerely yours,
Donald E. Trull
Regional Administrator
By:
W. G. Emrich, Director
3 2 Office of Environment and Design
-------
RESPONSE
The additional information is appreciated and duly noted. In
accordance with the proposed CEQ guidelines (Federal Register
June 9, 1978) for preparing EIS's, a complete reprinting of the
D-EIS will not be made.
63
-------
ROBFRT 11 fRfcOHRICKS
Chtel Deputy Comfrnmoner
858-0970
GEORGE W. KUHN
OAKLAND COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC WORKS DRIVE
PONTIAC, MICHIGAN 48O54
June 26, 1978
RICHARD L CASTLE
Chief Engineer
Water and Sewer Engineering
858-1075
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attn: Mr. Gene Wojcik
Re:
Gentlemen:
E.I.S. - Detroit Water Pollution
Control System, Segmented Facilities
For the past 20 years the Evergreen-Farmington interceptors, which serve
an area of approximately 120 square miles within Oakland County, have dis-
charged to a combined sewer in the City of Detroit. The Detroit sewer has
limited outlet capacity and during storm periods, when the combined sewer
is flowing full, all of the Evergreen-Farmington flow is diverted to the Rouge
River thru emergency overflow structures. In order to (1) provide additional
capacity for the rapidly increasing population and the control of combined
sewer overflows within Oakland County and (2) eliminate the emergency over-
flows during storm periods, Oakland County applied for and received a Step I
grant, (C26-2912-01) which has been underway for the past 15 months.
At the public hearing on the Detroit Segmented Facilities Plan Oakland County
endorsed Plan C-12, modified, as the most cost-effective and environmentally
sound method to correct these problems, and also endorsed the consultants recom-
mendation that states as follows:
"More needs to be determined on the quality and impacts of com-
bined sewer overflows along both the Rouge River and the Detroit
River. That information will be obtained as a part of the Final
Facilities Plan work. That information is not, however, necessary
to allow design and construction of the NI-WA to begin. As stated
previously, the interceptor is to be designed based upon suburban
peak dry weather flows and the interception of flows in the City of
Detroit which would reduce combined sewer overflow impacts on the
Rouge River. The work of the Final Facilities Plan will determine
the need for additional retention, treatment, or nonstructural con-
trol of overflows. The Final Facilities Plan data is not required
for the sizing, route, or construction schedule of the NI-WA. It
is instead required for the retention,storage, or other facilities
which will operate in conjunction with, but independently from, the
interceptor.
64
-------
RESPONSE
(none)
65
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
June 26, 1978
Construction of the NI-WA is, therefore, recommended to proceed as
rapidly as possible."It is also a matter of record that the City of
Detroit, as grantee, SEMCOG, as the 208 agency and the Michigan D.N.R.,
as the State pollution control agency, are in agreement with the
NI-WA proposal.
IF the NI-WA plan is delayed the current Step I studies for the 16 Evergreen-
Farmington municipalities and the intended Step 2 and Step 3 phases would have
to come to a halt until the NI-WA is assured. Therefore, we again wish to go
on record that we agree with the consultants recommendation to proceed as
rapidly as possible with the construction of the NI-WA and do not concur with
the E.I.S. conclusions that construction of the NI-WA be deferred until the
final facilities plan is prepared.
Very truly yours,
Donald W. Ringler
Manager, Division of
Sewer, Water & Solid Waste
DWR/bg
cc: Mr. John Ranters
SEMCOG, Attn: Mr. Harlow
D.N.R., Attn; Mr. Bradford
George/v. Kunn
Drain Commissioner and
County Agency
66
-------
RESPONSE
Insufficient information is available at this time to allow
U.S. EPA to approve the Segmented Facilities Plan recommendation
of the North Interceptor West Arm (NI-WA). The deferment of a
decision on the NI-WA does not alter present contracts of DWSD
with suburban jurisdictions or preclude amending present agree-
ments to allow increased discharges to the DWSD system.
67
-------
CITY OF
RCHARD LAKE VILLAGE
3951 ORCHARD LAKE RD. ORCHARD LAKE, MICH. 48033
(313) 682-2400
June 26, 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ATTENTION: Mr. Gene Wojcik
Chief E.I.S., Preparation Section
Planning Board
Gentlemen:
We have just been informed that the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) is
considering not approving the north interceptor of the west arm of Detroit's
Sanitary Sewer System that would serve the Evergreen Farmington Sewer District.
Our community presently is partially served by the Farmington Interceptor on a
contractual rental basis with West Bloomfield Township and the Cities of South-
field, Farmington Hills and Keego Harbor, along with the County of Oakland.
The City's consulting engineering firm presently is undertaking a Step I Sewer
Facilities Study for the entire community of Orchard Lake Village. If the E.P.A.
elects not to approve the north interceptor, our community would be unable to be
served by sewers in the foreseeable future.
The City of Orchard Lake Village is a small, picturesque community having a pop-
ulation of about 1500 and covering an area of approximately four square miles.
The community completely surrounds Orchard Lake and portions of Cass, Pine and
Upper Straits Lakes. Obviously, the welfare of the environment, including the
quality of the lakes in and around our community, is extremely important to us.
Presently, we cannot say how much additional sewer capacity we will need in the
future, but it is very important that, should a serious lake pollution problem
develop, the City should be in a position to act.
The cancellation of the planned north interceptor could seriously jeopardize the
(MORE)
68
-------
RESPONSE
Insufficient information is available at this time to allow
U.S. EPA to approve the Segmented Facilities Plan recommenda-
tion. The North Interceptor-West Arm is included as an element
of the Final Facilities Plan and the Final Facilities Plan
EIS.
69
-------
2 -
health, safety and welfare of our citizens. Accordingly, we urge your immediate
approval of the north interceptor of the west arm of the Detroit Sanitary Sewer
System.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORCHARD LAKE VILLAGE
Richard A. Grout
Mayor
cc: Frank Naglish, Oakland County Department of Public Works
Neree D. Alix, Consulting Engineer
City Clerk
RG/jo
70
-------
RESPONSE
(none)
71
-------
Soufheasf Michigan Council of Governmenfs
8OO Book Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313)961-4266
June 30, 1978
Mr. Valdes V. Adamkas
Deputy Regional Administrator ""' 'r OF
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the "Detroit Water
Pollution Control System: Segmented Facilities Plan"
Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties, State Planning Region I
Areawide Clearinghouse Code: EN 760255
Dear Mr. Adamkas:
SEMCOG has reviewed the Draft EIS referenced above. As the A-95
Clearinghouse for Southeast Michigan, 102 communities and public agencies
within the 201 plan of study area were contacted requesting their comments.
An attached sheet lists the specific communities that were contacted. To
date comments (attached) have been received from the following agencies:
Macomb County Planning Commission
Macomb County Public Works Commission
Oakland County Division of County Planning
Oakland County Drain Commission
Oakland County Department of Public Works
City of Detroit Planning Department
Village of Bingham Farms
The Village of Bingham Farms, the Oakland County Drain Commissioner
and the Oakland Department of Public Works each state that they disagree
with the conclusion reached in the Draft EIS concerning the North Inter-
ceptor - West Arm (NI-WA). They feel that the NI-WA will improve the water
quality in the Rouge River and will provide a "vital link" to the Evergreen-
Farming ton District.
The Macomb County Public Works Commissioner raises several questions
concerning the allocation of capacity to Macomb County communities. The
Macomb County Planning Commission indicates that some of the data contained
in the report does not accurately reflect "the existing and future development
of Macomb County". The remaining commenting agencies did not find any
problems with the Draft EIS.
original: WATER
DAVID H. SHEPHERD Chairperson
Mayor, City ot Oak Park
ROBERT L BOVITZ. Vice Chairperson
Mayor, City of Trenton
72
LAWRENCE R PERNICK, Vice Chairperson
Commissioner, Oakland County
ROBERT E SMITH, Vice Chairperson
President, Livingston
Intermediate School District
MARY ELLEN PARROTT, Vice Chairperson
Treasurer, Shelby Township
KATHLEEN M. FQJTIK, Vice Chairperson
Commissioner, Washtenaw County
-------
RESPONSE
Comments have been received by EPA for these agencies
and are included.
- These concerns are addressed for each agency.
- These concerns are addressed for each agency,
73
-------
Page Two
June 30, 1978
After reviewing the Draft EIS our main concern also focuses on
the North Interceptor - West Arm issue. The Draft EIS states that
there is insufficient data on the water quality benefits for EPA to
make a decision on this issue (Page 6-6). The Draft EIS is not
clear as to whether the lack of data is delaying a decision on which of
the "Action" alternatives should be selected, or whether the "No Action"
alternative is still being considered because the impacts of the present
overflows had not been determined. In evaluating the West Arm alternatives
the Draft EIS (Page 5-68) does not discuss the impacts of the "No Action"
alternative. If this alternative is still being considered then the impacts
of this alternative should be outlined.
We propose that a meeting be established in the near future to
exchange information on the combined sewer overflows to the Rouge. If
additional information is needed the Final Facilities Plan should schedule
an early sampling effort so that the issue can be resolved. If the
reference to insufficient data on water quality benefits pertains to evaluating
the various "action" alternatives then SEMCOG can possibly be of assistance
with the water quality models that have been developed for the Rouge River.
If the decision on the North Interceptor - West Arm will be delayed
until the Final Facilities Plan is completed, the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement does not contain this alternative. The impacts of this alternative
should be fully outlined if this will be the selected alternative. Infla-
tion might consume any savings that are expected to result from additional
analysis.
In summary we hope that a prompt decision can be made on the West
Arm issue and offer our assistance in resolving this important issue.
We also wish to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for the oppor-
tunity to comment on this Draft EIS.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Hustoles, Manager
Environmental Programs
EJH/CDH/lh
Attachments
74
-------
RESPONSE
The Draft EIS is deferring decision in all respects until
sufficient information is available to justify the recommen-
dations of the City.
The Final Facilities Plan does include a sampling effort
as suggested.
The West Arm is a part of the work to be done during the
Final Facilities Plan and the Final Facilities Plan EIS.
The option is to make a decision prior to completion of
the Final Facilities Plan EIS by EPA. Inflation will not
affect the present worth as presented in the cost-effective
analysis.
75
-------
cc: Detroit Water & Sewerage Department
Macomb County Planning Commission
City of Detroit Planning Department
Village of Bingham Farms
Pontiac Township
Village of Lake Orion
Village of Oxford
City of Lathrup Village
City of Berkley
City of Farmington Hills
West Blcornfield Township
City of Bloomfield Hills
City of Southfield
City of Huntington Woods
City of Troy
Charter Township of Waterford
Harrison Township
Township of Clinton
City of Mount Clemens
City of Fraser
City of New Baltimore
City of Grosse Pointe
City of Ferndale
Macomb Township
Village of New Haven
Chesterfield Township
Township of Canton
Commerce Township
City of Grosse Pointe Farms
City of Madison Heights
City of Clawson
Redford Township
Addison Township
Washington Township
Novi Township
Oakland County Department of Public Works
Macomb County Public Works Commission
Oakland County Division of County Planning
Oakland County Drain Commissioner
City of Harper Woods
City of Dearborn Heights
City of Westland
Village of Romeo
City of Plymouth
City of Wayne
City of Northville
Township of Northville
City of Livonia
City of Hamtramck
City of Novi
City of Center Line
City of Woodhaven
City of Oak Park
Oakland Township
City of Garden City
Oakland Township
Township of Avon
Royal Oak Township
City of Rochester
Township of Van Buren
Plymouth Township
City of Pleasant Ridge
Huron Township
City of Farmington
Shelby Township
Bruce Township
City of Highland Park
City of Pontiac
Springfield Township
76
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
2300 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
June 13, 1978
1 b 1978
TO
FROM :
SUBJECT:
Dr. William Aron
Directo-Offi/ce of Ecology and Conservation, EC
Dr. EugenefJ./ftubert
Director, GLERL, RF24
DEIS 7805.46 - Detroit Water Pollution Control System,
Detroit, Michigan
The subject DEIS prepared jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, and Ecolsciences,
Inc. on Detroit water pollution control has been reviewed and comments
herewith submitted.
The objectives of the planned upgraded Detroit Water Pollution Control
System: Segmented Facilities are to rehabilitate existing facilities
to eliminate operational problems and to improve overall operations and
phosphorus removal. The Detroit municipal waste water treatment plant
has been identified by the International Joint Commission Water Quality
Board as a significant problem which affects the water quality of Lake
Erie and requires remedial measures. While Detroit sewage is only one
of many pollution sources affecting Lake Erie, the implementation of the
planned improved waste water treatment facilities should cause improve-
ment to the environment of the Detroit River and to Lake Erie. There
are no objections to the recommended plan for improvement of Detroit
regional pollution control system.
77
0>-U7V°
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
TELEPHONE- (404) 633-3311
June 30, 1978
JJL ^ 3 ;/8
ot-i
"'•-><.<* rnn
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr . Adamkus :
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Detroit
Water Pollution Control System: Segmented Facilities on behalf of the
Public Health Service. We do not have any comments to offer.
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this document. We would
appreciate receiving two copies of the final statement when it is issued.
Sincerely yours,
William H. Foege, M.D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Director
78
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20230
(202) 377-3111
June 26, 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Water Division
230 S Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Planning Branch - EIS Preparation Section
To Whom it May Concern:
This is in reference to your draft environmental
impact statement entitled "Detroit Water Pollution
Control System: Segmented Facilities Detroit, Michigan."
The enclosed comments from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration are forwarded for your
consideration„
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these
comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you.
We would appreciate receiving five copies of the final
statement.
Sincerely,
l^j^
>idney
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
Enclosure: Memo from
NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
79
-------
APPENDIX A
81
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. EPA Project Officer
DWSD Consultant Liaison
Doug Ehorn
W.J. Wilson, P.E,
EcolSciences' Study Team
Principal-in-Charge E.
Project Manager
Environmental Team
L.M. Katz
*W.A. Bailey
M.L. Reiser
*J.D. Ochs
C.E. Mitchell
P.P. Swinick
J.A. Leake
*J.A. Burkholder
*M.R. Kanney
R.J. Pavone
Engineering Team
J.E. Shirk, P.E.
*K.J. Lanfear, P.E.
*G.P. James, P.E.
W.C. Taylor
*J.J. Coll
B.C. McGaw
Senior Technical Advisors
A.T. Bowyer
J.J. Barile
M.S. Friedman
P.R. Spinney
R.W. Dennis
*W.P. DeWitt
Subconsultants
W.J. Weber
J.
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
M.S.
M.S.
M.S.
B.A.
B.S.
B.S.
B.S.
M.S.
M.S.
B.S.
Ph.D.
M.S.
M.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
M.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
Ph.D
Ph.D.
F. Bradley, P.E.
H. Baldwin
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Urban Planning
Economics
Forestry
Biology
Environmental Sciences
Technician
Sanitary Engineering (Team Leade]
Sanitary Engineering (Team Leader
Civil Engineering
Chemistry (Deceased)
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Sanitary Engineering, P.E.
Environmental Sciences & Eng.
Marine Sciences
Biochemistry
Civil Engineering
Biology
Water Resources Engineering
Professional Skills Alliance
W. Hawkins
B. Mitchell
V.G. Myers
J.A. Battle
H.J. Fox
R.E. Williams
R. Owens
B.S.
M.B.A.
Assoc .
B.A.
L.L.D.
M.S.
M.B.A.
Biological Sciences
Business
Political Science
Social Work
*Former Employees of EcolSciences
85
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DETROIT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM:
SEGMENTED
FACILITIES PLAN
PROPOSED BY
DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT
APP;
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT
DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
AND
ECOLSCIENCES, INCORPORATED
SOUTHBEND, INDIANA
Valdas V. Adamki
Deputy Regional
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P. Ranters
Director, Detroit Water
and Sewerage Department
May 1978
-------
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) represents a major step
in providing for the adequate treatment of wastes generated, conveyed
and treated within the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department's service
area. The scope of this Draft EIS is the provision of service in the
service area up to a daily average flow of 1050 million gallons per day.
Contained within a Consent Judgment reached in Federal District Court
are specific dates for the attainment of secondary treatment. This
document has been factored into the planning process providing each
agency a common frame work from which future decision making can be made.
The information contained within this document is provided to allow public
participation prior to final decision making and implementation by the
involved parties. The recommendations presented in this document are
not binding on any agency at this point.
Any decision on further expansion of the existing system into the out-
lying areas of Oakland and Macomb Counties beyond the existing service
area has been deferred at this time. Treatment capacity and facilities
for combined sewer overflows excluding relief work necessary within the
City of Detroit will be addressed in a separate EIS. The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency is also recommending that the construction of
the North Interceptor-West Arm be deferred until the final facilities
plan and its corresponding EIS are prepared.
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department jointly issue this EIS and seek your comments.
Valdas V. Adanjkus
Deputy Regional Administ
'or
John P. Kanters, Director
Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department
-------
FOREWORD
The environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared with-
in the guidelines established in U.S. EPA Program Require-
ments Memorandum 75-31. As a "piggyback" EIS, it relies on
data presented in the draft overview plan and the draft seg-
mented facilities plan for the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department by the joint venture of Giffels Associates and
Black and Veatch of Michigan. References to the Draft Over-
view Plan with Environmental Assessment are given(Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book X).References to the segmented
facilities plan, entitled Segmented Facilities Plan for the
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, are given (GirTels/
Black and Veatch, 1978, Book X). The Segmented Facilities
Plan (SFP) contains the following documents:
Executive Summary
Book I Summary Report
Book II Description and Characteristics of Area - Volume 1 of 4
Land (DOA101)
Water(DOA102)
Air (DOA103)
Book III Description and Characteristics of Area - Volume 2 of 4
Living Organisms {DOA104)
Book IV Description and Characteristics of Area - Volume 3 of 4
Land (DOA106)
Human Interest (DOA107)
Infrastructure (DOA108)
Community Facilities (DOA109J
Book V Description and Characteristics of Area - Volume 4 of 4
Population and Social Characteristics (DOA110)
Economic Conditions (DOA111)
Book VI Air and Water Quality
Ambient Air Assessment (AWQ101)
Water Quality - Present and Future (AWQ4)
Book VII Existing Waste Collection and Treatment Facilities -
Volume 1 of 3
City of Detroit - Wastewater Collection System (WCT201)
Evaluation of Detroit Wastewater Collection System
(WCT103)
Suburban Wastewater Collection System (WCT107)
Industrial Waste Discharges (WCT104)
-------
Book VIII Existing Waste Collection and Treatment Facilities -
Volume 2 of 3
Background Information (WCT211)
Wastewater Characteristics (WCT112)
Existing Unit Processes (WCT213)
Assessment of Existing Facilities Performance (WCT114)
Book IX Existing Waste Collection and Treatment Facilities -
Volume 3 of 3
Sludge and Grease Incineration (WCT106)
Solids Disposal (WCT119)
Bound Assessment (WCT120)
Book X Infiltration/Inflow Analysis (I/I101)
Book XI Proposed Facilities - Volume 1 of 3
Detroit Collection System Alternatives (WCT8)
Suburban Collection System Alternatives (WCT9)
Book XII Proposed Facilities - Volume 2 of 3
Preliminary Alternatives - Wastewater Treatment
Processes (WCT15)
Sludge and Grease Incineration Alternatives (WCT106)
Solids Disposal Alternatives (WCT119)
Book XIII Proposed Facilities - Volume 3 of 3
Comparative Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Costs (PF101)
Book XIV Environmental Assessment (EA)
Book XV Legal - Institutional Relationships and Regulatory
Requirements (LII201)
Book XVI Public Participation (PP1)
West Arm Segmented Facilities Plan - 2 Volumes (WA-SFP)
West Arm Segmented Facilities Plan - Environmental Assessment -
2 Volumes (WA-SFP-EA)
Copies of the Segmented Facilities Plan are available for review
at the following locations:
Detroit Public Library
Main Branch
5201 Woodward at Kirby
Detroit, Michigan
Detroit Public Library
Downtown Branch
121 Gratiot at Farmer
Detroit, Michigan
Harper Woods Library
19601 Harper
Harper Woods, Michigan
Macomb County Library
County Service Center
Mt. Clemens, Michigan
VI
-------
Detroit Public Library Dearborn Library
Reference Branch 16301 Michigan
1004 City-County Building Dearborn, Michigan
Detroit, Michigan
Southfield Library SEMCOG
26000 Evergreen Road 1249 Washington
Southfield, Michigan Detroit, Michigan
DWSD Giffels Associates
Water Board Building 243 West Congress
735 Randolph Detroit, Michigan
Detroit, Michigan
vn
-------
ACRONYMS
CBD Central Business District
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
DRI Detroit River Interceptor
DRI-R Detroit River Interceptor - Relief
DWF Dry Weather Flow
DWSD Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
DWWTP Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
Encotec Environmental Control Technology, Inc. (consultants)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GLBC Great Lakes Basin Commission
IJC International Joint Commission
MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources
MPN Most Probable Number (ref. bacterial count)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NI-EA North Interceptor - East Arm
NI-WA North Interceptor - West Arm
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
OBERS Office of Business Economics & Agricultural Research
Service
O&M Operation and Maintenance
0-NWI Oakwood Northwest Interceptor
0-NWI-R Oakwood Northwest Interceptor - Relief
OP/EA Overview Plan with Environmental Assessment
SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
SFP Segmented FAcilities Plan
WA-SFP West Arm - Segmented Facilities Plan
-------
Anoxic
Benthic
Chironomid
Copepods
Colonial Ciliates
Diatom
Disaggregated
Eutrophication
Fauna
Flora
gcd
Macrophytes
Oligotrophic
Periphyton
GLOSSARY
Describes an environment devoid of oxygen;
also anaerobic.
The habitat at the bottom of a lake or river.
The immature form of a group of flies known
as midges, who spend their pre-adult stages
in the bottom or benthic habitat of rivers
and lakes.
A microscopic group of crustaceans that
make up part of the free-swimming animal
population in lakes known as the zooplankton.
Ciliates are a group of protozoans (one-celled
primitive animals) that have specialized,
movable hairs called cilia covering the out-
side of their cell membrane; colonial refers
to a group of these ciliates living together.
A microscopic, free-floating aquatic plant
(algae) with cell walls of silica that is
common in freshwater.
The process of dividing regional population
forecasts to create smaller political or
geographical units forecasts.
The process of nutrient enrichment of a body
of water and its associated physical, chemical,
and biological changes.
The animal life in a region or environment.
The plant life in a region or environment.
Gallons per capita per day.
Large aquatic plants whose growth patterns
may be either floating, submergent, or emergent.
Describes a body of water with a small supply
of nutrients and hence a low level of organic
production (i.e. algae, macrophytes,
invertebrates, fish).
Small aquatic plants (algae) which attach
themselves to a substrate but do not penetrate,
as would a rooted plant.
IX
-------
GLOSSARY (continued)
Pickle Liquor Refers to liquid ferrous chloride,
a waste product of steel processing
that is used in chemical phosphorus removal
processes.
Salmonids Refers to the salmon family, Salmonidae,
and includes salmon and trout species.
Sessile Refers to an organism's immobility; i.e.,
they live attached to an object, fixed in
place.
Sphaerid Refers to the genus Sphaerium, a small
freshwater bivalve or clam.
Urban Heat Island The phenomenon of heat absorption and
retention that occurs in an area dominated
by buildings and concrete surfaces, such as
large cities. Heat is retained longer than
in non-urban areas and affects the local
climate, particularly precipitation and
air currents.
Zoobenthos That community of animals whose habitat is
the bottom of a body of water.
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Top i c Page
Cover Sheet i
Joint Letter: DWSD Director iii
and U.S. EPA Regional Administrator
Foreword v
Acronyms viii
Glossary ix
Table of Contents xi
Index of Tables xiv
Index of Figures xvii
Summary xix
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-3
1.2 Legislation and Regulation 1-3
1.3 History of the Facilities 1-5
1.4 Proposed Action (Summary) 1-9
1.5 Study Process 1-13
1.6 Summary 1-17
2.0 The Environmental Setting 2-1
2.1 Climate 2-3
2.2 Topography 2-3
2.3 Geology 2-4
2.4 Soils 2-4
2.5 Hydrology 2-5
2.6 Biology 2-13
2.7 Air Quality 2-17
2.8 Aesthetics - 2-19
2.9 Institutional and Governmental Jurisdictions 2-20
2.10 Population and Demographics 2-24
2.11 Land Use and Development Trends 2-26
2.12 Cultural Resources 2-35
2.13 Employment 2-44
2.14 Public Health 2-47
2.15 Public Facilities and Services 2-49
2.16 Summary 2-52
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Topic Page
3.0 Existing Facilities 3-1
3.1 Wastewater Collection System 3-3
3.2 Wastewater Flows 3-17
3.3 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 3-23
3.4 Summary 3-35
4.0 Future Situation 4-1
4.1 Population and Land Use 4-3
4.2 Economic Projections 4-8
4.3 Forecasts of Flow and Waste Load 4-8
4.4 Water Quantity and Quality 4-10
4.5 Air Quality 4-12
4.6 Cultural Resources 4-12
4.7 Rare and Endangered Species 4-13
4.8 Summary 4-13
5.0 Alternatives Analysis 5-1
5.1 Collection and Treatment Components Alternatives 5-3
5.2 Screening of Collection and Treatment Systems 5-17
5.3 Evaluation of Collection and Treatment
Alternatives 5-69
5.4 Residuals Management Component Alternatives 5-79
5.5 Screening of Residuals Management Systems 5-95
5.6 Evaluation of Residuals Management Alternatives 5-120
5.7 Institutional Alternatives Evaluation 5-139
5.8 Summary 5-146
6.0 Recommended Plan 6-1
6.1 Selection Process 6-3
6.2 Description of the Recommended Plan 6-7
6.3 Unresolved Issues 6-17
6.4 Future Studies 6-17
6.5 Summary 6-20
7.0 Impacts of the Recommended Plan 7-1
7.1 Treatment and Collection 7-3
7.2 Residuals Management 7-15
7.3 Institutional 7-24
7.4 Summary 7-24
8.0 Long-Term Versus Short-Term Considerations 8-1
8.1 Mitigating Measures 8-3
8.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 8-5
8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources 8-7
8.4 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of
Man's Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 8-8
8.5 Summary 8-9
XII
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Topic
9.0 Agencies, Groups, and Individuals Notified
of This Action 9-1
9.1 Local and Regional Representatives Notified 9-3
9.2 State Representatives Notified 9-5
9.3 Federal Representatives Notified 9-5
9.4 Media Representatives Notified 9-6
9.5 Organizations and Individuals Notified 9-6
10.0 References 10-1
11.0 Technical Appendices 11-1
11.1 Description of Future Studies Required and
Memoranda of Understanding 11-3
11.2 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 11-15
11.3 A Model for Calculating the Land Requirements
of a Sludge Application Program 11-19
11.4 Evaluation of Existing Unit Processes at
the DWWTP (6-1-77) 11-30
11.5 Suburban Wastewater Districts Serving Individual
Communities 11-38
11.6 Suburban Wastewater Districts Serving Multiple
Communities 11-42
11.7 Suburban Wastewater Treatment Facilities 11-46
11.8 Consent Judgment 11-50
11.9 Letter of Intent 11-84
11.10 Public Hearing, Comments, and Responses to
Review Agencies 11-90
Xlll
-------
INDEX OF TABLES
Table Title
2.9-A Individual Cities Served by DWSD 2-20
2.9-B Jurisdictions Within Sanitary Districts 2-22
2.10-A Historical Population Figures for the Study
Area 2-25
2.11-A Land Use Acreage - Overview Plan Study Area,
1970 2-33
2.12-A Historical Sites and Landmarks - Post American
Revolution 2-41
2.13-A Historical Employment by Place of Work,
1960-1970 2-48
2.14-A Incidence of Communicable Disease, Cases per
1000 Population 2-47
3.1-A Drainage Districts Within the City of Detroit 3-5
3.1-B Estimated Deficiencies in the City of Detroit's
Subdistricts 3-8
3.1-C Ma-jor Detroit Pumping Stations 3-12
3.2-A Present Detroit Dry Weather Wastewater Flows 3-19
3.2-B Suburban Average Dry Weather Flows by District 3-20
3.2-C Sources of River Inflow 3-22
3.3-A Facilities Under Construction or Under Contract
for Construction 3-25
3.3-B Contracts Which Are Currently Scheduled But
Not Awarded for Construction 3-26
3.3-C Raw Wastewater Characteristics 3-27
3.3-D Present and Expected Future Effluent Limitations
for the DWWTP 3-30
4.1-A Study Area Population Projections 4-4
4.1-B Comparison of SFP Population Forecast with
OBERS Series "E" 4-7
4.2-A Comparison of SFP Population, Employment, and
Income with OBERS Series "E" 4-9
4.3-A Peak Dry Weather Flows - By Decade 4-10
4.3-B Average Dry Weather Flow - By Decade 4-11
5.1-A Summary of Possible ALternatives for Treatment
of Combined Sewer Overflows 5-16
5.2-A Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative Al - Reduction 'of Wastewater
Service by DWSD 5-21
5.2-B Alternative Al Monetary Cost Analysis - Million
Dollars 5-21
5.2-C Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative A2a - Additional Treatment Outside
Detroit, No Action, Do Nothing 5-23
5.2-D Alternative A2a - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-23
5.2-E Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative A2b - Additional Treatment in
Detroit, Do Nothing by DWSD 5-25
xiv
-------
Index of Tables (Continued)
Table Title Page
5.2-F Alternative A2b - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-25
5.2-G Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative Bl - Optimum Operation of Existing
and Mandated Facilities 5-29
5.2-H Alternative Bl - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-29
5.2-1 Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative B2 - Optimization at Design
Capacity 5-31
5.2-J Alternative B2 - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-31
5.2-K Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative Cl - Dispersed Treatment by DWSD 5-35
5.2-L Alternative Cl - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-35
5.2-M Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative C2a - Additions to Optimized
Plant, 2435 mgd Preliminary Capacity 5-39
5.2-N Alternative C2a - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-39
5.2-O Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative C2b - Additions to Optimized
Plant, 2730 mgd Preliminary Capacity 5-41
5.2-P Alternative C2b - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-41
5.2-Q Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative Dl - Land Application of
Secondary Effluent 5-45
5.2-R Alternative Dl - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-45
5.2-S Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative D2 - Abandon Existing Plant 5-47
5.2-T Alternative D2 - Monetary Cost Analysis -
Million Dollars 5-47
5.2-U Treatment Facilities and Capacities for
Alternative D3 - Split Treatment 5-50
5.2-V Alternative D3 - Monetary Analysis - Million
Dollars 5-50
5.3-A Environmental Analysis Matrix for Collection
and Treatment System Alternatives 5-74
5.3-B Environmental Analysis Matrix for West Arm
Alternatives 5-80
5.5-A Comparison of Sludge Stabilization Alternatives
for 50 mgd (189,000 m3/d) Modules 5-96
5.5-B Comparison of Sludge Incineration Alternatives 5-100
5.5-C Expected Daily Sludge Production 5-104
5.5-D Sludge Disposal Alternatives for Screening 5-105
xv
-------
Index of Tables (Continued)
Table Title Page
5.5-E Minimum Amount of Land Necessary for Land
Application of All DWSD Sludge to Year 2000 5-107
515-F Estimated Land Requirements for Landfilling
of Sludge to Year 2000 5-112
5.6-A Estimated Unit Costs and Energy Consumption of
Sludge Processing and Disposal Alternatives 5-122
5.6-B Environmental Analysis Matrix of Feasible
Residuals Disposal Alternatives 5-132
5.7-A Institutional Alternatives - Advantages and
Disadvantages 5-140
xvi
-------
INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1.1-A Facilities Planning Area - City of Detroit 1-4
1.4-A Proposed Action 1-10
2.9-A Overview Planning Area 2-21
2.11-A Major Retail Centers 2-27
2.11-B Major Institutional Centers 2-28
2.11-C Major Office Centers 2-29
2.11-D Major Manufacturing Centers 2-30
2.11-E Concentrations of Residential Land Use
in the Study Area 2-32
2.11-F Prime Agricultural Areas 2-34
2.11-G Adopted Master Plan 2-36
2.11-H Adopted Zoning Ordinance 2-37
2.11-1 Adopted Subdivision Regulations 2-38
2.12-A Historical and Archaeological Landmarks
and Sites - City of Detroit 2-39
2.12-B Historical and Archaeological Landmarks
and Sites - Overview Plan Study Area 2-40
2.12-C Existing and Proposed Park and Recreation
Facilities, Game Preserves, and
Agricultural Reserves 2-45
2.12-D Major Cultural Centers 2-46
3.1-A DWSD - Drainage District and Subdistrict
Boundaries 3-4
3.1-B Overflow Points Location 3-7
3.1-C Interceptor System and Major Control
Facilities 3-11
3.1-D Suburban Wastewater Districts and
Treatment Plants 3-14
3.3-A Process Schematic of DWWTP 3-28
3.3-B DWSD Organizational Structure, Fiscal Year
1976-1977 3-33
5.2-A Reduced Service by DWSD, "No Action" -
Alternative Al 5-22
5.2-B Additional Treatment Outside Detroit,
"No Action", Do Nothing - Alternative A2a 5-24
5.2-C Additional Treatment in Detroit - Do Nothing
by DWSD - Alternative A2b 5-26
5.2-D Optimum Operation of Existing and Mandated
Facilities - Alternative Bl 5-30
5.2-E Optimization at Design Capacity -
Alternative B2 5-32
5.2-F Dispersed Treatment by DWSD -
Alternative Cl 5-36
5.2-G Additions to Optimized Plant, 2435 mgd
Preliminary Capacity - Alternative C2a 5-40
5.2-H Additions to Optimized Plant, 2730 mgd
Preliminary Capacity - Alternative C2b 5-42
5.2-1 Land Application of Secondary Effluent -
Alternative Dl 5-46
xvii
-------
INDEX OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure Title Page
5.2-J Abandon Existing Plant - Alternative D2 5-48
5.2-K Split Treatment - Alternative D3 5-51
5.2-L West Arm Alternative B12 5-54
5.2-M West Arm Alternative C12 5-57
5.2-N West Arm Alternative D12 . 5-59
5.2-0 West Arm Alternative E12 5-61
5.2-P West Arm Alternative F12 5-64
5.2-Q West Arm Alternative G12 5-66
5.4-A Sludge Processing Alternatives Considered
for Screening 5-82
5.6-A Proposed Lake County Disposal Area
Site Layout 5-124
5.6-B Redker-Young Process Flow Diagram 5-127
All figures except the following were taken from the
Segmented Facilities Plan prepared by Giffels/Black
and Veatch:
2.11-F 5.2-N
2.11-G 5.2-0
2.11-H 5.2-P
5.2-L 5.2-Q
5.2-M
xviii
-------
SUMMARY
(x) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
1. Name of Action
Administrative (x)
Legislative ( )
2. The applicant's proposed action involves federal financial
assistance for the upgrading and expansion of the existing
Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) to a capacity
of 1050 million gallons per day (mgd). The proposed action
also includes expansion of the associated collection system.
Federal financing is requested under the statutory authority
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500).
The facilities planning consultant estimates that the pro-
posed action will cost $514 million. Average annual oper-
ation and maintenance costs of the facilities are estimated
at $36 million.
3. The recommended plan proposes that the existing regional
wastewater treatment plant be upgraded to provide for
optimum operation of facilities. Plant capacity would be
sufficient to treat an average daily flow of 600 mgd with
a 48 hour sustained peak flow of 1050 mgd. The plant will
continue to use activated sludge to provide secondary treat-
ment and ferrous chloride or another chemical to precipitate
phosphorus in the primary or secondary clarifiers. Sludge
processing will continue to include vacuum filtration of
raw sludge followed by incineration. Final disposal of the
fly ash in various landfill sites is recommended.
The recommended plan also outlines changes which will be
required to improve operation and maintenance procedures.
Included are financing and management changes as well as
modifications to existing contracts and ordinances.
4. The majority of the environmental impacts of the plan are
related to the construction process. No major construc-
tion project can be undertaken in an urban setting with-
out some disruption to the local residents. The construc-
tion impacts will be localized near the plant and at the
access points of the tunnel interceptors.
Sludge processing will have major impact on the environ-
ment. The incinerators will meet stack emission standards
and reduce the plant's contribution to the air quality
xix
-------
problems in the region. Because of its size, the landfill
site will be a major impact, but mitigating measures can
greatly reduce the severity of these impacts.
5. Information used in this EIS was solicited from federal,
state, and local agencies as well as the public and local
organizations. A list of parties receiving a copy of the
Draft EIS is listed in Section 9.0 of this document.
xx
-------
1. 0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to set the stage for
the reader. Included are the history of the facility,
discussions of legal actions, explanation of legislation
and regulations, description of the major issues, and out-
line of the study process, and a description of the public
and governmental participation.
1-1
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Identification of Grant Applicant
The grant applicant is the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department, a department of the City of Detroit, Michigan.
The department has been known by various names during its
existence including Detroit Department of Public Works, the
Detroit Department of Water Supply, and the Detroit Metro-
politan Water Department. In this document, all three are
referred to as DWSD.
1.1.2 Study Area Description
The study area was divided into two parts: the facili-
ties plan study area and the overview study area. The divi-
sion was made to provide a detailed facilities plan for the
City of Detroit and a overview study of the suburban juris-
dictions provided sewer service by the City of Detroit.
The facilities plan area (Figure 1.1-A) consists of the
City of Detroit. The overview study area includes parts of
Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties, Michigan. The overview
study area includes 78 autonomous political jurisdictions
ranging from villages to counties (Section 2.9.1).
1.2 Legislation and Regulation
1.2.1 Facilities Planning & NEPA
Title II, Section 201 (g) (1) of the Federal Water pollu-
tion Control Act Amendment of 1972 (PL 92-500) authorizes the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be the adminis-
tering agency for "Grants for Construction of Treatment Works"
This program allows the U.S. EPA administrator to provide fi-
nancial assistance to any state, municipality, intermunicipal
agency, or interstate agency for the construction of publicly
owned water pollution control facilities. To secure federal
assistance, the grant applicant must prepare a "Facilities
Plan" which is partially funded under the U.S. EPA Construc-
tion Grants Program. The goal of this program and other pro-
visions of PL 92-500 is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United
States.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and
Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970 entitled "Protection
and Enhancement of Environmental Quality" require that all
Federal Agencies prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for all Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment or being highly controversial.
1-3
-------
Figure 1.1-A
Facilities Planning Area
City of Detroit
1-4
-------
U.S. EPA is required to evaluate each proposed facilities
plan and determine if the proposed action is expected to have
a significant environmental impact or be highly controversial.
Should an EIS be required, U.S. EPA Program Requirements Memo-
randum (PRM) 75-31 (formerly Program Guidance Memorandum 58)
(U.S. EPA 1976 A) provides for the joint preparation of an
environmental impact statement and the facility plan. This
process is called "piggybacking". The piggyback process was
developed to reduce the total time required, identify the sig-
nificant issues and resolve the issues in a prompt manner,
while satisfying all statutory requirements.
1.2.2 NPDES Permit
Section 402 of Title IV, Public Law 92-500, requires
U.S. EPA or certified states to issue permit under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). An
NPDES permit limits the type, and amount of discharge of any
pollutant. Civil penalties, monetary and penal, are required
for violations of the permit. U.S. EPA has certified MDNR to
issue NPDES permits within the State of Michigan.
MDNR issued an NPDES permit to DWSD for the DWWTP (Permit
MI-0022802) in December, 1974. The NPDES permit contained in-
terim effluent limits while expansion and upgrading of the
DWWTP was being completed. Within the requirements of the
NPDES permit a facilities plan was required to meet the final
effluent limitations and the goals of PL 92-500.
1.3 History of the Facilities
1.3.1 Facilities Planning
The Detroit Department of Public Works in 1935 received
a grant of $20,000,000 from the Federal Public Works Adminis-
tration to construct a wastewater treatment plant. Completed
in 1940 at a cost of $22,635,000, the facilities were turned
over to the Department of Water Supply in 1941. At this time
primary treatment and disinfection were provided, with waste-
water discharge to the Detroit River. Between 1954 and 1966
additional modifications were made (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book VIII).
In 1965 the facilities were transferred to the Detroit
Metropolitan Water Department. A regional watershed pollution
control program was begun in 1965 with a commitment to up-
grade the water quality of the Detroit River and Lake Erie.
During 1966, the City of Detroit and the Michigan Water Re-
sources Commission reached an agreement to further limit the
pollutants in the effluent. This agreement was amended in
1971 (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XV).
1-5
-------
In accordance with the requirements of the construction
grants program and the DWSD NPDES permit, a facilities plan
was prepared and submitted in December, 1975 for DWSD by the
engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth and Clark. The facilities
plan was segmented to accelerate design and construction of
various elements. As a planning document, the facilities
plan was rejected by the regulatory agencies (MDNR and US. EPA)
because of changes in regulatory requirements. However, some
segments of the plan had previously been approved.
The failure of the facilities plan prepared by Hubbell,
Roth and Clark to be approved and the repeated violation of
the interim effluent limitations caused MDNR to revoke the
DWSD NPDES permit on July 23, 1976. The revocation of the
permit was conditional upon terms contained within the MDNR
Final Order No. 1780. If the terms of the final order were
violated, the penalties required by the NPDES permit would
be invoked.
The Final Order required submission and approval of the
required Facilities Plan by August 15, 1977. Within Final
Order 1780, a list of mandated work was presented. The man-
dated work included: (1) facilities under construction, or
under contract to be constructed and (2) contracts currently
scheduled but not awarded for construction. The mandated con-
struction includes the following elements:
1. Facilities under construction, or under Contract to
be constructed:
PC-283 Aeration Tanks No. 3 and 4 and Intermediate
Lift Pumping Units (Fall, 1977)
PC-284 Four Final Tanks (Summer, 1977)
PC-288A Oxygen Plant (Fall, 1979)
PC-294 Six Sludge Thickeners (Fall, 1978)
PC-299 Sedimentation Tank Flow Control Improvements
(Summer, 1977)
PC-400 Sludge Complex I Improvements (Summer, 1980)
PC-406 (Summer, 1978) and PC-408 (Spring, 1979) Four
Final Clarifiers (Each Contract)
PC-407 Four Primary Tanks Renovation - Group I
(Fall, 1978
2. Contracts which are currently scheduled, but not
awarded for construction:
PC-276 Primary Tanks A3 and A4 (Spring, 1979)
PC-295 Sludge Complex III (Spring, 1.980)
PC-413 Instrumentation Service Contract (Fall, 1977)
SC-01 Operation and Maintenance Manuals
CS-801 Site Improvements
CS-802 Tall Stacks
CS-804 Employee Service Building
CS-805 Electrical System Renovation
1-6
-------
PC-000 Computer Maintenance Contract
CS-813 Interim Sludge Disposal
Primary Tanks Renovations Groups II and III
CS-816 Grit Removal System Improvements
A new facilities plan was prepared for the City of
Detroit during 1976-1977 by the joint venture of Giffels Asso-
ciates and Black and Veatch of Michigan. Included in the doc-
ument is a facilities plan for the City of Detroit, an over-
view plan for the suburban service area and an environmental
assessment. This document, Overview Plan with Environmental
Assessment (OP/EA), was developed as a master planning docu-
ment for DWSD. In addition to the OP/EA, it was determined
by the U.S. EPA that due to several major issues, an inviron-
mental impact statement (EIS) would be prepared by U.S. EPA,
Region V. In order to more rapidly arrive at a solution to
the City of Detroit's problem, a "piggyback" EIS was imple-
mented. The "piggyback" EIS was to be prepared concurrently
with the OP/EA. A "Memorandum of Understanding" between U.S.
EPA, the City of Detroit, the Board of Water Commissioners,
and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) was
written to describe the purpose of the project and the pro-
cedures to be followed (U.S. EPA, 1976A; U.S. EPA, 1976B).
During the organization of the OP/EA, it was decided by
DWSD to prepare a segmented facility plan for the West Arm
Interceptor that had previously been in the planning phase.
A rapid analysis was to have allowed processing of Step 2 and
Step 3 grant applications for fiscal year 1978. However,
problems arose during the study that affected the timely
completion. The lack of prior measurements caused problems
in determining the dry weather flows and infiltration/inflow
from the suburbs. Drought conditions during the fall and
winter were such that combined sewer overflows (CSO) did not
occur, making analysis of the CSO problem impossible. De-
tailed analysis of alternatives demonstrated that the proposed
interceptor was not the only feasible solution to the problem
of sewage overflows to the River Rouge. Consequently, further
study was required, causing a disruption of the accelerated
schedule. The Segmented Facility Plan for the West Arm Inter-
ceptor (WA-SFP) remained a separate document, but was sub-
mitted with the OP/EA. A hearing for the OP/EA was held on
June 30, 1977.
PL 92-500 requires that the applicant, in this case the
City of Detroit and DWSD, has or will adopt a system to pay
for the local share of the services provided (user charge sys-
tem) . During the periods of 1974-1977 it became apparent to
MDNR and U.S. EPA that DWSD would not be able to implement a
user charge system. DWSD attempted to create a user charge
system, however suburban jurisdiction brought suit to halt any
increases in service charges. As a result, it became apparent
1-7
-------
that DWSD would be unable to provide the needed funds for the
required construction. Without the local share funds avail-
able or assured MDNR and U.S. EPA cannot make grants for the
requested facilities.
1.3.2 Legal Suit and Consent Judgment
As a result of DWSD'S financial situation and the opera-
tion and maintenance of the existing facilities U.S. EPA and
MDNR determined that the City of Detroit and DWSD were not
making satisfactory progress towards solving their problems,
and began action to assure compliance by the City. Consequent-
ly, on May 6, 1977, a civil suit was filed by U.S. EPA and MDNR
against the City of Detroit and DWSD to restrain them from vio-
lating their NPDES permit. The suit called for: (1) establish-
ing a system of charges for the operation and maintenance of the
treatment; (2) measures to be taken to attain maximum opera-
tional efficiency and pollution control; and (3) imposition of
a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000 per day for violations
of the NPDES permit (U.S. District Court, 1977A).
The conjuction with the civil suit, negotiations for a
Consent Judgment were begun to avoid a lengthy public trail.
The Consent Judgment details the changes necessary in the exist-
ing system in order to reach compliance with the NPDES permit,
provides a schedule of necessary equipment construction, and
requirements for recruitment of qualified personnel to operate
the treatment plant.
Major items addressed in the Consent Judgment include
(U.S. District Court, 1977B).
• Development of immediate financing, user charge, in-
dustrial cost recovery, and local capital cost funding
systems;
• Enforcement of city and federal industrial pretreat-
ment regulations;
• The operational, maintenance, and staffing changes
that are necessary;
• The completion of the facilities plan; and
• A description and scheduling of interim and permanent
sludge disposal procedures.
The Consent Judgment was agreed to by all parties on
September 14, 1977. The Consent Judgment is included in this
EIS as Appendix 11.8.
1-8
-------
1.4 Proposed Action (Summary)
1.4.1 Description
The primary finding of the SFP was that if the existing
facilities were properly operated and maintained, relatively
few modification would be required to assure compliance with
the NPDES permit and air quality standards. The SFP recom-
mended that the mandated Sludge Complex III and the tall in-
cinerator stacks, currently under contract, are not needed and
should not be constructed.
1.4.1.1 Treatment Facilities
Optimization of existing facilities is the alternative
recommended for action. This action includes continued con-
struction of the secondary treatment facilities plus rehabi-
litation of pump/grit units and controls, flow metering devices,
primary sludge pumping and piping, final clarifiers, chlorine
feed systems, secondary filtered effluent system, solids hand-
ling system, vacuum filters, incinerators, and polymer and
ferrous chloride systems plus supplementary ferric chloride
feed.
1.4.1.2 Collection System
Collection system construction within Detroit would be
for the relief of combined sewers during stormwater conditions.
Construction in the suburban collection system would include
Mt. Clemens Arm, and parts of the Lake Shore and Richmond Arms
(Figure 1.4-A). Additionally, interceptor reliefs as proposed
by the facilities planning consultant.
1.4.1.3 Residual Disposal
Residuals include treatment plant sludge, grit, screen-
ings, and scum and grease. The proposed action recommends
continuation of the present disposal methods for grit and
screenings (landfill), and scum and grease (incineration and
landfill of ash).
Incineration is recommended for processing of the sludge,
with ultimate disposal of the ash in landfills. The capacity
of upgraded Sludge Complexes I and II when completed in 1981,
will be able to accommodate the sludge produced from dry weath-
er flows through year 2000, when incinerator (contract CS 400)
modifications are completed.
1.4.1.4 Management
In order to satisfactorily maintain and operate the
treatment plant, certain management changes are recommended
as grant conditions for DWSD. A definition of the chain of
command within DWSD is necessary to ensure proper operation
1-9
-------
•NORTH INTERCEPTOR -
EAST ARM AREA
PROPOSED RICHMOND ARI
CLINTON-OAKLAND
^_ DISTRICT
' v
MACOMB DISTRICT
EVERGREEN-(
FARMINGTONy
DISTRldf
SOUTH MACOMB
DISTRICT
i ~\_ r±^
ROUGE VALLEY DISTRICT
LOWER ROUGE INT
OAKWOOD.-N|ORTHWJBST
: \ INT£RCEPTdf? ^
N.E. WAYNE COUNTY
DISTRICT
DETROIT RIVER INT RELIEF
NORTH INTERCEPTOR-
EAST ARM AREA
DETROIT RIVER
INTERCEPTOR AREA
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
EXISTING INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
A PROPOSED CONNECTIONS
METER
PUMPING STATION
PUMPING STATION WITH METER
TREATMENT PLANT
0 5
I I II I 1
10
20
Scale in Miles
Figure 1.4-A
Proposed Action
1-10
-------
of sewerage systems. Adequate staffing at the plant, and the
training of treatment plant operators must be upgraded to pro-
vide the necessary level of skill to properly run the system.
The ongoing training program will partially satisfy the need
for skilled employees. The procurement system for parts must
be changed to allow for rapid repair of machinery. These
changes would facilitate proper operation and maintenance of
the treatment plant.
1.4.1.5 Legal and Institutional
It is recommended that suburban contracts be renegotiated
to reflect the actual needs of the communities and the capaci-
ty of the treatment plant. This would allow better control
over industrial flows and the development of cost recovery
and user charge systems.
1.4.2 Air Quality Problems and Objectives
The DWWTP is located in the highly industrialized area
of southwest Detroit. This area is currently experiencing a
serious suspended particulate air quality problem. In 1975,
the annual average particulate concentration at Station 05
was 131 ug/m-* as compared to the standard of 75 ug/m^. This
station is the closest to the plant site and is approximately
1.5 miles to the northeast. For the 24 hour particulate con-
centration Station 05 exceeded the primary standard 6.7% of
the time and exceeded the secondary standard 35% of the time.
The main air quality goal in the area is the attainment
of the primary air quality standards. The MDNR has completed
an analysis of the area to determine if the state implementa-
tion plan is sufficient to ensure compliance by 1985. The
MDNR report concluded that neither secondary nor primary
standards would be achieved in the areas of Wayne County
which are now violating the standards. However, significant
reductions in ambient suspended particulate levels will occur
in the heavily industrialized downriver area (Air Pollution
Control Commission, 1976). The goal of the SFP is to meet
stack emission standards.
1.4.3 Water Quality Problems and Objectives
Overall water quality within the study area ranges from
fair to poor. Water quality objectives for this project are
to meet secondary effluent discharge limitations and to reduce
combined sewer overflows, particularly to the River Rouge.
1.4.4 Residual Disposal Problems and Objectives
The present residual disposal system uses contract haul-
ing of incinerator ash, screenings, and a portion of the grit.
1-11
-------
The hauler has the responsibility of selecting a state approved
ultimate disposal site. The DWSD does not have control of the
sites that are used or of the management conditions at the sites,
Also, occasionally incineration of the sludge is imcomplete, re-
sulting in a product that is not totally inert (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book IX).
The objective of this study is to identify the alterna-
tive which will provide a disposal system with minimal en-
vironmental impacts, is compatible with the treatment process,
is cost-effective and can be implemented.
1.4.5 Financing the Project
The Consent Judgment requires an equitable user charge
system. An increase in user charges was implemented by DWSD
on September 1, 1977. However, litigation initiated by the
suburbs has restricted collections. Regardless, the most
pressing issue facing DWSD is the attainment and continuation
of collecting sufficient revenues to implement the needed and
mandated construction.
On October 19, 1976, the President signed PL 94-558 which
authorizes the Administrator of U.S. EPA to guarantee loans by
the Federal Financing Bank to U.S. EPA grantees. The loans
may be used to finance the local share of the cost of waste-
water treatment works and the Administrator of U.S. EPA must
certify the grantee cannot obtain sufficient credit on reason-
able terms to finance its actual needs without the guarantee
and that there is reasonable assurance of repayment. Current
U.S. EPA regulations do not allow DWSD to utilize this method
of financing.
Under PL 92-500 the Environmental Protection Agency Con-
struction Grants Program finances 75% of the allowable costs
for the collection and treatment of wastewaters for communi-
ties. The State of Michigan, through the Water Resources
Commission, administers a grant program providing 5% of the
allowable costs. The municipalities involved must finance
the remaining 20% of the allowable costs and all of the non-
allowable costs.
To finance portion of the Consent Judgment, the Federal
Court Judge on September 9, 1977, reserved $347,000,000 of
the PL 92-500 funds allocated to Michigan for Detroit (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book I). Subsequent legal action re-
duced the Detroit share to $77,000,000. The 1977 amendments
to PL 92-500 allocates $150,000,000 per year for fiscal years
1978-1980 to fund water pollution abatement programs.
1-12
-------
1.5 Study Process
In accordance with Federal regulations, the Notice of
Intent and the Memorandum of Understanding the EIS process
was designed to coordinate with the facilities planning
process. Interim reports and analysis systems were reviewed
by U.S. EPA. At key decision points, such as the develop-
ment and selection of alternative, interagency meetings in-
cluding U.S. EPA, MDNR, and the Southeastern Michigan Council
of Governments (SEMCOG) were held to ensure U.S. EPA partici-
pation in the decision-making process.
During the preparation of the EIS, the OP/EA interim
reports, the OP/EA report and the SFP reports were used as
a basis for information. Limited additional information was
collected for use in the EIS and was made available to the
facilities planning consultants. During analysis of the alter-
natives developed for the OP/EA, joint meetings were held to
accelerate transfer of ideas. However, the EIS maintained a
separate analysis of the alternatives. The analysis of the
alternatives was a two part, three phase analysis. The collec-
tion and treatment analysis was divided from the sludge anal-
ysis to reduce the complexity of the analysis. Each of the
two parts were subjected to a three phase analysis which:
(1) identified possible components of the system and its sub-
systems, (2) combined the system components into alternatives
for screening to determine the feasible alternatives and (3)
evaluation of the feasible alternatives to arrive at the recom-
mended plan.
In order to facilitate coordination, a number of meetings
on specific topics were held. On January 12 and 13, 1977, a
workshop was held which was attended by DWSD, the facilities
planning consultants, and EIS consultants. During the work-
shop, the progress to date of the OP/EA was presented, and
discussions of the expected direction and procedures to be
used occurred. Problem areas were identified and possible
solutions discussed. Issues concerning population forecasts,
land application, and sludge handling were resolved.
On February 15, 1977, a meeting was held to discuss the
approach to secondary impacts that was to be taken. Attended
by DWSD, U.S. EPA, and the facilities planning and EIS con-
sultants, the degree of secondary impact to be expected was
discussed. As a result of this meeting, the definition of
the "no action" alternative was formulated.
Several meetings were held on alternatives. On February
3, 1977, the consultants met to discuss the treatment plant
process alternatives. On March 24 and 25, 1977, DWSD, U.S.
EPA, MDNR, the facilities planning and EIS consultants met
in Detroit to discuss the feasible alternatives. Conceptual
alternatives presented by the facilities planning consultant
1-13
-------
and justification for decisions on screening were discussed.
Additional alternatives presented by MDNR, U.S. EPA, and their
consultant were taken into consideration by the facilities
planning consultant. On May 6, 1977, the progress toward a
selected plan was presented by the facilities plan consultant
for review and comments by MDNR, U.S. EPA, DWSD, and the EIS
consultant.
On April 14, 1977, a meeting was held by U.S. EPA with
members of both consultants, MDNR, SEMCOG, and staff from
various departments of Michigan State University. This meet-
ing discussed the OP/EA and EIS land application of sludge
alternatives and the present views on heavy metal and nitrogen
limitations.
These meetings resulted in U.S. EPA input at all deci-
sion-making levels. U.S. EPA was able to monitor the progress
of the projects, identify problem areas, and assure that all
issues were being addressed.
In addition to the specific topic meetings, periodic
meetings were scheduled to allow a rapid exchange of ideas,
knowledge, and views. Involved at various times and in differ-
ent meetings were: U.S. EPA, the facilities planning consult-
ant, DWSD, MDNR, SEMCOG, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb County
Officials, and the public. Three types of meetings were held:
public, interagency, and 208 coordination.
Five public meetings were held. These meetings presented
the status of the OP/EA and EIS studies. The public was urged
to attend and raise questions or comment at the meetings. The
topics of public interest were reviewed and answers, where
possible, were included in the studies.
The first public meeting held November 17, 1976, at Cobo
Hall in Detroit resulted in the following comments and concerns;
• Dust and noise from present construction at the treat-
ment plant;
• Offensive odors from the plant on weekends;
• Extension of sewers into rural areas;
• Increased auto traffic from suburbs to city; and
• Possible changes in water quality standards.
The second public meeting held on December 18, 1976, in
Cobo Hall provided progress updates and conceptual alternatives
Public concerns expressed were:
1-14
-------
• Odors from the plant on weekends;
• Possible expansion of the plant;
• Method of operating satellite plants;
• Control of sewer overflows;
• Possible construction of separated sewers in areas
presently served by combined;
• Funding of local share;
• Possible use of a sludge disposal method other than
incineration; and
• Routings of construction vehicles.
In order to ensure suburban input into the OP/EA and EIS
studies, the next three meetings were held in different subur-
ban locations. The third meeting was held in Dearborn Heights
on February 23, 1977. The discussion of this meeting focused
on service to the River Rouge area, and the West Arm Segmented
Facilities Plan. Areas of public concern were:
• The possibility of enclosing or paving more of the
River Rouge; and
• Sewer overflows.
On March 30, 1977, a meeting was held at the Macomb County
Court House. The basic alternative approach being used for anal-
ysis of collection and treatment alternatives and the sludge
disposal alternatives was discussed. Comments from the public
expressed interest in:
• Continuance of suburban contracts with DWSD; and
• A regional authority.
The meeting held in Southfield on April 28, 1977, dis-
cussed the feasible collection and treatment alternatives and
the sludge disposal alternatives. The types of sewerage author-
ities possible were also discussed. Concerns of the public were:
• The need for a regional authority;
• Satellite plants at Connors Creek;
* Control of overflows; and
• Sludge quality affecting land application.
1-15
-------
Interagency meetings involved, at various times, represen-
tatives from SEMCOG, and Wayne County Air Pollution Division,'
as well as U.S. EPA, the facilities planning and EIS consult-
ants, MDNR, and DWSD. Six meetings were held (October 20 and
November 11, 1976, January 21, February 18, March 25, and May
6, 1977) during which the progress to date, problems encoun-
tered, processes used for analysis and issues to be covered
were discussed. Issues discussed during these meetings in-
cluded :
• Sewer overflows;
• Satellite treatment plants;
* Sludge disposal;
• Air quality problems;
• Service to suburban communities;
• Changing the facilities to physical/chemical processes;
• Energy conserving incineration;
• Phosphorus limitations;
• Authority alternatives;
• Population predictions;
• Effluent reuse; and
• Industrial wastes treatment.
In addition to meetings specifically for the OP/EA and
EIS studies, U.S. EPA and their consultant have taken part in
208 coordination meetings. On May 16 and 17, 1977, meetings
held at SEMCOG headquarters presented the OP/EA alternatives
to the suburban communities and on May 18, 1977, a meeting was
held to coordinate the Detroit Facilities Plan with the sub-
urban plans. This was necessary because the DWSD system con-
veys and treats the sewage of suburban communities, and sub-
urban facilities plans must base their selected plan on the
DWSD constraints.
On June 7, 1977, the Draft OP/EA was published and a
hearing scheduled for June 30, 1977, which was to be a joint
OP/EA and EIS hearing. Prior to the hearing it was determined
by the Regional Administrator of Region V, U.S. EPA that the
OP/EA did not have sufficient information upon which to publish
the Draft EIS.
1-16
-------
The public hearing on the Draft OP/EA was held on June 30,
1977. U.S. EPA presented comments at that hearing. In addi-
tion, MDNR and DWSD raised various issues concerning the OP/EA.
The issues centered around six issues:
• Extent of air pollution abatement to be included;
* Methods used for air quality modeling;
• Projected quantities of sludge;
• Location of the outfall;
* Extent of stormwater management, including the West
Arm and Macomb County interceptors; and
* Plant layout and expansion.
During the months of July through November, 1977, meet-
ings between agencies were held to resolve the issues. During
these meetings it was concluded that the WA-SFP would be in-
corporated into the facilities plan. Conclusions and recom-
mendations for CSO, stormwater management, and total residuals
management could not be reached due to insufficient data. There-
fore, it was decided to publish the segmented facilities plan
by January, 1978, continue facilities planning for unresolved
areas and print a final facilities plan by March, 1981.
1.6 Summary
PL 92-500 requires a facilities plan with environmental
assessment during the planning process in order to determine
the magnitude of the existing pollution problems, the cost-
effective solution, and the timely construction of appropriate
equipment. In early 1976, U.S. EPA determined there were sig-
nificant issues present, and EIS was deemed necessary, and was
implemented in a piggyback method. U.S. EPA input was re-
quired throughout the project, and was accomplished by review
of the interim outputs of the facilities planning consultant
and a series of meetings at decision points. Issues and pro-
blems were identified and selection of a recommended plan for
certain tasks occurred with U.S. EPA's involvement. Addition-
al studies were deemed necessary in order to adequately address
various issues.
1-17
-------
2.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following chapter describes current conditions
within the study area including natural and man-made features.
Sections discussed include natural and cultural resources, land
use planning, population, and socioeconomics.
The data presented in the environmental setting is used
to project the future situation. In later sections the
future situation is compared with the recommended plan to
determine what environmental impacts may result.
2-1
-------
2.0 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The material presented in these sections is summary
in nature and full discussions are contained in the SFP.
2.1 Climate
The climate of the study area is typical of the southern
portion of the Great Lakes Region. Summers are warm and humid
while winters are cold and cloudy with wide annual and day-to-day
temperature fluctuation. Weather records are available from
the Detorit City Airport and the Detroit Metropolitan Airport
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). Two local features
which significantly influence Detroit's climate are (1) the
Great Lakes, and (2) the urban heat island.
The average temperatures range from 25.5°F (-3.6°C) in
January to 73.3°F (22.9°C) in July. The average growing season
is 180 days. Average relative humidity is normally between
70-80% with characteristically higher winter humidity.
Comparison of precipitation data from the two airports shows
the influence of the urban industrial complex on precipitation
measurements. Average annual precipitation is one inch less at
the city airport than at the metro airport. Mean annual precipi-
tation at the city airport is 30.96 inches (78.6 cm) and the
annual snowfall is 31.7 inches (80.5 cm) from November through
April.
The prevailing wind direction is generally from the
southwest quadrant; however/ southwest winds are more common
at the metropolitan airport than at the city airport.
The heat island and lake breeze effects may account for this
difference. Wind speeds are greatest during the winter months
and calm periods are more common during the summer months.
Ninety percent of the 1975 wind speeds ranged between 4-16 knots.
2.2 Topography
Detroit lies within the Eastern Lake section of the Central
Lowland Physiographic Province (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book II). The present surface features are a result of glacia-
tion. In the northwestern portion of the study area, hilly areas
are separated by rolling to almost level plains. The nearly
level formation in the southeast portion of the study area
was created by glacial Lake Chicago.
Elevations also reflect the area's glacial history. A high
point of 1221 feet above sea level is found in the hilly section
of Oakland County, and a low point of 574 feet above sea level
is along the Detroit River. Other than the western border of
Macomb County, slopes greater than 12 percent are found only in
Oakland County.
2-3
-------
Stream drainage in the study area is meandering, charac-
teristic of level areas with a uniform base material. In some
areas the drainage has been modified by human activity such as
channelization for flood prevention and control.
2.3 Geology
The bedrock underlying Detroit is composed of Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks. Glacial drift covers the bedrock to a depth
of 100 to 400 feet, although a few rock outcrops do occur in
Wayne County (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). Due
to the amount of drift covering the bedrock, the study area is
more influenced by the glacial materials than by bedrock.
Geologic resources that are economically important include
sand, gravel, peat, clay, rock salt, lime, limestone and sandstone.
Oil, natural gas and methane are also obtained from bedrock layers.
The sedimentary origin of the bedrock, the peat bogs and the
water-laid glacial deposits are conducive to fossil preservation.
Fossils have been found in the area.
The glacial deposits have not only modified the features of
the landscape, they have also provided the predominant groundwater
aquifer and the parent material for the soils of the area.
Sands and gravels of the outwash deposits provide the best sources
of groundwater, although limestone, sandstone and lenses of sand
and gravel in the till are also used. A further reference on
this topic is the Southeastern Michigan Water Resources Study
Report Groundwater and Geology,1975,by F.R. Twenter, USGS, prepared
in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It provides
a time-scale and cross-section for the geologic layers and some
groundwater data.
2.4 Soils
The soil types of the study area vary according to the land
forms and parent material that they have developed upon (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). Well drained, sandy and loamy
soils are generally present on the hilly moraines of unsorted
glacial drift in the northwest. On the more level till uplands
and plains, poorly drained soils with finer textures are more
common. Soils adjacent to the sand and gravel outwash plains
have coarse to moderately coarse textures and range from being
well drained to poorly drained. The soils of the lake plains in
the southeast portion of the study area are usually poorly drained
with textures ranging from fine through medium to coarse.
2-4
-------
Soils suitable for septic tank disposal systems are found
in each of the three counties, specifically, the upper three-fourtl
of Oakland County, the northwest quadrant of Macomb County, and
the extreme northwest corner of Wayne County. The remainder of
the area is unsuitable for septic systems due to low permeability
and/or high groundwater tables.
Soils which exhibit high shrink-swell potential are limited
in their use as a construction site. Some soils which are
particularly high in clay content shrink in volume as they dry out
and swell as they absorb moisture. "Extensive shrinking and
swelling of the soil can result in damage to building foundations
and concrete slab floors, and if extensive enough may rupture
sewer lines." (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II).
In the study area there are soils with high shrink-swell
potential concentrated along the shores of Lake St. Clair and
the Detroit River. There is also an isolated area of these soils
in northwest Wayne County (within the study area). For a graphic
description of these soil locations see Figure 7 (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book II).
Soils which have properties that allow high rates of
permeability will likewise have limited use. These soils tend
to be marginal for agriculture and can cause seepage and dewaterinc
problems in open excavations during construction. Soils with
high permeability dominate the study area. The major exceptions
are those listed as high shrink-swell potential soils along
the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair.
Some soils have properties, structural and otherwise, which
will not allow support of extreme weights. Such low load-bearing
capacity can be particularly attributed to the soil's compressibili
or shear strength. These soils require special engineering
practices to make them safe or even feasible for development.
The majority of soils in the study area that have low load-
bearing capacity are within Wayne County. Other areas of their
occurrence are isolated spots in Macomb County.
There are limited clay loam and clay soils in the area
which have characteristics generally favorable for land application
of sludge. Since smaller parcels of land are required for landfill
than land application, the limited areas considered suitable for
the latter alternative may provide some sludge landfill sites.
2.5 Hydrology
The study area lies within the Great Lakes Basin adjacent to
Lake Huron and Lake Erie and comprises about 5 percent of the
Lake Erie drainage basin (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II).
2-5
-------
The principal waters draining the study area are Lake
St. Clair, the Clinton River, the River Rouge, and the Detroit
River which then flows into Lake Erie.
The major tributary to Lake St. Clair is the St. Clair River
which lies north of the study area. Other tributaries to the
lake are the Clinton, Sydenham, and Thames Rivers.
The Clinton River Basin covers the northern portion of the
study area and has, as its main tributaries, the North Branch,
Middle Branch, Red Run, Stoney Creek, and Paint Creek. The
Clinton River watershed covers 741 square miles (1919.2 km2).
Lakes are interspersed throughout the northwestern section
and act as natural reservoirs in the drainage system.
The flow from Lake St. Clair forms the Detroit River and is
joined by the River Rouge before emptying into Lake Erie. The
Detroit River is a 32 mile (51.5 km) strait connecting Lake St.
Clair and Lake Erie and is the largest tributary to Lake Erie.
The River Rouge Basin includes the western and southern
portions of the study area. The principal branches of the system
are the Main Branch, Upper Branch, Middle Branch, Lower Branch,
and Evans Ditch. The River Rouge drainage basin is fan-shaped
and drains an area of 467 square miles (1209.5 km2).
Flood prone areas which would be inundated by a 100 year
flood have been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). Certain quadrangles have not
been completed, including sections of the Upper Rouge and the
middle corridor of the Clinton River watershed in Macomb County.
Localized flooding in many instances around the City of
Detroit, as part of the River Rouge floodplain, is attributed
to inadequately designed sewer drainage facilities rather than
flood stages on major streams.
2.5.1 Surface Water Quantity
Lake St. Clair is a shallow lake with a mean depth of 10 feet
(3m), a surface area of 430 mi.2 (1113 km2) and a volume of
1 mi.3 (4 km^). Flow through is rapid and mean water residence
time is about 9 days (0.02 years) (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book II) .
Flow in the Clinton River from 1963 to 1973 averaged 530 cfs
(15 m3/s) and was approximately 0.3 percent of the Lake St. Clair
overflow (the Detroit River source).
The mean flow at the mouth of the River Rouge (average
1970-1974) is 920 cfs (26 m3/s). Natural flows from the drainage
basin account for 270 cfs (8 m^/s). The remainder of the river
flow is mainly due to the Ford Motor Company,, discharge
2-6
-------
(650 cfs, 18 m3/s) located three miles upstream. This water
is taken out of the Detroit River for industrial use and dischargee
into the River Rouge. This flow represents about 0.5 percent of
the total Detroit River flow.
Flow in the Detroit River varies and is dependent on upstream
and downstream lake level fluctuations, precipitation (which has
been above average the past 10 years), and ice on the river. The
main source of flow in the Detroit River originates from the
upper Great Lakes drainage basin and thereby provides an ample
supply for all water needs in the study area.
United States municipal effluent discharges, including the
DWWTP, were estimated by the International Joint Commission (IJC)
in 1975 to be 1500 cfs (43 m3/s) or 1.0 percent of the river's
flow.
Discharge from the Detroit River averages 190,000 cfs
(5400 m^/s) and contributes 80 percent of the inflow to Lake
Erie. The greatest impact from the Detroit River is felt in the
shallow western basin of Lake Erie (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book II).
2.5.2 Surface Water Quality
Each major body of water is characterized in terms of only
a few water quality parameters. Where current data is available
the same parameters are discussed for each body of water. It
is not always possible or necessary to maintain this consistency
in presenting the current water quality. Other parameters are
introduced as necessary to emphasize a certain water quality
status or focus on a toxic element of public concern.
The major source of water (98.5%) into Lake St. Clair is
high quality water from Lake Huron via the St. Clair River
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). Influent from the
Clinton River contains significantly higher concentrations of
total phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon than does Lake
St. Clair water (Ciborowski, 1975). The river also discharges
water with lower amounts of dissolved oxygen and higher total
alkalinity and free C02 than the lake water. Studies done by the
IJC and MDNR in 1974 and 1975 concur that the source of poorest
quality water into Lake St. Clair is the Clinton River. Six
suburban wastewater treatment facilities with a total capacity
of almost 60 mgd (227,100 m3/d) discharge into the Clinton River anc
its tributaries. Localized effects to the lake are due to the
inflow of the Clinton River and combined sewer overflows.
The U.S. portion of Lake St. Clair has been designated for
cold water, fishing, public water supply, and total body recreation
by the MDNR. The present quality of Lake St. Clair is difficult
2-7
-------
to assess because of a lack of continuous and complete data for
stations in the lake. High quality upstream waters and a short
water residence time lessen the impact of the Clinton River
discharge into Lake St. Clair.
The Clinton River mainstream from Pontiac to the mouth and
the Red Run River are designated water quality segments by the
MDNR. A water quality segment, as defined by the Code of
Federal Regulations (Title 40), is a section of water which does
not meet and/or is not expected to meet water quality standards
even after the enforcement of effluent limitations on discharges
into the stream. Point sources which discharge into a water
quality segment are subject to stricter discharge requirements
than are effluent limitation segments. Along water quality
segments, steps are also taken to alleviate the water quality
problems imposed by non-point sources. Water quality segments
require that more stringent criteria be met by point sources,
and/or that non-point discharges be reduced, in order to meet
the state water quality standards. In contrast, an effluent
limitation segment is one which meets or will meet established
water quality standards after application of effluent limitations
to point source discharges. These effluent limitations are
based on secondary treatment for municipal discharges, or on
best available technology economically available for industrial
discharges (PL 92-500).
Water quality data is presented by the facilities planning
consultant (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VI) for seven
stations along the Clinton River. Suspended solids range from
22 to 46 mg/1 with the standard 30 mg/1 exceeded at some stations.
The recommended phosphorus standard of 0.10 mg/1 is exceeded at
all stations, with recorded concentrations varying from 0.21 to
1.8 mg/1. Fecal coliform counts have a wide variability ranging
from 350 to 3200 MPN/100 ml. The standard count for the Clinton
River is 1000 MPN/100 ml.
The uses designated by the MDNR for the Clinton River
downstream of Pontiac and all of the Red Run are industrial
water supply, partial body contact recreation, warm water
fishery, agricultural water, and navigation.
The entire River Rouge Basin is considered an effluent
limitation segment by the MDNR and is a major source of pollution
to the Detroit River. The uses designated by MDNR for the
watershed are industrial water supply, partial body contact
recreation, warm water fishery, agricultural water, and navigation,
2-8
-------
The Great Lakes Basin Commission (GLBC) reports that the
lower 15 miles (24 km) of the River Rouge are severely degraded,
and its dissolved oxygen content severely depleted. This is
documented in a 1973 MDNR water quality survey, during which all
of the sampling stations in the River Rouge from Plymouth Road
(Mile Point 15.6) to the mouth had dissolved oxygen values less
than 4.0 mg/1 as a single value minimum. Lowest average and
single dissolved oxygen volumes in the River Rouge were at
Jefferson Avenue (Mile Point 1.1) with surface values of 1.0 mg/1
and 0.2 mg/1, respectively (MDNR, 1974). Deteriorated conditions
were attributed to nine industrial discharges and numerous
combined sewer overflows from Detroit and the suburbs.
The facilities planning consultant's data indicate that
neither total phosphorus, suspended solids, or fecal coliform
counts are in compliance with state standards. Water quality
standards on the Clinton River also apply to the River Rouge.
Phosphorus concentrations at the six monitor stations presented
range from 0.16 to 0.67 mg/1. Suspended solids concentrations
vary between 32 and 71 mg/1. Fecal coliform estimates are
extremely high, especially at Fenkell Avenue and West Jefferson
Avenue, and range from 2100 to 27,000 MPN/100 ml.
The Michigan portion of the Detroit River has been designated
by MDNR as suitable for a cold water fishery, public water supply,
and total body contact recreation. The MDNR has established
water quality standards for the Detroit River that are essentially
the same as for the Great Lakes.
Water quality in the Detroit River has improved in recent
years, as reported from separate studies done by the IJC in 1913,
1948, 1962, and 1975 and ENCOTEC in 1974 (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book II) . Levels of dissolved oxygen, dissolved
solids, suspended solids, chloride, ammonia nitrogen, and nitrate
nitrogen are currently in compliance with Michigan water quality
standards. Dissolved iron in the Detroit River is also in
compliance with existing standards (300 jag/1) . The DWWTP,
however, contributes 90 percent of all U.S. municipal total iron
loadings or 85,334 Ib/day (38,700 kg/day). High total iron levels
are due to the addition of ferrous chloride in the treatment
process for phosphate removal. The iron has not been settling
out efficiently because of the lack of secondary settling capacity.
Fecal coliform levels, an indication of sewage contamination,
exceed standards (200 MPN/100 ml) at the sampling station
immediately below the mouth of the River Rouge. Monitored
stations along the river reveal a range of 100 to 1700 MPN/100 ml.
Levels of phenol also exceed standards. The DWWTP discharges
approximately 75 percent of the known phenol loading from
U.S. municipal sources. Levels of all trace elements and
pesticides presently meet either Michigan standards or
Federal Water Quality Standards.
2-9
-------
There are no current water quality standards for phosphorus
concentrations in receiving waters but a maximum allowable limit
of 20 jaqP/I (0.02 mgP/1) was chosen by the joint venture for the
Detroit River and the western basin of Lake Erie (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book VI). The Detroit River is not in com-
pliance with this recommended standard anywhere along its length.
Concentrations more than triple below the outlet of the River
Rouge, increasing from 0.04 to 0.14 mgP/1.
The IJC Detroit River Loading Budget for water year 1975
attributes the highest loads of total phosphorus to U.S. municipal
sources. The DWWTP effluent contained an average of 27,800 Ib/day
(12,600 kg/day) of phosphorus or 87 percent of the known municipal
load in 1975.
Trends in water quality were also reported by the IJC and
ENCOTEC (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). There is
mutual agreement that levels of total phosphorus and chlorides have
decreased over the years 1962 to 1974 while nitrate-nitrogen levels
have increased. There was no agreement on trends in levels of
ammonia-nitrogen, phenol, and total iron. ENCOTEC reported
increases in dissolved solids and no trends in fecal coliform
counts.
The dilution capabilities of the Detroit River and its
relatively clean upstream waters reduce the impacts of substandard
discharges within its 32 mile length (51.5 km).
The Detroit River delivers four-fifths of Lake Erie's annual
influent; therefore, the small, shallow western basin receives
the immediate and greatest impact. Water reaches the central
basin of Lake Erie relatively quickly because of the short water
residence time in the western basin (0.17 years).
The western basin is influenced by its populated, industrialized
watershed and its morphology. Its two main tributaries contribute
a heavy chemical load. The GLBC estimated in 1976 that the
principal source of suspended material was the Maumee River
(2,270,000 tons/yr. suspended solids) while the major source of
dissolved material was the Detroit River (33,580,000 tons/yr.
dissolved solids).
The Army Corps of Engineers estimated the annual total
phosphorus load from the Detroit River for 1974-1975 at 10,633 tons
(9,644 metric tons) and from the Maumee River at 2,462 tons
(2,233 metric tons). The IJC 1976 total phosphorus loadings are
similar: Detroit River, 10,220 metric tons/yr.; Maumee River,
1687 metric tons/yr. (IJC, Personal Communication, 1977).
2-10
-------
The IJC concluded that phosphorus loads from the Detroit River
have decreased by more than 60 percent since 1968, although 1975
measurements showed a slight increase over 1974.
Municipal discharges are the greatest point source of
phosphorus to Lake Erie and the Detroit River loadings continue
to make a significant contribution to the eutrophic conditions
in the western and central basins.
Although the Detroit River is the largest source of chemical
loading to the western basin, it also has the largest flow rate.
This tends to provide higher quality water than that in the
southern part of the basin. High levels of soluble reactive
phosphorus (biologically active form) in the Toledo-Maumee area
from agricultural runoff sources plus point sources make this
area the leading contributor of phosphorus pollution to the
western basin. Levels of chlorophyll a_ in the southern part
of the basin including the Maumee Bay area averaged four times
greater (12.1ug/l) than chlorophyll a_ concentrations in the
northwestern portion of the basin (3.65yg/l) around the
Detroit River in 1973 (Schelske and Roth, 1973). This
information appears to substantiate the above statement but
differing lake conditions and analytical methods in western
basin studies result in variable data.
Composite data from 1968 to 1974 show high numbers of fecal
coliform bacteria entering the western basin from major tributaries
Fecal coliform densities greater than 2000 MPN/100 ml were
associated with the Raisin River (south of the study area) and
Maumee River influents. Coliform counts around the mouth of
the Detroit River ranged between 1000 and 2000 MPN/100 ml. The
Michigan Water Quality Standard for fecal coliform in water
designated for total body contact recreation is 200 MPN/100 ml.
The trace element of most concern in recent years is
mercury, which concentrates in the aquatic food chain and is toxic
to aquatic biota and humans. Thomas and Jaquet (referenced in
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II) concluded that the Detroit
River was the major source of mercury to the western basin of
Lake Erie. The annual load (1976) is 7.9 tons (7.2 metric tons).
Based on sediment analyses, it was further concluded that
Lake St. Clair is serving as a mercury-enriched sediment reservoir
whereby resuspended sediment is transported to Lake Erie through
the Detroit River. Sediment analyses from 30 stations in
Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and Lake Erie in 1970
averaged 16.95 mg/kg mercury dry weight (MDNR, 1972).
Excessive mercury residues in sediments are known to dissi-
pate slowly.
2-11
-------
2.5.3 Groundwater Quantity and Quality
In the four county area immediate to Detroit (Washtenaw,
Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland) the potential groundwater yield has
been estimated at 320 mgd (1,211,200 m3/d) (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book II).
Both consolidated and unconsolidated sediments are sources
of groundwater. Bedrock aquifers in the study area provide low
yields of usually high mineralized water with great hardness,
high iron content, and occasional traces of hydrogen sulfide or
methane gas. They are formed of sedimentary rock several hundred
feet thick and dip to the northwest at approximately 30 feet/mi.
(6m/km).
The unconsolidated aquifers or the glacial drift areas range
from a few feet to 330 feet as they overlie the bedrock to the
west and northwest. Most of the groundwater resources in the
four county area are taken from these strata. Of the moraine,
till, and outwash deposits, the latter are the best source of
water supply. Water quality is variable from this glacial drift
material but generally better than that from bedrock.
Alluvial deposits are the only other source of groundwater
in the area and these are chiefly along the Huron River and
River Rouge and their main tributaries. They produce appreciable
amounts of water when thick and permeable enough or when in
proximity to perennial streams. The water quality of alluvial
deposits is very similar to that of nearby stream quality under
base flow conditions.
Except for the alluvium which is recharged by the stream
flowing over it, the aquifers are all recharged by precipitation
on their outcrop area or by percolation of precipitation through
overlying permeable material. The most favorable recharge areas
are to the north and west of the area.
In the River Rouge Basin both bedrock and glacial drift
produce small to moderate yields ranging from less than 10 gpm
(0.6 1/s) to over 500 gpm (32 1/s) depending on location.
Bedrock water is highly mineralized and glacial drift water is
generally very hard (greater than 180 mg/1 as CaCO3), though
suitable for municipal and industrial supplies.,
In the Clinton River Basin, yields from the lake bed
deposits and moraine and till deposits range from around
10 gpm (0.6 1/s) in the east to 500 gpm (32 1/s) in the
western part of the basin. Water in the glacial drift is
very hard, ranging from 200 to 400 mg/1 as CaC03, but of
acceptable quality. Bedrock generally provides poor yields of
about 10 gpm (0.6 1/s), except for a very small area in the
2-12
-------
northwest corner. This aquifer provides water appropriate for
domestic consumption in the northern part of the basin; however,
in the southern portion of the basin the water is progressively
too mineralized and high in chloride.
The most favorable aquifer recharge areas are to the north
and west, but their significance to the study area is relatively
minor. The Great Lakes are the primary source of water for all
of southeastern Michigan. Water use data for 1970 indicates
that groundwater satisfied only 6 percent of the total average
municipal demand, with projected demands for 2020 even lower.
With the large volumes of water available and the extensive
distribution system, future dependency on groundwater supplies
are not anticipated.
2.5.4 Water Uses
The study area relies more on surface water than groundwater
for its water supplies. Groundwater resources provided about
2 percent of the total average municipal demand in 1970 (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II).
The DWSD provides water supply service from four water
treatment plants to 97 communities located in a service area of
approximately 860 square miles (2,227.4 km^). Daily water con-
sumption ranged from 121-226 gcd (0.46-0.86 m3/cd) from 1971 to
1976, with no apparent trends of increasing water use.
2.6 Biology
2.6.1 Aquatic Communities
High quality water and associated aquatic communities exist
at headwater streams and the Lake Huron outflow into the St. Clair
River. Fish species, such as lake sturgeon and salmonids, and
copepods are representative of the oligotrophic water received
by the St. Clair River (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book III) .
The aquatic community in Lake St. Clair, particularly the
western shoreline, reflects nutrient enrichment from agricultural
runoff, municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges, and
combined sewer overflows. High algal productivities are dominated
by cyanophytes (blue-green algae). Benthic invertebrates such as
sphaerid clams and caddisflies, which are adapted to cold, well
oxygenated water, are numerous.
Most waters in the Clinton River and River Rouge watersheds
are second quality warm water streams (USDA, 1975) . These streams
are capable of supporting good populations of warmwater game
fish except for such factors as lack of natural reproduction,
2-13
-------
overabundance of competing species, and the presence of heavy
silt or other pollution. Water providing a top quality warmwater
fishery habitat are much less numerous and generally located in
the upper reaches of the Clinton River tributaries.
A portion of the Clinton River north of Pontiac is a second
quality coldwater stream capable of supporting a trout fishery if
certain fish management and pollution problems are corrected.
This stream segment has the same limitations as the second quality
warm water streams.
Gradual degradation of downstream water in the Clinton River
is paralleled by changes in species composition and species
abundance, with an increasing dominance of pollution tolerant
organisms (Grant, 1974). Above Pontiac, a diverse warmwater fish
population exists, including chubs, dace, shiners, darters,
and introduced trout. Sunfish, perch, and pike are found near
Pontiac. Below Pontiac to Paint Creek, mudminnows, shiners, and
sunfishes are dominant. Near Mt. Clemens only suckers and carp
are caught. The fish populations in the lower Clinton River are
typical of a warm water polluted river habitat. The species
composition of periphyton and zoobenthos also changes below Pontiac;
intolerant species have been largely eliminated suggesting that
the bottom habitat has deteriorated (Grant, 1974).
Although the headwaters in the River Rouge watershed are
inhabited by species which prefer good water quality, all of the
main branches of the River Rouge, including Evans Ditch, are
increasingly polluted as one moves downstream. Diatoms (Nitschia,
Navicula, and Melosira) and macrophytes (Potamogeton spp.,
Ceratophyllum, and Cladophora) which are indicative of organic
enrichment in water and sediments, are common flora along the
major tributaries. Fish and zoobenthos populations also undergo
transition, as one moves downstream, to species which are
more tolerant of a stressful habitat. The river bottom habitat
between the confluence of the Lower Rouge and Detroit River is
characterized by sludge bed development. Macrophytes are generally
absent from this segment and the only dominant phytoplankton in
1973 was Melosira. Sessile colonial ciliates, similar to those
in sewage trickling filters, plus the absence of chironomids,
which are usually tolerant of near anoxic conditions, are absent.
Only carp and fathead minnows are found below the confluence of
the Upper Rouge (Jackson, 1975).
The lower Detroit River below the confluence with the River
Rouge is also a severely degraded habitat, particularly the
river substrate.
2-14
-------
Little change in diversity or abundance of phytoplankton has
been noted between the.Detroit River headwaters and mouth (U.S.EPA
1974A). Macrophyte biomass and diversity decrease with increasing
turbidity in water.
Downstream of the confluence of the River Rouge, an extreme
change in zoobenthos species composition occurs. Dominant species
are those that can tolerate an oxygen poor habitat such as phantom
midges (Chaoborus), midges (Chironomus spp.) and sludgeworms
(Limnodrilus spp.).
A diverse fish population existed in 1976 in the Detroit
River, including pollution tolerant and intolerant species. Due
to the rapid flushing of the river, the segregation of the River
Rouge effluent to the west shoreline, and the mobility of fish,
the river's pollutants did not greatly suppress intolerant species,
The Detroit River influences the western basin of Lake Erie
north of Stony Point. Nutrient-rich water and sediment in the
western basin of Lake Erie have resulted in higher levels of
algal productivity. Changes in primary production are documented
by an increased abundance of phytoplankton cells in the spring and
fall and shifts in the dominant algal species to blue-green algae
(Microcystis) and diatoms (Schelske and Roth, 1973) . Primary
productivity from macrophytes has declined due to turbidity
and high water.
The MDNR concluded in 1973 that the Detroit River, although
having the best water quality input to western Lake Erie, contribut
sediments which produced the most pollution-stressed zoobenthos.
Benthic invertebrates found in western Lake Erie are similar to
those in the lower Detroit River which are tolerant of silty,
organic sediments.
Fish harvest and diversity are greater in Lake Erie than
any other of the Great Lakes. The original fish habitats have
been altered (1) physically by dredging and dumping, (2) by the
addition of toxic pollutants, and (3) by accelerating the natural
processes of eutrophication through nutrient additions. In 1973
the National Commission on Environmental Quality listed point
source pollution from southeast Michigan as the most limiting
factor to fish populations in Lake Erie.
Although fish production has increased, high quality fish
species, such as cisco, blue pike, and lake sturgeon have been
replaced by species of less value such as freshwater drum and
carp. Medium value species (white bass, yellow perch) are
sufficiently abundant to have commerical importance.
The Detroit River is the only tributary to Lake Erie which
significantly contributes to its existing commercial fishery
2-15
-------
(Applegate and VanMeter, 1970). The river serves as a channel
for continual interchange of fish stocks between Lake St. Clair
and the western basin. Maintenance of the Detroit River water
quality is important to the future commercial fishery resources
in Lake Erie.
It is impossible to assess the relative effect of eutrophi-
cation, pollutants, introduced species, and over-exploitation on
Lake Erie's changing fishery resources. But there is no doubt
that massive destruction of the insect food supply over hundreds
of square miles of lake bottom, silt deposition on the spawning
grounds, and dramatic changes in the phytoplankton have all
directly influenced at least some of the fish populations
(Hartman, 1970).
Seventy-one aquatic species are listed as rare, threatened,
or endangered in the study area or its receiving waters
(Appendix 11.2). They have declined or disappeared mostly due
to environmental changes induced by man. The American Lotus
is the only aquatic floral species listed as endangered in
Michigan. The remaining sensitive species are aquatic animals.
2.6.2 Upland and Forest Resources
Detroit is located near the interface of two major forest
regions: the Beech-Maple and the Oak-Hickory (Braun, 1950). This
has resulted in a flora containing species characteristic of both.
Woodlands have been classified as those areas which are more
than 80 percent covered by trees. Within the City of Detroit,
less than 2 percent of the land area is woodland (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book III).
There are a variety of terrestrial habitats present, each with
a distinctive flora (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book III) .
Deciduous forest floodplains are found along many streams. Lake
shores, marshes, swamps and bogs, representing gradations between
aquatic and terrestrial conditions, are present. Meadows, succes-
sional stages that normally follow wetlands, are found in both
wet and dry forms. The wet meadow is the stage after wetlands,
while the dry meadow is prior to the upland forest development.
Several upland forest types are located in the three county area,
and they represent phases of the two major forest regions.
With the diverse habitats, and a location that is at the
boundary of the range of many northern and southern species, a
wide variety of faunal species may be present. Mammals present
may include species such as the Canadian lynx, characteristic of
a more northern climate, and the southern flying squirrel, which
reaches its northern limits in Michigan. Major bird migratory
routes are located around Detroit, resulting in visitation by
species characteristic of more northern areas. Michigan's reptiles
2-16
-------
and amphibians, like that of most northern states, are limited
in variety.
Endangered faunal species may be found in the three county
area but have not been specifically cited. Species including
mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians listed by federal or
state agencies as being endangered, threatened or rare are found
in Appendix 11.2. No terrestrial plant species on the endangered
lists have been identified in the Detroit area.
2.6.3 Wetlands
Wetlands within the study area include bogs, marshes, shrub
swamps, and wooded swamps (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book III). Oakland County has the greatest acreage of wetlands
(22,900 acres), most of which are scattered throughout the
undeveloped portions of the county. Wetlands in Macomb County
(638 acres) are confined to two major locations: the Huron
Point Marshes and the Salt River Marsh. Wayne County's wetlands
(13,048 acres) are limited to the borders of the Detroit River,
Celeron Island, and Humbug Marsh. Acreage estimates are from a
1976 survey by MDNR biologists. The acreage figures do not present
only areas of wetlands but present those areas judged to be habitat
for waterfowl. The definition of habitat includes parts of lakes,
wetlands, and uplands, and provides the best estimate of wetlands
available to the study team.
MDNR considers all the sensitive habitat acreage in Wayne
and Macomb Counties (13,686 acres total) plus 565 acres in Oakland
County (Clinton River-Avon Township) to be threatened in the next
1-5 years (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book III) . Loss of
this kind of wildlife habitat is generally attributed to encroach-
ment by residential and/or recreational development.
2.7 Air Quality
The study area is included within the Metropolitan Detroit-
Port Huron Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). Counties
in the AQCR include Wayne, Macomb, Oakland, and St. Clair. The
AQCR has also been identified as an Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA) for particulates. An AQMA designation indicates that
the potential exists for violating National Ambient Air Quality
Standards within the next 10 years. For development of the
State Implementation Plan, the AQCR is classified as priority I
for particulates and sulfur oxides and priority III for nitrous
oxides, carbon monoxide, and oxidants (140 CFR 52). The priority
classification system is used in order to most efficiently allocate
air quality planning resources to problems of the greatest magnitude,
Priority I areas are those with the worst air quality problems.
2-17
-------
Existing air quality in the study area has been well documented
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book II). Air pollution in the
area comes primarily from heavy industry along both shores of the
waterway. The greatest emissions occur on the west bank of the
Detroit River from just southwest of the downtown area to opposite
Grosse Isle. Although the emissions are large, favorable
meteorological conditions serve to disperse and dilute pollutants
to a large degree. However, if the area is to attain ambient air
quality standards, there must be a significant reduction in
emissions.
Air pollutants are generally monitored near ground-level by
a variety of accepted techniques generally classified as either
continuous or intermittent, but statistically significant, sampling.
The national ambient air quality standards (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book II) must not be exceeded more than once
a year per site. Macomb and Wayne Counties have a total of more
than thirty-two continuous air sampling sites. Oakland County
has between five and fifteen monitored sites.
2.7.1 Suspended Particulates
Macomb and Oakland Counties are consistently in compliance
with the primary standard for particulates. Wayne County con-
tinues to violate both the 24-hour and annual primary standards
at a number of sites.
2.7.2 Sulfur Dioxide
State and industrial monitoring sites in Macomb and Oakland
Counties are regularly in compliance with both primary and secondary
standards.
Pre-1974 data for Wayne County show occasional violations
of sulfur dioxide standards. Since 1974, neither primary nor
secondary standards have been violated.
2.7.3 Nitrogen Dioxide
In Macomb and Wayne County three bubbler samplers
(respectively) continue to show annual average N0« levels
well below the standard.
Although NO standards have never been violated in
Oakland County, one site consistently shows high levels.
This site is located near the Southfield and Lodge Express-
ways where there is extensive vehicular traffic.
2-18
-------
2.7.4 Carbon Monoxide
Limited monitoring in Macomb County shows no violations
of either the one or 8-hour standard.
In Oakland County, two violations of standards were re-
corded in 1975 at the Southfield and Lodge Expressways site.
Three of the four established sites in Wayne County violated
the 8-hour standard in 1974 and 1975. The number of violations
shown at these sites was approximately the same both years.
In July, 1975, a new carbon monoxide monitoring site was established
in the immediate downtown area to monitor the levels of carbon
monoxide which may be attributed to the so-called "canyon effect."
A typical "canyon", or valley, is formed by the tall buildings
surrounding the heavily travelled surface streets thereby impeding
the dispersion of carbon monoxide. This site recorded 17 violations
of the 8-hour standard with the maximum being about 50 percent
above the standard (MDNR, 1975).
2.8 Aesthetics
2.8.1 Visual
Visual aesthetics are presented in two contexts, those of the
planning area, and those directly related to the wastewater
management system. Visual aesthetics are a result of local and
regional planning, zoning and a commitment to preservation of open
space. In the City of Detroit and the surrounding three county
area, large segments of land have been reserved for open space.
In relation to the waste management system, visual consider-
ations become important and can cause problems, based on the
location and appearance of treatment and collection facilities
and their proximity to residential areas.
The DWWTP is located at the confluence of the Detroit River
and River Rouge in an area that is heavily industrialized.
However, the treatment plant borders a local church on three
sides. The proximity of the church to the treatment plant has
generated complaints by the parishoners.
Seventeen pump stations are operated by DWSD. These pump sta-
tions are mostly unmanned and visual appearance is directly related
to the design, operation and maintenance of these facilities.
2.8.2 Noise
External noise from the wastewater management system is
generally low except at specific points within the structures.
Specific areas of nuisance noise are the incinerator complexes,
2-19
-------
the oxygen plant, and the blower complex. Fenceline noise surveys
to determine the noise levels from facilities as influencing the
surrounding area have not been undertaken (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book IX). No community complaints have been
attributed to the DWWTP, probably due to adjacent heavy industry
and heavy truck traffic.
2.8.3 Odors
Odors relating to the operation of the collection system,
treatment plant and incineration facilities have not been analyzed
by the facilities planning consultant. However, the only known
source of significant odors is the incinerators at the treatment
plant site. Inefficiency within the incinerators results in
less than adequate combustion. This process causes obnoxious
odors to be emitted during operation. Complaints by local citizens
concerning odors have been received; however, the actual source
o"f the complaint odors has not been determined (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book II).
2.9 Institutional and Governmental Jurisdictions
2.9.1 Facilities Plan Study Area
The facilities plan study area includes the City of Detroit.
2.9.2 Overview Study Area
Within the overview study area, there are 90 local jurisdic-
tions (Figure 2.9-A) including Wayne, Macomb and Oakland Counties.
Ten of these communities own and operate their own collection
systems (Table 2.9-A).
TABLE 2.9-A
INDIVIDUAL CITIES SERVED BY DWSD
Allen Park (part) Grosse Pointe Farms
Centerline Grosse Pointe Park
Dearborn Hamtramck
Farmington (part) Highland Park
Grosse Pointe Melvindale
Table 2.9-B presents the local jurisdictions as they are
organized into sanitary districts. The small areas in Lapeer
and St. Clair Counties including Almont are not included. The
sanitary district includes areas which are presently served, areas
for future service, and areas which have their own sewage
treatment and collection facilities.
2-20
-------
Figure 2.9-A
Overview Planning Area
1
N01SSMAI 1
1
i
!
r
\
L. _
}
j
s
'
1
T ,
: >
I
L. .
2-21
-------
Table 2.9-B
Jurisdictions Within Sanitary Districts
Rouge Valley Sewage
Disposal District -
Wayne County
Garden City
Inkster
Livonia
Northville
Northville Township
Plymouth
Plymouth Township
Redford Township
Wayne
Westland
Canton Township (part)
Dearborn Heights (part)
Van Buren Township (part)
Romulus (part)
Novi
Novi Township
Northeast Wayne County
Sanitary District
Harper Woods
Grosse Pointe Woods
Grosse Pointe Shores
Southeast Oakland County
Sanitary District
Berkley
Clawson
Ferndale
Hazel Park
Huntington Woods
Madison Heights
Oak Park
Pleasant Ridge
Royal Oak
Royal Oak Township
Beverly Hills Village (part)
Birmingham (part)
Southfield (part)
Troy (part)
Clinton-Oakland
Sanitary District
Avon Township
Independence Township
Oakland Township
Orion Township
Oxford Township
Pontiac Township (part)
Waterford Township
Village of Lake Orion
Village of Clarkston
Village of Oxford
West Bloomfield
Springfield Township
Sylvan Lake
White Lake Township
Pontiac
Rochester
West Bloomfield
Addison Township
Brandin Township
Village of Lake Angelius
Village of Leonard
Village of Orchard Lake
Evergreen-Farmington
Sanitary District
Beverly Hills Village (part)
Bingham Farms
Birmingham (part)
Bloomfield Hills
Bloomfield Township
Farmington City (part)
Farmington Hills
Keego Harbor
Lathrup Village
Pontiac Township (part)
Southfield (part)
Troy (part)
Franklin Village
West Bloomfield (part)
2-22
-------
Table 2.9-B
(continued)
Macomb Sanitary District
Chesterfield Township
Clinton Township
Fraser
Harrison Township
Macomb Township
Shelby Township
Sterling Heights
Utica
Mt. Clemens
Romeo
Bruce Township
Washington Township (part)
Armada Village
Armada Township
Lenox Township
Memphis
New Baltimore
New Haven
Ray Township
Richmond
Richmond Township
Warren
2-23
-------
2.10 Population and Demographics
2.10.1 Central City
The City of Detroit's population has increased from
approximately 1400 people in 1820 to an estimated 1975 population
of 1,334,000. The greatest growth rate took place from 1910
through 1930. During this period over 1,100,000 people came to
reside within the City of Detroit. Total population for the city
peaked at approximately 1,850,000 people around 1950. Since that
time, population declined at a rate of approximately 10 percent
per decade until 1970. Between 1970 and 1975 the estimated rate
of decline doubled to approximately 20 percent per decade
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book V).
The cause of the decline in population can be attributed
to many factors. The post-war period from 1946 to 1960 created
a tremendous demand for both housing for newly formed families and
employment. Increasing employment opportunities coupled with
expanding transportation facilities and low development costs
in the outlying areas created a shift in residential location
preference away from the central city. This shift in development
patterns from the centralized concept to a sprawl concept was
encouraged by low cost energy, a strong economy, and increasing
real income. The present land development patterns in the
metropolitan region of Detroit are the result of these factors
acting together over the past twenty-five years.
2.10.2 Regional
An overview of the urbanization pattern from 1940-1970
demonstrates the shift in locational preference that is evident
from population growth statistics. Housing construction prior
to 1940 concentrated in the cities of Detroit, Plymouth, and
Pontiac. Each succeeding decade showed a change in concentration
further away from the previous, a trend that is very typical of
large metropolitan areas throughout the country. Data on growth
trends of population from 1940 through 1970 (Table 2.10-A) show
a continued strong growth rate in Macomb and Oakland County
through the period. The Wayne County totals, however, show the
influence of the City of Detroit. County population growth was
moderate from 1940 through 1960 and remained fairly steady from
1960 to 1970. Additional data (SEMCOG, 1976A) show an estimated
decline (1970-1975) of 150,000 people in Wayne County. While
the growth of Oakland and Macomb Counties has moderated, the
three counties had a total reduction of 41,143 people during the
1970-1975 period. Estimates of the seven county regional
population (SEMCOG, 1976A) reveal the region to be decreasing
as a percentage of total state population from an estimated 53.4
percent in 1970 to approximately 52 percent in 1975.
2-24
-------
o
r-
cr>
CO
vo
o
ID
in
o
vo
in
vo
o
fe
vo
CM
vo
(N
E-"
to
w
ffi
EH
tf
O
fa
O
VO
O
r-
vo
in
vo
o
CO
*
in
o
(Ti
in
CM
o
CM
ffl
8
D
O
H
§
H
a
in
CM
CO
vo
in
00
t^
vo
vo
*
in
oo
»n
vo
CM
00
o
o
*
vo
O
04
o
•H
13
(0
0)
•P
•H
O
M
•p
0)
Q
4J
C Oi
3 C
O-H
U-O
3
-------
Growth patterns (1970-1975) varied widely from an 11.9% loss
in Detroit to a 198.4 % increase in Canton township. Within
Wayne County, 23 of 43 minor civil divisions lost population
during this period (SEMCOG, 1976A)• Similarly, 8 of 27 communities
in Macomb County and 19 of 59 communities in Oakland County also
recorded reductions in total population. The largest influx of
new residents occurred in Canton Township (+21,874) and Taylor
(+16,028) within Wayne County, in Clinton Township (+11,635) and
Sterling Heights (+23,935) within Macomb County; and in Troy
(+17,981) within Oakland County.
2.11 Land Use and Development Trends
2.11.1 Existing Land Use
The present urbanization pattern demonstrates the suburban
spread of the City of Detroit and a concentration of development
in the corridors linking the regional centers of Ann Arbor, Detroit,
Mt. Clemens, and Pontiac (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV) .
The distribution of various activities is demonstrative of the
relationships among sectors of the region. Regional retail centers
are concentrated around the periphery and in the Central Business
District (CBD) of the City of Detroit. The Central Business
Districts (CBD's) of Detroit, Mt. Clemens, and Pontiac have an
estimated 7.7 million sq. ft. of retail floor space, while the
peripheral areas of the cities have an estimated 12.7 million
sq. ft. (SEMCOG, 1976B) (Figures 2.11 A, B, C, and D).
Institutional facilities considered include hospitals,
educational facilities and correctional institutions. The
attraction of the City of Detroit for the location of these
facilities is evident. Of an estimated 14,000 hospital bed
capacity in Wayne County, the City of Detroit has approximately
9000. The combined total bed capacity in Oakland and Macomb
Counties is approximately 4000. Regional and statewide educational
facilities are located almost entirely within Wayne County
(including the City of Detroit). Prison facilities, however,
are not concentrated in any particular area.
Regional office building concentrations are almost exclusively
limited to downtown Detroit and the Detroit-Pontiac corridor.
The City of Detroit has .an estimated 16.6 million sq. ft., Oakland
County has approximately 9.4 million sq. ft. and the remainder
of Wayne County, combined with Macomb County totals approximately
0.8 million sq. ft. of office space.
Manufacturing concentrations are within the City of Detroit,
along the Detroit River, and in the Detroit-Plymouth, Detroit-
2-26
-------
.X i— " x
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA ~*£ j ^ \,
I T- "»—**«"'^1 ""' ', "l "T
/ ;J-'- : V
"•^c ^ /1 n^
I x-1 - - i--< {••'
: f r^/fx S->t]
O PROPOSED REGIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER
• REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
D CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Source Southtost Michigan Council of Governments, Land Use
Patterns in Southtott Michigan Urtmiztd Area. May, 1976.
0123
I I I I
12 15
Scot* m Mil**
MAJOR RETAIL CENTERS
Figure 2.11-A
18
J
2-27
-------
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
v\
^| .'7 ^1
D PRISONS 8. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
UNIVERSITY a COMMUNITY COLLEGE
• HOSPITAL
Source Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Lara Use
Patterns in Southeast Michigan Urbanized Area, May, 1976
0123
12 15
18
Scale m Miles
MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL CENTERS
Figure 2.11-B
2-28
-------
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA -~
H9 OFFICE CONCENTRATION
• OFFICE BUILDING (SEE NOTE)
NOTE INCLUDES ONLY BUILDINGS WITH AT LEAST
50,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OR 45,000 SQUARE
FEET Of NET RENTABLE FLOOR SPACE
Source Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Land Ui
Patterns in Southeast Michigan Urbanized Area, May, 1971
Scale In Mile*
MAJOR OFFICE CENTERS
Figure 2.11-C
2-29
-------
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
W MANUFACTURING CONCENTRATION
MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT
Source Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Land Use
Patterns in Southeast Michigan- Urbanized Area. May, 1976.
0123
I I I_J_
_L
12 15
/ W
Scale in Miles
MAJOR MANUFACTURING CENTERS
Figure 2.11-D
18
2-30
-------
Pontiac, and Detroit-Utica corridors. Many manufacturing centers
within the above mentioned corridors are also located near the
River Rouge and Clinton River.
Approximately 27% of the land in the three county area is in
residential use (Figure 2.11-E), 14% agricultural, 41% vacant, and
18% other uses (Table 2.11-A) (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book IV). Special uses such as extractive uses and specialty
crop agricultural uses are limited in the region. Sand and gravel
operations are the major extractive uses. Other extractive uses
in Oakland County include peat removal, and in Wayne County,
cement, salt, lime, sulfur, clay, limestone, and sandstone.
Current estimates of specialty crop acreage (soybeans, dry edible
beans, sugar beets, potatoes, fruit, and commercial vegetables)
shows approximately 19,800 acres in the River Rouge Basin and
19,400 acres in the Clinton River Basin.
Prime agricultural lands are defined by SEMCOG as areas
which are actively being conserved or protected by local action
to be kept in agricultural use (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Books II and IV). Within the study area there are nearly
100,000 acres of this type of land (Figure 2.11-F). In
northeast Macomb County agricultural land is found in parts of
Bruce, Washington, Ray, Lenox, and Chesterfield Townships, and
most of Armada and Richmond Townships. A very small portion
of agricultural land is located in northwest Oakland County
in parts of Holly, Rose, Brandon, and Highland Townships.
Nearly all of Center Township in Wayne County is agricultural.
2.11.2 Development Trends
Development of the Detroit area was initially fostered by
its location along the Great Lakes transportation routes.
Development originally included establishments taking advantage
of the bulk transport abilities of the Great Lakes system.
Farming and lumbering dominated early activity followed by
horse-drawn carriage manufacturing establishments (USDA, 1975).
Urbanization in Oakland and Macomb Counties paralleled
most other areas in the eastern United States during the
ninteenth century. Mainly devoted to agriculture, the area contained
a number of small villages mostly along the water-courses. As
development continued, urbanization was concentrated in the
cities of Detroit, Pontiac, and Mt. Clemens. The strength of the
regional economy, coupled with the sophistication of automobile
transportation, allowed for the rapid spread of urbanization
within the region.
2.11.3 Land Use Planning
The land use planning activities within the overview planning
areas are on three levels: local ( such as city or township ) ,
2-31
-------
Note: Lines on map with
equal values represent
areas of equal dwelling
unit intensity as on a
topographic map pre-
senting lines of equal
elevation.
Figure 2.11-E
CONCENTRATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE STUDY AREA
2-32
-------
oo
CO
1-1
CO
00
09
o»
as
oo
0"
03 00
m ON'
00
ON
vO
t-t
vO
o
•
•»
CO
o
1
r— 4
r— I
•
CM
0)
^
tl
(U
5
>
4J
*v4
09
C
01
o
i-t
0)
•H
1J
C
w
T3
CD
0)
06
b
4f
CM
00
§
U
00
O
r-l
•
u
V
06
o
00
ON
NO
.c
oc
•H
as
rj
p-4
r>-
•
rH
r-4
i
X
NO
rH
r^
O
m
>
3
AJ
c
HI
ON
(•^
0
lA
so
in
O
m
(M
t^-
CO
rsj
rH
t-H
CN
r^-
n
«O
en
ON
m
r*.
O
CM
in
-*
*n
r~-
rH
CO
O
%o
r^J
NO
00
u
o
IJ
V
D
X
u
tu c
O 3
.8
u
C 41
C C
c a
B> 3
X
4J
C
3
O
•O
c
eg
r-f
a
0
X
c
3
3
jO
E
o
u
z
0)
3 01
01 W
ft •<
^
M X
oi -o
S3
V)
« c
u fl)
O rH
E~> CK
2-33
-------
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
A
'a J: -J --, '- '!- A! -J r-t —
...; I -/• \ , I I , .
fi%S'>" NOTE IN/ WAYNE COUNTY EACH TOWNSHIP HAS
CONTROL OVER LAND USE POLICY THE TOWNSHIPS
INDICATED ON THE MAP ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED
IN DEVELOPING POLICIES CONCERNING CONSERVATION
OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND
Sources Lewellen, J - District Conservationist,
Wayne County, Michigan; Stacy, J. - District
Conservationist, Oakland County, Michigan;
Wilkinson, R - District Conservationist, Wayne
County, Michigan The preceeding sources were
obtained thru personal telephone conversation
with Shannon Casey, Geologist, Black 8 Veotch,
January 5, 1977.
0123
I—i—I—L-
15 18
Scale in Miles
PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Figure 2.11-F
2-34
-------
county, and regional. The regional planning agency, SEMCOG,
is also the designated A-95 review agency and the 208 agency.
SEMCOG has been very active in transportation, housing, and
some land use planning activities. Regional plans, however, must
be implemented by local planning agencies. Of the seventy-eight
autonomous political jurisdictions in the overview planning area,
twelve of the minor civil divisions did not have a planning or
zoning commission as of 1972.
The extent to which plans have been implemented varies
throughout the area. Some units have existing land use information,
zoning, subdivision regulations, and master planning. Many units
have implemented one or more of these plans but not all of them.
Figures 2.11-G through 2.11-1 present maps showing the units
having master plans, subdivision regulations, and adopted zoning
regulations. The zoning and subdivision regulations are generally
accepted and carried out. However, variances are not difficult
to obtain and most regulatory bodies are open to such proposals.
2.12 Cultural Resources
2.12.1 Archaeological Sites
Four areas known to contain archaeological sites are present
in the study area - one in Detroit, two in southern Macomb County,
and one in northern Macomb County (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book IV). There may have been numerous other archaeological sites ir
the study area that have been disrupted or concealed by urban sprawl.
The potential for discovery of additional sites is great.
Numerous Indian trails, each miles in length, existed in the study
area. The Potawatami Trail followed the Huron River. The
Shiawassee and Saginaw Trails ran in a northwest to southeast
direction through Oakland County and passed through the northeastern
area of Wayne County and the City of Detroit. In addition,
numerous other trails existed, many of which were related to
streams and valleys.
2.12.2 Historical Sites
Numerous historical sites and landmarks exist in the study
area (Figure 2.12-A, B). Table 2.12-A identifies the numbered
landmarks. (For descriptions of these sites, see Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book IV). Inhabited prior to 1760, the area is
rich in historical resources. Detroit was the territorial
capital and the first state capital of Michigan.
Thirty-six registered National Historic Landmarks are within
the city limits of Detroit. An additional four sites are in
Wayne County, four in Macomb County, and ten in Oakland County.
Additionally, eighty-two historic sites and landmarks are local
historical sites (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV) .
2-35
-------
[ST CLAIR CO
1 : 0*«i.
• • r wooo
' | I HMIT T
LIVINGSTON co
I i *««T HU«0«-J*.S ('•" "
| ?**L,A[:^i:F0 I.?;;?"!",1 '—» ..-^M"-"6| :0^ jcv-V''v:?»'3f
|, 4M«ii»f-:^f"5..;'t**l"OOH!-'^X-ifc-::. «ooi«3i« ..... »I««AO» ...«...« I X\X-!y*7it ci..t
I \ BU X-v-v.v b.runj -.. — •• i-'-'.-. - .r /
f-rt
f -•: >:-x,.«->:
- RosrviH* '
- Stint Cltir Shores
ST CLAIt
i'iii^ssu
t i K;X-V-:;\ f V T/'vT^xI'^HS.pS
....O. r«ieo« LOO. !••.•'•'•••••••' *^vl.'-.1 "K"'"I • Lmro.n P.r
i • ^s""- ":;•""• :i;-^::-;;—-T^
" '1±
.. Wr««4*ll«
— CCO*«C
MOSROF
^ V~.h )<-•*«, -i
I ""-"i ,JS^,;i::W""'.>*, , )
lu.-t.j \^jrL0 .
i^LJi^-r"'1 .^
}»'^ps^vr ^^^
liife_JL-^^
\l « I
Figure 2.11-G
2-36
-------
XIONROF r,p ..;.£ ^•"."••'.i
• i o»o o»;• i xtTf •x";X--xVx^
ADOPTED ZONING ORDINANCE
I.EGKND
2.11-H
2-37
-------
rpmT • • * TieT
I OAKLAND CO _o.....,n. | Q •
1-0^, .„..> j0"0^! ""-«
I. Jl.ll, «••"« WANOONl Q I»BOI«ON
AD<7PTED ^1 B!>M I^JOX K KG I !.4T/C;\-
I.EGKND
Figure 2. 11- I
2-38
-------
U. Q O
°St ,0-
<£> < o
< X (T
UJ O (-
CC IT LU
2-39
-------
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
-
Sources Wayne Slate University Library, University Of
Michigan Library, SEMCOC, Notional Register Of
Historic Places
O AREAS OF POTENTIAL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
DETROIT CITY LIMIT
0123 6 9 12 15 18
II I I I I I
Scale in Miles
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
LANDMARKS AND SITES
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
Figure 2.12-B
For identification of numbers, see
•"able 2.12-A
2-40
-------
Table 2.12-A
Historical Sites and Landmarks
Post American Revolution
Landmark Key
Seitz House 5
Hamtramck, Colonel John F.
(Landmark) 6
Waterford Township Historic
District 7
Reves-Wilhelm Cemetery 8
First Baptist Church 9
*Hunter, John W., House 10
*Stony Creek Village Historic
District 11
Michigan's First Capitol 12
*Farmington Historic District 13
First Presbyterian Church 14
*Franklin Historic District 15
Winkler's Mill 16
*Trowbridge House 17
First Methodist Episcopal
Church 18
Sashabaw Cemetery 19
Caswell House 20
Newburgh Cemetery 21
*Commandant's Quarters 22
*Romeo Historic District 23
Botsford Inn 24
*Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal 25
*East River Road Historic
District 26
Landmark Key
*Greenmead Farms (Simmons
House) 27
*Sts. Peter and Paul Church 28
*Wisner House (Pine Grove) 29
*Fort Wayne 30
Elmwood Cemetery 31
*Sibley House 32
*Mariner's Church 33
Harmonie Club (Site) 34
Michigan State Fair 35
Grant, U.S., House 36
Byers Farm 37
*Myrick-Palmer House 38
*Moross House 39
Eastern Market Historic District 40
Chevalier Home (Crocker House) 41
Clarkston Historic District 42
Champlain Street Cemetery of
Temple Beth El 43
Trombly (Beaubian) House 44
*Brooks Farm 45
*Monroe Avenue Commercial Bldgs. 46
Eureka Iron Works 47
*Rowe House 48
*Fort Street Presbyterian Church 49
2-41
-------
*Ortonville Mill
Sashabaw United Presbyterian
Church 51
Marx House 52
Mount Clemens KR Station 53
*Washington Octagon House 54
*Christ Church, Detroit 55
*Northville Historic District 56
Masonic Temple of Zion Lodge
No. 1, F. & A.M. 57
Goodison House 58
Four Towns Methodist Church 59
*St. James Episcopal Church 60
Warner, Governor House 61
St. Mary's Church District 62
Wayne State University 63
*St. Joseph's Roman Catholic
Church 64
*Taylor, Elisha House 65
*Yerkes House 66
*West Canfield Historic District 67
*Hudson-Evans House 68
Lake Orion Methodist Church 69
Detroit News Building 70
Orchard Lake Community Church 71
Church of the Sacred Heart,
Convent and Rectory 72
MacNichol, George P. House 73
Van Buren Township Hall 74
Table 2.12-A (continued)
50
*Woodward East Historic District
(Piety Hill) 75
Wallaceville School 76
Clinton Valley Center 77
Davidson-Goux House (Huguenot
House 78
Ford-Peabody House 79
*Belle Isle 80
Davis House (Davisburg Club House) 81
Grosse Pointe Cemetery (City
Cemetery in Grosse Pointe Twp. 82
*Second Street Baptist Church 83
Craigie House (Bissel House) 84
St. Matthew's Episcopal Church
(God's Inspirational Kingdon) 85
Fire Department Engine House #11 86
Harper Hospital 87
St. Albertus Roman Catholic Church 88
*Thompson Home for Old Ladies 89
Campbell House 90
*St. Anne Roman Catholic Church
District 91
*Bagley, Memorial Fountain 92
*First Congregational Church
(Center for Performing Arts) 93
*Freer, Charles Lang, House 94
*Hecker, Col. Frank J. Home 95
Ladder Company No. 5 96
First Presbyterian Church 97
Idelsohn House 98
2-42
-------
Table 2.12-A (Continued)
*Whitney, David House 99
First Congregational Church 100
*Hunter House (Northwood House) 101
Sweetest Heart of Mary Roman
Catholic Church 102
Chamber of Commerce Building 103
Grosse Pointe Memorial Church 104
*Hurlbut Memorial Gate 105
*Indian Village Historical
District 106
*Detroit Cornice & Slate Co.
Building 107
Orchard Lake Schools
Historic District 108
Sweet, Dr. Ossian House 109
Tiger Stadium 110
*Eighth Precinct Police
Station (Grand River Station) 111
Palms Apartment House 112
*Wayne County Building (Wayne
County Courthouse) 113
*Boston-Edison Historic District 114
Packard Motor Company, No. 10
Building 115
Ford Motor Company Piquette
Plant 116
*Kahn, Albert House 117
*Cranbrook 118
*Pewabic Pottery Building 119
*Highland Par, Plant, Ford
Motor Company 120
The National Theatre 121
*Penn Central Railroad Station
(Michigan Central Railroad Station) 122
Detroit Bank and Trust 123
*Fair Lane, Henry Ford Estate 124
*Farwell Building 125
*Merrill-Palmer Institute of Human
Development and Family Life 126
Player's Club 127
Selfridge Field 128
*0rchestra Hall 129
*Wilson Barn 130
Detroit Public Library 131
General Motors Building 132
Ford Airport 133
Chrysler Corporation 134
Fisher Building 135
*Greenfield Village (Edison
Institute 136
Scarab Club 137
Lawrence Institute of Technology 138
* Represents site and landmarks listed
in the National Register of Historic
Places.
2-43
-------
2.12.3 Recreation
Land preserved for recreation falls basically into two groups:
suburban parks intended for intensive use and rural parks usually
for extensive or passive recreation. A significant acreage is
dedicated to parks, particularly in the outlying areas (Figure 2.12-C)
Analysis of the 1990 Regional Recreation and Open Space Plan
indicates that the City of Detroit has inadequate
recreational facilities and local parks in relation to the distri-
bution of its large population. There is limited open space within
easy driving distance for residents of Detroit and its inner
suburbs. Deficiencies in the open space plan as of present have
been identified by the facilities planning consultant.
Within the City of Detroit, parks are located along the shore-
line and on islands in the Detroit River and along the River Rouge.
Other recreational land is scattered throughout, the area. Sports
arenas are located in Pontiac (football) and Detroit (hockey,
baseball, basketball) . A proposed sports arena, is planned along
the Detroit River.
2.12.4 Cultural
Regional cultural centers (libraries, museums, galleries,
theaters, and concert halls) are almost exclusively located in
the City of Detroit (Figure 2.12-D). The major cultural center
of the city is Wayne State University along Woodward Avenue.
Dearborn, Bloomfield Hills/ Avon, Independence, Pontiac, and
Southfield are the only other communities with regional cultural
centers.
Several ethnic churches are located near the DWWTP: the
First Hungarian Lutheran Church, St. John Cantius Catholic
Church, and St. John the Baptist Byzantine Catholic Church. The
residential area adjacent to the DWWTP is a European neighborhood,
predominantly Hungarian, which has undergone adverse changes due
to the encroachment of the industrial sector, the DWWTP, and
highway construction.
2.13 Employment
Data available for the decade of the 1960's within
the three county area shows a decline in total employment
in the primary metals category of the export sector (-1.0%).
Wayne County statistics are demonstrative of the shift in
employment location. During this decade, Wayne County re-
corded declines in total employment in four manufacturing
categories: machinery, primary metals, chemicals, and other
manufacturing. Conversely, neither Oakland nor Macomb County
registered a net loss in any category from 1960-1970 (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book V).
2-44
-------
ERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
MDNR MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
HCMA HURON CLINTON METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
0 OAKLAND COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT.
W WAYNE COUNTY PARKS AND PARKWAY DIVISION
D DETROIT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPT
S SUBURBAN CIVIL DIVISION
PBG PUBLIC GOLF COURSE
PRG PRIVATE GOLF COURSE
GP GAME PRESERVES AND NATURAL AREA
P PROPOSED RECREATION LANDS
• _ MARINA
AGRICULTURAL RESERVATION
Sources Semcog, MDNR, Macomb County Parks and
Recreation Commission, Wayne County Road Commission
Oak/and County Parks and Recreation Department.
0123 6 9 12 15
Scale in Miles
EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARK
AND RECREATION FACILITIES,
GAME PRESERVES AND
AGRICULTURAL RESERVES.
Figure 2.12-C
2-45
-------
,^\-4
OVERVIEW PLAN STUDY AREA
• LIBRARIES
O MUSEUMS S GALLERIES
* THEATERS 8 CONCERT HALLS
STADIUMS 8 INDOOR ARENAS
A AMUSEMENTS a EXHIBITIONS
Source Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Land Use
Patterns in Southeast Michigan Urbanized Area. May, 1976
0133
I I I.J_
12 15
_J L
18
J
v^j i
Scale in Miles
MAJOR CULTURAL CENTERS
Figure 2.12-D
2-46
-------
Overall, total employment increased in the study area
from 1960 to 1970 (1,044,261 to 1,373,361) (Table 2.13-A).
A further breakdown shows the export sector increased from
approximately 376,000 to 417,000, and the domestic sector
increased from 668,000 to 956,500. The domestic sector was
supporting the growth of the region during this decade
with the greatest gains registered by the services, retail
trade, and government categories. The total increase in
employment by these categories was approximately 215,000.
2.14 Public Health
The public health "condition" is usually measured in
terms of the incidence of communicable diseases. The occur-
rence of disease pathogens depends on many uncontrollable
factors, but the degree to which they flourish is largely a
function of environmental conditions. Viral diseases such as
measles, rubella, and mumps are spread by personal contact and
therefore high population densities are more susceptible to
these communicable diseases. Proliferation of such diseases
such as hepatitus, salmonella, typhoid, and dysentery are
caused by bacteria and are generally a result of improper
sanitary conditions, improper preparation of food, and water
contaminated by fecal matter.
TABLE 2.14-A
INCIDENCE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASE
CASES PER 1000 POPULATION
Detroit Three County Seven County State of
Year City Area Region Michigan
1975 10.9 5.7 5.9 8.1
1974 11.5 6.6 6.5 8.6
1973 13.1 7.0 6.8 8.0
1972 10.1 5.4 5.1 5.7
1971 9.8 6.2 5.9 6.2
1970 10.5 5.7 5.5 5.7
Records of communicable diseases (Table 2.14-A) show an
increase until 1974 of all major communicable diseases (salmonella,
dysentery, hepatitis, and typhoid) (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book V). The records since then show a decrease in incidence of
disease. Generally, factors such as personal and family hygiene,
drug use, increased reporting and surveillance of disease tend to
make interpretations of these data difficult.
2-47
-------
> X
0) V
en as
,- •— ^ , |
m^-t coOrs.
ri o
r-
n O
o
r-* r^
o
r-
^
so ^ n r^. r-4J *r
m (Ni r^.
I
o
ss
•H 00
en oO OJ^o
r*» ^ --JO
" " ""iS
^•O O >O O in c\ cv*
25 £££ SSS
o
vj
m
vo
CO
r-\
•
(N
i
w
u
3
CM
X
CQ
B
3
O
U
I C
c o
«
O CO
W
U
H
OS
O
EH
co
H
K
n O <"1 CN CM CO
a» x
C i-
!0 X S
u U -^
O (0 u
X r o-
(0
^H
«
U
r
-a
a o
y u
»- S
£3 JT
U- O
a.
eg
U
1-1
O
3.
X
tJ
«
O
u
0
(C
c
1- «
V I-
•-n *-
^H
u
3) U
jg C
u q;
C
C OJ
tO >
O
o
3 C
W fij
CO 3
C x
CJ »-i
(1 (J
u 03
C C
0 "*
CJ (JL,
V
H
a] o
«
C -H
03 O
S
u
u
0)
-o s
cO O
u a
(— i
-4 33
(0 O
*J £-4
0)
iJ
C
a<
g.
o
D.
cS
i— 4
aj
4J
o
H
2-48
-------
2.15 Public Facilities and Services
Major capital investment in various infrastructure components
is generally known to affect the attractiveness of an area to
residential, commercial, and industrial location. In addition,
the growth of any sector generates additional demand for services.
As such, this section will present existing facilities, their
service capacity, and proposed plans for expansion of service.
2.15.1 Transportation Facilities
Major freeways in the study area are 1-94, 1-696, 1-75,
1-96, M-53, and M-59 in addition to many other important arterial
routes (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV). Transportation
in the study area is strongly dependent upon the private and
pooled automobile.
Planned and future expansion of the highway network includes:
North and south extensions of M-53,
Extension of M-59 north,
Connection of 1-75 with US-10, 1-96 and 1-696,
Completion of 1-96, and
Completion of M-14.
Highways under construction include:
• 1-696 from 1-75 north to 1-96, and
• 1-96 west to 1-696.
Public transportation facilities include bus, rapid transit
rail service, and trolley. The Southeastern Michigan Transportation
Authority (SEMTA), created in 1967, has been directed to plan,
acquire, construct, operate and contract for transportation
facilities in the three county area. Within the DWSD service
area, the following is provided:
• Bus service radiating out from downtown Detroit,
• DASH (direct access shuttle) service to major employment
centers,
• Park and ride service from suburban locations to
cultural events within the metropolitan area, and
• Operation of the Grand Trunk and Western commuter rail
service between Detroit central city and Pontiac.
Present identifiable plans call for upgrading and expansion
of the present systems, implementation of rapid transit systems
to the outlying counties and an automated people mover system in
the Detroit CBD.
In addition, AMTRAK provides commuter service west to Ann
Arbor and on to Chicago through Jackson. Service to the eastern
cities of Buffalo and New York is also provided.
2-49
-------
Freight traffic is presently carried on approximately 500
miles of rail within the DWSD service area. The three major
campanies holding the vast majority of the rights-of-way are
Conrail, Grand Trunk and Western, and the Chesapeake and Ohio
railroads. Four major public airports serve the DWSD service area.
2.15.2 Educational Facilities
Educational facilities include primary and secondary schools
operated by the public and private sector. Higher education
is available from both academic and technical schools.
Total school enrollment in the three counties declined from
1971 to 1975 with some school closings in the Detroit public
school system (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV).
Western Wayne County and northern Macomb County show an increased
enrollment paralleling the change in land use from agricultural
to industrial. A recurring problem is inequitable enrollment
distribution necessitating construction of new schools in suburban
areas while reserve capacity exists in others, particularly
in the City of Detroit and older residential sections of Wayne
and Macomb Counties. Projections by the Michigan Department of
Education show a 12% or greater loss in school enrollments for
Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties for 1977-1982 (Hecker and
Ignatovich, 1977).
2.15.3 Health Facilities
Within the study area, there are 84 hospitals with a 18,939
bed capacity, 167 nursing care facilities with a 20,931 bed
capacity, and 42 homes for the aged with a capacity of 3,684 beds
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV). These facilities are
concentrated in Detroit.
Beds per 1000 population are highest in Detroit and lowest
in Oakland County. Beds per thousand population have been
increasing in Detroit, decreasing in Wayne (excluding Detroit)
and Oakland Counties, and remaining approximately even in Macomb
County.
Comparison of the Detroit health care facilities and
professional staff with national statistics shows that decreases
in the number of hospital beds/thousand population are a national
trend. Health care facilities are considered adequate for the
duration of the planning period.
2.15.4 Fire and Police Protection
Fire protection is provided by local units of government.
The number of fire stations in Detroit has decreased since 1970,
2-50
-------
while the number of firefighters per 100,000 population has
increased slightly. Personnel in the three county area have
increased from 1972 to 1975 and the number of volunteer units has
decreased (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV). The City
of Detroit has a fire insurance rating similar to other large
cities in the nation.
Police protection is provided by separate municipal
departments, the respective County Sheriff's Departments, and the
Michigan State Police. Law enforcement personnel per 1000
population are most numerous in Detroit and least numerous in
Macomb County.
2.15.5 Water Service
The largest supplier of domestic treated water is DWSD.
Twenty-one additional suppliers of treated water exist in the
study area. The DWSD water treatment facilities have adequate
capacity at present. The Huron treatment facility has sufficient
reserve capacity to provide the additional needed water supply if
it is expanded to its ultimate design capacity of 1200 mgd
(4,542,000 m-Vd)• No water distribution problems have occurred or
are foreseen.
Many areas also rely upon private wells outside of the
densely populated urban areas (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book IV). Groundwater demand is projected to decrease from the 44 m
(166,540 m3/d) demand in 1970 to 39 mgd (147,615 m3/d) in 2020.
2.15.6 Sewerage Service
Sewage collection service is provided by numerous authorities.
Sewage treatment in the study area is provided almost entirely
by DWSD. Ten suburban communities provide treatment facilities
in addition to collection (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV).
This is covered in great detail in later sections of this report.
2.15.7 Energy Supply
Detroit Edison produces and provides electricity to the
study area. Pontiac purchases this energy and retails elec-
trical power to city residents. Detroit's Public Lighting
Department generates some power and purchases the remainder from
Detroit Edison (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book IV).
The majority of the electrical energy is generated at
coal-fired and other fossil fueled power plants. One nuclear
power plant supplies some power to the region. Power generating
capacity is adequate for the present.
2-51
-------
No blackouts have occurred although brown-outs occurred
during the 1977 winter due to fuel handling difficulties at the
coal fired power plants.
Natural gas is supplied by Consumers Power Company, Michigan
Consolidated Gas Company, and the Southeastern Michigan Gas
Company. All of the gas companies have restricted supplies. The
first two companies extend new connections to only residential
and/or other essential needs. The other company has not accepted
any new customers since 1974 (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977,
Book IV).
2.15.8 Solid Waste Disposal
Solid wastes are presently incinerated and/or landfilled.
Within the three county area, landfills have a design capacity of
2600 tons/day (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII). Both
the refuse hauling operations and the sanitary landfills are
operated either privately or publicly.
SEMCOG projections of solid waste disposal requirements
show a steadily increasing volume of wastes and diminishing
landfill capabilities. Significant problems in solid waste
disposal are anticipated with the existing short-term planning.
2.16 Summary
This chapter presents the existing natural and human environment
of the study area. This information is used as a baseline for
predicting the quality of the future environment, choosing feasible
alternatives, and selecting a recommended plan compatible with
the environment.
2-52
-------
3.0 EXISTING FACILITIES
The following chapter presents the existing facilities
for collection and treatment of wastewater within the study
area. The facilities in the study area are presented in more
detail than in the overview area due to the study requirements.
This inventory of the existing systems will provide the founda-
tion for any future requirements.
The wastewater collection system is presented in two
parts: the City of Detroit system and the suburban systems.
As the system is described and explained, it is evaluated on
its capabilities to provide needed services. Operation and
maintenance of the collection system is also described and
evaluated.
Wastewater flows from the collection system to the regional
Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) are described and
analyzed. The wastewater flows are categorized by the source
and type of wastewater (industrial or domestic).
The majority of this discussion was extracted from the
SFP (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VII and Book XI).
3-1
-------
3.0 EXISTING FACILITIES
3.1 Wastewater Collection System
3.1.1 City of Detroit
Collection of wastewater within the City of Detroit began
in 1836. As the city grew, more laterals and combined collec-
tors were built to convey the wastewater directly into the
Detroit and Rouge Rivers. In 1914 the East Jefferson Avenue
sewer was constructed to protect the city's raw water intake,
and in 1926, the Detroit River Interceptor was started to
intercept the collecting sewers.
Presently, the Detroit City collection system is a com-
bined sewer system with approximately 89 percent (89%) of the
existing sewers carrying both sanitary and storm water flow.
The combined sewer system is divided into nine drainage dis-
tricts (Figure 3.1-A) and are described in Table 3.1-A.
Baby Creek
Central
Conner Creek
East Jefferson
Fox Creek
Hubbell
Oakwood
Rouge River
Southfield
These nine districts are further divided into a total
of 39 subdistricts. All of the major trunk sewers in these
districts and subdistricts are connected in some manner to
one of the two existing interceptors, the Detroit River Inter-
ceptor (DRI) and Oakwood-Northwest, which transport sanitary
flow and a portion of storm flows to the DWSD Wastewater
Treatment Plant. A third interceptor, the North Interceptor-
East Arm (NI-EA) is currently under construction and is in-
tended to operate in a similar manner providing relief to
the DRI and conveying suburban flows.
Provisions have been made in some of the major trunk
sewers within the collection system for containment of storm
flows in excess of the existing interceptor capacities for
subsequent discharge to the two receiving interceptors. Due
to the relatively flat topography of the Detroit area, the
major combined sewers were constructed with large cross sec-
tional areas and on flat grades in the lower reaches; this
created the potential for considerable in-system storage.
In-system storage is achieved through the use of regulators,
fabridams, and control gates.
3-3
-------
-------
Points
Number of Overflow
LI
o
o a.
Discharge t<
Major Interce;
c
o
4J
m
i-t
3
Q.
O
0.
C
"f in
01
rc vi
0) O
b *
•t.
en
4J
1W U
O -H
VI
VI 4J
01 U
IS
Z 3
W
U
u
H
Vl
U
in
• H
a
01
U'
rfl
C
^
aJ
Vl
a
c
o
4J
,—1
•H
6
3
O X
AJ
4J
oi o>
Vl Vl
3 -H
in Cx
O
*— ( ft)
o x
a «J
u
•o
x c
a a
01
VI V|
u ovi
Jt a
>i 01 >
•9 «y
g oc
.
s
*3
sus
•o
4J C JJ
o o »<
-* o
M iw vi
4J 01 *>
» -H 01
•H .H Q
QS o
5 cS
41 2 n
through the 7 sewers in
through the First Hamil1
Elliott Relief sewers ti
i
o>
Detroit River
Interceptor
o
o
o
t
f-i
T
~a
x
o
o o
O r-<
* r^
•« 3*
CN • —
00
M
4)
Q) 01
JS
*> A!
0)
- 0>
U~l kl
o
VI
01 01
X >
AJ .M
i through •
Detroit R:
overf lowe
•e to the
excess combined sewage
backwater gate structur
Creek ooen channel.
i
M
Detroit River
Interceptor
o
o
>M
iu
(U
>->
iJ
tn
«S
M
0)
X
v>
>.
U
«
I
VI
4J
in
•r4
X
U
•H
x
>:
01
01
outfall sewer to Fox Cr
Detroit River.
i
rH
Detroit River
Interceptor
o
o
o
^
CN
in
.H
"id
X
0
O T
^ r-
- T
H I1
M-
in
.*
o>
01
Vl
u
x
o
Du
"
^H Ot
0 -H
•H ^1
>H
K
«
X
U
s
t
M
^j
n
?
Oak wood-North;
Interceptor
o
o
o
r-
/H
'«
x
o
o o
in .H
-• kO
»H
•o
o
o
3
X
to
o
01
o>
I
Vl
01
>
•H
U,
01
5
o
u
i
10
Northwest
Interceptor
•
o
o
0
^
OJ
rH
"5
X
O
O O
r~ n
•. (n
O T
H-
in
01
tn
3
S
Vl
01
>
• r4
«
01
tr
I
Vl
o
>
•H
oc
01
X
u
o
4J
1
vO
Northwest
Interceptor
o
0
o
in
o
rH
I
0
o o
O T
» r>i
00 f>
ro
T3
rH
-------
When the combined sewers are unable to store or carry
all the flow during the periods of storm runoff, the excess
overflows to either the Detroit or the Rouge Rivers, or in
some cases, basements and streets. There are approximately
82 overflow points along both the Detroit and the Rouge
Rivers (Figure 3.1-B).
3.1.1.1 Combined Sewer System
Due to the size and complexity of the Detroit system,
only the major trunk sewers were analyzed by Giffels/Black
and Veatch (1977, Book VII). The existing major trunk
sewers were analyzed by estimating their theoretical cap-
acity and comparing it to estimated storm runoff from storms
of 1, 5, and 10 year recurrence intervals. However, since
the Northwest Interceptor has varying capacities which are
due to widely varying pipes sizes and connections, and was
not designed to carry storm flow, the Rouge River District
was not analyzed. Estimated deficiencies in each subdis-
trict have been tabulated in Table 3.1-B.
The DRI theoretically has sufficient capacity to con-
tain peak dry weather flow under existing conditions. An
evaluation of the effect of the NI-EA on the DRI under
existing conditions was performed. When placed into service,
the NI-EA should alleviate the possible problem of restric-
tions during periods of peak dry weather flow in the lower
reaches of the DRI when combined with a DRI relief sewer.
The existing theoretical capacity of the Oakwood-
Northwest Interceptor is adequate for carrying dry weather
flow except for a relatively short reach downstream of
McNichols Road. There the peak flow rate exceeds existing
theoretical capacity and dry weather overflows could
occur in this area.
The present system for monitoring and controlling the
wastewater collection system represents the culmination of
efforts dating from 1966, when the DWSD assumed control of
the wastewater facilities, to the present computerized sys-
tem of data gathering and reporting. While still relying
on an operator to assimilate available data from the collec-
tion system and make decisions as to the proper control
procedures, the system is capable of providing: valuable
data as a basis for future closed loop control in some areas;
basic data for a preventive maintenance program of the collec-
tion system, and some of the basic raw data required to veri-
fy a mathematical model of the entire collection system which
could be used to determine the flooding and overflow problem
areas.
3-6
-------
3-7
-------
g
o
4-1
to
to
U-l
o
OOO
000
ooo
ooo
oo CM r~-
o
o
CO
o o o o
ooooo
00 00 CM OO
ooooooo
ooo o
o —
EH
U
H
a
E-i
w
M
Q
OQ
D
CO
LO
a
co
a,
co
u
to
CO
01
W
vfl
to
01
•H
O
C
Ol
s
XI
n)
na
•>
o
c
o
^
r^
^
Ol
r;
4-1
0)
3
C
0
to
5^ -H
O T3
•n W
C
O
CO
•H
T3
U
Ol
01
}_f
U
}-j
0)
g
.3
to
rH
O
r" (
CJ r-
z 3
S r
CO
rH
: o
11 ai x:
H rH CJ
-1 -H i-l
d z z
- rl 3S
-------
co
U-l
O O O
o o o
CM O csi
§0
o
CO
oooooooo
oooooooo
ra
u
CO
10
cu
en
&H
u
H
to
H
o
PQ
to
ooo oo oooooooo
ooo o ooooooo
CM oo vo m vo t-H vo *n in co r^»
CO
cu
•H
O
C
cu
•o
0)
3
•H
+J
0
u
n
I
ro
vD
u-i
cu
•H
iH
&
•O
C
CU
•H
T)
rd
U
U
o
<4-J
•o
CU
«
CU T3
r-l T) C
•H ^4 (0
I
n
o o
o o
O r-
U-l U-l
cu cu
•H l-l
rH iH
CU -i CU-H-OJS CXl-i CU
uwiBt-twcu'ajc
CMB-H3W-HCO
cuo3x:i-iocUf-t
uswHoai-jSlfa
EH
W
W
O
•H
CO
•H
•o
XI
3
to
ro
-------
Data gathered on flow levels, rain accumulation, over-
flows, gate and fabridam control, and flow metering are
transmitted to the Systems Control Center. However, there
are some problems with the accuracy of some of the data.
Lack of proper maintenance is the principal performance
problem with the level transmitters. There is no way to
distinguish between an actual overflow condition or a loss
of signal. The electrode relay sensors are proving less
reliable than proximity switches from a maintenance stand-
point. Little meaningful data are available from the two
ultra-sonic type flowmeters presently in use. Their accuracy
and long term performance is not yet known.
3.1.1.2 Pumping Stations
The DWSD assumed responsibility for operation and main-
tenance of the City of Detroit collection system, including
seventeen system pumping stations from the Detroit Department
of Public Works (DPW) in 1966. None of the seventeen pumping
stations are manned on a continuous basis. Eight minor stations
are automatic, with local controls, and the nine major stations
are monitored with remote supervisory control from the System
Control Center. Figure 3.1-C and Table 3.1-C give names and lo-
cation of nine major pumping stations.
An evaluation of each of the nine pumping stations was
performed by the facilities planning consultant. The evalu-
ation found that in general the pumping stations are relia-
ble but some do have problems. Some of the problems are:
insufficient ventilation; accumulation of oil; the Systems
Control Center operator is never certain if the storm pump
is operating at the Conner Creek Station; the Oakwood Pumping
Station does not have the capacity for a 10 year storm; and
a general lack of preventive and rehabilitative maintenance
in most stations.
3.1.1.3 Operation and Maintenance
Operation of the collection system is presently limited
to the capabilities of the operator at the System Control
Center Room to evaluate the impact of the storm event and
make the necessary adjustments using remotely controlled
equipment to minimize overflow of combined flows from the
system. Most of the manpower is allocated to the maintenance
rather than operation of the system.
In general, maintenance responsibility can be divided
into three areas: the collection system conduits and inter-
connecting piping; the wastewater pumping stations; and the
control and instrumentation equipment. There are basically
six crews from various divisions within DWSD upon which upkeep
of the collection system depends.
3-10
-------
3-11
-------
u
1
rH
•
ro
CU
rH
X!
rQ
EH
•P
C
•rH
0
CU
t
O 4->
EH -H
U
-P rd
tn c a
C CU rd
O cn cj
•rH 01
4-1 VH X
(ft pLj (^
4-> CU
CO CU
c
•rH
CU
3
CU
4-1
-H
O
VH
1 1
S
VH
0
'I — I
rd
S C
o
•rH
4->
id
O
o
J
0)
S
52
c
o
•H
4J
id
4-1
co
^
cu
3
cu
0)
0)
rH
•H
2]
C
CU
CU
M
^-x
cn
*\
ro
E
rH
rH
* — '
O
o
*3*
0)
rH
•H
S
4-1
rC
•H
W
IP
O
cu
TJ
•rH
cn
A
4-1
3
O
tn
Q)
XI
-p
5
4-1
cn
rd
CU
x:
4->
VH
0
2
, — .
>i
VH
rd
-P
•H
C
rd
cn
'— *
§
>
TJ
id
TJ
id
Oi
VH
CU
>
0
ffi
G •
cu cu
CU 3
3 C
•P cu
cu >
X) f£
TJ 0)
rd X
CtJ Q
I4H
CU
•rH
rH
CU
Pi
cu
3
C
CU
J>
r^J
C
o
cn
VH
1-3 w
,-x
cn ^~.
ro VH
E id
4-1
fN -H
— ' C
id
o cn
r^ ""^
tt)
rH
.rH ^
g
•P -H
tn &
VH
0
CU
Q)
0
M
4-*
c
H
VH
cu
^
•H
«
4J
•H
0
H
S
^^»
01 x-s
ro M
6 (Q
4-1
CT* -rH
~- C
rd
m cn
CN >-"'
ro
VH
O
G
G
O
u
T3
C
id
d
o
cn
VH
cu
H-)
MH
CU
I-D
^
•p CU
tn 0
rd VH
w u
cu
cu
VH
U
VH
CU
C
C
O
u
rH
0)
C
c
rd
t~!
O
C
cu
cu
0
r*
cy
cu
^
u
VH
cu
C
O
U
cn
x^
ro
g
ro — ,
rH g
rH S
-- o
•P
o tn
O ~~"
o
^
^t
cu
^1
3
cn
O
rH
U
C
W
V
cu
cu
VH
U
^1
•a
CQ
cn
^^
ro ^
g >i<
VH
in id
• -P
O -H
* — * c
id
vo tn
rH —
cu 6
XI rd
4-1 CU
VH
<4H -P
0 tn
cu
rC 3
VH cu
O XI
C -P
cn -P
cu id
rH
•H 4-1
fd
0 rH
3 CU
•P
4-1
>i C
rH CU
CU g
4J 4J
id rd
E cu
•H H
X -P
0
VH Q
OH C/)
s-g
cu
VH
x
ro >,
E VH
rd
in 4J
rH -H
^-^ r^
id
in cn
CN *~*
in
o
4-1 4J
tn
cu cu
3 cn
x: o
4-1 rH
3 0
o
cn »
c
cu o
rH -H
•H 4-1
g rd
4-1
cu tn
c
O r*
cu
>i cu
rH VH
cu cj
•p
id VH
g CU
•H C
X C
0 0
VH U
Cu
3
cu
•H
M
•rH
rd
Cn
•
VH
0)
•H
PH
4J
•H
0
VH
•P
0)
Q
0)
4-)
0)
x; VH
•P O
4-1
o a
•P CU
u
C VH
0 0)
XI -P
a c
•H H
cn
-P
TJ cn
cu cu
•P 3
VH XI
CU 4-1
> VH
C O
H 2
cn
\
ro ^
fci ?*l
VH
r- ro
• 4-1
O -rH
"- C
rrj
<3- cn
CM —
.
TJ
rd
O
cu cu
rC rH
4J -H
U-J
O X
•rH
•P C/5
cn
CU 'P
3 0
rd X!
CU 4-1
VH 3
rd O
cn
rH
rd T3
•H C,
•P id
C
0) VH
TJ cu
•H >
Cn "rH
(U Pi
VH
cu
rd Cn
3
C 0
H Pi
c
rC
•H
V4
3
^_J
O
4-1
a
cu
u
cu
•P C
G -H
H id
i-i
•P Q
cn
cu C
3 cu
rC -rH
4-1 VH
V-< CQ
o
2 O
^^
^^ cn
tn '-. \
ro VH g
g rd ~
HJ ^r g
i— I 'H rH V4
-- C "" O
rd 4J
o tn co cn
^j. • — • 03 ' — •
^
Pi
k/
^ 0)
O Q)
rd rH
S U
cn ---
\ Ul
ro -^ \
E >.ro
^ *G - — ^
. 4J ro g
O H ro VH
— C — 0
rd -P
o cn o cn
o-j — r-- —
rH
^
rH
4J
U
^
4J
tn
•H
Q
X
O
0)
4-1
c
H
rH
rH
•H
1)
, — ,
CO
H
0
o
•
0.
4-J
C
M
TD
id
o
Pi
cu
rH
,_,
y
c
Hi
•rH
^^
01 ~
pr) ^
£ ^d
4-1
CO -rH
' — C
rd
O M
CN ' — '
rH
VH
•rH
id
rH
CJ
4-1
01
id
V.
o
TJ
0
Pi
0)
rH
•H
S
C
cu
0)
4->
••H
CK
0)
rd
T3
c
0
c
• H
rH
CJ
3-12
-------
The maintenance of all pumping stations, instrumentation,
flow regulating, and diversion equipment is handled by the
Central Maintenance Division. Crews dispatched from Central
Maintenance generally attend to problems identified by the
System Computer Control Room. Little in the way of an over-
all program of preventive maintenance has been implemented
in the DWSD system. Most maintenance is of the emergency
response type.
With limited manpower being a major problem, priorities
are established by the System Control Center, and lower pri-
ority items, such as overflow sensors, and rain gages, may
remain in disrepair for several months.
To assure that the equipment is operating properly and
will perform reliably, a preventive maintenance program needs
to be established. Should the present techniques of main-
tenance continue, it is reasonable to assume that additional
manpower will be required for increased emergency repairs
as the equipment continues to deteriorate.
3.1.2 Suburban Wastewater Collection Systems
The DWSD serves large metropolitan suburban areas in
Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties with water supply and
wastewater disposal. Outside the City of Detroit, the waste-
water disposal system: serves a population of over 2,000,000
in mostly residential suburban communities; receives waste-
water from some 150 significant industrial discharges; in-
cludes approximately 75,000 acres (30,352 ha) served by com-
bined sewers; and contains over 70 combined sewer overflow
points in the older established communities.
All wastewater transport and treatment services for
suburbs are provided by the DWSD via contractual agreements.
Suburban communities and authorities are billed by the DWSD
for this service. The Detroit City Council approves the
rates set by the DWSD Board of Commissioners. The majority
of civil divisions in the area are provided service through
operating agencies such as Drain Commissioners, DPW, etc.
Three out of seven commissioners on the DWSD Board are rep-
resentatives of the suburban areas.
There are seven districts that provide wastewater dis-
posal service to multiple communities (Figure 3.1-D). These
communities have contract agreements with the districts. The
districts, in turn, have agreements with the DWSD for waste-
water disposal. The area, population, maximum allowable flow,
etc., are given in Appendix 11.6 for each sanitary district.
There are ten communities that have a contract agree-
ment directly with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
for wastewater disposal. These ten communities are summarized
in Appendix 11.5 and shown in Figure 3.1-D.
3-13
-------
Macomb San. Dist
Clinton-Ooklond Son. Dist.
S.E.
TROY
Oakland
"Eyerareen-
. |r«*N
Farmington.*.
_ . " FM4
DlSt.
105EV1LLE -South
Rouge Valley Dist
WESTLANC
Hamtramck
ighland Park
Ax
M^fyindale
N.E.Wayne Co. Dist.
Grosse Re. Farm:
Grosse Pointe
Grosse Pte. Park
*_ -^ ^
3-14
• Treatment Plants
SUBURBAN WASTEWATER
DISTRICTS AND TREATMENT
PLANTS
Figure 3.1-D
Key to suburban plants identi-
fied by numbers is presented in
Appendix 11.5
-------
There are eleven suburban communities which do not have
contracts with the DWSD. A summary of the location, type of
treatment, capacity, etc. of the wastewater facilities serving
these communities is presented in Appendices 11.6 and 11.7.
Figure 3.1-D shows the approximate location of each treatment
facility.
3.1.2.1 Suburban Interceptor Systems
There are five interceptor systems which convey waste-
water from all the tributary suburban areas to the Detroit
system. These five interceptor systems are the Rouge Valley,
Evergreen-Farmington, Southeast Oakland County, Clinton-
Oakland Macomb, and the Grosse Point-Jefferson systems.
The Rouge Valley System transfers flow from both com-
bined and separate systems. The Wayne County Department of
Public Works (WCDPW), the operating agency for the Rouge
Valley District, entered into an agreement that allows the
District to dispose of its wastewater flows into the DWSD
system. The maximum discharge capacities are limited by
contract to 230 cfs (7 mVs) into the Oakwood Interceptor
and 94.5 cfs (2.7 m3/s) into the Northwest Interceptor. In
addition, the agreement does not allow separate storm drain
connections to the DWSD system, except for combined sewer
areas already served by the Rouge Valley Interceptor, with
major branches along the Lower and Middle Rouge Valleys.
There are at least 40 overflows along the Lower and Middle
Interceptors which allow excess combined sewage to bypass
to the watercourses during wet weather.
The Evergreen-Farmington System transfers combined and
separate flows to the Detroit Southfield Sewer. The oper-
ating agency for the Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary District
(EFSD) is the Oakland County Department of Public Works
(OCDPW). There is a current agreement with the DWSD to dis-
charge up to 75 cfs (2 rn-^/s) into Detroit's system from the
EFSD. By contractual agreement, the EFSD must control the
flow into Detroit's system such that the flow limits are
not exceeded. Excess flow can be diverted if the Detroit
outlet sewer is flowing full. Thus, during wet weather com-
bined sewage is diverted to the River Rouge.
The Southeast Oakland County System consists of both
combined and separate sewers. The entire Southeast Oakland
County Sanitary District (SEOCSD) discharges through the
Dequindre Interceptor to the Detroit East Seven Mile Road
Relief sewer. The Oakland County Drain Commissioner's (OCDC)
office, (the operating agency for SEOCSD) , has a contractual
agreement with the DWSD to treat the-»wastewater from the
district. Current maximum allowable discharge into the
Dequindre Interceptor is about 278 cfs (8 m3/s). The county
is obligated to regulate and measure sanitary flow and may
be required to cease discharging entirely when Detroit's
Seven Mile Relief Sewer is flowing full.
3-15
-------
The Clinton-Oakland Macomb System serves the Clinton-
Oakland Sanitary District and the Macomb Sanitary District.
The DWSD has service contracts with the Oakland County Depart-
ment of Public Works and the Macomb County Public Works Com-
missioner which are the operating agencies. The interceptor
system is made up of eight major interceptors. The system is
to flow into the East Arm of the North Interceptor, presently
under construction.
The Grosse Point-Jefferson System serves the South Macomb
and the Northeast Wayne County Sanitary Districts. The Wayne
County Road Commission is the operating agency for the North-
east Wayne County Sanitary District which has an agreement
with the DWSD to discharge up to a maximum of 127 cfs (4 mVs)
into the DWSD sewer system. The South Macomb Scinitary District
has a contract with the Wayne County Road Commission for sani-
tary sewage disposal service. A system of combined and separate
sewers serves all the communities in both sanitary districts.
The Jefferson Interceptor carries wastewater from the South
Macomb Sanitary District to the Wayne County and Grosse Point
Interceptor (WCGPI). From this point, flow is transported via
the WCGPI through the Fox Creek Enclosure and then to the
Detroit River Interceptor.
3.1.2.2 Suburban Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewer overflows from suburban areas are summarized
in Appendix 11.8. Most of the outfalls are located along the
River Rouge and Lake St. Clair.
The MDNR has identified the Milk River Pumping Station,
located in the Northeast Wayne County Sanitary District, as
a point source of pollution and must incorporate corrective
measures to come within acceptable discharge limitations.
In the South Macomb Sanitary District, it has been found
that the Chapaton and Martin Retention Basins overflow to
Lake St. Clair on an average of 11.3 and 12.4 times per year,
respectively (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XI).
Problems of overflowing to streets and flooding base-
ments have been noted in the Southeast Oakland County Sanitary
District and several of the individual suburban communities.
The major portion of the overflows to the River Rouge
come from the Rouge Valley Sewage Disposal District (approxi-
mately 40 outfalls) and the City of Dearborn (about 22 out-
falls) .
3-16
-------
3.2 Wastewater Flows
The 1976 total dry weather flow to the DWWTP is 544
mgd (2,184,000 mVd) • This flow is based on the domestic,
commercial, industrial, and infiltration/inflow components
from both the city drainage districts and the suburban
sewerage districts previously discussed, plus 11 mgd (42,000
m^/d) estimated dry weather overflow and 45 mgd (170,000 m^/d)
of steady extraneous flow (unaccounted for water reaching the
combined sewers).
Dry weather flow rates are necessary as the base for
computation of sanitary and industrial discharges, treatment
requirements, and interceptor design. These flows have been
computed for the City of Detroit, including Hamtramck and
Highland Park, and for the suburban areas. Because, for whole-
sale purposes, there are meters on many of the suburban dis-
charges to the DWSD sewers, a more reliable estimate of per
capita flows can be developed for these areas than for the
City of Detroit. No direct wastewater flow measurements are
made routinely in Detroit except at the treatment plant where
estimates of total daily flow pumped, based on pump-on time,
are kept. Pump rating curves are suspect and an adjustment
has been made; in addition, there is significant unmetered
recycle flow. Thus, data for total pumped flows at the
treatment plant can only be considered to be accurate within
± 10 percent.
3.2.1 City of Detroit
When the population of a citv has not stabilized and
is on the increase, there is a general trend toward gradual
increase in per capita water use. This increase reflects
changes in water use habits, such as purchase of dishwashers,
garbage disposals, etc. In cities where the population has
stabilized or is decreasing, the per capita consumption tends
to remain steady. Wastewater per capita flows follow water
use trends. Indications are that the population will decrease
in the City of Detroit, which suggests that the average domes-
tic per capita flow rate will remain constant in the future.
Average domestic dry weather per capita flows were esti-
mated in the western districts of Detroit (using level gages)
and at the Bluehill Pumping Station (eastern Detroit) by ex-
cluding the suburban flows, the reported average industrial
flows, and estimated commercial flows from these in-city flows.
The commercial wastewater component was estimated by assuming
100 percent of the water used by commercial accounts was re-
turned to the sewers.
In the OP/EA, 70 gcd (0.26 m3/c.d) was determined as
the base domestic flow for all districts in the City of
Detroit (including Hamtramck and Highland Park), except Baby
3-17
-------
Creek, where a flow .of 90 gcd -(0.34 m^/c.d) was used. The
existing dry weather flows are presented in Table 3.2-A for
each drainage district. The present dry weather wastewater
flow is 294 mgd (1,113,000 m3/d) for a population of 1,538,443.
3.2.2 Suburban
Records of metered flow from suburban cities and districts
were analyzed to arrive at average dry weather flows. From
these flows the present significant industrial flows were sub-
tracted. The result was then an estimate of domestic and cononer-
cial flow plus infiltration. This value was divided by the
connected population to give an estimate of present per capita
flow (less industrial) .
In general, this computation gave reasonable per capita
flows. Exceptions were the results from Clinton-Oakland and
Macomb Sanitary Districts and from the City of Allen Park.
Values for the Oakland and Macomb County districts were re-
computed using 1976 data instead of the average of 1970 through
1975 data. A figure of 130 gcd (0.49 m3/c.d) was obtained and
this value was adopted as being more consistent with other sub-
urban results.
If the metered records for Allen Park are correct, there
is an excessive amount of infiltration. Although the tribu-
tary population is small and the per capita flow adopted will
not change flows significantly, it was assumed that a program
of remedial work on the sewerage system will reduce per capita
flows to a contribution similar to adjacent Dearborn.
The suburban average dry weather flows are presented in
Table 3.2-B for both multiple-districts and independent dis-
tricts. The present suburban average dry weather flow is
226.7 mgd (858,100 m^/d). This flow includes the commercial
and industrial flows from the nine drainage districts within
the city (Table 3.2-A) and the significant industrial dis-
chargers' flow from the suburban districts (Table 3.2-B).
3.2.3 Wet Weather Flows
There have not been any direct measurements of wet
weather flows. Therefore, combined sewer overflows were
estimated by the facilities planning consultant using exis-
ting U.S. Weather Bureau rainfall data for Detroit, deducting
storage, and converting this to rainfall excess. Then a
simplified model of the combined sewer system was utilized
to divide the rainfall excess into flow to the treatment
plant and overflow to the rivers. This calculation provides
estimates of average annual flows.
The results of the calculations represent average flows
and are useful for computing phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie,
etc. Peak flows are considerably higher.
3-18
-------
TABLE 3.2-A
PRESENT DETROIT DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER FLOWS
District
Rouge River Subtotal
Southfield Subtotal
Hubbell Subtotal
Baby Creek Subtotal
Oakwood
Fox Creek Subtotal
Conner Creek Subtotal
East Jefferson
Central Subtotal
TOTAL
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m3/d
1,538,443
Domestic,
Commercial
and
Infiltration
»pulation Industrial
mgd*
124,780 13.4
111,732 10.5
95,068 11.2
282,992 45.8
16,775 3.4
131,456 13.6
254,213 46.0
61,524 5.8
459,903 73.6
Inflow Total
mgd* mgd*
10.0 23.
1.7 12.
1.4 12.
4.2 50.
0.3 3.
2.0 15.
3.8 49.
4.4 10.
42.4 116.
4
2
6
0
7
6
8
2
0
223.3
70.2
293.5
3-19
-------
i
fN
r-i
4)
rH
e«
,j
u
"Jl
a
a
A
M
I
hi
K
y
s
£
>•
a
4)
o*
id
I
s
A
IU
•§
en
IA
JJ
O
U
n
•H
a
Suburban Sewer
4J
U -H
r? .
> u
Sn
3
H 13
hi C
.
o* n
> ui
<
M •-<
(u
c a
a ex
u n
•H «
M-* _ff
•H U
c «
•H a
at
41 C
U -4
41 -4
X a)
• Q
*g
•o
4) «
O «
4) *
id
82
in
o
Multiple-Distri
— *
o
(r
*"**
^.
*
u
—
5£
•a
I
W
•a
f
*
•0
I
(-1 O ~4 -4
m CN CM ^
in CN CM ^H
^ in M r»
n in ^ in
in IN in
O O -( O
in o m
'
V in IN in
4J
§ >,
? 5 §
Southeast-Oak la
Northeast Wayne
South Macorab Co
Rouge Valley
^ O O i£ ^x vo CO ^
O fn r^ IH o »~i m f*
•
*
O 00 V CN O f—t in r
N o m
*nW<^ ."!'"?.*
«N ^4 -H -I (N ~H <
f-4
O O O H IN O O
IN IN O O -i
-4
lj —
C U -U
•H t) a M
C >, § 3 a.
« *> —i —
ft* C ^ ^
1 3 fl C X 4) C •
COO 41 W C 0
41 U 1 -O * -H C *J
41 C C O. -H M C*
V4 A O 4) HOC
o>lii Se«jQ-g
3-20
? ^n (N n
1 V CO n I
OJ
3
a
>
c
u
Q
u -o
° 5 S S -i o i
4> E
a u
in
C ro
O p;
~u o
ti •
4J O
, v
....«*-(
3 ^, n ^1 .-I C "S
o --* u
UJ '
U) 4J C
a» e -j,
X 4J ^*
41 I/I ^
3 O O IN vD >. g
O in *J to ^
41 O
a r^ u
a u> i
< -i 3E
« J
* * A
* * *
• « «
T* 00 CD O t^
O r-i 'I —
r- u in i-v
0) 3
—( -W O J<
n ^
3 >" -c
CT
C T3 6
O 4J
« -Da;
« 4) JJ c
ui (n a) c
B.X « E -
U X) w'
iO (0 in x.
« IK O. •- r- a,
• T5 <3> >
41 4) 41 41 ^ c
4J a *> no
e e e v c o
H -H -4 41 *J O
2O 0 M 010
o, o< t 41 u
4) 41 0) C H ^>(/14J
s i i > » g»^
9 O O £ « « 4k
-------
Initial calculations of overflow are based on the divi-
sion of the City of Detroit combined sewer system into two
separate systems. These are the East and the West systems
and can be described by the fact that the West system flow
enters the DWWTP by the Oakwood-Northwest Interceptor and
the East system flow enters the DWWTP by the DRI.
The total average daily wet weather flow in excess of
dry weather flows has been estimated to be approximately
196 mgd (742,000 m3/d). About 84 mgd (317,940 m3/d) receives
treatment; 52 mgd (196,820 m3/d) contributed by the East
system and 36 mgd (136,260 m3/d) contributed by the West
system. Annual overflows to the Detroit and Rouge Rivers
average 112 mgd (423,920 m3d).
It has also been estimated that the total 24 hour areal
rainfall volume during a 10 year storm is 13,600 million gallons
(51,476,000 m3/d), compared to 1,100 mgd (4,164,000 m3/d) treat-
ment plant capacity.
The previous NPDES permit, MI0022802, defines wet weather
flow conditions as existing when rainfall or snow melt exceeds
an average of 0.01" over the service area. The permit also
states that the discharge limitations set for normal weather flow
conditions, shall not apply during periods of wet weather flow
conditions.
3.2.4 Infiltration/Inflow
3.2.4.1 City of Detroit
The average domestic dry weather per capita flows deter-
mined for the Hubbell, Southfield, and Baby Creek Districts, and
for the Fox Creek Subdistrict 4 (tributary to Bluehill Pumping
Station) compare reasonably well with water use, suggesting
these areas have limited infiltration. This is due to the
clay soil which underlies Detroit east of the Rouge Valley.
However, since no sewer system is completely free from leakage,
a value of 15 gcd (0.06 m-^/c.d) infiltration has been assumed
for all districts except the River Rouge District. In the
sandy soils of the River Rouge District, a value of 80 gcd
(0.3 m3/c.d) infiltration has been assumed. Table 3.2-A also
includes the infiltration/inflow for all nine drainage dis-
tricts. The per capita infiltration/inflow for the East
Jefferson (72 gcd; 0.27 m3/c.d.) and Central (92 gcd; 0.35 m3/
c.d) Drainage Districts are considerably higher than the other
districts. This is due to the river inflow during periods
when the Detroit River levels are high. The average annual
river inflow rate applicable has been estimated at 85 mgd
(321,725 m3/d). Table 3.2-C shows the distribution of the
inflow, based upon a survey performed in 1976.
3-21
-------
Table 3.2-C
SOURCES OF RIVER INFLOW
Subdistricts
Sources Found
In 1976
Allocated River
Inflow (mgd)
East Jefferson
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Baby Creek
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
Minor
1
3
3
0
2
1
0
Minor
7.7
0
7.7
23.2
23.2
0
15.5
7.7
0
0
85.0
3-22
-------
3.2.4.1 Suburban
A general assessment of the I/I in the suburbs has
categorized each district as "poor", "not good", or "accep-
table". These categories relate to the ratio of dry weather
flows to water sales. Three of the largest multiple sewer
districts are in the "poor" category; it includes Southeast
Oakland, Northeast Wayne-South Macomb, and Rouge Valley. All
of these districts are experiencing infiltration and/or in-
flow in excess of acceptable limits. Since these three dis-
tricts represent over 62 percent (62%) of the total present
suburban population, a considerable amount of additional flow
above acceptable limits has resulted. The problem will in-
crease as the population increases and as aging of the exis-
ting sewers continue. The other communities in the "poor"
category — Grosse Point Farms, Centerline, Melvindale, and
Highland Park — also have I/I problems. The impact of
these communities on the DWSD system would not be as great
compared to the whole of the suburbs; however, there are prob-
lems associated with large storm flows in these areas where
existing imterceptors cannot handle the storm plus sanitary
flow.
The communities of Allen Park, Farmington, Grosse Point,
and Grosse Point Park are in the "not good" category. As men-
tioned previously, they may have serious problems which should
be given immediate consideration. The total population of
these four communities, however, is only 2 percent (2%) of
the total population of the suburbs at this time. So, although
the internal problems are serious, they are not a significant
factor of the total suburban contribution or the total flow
contribution to DWSD treatment facilities.
All the other districts were classified in the "accep-
table" category and do not appear to have I/I problems of
a significant nature. A substantial increase in population
in the Macomb Sanitary District and the Clinton-Oakland Dis-
trict may increase the total amount of I/I to DWSD in the
future. However, this increase is expected and as long as
the future collections systems which contribute to the DWSD
system are constructed as completely separate systems, with
particular attention given to prevention of infiltration,
then the flows should remain within acceptable limits.
3.3 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The DWWTP is located near the confluence of the Rouge and
Detroit Rivers in the DelRay area of Detroit. It is owned and
operated by the DWSD. The Detroit River is the receiving
water for the plant's effluent, with an overflow to the River
Rouge. In the past, the DWSD has followed a policy of regionali-
zation at a central wastewater treatment plant. The vast
majority of the region's wastes are treated at this plant.
However, for economic or political reasons, some communities
have chosen to construct their own treatment facilities indepen-
dent of the DWSD.
3-23
-------
The DWWTP was completed in 1940 to serve Detroit and
several of the nearby suburbs. At that time, the plant provided
primary treatment and disinfection, with discharge to the
Detroit River through the current outfall. Various additions
to the plant were constructed from 1954 to 1966. Operation of
sewers was assigned to the DWSD in 1965, and a comprehensive
regional watershed pollution control program was launched.
In 1969, after a pilot study, DWSD selected the activa-
ted sludge process for expansion of the plant to secondary
treatment. Additional land was acquired and, with Federal
and State funds, a phased construction program was begun;
this program is still under way. Table 3.3-A presents a list
of those facilities which are under construction, or under
contract for construction, and Table 3.3-B shows contracts
which are currently scheduled but not awarded for construc-
tion. Those contracts (both awarded and not awarded for
construction) presented in Tables 3.3-A and 3.3-B are con-
sidered as part of the existing facilities for the EIS.
3.3.1 Raw Wastewater Characteristics
The DWSD historical records of raw wastewater charac-
teristics are subject to considerable error. Raw sludge and
side streams of the treatment process are often "recycled"
to the interceptors. Sampling devices at the head of the
plant may record the same pollutant several times and provide
an erroneously high reading of the true wastewater strength.
Raw wastewater characteristics of the DRI and the Oakland
Interceptor are sampled to preclude errors.
The facilities planning consultant became aware of these
sampling problems, and made an effort to correct for the
errors. Table 3.3-C represents the best estimate of the
true raw wastewater characteristics, without the effects of
"recycle" streams, and is representative of the actual
loadings the plant must treat in dry weather.
3.3.2 Existing Unit Processes
The DWWTP is designed to use the activated sludge process
to provide secondary treatment, with phosphorus removal using
ferrous chloride to precipitate phosphorus in the primary
and secondary clarifiers. Sludge processing includes
vacuum filtration of raw sludge followed by incineration.
Figure 3.3-A shows the flow diagram for the treatment process.
Not all of the designed elements are on-line.
3-24
-------
Table 3.3-A
Facilities Under Construction Or Under
Contract for Construction
Contract
Number
PC-283
PC-284
PC-288A
PC-294
PC-299
PC-400
PC-406A
PC-408
PC-407
Description
Aeration Tanks No. 3 and 4
and Intermediate Lift
Pumping Stations
Four Final Tanks
Oxygen Plant (380 ton/day)
Six Sludge Thickeners
Sedimentation Tank Flow
Control Improvements
Sludge Complex I Improve-
ments
Four Final Clarifiers
Four Final Clarifiers
Four Primary Tanks
Renovation - Group 1
Expected
Completion
Fall, 1977
Summer, 1977
Fall, 1979
Fall, 1978
Summer, 1977
Summer, 1980
Summer, 1978
Spring, 1979
Fall, 1978
3-25
-------
Table 3.3-B
Contracts Which Are Currently Scheduled
But Not Awarded For Construction
Contract
Number
Description
Expected
Completion
PC-276
PC-295
Primary Tanks A3 and A4
Sludge Complex III
Spring, 1979
Spring, 1980
PC-413
Instrument Service Contract
(Emergency and preventive
maintenance service and
operator training)
Fall, 1977
CS-01
Operation and Maintenance
Manuals
Not known
CS-801
Site Improvements (Drainage,
etc.)
Not known
CS-802
CS-804
CS-805
Tall Stacks for Incinerator
Complexes I and II
Employees Service Building
Electrical System Renovation
Computer Maintenance Contract
Not known
Not known
Not known
Not known
CS-813
Interim Sludge Disposal Con-
tract (415 dry tons/day)
December, 1979
Primary Tanks Renovations -
Groups II and III
Not known
CS-816
Grit Removal System Improve-
ments
Not known
3-26
-------
Table 3.3-C
Raw Wastewater Characteristics
Constituents
BOD5
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Grease
Phenols
Phosphorus
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Iron
Copper
Cyanide
Total Chromium
Zinc
Cadmium
Nickel
Average*
Concentration
103 mg/1
218 mg/1
135 mg/1
49 mg/1
234/ag/l
4.9 mg/1
494 mg/1
159 mg/1
9.1 mg/1
0.30 mg/1
0.12 mg/1
0.39 mg/1
0.87 mg/1
0.018 mg/1
0.47 mg/1
Observed
Range
28-252
75-1,430
19-670
3.7-154
15-3,093
1.2-14.0
63-9,000
45-1,653
0.2-125
Trace - 2.78
Trace - 1.84
0.03-2.22
0.02-48.4
Trace - 0.40
0.10-5.80
*Weighted Average: 60% DRI, 40% Oakwood Interceptor.
3-27
-------
a ID
>
o -
3-28
CU
fa
o
u
H
EH
5
*_(
w
K
u
w
CO
CO
w
u
o
OJ
AJ
i
n
•
ro
Cn
•H
-------
Appendix 11.4 provides a summary of the unit processes
for wastewater treatment, which explains their purpose, de-
scribes the available equipment, and discusses the performance
of the equipment in achieving its treatment objectives. The
SFP discusses the existing unit processes in much greater de-
tail.
In general, the plant suffers from a large number of
malfunctions and deficiencies in basic treatment units and
auxiliary equipment. Consistent achievement of effluent
limitations and air quality standards with the existing
equipment would be very difficult under the best of circum-
stances. The physical problems, and the combination of the
two makes achievement of standards nearly impossible.
3.3.3 Treatment Performance
In accordance with the requirements of PL 92-500,
the DWWTP discharged its effluent to the Detroit River under
an interim NPDES permit. On July 23, 1976, the MDNR revoked
the city's permit due to its findings that the permit "has
been, is being, and may be violated". The failure to comply
with permit limitations was partially attributed to:
• continuing inadequacies in the availability and training of
personnel for operating and maintaining the existing
facilities; and
• continuing inadequacies in the maintenance programs and
in the material procurement procedures .
The revocation was suspended on condition that the City
comply with schedules to complete the required facilities plan,
add new treatment units, perform rehabilitation work, submit
a plan to reduce phosphorus levels, evaluate interim sludge
disposal techniques, determine proper staffing levels, prepare
and implement a training program, and prepare an Operation and
Maintenance Manual. The U.S. EPA, the MDNR, and the City of
Detroit agreed to the schedule contained in the Consent Judg-
ment (Appendix 11.9).
Future and present effluent limitations have been set
forth by the Consent Judgment, Appendix 11.9. These are
also shown in Table 3.3-D. The following section examines
how the observed performance of the plant compares to these
standards.
Primary effluent 8005 from the rectangular and circular
primaries averaged 75 mg/1. Data for a ten-month period of
1976 showed that average BOD5 in the combined effluent of the
air and oxygen activated sludge systems averages 20 mg/1 and
was below 30 mg/1, 84 percent (84%) of the time. Both sys-
tems performed comparably in removing^BOD^, but design loads
are different. The 7 day limit of 130 mg/1 was not exceeded
by either system.
3-29
-------
Table 3.3-D
Present and Expected
Future Effluent Limitations
for the DWWTP
Beginning on the effective date of the Consent Judgment and lasting until
June 30, 1978.
Effluent Characteristic
BOD
Total Suspended Solids
Phenol
Oil and Grease
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Fecal Coliform (MPN)
pH 6.5 - 9.0 SU
Discharge Load Limitations
Ib/day
30-Day Avg.
7-Day Avg.
Discharge Concentration
Limitations
mg/1
30-Day Avg. 7-Day Avg.
1
650
,200
1
-
-
-
,000
,000
,900
975,
1,800,
2,
-
-
-
000
000
300
87
160
0.25
-
4.0
200/100 ml
130
240
0.3
45
-
400/101
Beginning on December 31, 1981 and lasting until the expiration date.
263,000
263,000
900
-
394,000
394,000
1,800
-
30**
30**
0.1
-
45
45
0.2
15
Total Suspended Solids
Phenol
Oil and Grease
Total Phosphorus (as P) - - 1.0
Fecal Coliform (MPN)
pH 6.5 - 9.0 SU
** The monthly average removal efficiency shall not be less than 85%. The limita-
tions herein are premised on the following projected maximum daily flows averaged
over a 30 day period.
From present to June 30, 1978
From December 31, 1979 to December 30, 1981
900 mgd
1,000 mgd
For a more complete effluent limitation schedule, refer to the Consent Judgment
(Appendix 11.8) .
3-30
-------
The higher effluent BOD5 values were related to loss
of suspended solids due to problems with the secondary
clarifiers. Although the secondary units appear capable
of achieving BOD5 limits, modifications and/or other measures
are required to consistently achieve acceptable 8005 and sus-
pended solids concentration in the effluent.
Primary effluent suspended solids averaged 143 mg/1,
mostly because of lack of sludge disposal capacity which
results in sludge recycle to the primary tanks. The com-
bined secondary effluent averaged 65 mg/1 suspended solids,
and achieved 30 mg/1 only 28 percent (28%) of the time.
These removal levels are attributed to the poor performance
of the secondary clarifiers.
Phenols in the combined secondary effluent averaged
64 mg/1. A level of 10 mg/1 phenols was achieved only three
percent (3%) of the time by the air activated sludge and one
percent of the oxygen activated sludge system. This contrasts
with the relatively high 6005 removals. Questions regarding
the accuracy and appropriateness of the analytical practices
have been raised (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VIII).
Because of deficiencies in scum removal equipment, the
plant is not meeting effluent limits for oil and grease.
The 30 day geometric mean fecal coliform density for
1975-1976 ranged from 30 to 176 per 100 ml. The worst 7
day geometric mean for 1976 was 394 per 100 ml. These fig-
ures exclude periods of chlorinator malfunctions. The
effective disinfection is explained by the relatively high
residual chlorine level of 1.7 to 2.3 mg/1 which can be
found at the end of the outfall.
Phosphorus data available for 1975 and 1976 showed
that the average influent phosphorus (including effects
of sludge recirculation) was 4.9 mg/1. The blended primary
and secondary effluent phosphorus was 3.6 mg/1, for a re-
moval rate of only 27 percent (27%). Settling in the pri-
mary tanks is not very effective in removing phosphorus.
Average removals were only 20 percent (20%), with a pri-
mary effluent level of 4.1 mg/1. The secondary treat-
ment system has an effluent phosphorus level of 1.2 to 1.3
mg/1, for a cumulative removal of 73 to 76 percent.
The poor performance of the primary tanks in removing
phosphorus is believed to result from several factors. On
a stoichiometric basis, the estimated iron feed rates can
only be expected to remove 2 mg/1 of phosphorus; ineffective
mixing may further limit removals. Since sludge is often
"recycled", resolubilization of suspended phosphorus may
also occur.
3-31
-------
3.3.4 Operation and Maintenance
The DWWTP is experiencing severe operation and mainten-
ance problems. Information developed in the SFP (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VIII) suggests that the poor
performance of the plant may result as much from poor oper-
ation and maintenance as it does from lack of equipment
capacity.
Thus, the operation and maintenance of the DWWTP is a
critical issue to this environmental impact statement. Treat-
ment facilities must be properly maintained and operated to
achieve their design effluent limitations.
The technical details of the plant's operation and main-
tenance practices can be found in the SFP. The following
sections briefly summarize these practices and discuss some
of the problems.
Figure 3.3-B is an organization chart of the DWSD. The
centralized management structure has eight functional groups.
The sewage treatment plant falls under the operations division,
along with five water supply units, the Systems Control Center
and the Industrial Waste Group. Central maintenance services,
construction, and engineering are responsibilities of other
divisions which also serve water supply operations. Separate
fiscal accounts are maintained for water and wastewater.
Current staffing at the wastewater treatment plant is
a major problem area. Generally the deficiencies are of two
types; lack of mid-level supervisors and the lack of highly
skilled technicians complicated by too many unskilled workers
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VIII). Many specific
problems have been identified which contribute to the overall
staffing problem.
All positions are under the Detroit civil service sys-
tem. The plant supervisor has authority to dismiss employees
for cause, but has little control over replacement hiring
which is handled by the Personnel Department. There is no
formal permanent training system. The residency requirement
of Detroit contributes to difficulties in hiring trained
operators. The plant employees are unionized, and senior
operators are in the same union as other labor categories.
Therefore, under National Labor Relations Board rules, dele-
gating supervisory and disciplinary responsibilities to the
senior operators is not permitted. The combination of a high
vacancy rate in supervisory positions and the inability of
supervisors to delegate authority downward has overextended
the supervisors spans of control to the point where proper
management of staff is virtually impossible.
3-32
-------
a:
UJ
2
o
o
o
a:
3
CO
ee
O
o
UJ
ee.
5
IRECTOR
DEPUTY D
1 ,
MANAGEMENT SERVICES J
PERSONNEL
i
FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
i
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
o
z
CH
UJ
3
UJ
5
LU
H
<>a vt
UJ
o a:
*LK •*
5 UJ
<
£
MNTENANCE
ECHANICAL
ANCE)
CENTRAL M>
(PLANT i M
MAINTEN
DNS DIVISION
l-
Ul
CL
o
SEWERS
WATER}
METER RECORDS
•
CAL TRADESMEN
POOL
MECHANI
CENTRAL STORES}-
CAL TRADESMEN
ELECTRI
TRANSPORTATION &
VEHICLE MAINT.
CL
O
UJ
UJ
X
/>
of
h-
n
=a
,
TEAM 2
MISC. CONSULTING
-(FIELD CONSTRUCTION]
TEAM 1 -
(HRC CONTRACTS)
OTHER TRADES PAINTERS,
CARPENTERS, MACHINE
SHOP, PLUMBERS, ETC.
GROUNDS, YARDWORK
CONSTRUCTION EQPT.
OPERATORS
SOUTHWEST WATER
| SPRING WELLS WATER
NORTHEAST WATER
| LAKE HURON WATER
CHIEF OF
TREATMENT
WATERWORKS PARK
REGULATOR AND
MONITORING EQPT.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE |
-
TEAM 3
PLANT STRUCTURES
SEWER RECORDS,
PERMITS
LU
t-
M
3
Cn
•H
3-33
-------
Process control is hampered by lack of basic data and
inherent design/construction inadequacies. The SFP (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VIII) has identified many in-
stances of malfunctioning flow meters, weighing equipment,
etc., that have made it impossible to accurately determine
such important variables as wastewater flow and sludge quan-
tities. Design/construction inadequacies, also addressed in
the SFP include insufficient sludge recycle capacity and un-
stable secondary operation.
A computer system has been installed to assist in process
control. However, the lack of basic control information, de-
scribed above, negates the effectiveness of this system and
reduces the computer to a monitoring function. Under these
circumstances, the computer system generates a need for skilled
maintenance personnel without producing commensurate benefits
in process control.
The treatment plant is equipped with a laboratory capable
of performing a wide variety of tests. This laboratory also
serves the industrial waste group.
Overall, the DWWTP is in a very poor state of repair. The
SFP documents some of the maintenance problems, which can be
traced to several primary causes:
• there is no plan for preventative maintenance;
• personnel are inadequate in numbers, training, and
supervision to implement an effective O&M program;
• inventories of replacement parts are almost completely
depleted; and
• purchasing procedures are involved and time consuming,
making it difficult to obtain replacement parts in a
timely manner. Various changes have been instituted,
but it is too early to assess the effectiveness. All
purchases over $100 are handled by the city's Purchasing
Department.
Plant construction is the responsibility of the engineering
division of the DWSD. A number of the plant's deficiencies can
be attributed to poor contract management. As documented by the
SFP many units as installed, do not meet their design specifica-
tions. In the past, DWSD has accepted this equipment at reduced
cost. For example, some return sludge pumps were accepted at
reduced prices because wire to water efficiencies were less
than specified. This practice, however, may not adequately
account for the differential costs to bring the deficient
equipment up to specifications.
3-34
-------
3.4 Summary
This chapter describes the current collection and treat-
ment facilities for wastewater in Detroit. An inventory of
existing systems performance, maintenance, and inadequacies
provides the basis upon which system alternatives are built.
3-35
-------
4.0 FUTURE SITUATION
The population, land use, economic, and wastewater flow
forecasts used in the study are presented in this section. The
methods utilized to derive these forecasts are also evaluated.
As discussed in Section 1.0, the nature of the "no action" al-
ternative defined during the study process makes these forecasts
the baseline conditions for alternative evaluation. Forecasts
of air and water quality are included with an evaluation of
the future situation regarding cultural resources and rare and
endangered species.
4-1
-------
4.0 FUTURE SITUATION
4.1 Population and Land Use
4.1.1 Population
The facilities planning consultant has developed popu-
lation forecasts for the overview area and the City of Detroit.
Existing population forecasts available for the study area were
not acceptable to all jurisdictions involved, or the forecasts
did not cover the study area in a manner which could be dis-
aggregated for use in the study.
The facilities planning consultant projected population
using a mathematical model. This model closely resembles a
logistic curve, a form of an exponential growth function. The
model utilizes past trends, plus a modifying factor which iden-
tifies the year of initiation of strong growth. The modifying
factor was included to improve accuracy of the forecasts in
undeveloped areas.
This method of projecting population does have major
drawbacks in that it relies heavily on past trends. However
all population forecasts rely, to some extent, on past trends
with differing degrees of modifications.
The method of forecast and results of the modeling effort
were agreed to by SEMCOG, representatives of Wayne, Oakland,
and Macomb Counties, and the City of Detroit for use in this
planning effort. The projections are presented in Table 4.1-A.
These projections indicate an increase in the overview planning
area from 4,125,000 in 1977 to 5,206,000 in 2020 (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book V).
The population forecasts of the SFP are not directly com-
parable to any other existing projections due to the area of
coverage, the date of the forecast and the conditions surrounding
the forecasts. The only forecast which could be compared to the
SFP forecast is that of OBERS prepared in 1973-1974.
The OBERS projection covers all of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb
Counties. The southern portion of Wayne County is not included
within the SFP forecast. For purposes of comparison, the southern
portion of Wayne County was assumed to grow at the same rate as
the remainder of Wayne County. The comparison of the SFP and the
OBERS projections (Table 4.1-B) shows that the variance is not
significant (+4.78%) considering the length of forecast period.
Further comparison of the two population forecasts indicates
that the southern part of Wayne County may exceed the projected
average OBERS growth rate for the region. Therefore the actual
difference between the OBERS projections and the OP/EA may be
less than shown.
4-3
-------
o
og
O
\CT^Oi*y-lu^vOfJr—t O *N r-i *o r-^
jcysrNlf^^rH^OxO
X)
(0
0)
O
•rH
-P
O
Q)
c
O
-H
JJ
ni
a,
o
1
S
-P
cn
O r- \o i
vO -* *n <
r^^c^1^'^^
r^r^
rH
> W
•«-< C
o o
O -H
C >
£ Q
U)
6 •£
V >, C C C
J- jjl --I O O Q
£ J5 § s S "2 s is is
Q^OOQOOOO
:e Shores
c
o
i
i
in
o
C T3 flJ
O ^ O
s | &|>
o I I ic
«
^
U Ctt T3 -H -H *J
5|l S S 1
M j ae z z S
Is-
* «
*J -O U)
III
a! iS iS
e-
3
u
CO
>
.-Leonard
p.
c c
£ » ^
3 3 3
c
•H
a
M
r
HH E
^l^'l
O rJ > C
< CO (0 OQ
W
•H
12
-C 0)
00 -H
•H S
B 0
C 0
aa aa
[Vp.
.-Orconwill'
idependence
O. »~g
3(2 i
a o
•H C u
S-a J2
0 (4 tq
ca a u
1"
0)
c u
o u
3 |
n E
u'<3
U
rH
T-t
| 0
00 U
c c
e E
U* U<
«
a.
^
T3 L,
U B «
ffl -H
C > 4)
U O N
U. 0 X
0
-a
c
(0 «
£ ~<
•H O
X X
4-4
-------
^
i-4 t*4 CO >T ^ ^H tA ^H s0
10
O
•H
O
O
O
•a
a)
3
•H
^>
c
O
u
U
Q)
C
O
•H
\r\ r» f"% «H <
aveOsom
O CN
CM >T
<
"31
(U
g,
o
10
I
*O r*> -»
-H iH
f. Q
« j: * p.
^H oo * > •
•-I -H O. H O.
c -c -a o T)
•5ri
O <4
2 O i
I I
V
00
•a
W X X -J 0 O O
o o o cu PW ft* otf
I"
t <*-( *J C
u u a c
I I
' O CJ
/ I
' I I
4-5
-------
•O
0)
D
C
•H
-P
C
O
0
<;
i
^
QJ
nl
EH
in
c
o
• H
4-1
U
u
u
o
c
2
O
rj
O
r>)
O
0
C-i
0
0
O
CvJ
o
O
<^
r— t
O
00
0^
o
«
C
o
m
•H
>
C-
sisSlsSSSsssiil i
t-H •-» t-* rj >£> ^ r-- oo ^O i/"> r*s
iH «H V*>
1/1
^.-.O.Or^ooa^r-CO.^
OcrOOcocN-H>'"O<'''1W>r---JrH«OvOr-»'»ji(NO'» O
'1^f*i O
™ SSS3SSS3SS3?!S §
1*4 ^0 -^ CN o^ co c^
^H ^ ^
*
•^
IsSsi^ssisilss i
rNo-*'-4fNr"»--3t3 o.c -H crt M ^*
'Hwea:eHB -HX-^^H ac
H335>^(JB'^l'4J • -H i-i in u
a:yzz(Sa:ottt:wio!y5^)»3t H
a
fl
rH
cu
3
u
t-l
6
01
Q
•H
(fl
4J
O
H
O
o
o
•£>
O
CN
iO
o
o
o
•H
•H
„
t/>
O
o
o
00
r*i
O
-^>
O
O
o
m
in
^o
SJ
o
o
o
•H
-J
fS
-J
O
o
o
CN
00
r^.
<*i
*
+
-o
at
T3
c
3
5
ra
(U
Ll
<
>,
•o
3
iJ
tn
V
u
^
u
t-4
•H
U
ft
>4-l
0
X
rH
C
o
TI
V
T3
3
O
C
•H
0)
P
fO
t3
B
tfl
m
u
•<
x
T3
3
u
U)
c
(fl
^-*
a.
3
01
-H
e
I
41
£
W
O
-S
u
3
O
(A
G
U
£
(U
9)
OJ
*
•
0)
u
(9
-H
U
U)
-------
Table 4.1-B
Comparison of SFP Population Forecasts
with OBERS Series "E"
1980 1990 2000 2020
Study Area 4,241,000 4,653,000 4,938,000 5,206,000
Study area plus
southern Wayne Co. 4,753,700 5,272,400 5,663,600 6,097,250
OBERS "E" 4,589,700 5,005,300 5,332,600 5,820,800
On a local basis, the projections show that most of the
growth will occur in the suburban portions of the study area
with the majority occurring in Macomb and Oakland Counties.
Most of the urban areas in and around the City of Detroit are
expected to lose population during the planning period. The
losses of the urban areas are forecasted to be gains in the
suburban area.
The population forecasts indicate that several areas which
have had proposals for interceptors in previous plans, may not
have sufficient population density to require or economically
justify sewers. Specifically, sewage collection systems have
been proposed for the northern portion of Macomb County. The
townships to have been served are Armada, Bruce, Ray, Richmond,
and Washington. Development/density trends in all but Washington
Township indicate that the projected population could be supported
with onsite disposal systems rather than collection and treatment.
While development could occur in any of these township(s) in
sufficient density to require some alternative to onsite disposal
of wastewater, the actual location of the population centers
cannot be determined at this time.
4.1.2 Land Use
Land use projections by the facilities planning consultant
were made to coincide with projected population increases and
for use in estimating runoff from various land uses. Results
of the analysis show land attributed to railroads, right-of-way,
extractive, water, agriculture, and cemetery uses to remain con-
stant from 1970 to 2020. Land was attributed to residential
uses at a medium or high density only in areas presently having
such densities.
The commercial acreage in the study area is projected to
increase from 19,465 in 1970 to 29,077 in 2020; the industrial
acreage from 32,682 to 43,019; and residential acreage from
250,666, to 427,007 acres. The residential acreage is
4-7
-------
forecast to occur in north central Macomb and Oakland Counties
as urban infilling and sprawl continues. No specific location
for commercial and industrial acreage can be identified, as the
increase is expected to be scattered throughout the region.
4.2 Economic Projections
A regional econometric model was used by the facilities
planning consultant to project regional control totals of in-
come, population and employment. These totals were then dis-
aggregated using county share projection models. The basis
for these models has been well documented (Mattila, 1973 and
Moor, 1976).
Results of the model are directly comparable with OBERS
projections in the employment and personal income categories
(Table 4.2-A).
Comparison of the data show large gains in employment and
very moderate personal income growth resulting from the Detroit
model. Further analysis relating population to employment and
income is presented in that same table using the adjusted popu-
lation projections for the SMSA area (assuming southern Wayne
County to have a growth rate equivalent to the study area).
Results of this comparison show a major deviation in the
employment/population ratio for the short term, with the similar
results achieved by the year 2020. However, comparison of per
capita income projections shows major divergence by the end of
the forecast period. These differences do not make a significant
impact upon population forecasts contained in this study.
4.3 Forecasts of Flow and Waste Load
Peak dry weather flows expected at the DWWTP, as developed
by the facilities planning consultant, are shown in Table 4.3-A.
The decrease between 1975 and 1980 reflects the elimination of
considerable high stage river inflow. The data show expected
flow with and without the communities of Pontiac, Warren, etc.
that are presently treating their own wastewater.
Should suburban flows be required for evaluating wastewater
treatment plant sites other than at DelRay, the suburban average
dry weather flows should be multiplied by a peaking factor de-
pendent on tributary population (but not less than 1.5).
While not connected to the DWSD sewer system, per capita
flows have been assumed for the communities of Rochester,
Pontiac, Sylvan Lake, and Warren. The first three were assumed
to have future per capita flows of 130 gcd (0.49 m3/cd) (similar
to Clinton-Oakland district); Warren was rated at 121 gcd
(0.46 m3cd) similar to South Macomb Sanitary District.
4-8
-------
Table 4.2-A
Comparison of SFP Population, Employment and Income
With OBERS Series "E"
1980
1990
2000
2020
Population
Study area plus
southern Wayne Co. 4,753,700 5,272,400 5,663,600
OBERS "E" 4,589,700 5,005,300 5,332,600
Employment
Study area plus*
southern Wayne Co. 1,575,000 1,860,800 2,147,700
OBERS "E" 1,965,500 2,157,900 2,379,200
Employment/Pop. Ratio
Study area plus
southern Wayne Co. 0.33 0.35
OBERS "E" 0.43 0.43
Personal Income**
Study area plus*
southern Wayne Co.
OBERS "E"
Per Capita Income**
Study area plus
southern Wayne Co. $5,830 $6,615
OBERS "E" $5,600 $7,100
* excludes the agriculture and mining sectors
** thousands of 1967 dollars
0.38
0.45
27,724,000 34,877,000
25,893,800 35,930,300
41,226,000
50,026,400
$7,280
$9,300
6,097,250
5,820,800
2,669,100
2,558,700
0.44
0.44
58,745,000
87,485,200
$9,650
$15,000
4-9
-------
Table 4.3-A
Peak Dry Weather Flow by Decade
1976
1980
1990
2000
(mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Detroit: Infiltration
Unaccounted for
Peak DWF less I/I
Suburban
River Inflow
Total to WWTP(s)
Pontiac and Warren*
Study Area Total
*Plus Rochester through 1980
31
45
334
340
39
789
78
867
30
45
330
474
25
904
82
986
30
45
325
583
1008
_ 8_0
1088
29
45
324
627
2_5
1050
8_0
1130
The average dry weather flow from the planning area (Detroit),
the service area and the study area, by decade, are summarized
in Table 4.3-B.
Projected year 2000 wastewater characteristics used for the
basis of design are shown below. These characteristics were pro-
jected based on current characteristics and flows, and current
and future projected population assuming similar per capita con-
tributions in the year 2000 as at present.
BOD
Average Concentration 115 mg/1
SS
Average Concentration 245 mg/1
Phosphorus (total)
Average Concentration 5.5 mg/1
Projections for other parameters wastewater characteristics
were not made by the facilities planning consultants.
4.4 Water Quantity and Quality
Further degradation of surface water quality in the study
area can be expected to occur if the proposed action is not
implemented (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book VI). Most
of the modeled water quality parameters are expected to continue
meeting the receiving water quality standards even though con-
centrations at almost every station will increase for almost
every parameter. In most portions of the Rouge and Clinton
River's total dissolved solids, suspended solids, and ammonia
are presently in compliance with standards but will not be in
the future, due primarily to increased runoff. Phosphorus
concentrations and fecal coliform counts are currently not in
compliance with standards and will further degrade.
4-10
-------
Table 4.3-B
Average Dry Weather Flow By Decade
1975
1976
1980
1990 2000
2020
mgd)
31
223*
254
7
46
307
227
534
52
585#
46*
632
(mgd)
31
223*
254
11
45
310
227
537
39
576#
53*
629
(mgd)
30
220
250
0
45
295
316
611
25
636
55*
691
(mgd)
29
217
246
0
45
291
389
680
25
705
54
759
(mgd)
29
216
245
0
45
290
418
708
25
733
53
786
(mgd)
29
215
244
0
45
289
457
746
25
771
53
824
Detroit: Infiltration
Avg. DWF - Infil.
Avg. DWF
Dry weather overflow**
Unaccounted for Water
Total Avg. DWF
Suburban DWF
Subtotal
River Inflow
Total Service DWF#
Pontiac and Warren
(*plus Rochester)
Total Study Area DWF
# This computation gives results within four per cent of the 563 mgd
calculated from flows pumped at the DWWTP
**Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book I, p. 5-25
4-11
-------
Mile points 19.0 and 3.9 of the Detroit River do not
presently and will not meet fecal coliform standards due to
increased runoff and CSO's. Phosphorus standards are met at
Mile Point 30.8 and 19.0 along the Detroit River but, due to
municipal and industrial discharges, will not meet standards
anywhere along its length in the future.
In all probability, because of future changes in land use
patterns, storm runoff will increase resulting in an increase
in the frequency and extent of flooding. Also, due to the more
impervious surfaces and altered soil cover, groundwater re-
charge will be decreased. Groundwater quality is expected to
improve due to the elimination of septic tanks and cesspools as
more people within the three county area discharge their wastewater
to a collection system (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XIV).
4.5 Air Quality
No significant change in the climate of the study area is
expected within the study period whether the proposed action is
implemented or not.
Suspended particulates and photochemical oxidant concen-
trations, which currently exceed ambient air quality standards,
are expected to decrease within the study period whether the
proposed action is implemented or not. Current and future air
pollution control plans would generally improve the air quality
in the study area as they are implemented.
4.6 Cultural Resources
Changes in human interest resources will occur during the
study period. Continued growth and development will cause notice-
able changes in recreational resources. More land will be desig-
nated for recreation arid open space, mostly in the form of
neighborhood and community parks and playgrounds. The Regional
Recreation and Open Space Plan proposes approximately 10,500
acres of new parks and park additions by the year 1990 and 5,000
acres in proposed game preserves and natural areas. Continued
population growth and an increase in leisure time activity will
result in more intensive weekend usage of county, state and
regional park areas and water related recreation.
Continued growth and development will additionally result
in the removal of familiar landmarks such as old farmhouses and
barns. New historical sites will be added to the National
Register of Historic Places and additional archaeological sites
will be discovered. Urban encroachment, however, will probably
disrupt or conceal many more of these sites.
4-12
-------
4.7 Rare and Endangered Species
The numbers of rare and endangered species and their
respective populations are not expected to change dramatically
during the planning period. Continued urbanization and re-
sulting water quality will most likely cause reductions to
some extent in both numbers and populations. These impacts
are expected to occur with or without the project and are not
a result of the policies and practices of DWSD on a regional
scale.
4.8 Summary
This chapter predicts the quality of the future environ-
ment if the recommended plan is not implemented and also
forms the no action alternative. NEPA requires that a no
action alternative be evaluated with other alternatives. The
information presented in this chapter is compared with the
impacts of the feasible alternatives in Chapter 5.0.
4-13
-------
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The analysis of the alternatives is a two-part, three-
phase analysis. The collection and treatment analysis is
separated from the sludge analysis for simplification.
Each of the two parts is subjected to a three-phase analysis
which: (1) identifies possible components of the system
and its subsystems; (2) combines the system components
into alternatives for screening to determine the feasible
alternatives; and (3) evaluates the feasible alternatives
to arrive at the recommended plan.
5-1
-------
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5.1 Collection and Treatment Components Alternatives
This section introduces the various collection and
treatment components that could be combined into a system
alternative. Some of the proposed alternatives are discussed
in more detail than others. In the screening of alternatives,
compatible components are organized into collection and
treatment systems.
5.1.1 Collection Component Alternatives
The proposed collection alternatives are designed
to reduce the frequency and volume of combined sewer overflows
and local flooding of basements.
The principal mechanisms for achieving these objectives
are the storage and retention of wastewater for peak flow
reduction, the separate transport of suburban sanitary
flow, and the continued separation of sanitary and storm
sewers in the suburbs. The following alternatives were
investigated by the facilities planning consultant (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XI).
5.1.1.1 Storage and Retention for Peak Flow Reduction
Storage and retention of wastewater to reduce peak
flows can be accomplished by insystem storage, retention
basins, or deep tunnels.
Insystem storage would utilize remotely controlled
devices, such as fabridams, to provide additional retention
volume in several of the existing relief sewers.
Covered retention basins would be constructed at
numerous, off-system sites with dual use as recreational
land. Some specific site alternatives have been analyzed:
• Construct a basin on land to be purchased immediately
north of the DWWTP. Combined sewage in excess
of DWWTP's capacity will be pumped into this basin and
drain back into the interceptor when flow rates subside,
A sixty acre (24 ha) basin, 30 feet (9.0m) deep, has a
capacity of 560 million gallons (2,100,000 m3);
• Construct a basin in Alfred Brush Ford Park with a
tunnel connection to the Fox Creek Enclosure to
reduce the frequency of combined sewer overflows
into Fox Creek;
• Construct retention basins in the City of Grosse
Pointe Park with a tunnel system for return flow
into the Detroit River Interceptor;
5-3
-------
• Construct basins in the City of Detroit with sufficient
capacity to retain overflows from Grosse Pointe Park.
Wastewater will be returned to the Detroit River
Interceptor; and
• Construct a basin near Conners Creek to hold combined
sewage during storms and return it to either the
Detroit River Interceptor or the North Interceptor -
East Arm. Holding facilities will complement riverfront
improvements. Preliminary treatment, consisting of
screening, skimming, or grit removal is planned for
this retention basin.
Possible tunnel alternatives are as follows:
• Construct a tunnel parallel to the NI-EA (presently
under construction); and
• Construct a deep tunnel from 15 Mile Road to the DWWTP
with a capacity of 150 million gallons (567,750 m^).
5.1.1.2 Transport of Separate Sanitary Flow from Suburbs
Many of the suburbs have separate storm and sanitary
sewers. An alternative was suggested which would route
the sanitary flow directly to the treatment plant in separate
interceptors. Since the total flow to the DWWTP will
be the same, this alternative will have little impact
upon the volume of combined sewer overflow, but will decrease
their strength. The alternative would consist of constructing
pumping stations and force mains to segregate suburban
sanitary flows in southern Oakland County and western Wayne
County from the Detroit system and transport them directly
to the treatment plant.
5.1.1.3 East Arm Alternatives
The alternative components listed in this section include
using pump stations and rerouting flows in existing sewer lines to
reduce CSO. Some general management measures to control flows
are also included.
There are several alternatives for the East Arm.
• Relieve the lower reaches of the Detroit River Inter-
ceptor by pumping from the Fairview or the Connors Creek
Pumping Station to the NI-EA;
• Divert dry weather flows, relieve combined sewers, and
provide interception capacity from Detroit's combined
sewers to the NI-EA. Flow control facilities will be
5-4
-------
constructed at the following locations to direct
designated flows to the interceptor:
- Meldrum near Gratiot and Meldrum
- Conant - Mt. Elliott near Gratiot and Mt. Elliott
- First Hamilton near Myrtle and Fourth
- Clark near Fort and Summit
- Morrell near Fort and Morrell
- Cavalry Junction near Fort and Cavalry
- Livernois Relief near Fort and Dragoon; and
• Reduce CSO in Oakland County by constructing the
southeast Oakland Arm of the North Interceptor -
East Arm from near 7 Mile Road and Conant - Mt.
Elliott to the North Interceptor - East Arm near
7 Mile Road and Van Dyke.
Positive backflow prevention devices can be used at all
river outlets to prvent inflow.
General management alternatives can be implemented through-
out the entire service area.
• Limit flows accepted into the Detroit system from
suburban areas and thereby require suburbs to provide
their own facilities to handle flows that exceed
predetermined or contractual maximums; and
* Reduce flows through administrative measures such as
increasing water and wastewater rates, limiting the
area served to the capacity of the existing system,
and reducing catch basin inlet areas.
5.1.1.4 West Arm Alternatives
The West Arm Alternatives are proposed to reduce CSO and
transport separate sanitary sewage to the DWWTP. The existing
Oakwood Northwest Interceptor has insufficient capacity to
handle peak dry weather flow (Section 3).
Possible alternatives for the West Arm are as follows:
• Improve the existing collection system in the River
Rouge (not to be confused with the City of River Rouge)
watershed by adding stormwater retention basins to
limit overflow occurrences to 12, 4 or 1 per year;
• Construct the West Arm Interceptor from 8 Mile Road
to the DWWTP in conjunction with some retention
facilities as first suggested in the 1966 National
Sanitation Foundation study. Flows beyond the DWWTP
capacity will overflow to the Detroit River;
5-5
-------
• Construct a tunnel under the River Rouge to relieve
siphons on the Northwest Interceptor and provide
increased capacity for Northwest and Oakwood flows
without hydraulic interference from Baby Creek;
• Remove the sanitary flow fraction in the Southfield District
by routing flow from the Evergreen and Farmington Dis-
tricts to the First Hamilton Sewer which has excess
capacity. Such rerouting will reduce the strength of
the combined sewage that overflows to the River Rouge;
• Construct a pumping station and force main to augment the
existing Hubbell and Southfield Districts to achieve
results similar to the West Arm Interceptor Tunnel.
Flows beyond the capacity of the DWWTP will overflow
to the Detroit River;
• Construct two secondary sewage treatment plants -- one to
serve the Evergreen-Farmington and Farmington Districts,
and one to serve the Middle River Rouge and western
areas. The effluent from these plants would be dis-
charged to the Detroit River through a force main; and
• Construct two advanced sewage treatment plants -- one to
serve the Evergreen-Farmington and Farmington Districts,
and one to serve the Middle River Rouge and western Wayne
County. These sewage treatment plants would discharge
effluent to the River Rouge.
5.1.1.5 Sewer Separations
This alternative involves the separation of all sanitary
wastewater from stormwater. The existing combined sewers
could be utilized as storm sewers while a parallel sanitary
sewer could be constructed to convey sanitary sewage and
industrial wastes to treatment facilities. This alternative
would be proposed for the entire study area.
5.1.2 Treatment Components Alternatives for DWWTP
The discussion in this section centers on the main treatment
components of the DWWTP. The alternatives are based on improve-
ments to, or replacement of, existing facilities (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) .
5.1.2.1 Preliminary Treatment
Alternatives for preliminary treatment include:
• Further upgrading of existing equipment, along with
planned improvements; and
• Complete replacement of the preliminary treatment
facilities. This would improve preliminary treat-
ment by using aerated grit chambers, more accurate
flow metering, and efficient chemical mixing.
5-6
-------
5.1.2.2 Primary Treatment
Primary treatment performs an important function in
reducing loadings on the secondary system. For this reason,
considerable attention was given to improving the performance
of primary treatment.
Alternatives which were evaluated include:
• Add two more circular tanks, A5 and A6;
• Replace the metal chain and flight sludge collectors
in the rectangular tanks with a plastic chain and
fiberglass flights;
• Replace the existing rectangular tanks with twenty
square tanks, six (larger) square tanks, or six
circular tanks;
• Increase sludge pumping capacity so that sludge
could be withdrawn at one percent solids content.
This would eliminate clogging and allow for better
solids removal; and
• Replace skimming equipment on the circular tanks,
and improve skimming on the rectangular tanks.
5.1.2.3 Secondary Treatment
Alternatives for secondary treatment of wastewater are
grouped into minor changes which will improve the performance
of the existing system and major changes to the existing
system.
Alternatives for upgrading the existing secondary treat-
ment system center around improving the sludge thickening
characteristics of the secondary clarifiers.
Suggestions include:
Change recycle tates;
Add more clarifiers;
Convert to center-feed units;
Raise the influent point to mid-depth of the tank; and
Reverse the primary and secondary units.
A major change to the existing system is introduced
in an alternative that substitutes a chemical/physical treatment
for conventional secondary treatment. This option is
considered because raw wastewater received at the DWWTP
is relatively low in soluble BOD. Monthly averages of soluble
BOD in the influent do not consistently fall below the required
effluent standard of 30 mg/1. Consequently, some degree
of soluble BOD removal must be provided for at least part
of the flow. The resulting "split treatment" scheme developed
5-7
-------
in the SFP (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) would
utilize 300 mgd (1,100,000 m3/d) of the existing biological
secondary treatment facilities to achieve a net BOD- of 30
mg/1. Biological secondary treatment was chosen over carbon
absorption because the treatment units are already installed
and operating and plant personnel are familiar with biological
treatment.
The major modifications to the existing plant identified
by the facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book XII) for the "split treatment" alternative
include:
• Construct the proposed new pumping, aerated grit,
screening, chemical mixing, and flow measurement
facilities;
• Provide the capability to feed 20 mg/1 of ferric
chloride (as iron);
• Convert twelve secondary sedimentation, basins
to primary units;
• Construct new 150 feet (46 m) square primary basins;
* Provide a filter complex with 132,000 square feet
(12,400 m ) of mixed media filter surface area;
• Convert four secondary sedimentation basins to
backwash storage and chlorine contact basins and
provide backwash pumping capacity;
• Operate 300 mgd (1,100,000 m /d) of oxygen
activated sludge capacity and nine renovated secondary
clarifiers. (The area currently utilized by the
remaining aeration facilities would be occupied by
new unit processes);
* Provide new chlorination facilities;
• Modify intermediate pumping capability to
accommodate use of secondary basins as primaries and
continued operation of 300 mgd (1,100,000 m3/d) of
secondary capacity;
• Provide additional sludge handling capability,
including pumping, thickeners and vacuum filters; and
• Operate six circular primary clarifiers (four
"given" and two to be constructed).
5.1.2.4 Phosphorus Removal
Alternatives considered for phosphorus removal by the
SFP (Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) included:
* Add a flocculation zone to the circular primary
clarifiers. It is not practical to add flocculation
to the rectangular clarifiers, due to space limitations;
* Various changes to the chemical feed system to allow
better control and more even distribution;
5-!
-------
• Supplement ferrous chloride (FeCl2) additions with
ferric chloride (FeC^) to provide iron in sufficient
quantities for phosphorus removal;
• Convert ferrous chloride to ferric chloride by
oxidation with chlorine. Additional ferric chloride
would also be added;
• Use ferric chloride, alum and polymer in conjunction
with replacement of preliminary treatment units;
• Lime treatment to precipitate phosphorus as hydroxyapatite
This would include lime feeding facilities, additional
solids handling equipment, and additional sedimentation
facilities; and
• Convert to the PhoStrip process, which utilizes
biological release of phosphorus from sludge under
anaerobic conditions (This does not constitute
EPA endorsement of the process). The activated
sludge absorbs phosphorus in the aeration tanks and
then is held in a tank under anaerobic conditions where
phosphorus is released to the liquid. The settled
sludge is sent back to the aeration tank while the
concentrated phosphorus in the liquid is precipitated
with lime.
5.1.2.5 Disinfection
Alternatives for disinfection include:
* Renovate the existing system to extend its
useful life and to remedy existing safety hazards,
e.g. lack of leak detection equipment;
• Replace the existing facilities (which would
be converted into laboratory space) with new liquid
chlorine facilities;
* Use ozone with recapture of oxygen. The ozone would
be generated from surplus plant oxygen. Contact
basins would be required for recapturing oxygen, as
recapture is not possible in the effluent conduit; and
• On-site generation of sodium hypochlorite.
5.1.2.6 DWWTP Expansion
Availability of space for expansion at DWWTP has been
a problem. Most of the area is heavily industrialized, although
the northeast side of the site borders a church and a residential
area. Sentiment expressed at Public Meeting Number Two indicates
that reasonably compensated relocation might now be welcomed
by DelRay residents. If this is the case, the purchase of
the 85 acre (34 ha) residential area would allow up to a
400 mgd (1,500,000 m3/d) expansion of primary and secondary
treatment capacity.
5-9
-------
5.1.2.7 Effluent Disposal Technique
• Disposal to Receiving Streams
Any expansion or upgrading alternatives at the DWWTP
would continue effluent discharge to the Detroit River because
of its huge assimilative capacity. Discharge criteria of
the consent judgment were presented in Section 1.2.2.
• Treatment and Reuse Technique
No industrial customers were identified who would use
treated wastewater for cooling or other processes. Because
the Detroit River provides an abundant supply of water for
the region, there is little incentive to reuse wastewater.
• Land Application of Liquid Effluent
All 201 facilities plans are required to consider land
application as a disposal alternative. A regional plan for land
application of wastewater was investigated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1974). The regional plan was not recommended
because of higher costs compared to other alternatives and
public opposition over the project's huge land requirements.
Although land application of wastewater did not appear feasible
on a regional basis, it was still considered as a sub-regional
alternative.
Land requirements and costs for a 50 mgd (190,000 m /d)
land application system were estimated according to "Costs
of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application" (Pound et al.,
1975) for a "Stage I" level of detail. Land requirements,
including a buffer zone and space for an effluent holding
basin, would total about 18,000 acres (7,300 ha). Since
it would be impractical to assemble such a large parcel of
land in the suburban areas, it was assumed that 50 miles
(80 km) of force main would be required. At the application
site, wastewater would be treated in aerated lagoons then
stored for as long as six months during the winter. The
cropping system would use corn plus a cover crop.
5.1.3 Treatment Component Alternatives for Other Facilities
This section explores the general alternative of construct-
ing other treatment facilities which would be used in addition
to, or as a replacement for, the DWWTP.
5-10
-------
5.1.3.1 Treatment Plant Locations
• Treatment Facilities at Conners Creek
The existing interceptor system conveys large quantities
of wastewater past the mouth of Connors Creek. Wastewater
flow projections indicate that nearly 400 mgd (1,500,000
m3/d) of dry weather flows could be directed to this site
in the year 2000 without extensive sewer construction. The
site itself, on the north side of Connors Creek, is subject
to frequent flooding and is included as part of recreational
development on the riverfront. Housing in the area is relatively
old and redevelopment is under way. Although some residents
would have to be relocated, development of wastewater treatment
facilities could be coordinated with planned redevelopment
and flood control. The Conners Creek site is upstream of
the DWSD water intakes.
• Treatment Facilities on the Clinton River
A treatment facility on the Clinton River would serve
the northeastern suburbs. Although it would eliminate the
need for interceptors to convey wastewater downstream, a
higher degree of treatment would be required because of the
relatively low flow of the river during drought conditions.
For the purpose of preliminary analysis, the recently abandoned
Sterling Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant site was con-
sidered for a possible regional wastewater treatment plant.
* Treatment Facilities on the River Rouge
Treatment of separate sanitary sewage of subrban communities
near the source would remove domestic sewage from combined
sewer overflows further downstream and reduce interceptor
costs. Projected wastewater flows for the year 2000 indicate
that dry weather flows from Oakland County and western Wayne
County will both approach 50 mgd (190,000 m3/d).
Wastewater treatment plants have been considered near
8 Mile Road and near lower Rouge Park. As with the Clinton
River, stringent effluent limitations were assumed necessary
due to low summer flows.
• Wayne County Wyandotte Treatment Plant
Wastewater from the Rouge Valley could be diverted to
the Wayne County Downriver Disposal District for treatment
at the Wayne County Wyandotte Treatment Plant. The Wayne
County Department of Public Works is considering expansion
of the Wyandotte Plant and has requested that this alternative
be examined (Bingham, 1977).
5-11
-------
• Treatment Facilities at the Huron River
A treatment facility at the mouth of the Huron River
has been discussed since 1965 (National Sanitation Foundation,
1965) but has not yet been implemented. Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti
have since decided to construct their own treatment plants.
The Huron River Plant, if implemented, would serve communities
in the Huron River Valley and could also receive diversions of
wastewater from the River Rouge Valley.
• Local Wastewater Treatment Plants
Small to medium-sized treatment plants could be constructed
to serve specific local areas. This arrangement would
be compatible with a decentralization policy for wastewater
collection and treatment but would be a reversal of current
planning. General plant locations would depend on the
choice of service areas. Specific locations would be determined
by the jurisdictions involved.
5.1.3.2 Effluent Disposal
• Disposal to Receiving Streams
Alternatives involving wastewater treatment plants
at Connors Creek, Wyandotte, or the mouth of the Huron River
would discharge to the Detroit River. Effluent limitations
would be essentially the same as the expected NPDES permit
limits for the DWWTP (Section 1.2.2).
The effluent limitations for 50 mgd (190,000 m3/d)
or larger treatment facilities will probably be much more
stringent for discharges to the Upper Rouge and Clinton
Rivers, due to their limited assimilation capacities at
low flows. The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) assumes that the effluent would
have to meet additional BOD and SS requirements as well
as the NH.,N discharge limitation as follows:
Suspended Solids 5 mg/1
BOD 5 mg/1
NH3-N 1 mg/1
Total Phosphorus 1 mg/1
Dissolved Oxygen 5 mg/1
Phenol 10 pg/l
The above levels were derived from a review of the
Warren, Michigan, NPDES requirements. The City of Warren
operates a tertiary facility that discharges to the Clinton
River.
5-12
-------
• Treatment and Reuse Technique
The previous discussion of treatment and reuse of waste-
water for industrial processing (Section 5.1.2.7) applies
to treated effluent from other facilities.
• Land Application of Liquid Effluent
Discussion of this technique will occur in Section
5.1.3.3.
5.1.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Processes
For preliminary costing purposes, facilities located
at Conners Creek could be assumed to utilize the processes
similar to DWWTP since both facilities would treat combined
wastewater and discharge to the Detroit River. Any expansion
of the Wyandotte Plant could, likewise, be assumed to use
the same processes as the existing Wyandotte facilities.
Other plants, however, would treat predominately domestic
wastewater and have to meet effluent limitations applicable
to local streams. The following sections examine process
combinations capable of meeting these stricter effluent
limitations.
• Biological Tertiary Treatment
This alternative would use a two-stage activated sludge
process to accomplish nitrification of the wastewater.
Following pumping and preliminary treatment, ferric chloride
and polymer would be used to remove phosphorus in the primary
clarifiers. The first stage activated sludge units which
include aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers would remove
carbonaceous oxygen demand, while the second stage would
remove nitrogenous oxygen demand. Chlorine would be used
for disinfection, and finally, gravity filtration would
ensure a high quality effluent. Sludge processing was
assumed to be the same as that of the DWWTP, i.e. thickening,
vacuum filtration, and incineration.
• Biological Secondary Treatment with Land Application
Application of wastewater to land can be considered
a tertiary treatment process. Spray irrigation systems
similar to that used in Muskegon, Michigan, can achieve
BODs and suspended solids removals of over 98 percent,
nitrogen removal of over 85 percent depending upon crop
uptake, and phosphorus removals of 80 to 99 percent (Pound
et al., 1975).
A further disucussion of this alternative can be found
in Section 5.1.2.7.
5-13
-------
• Physical-Chemical Treatment
Physical-chemical treatment does not depend upon biological
reactions for wastewater treatment. Phosphorus would be
removed by two-stage lime precipitation and filtration.
Carbon absorption would remove dissolved organic material.
Nitrogen compounds would be removed by ion exchange. Solids
handling would use incineration to recalcine or regenerate
lime. Activated carbon would also be generated.
5.1.4 Treatment of Separate Sanitary Flow from Western System
Two treatment facilities for the West Arm area have
been presented as alternatives for the West Arm (Section
5.1.1.4) :
• Construction of two secondary treatment plants and
gravity lines to transport suburban sanitary flows
from southern Oakland County and mid-western Wayne
County to these treatment plants. Effluent pumping
stations would be constructed with a large diameter
force main to pump the effluents to the Detroit
River; and
• Construction of two tertiary treatment plants and gravity
lines to transport suburban sanitary flows from
southern Oakland County and midwestern Wayne County
to these plants. Effluent from the treatment plants
would discharge directly into the River Rouge.
5.1.5 Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Methods
The purpose of CSO treatment is to remove aesthetically
displeasing matter, reduce the quantity of settleable solids,
and reduce the disease-causing potential of the overflows.
Depending upon the methods of treatment, CSO can be treated
to varying degrees of effluent quality by physical,
physical-chemical, or biological processes. Another common
control technique is to store overflows in retention basins,
and to gradually dewater these basins to interceptors for
treatment at regular treatment plants after the storm ends.
Various modes of operating stormwater treatment facilities
are available. For purposes of comparison, ultimate disposal
of residual wastes is not included in cost estimates for
this section. Processes discussed here discharge concentrated
wastes to nearby interceptor sewers.
Since removal of particulate matter is of primary
importance, effective solids/liquid separation is considered
in each option. Disinfection is essential for coliform
reduction. Due to high quantities of grease and oil in
the wastewater in Detroit, skimming CSO is considered essential.
5-14
-------
Costs and arrangements of stormwater treatment facilities
are based upon 50 mgd (190,000 m /d) capacity modules for
simplicity in application to alternative systems. Monetary
costs were computed as outlined in the SFP (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XIII). Table 5.1-A presents a brief
description and evaluation of these facilities.
The issue of CSO is not completely resolved in the
SFP. Resolution of this problem will occur in the final
facilities plan.
5.1.6 Industrial Waste Treatment
In order to meet the requirements of PL 92-500 and
40 CFR 35.9 the DWSD will have to implement a user charge/in-
dustrial cost recovery system (UC/ICR). Industries now
account for 137 mgd (518,545 m3/d) out of the 650 mgd (2,460,250
m-^/d) dry weather wastewater flow.
Several alternatives were developed for treating industrial
wastes separately:
• Construct and operate one or more specialized industrial
waste treatment plants in areas of industrial concen-
tration. This may also require construction of new
sewers for industrial waste. These plants would
use physical-chemical treatment processes approp-
riate to the nature of the wastes; and
• Construct and operate a specialized municipal facility
for disposal of industrial sludge. This would
encourage industries to build their own treatment
and pretreatment facilities, and assure that the
concentrated wastes from these facilities would
receive proper disposal.
These alternatives must be weighed against the implemen-
tation of a UC/ICR system. The user charge is designed
to recover treatment expenses while the industrial cost
recovery is a program for regaining the capital costs of
constructing the industrial treatment facilities. Industries
will be charged fees in proportion to the costs of treating
their wastes.
5-15
-------
XI
(0
0
CD
S
(D
CD
CO
CD
•H
u
l*H
O
1
(0
CD
0
4H
U)
CD
•rH
-P
«
C
SH
CD
TJ 01 t3
TJ - CD in CT
C tJ1 H 0 E
RJ CD U 4-1
»-3 tti RJ O
^ in
ui
CD
tn
<0
4-1
c
(0
T!
10
W
•rl
Q
Ul
CD
cn
RJ
4-1
RJ
T!
ff,
O
•rl
P
ft
•rl
)H
U
01
CD
Q
0)
•rl
P
10
M
CD
P
ro
in
00
O
ro
0
CD
4->
RJ
0
r-H
C
O
CD
rH
&
•H
CO •
01
O
O
in
CN
v>
01
rH
(0
§
§
CD
4-1
RJ
CD
TJ
O
rH
C
O
simple; only moderate 0.72 $ 1.930
O)
O
fN
CN
in
vD
CO
o
dP
O
CTi
C
4-J
CD
0
rH
RJ
0
CD
rH
RJ
>
O
o
r-
C
R!
rH
£>
- r-l - rH IT) 0
4J R)
U >
(0 0
ft E
e CD
O >H
u
i
c
CD
U
C
O
U
01
o
•rl
£>
CD
TJ
CD •
ft CD
S CT1
4-1 RJ
u
CD CU
Cn 01
3
4H 0)
•rH CD
M 4-1
4-1 RJ
C M
CD 4-J
U
x
^
O
•P
03
M
4-J
c
CD
o
c
0 C
U 0
•H
r-H P
CD O
P 01
R) 4H
S C
CD -H
P 0)
01 -rH
RJ Q
S
*•.
0)
rH
ft
>rH
•
0)
TJ
•rH
rH
0
Ul
01
CD
rH
4-1
4_)
CD
01
^
0)
•H
4H
•rl
^|
R)
rH
U
\*
C
o
•rl
-P
tO
p
c
CD
0
• r4
TJ
CD
CO
£*1
4-1
•H
>
RJ
in
0
C
0
•H
4J
O
CD
4H
C
•H
01
•rl
Q
4-1
u
rd
ft
0
u
CD
in
^
R!
O
0
R!
ff
Cn
3
O
^
c]
4-1
01
CU
to
01
ft
u
0
rH
fa
"\^
rH
RJ
o
cD
OH
4-1
•H
Jq
U
\^
Cn
C
•H
C
CD
CD
^
U
CO
RJ
J>
O
E
^_)
•
C
CD
CD
^1
U
01
c
o
p
o
CD
4H
C
•rl
to
•rl
D
Q
O
PQ
df
o
c
0
•rl
4-1
RJ
C
•rl
XI
g
0
U
^4
CD
P
rH
•rl
4H
T3
C
RJ
C
CD
CD
U
CO
CD
4J
R!
OS
rC
Cn
•H
r£
X^
O"1
c
•rl
C
CD
CD
^
U
co
E
CD
!H
CO
co
C
o
•H
4-J
RJ
4->
rH
•rl
fa
better than secondary 5.5 $13.900
4-1
C
CD
rj
rH
4H
4H
W
rH
RJ
O
•rl
P
CD
t~1
0
1
rH
RJ
u
•rH
01
£>1
JS
c^t
0
RJ
rH
•rl
E
•H
co
C
0
•rl
P
RJ
M
4-1
rH
• r|
fa
X
c
o
•H
p
RJ
4J
C
CD
E
•rl
TJ
CD
CO
t. Requires sophisticated
c
a;
E
Ri
CD
4->
1
M
R)
U
Tl
CD
-P
RJ
•rl
4-1
U
RJ
j£j
4->
•rl
u
4-1
C
CD
4J
RJ
CD
tH
4J
C
O
• rl
4-1
ft
0
0)
TJ
,e£
CO
rH
rH
•rl
,*
01
C
0
4->
tS
^_l
CD
ft
O
•
C
o
•rl
4-1
ft
0
to
TJ
RJ
C
5
comparable to secondary 3.4 $11.700
t, 80-90 % solids
c
4-1 CU
3 <0
rH CD
4H JH
4H 4J
w
rH CD
RJ M
U RJ
•H
E to
CD P
.C C
CJ RJ
1 rH
•H 3
RJ U
0 0
•H O
0) rH
rVl fa
x;
ft
O 4J
P C
CD
^ £2
R) 4J
rH 10
•H CD
E H
•H 4-1
co
1
RJ
4-1
C
CD
E
•H
TJ
CD
CO
\^
C
0
•H
I i
RJ
rH •
3 C
Cn 0
R) -rH
O P
U
•
rH
03
^
Q
£
CD
•
C
o
•rl
4J
RJ
rH
3
Cr*
RJ
0
U
TJ
•H
RJ
0
TJ
0)
T)
TJ
R)
comparable to secondary 1.5 $ 5.850
4->
C
CD
3
r-l
4H
4H
W
•
CO
T!
•H
rH
0
01
CD
.C
4-1
4->
4H
•rl
r-H
in
CD
f-H
o
XI
3
XI
•rl
<
^
•H
eC
Tl
CD
£>
i— 1
O
to
0)
•rl
D
Cn
C
•H
C
CD
CD
M
U
CO
•P
C
0)
6
4-1
rO
CD
^J
C
0
•rl
4-1
Rl
4-J
0
fa
secondary treatment. 6.9 $ 9.260
located close to an
ed sludge plant for
P
0) CD RJ
CD X! -H
T! >
• H 4-> -rl
£> 01 P
O 3 U
H S RJ
CD
Cn
p
rH
to
T)
CD
-p
RJ
•H
£>
•H
4-1
U
RJ
4H
O
C •
0 01
•rl 01
4-> CD
RJ U
•n o
RJ ft
c
0
•H
4->
03
N
•rH
rH
-rl
X!
R!
CO
p
u
R)
4J
C
0
U
0)
ft
3
4-J
^
R)
4-1
0)
r _ -i ^
-------
5.2 Screening of Collection and Treatment Systems
This section presents eleven collection and treatment
system alternatives which were organized from the components
discussed in Section 5.1. Seven alternative systems for
the West Arm are discussed separately. The alternatives
have been grouped by similar type, for example, all of
the no action alternatives are discussed together. Following
the presentation of each group of alternatives, there is
an initial screening process to choose the feasible alternatives
from the group. The screening is based on major engineering
aspects, costs, and human and natural environmental impacts
and will not be as detailed as the evaluation of alternatives
in Section 5.3. Those alternatives which exhibit major
unacceptable environmental impacts, significant problems
with implementation or extremely high cost on a comparative
basis, are identified and dismissed from further consideration.
The remaining feasible alternatives are carried into the
intensive evaluation phase.
5.2.1 Basic Information about Collection and Treatment Systems
Collection and treatment systems are presented in
this section as units for screening and evaluation. Only
one collection system alternative meets the objectives
of this project and will be included with each treatment
system alternative. This collection system includes:
• Conveyance of at least 1050 mgd (3,974,250 m3/d)
peak dry weather flow in the year 2000, excluding
the Pontiac and Warren systems; and
• Improvements to convey the runoff from a 10-year
storm away from the populated areas.
Interceptor locations for various system alternatives are
determined by treatment plant location sites.
Policies of retrenchment, status quo, and continued
expansion in scope of service and quality by DWSD are considered.
The basic alternative plans are No Action Systems (A alternatives),
systems for Optimization of Existing Facilities (B alternatives),
systems for Major Additions to Existing Facilities (C alternatives),
and Unconventional Systems (D alternatives). Several subalter-
natives are considered in each category. Each alternative
system is formulated so that it will provide, to the extent
possible, for:
• Wastewater service to the entire study area by DWSD
and/or other entities;
Continued operation of suburban wastewater treatment
plants, such as Pontiac and Warren (total 80 mgd or
302,800 m3/d);
5-17
-------
• At least secondary or equivalent treatment of 1050 ragd
(3,974,250 m-Vd) to meet the discharge criteria of
30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 SS or 85% removal of same;
and
* Total phosphorus reduction in effluent to 1 mg/1.
Managing entities are noted for each alternative.
It has been assumed that DWSD, in most cases, would be
that entity, although DWSD may not necessarily be in the
same institutional form as it now is.
5.2.1.1 No Action Alternatives
The no action alternatives are based on either a retrench-
ment or status quo service policy, i.e. the extent of wastewater
services provided by DWSD as a managing entity varies.
The "no action" phase implies no change or upgrading in
the operational procedures of the DWWTP considering the
present conditions of operation and management.
The three subalternatives vary in the location and
capacities of additional treatment plants in the study
area and the extent of further construction at the DWWTP
on Jefferson Avenue. Interceptor sizes and locations would
vary with treatment plant locations.
• Reduction of Wastewater Service by DWSD - Alternative Al
This alternative describes the conditions and effects
of at least a partial withdrawal by DWSD from its position
as operator of the regional wastewater treatment system.
Under this alternative, it will be necessary for entities
other than DWSD to construct wastewater facilities to provide
service to the year 2000.
The DWWTP would continue its present operational procedures,
and facilities under construction or under contract would
be completed. This would allow for a total capacity of
735 mgd (2,781,975 m3/d) secondary treatment at the DWWTP.
Four suburban treatment plants have been proposed
to provide an additional capacity of 500 mgd (1,665,400
m3/d)• AH the treatment plants with outfalls on the Clinton
River or its tributaries would receive tertiary treatment.
The Clinton River and Red Run plants would each require
75 acres (30 ha) for their construction sites.
5-18
-------
The Metro Airport treatment plant would extend a pipe
to the Detroit River for its effluent outfall. A major
sewer line with a force main and two pumping stations would
be constructed to convey sewage to the new plant from the
western suburbs. The acreage required for this plant is
90 acres (36 ha).
The Pointe Mouillee plant, located on the Huron River,
would have its outfall on the Detroit River. This plant
would require 60 acres (24 ha).
The treatment, facilities, and capacities necessary
in the year 2000 for this alternative are listed on Table
5.2-A. Figure 5.2-A shows the location of the treatment
facilities.
Costs for Alternative Al are shown in Table 5.2-B.
• Additional Treatment Outside Detroit by Others Do
Nothing by DWSD - Alternative A2a
This alternative is similar to Al in the extent of
service supplied by DWSD. It differs in the configuration
of treatment plants to be constructed by outside agencies.
Proposed sites at Red Run, Metro Airport, and Pointe Mouillee
have different capacities from those in Alternative Al
and have acreage requirements of 85, 90, and 60 acres
respectively. The total secondary capacity of the new
treatment plants is 105 mgd (397, 425 m3/d) less than the
secondary capacity of Alternative Al but within the original
treatment objectives.
In addition to the construction outlined in Al, mandated
but presently non-contracted construction at the DWWTP
will be done. These modifications will result in additional
primary capacity at the main plant of 210 mgd (.794,850
m-yd) over present. The total secondary capacity remains
at 735 mgd (2,781,975 m3/d) (Table 5.2-C and Figure 5.2-B). Costs
for Alternative A2a are shown in Table 5.2-D.
• Additional Treatment in Detroit by Other Entities
Do Nothing by DWSD - Alternative A2b
This alternative is identical to Alternative A2a in
terms of future DWSD service area and construction to be
done at the existing plant. A single additional plant
at Connors Creek of 315 mgd (1,192,275 m3/d) is proposed
which would require 140 acres (57 ha). Because of its
outfall to the Detroit River, advanced wastewater treatment
is not considered necessary for these new treatment facilities.
5-19
-------
This alternative includes eighteen small stormwater
treatment plants along the River Rouge and the Detroit
River within the City of Detroit. These are designed to
provide preliminary treatment (screening, grit removal,
and disinfection) for combined sewer overflows. Following
preliminary treatment, the effluent would be discharged
to the Detroit River and River Rouge, respectively.
A force main and a new sewer in one barrel of the
existing Connors Creek will be included in the collection
system for the Conners Creek plant.
The Romeo, Armada, and Richmond Arms, along with the
15 Mile Relief and the Clintondale pumping stations are
other collection system additions in this alternative.
Table 5.2-E and Figure 5.2-C show facilities and interceptor
locations and capacities. Costs for this alternative are
presented in Table 5.2-F.
* Evaluation of No Action Alternatives
In all of the no action alternatives, the effluent
from the regional plant would have a long-term adverse
impact on surface water quality. EPA has determined that
the effluent from the suboptimal operation of the DWWTP
would not meet discharge criteria and would result in continued
degradation of the Detroit River. Therefore, the DWWTP
would not be in compliance with the intent of PL 92-500.
This situation would make the no action alternatives unfeasible.
Alternatives Al and A2a would provide advanced wastewater
treatment to 260-270 mgd (984,100 - 1,021,950 m3/d) on the
Clinton River or its tributaries. An eventual improvement
in the Clinton River water quality would be anticipated.
Secondary effluent from the proposed Conners Creek treat-
ment plant (A2b) will empty into the Detroit River. This
is expected to be a long-term adverse impact to water quality
although the Detroit River has a high assimilative capacity.
All the alternatives have land requirements for additional
treatment plant sites. This is an irretrievable commitment
because this land will not be available for any other land
use. Alternative A2b would have a lesser impact than Al
or A2a because only one additional treatment plant is proposed.
All the alternatives will have short-term adverse impacts
from construction. Alternative A2b will have less severe
construction impacts than the other alternatives because
only one treatment plant is scheduled for construction.
5-20
-------
Table 5.2-A
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative Al -
Reduction of Wastewater Service by DWSD
Managing
Entity
DWSD
DWSD
Facility
Existing Plant
Under Construction
Suburban Existing:
Pontiac, Warren
Suburban Proposed:
Pointe Mouille
Metro Airport
Clinton River
Red Run
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m /d
(Year 2000)
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
790
-
80
80
150
95
95
1290
630
-
80
80
150
95
95
1130
315
420
80
80
150
95
95
1235
_
-
80
-
-
95
95
270
Table 5.2-B
Alternative Al - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Facilities
Existing Plant
Pointe Mouille +
Metro Airport +
Clinton River
Red Run
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
+ Includes cost of pumping stations and transmission lines
5-21
Construction
_
67
134
75
75
92
1100
1551
Operation &
Maintenance
23.2
2.1
4.8
3.8
3.8
5.0
4.0
46.7
Present
Worth
289
84
198
110
110
141
1065
1997
-------
I I
EXISTING DWSD PLANT
(6 30 mod)
• TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRV WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
20
I
(80 mgd )
REDUCED SERVICE BY DWSD, NO
ACTION-ALTERNATIVE At
_ . _ n .
Figure 5 .2-A
5-22
-------
Table 5.2-C
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative A2a -
Additional Treatment Outside Detroit, No Action, Do Nothing
(Year 2000)
Managing
Entity Facility
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary
Advanced
DWSD Existing Facilities 790 630 315
DWSD Mandated Construction - 210
S or R** Red Run
S or R** Metro Airport
S or R** Pointe Mouille
Suburban Pontiac, Warren
* 1.0 mgd = 3785 m3/d
** Suburban or Regional
Alternative A2a -
Facilities
Existing Plant
Red Run
Metro Airport +
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
180 180
85 85
50 50
80 80
1185 1235
Table 5.2-D
Monetary Cost Analysis - Million
Operation &
Construction Maintenance
167 27.1
125 6.3
134 4.8
92 5.0
1108 4.0
1626 47.2
420
180
85
50
80
1130
Dollars
Present
Worth
529
184
198
141
1065
2117
-
180
-
-
80
260
Includes costs of pumping stations and force mains
5-23
-------
< V-
EXISTING OWSD PLANT
• TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
i i
10
20
I
Scale in Miles
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT OUTSIDE
DETROIT, NO ACTION, DO NOTHING-
ALTERNATIVE A2a
Figure 5.2-B
5-24
-------
Table 5.2-E
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative A2b -
Additional Treatment in Detroit, Do Nothing by DWSD
Managing
Entity
DWSD
DWSD
Regional
Entity
Facility
Existing Facilities
Mandated Construction
(Year 2000)
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
790
-
315
80
1185
630
210
315
80
1235
315
420
315
80
1130
-
-
-
80
80
Conner Creek Plant
Suburban Warren, Pontiac
* 1.0 mgd=3785.0 m /d
Table 5.2-F
Alternative A2b - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Facilities
Existing Plant
Conner Creek
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
Construction
167
163
102
1108
1540
Operation &
Maintenance
27.1
9.1
5.0
4.0
45.2
Present
Worth
529
250
150
1065
1994
5-25
-------
CLINTONOALE
P. S.
NEW SEWER IN ONE
BARREL OF EXIST-
ING CONNER CREEK
.. ^_ —
' \ - - ~
' N
CONNER CREEK
(315 mgd)
EXISTING DWSD PLANT (735 mgd)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
. STORM WATER TR
• TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
10
I
20
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT IN
DETROIT, NO NOTHING BY
DWSD - ALTERNATIVE A2b
Figure 5.2-C
5-26
-------
In summary, A2b would be the least environmentally
damaging because it has the least irretrievable loss of
land and the least amount of construction related impacts.
The majority of the impacts of the alternatives are similar,
but water quality impacts cannot be compared among the
alternatives.
The NEPA requires that a no action alternative be
evaluated with the other feasible alternatives. Therefore,
Alternative A2b will be retained for further analysis.
This system was chosen because (1) it is the lowest in
cost, (2) the single new treatment plant site at Conners
Creek is most compatible with the existing collection systems,
and (3) it is the least environmentally damaging choice.
Alternatives Al and A2a will not be given further consideration,
5.2.1.2 Systems for Optimization of Existing Facilities
Two options were presented by the applicant under
this major alternative: (I) optimum operation of the installed
and mandated equipment, and (2) optimization of design
capacity which includes optimum operation plus construction
required to bring the plant up to design capabilities (Giffels/
Black and Veatch, 1977, Book I). Under both options, DWSD
would continue to provide wastewater management for the
present service area, expand the area serviced, and accommodate
future flows from contracted areas.
• Optimum Operation of Existing and Mandated
Facilities - Alternative Bl
Alternative Bl proposes that DWSD: (1) complete
construction mandated by EPA, (2) improve management, operation
and maintenance practices, (3) provide minimum structural
improvements, and (4) provide wastewater service in the
planning area through the year 2000.
When mandated construction is completed at the existing
plant and operation is improved, the plant capacity will
increase to 840 mgd (3,179,000 m3/d). An additional plant
with a capacity of 210 mgd (794,850 m3/d) would be constructed
immediately on property north of the existing plant and
would provide secondary treatment. This treatment plant
site would require 60 acres (24 ha).
The proposed Romeo, Armada and Richmond interceptor
arms and the Clintondale pumping station will extend the
collection service north of the City of Detroit. The treatment
facilities and capacities necessary in the year 2000 for
this alternative are listed on Table 5.2-G (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII). Costs are shown in Table 5.2-H.
Figure 5.2-D shows the location of the treatment facilities
and collection system improvements.
5-27
-------
• Optimization at Design Capacity - Alternative B2
Alternative B2 is the same as Alternative Bl except
that certain facilities would be rehabilitated at the existing
plant to achieve a balanced capacity in all process units
and bring the plant to its design capacity of 1050 mgd
(3,974,250 mVd) (Giffels/Black and Veatcn, 1977, Book
I). This renovation would involve the following facilities
and/or processes: grit removal, chemical feed, final clarifiers,
chlorinating system, primary sludge pump, vacuum filtration
system, and incineration.
This alternative would require the purchase of 48
acres (19 ha) adjacent to the existing site. Construction
would include a 50 mgd (189,000 m^/d) secondary treatment
plant, appurtenances, and a pumping station to force the
final effluent to the existing outfall. This plant may
not be required until late in the study period (1995) but
acquisition of the land could commence well in advance
to minimize the disruption of relocating the residents.
Collection system additions include construction of
the Romeo, Armada, and Richmond interceptor arms and the
Clintondale pumping station which will provide an extension
of service into Macomb County. Eighteen stormwater treatment
plants will be built along the River Rouge and the Detroit
River within the City of Detroit. These are covered basins
designed to provide preliminary treatment (screening, grit
removal, and disinfection) for combined sewer overflows.
Following preliminary treatment, the effluent would be
discharged to the Detroit River and River Rouge, respectively.
Table 5.2-1 lists the treatment facilities and capacities
necessary for this alternative in the year 2000. Costs
are shown in Table 5.2-J and the location of the facilities
and collection system improvements are shown in Figure
5.2-E.
A detailed descriptive summary of facility and collection
system requirements for Alternative B2 is given in the
SFP.
• Evaluation of Optimization Alternatives
Alternatives Bl and B2 would provide adequate treatment
to meet discharge requirements. Impacts to surface water
quality in the Detroit River would be similar under both
alternatives.
Land requirements for Alternative B2 are less because
of the smaller size of the new plant and land acquisition
is spread over a longer period of time than for Alternative
Bl. Disruption to residents who must be relocated will
5-28
-------
Managing
Entity
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
Table 5.2-G
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative Bl -
Optimum Operation of Existing and Mandated Facilities
Facility
Existing Plant
Mandated Construction
Improved Operation
North of Existing Plant
(Year 2000)
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
Suburban Pontiac, Warren
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m /d
895
-
-
210
80
1185
630
210
120
210
80
1250
315
420
105
210
80
1130
-
-
-
-
80
80
Table 5.2-H
Alternative Bl - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Facilities
Existing Plant
North of Existing Plant
Collection System
Overflow
Total
Construction
203
124
92
1108
1527
Operation &
Maintenance
31.0
6.3
5.0
4.0
46.3
Present
Worth
610
182
141
1065
1998
5-29
-------
PONTIAC
RICHMOND
ARM
CLINTONDALE
P. S.
Jl
WORTH OF EXISTING PLANT (210 mgd)
EXISTING DWSD PLANT (840 mgd)
•m~- PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
• TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
0 5
I I I I 1 I
10
I
20
I
Scale in Miles
OPTIMUM OPERATION OF
EXISTING AND MANDATED
FACILITIES - Alternative Bl
Figure 5.2-D
5-30
-------
Table 5.2-1
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative B2 -
Optimization at Design Capacity
Managing
Entity
Facility
(Year 2000)
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
DWSD Existing Facilities 895
DWSD Mandated Construction
DWSD Improved Operation
DWSD Renovation and Optimization 210
Suburban Pontiac, Warren 80
DWSD Additional Plant +
630
210
120
120
80
50
315
420
105
160
80
50
—
-
-
-
80
-
1185
1210
1130
* 1.0 mgd= 3785.0 m3/d
Table 5.2-J
Alternative B2 - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Facilities
Existing Plant
Additional Plant +
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
Construction
243
39
147
1108
Operation &
Maintenance
31.0
2.1
6.0
4.0
Present
Worth
649
9*
203
1065
1537
43.1
1926
80
+ Additional 50 mgd Plant constructed in 1995 is an integral part of the major
additions to existing plant.
5-31
-------
CLINTONDALE RS.
ARMADA ARM
^ -*-.
R$>MEO ARM —-
r r ^_~ 7 • •>'
-f , •- yv x
EXISTING DWSD PLANT (1000 mgd)
NORTH OF EXISTING PLANT (50mgd)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
• STORMWATER T. R
• TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
0 5
I I I 1 1 I
10
20
I
Scale in Miles
OPTIMIZATION AT
DESIGN CAPACITY - Alternative B2
Figure 5.2-E
5-32
-------
be less under the B2 Alternative. Construction impacts
to air, land, and water quality would be less severe under
Alternative B2. Long term impacts to surface water quality
would be similar under both alternatives.
Alternative B2 is the more feasible alternative because
it is (1) less costly, and (2) there will be fewer construction
impacts and neighborhood disruptions than in Alternative
Bl. Therefore, B2 will be given further consideration
and Bl will be dropped from further consideration.
5.2.1.3 Major Additions to Existing Systems Alternatives
Three subalternatives are presented in this section.
One option adds a treatment plant at Conners Creek to supple-
ment the suboptimal operation of the regional plant. The
other two options add major process units to an optimized
regional plant. These two subalternatives would also have
new pumping stations of different capacities that would
greatly increase preliminary capacity.
DWSD would continue as the managing entity for the
present wastewater service area.
• Dispersed Treatment by DWSD - Alternative Cl
Alternative Cl is identical to Alternative A2b except
that DWSD or some other entity would be the sole manager
(see Section 5.1 Institutional of this document) of all
facilities in the study area.
This alternative would involve:
• Acquisition of 140 acres (57 ha) at Conners Creek and
construction of a secondary treatment plant with
capacity of 315 mgd (1,192,275 m3/d);
• Completion of mandated construction at the regional
plant bringing it up to a secondary capacity of
735 mgd (2,781,975 m3/d);
• Less than full utilization of equipment at DWWTP but
no further construction at that site;
• Eighteen stormwater treatment plants along the River
Rouge and the Detroit River within the City of Detroit
that would give preliminary treatment (screening, grit
removal, and disinfection) for CSO;
• A force main and a new sewer in one barrel of the
existing Conners Creek would be included in the
collection system for the Conners Creek plant; and
• General collection system additions including the Romeo,
Armada, and Richmond interceptor arms, the 15 Mile
Relief, and the Clintondale pumping station.
5-33
-------
With this treatment alternative, Sludge Complex III would
be omitted from the regional plant and a residuals disposal
alternative would be necessary at the Conners Creek plant.
Treatment facilities and capacities for the year 2000
for Alternative Cl are presented in Table 5.2-K. Figure
5.2-F shows the location of the treatment facilities and
collection system additions. Costs are shown in Table 5.2-L.
• Additions to Optimized Plant, 2435 mgd
Preliminary Capacity - Alternative C2a
Alternative C2a considered the major option of a new
pumping station acting together with the existing but rehabil-
itated pumping station. This would provide a total preliminary
treatment capacity of 2435 mgd (9,216,475 m3/d). A network
of nineteen stormwater retention basins along the River
Rouge and Detroit River would hold combined sewer overflow
and dewater it at a rate that the pumping station could
convey it to the main plant. These underground basins
differ from stormwater treatment plants in that no treatment
occurs until the wastewater has been transferred to DWWTP.
It then receives preliminary treatment and is discharged
to the Detroit River.
In addition to the construction of mandated facilities,
(see Chapter 1.0 of this document) and upgrading required
for optimum design capacity operations, the following were
recommended modifications under this alternative:
• New pumping station of 1200 mgd (4,542,000 m /d)
firm capacity;
• New coarse and fine screens;
* New aerated grit chambers;
• New chemical building for phosphorus removal chemicals;
• New mixing and flocculation facilities;
• Flow measurement;
• Replacement of the existing rectangular clarifiers
with new clarifiers;
* New chlorination facilities; and
• Additional gravity thickeners, blending and storage
facilities.
An additional 50 mgd (189,250 m /d) treatment plant
requiring 48 acres (19 ha) , would be constructed north
of the existing plant. This construction and its associated
costs are considered an integral part of the major additions
to the existing plant.
Proposed collection system additions in the Macomb
District include the Romeo, Armada, and Richmond interceptor
arms, the 15 Mile Relief Sewer and the Clintondale pumping
station.
5-34
-------
Table 5.2-K
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative Cl -
Dispersed Treatment by DWSD
Managing
Entity
Facility
DWSD Existing Facilities
DWSD Mandated Construction
DWSD Conner Creek Plant
Suburban Warren, Pontiac
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m3/d
(Year 2000)
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
790
-
315
80
630
210
315
80
315
420
315
80
1185
1235
1130
80
80
Table 5.2-L
Alternative Cl - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Facilities
Construction
Operation &
Maintenance
Present
Worth
Existing Plant
Conner Creek
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
167
163
102
1108
1540
27.1
9.1
5.0
4.0
45.2
529
250
150
1065
1994
5-35
-------
I \
• ,,-t.PONTIAC (35»n«d)
CLINTONOALE
P. S.
CONNER CREEK
(315 mgd)
fe^X t «,;
, Tr-j * '
NEW SEWER IN ONE
BARREL OF EXIST-
y ING CONNER CREEK
EXISTING DWSD PLANT (735 mgd)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
STORM WATER T.R
TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
20
DISPERSED TREATMENT BY
DWSD - ALTERNATIVE
C-l
Figure 5.2-F
5-36
-------
The treatment facilities and capacities necessary
in the year 2000 for this alternative are listed on Table
5.2-M. Figure 5.2-G shows the location of the treatment
facilities and necessary collection system additions.
Costs for Alternative C2a are shown in Table 5.2-N.
• Additions to Optimized Plant 2730 mgd Preliminary
Capacity - Alternative C2b
As in Alternative C2a, emphasis in this alternative
is on the replacement of headworks, primary treatment and
chlorination facilities. The major difference between
this option and the preceeding one is that the old pumping
station is entirely replaced by a new one that has double
the capacity of the one proposed in Alternative C2a. Nineteen
stormwater retention basins along the River Rouge and Detroit
River would temporarily hold CSO until it was pumped to
the main plant. After preliminary treatment at DWWTP,
the effluent would be pumped into the Detroit River.
In addition to the construction of mandated facilities
(see Chapter 1.0 of this document) and upgrading required
for optimum operation, i.e. a design capacity of 1050 mgd
(3,974,250 m-yd)/ the following were recommended modifications
under this alternative:
• New pumping station of 2400 mgd (8,364,000 m /d)
firm capacity;
• New coarse and fine screens;
• New aerated grit chambers;
• New chemical building for phosphorus removal chemicals;
• New mixing and flocculation facilities;
• Flow measurement;
• Replacement of the existing rectangular clarifiers
with new clarifiers;
• New chlorination facilities; and
• Additional gravity thickeners, blending and storage
facilities.
An additional 50 mgd (189,250 m3/d) treatment plant,
requiring 48 acres (19 ha) would be constructed north of
the existing plant. This construction and its associated
costs are considered an integral part of the major additions
to the existing plant.
Proposed collection system additions in the Macomb
District include the Romeo, Armada, and Richmond interceptor
arms, the 15 Mile Relief Sewer, and the Clintondale pumping
station.
5-37
-------
The treatment facilities and capacities necessary
in the year 2000 for this alternative are listed on
Table 5.2-0 and costs are shown in Table 5.2-P. Figure
5.2-H shows locations of facilities and collection system
additions.
• Evaluation of Major Additions Alternatives
Alternative Cl is identical to Alternative A2b except
for the institutional arrangements, i.e. both the existing
plant and the new facility would be controlled by DWSD
or at least the same managing entity (see Section 5.7).
This alternative, like A2b, is not feasible because effluent
from the suboptimal operation of the DWWTP would not comply
with the proposed discharge criteria. Surface water quality
in the Detroit River would continue to be severely impacted.
Alternative Cl will not be given further consideration.
Alternatives C2a and C2b are similar except that the
latter provides for increased preliminary treatment capacity
and more reliable operation due to the construction of
the new 2400 mgd (9,084,000 m3/d) pumping station. C2b
would provide greater relief from combined sewage than
C2a and lessen the impact to surface water quality from
untreated CSO. Treated combined flow would outfall to
the Detroit River which has a large dilutional effect.
For these reasons, Alternative C2b is considered the more
feasible option and will receive further detailed analysis
in the evaluation phase. Alternative C2a will not receive
further consideration.
5.2.1.4 Unconventional Systems Alternatives
This group of alternatives presents diversified methods
of achieving the same regional service results as the other
alternatives. The three subalternatives include (1) land
application of secondary effluent from an additional treatment
plant, (2) abandonment of the existing plant and replacement
with several other facilities throughout the service area,
and (3) a split treatment at the existing plant which would
replace the conventional secondary treatment.
DWSD would continue as the managing entity for the
present wastewater service area.
• Land Application of Secondary Effluent - Alternative Dl
Under this alternative, the existing regional plant
would be brought up to optimum operation, as discussed
in Alternative Bl, with a secondary capacity of 840 mgd
(3,179,000 m3/d) and discharge to the Detroit River.
5-38
-------
Table 5.2-M
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative C2a -
Additions to Optimized Plant, 2435 mgd Preliminary Capacity
(Year 2000)
Treatment Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
Managing
Entity Facilities
DWSD Existing Facilities
DWSD Mandated Construction
DWSD Improved Operation
DWSD Renovation
DWSD New Facilities
Suburban Pontiac, Warren
DWSD Additional Plant
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m /d
Table 5.2-N
Alternative C2a - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
895
-
-
210
1200
80
50
2435
210
210
-
-
630
80
50
1180
315
420
105
160
-
80
50
1130
-
-
-
-
-
80
_
80
Construction
420
Operation &
Maintenance
35.0
Present
Worth
872
Facilities
Existing Plant
Additional Plant +
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
+ Additional 50 mgd plant constructed in 1995 is an integral part of the major
additions to the existing plant.
147
835
.402
6.0
0.8
41.8
203
740
1815
5-39
-------
CLINTON DALE P.S.
RETENTION
•r :*-%£*?
•*•-./ WJK-_.
EXISTING OWSD PLANT (1000 mgd)
NORTH OF EXISTING PLANT (50 mgd)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
STORMWATER BASINS
TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
5
I I I 1
10
i
20
I
Scale in Miles
ADDITIONS TO OPTIMIZED
PLANT, 2435 MGD PRELIMINARY
CAPACITY - ALTERNATIVE C2a
Figure 5.2-G
5-40
-------
Table 5.2-0
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative C2b -
Additions to Optimized Plant, 2730 mgd Preliminary Capacity
Managing
Entity
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
Facilities
Existing Facilities
Mandated Construction
Improved Operation
Renovation
New Facilities
(Year 2000)
Treatment Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
Suburban Pontiac, Warren
DWSD
Additional Plant
2600
80
50
210
210
630
80
50
315
420
105
160
80
50
80
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m /d
Table 5.2-P
Alternative C2b - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Construction
490
Operation &
Maintenance
39.0
Present
Worth
989
Facilities
Existing Plant
Additional Plant +
Collection System
Overflow System
Total
+ Additional 50 mgd plant constructed in 1995 is an integral part of the major
additions to the existing plant.
147
835
1472
6.0
0.8
45.8
203
740
1932
5-41
-------
ARMADA ARM ^
s
R^MEO ARM
t- ^
M«
45 WLE «(E
'WARREN
CLINTON DALE RS.
EXISTING DWSD PLANT (1000 mgd )
.— NORTH OF EXISTING PLANT (50 mgd)
— PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
*STORMWATER BASINS
• TREATMENT PLANTS
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
10
20
Scale in Miles
ADDITIONS TO OPTIMIZED
PLANTS, 2730 MGD PRELIMINARY
CAPACITY - Alternative C2b
Figure 5.2-H
5-42
-------
Sidestreams from the solids handling facilities increase
the BOD level. Therefore, additional facilities would
be required to continually achieve a 30-30 effluent.
A 300 mgd (1,136,000 m3/d) pure 02 activated sludge
module would be used for reduction of soluble BOD.
The activated sludge effluent would be blended with
the primary effluent ahead of filtration and disinfection.
This alternative calls for optimum phosphorus removal
facilities, additional primary sedimentation capacity,
followed by gravity filtration.
To implement this alternative, the following facilities
and provisions would be necessary:
• Construction of the mandated facilities and
upgraded operation;
• Construction of the proposed pumping, aerated grit,
screening, chemical mixing, and flow measurement
facilities for a total of 2600 mgd (9,841,000 m3/d)
preliminary treatment at the main plant;
• Provision of the capability to feed 20 mg/1 of ferric
chloride (as iron);
• Conversion of 12 secondary sedimentation basins
to primary units; „
• Construction of new 150 square foot (14 m ) primary
basins;
• Provision of a filter complex with 132,000 square feet
(12,300 m^) of mixes media filter surface area;
• Conversion of four secondary sedimentation basins to
backwash storage and chlorine contact basins and
provisions of backwash pumping capacity;
• Installation of new clarifiers with 82,000 square feet
(7,600 m2) of surface area for backwash reclamation,
and reclaimed backwash return pumping;
• Operation of 300 mgd (1,136,000 m3/d) oxygen activated
sludge capacity and nine renovated secondary clarifiers
(the area currently utilized by the remaining aeration
facilities would be occupied by new unit processes);
• Provision of new chlorination facilities;
• Modification of intermediate pumping capability to
accommodate use of secondary basins as primaries and
continued operation of 300 mgd (1,136,000 m3/d) of
secondary capacity;
• Provision of additional sludge handling capability
including pumping, thickeners, and vacuum filters; and
• Operation of six circular primary clarifiers - two
are currently in operation, two are under construction,
and two are scheduled for construction.
5-43
-------
Flows above 840 mgd (3,179,000 m /d) would be accommodated
by new treatment facilities at Red Run which would provide
secondary treatment and solids disposal facilities for
210 mgd (794,850 m3/d). Approximately 93 acres (38
ha) would be required at the site. Land application
of the secondary effluent would be accomplished by transmission
and dispersal systems. The land application site would
require 45,000 acres (18,212 ha) or 70 sq. mi. (181 km2).
For this analysis, a suitable land application site
was assumed to be available 30 miles (48 km) from a
proposed treatment plant site at Red Run and at such
an elevation that only one pump station providing 100
ft. (30 m) of head would be required. It was also assumed
that a six-month application period per year would be
available and storage lagoons would be constructed on
the land application site. Figure 5.2-1 represents a
hypothetical 72 sq. mi. (186 km2) preserve within the
study area, the Red Run treatment plant, and transmission
lines. Table 5.2-R shows the costs of this alternative
and Table 5.2-Q presents treatment facilities and their
capacities.
• Abandon Existing Plant - Alternative D2
This alternative proposes dispersed treatment. Existing
facilities would be eliminated and replaced by smaller facilities,
335 mgd (1,267,975 nr/d)/ just north of the existing
site. Five other facilities operated by DWSD would
be built at various locations in the study area.
Known land requirements for these new plants are
as follows: Clinton River - 75 acres (30 ha), Red Run - 75
acres (30 ha), Conners Creek - 140 acres (57 ha), and north
of existing plant - 160 acres (65 ha). All treatment plants
constructed on the Clinton River or its tributaries
would receive advanced waste treatment. The locations
of the proposed plants and collection system additions
are shown in Figure 5.2-J. Tables 5.2-S and 5.2-T present
treatment capacities and costs for this alternative.
• Split Treatment - Alternative D3
This alternative proposes a split chemical/physical
treatment consisting of chemical treatment for phosphorus
removal followed by conventional primary sedimentation.
(Conventional primary sedimentaiton has low overflow
rates in comparison to the type presently employed at
Detroit). The resulting primary effluent should approach
the quality of secondary effluent because raw wastewater
entering DWWTP is fairly low in soluble BOD. Average
influent BOD, however, does not consistently fall below
the 30 mg/1 limit defined by EPA for secondary treatment.
5-44
-------
Managing
Entity
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
Suburban
Table 5.2-Q
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative Dl -
Land Application of Secondary Effluent
Facility
Existing Facilities
Mandated Construction
Improved Operation
Red Run
Pontiac, Warren
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m /d
(Year 2000)
Effective Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
895
-
-
210
80
630
210
120
210
80
315
420
105
210
80
-
-
-
-
80
1185
1250
1130
Table 5.2-R
Alternative Dl - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
80
Facilities
Construction
Operation &
Maintenance
Present
Worth
Existing Plant
Red Run Plant with
land application of
effluent
Collection System
Overflow Control
203
31.0
610
369
92
1108
1772
6.6
5.0
4.0
46.6
391
141
1065
2207
5-45
-------
I LAND AREA REQUIRED FQR
JLANCi APPLICATION Of iji
-------
Table 5.2-S
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative D2-
Abandon Existing Plant
(Year 2000)
Managing
Entity
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
DWSD
Suburban
Effective Capacity {mgd)*
Facility Preliminary Primary Secondary
Clinton River 95 95 95
Red Run
Conner Creek
North of Existing Site
Metro Airport
Pointe Mouille
Warren, Pontiac
95
315
335
130
80
80
95
315
335
130
80
80
95
315
335
130
80
80
Advanced
95
95
-
-
-
-
80
1130
1130
1130
270
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m /d
Table 5.2-T
Alternative D2 - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Red Run
Conner
North o
Metro A
Huron R
Collect
Overflow
Total
Facilities
i River
i
Creek
f Existing Plant
.irport
iver
ion System
w Control
Construction
75
75
163
219
134
67
102
1108
Operation &
Maintenance
3
3
9
11
4
2
6
4
.8
.8
.1
.2
.8
.1
.0
.0
Present
Worth
110
110
250
325
198
84
163
1065
1943
44.8
2305
_ /i -7
-------
^PUMPING V'u \
, STAtiQN ' "|
NORTH OF EXISTING DWSD PLANT
(335 mgd)
.1 ________
A. • _
"*T* *" " * "^' ' ",
RICHMOND
ARM
CLINTONDALE
R S.
NEW SEWER IN ONE
BARREL OF EXIST-
ING CONNER CREEK
CONNER CREEK
(315 mgd)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
• TREATMENT P4.ANT
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
0 5
1 I I 1 1
10
J
20
I
Scale in Miles
ABANDON EXISTING PLANT
ALTERNATIVE D2
•POINT MOUILLE
(80mgd) Figure 5.2-J
5-48
-------
Nineteen stormwater retention basins would be constructed
along the River Rouge and Detroit River to temporarily
hold CSO. Stormwater would be released back to the collection
system, pumped into DWWTP and given preliminary treatment.
Effluent would be discharged to the Detroit River.
The treatment facilities and capacities necessary
in the year 2000 for this alternative are listed on Table 5.2-U.
Figure 5.2-K shows the location of the treatment facilities.
Costs for this alternative are shown on Table 5.2-V and
collection system additions.
• Evaluation of Unconventional Systems Alternatives
All of the D alternatives will have short-term adverse
construction impacts to soil, air, and water quality.
Alternative D3 will have the fewest impacts because it
involves construction of only a 50 mgd (189,250 m^/d) plant
north of the existing plant.
Similarly, each alternative will have long-term adverse
impacts from land requirements for treatment plant sites,
or with Alternative Dl, land application sites. The main
impact is that the land at these sites would be eliminated
from any other use. The effluent disposal site would have
restrictions on the type of agricultural crops grown.
Alternatives Dl and D2 have large total land requirements.
Alternative D3 requires only an additional 48 acre (19
ha) acquisition over the present treatment site.
Surface water impacts differ in some respects with
each alternative. All alternatives are designed to meet
discharge criteria and therefore lessen the present degradation
to receiving water.
In Alternative D2, the four treatment plants on the
Clinton River or its tributaries would receive tertiary treatment,
Long-term water quality improvements are anticipated. The
remaining four treatment plants would have outfalls to the
Detroit River. Dispersed outfalls would have different
impacts on river water quality than would a single outfall
to the Detroit River at the DWWTP. Multiple discharge
points may be viewed positively in terms of distributing
potential water quality problems over the study area and
therefore lessening the intensity of any one problem area.
Any plant malfunctions would be localized and not affect
all of the effluent. Multiple outfalls may also be viewed
negatively in terms of multiple impacts to river water
quality from effluent loadings and multiple zones of recovery
downstream.
5-49
-------
Table 5.2-U
Treatment Facilities and Capacities for Alternative D3 -
Split Treatment
Managing
Entity
Facility
(Year 2000)
Treatment Capacity (mgd)*
Preliminary Primary Secondary"1" Advanced
DWSD Existing Facilities
DWSD Mandated Construction
DWSD Improved Operation
DWSD Conversion
DWSD New Facilities
Suburban Pontiac, Warren
* 1.0 mgd = 3785.0 m3/d
2600
80
2680
135
135
450
430
8JD
1230
300
80
380
80
80
+ All final effluent from existing plant will meet discharge requirements of
30 mg/1 SS and 30 mg/1 BOD.
Table 5.2-V
Alternative D3 - Monetary Cost Analysis - Million Dollars
Facilities
Existing Plant
Collection System
Overflow Control
Total
Construction
555
147
835
1537
Operation &
Maintenance
40.5
6.0
0.8
47.3
Present
Worth
1000
203
740
1943
5-50
-------
EXISTING DWSD PLANT (1000 mgd)
-NORTH OF EXISTING PLANT (SOmgd)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTORS
• STORMWATER BASINS
• TREATMENT PLANT
(35mgd) PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
TREATED IN YEAR 2000
0 5
I I I 1 I I
10
I
20
I
Scale in Miles
SPLIT TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE D3
Figure 5.2-K
5-51
-------
Alternative D3 provides more preliminary treatment
capacity than the other options. Impacts to surface water
quality from stormwater and CSO would be less severe than
any other alternative.
Alternative Dl will have surface water quality impacts
to the Detroit River from the existing plant run at optimum
operation. Potential soil impacts from applying secondary
effluent, such as those resulting from heavy metals and
the concentration of certain ions, would need further study.
Potential impacts to groundwater exist in the form of ground-
water contamination by either bacteria or nitrates.
In view of these environmental impacts, plus other
screening criteria such as costs and implementability,
Alternatives Dl and D2 have been eliminated. The former
is not considered feasible due to the extremely large areal
requirements for land application sites and the associated
potential environmental impacts. The operational problems
and environmental impacts associated with several treatment
plants and the high cost compared to other D alternatives
eliminates Alternative D2 from further consideration.
Alternative D3 appears to be the most feasible in terms
of cost, potential for energy and land requirement savings,
and relatively less severe environmental impacts to land,
air, and water. This alternative will be given further
evaluation.
5.2.2 West Arm Alternatives Screening
The screening presents five collection alternatives
for the West Arm. The facilities planning consultant elected
to not include western Wayne County because it is the subject
of a suburban facilities plan.
The facilities planning consultant elected to allow
twelve overflows per year as a design criteria based on
the cost of allowing twelve, four, or one combined sewer
overflow(s) per year. Design criteria used by the facilities
planning consultant shows that approximately 29,000 acre
feet (9.5 billion gallons) overflows to the River Rouge
at present. A design allowing one overflow per year would
allow about 820 acre feet 9267 million gallons) to overflow
annually. The four overflows per year design would allow
4,510 acre feet (1.5 billion gallons) to overflow,
and the twelve overflow design would allow 9,020 acre feet
(2.9 billion gallons) to overflow (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, WA-SFP).
5-52
-------
The cost of reducing the overflows from twelve to four
and to one per year are quite high. The cost to reduce
overflows from twelve to four would range from 132 to 174
million dollars, depending upon the alternative examined.
The cost of reducing overflows from twelve to one per year
ranges from 424 to 365 million dollars (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, WA-SFP).
5.2.2.1 Alternative A
Alternative A is the no action alternative. No additional
PL 92-500 funds would be expended beyond current contractual
commitments. The Oakwood-Northwest interceptor will continue
to overflow during storm events. Combined sewer overflows
will increase in frequency and volume due to flow constrictions
in the existing systems.
5.2.2.2 Alternative B12
Alternative B12 (Figure 5.2-L) proposes to utilize the
existing excess capacity in the Baby Creek sewer to reduce
CSO to the River Rouge and construct retention basins.
The alternative is proposed to construct the following
elements in three phases:
Phase I
1. Construction of approximately 15,000 feet (4500 m)
of 144 inch tunnel sewer from the sewage treatment plant
to a connection with the Northwest Interceptor near Schaefer
Highway;
2. Construction of a new pumping station at the sewage
treatment plant;
3. The Murwood pumping station on 8 Mile Road would be
abandoned and the 54 inch line running into it from the
west would be extended to Evergreen Road. A 115 mgd
(435,275 m3/d) pumping station located at this point would
pump all of the flow from the Evergreen-Farmington District
through a 72 inch force main to the intersection of Norfolk
and Hubbell where it would discharge to the Hubbell sewer; and
4. Construction of a 180 inch gravity sewer from the intersec-
tion of Hubbell and Tiremen to the intersection of Lonyo
and Kirkwood. The sewer would divert flow for storms up to
a one-year recurrence interval from the Hubbell District
to the Baby Creek sewer, thereby relieving the Northwest
Interceptor. The Baby Creek sewer is adequately sized
to carry this additional flow. During storms exceeding
a one-year storm, excess flows would relieve to the River
Rouge through the Hubbell-Southfield outfall.
5-53
-------
EIGHT MILE ROAD
LEGEND
EXISTING INT.
PROPOSED SEWERS
A PROPOSED
** RETENTION BASINS
m PROPOSED PUMP
• STATIONS
0
L
Scate in Miles
NORTH
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
WEST ARM ALTERNATIVE B 12
Figure 5.2-L
5-54
-------
Phase II
1. Construction of the following CSO facilities:
Pumping
Storage Station
Location Capacity Capacity
Caere feet) (mgd)
Pembroke and Berg 15 95
7 Mile and Berg 4 25
Eliza Howell Park 70 235
Fullerton and Burt 19 420
West Chicago and Burt 50 175
Warren and Pierson 41 105
2. Construction of sewers to convey the CSO from the existing
outfalls to the new stormwater retention facilities.
Phase III
1. Construction of the following CSO facilities:
Pumping
Storage Station
Location Capacity Capacity
(acre feet) (mgd)
Michigan & Southfield 44 90
Patton Park (near
Woodmere P.S.) 263 800
Oakwood P.S. 17 160
Treatment Plant 60
The facilities planning consultant estimated the total cost of
Alternative B12 to be 223 million dollars. The costs are
broken down as follows:
Phase I
1. Tunnel sewer $10,000,000
2. Pumping station (prorated portion) 15,000,000
3. Oakland County pumping station
and force main 17,000,000
4. Hubbell relief sewer 17,000,000
$ 59,000,000
Phase II
1. Retention facilities $71,000,000
2. Connecting sewers 10,000,000
Phase III
1. Retention facilities $83,000,000
$ 81,000,000
$ 83,000,000
Total Plan B12 $223,000,000
5-55
-------
5.2.2.3 Alternative C12
This alternative would result in a large tunnel sewer
from 8 Mile Road to the DWWTP. The alternative would be
constructed in two phases, the first taking as long as
two phases on other alternatives and would consist of the
following elements (Figure 5.2-M):
Phase I
1. Construction of a tunnel sewer with seven relief connections
to the existing City of Detroit sewers;
2. Construction of a new pumping station at the sewage
treatment plant;
3. Construction of seven sewers from outfall structures
along the River Rouge to the tunnel; and
4. Construction of a sewer along 8 Mile Road to connect to
Evergreen-Farmington.
1.
Phase II
Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Location
Patton Park (near
Woodmere P. S.)
Oakwood P.S.
Treatment Plant
Storage
Capacity
(acre feet)
220
17
180
Pumping
Station
Capacity
(mgd)
615
160
2. Additions at the DWWTP main pumping station to increase its
capacity to 570 mgd (2,157,450 m3/d).
The facilities planning consultant estimated the total
cost of Alternative C12 to be 221 million dollars. The
cost of the major segments are as follows:
Phase I
1. Tunnel sewer $110,000,000
2. Pumping station (prorated portion) 19,000,000
3. Detroit relief sewer 7,000,000
4. Evergreen sewer 1,000/000
$137,000,000
Phase II
1. Retention facilities
2. Pumping station additions
Total Plan C12
$ 79,000,000
5,000,000
$ 84,000,000
$221,000,000
5-56
-------
EIGHT MILE ROAD
LEGEND
EXISTING INT. ,.
PROPOSED SEWERS
0
I
Scale in Miles
NORTH
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
WEST ARM ALTERNATIVE C 12
Figure 5.2-M
-------
5.2.2.4 Alternative D12
This alternative is similar to Alternative C12 in that
a tunnel sewer would be constructed from 8 Mile Road to the
DWWTP. The proposed alternative would require stormwater
retention basins along the River Rouge (Figure 5.2-N).
The elements that make up Alternative D12 are as follows:
Phase I (1980)
1. Construction of a tunnel sewer with seven relief connections
to the existing City of Detroit sewers;
2. Construction of a new pumping station at the sewage
treatment plant; and
3. Construction of a sewer along 8 Mile Road to convey
flows from the eastern portion of the Evergreen-Farmington
Districts to the tunnel.
Phase II
1. Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Pumping
Storage Station
Location Capacity Capacity
(acre feet) (mgd)
Pembroke and Berg 13 95
7 Mile and Berg 3 25
Eliza Howell Park 60 235
Fullerton and Burt 16 420
West Chicago and Burt 43 175
Warren and Pierson 35 105
2. Construction of sewers to convey the CSO from the existing
outfalls to the new retention facilities.
Phase III (1990)
1. Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Pumping
Storage Station
Location Capacity Capacity
(acre feet) (mgd)
Michigan and Southfield 53 530
Patton Park (near
Woodmere P.S.) 220 615
Oakwood P.S. 17 160
Treatment Plant 110
2. Construction of sewers to convey the CSO from the existing
outfalls to the new retention facilities.
5-58
-------
EIGHT MILE ROAD
LEGEND
EXISTING INT.
PROPOSED SEWERS
A PROPOSED
RETENTION BASINS
^ PROPOSED PUMP
9 STATIONS
0
Sc<
ale in Miles
NORTH
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
WEST ARM ALTERNATIVE D 12
Figure 5.2-N
-------
The facilities planning consultant estimated the total
cost of Alternative D12 to be as follows:
Phase I
1. Tunnel sewer $66,000,000
2. Pumping station (prorated portion) 16,000,000
3. 8 Mile sewer 1,000,000
Phase II
1. Retention facilities
2. Connecting sewers
Phase III
1. Retention facilities
2. Pumping station additions
$60,000,000
10,000,000
$92,000,000
1,000,000
$ 83,000,000
$ 70,000,000
$ 93,000,000
Total D12
$246,000,000
5.2.2.5 Alternative E12
This alternative would construct a pump station and
force main to transport Oakland County sewage flows to
the DWWTP (Figure 5.2-O). Stormwater retention basins
would reduce CSO.
The elements of Alternative E12 are as follows:
Phase I (1980) 3
1. Construction of a 115 mgd (435,275 m /d) pumping station at
8 Mile Road and Berg for Oakland County flows and a sewer
along 8 Mile Road to connect to the Oakland County Evergreen
sewer;
2. Construction of a 72 inch force main from the pumping
station to Warren Road and Parkland; _
3. Construction of a 60 mgd (227,100 m /d) pumping station at
Warren and Parkland;
4. Construction of a 96 inch force main from Warren-Parkland
pumping station to the sewage treatment plant;
5. Construction of a new'pumping station at the sewage treatment
plant; and
6. Construction of a sewer to convey separate sanitary
sewage from the Middle Rouge Valley of Western Wayne County
to the Warren-Parkland pumping station. Because this sewer
is essentially a suburban collection facility, its cost
is not included in the project estimates.
5-60
-------
EIGHT MILE ROAD
l.E'oEND
EXISTING INT.
PROPOSED SEWERS
PROPOSED
RETENTION BASINS .
PROPOSED PUMP
STATIONS
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED FLOW ^H*
REGULATORS
0
L
Scale in Miles
NORTH
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
WEST ARM ALTERNATIVE EI2
Figure 5.2-0
5-61
-------
1.
Phase II (1985)
Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Location
Pembroke and Berg
7 Mile and Berg
Eliza Howell Park
Fullerton and Burt
West Chicago and Burt
Warren and Pierson
Storage
Capacity
(acre feet)
15
4
70
14
41
59
Pumping
Station
Capacity
(mgd)
95
25
235
390
145
135
2. Construction of sewers to convey the CSO from the existing
outfalls to the new retention facilities.
1.
Phase III (1990)
Construction of the following CSO retention facilities
Location
Michigan and Southfield
Patton Park (near
Woodmere P.S.)
Oakwood P.S.
Storage
Capacity
(acre feet)
222
220
17
Pumping
Station
Capacity
(mgd)
580
615
160
The facilities planning consultant estimated the construc-
tion cost of alternative E12 to be 257 million dollars.
The costs of the alternative's elements are as follows:
Phase I
1. Pumping station (115 mgd)
2. Force main (72 inch)
3. Pumping station (60 mgd)
4. Force main (96 inch)
5. Pumping station (prorated portion)
Phase II
1. Retention facilities
2. Connecting sewers
$ 5,000,000
14,000,000
3,000,000
23,000,000
13,000,000
$ 58,000,000
$91,000,000
14,000,000
$105,000,000
5-62
-------
Phase III
1. Retention facilities
Total E12 WO
$94,000,000
$ 94,000,
$257,000,
5.2.2.6 Alternative F12
Alternative F12 would construct two secondary sewage
treatment plants along the River Rouge with an effluent
force main to the Detroit River. Stormwater retention
basins would be constructed during Phases II and III (Figure
5.2-P). The major elements of this alternative are as
follows:
Phase I (1980)
1. Construction of a secondary sewage treatment plant
with a design capacity of 50 mgd (189,250 m3/d) and a peak
hydraulic capacity of 115 mgd (435,275 m-yd) near 8 Mile Road
and Berg and a sewer along 8 Mile Road to connect to the
Oakland County Evergreen sewer;
2. Construction of a 72 inch effluent force main from the
treatment plant to Warren Road and Parkland;
3. Construction of a secondary sewage treatment plant
with a design capacity of 23 mgd (87,055 m3/d) and a peak
hydraulic capacity of 60 mgd (227,100 m3/d) near Warren
Road and Parkway;
4. Construction of a 96 inch effluent force main from
the Warren-Parkway treatment plant to an outfall into the
Detroit River. Construction of a new pumping station at
the sewage treatment plant; and
5. Construction of a sewer to convey separate sanitary
sewage from the Middle Rouge Valley of western Wayne County
to the Warren-Parkland treatment plant. Because this sewer
is essentially a suburban collection facility, its cost
is not included in the project estimates.
1.
Phase II (1985)
Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Location
Pembroke and Berg
7 Mile and Berg
Eliza Howell Park
Fullerton and Burt
West Chicago and Burt
Warren and Pierson
Storage
Capacity
(acre feet)
15
4
70
19
50
41
Pumping
Station
Capacity
(mgd)
95
25
235
420
175
105
5-63
-------
EIGHT MILE ROAD
LEGEND
EXISTING INT.
PROPOSED SEWERS
PROPOSED
RETENTION BASINS
PROPOSED PUMP
STATIONS
PROPOSED FORCE
MAIN
PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
1
NORTH Scale in Miles
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
WEST ARM ALTERNATIVE
Figure 5.2-P
FI2
5-64
r
-------
2. Construction of sewers to convey the CSO from the existing
outfalls to the new retention facilities.
1.
Phase III (1990)
Construction of the following CSO retention facilities
Location
Michigan and Southfield
Patton Park (near
Woodmere P.S.)
Oakwood P.S.
Storage
Capacity
(acre feet)
85
310
12
Pumping
Station
Capacity
(mgd)
580
615
160
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, WA-SFP) estimated the total cost of Alternative
F12 at 273 million dollars. The costs of the various elements
by phases are as follows:
Phase I
1. Sewage treatment plant (50 mgd)
2. Force main (72 inch)
3. Sewage treatment plant (23 mgd)
4. Force main (96 inch)
5. Pumping station (prorated portion)
Phase II
1. Retention facilities
2. Connecting sewers
Phase III
1. Retention facilities
Total Plan F12
$36,000,000
14,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
12,000,000
$100,000,0
$71,000,000
10,000,000
$92,000,000
$ 81,000,0
$ 92,000,0(
$273,000,01
5.2.2.7 Alternative G12
The basic elements of Alternative G12 are similar
to Alternative F12 except that the two sewage treatment
plants would be of an advanced treatment type to allow
discharge of the effluent directly to the River Rouge (Figure
5.2-Q). The proposed elements of Alternative G12 are as
follows:
5-65
-------
EIGHT MILE ROAD
LEGEND
EXISTING INT.
PROPOSED SEWERS
& PROPOSED
RETENTION BASINS
• PROPOSED PUMP
STATIONS
D PROPOSED
TREATMENT PLANT
0
L
Scofe in Mites
NORTH
NORTH INTERCEPTOR
WEST ARM ALTERNATIVE 6 12
Figure 5.2-Q
5-66
-------
Phase I (1980)
1. Construction of an advanced sewage treatment plant
with a design capacity of 50 mgd (189,250 m^/d) and a. peak
hydraulic capacity of 115 mgd (435,275 m3/d) near 8 Mile Road
and Berg and a sewer along 8 Mile Road to connect to the
Oakland County Evergreen sewer;
2. Construction of an advanced sewage treatment plant
with a design capacity of 23 mgd (87,055 m3/d) and a peak
hydraulic capacity of 60 mgd (227,100 m-^/d) near Warren
Road and Parkway;
3. Construction of a new pumping station at the sewage
treatment plant; and
4. Construction of a sewer to convey separate sanitary
sewage from the Middle Rouge Valley of western Wayne County
to the Warren-Parkland treatment plant. Because this sewer
is essentially a suburban collection facility, its cost
is not included in the project estimates.
Phase II
1. Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Pumping
Storage Station
Location Capacity Capacity
(acre feet) (ragd)
Pembroke and Berg 15 95
7 Mile and Berg 4 25
Eliza Howell Park 70 235
Fullerton and Burt 19 420
West Chicago and Burt 50 175
Warren and Pierson 41 105
2. Construction of sewers to convey the CSO from the existing
outfalls to the new retention facilities.
Phase III (1990)
Construction of the following CSO retention facilities:
Pumping
Storage Station
Location Capacity Capacity
(acre feet) (mgd)
Michigan and Southfield 85 580
Patton Park (near
Woodmere P.S.) 310 615
Oakwood P.S. 12 160
5-67
-------
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, WA-SFP) estimated the cost of Alternative
G12 to be 266 million dollars. The costs of the various
elements of the Alternative are as follows:
Phase I
1. Sewage treatment plant (50 mgd) $52,000,000
2. Sewage treatment plant (23 mgd) 29,000,000
3. Pumping station (prorated portion) 12,OOP,OOP
$ 93,000,000
Phase II
1. Retention facilities $71,000,000
2. Connecting sewers 10,000,000
Phase III
1. Retention facilities $92,000,000
$ 81,000,000
$ 92,000,000
Total Plan G12 $266,000,000
5.2.2.8 Evaluation of the West Arm Alternatives
All of the West Arm alternatives will have short-term
adverse construction impacts to soil, air, water quality,
and socioeconomics. Alternative G will have the fewest
short-term impacts because it concentrates construction
at the two advanced sewage treatment plants and does not
build a lengthy tunnel or force main.
Each alternative will have long-term impacts due to the
pump station sites, the retention basins (except Alternative
C), and the treatment plant sites in Alternatives F and
G.
Surface water impacts differ in some respects with
each alternative. All alternatives are designed to lessen
the degradation of the River Rouge.
The treatment plants in Alternative G would improve
the River Rouge water quality due to the quality of the
effluent and the flow in the river. The remaining alternatives
would improve water quality in the River Rouge by eventually
transporting the stormwater (partially or not at all treated)
to the Detroit River.
Alternative C would provide most immediate relief
to the CSO.
5-68
-------
Due to the environmental impacts, costs, and implementabil-
ity, Alternatives F12 and G12 were eliminated in the screening
of alternatives. The costs, the impacts of the treatment
plants and their effluent force main, and the impacts of
constructing the stormwater retention basin systems make
Alternative F12 not feasible.
Alternative G12 reduces the impacts due to the lack of
an effluent force main to the Detroit River; however, the
costs, the treatment plant sites, and implementation difficulties
remove this alternative from further consideration.
During July to November 1977, the facilities planning
consultant revised these alternatives and their costs.
An additional alternative was also added. These additions
and changes will be the subject of the evaluation phase.
5.3 Evaluation of Collection and Treatment Alternatives
This section evaluates more completely all the alternatives
that were considered feasible during the screening. As
in the screening, the West Arm is analyzed separately.
Human and natural environmental impacts are compared and
the result is the selection of a recommended plan for the
collection and treatment of wastewater in the study area.
The environmental analysis is presented in two parts.
The first section discusses, in a written narrative, impacts
common to all alternatives. The second section is a matrix
presenting differential impacts in tabular form. This
format permits rapid identification of the differential
impacts while minimizing the size of the evaluation. Areas
determined not to have an impact are not presented.
5.3.1 Description of Feasible Collection and Treatment
Alternatives
Each of the four feasible systems are briefly reviewed
and only major features are pointed out. The seventeen
major relief lines of the Combined Sewer Relief System
are the same for each alternative.
5.3.1.1 Alternative A2b - Additional Treatment in
Detroit, Do Nothing by DWSD
Alternative A2b involves mandated construction at
the existing plant but no upgrading to existing facilities.
A 315 mgd (1,192,275 m3/d) facility constructed at Conners
Creek would be operated by some entity other than DWSD.
The quantity of effluent receiving secondary treatment
meets the project objectives but effluent quality will
not meet NPDES permit levels.
5-69
-------
Major collection system components include the Romeo,
Armada, and Richmond Arms of the suburban collection system
and interceptors for the Conners Creek plant. Eighteen
stormwater treatment plants located along the River Rouge
and Detroit River will give preliminary treatment to
CSO.
5.3.1.2 Alternative B2 - Optimization at Design Capacity
Alternative B2 involves mandated construction at the
existing plant plus any further construction needed to
bring the plant up to its design capacity. This construction
would include a 50 mgd (189,250 m3/d) plant north of the
DWWTP that may not be needed until late in the study period.
The quantity of effluent receiving secondary treatment
meets the project objectives and effluent quality is expected
to meet discharge criteria.
Collection system additions include the Romeo, Armada,
and Richmond interceptor arms and the Clintondale pumping
station. Eighteen stormwater treatment plants located
along the River Rouge and Detroit River are designed to
provide preliminary treatment for CSO.
5.3.1.3 Alternative C2b - Additions to Optimized
Plant, 2730 mgd Preliminary Capacity
As in the previous alternative, this option would
involve mandated construction and upgrading of the DWWTP
to meet design capacity, i.e. 1050 mgd (3,974,250
This construction would include a 50 mgd (189,250
secondary treatment facility north of the existing plant.
Secondary effluent quantity and quality meet project objectives
and discharge criteria, respectively.
A completely new pumping station handling 2400 mgd
(9,084,000 m^/d) would expand preliminary treatment at
the main plant to 2730 mgd (10,333,050 m^/d). Nineteen
stormwater retention basins along the River Rouge and Detroit
River would temporarily hold CSO until they are given preliminary
treatment at the DWWTP. Proposed collection system additions
include the Romeo, Armada, and Richmond interceptor arms,
the 15 Mile Relief Sewer and the Clintondale pumping station.
5.3.1.4 Alternative D3 - Split Treatment
This alternative replaces conventional secondary treatment
at DWWTP with a split chemical/physical treatment. Chemical
removal of phosphorus is followed by primary sedimentation.
A 300 mgd (1,135,500 m3/d) activated sludge module would
further reduce soluble BOD by blending the activated sludge
5-70
-------
effluent with the primary effluent. Secondary effluent
standards would be met with this combination of processes.
Combined sewer overflows would be collected and temporarily
held in nineteen stormwater retention basins along the
River Rouge and Detroit River. A new 2600 mgd (9,841,000
pumping station will dewater the flow to the DWWTP where
it will receive preliminary treatment. Major collection
system additions include the Romeo, Armada, and Richmond
interceptor arms, the 15 Mile Relief Sewer and the Clintondale
pumping station.
5.3.2 Impacts of the Feasible Alternatives
Air quality would be impacted insignificantly by the
treatment alternatives if operated and maintained properly.
While occasional odors may be emitted, they are not expected
to be significant or frequent.
Groundwater would be minimally impacted by any of
the alternatives. Little demand for groundwater exists
and little is foreseen.
Aquatic biota would be minimally affected by any of
the alternatives. The existing biotic community reflects
the degraded water quality conditions and future water
quality is not expected to undergo any major improvements.
Terrestrial biota would be minimally affected by any
of the alternatives because the majority of construction
will occur in an urban setting. Construction of retention
basins in recreational areas will temporarily disrupt biota.
No endangered species would be affected by any of the alterna-
tives.
Future population would not be affected by the alternatives
on a regional basis because sufficient urban area exists
for expansion and development. Population location would
be insignificantly affected for the same reason. Changes
in the location of regional employment would not be discernible
because capacity for industrial development exists with
all alternatives.
Land values of the residential area near the treatment
facilities would continue to be adversely affected because
of the natural incompatibility between industrial and
residential land use. Land use conflicts for retention
basins and treatment plants are discussed in the matrix.
Limitations on land use within sewer easements will be
similar in all alternatives.
5-71
-------
An increase in user charges is expected in order to
fund the local share of the new facilities. The exact
amount is not known at this time.
Public services would be disrupted due to street closings
and rerouting of traffic during sewer construction. Recreational
areas would be moderately affected by the construction
of underground retention basins; however, these impacts
are highly site dependent.
Historical and archaeological sites would not be affected
by any of the alternatives. However, an archaeological
survey of the areas disturbed by the recommended plan would
be required before Step II completion.
Public health would be minimally affected by any of
the alternatives. Present public health problems have
been found related to factors other than sewage collection
and treatment.
The Combined Sewer Relief System (Ten-Year Storm Relief
System) is the same for all alternatives. The seventeen
major sewer relief lines will require 355,790 lineal feet
(108,445 m) of sewers with tunnel widths up to 25 feet. One
hundred nineteen acres (48 ha) of land would be disturbed in
one acre (0.4 ha) parcels for tunneling access every 3000
linear feet.
All four alternatives would have soil erosion and
street disturbance impacts from 203,300 linear feet
(61,966 m) of open trench sewer construction. Trenches
would be dug to accommodate sewer pipe diameters ranging
from 10 feet to 15 inches.
The following matrix (Table 5.3-A) presents the differen-
tial impacts among the feasible alternatives. Impacts
are quantified wherever possible.
5.3.3 Summary Ranking of Collection and Treatment
Alternatives
Each of the four feasible alternatives is ranked on
the basis of environmental impacts, costs, and annual energy
consumption.
It is apparent from the matrix that Alternatives D3,
C2b, and B2 are all very similar in their environmental
impacts. Alternatives D3 and C2b have a slightly less
severe impact upon surface water quality because all the
treated stormwater is discharged to the Detroit River which
has a large dilutional capacity. Treated stormwater in
5-72
-------
Alternative B2 is discharged to both the River Rouge and
Detroit River. Alternative A2b has a decidedly more severe
impact than the other alternatives because effluent will
not meet discharge requirements.
When ranked by cost, Alternative B2 and A2b are relatively
close, with A2b totalling $26 million more than the optimization
alternative B2. Alternatives C2b and D3 cost $219 and $344
million more than Alternative A2b, respectively.
Alternative D3 is the most energy efficient system
proposed, due in large part to its use of chemical/physical
treatment processes. Alternative A2b is the next most
energy efficient system but it does not meet discharge
criteria. Alternatives B2 and C2b require 3.95 x 10° and
5.27 x Ifl6 gallons more of #2 diesel fuel, respectively,
than that required for Alternative A2b.
In summary, Alternative A2b cannot be further considered
because it would not be in compliance with PL 92-500. The
remaining three alternatives meet water quality standards.
Alternative B2 has lower costs than the other two options.
Alternatives C2b and D3 counterbalance higher costs with
a small improvement in water quality along some points
of the River Rouge.
5.3.4 Description of Feasible West Arm Alternatives
As noted in the screening, the facilities planning
consultant modified the West Arm alternatives and their
associated cost figures during July-November, 1977. The
four feasible alternatives carried over from screening plus
the additional alternative are described briefly and their
major features noted in the following discussion. The
changes by the facilities planning consultant are briefly
described.
• Alternative B
The B Alternative would construct a tunnel from the
River Rouge siphons to the DWWTP on the Oakwood Northwest
Interceptor. The Hubbell-Baby Creek tunnel connection
was eliminated by the facilities planning consultant.
Stormwater retention basins and associated facilities
are included in Phases II and III.
* Alternative C
The major feature of Alternative C is a large tunnel
sewer from 8 Mile Road to the DWWTP.
5-73
-------
Environmental Analysis Matrix for
Collection and Treatment Systems Alternatives
Impact Categories
SOILS
Erosion from Construction
Treatment:
Collection:
A2b
Additional Treatment
in Detroit by Other
Entities, Do Nothing
By Detroit
Erosion from construction
on a relatively flat, 140
acre urban site.
Erosion from 71 acres
excavated in one acre
parcels every 3000 ft.
for access to 204,250
L.F. of tunnelel sewer.
B2
Optimization at Design
Capacity
Erosion from construction
on a relatively flat, 48
acre urban site.
Erosion from 64 acres
excavated in one acre par-
cels every 3000 ft. for
access to 191,750 L.F. of
tunneled sewer.
SURFACE WATER
Water Quality Parameters
Water quality degradation
(1) from surface runoff at
construction sites
(2) from treatment plant
effluent not in compliance
with PL 92-500 (3) from
urbanization in the region.
Water quality degradation
(1) from surface runoff at
construction sites
(2) from urbanization in the
region which would override
water quality improvements
from compliance with effluent
standards.
LAND USE
Acquisition of Acreage
Treatment:
Collection:
140 acres (133 acres
single family residential;
7 acres institutional).
165 acres for CSO control
(115.5 acres recreational;
18 industrial; 10.5 resi-
dential; 21 vacant). 71
acres in 1 acre parcels
for access to 212,500
tunneled L.F. Sewer ease-
ment for 203,300 L.F. of
cut and cover construction.
48 acres (28.8 acres resi-
dential; 9.6 acres recrea-
tional; 9.6 acres vacant).
165 acres for CSO control
(115.5 acres recreational;
18 industrial; 10.5 resi-
dential; 21 vacant). 64
acres in 1 acre parcels
for access to 191,750
tunneled L.F. Sewer ease-
ment for 203,300 L.F. of
cut and cover construction.
-------
Table 5.3-A
(continued)
C2b
Additions to Optimized
Plant 2730 Preliminary
Capacity
D3
Split Treatment
Erosion from construction
on a relatively flat, 48
acre urban site.
Erosion from 68 acres
excavated in 1 acre
parcels every 3000 ft.
for access to 204,250
L.F. of tunneled sewer.
Erosion from construction
on a relatively flat, 48 acre
urban site.
Erosion from 68 acres ex-
cavated in 1 acre parcels
every 3000 ft. for access
to 204,250 L.F. of tunneled
sewer.
Water quality degradation
(1) from surface runoff
at construction sites.
(2) from urbanization
in the region which would
override water quality
improvements from com-
pliance with effluent
standards. Water quality
improvement in some para-
meters at some stations
along River Rouge.
Water quality degradation
(1) from surface runoff
at construction sites.
(2) from urbanization
in the region which would
override water quality
improvements from com-
pliance with effluent
standards. Water quality
improvement in some para-
meters at some stations
along River Rouge.
48 acres (28.8 acres resi-
dential; 9.6 acres recrea-
tional; 9.6 acres vacant).
367.5 acres for CSO control
(300.8 acres recreational;
22.4 industrial; 20 resi-
dential; 24 vacant). 68
acres in 1 acre parcels
for access to 204,250
tunneled L.F. Sewer ease-
ment for 203,300 L.F. of
cut and cover construction.
48 acres (28.8 acres resi-
dential; 9.6 acres recrea-
tional; 9.6 acres vacant).
367.5 acres for CSO control
(300.8 acres recreational;
22.4 industrial; 20 resi-
dential; 24 vacant). 68
acres in 1 acre parcels
for access to 204,250
tunneled L.F. Sewer ease-
ment for 203,300 L.F. of
cut and cover construction.
5-75
-------
ECONOMY
Table 5.3-A
(continued)
Impact Categories
Land Use Conflicts
A2b
B2
Treatment:
Conners Creek plant would
conflict with 133 acres
of existing single family
residential land use and
7 acres institutional
(church) land use.
Facilities would conflict
with 28.8 acres residential
and 9.6 acres recreational
land use. Current land use
plan provides for continua-
tion of existing use and does
not provide for expansion of
treatment plant.
Collection:
CSO control facilities
would conflict with 10.5
acres residential and 115.5
acres recreational land
use. The 71 access sites
for tunneled sewers will
conflict with current land
use patterns.
CSO control facilities
would conflict with 10.5
acres residential and 115.5
acres recreational land
use. The 64 access sites
for tunneled sewers will
conflict with current land
use patterns.
Regional income
stimulation
1% increase in total
regional income during
peak expenditure year
1997. Impacts concen-
trated in utilities and
contract construction
industries.
1-2% increase in total
regional income during
peak expenditure year
1999. Impacts concen-
trated in utilities and
contract construction
industries.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Disruption of existing
community
Disruption of integral
part of community
Relocation of approximately
500 household units on
facility site.
Park (P. Maheras Field) and
several schools adjacent to
proposed site.
Relocation of 322 house-
hold units on 48 acre
facility site.
Relocation of 36 small
businesses and 7 insti-
tutions (churches, schools)
on 48 acre site.
ENERGY
Total equivalent energy
needs (BTU/yr.)
Equivalent gallons of
#2 diesel fuel
4.52x10
31.4x10
12
12
5.09x10
35.35x10
COST (total)
Millions of dollars
1520
5-76
1494
-------
Table 5.3-A
(continued)
C2b
D3
Facilities would conflict
with 28.8 acres residential
and 9.6 acres recreational
land use. Current land
use plan provides for con-
tinuation of existing use
does not provide for expan-
sion of treatment plant.
Facilities would conflict
with 28.8 acres residential
and 9.6 acres recreational
land use. Current land
use plan provides for con-
tinuation of existing use
does not provide for expan-
sion of treatment plant.
CSO control facilities
would conflict with 20
acres residential and
300.8 acres recreational
land use. The 68 access
sites for tunneled sewers
will conflict with
current land use patterns.
CSO control facilities
would conflict with 20
acres residential and
300.8 acres recreational
land use. The 68 access
sites for tunneled sewers
will conflict with
current land use patterns.
1-2% increase in total
regional income during
peak expenditure year
1999. Impacts concen-
trated in utilities and
contract construction
industries.
1-2% increase in total
regional income during
peak expenditure year
1999. Impacts concen-
trated in utilities and
contract construction
industries.
Relocation of 322 house-
hold units on 48 acre
facility site.
Relocation of 36 small
businesses and 7 insti-
tutional (churches,
schools) on 48 acre site.
Relocation of 322 house-
hold units on 48 acre
facility site.
Relocation of 36 small
businesses and 7 insti-
tutional (churches,
schools) on 48 acre site.
5.28x10
12
3.37x10
12
36.67x10
23.41x10
1739
1864
5-77
-------
* Alternative D
Alternative D is similar to C in that a tunnel sewer
from 8 Mile Road to DWWTP would be constructed. The size
of the tunnel was reduced for this alternative from that
in Alternative C. Stormwater retention basin systems were
also included to handle excess stormwater.
• Alternative E
The major feature of Alternative E is a pump station
and force main to transport suburban sanitary flows to
the DWWTP from 8 Mile Road. Stormwater retention basins
and connecting sewers are also included in the proposed
construction.
• Alternative H
This alternative is the one proposed by the facilities
planning consultant in November, 1977. This plan would construct
a tunnel sewer from 8 Mile Road to DWWTP along the same
alignment as Alternatives C and D (See Figures 5.2-M, N).
Retention basins and collecting sewers for stormwater
overflow controls are also included to limit overflows
to twelve per year.
5.3.5 Impacts of the Feasible Alternatives
Air quality would be impacted insignificantly by the
West Arm alternatives if properly operated and maintained.
While occasional odors may be emitted, they are not expected
to be significant or frequent.
Groundwater would be minimally impacted by any of
the alternatives. Little demand for groundwater exists
and the future demand is forecasted to decrease (Twenter, 1975).
Future population would not be affected by the alternatives
on a regional basis because significant urban area exists
for expansion and development. Population location would
be insignificantly affected for the same reason. Changes
in the location of regional employment would not be discernible
because of the large work force. Capacity for industrial
development exists in all alternatives.
Land use and land values would be minimally affected
due to the alternatives. The differential impacts of the
retention basins are presented in the matrix.
The local share of the facilities is expected to increase
user charges above presently planned levels. The exact
amount of the increase is not known at this time.
5-78
-------
Public services may be disrupted due to street closings
and rerouting of traffic. Utilities may have service disruptions
and emergency services may be disrupted due to construction
corridors. Normal construction practices require that alter-
nate routes be developed.
Public health would be minimally improved due to the
reduction in CSO. Present public health problems have
been attributed to factors other than sewage collection
and treatment.
Historical and archaeological sites would not be affected
by the construction and operation of any of the alternatives.
However, an archaeological survey of the areas to be disturbed
by the recommended plan would be required prior to Step
II completion.
The environmental ranking matrix (Table 5.3-B) presents
an evaluation of the feasible alternative differential
impacts. The impacts are quantified were possible and
where sufficient data are not availabe, it is so stated.
5.3.6 Summary of West Arm Alternative Evaluation
Of the West Arm alternatives, there is no clear cut
first choice. The absence of water quality data particularly
hampers the evaluation of the alternatives.
The various alternatives all have many adverse impacts
due to the high cost and the construction of the facilities
as proposed. Alternative C would have somewhat more construction
impacts due to the size of the facilities, their location,
and the method and sites of construction access. Alternative
B would have the least impacts due to the relatively small
length of tunnel to be constructed.
The main emphasis of the West Arm is to alleviate
water quality degradation from the CSO's. The lack of
water quality impact data for the various alternatives
makes evaluation of the alternatives difficult at best.
5.4 Residuals Management Component Alternatives
5.4.1 Sludge Processing Alternatives
Sludge processing includes those unit operations which
prepare sludge for disposal. Figure 5.4-A shows the possible
options available to the DWSD. The various unit processes
must be combined into a feasible treatment system and matched
to the appropriate sludge disposal method.
5-79
-------
Table 5.3-B
Impact Category
Environmental Analysis Matrix for West Arm Alternatives
Large Tunnel
SOILS
Erosion from construction
Optimization and
Retention Basins
The tunnel spoil may cause
erosion at the disposal
site(s). The retention
basins would cause erosion
during construction.
613,000 cu. yd. of spoil
disposal will cause erosion
at disposal site(s).
WATER QUALITY
Stream Water Quality
Reduction of combined sewer
overflows by an estimated
20,000 acre feet/per/year*
Reduction of combined sewer
overflows by an estimated
20,000 acre feet/per/year*
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Disruption of existing
community tunnels
Minimal impacts due to limi-
ted tunelling and location
of the tunnel.
Significant impacts due to
location, size of tunnel and
the 44 access shafts.
Retention basins
EMPLOYMENT
Regional income stimu-
lation (based on 30% of
construction dollars as
labor dollars and
$15,000/job/yr.)
LAND USE
Land Use Conflicts
Construction Access
9 basins with 570 ac. pt.
of storage.
$42 million.
none
Temporary disturbance to
existing parkland.
$32.7 million.
44 construction access sites
of 1 acre each in residential
and commercial land use.
Permanent Structures
9 retention basins will be
in parkland, however, they
will be below ground and
covered.
None in a position to have
adverse impacts.
COST
Millions of dollars
$140
$109
*Facilities Planning Consultant Design Criteria
5-80
-------
Table 5.3-B (continued)
Tunnel and
Retention Basins
Force Main, Pump Station
and Retention Basins
Tunnel and
Retention Basins
The tunnel spoil may cause
erosion at the disposal
site(s). The retention
basins would cause erosion
during construction.
The large force main will
cause some erosion due to
the open trenches and spoil
disposal. The retention
basins would cause erosion
during construction.
The tunnel spoil may cause
erosion at the disposal
site(s). The retention
basins would cause erosion
during construction.
Reduction of combined
sewer overflows by an es-
timated 20,000 acre feet
per year*.
Reduction of combined
sewer overflows by an es-
timated 20,000 acre feet
per year*.
Reduction of combined
sewer overflows by an es-
timated 20,000 acre feet
per year*.
Significant impacts due
to location and size of
tunnel - somewhat less
than C, same number of
access shafts (44).
Moderate impacts due to
location and size of
force main along major
highways.
Significant Impacts due to
location and size of tunnel
and the 44 access shafts.
9 basins with 440 ac.
ft. of storage.
9 basins with 66.2 ac.
ft. of storage.
9 basins with 66.2 ac,
ft. of storage.
$38.7 million
2,580 jobs
$42 million
2,800 jobs
$44.7 million
2,980 jobs
44 Construction access
sites of 1 acre each in
residential and commer-
cial land uses.
Construction access would
be along major arterial
roads with heavy traffic.
44 Construction access sites
of 1 acre each in residential
and commercial land uses.
9 retention basins would
be in open space, however
they would be below
ground and covered.
Pump stations would require
little land, the 9 retention
basins in open space would
be below ground and
covered.
9 retention basins will be
in existing open space,
however, they would be be-
low ground and covered.
$129
$140
$149
5-81
-------
T3
d)
0)
•a
•H
10
C
o
CJ
i
m
0)
M
&
•H
tu
Alternat
c
•H
w
01
o
o
i-l
-------
This section describes, individually, those unit processes
and operations which were considered. Later phases of
alternatives analysis will combine these into systems,
discuss disposal methods, and consider how they relate
to the various alternatives for liquid processes and treatment
sites.
5.4.1.1 Thickening
Sludge processing reduces the water content but still
leaves the sludge in a fluid condition. Possible thickening
alternatives are:
• Gravity thickening - Sludge is settled by gravity
in a separate thickening tank. The existing DWSD
plant uses gravity thickening;
• Flotation thickening - Air bubbles are used to float
sludge particles to the surface. A pilot plant for
flotation thickening is available at the DWSD
plant; and
• Centrifuge thickening - Centrifuges have been used to
thicken sludge, where space limitations or sludge
characteristics made other methods unfeasible.
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) evaluated sludge thickening
both for optimizing the performance of the existing DWWTP
and for 50 mgd (189,000 m-^/d) modular activated sludge
plants.
For the existing DWWTP, the facilities planning consultant
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) determined that
separate gravity thickening of primary and waste activated
sludge could achieve solids concentrations of 10 percent
for primary sludge and 3.8 percent for waste activated
sludge, with 85 percent solids capture. Three new gravity
thickeners were recommended for primary sludge, and two
for waste activated sludge; various changes in piping were
also recommended to improve process control and allow more
operational flexibility.
For activated sludge plants constructed in 50 mgd
(189,000 m3/d) modules, the facilities planning consultant
(Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) concluded that
gravity thickeners should be used for primary sludge but
that flotation thickeners were preferable for waste activated
sludge. The reasons cited for the choice of flotation
5-83
-------
thickeners over gravity thickeners for waste activated
sludge were:
Reliability;
A thicker product;
A high solids loading;
A lower capital cost;
A better solids capture; and
Maintenance of sludge in an aerobic condition.
These reasons were considered sufficient to overcome
higher operating costs.
Centrifugal thickening was eliminated on the basis
of operational problems experienced at existing installations
and higher costs compared to flotation thickening ($1,936,000
vs. $1,407,000 for a 50 mgd [189,000 m3/d] installation).
5.4.1.2 Stabilization
The principal purposes of stabilization are to make
the treated sludge less odorous and putrescible, and to
reduce the pathogenic organism content (U.S. EPA, 1974B).
Either liquid or dewatered sludge may be stabilized. Depending
upon the choice of further processing and the disposal
method, stabilization may be optional. The existing DWWTP
does not stabilize sludge prior to dewatering and incineration.
Those stabilization processes which were considered are
included in the following sections:
• Aerobic digestion is biological degradation of
sludge in the presence of oxygen. The sludge is aerated
in tanks as in the activated sludge process.
• Anaerobic digestion is liquid phase biological
digestion conducted in the absence of oxygen. Typically,
50 percent of the volatile solids in the sludge are converted
to methane in a well-run process. This gas can be recovered
and used for heating and other energy needs of the piant,
though its high sulfur content often requires scrubbing
to prevent corrosion of machinery. Methane-forming bacteria
have a slow growth rate and are sensitive to operational
variables such as temperature, pH, oxygen, and toxic chemicals.
• Heat treatment (pasteurization) may be practiced
to both stabilize and condition sludge. Stabilization
is accomplished with time-temperature combinations from
70°C and 30 minutes to 170°C and 30 seconds (flash pasteuriza-
tion) .
5-84
-------
• Chemical stabilization involves additions of lime
in sufficient quantities to maintain a pH of 11.0 to 11.5,
which stabilizes the sludge and destroys pathogens.
• Composting is aerobic, solid phase digestion, using
a carbon carrier such as wood chips, and is conducted in
three steps. The first step is aeration, where aerobic
digestion increases the temperature and destroys most pathogens.
The second phase, windrowing and storage, continues the
destruction of pathogens and volatile solids. Drying is
a final step and aids future handling.
DWWTP does not use sludge stabilization before incineration,
The performance review supported this choice by concluding
that raw sludge could be adequately conditioned for dewatering
by other means. However, if processing/disposal alternatives
are considered which do not include reduction, stabilization
may be necessary. For example, raw sludge may not be used
for land application (MDNR, 1976) (Blakeslee, P.A., Personal
Communication, 1978). Therefore, stabilization alternatives
are evaluated in 50 mgd (189,000 m3/d) modules both for the
existing facilities and for new facilities at other sites
(see Section 5.5).
5.4.1.3 Conditioning
Conditioning is a processing step in which the total
sludge and water complex is prepared for dewatering. Principal
methods for conditioning are included in the following
sections:
• Chemical conditioning to reduce the bound water and to
increase filterability is the most common process used.
Chemicals used include inorganic multi-valent ions/ such
as ferric iron or aluminum, or organic polymers, and may
be accompanied by "elutriation" (washing) to remove interfering
soluble substances such as carbonates and bicarbonates.
Large amounts of ash, usually recycled from incinerators,
are sometimes used to condition sludge for pressure filtration.
• Low pressure thermal conditioning is a process
involving heating the sludge mass to 300-500° F at 150-400 psi.
This heating disinfects and solubilizes some of the volatile
solids and may also oxidize some of the solids if operated
at higher temperatures and pressures. The "cooking liquor"
remaining after settling/dewatering is a rather putrescible
liquid containing soluble organic carbon compounds, amino
acids and ammonia. If further dewatering is practiced,
this "liquor" must be stabilized either by recycle to main
stream aeration or to separate treatment. The recycle
of this liquor results in increasing solids and
5-85
-------
organic loading throughout the plant. Process inputs consist
of pumping energy and thermal energy, which may be derived
from incinerator heat recovery.
The existing DWWTP uses polymers to condition the
sludge and achieves satisfactory dewatering. The facilities
planning consultant also recommended pilot studies of adding
powdered coal to the sludge to further improve dewatering
and to raise the heat value. Thus, coal would replace
some of the natural gas which is presently burned during
incineration.
No specific recommendations were made for sludge condi-
tioning at any additional wastewater treatment facilities,
as it was believed that this should be determined on a
case by case basis following pilot studies. It was assumed,
however, that some form of chemical conditioning would
be needed.
5.4.1.4 Dewatering
Dewatering changes the sludge from a liquid into a
solid or semi-solid state (20+ percent solids content).
This greatly reduces the weight of the sludge and increases
its net heat value. Processes available for dewatering
are included in the following sections:
• Vacuum filtration occurs when the solids are picked
up by vacuum on a moving belt, with the liquid fraction
passing through and being recycled. Before the filter,
some form of conditioning is necessary for economical operation.
For proper operation, the feed solids should be conditioned
and thickened, because feed solids, in part, determine
solids content of the filter cake.
• Pressure filtration uses a high positive pressure
to force the liquid through the filter media. In a cyclic
operation of about 2 hours, sludge is pumped between plates
covered with the filter media, the liquid seeps through,
and the plates are separated for solids removal. Recent
improvements in filter media and the development of automatic
cake removal methods have revived interest in pressure
filtration. Filter presses are capable of achieving high
cake solids concentrations of 30 to 50 percent.
• Centrifugation using solid bowl at low speeds is
a common dewatering alternative. Properly designed centrifuges,
fed heat-conditioned sludge, can achieve up to 85 percent solids
capture and 40 percent cake solids without additional chemicals.
5-86
-------
• Sand drying beds are a method of dewatering applicable
to smaller plants or remote areas. It involves spreading
the sludge in a layer over a base of sand and allowing
the drying to be performed through evaporation and drainage.
5.4.1.5 Drying
Drying removes most of the bound water from a sludge
without oxidizing the organic solids. Since the organic
material remains, the dried sludge can be used as a soil
conditioner, or can be burned in an incinerator. Drying
requires large amounts of energy to evaporate the water
in the sludge; incineration with heat recycle can supply
part of this energy, since dried sludge has a high heat
value for incineration.
Complete drying of sludge would require approximately
1.4 x 10' BTU per ton of dry solids (3.3 x 10? kg/kg) at
a cost of about $82 for fuel alone per ton. As sludges
with equally desirable disposal properties (e.g. compost)
can be produced for less cost with less energy, drying
was not considered practical.
5.4.1.6 Reduction
Reduction processes not only remove most of the water
from sludge, but destroy or alter the volatile solids.
The chief purpose of reduction is to reduce the sludge
volume for disposal. Several reduction processes were
evaluated:
• Multiple hearth incinerators, used at the existing
DWWTP, consist of a number of annular hearths stacked vertically
inside a refractory lined within a cylindrical steel shell.
Sludge is fed into the top hearth and raked by rabble arms
into openings through which it falls to succeeding hearths.
The furnace operates in three zones. In the top zone,
wet sludge is dried by hot exhaust gases; the gases are,
in turn, cooled by the sludge. In the second, or burning
zone, the volatile material in the sludge ignites and reaches
a temperature of 1,400 to 1,600°F. As the burned sludge
descends to the lower zone, the hot ash is cooled by the
incoming combustion air.
The gross heat required for incineration depends largely
upon the amount of water evaporated (water has a high heat
of evaporation); and for this reason it is important that
the sludge be as dry as possible. Much of this heat can
be supplied by combustion of volatile solJds in the sludge
itself; any remaining heat must come from auxiliary fuel.
5-87
-------
The existing Complex I and Complex II incinerators
at the DWWTP were studied in detail by the facilities planning
consultant to see how their performance could be improved.
After initial investigations of the capacity and performance
of the existing incinerators, it also appeared worthwhile
to re-evaluate the decisions to install tall stacks and
to build Complex III incinerators as designed. These major
types of modifications were considered:
• Complete PC-400 modifications to Complex I, including
afterburners and venturi scrubbers;
• Install afterburners and venturi scrubbers on
Complex II, similar to PC-400;
• Modify the combustion air flow to reduce auxiliary
fuel consumption. These modifications would entail
recycling gases from the drying (upper) hearths to
the burning (middle) hearths, and exhausting gases
from the burning hearths. The hot exit gases would
enter a heat exchanger to heat incoming combustion
air. This eliminates the need for an afterburner
and reduces excess air requirements;
* Don't build Complex III; and
• Build Complex III with electrostatic precipitators
instead of venturi scrubbers.
All of these modifications would affect the total
capacity of the incinerators, their auxiliary fuel consumption,
and their air pollution emissions and dispersion. Detailed
technical discussions can be found in Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book XII.
* Fluidized bed incineration utilizes a bed of sand
maintained in a fluid suspension by the upward flow of
combustion air. Drying and combustion of sludge take place
in the same chamber. The heat retention ability of the
large mass of sand serves to smooth out heat fluctuations
and helps provide for efficient burning.
• Pyrolysis is controlled combustion in the absence
of sufficient air to burn the sludge. The process requires
raising the sludge to a temperature at which the volatile
matter will distill, leaving carbon and inert material
behind. The volatile gases can be recovered and the char
may have commercial value as a fuel. Pyrolysis produces
useful by-products and reduces air pollution.
5.4.2 Sludge Disposal Alternatives
The environmental impacts of a wastewater treatment
plant are heavily dependent upon the choice of a sludge
disposal method. Processing and disposal cannot be completely
separated since processing changes sludge characteristics
which influence the choice of a disposal method.
5-88
-------
A number of sludge disposal methods were considered.
This section will describe these alternatives and show
how they relate to sludge characteristics.
5.4.2.1 Land Application
Sewage sludge can be applied to land to serve as a
soil conditioner and nutrient source. Many different application
techniques are in use today. These techniques involve
some form of spreading, spraying, or subsurface injection.
Depending upon the type of sludge, incorporation into the
soil may be necessary.
The types of sludges which were dealt with, because
they would be the products of the feasible sludge processing
alternatives are:
* Digested liquid sludge;
• Digested dewatered sludge;
• Composted sludge; and
* Incinerator ash/char.
Design of a land application scheme must consider
such matters as nutrient balances, heavy metal accumulation,
pathogen control, water budget, soil characteristics, drainage,
topography, application technique and farming practices.
When all these factors are properly considered, land application
can be a safe, environmentally sound and beneficial means
of sludge disposal.
The economics of land application of sludge depend
heavily upon land values, fertilizer costs, crop revenues,
spreading costs and hauling costs, as well as any additional
sludge processing necessitated by land application. The
energy balance must weigh the energy used in processing,
hauling, and spreading the relatively bulky sludge against
the energy needed to produce commercial fertilizers.
Sludge can be spread on croplands such as corn or
sod, as well as forests and recreational land, provided
that the land meets certain minimum requirements for drainage,
etc. Economy of scale favors spreading on large tracts
of land; usually such acreage is found outside of suburban
areas. Land can be purchased or leased, or the sludge
could simply be given to the farmer. Some degree of monitor-
ing and control is desirable to ensure proper use of the
sludge.
For public health reasons, the State of Michigan prohibits
land application of raw sanitary sewage sludge; therefore,
only dried or stabilized sludge will be considered further.
5-89
-------
Ash and char have little nutrient value; land application
of this type of sludge would essentially be disposal, not
reuse. However, spreading of ash or char on non-food chain
recreational lands was considered by the facilities planning
consultant.
Implementation of a land application scheme can become
a difficult problem, as sludge often has to be transported
across political boundaries. These political factors cannot
be ignored.
• Application Methods
The characteristics of the sludge restrict the application
methods that can be used. By sludge category, the methods
addressed are:
• Stabilized liquid sludge
• Spraying;
• Irrigation by flooding or overland flow; and
• Subsurface injection.
• Stabilized dewatered sludge
• Spreading and plowing? and
• Reslurry for liquid disposal.
• Composted sludge
• Spreading and plowing; and
• Surface spreading.
Liquid sludge is normally at a solids concentration
of 2-5 percent. At this concentration, spraying from a
sprayhead or tank truck is possible. The sprayhead method,
from a pipeline, has the lowest handling and maintenance
requirements, but has less flexibility for disposal sites.
Tank trucks provide maximum mobility but have high operator
and maintenance requirements. Irrigation by flooding or
overland flow is sometimes used. Flooding has site requirements
which are difficult to meet for large amounts of land.
Overland flow requires strict runoff control, and is again
difficult to implement with the lands that are available.
Subsurface injection is used on tillable land by injecting
sludge into a channel formed by a tilling tool.
Dewatered sludge is generally either distributed from
a truck-mounted spreader or it is piled and spread by a
bulldozer or grader. The spreader may be a modified manure
spreader, as sludge is not quite the same consistency as
manure. When sludge is piled or placed in windrows by dump
trucks, a bulldozer or grader is then required to distribute
5-90
-------
the sludge. Of these methods, the manure spreader requires
less machinery, less operator time, results in a more even
distribution. After the dewatered sludge is spread, it
must be plowed into the soil surface to gain the maximum
nutrient benefits, reduce contamination of surface runoff,
reduce odors, and control pathogens. The need for plowing
dewatered sludge into the soil precludes its use in forest
applications.
The purpose of reslurrying sludge and then using a
liquid disposal method is to gain transport ease. However,
the process of adding water to an already dewatered sludge
wastes the energy used for dewatering, the energy used
in reslurrying, and does not provide any benefits over
pipeline transport of a liquid sludge other than flexibility.
The aerobic digestion that occurs during composting
reduces pathogen and odor problems. Spread on the soil
surface in the same manner as dewatered sludge, it is not
necessary to plow compost into the soil. It can be left
as a top-dressing with no additional adverse impacts.
This allows a wider range of disposal sites.
* Regulations
Although land application has been used for years,
there is conflicting evidence as to the impacts of sludge
on land resources and crops. As more becomes known about
the effects of heavy metals and persistent chemicals on
humans, the greater the necessity becomes to understand
what happens to these constituents when sludge is applied
to land. Consequently, complete guidelines have not been
issued for sludge land application.
In addition, a publication from the Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center presents the existing techniques
used for land application CKnezek and Miller, 1976). This
publication presents guidelines for heavy metals and nut-
rient content of sludge being applied to land. Until EPA
and the MDNR are able to present their own guidelines,
this report is being used to assist evaluation of land
application systems (D. Ehorn, Personal Communication,
1977) . The amount of heavy metals that can be applied
is based on the cation exchange capacity of the soil, and
is a total amount that may be applied over the life of
the project. The nitrogen limitations that govern the
amount of sludge applied annually is based on the nitrogen
uptake of the crop, the amount of organic and inorganic
nitrogen in the sludge, and an expected mineralization
rate of the organic nitrogen in the soil and sludge.
5-91
-------
5.4.2.2 Retail Sales
In the proper form, sludge could be packaged and sold
through retail outlets to individual consumers. In a suburban
market area, the majority of the sludge would ultimately be
spread on gardens, lawns, or other ornamental vegetation.
A retail sales program can achieve sludge spreading on
land such as small lawns where it would be uneconomical
for a municipal program to spread sludge.
In the retail sales market, sludge must compete directly
with commercial fertilizers and soil conditioners. Only
dried sludge and composted sludge have characteristics
that make them competitive for retail sales. Liquid and
dewatered stabilized sludge will, therefore, be considered
only for organized land application alternatives, not for
retail sales.
5.4.2.3 Sanitary Landfill
In a sanitary landfill operation, sludge is systematically
deposited in "cells" and covered with soil. Design of
a landfill site must account for gas movement within the
landfill, leachate control and groundwater protection,
as well as proper placement of sludge in the landfill.
A sanitary landfill is distinguished from an open dump
by regular covering of the deposited material. This covering
substantially reduces odor and leaching problems and facilitates
pest control. Open dumps are not considered an acceptable
disposal method.
Any type of dewatered or dried sludge cart be placed
in a sanitary landfill. These alternatives will be evaluated
in Section 5.5.
5.4.2.4 Trenching
Trenching is a disposal method for sludges which is
similar to a sanitary landfill operation. A backhoe is
used to dig a trench, sludge is then deposited in the trench,
and the trench is covered. Trenching will be evaluated
in Section 5.5.
5.4.2.5 Remote Drying Lagoons
Although their large land area requirements make sludge
drying beds impractical for use at plant sites in densely
developed areas, it would be possible to transport liquid
sludge to remote drying lagoons.
5-92
-------
The facilities planning consultant proposed an alternative
whereby sludge would be transported by pipeline to a remote
site. The sludge would be stabilized and then deposited
in large drying lagoons. The water in the sludge would
evaporate or seep into the ground, depending upon weather
conditions. This alternative is evaluated in Section 5.5.
5.4.2.6 Industrial Reuse
The possibility of finding uses for sludge among the
many industries of the Detroit area was examined. Industrial
applications included use of sludge as a fuel or as a construc-
tion material. Sludge could be combined with coal or oil
and fed to a commercial power plant to generate electricity.
Char produced during pyrolysis could be used either in
a power boiler or in coking ovens. Although none of these
alternatives would actually solve the problem of ultimate
disposal of ash, they would contribute to recovery of the
energy value of sludge and they will be considered in Section
5.5.
Another alternative considered in the screening will
be to use incinerator ash as a construction material, such
as an additive to cement manufacturing.
5.4.2.7 Land Reclamation
Sewage sludge has been shown to be of value in restoring
strip mines and other places that have been denuded of
top soil (Sopper, 1976). The sludge is used to add organic
matter and nutrients and to improve the moisture retention
properties of mine spoils. This aids in establishing a
vegetative cover and reduces acid mine drainage and erosion.
Land reclamation differs from land application in
that reclamation is \isally a one-time application, often
accompanied by regrading. As the areas to be reclaimed
are often lacking in nutrients, higher sludge loading rates
are utilized than for croplands. Heavy metals are also
of somewhat less concern, as reclaimed areas are generally
not used for agriculture.
Land reclamation alternatives would require long hauling
distances and would have to overcome numerous political
and jurisdictional problems. However, because of potential
benefits, land reclamation was investigated in more detail
in the screening for liquid and dewatered stabilized sludge,
dried sludge and compost.
5-93
-------
The facilities planning consultant also considered
the possibility of disposing incinerator ash in coffer
dammed island areas of Lake St. Glair and Lake Erie.
5.4.2.8 Other Considerations
• Co-Disposal
Co-disposal of sludge with other wastes could offer
economy of scale and allow a single agency to dispose of
several wastes.
In burning coal to generate electricity, Detroit Edison
produces large amounts of fly ash. Co-disposal of fly
ash and incinerator sludge was evaluated.
Co-disposal of sludge with municipal refuse in a sanitary
landfill was also considered. For dewatered sludge, addition
of refuse would improve mechanical properties and facilitate
handling.
• Co-Incineration
Dewatered sludge, dried sludge or composted sludge
could be mixed with municipal refuse and incinerated.
Energy recovery could generate steam or electricity. Municipal
refuse has a moderately high heat value and burns easily;
this could help overcome some of the technical problems
encountered in burning sludge alone.
• Export from the Region
If a suitable buyer could be found, sludge could be
exported from the Great Lakes region. This possibility
was evaluated by the facilities planning consultant. Any
importer of sludge would, in effect, also have to choose
one of the disposal methods described previously.
* Contract Hauling
Incinerator ash is presently hauled away by contractors
to various sites, not all of which are known. This alternative
was considered as "no action." It is similar to sanitary
landfilling, except DWSD has no control over the landfill.
5.4.3 Treatment and Disposal of Other Residuals
5.4.3.1 Grit and Screenings
Existing procedures call for grit and screenings to
be deposited in containers and hauled by truck to a sanitary
landfill. The alternative of on-site reduction prior to
final disposal was also considered.
5-94
-------
5.4.3.2 Grease and Skimmings
Alternatives considered for grease and skimmings included:
• Rehabilitation and improvement of the existing
system; and
• Combining grease and skimmings with sludge.
5.5 Screening of Residuals Management Alternatives
5.5.1 Sludge Processing Alternatives
The sludge processing components will be evaluated
on environmental, cost, and engineering criteria. The
components which are found most suitable for Detroit's
situation will be arranged in feasible processing systems
for continued screening in the evaluation phase.
5.5.1.1 Thickening
The facilities planning consultant CGiffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) evaluated the sludge thickening
process for optimizing the performance of the existing
DWWTP, and for 50 mgd (189,000 m3/d) modular activated
sludge plants (see Section 5.4.1.1).
For the existing DWWTP, continuation of gravity thickeners
for primary and waste activated sludge could achieve desired
effect.
Activated sludge plants constructed in 50 mgd modules
should preferably be equipped with gravity thickeners for
primary sludge and flotation thickeners for waste activated
sludge.
5.5.1.2 Stabilization
Sludge stabilization is an unnecessary step if incineration
is utilized for reduction. This is the present situation
at the DWWTP. However, in order to investigate alternatives
to incineration, the sludge processing system must be capable
of proper sludge preparation. Therefore, possible methods
of stabilization (as presented in Section 5.4) are evaluated
here.
Table 5.5-A compares the costs, environmental impacts,
and engineering characteristics of composting, aerobic
digestion, heat treatment, and lime stabilization.
5-95
-------
V
rH
9
•0
0
£
I
E
o
o
o
CO
•D
o
in
1 U)
in 01
in -H
4J
o> a
rH C
A rJ
™ JJ
C
o
•H
4J
a
N
•H
rH
•H
XI
Id
JJ
to
01
'O
rH
VI
0
§
tn
8.
E
3
Lime Stabilization
522/ton**
JJ C
C 0
0) -H
I 4J
5 a
a N
U -H
£9
tl
4> 4J
id n
*£
0
•H
s
o
c
•H
1
B
O
Anaerobic Digest i
S10.06/ton**
I
Digest
u
•H
£
0
I
§
jj
X
CM
rH
00
rH
0>
•H
8
|
u
C
O
JJ
rn
oT
9
?
tl
•H
JJ
id
C
3
B
ff
O Q)
«&
•D
0 -
c
41 O
n jj
8^
£
O<
•H
I
M
0
JJ
S 2
r?g
C -H •
J3 "H 9
>H tl CO
.C rH -H
U
n ••
Id rS
Produces methane <
for energy recove
net gain in usefu
energy.
ffl
a:
rJ
S
in
c
IH
1
&
01
C
Sludge is suitable
for land application
01
rH 1
a a
$z
•H rH
3 Pi
to S
ti
w i
fHg
,285
0] IH 4*1
tl rH M
CTrH O
Good quality slud
which dewaters we
and is suitable f
land application.
^
tl rH
11 ?
H t> -H
Id 0 H tl 41
& 0 J3 O
f! *O (3 *H
II " 1 1
&\ -r4 A] O1
9 *a « h -g 3
rH rH 0 tl C rH
no c a en
K 4J O rH
tr, tl -rt
41
tC JJ M 0) O « 01
O tl
U 9
•H rH
41 0)
(0
"SI
41 •-<
S3
SS
U n
ic Insensitive to toxic
chemicals or shock
loadings.
X X
SJ
O n
JJ
•H CO •
JJ rH 01
U B n .
•H rH U
41 « Ol
•HOC
S-H -3
B
7> 5
M
•H •
0) 5
V 9 A
1*3
0. n £
,
P
Produces recycle
stream with high <
i
c
•H
*o ^
2*^
(A rH
*o H
3la
Land required.
V
rJ
•H
,S
a
Land required.
•H
&
jj
3
o
IN
iS
-H rH
& CD
01 —
V4
n
•g a
30
0
n
O
s.
id
1
2
•H
U
8-E
?rH
e -H
(80) •
« e -o
b ^8 JS
04 a H
a
Potential for odo
if not operated
correctly.
r-
r-
JS
\o M
r- 8
en >
rH
^ "3
8
0 X
13
-------
Anaerobic digestion was not a suitable stabilization
process for the DWWTP because of its sensitivity to toxic
chemicals and shock loadings. Aerobic digestion, while
technically feasible, was rejected on the basis of its
high energy requirements. Likewise, high energy consumption
was the reason for rejecting heat stabilization, since
it was assumed that incinerators would not be used with
a stabilization process. Both lime stabilization and compost
stabilization are technically feasible and have low to
moderate energy requirements.
The higher costs of composting (see Table 5.5-A) are
offset by the higher quality compost which is desirable
as a soil conditioner. Any land application program for
DWWTP sludge will require extensive disposal sites (approximately
80,000 acres or 32,000 ha). A sludge that is readily acceptable
by private farmers and landowners could significantly reduce
the city's land need. Lime stabilization compared favorably
to composting but disposal considerations favored selection
of composting.
For new facilities constructed at other sites, the
facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book XII) determined that anaerobic digestion was
the preferred stabilization alternative, since the sensitivity
of the process to toxic and shock loadings was not likely
to be a problem for suburban plants serving primarily residential
areas on separate sewers. This choice, however, was academic,
as the facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black and
Veatch, 1977, Book XII) then assumed that these plants
would use incineration, and would not need stabilization.
5.5.1.3 Conditioning
Currently DWWTP uses polymers to condition sludge
and has been achieving satisfactory results. Therefore,
the facilities planning consultant recommends continuation
of this process. (See Section 5.4).
No specific recommendations were made for sludge condition-
ing at any additional wastewater treatment facilities,
but it is assumed that some form of chemical conditioning
would be needed.
5.5.1.4 Dewatering
The performance evaluation of the existing DWWTP concluded
that dewatering facilities equivalent in capacity to four
additional vacuum filters should be added to Complex II, but
that vacuum filters for Complex III were not needed in the
5-97
-------
immediate future. This assumed a 5 Ib.^sq.ft./hr. (24
kg/m2«H) loading rate and 85 percent unit availability.
For the year 2000, it was assumed that 10 filters of 750
sq.ft. (70 m2) would be needed for Complex III to achieve
an overall loading rate of 4 Ib./sq.ft./hr. (20 kg/m2.h)
and 80 percent unit availability. Modifications in sludge
cake conveying are necessary to achieve these unit availability
rates.
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) emphasizes that vacuum filters
generally perform satisfactory for DWWTP in dewatering
sludge and achieving high solids concentrations when properly
operated and maintained. Therefore, alternative onsite
dewatering methods were not analyzed in detail and priority in
future dewatering studies should be given to improved sludge
conditioning prior to vacuum filtration.
One additional dewatering alternative was considered
in connection with sludge disposal alternatives for the
DWWTP: Sludge drying beds located at a remote site.
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/day) °r 2 percent of the sludge
water content. The remainder of the water can be expected
to eventually seep into the groundwater. Assuming an inorganic
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
2QO 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
the potential to create severe groundwater pollution from
ammonia and/or nitrate nitrogen.
For additional wastewater treatment facilities, the
facilities planning consultant assumed that vacuum filters
would be the selected method of dewatering for developing
costs. However, filter presses appeared to offer slightly
lower costs for a 50 mgd (189,000 m3/d) installation with
dewatering of unstabilized sludge, the estimated present
worth of filter presses was $2,930,200 vs. $3,518,200 for
vacuum filters. This assumption did not significantly
affect the economics of system alternatives.
5-98
-------
5.5.1.5 Drying
As pointed out in Section 5.4, sludge drying was considered
impractical due to the high cost and large energy requirements.
5.5.1.6 Reduction
• Multiple Hearth Incineration
Table 5.5-B presents a summary comparison of nine
possible multiple hearth incineration alternatives. "Firm
capacity" was determined by assuming one unit of each complex
is not functional, a second is available only 25 percent
of the time, and the others are operating at 90 percent
of their capacity. Auxiliary fuel consumption is based
on present performance, with the effects of afterburners
or combustion modifications superimposed; the incinerators
presently use natural gas, but it was assumed that only
#2 fuel would be available in the future, at 60 cents per
gallon. All particulate concentrations are for an input
of 1064 dry tons per day (965,000 kg/d) of dewatered sludge,
i.e. year 2000 loadings at 1000 mgd (3,785,000 nr/d).
Annual costs include amortized capital, labor, fuel, electricity,
and other O&M costs for incineration only, and do not include
dewatering or ash disposal costs, which are the same for
all alternatives.
All alternatives, except "no action", will comply
with the annual average limits for particulates, but numbers
1, 2, 3, and 5 will exceed the 24 hour peak concentration.
Therefore, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were eliminated.
Alternative 5 however, is mandated construction (e.g., a
"given"). Not only will this alternative not meet an air
quality limit, but it is one of the more costly alternatives.
Although the mandated construction will be evaluated later,
it appears justifiable to consider at least another incinera-
tion alternative along with mandated construction.
Of the remaining alternatives, only 6, 7, and 9 can
meet the 1064 dry ton per day (965,000 kg/d) capacity require-
ment (eliminating Alternatives 4 and 8), and Alternative
7 was selected for further evaluations on the basis of
lower costs, lower energy requirements, and lesser particulate
emissions. The low costs of Alternative 9, however, suggests
a third possibility: a "hybrid" alternative, whereby 1051
tons per day (953,000 kg/d) would be incinerated and the
remaining sludge disposed of by other means such as composting
with land application.
5-99
-------
VI
o
>
•H
4-J
n Altern
o
• H
4J
10
V4
01
c.
H
O
c
M
a;
D'
1
rH
W
14-1
0
c
o
U7
• H
L4
•0
a
Q
U
4-J T)
u> a
O 4-1
o
rH III
10 O
3 -
C rH
S*
Jo
0
o
o
m
T
rH
v>
>n
01
- « rH C7I
4-1 CJ 10 fl
U 4-1 3 Vi
i! r-l C >
E 3 -d < <
rH U Q.
CO
rH
•H 4J
>4 4J
-H &, O
3m rH
&< 6 W*
'-, TO I X
* 3 ^r ii
i; rvi Q,
O
tn
to
r-
rH ^
ty (N o
3 C
CM O • rH ^--
••-* 0 r*i
>. w z a n
•4 Q. T)
10 6 )M| rH --^
•t 3 >, -r4
rH Ul \ O 'O
•H C rH 0.
X O 10 rH 4J
3 U IT O
< 3
o
o
o
o
0
»o
rH
>, £ to
4j cn *o
•H -H -H
D r-
C 'O r^
•H S, fs
UH nP (HJ
o
m
o
rH
?
4->
0
M
H
H
X
01
rH
g
8
r4
const
4J
§
H
M
X
u
rH
a
Oi
c
• H
•H
X
u u
rH
X
OJ
r-i
a,
E
0
U
C'
4J
W
H
X
K
0)
•>
^i
m
c
^
o
4-1
<
r ^
O
o
o
o
0
CO
rH
u*
IN
m
o
fN
CO
rH
o
o
o
0
o
CO
o
^
IN
O
IT
*
rH
O
o
0
o
o
CO
0
IN
o
0
o
0
o
0
(N
rn
fN
m
O
m
r t
O
o
0
o
0
o
cn
CM
H
•s
4J
U
3
Ul
C
0
u
4J
0
H IH
1 41 41
•H C £
|AJ tj ft
5.32
Q 14 0
E oi n
4-1
D IM -rl
C-400 typ
ations (a
nd ventur
P. u a
0
o
^
1
u
-r
o
o
o
o
•sf
rH
(N
rs
o>
ya
rH
o
r^
CO
O
o
o
0
o
rH
<£
rH
T
iH
r*
r-l
•8
c
o-
•H
Ul
41
T3
a
«c
TJ
•H Ul
4J
10 -H
•H rH
Q 4J
Ul
-a j<
c u
4J
O tfl
o
•» rH
1 rH
O <0
fli 4-1
fN
in
o
O
O
O
O
rH
tn
(N
10
rH
d
0)
rH
8
o
o
o
Cft
ft
fN
vO
in
VO
*.
>-H
"8
esign
•o
<
i
•H
•H
X
41
C-400 typ
ations
0. 0
o
0
1
u
0,
ID
O
O
O
O
o
vO
•^
rH
v>
rH
o
(T
o
0
r^
rH
t/1
m
rH
1 *O
•H W
•5 c
Q O^
8 '3
Wl «
«!»
C «J
O Ul
•rl C M
4J 0 5
33 a
385
0 -H O
O *4 »
1
-H
*O tn
QUA)
h -Q
« O
oobustion
ications
00 type s
o <« f
i
•g i «
!! T) 1
ffl S 2
u
C Ul M
O C
H O 01
4-> -H Q,
3 * 4J
B •" 0
8 ij §
r~
O
o
o
0
o
^
*-H
'*• °
C « 4J
O in 4J «
•H c in V
*J O O -H
m -H K ft
3 4J 4J -H
| 5 8 i!
O -H rH U
U >4H 0) &
1
•O w
Q I )M
^4 ^3
• "H 2
ombustion
ications
00 type s
O X-l 1
i
•H
•n ui
Q I U
S o 5
^ rQ
•H -O p
ID C C
10 O
C Ul
o tn
•H C 41
** ° &
3 4J 4J
A n)
600
0 -H O
U »J 1
CO
o
o
0
o
S "2
en -H
i1
V4
o
o
,
O *>
O 'H
r- o T3
s &• •
rH Q, 4-' 1^
in ig fim
I) 1 V B
i« O
|-H««
h >.-H -1
4J
r-l
O
r-4
•O
3
2
a
§
u
4J
£
i
•rH
•a ui
5 1 t4
• 65
M A
•H *a 3
« B V4
« 0
c »
O u>
•H C V
4J o a
•> -H >,
2 4J 4J
|Sg
O i
3 4J 4J
IS |M
8 o o
U
5 C
4J O
ss
ta U
41 3
4-1 d
rH 4J
id u
C
= O
C 0
O
•H T3
4-1 It
< n
il
c 2.
rH (N
5-100
-------
In summary, three incineration alternatives will be carried
forward for further analysis in the evaluation phase:
• Alternative 5 - Mandated construction: PC-400
improvements to Complex I, tall stacks, and
construction of Complex III as designed;
• Alternative 7 - Combustion air modifications to
all three complexes: PC-400 type scrubbers on
Complexes I and II, and Complex III scrubbers as
designed? and
• Alternative 9 - Combustion air modifications to
Complexes I and II: PC-400 type scrubbers on Complexes
I and II, and no construction of Complex III.
Additional capacity will be provided by a composting
site followed by land application.
• Fluidized Bed Incineration
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) in reviewing the merits of
fluidized bed incineration, listed the following advantages
and disadvantages:
Advantages
• No moving parts;
• Requires little floor space;
• Small refractory surface aids start-up; and
• Burns sludge in a single chamber for better control.
Disadvantages
• No large-scale installations in operation with
sludge; and
• Need to maintain a uniform gas stream from the sand
bed complicates design of large units.
Although the potential advantages were recognized,
the facilities planning consultant CGiffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book XII) concluded that there was still development
work to be done before large scale units burning sewage
sludge could be properly designed.
• Pyrolysis
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) reviewed the state-of-the-art of
pyrolysis of sewage sludge and determined the following:
"Although more research must be done regarding pyrolysis
of sewage sludge before it can be considered a proven technology,
some general observations can be made. Possible advantages to
5-101
-------
using pyrolysis or starved-air incineration include:
• A savings in auxiliary fuel costs stemming from the
fact that the products of pyrolysis (gas, oil, and
carbon char) can be used to supplement the auxiliary
fuel requirements;
• The carbon char, if properly activated, may be used
in the wastewater treatment operations;
• The fuel products can be stored allowing flexibility
in their use;
• The ash residue is a satisfactory fill material that
represents a significant reduction in sludge
volume; and
• A savings in capital and operating costs of air pollution
control due to cleaner exhaust gases and a reduction
in exhaust air volume.
"Possible disadvantages to this method of sludge disposal
(sic) include:
• To be economically competitive with normal incineration,
the solids content of the sludge feed must be at least
40% which requires additional processing before the
sludge is pyrolyzed; and
• If the pyrolysis gases are stored/ they must be cleaned
first and in cleaning gases, oil, and tar vapors
along with water, vapor will condense. This may
result in water pollution if the condensable oils
and tars are water soluble.
"While research to date has shown pyrolysis and starved-air
incineration to be a possible means of sewage sludge disposal,
it will not necessarily be feasible in all instances and
must, therefore, be studied on a case by case basis. The
feasibility of using pyrolysis in a sludge disposal application
will depend upon the quality of the sludge feed, the value
of the carbon char byproduct as either a useable item in
the plant operations or as a marketable item, the amount
of savings in fuel costs realized by the plant, and the
results of an economic analysis of the total plant operations.
"The feasibility of using pyrolysis at the DWWTP for
sewage sludge disposal can only be determined after pilot
plant studies have been conducted and detailed energy usage
and economic analyses have been completed on the facilities.
While pyrolysis may prove to cause a reduction in auxiliary
fuel usage and air pollution control requirements, the
relative monetary savings may be insignificant. This will
depend on the extent of the reduction and the cost and
availability of fuel in the Detroit area at both the present
time and in the future...
5-102
-------
"While pyrolysis may prove to be an effective, economically
feasible method of sewage sludge disposal at the DWWTP,
it cannot be recommended for use at this time. The main
reason for this is the fact that at the present time, pyrolysis
of sewage sludge can only be considered an experimental
process needing much more research to determine when its
use will be most advantageous." (Giffels/Black and Veatch,
1977, Book XII).
Although full-scale conversion to pyrolysis is not
considered feasible, due to the many technical uncertainties,
the potential advantages are sufficiently great to evaluate
installation of a pilot unit, A pyrolysis alternative
using the Redker-Young process is described and analyzed
in the evaluation section. This alternative assumes that
a 100 tpd (91,000 kg/d) pilot pyrolysis unit would be constructed,
and that, if successful, additional larger units would
be installed.
5.5.1.7 Processing and Disposal of Other Residuals
The facilities planning consultant (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1977, Book XII) reviewed the operational history
of the existing water grate scum and grease incinerator, and
concluded that most of the problems experienced by this
unit were due to relatively minor deficiencies rather than
inherent design weaknesses. It was recommended that the
incinerator be rehabilitated and tested further before
deciding whether it should be replaced.
5.5.2 Final Sludge Disposal Alternatives
A key consideration to the sludge disposal planning
process is the characteristics and quantities of sludge
to be produced. Table 5.5-C lists the products and in
their anticipated quantities from the previously discussed
sludge processing alternatives.
Final sludge disposal techniques are generally dictated
by the composition of the waste material. Table 5.5-D lists
the disposal techniques which will be evaluated in this
section, and illustrates the necessary sludge characteristics
for optimal operation.
5.5.2.1 Land Application
Land application of sludge, if properly managed, can
provide significant benefits to land resources and provide
a cost-effective disposal system, without resulting in
environmental damages or health hazards. The effectiveness
of a land application system depends on the quality of
5-103
-------
Table 5.5-C
Expected Daily Sludge Production
Sludge Characteristics
Daily Sludge Production,
tons/day (kg/day), dry weight
Year 1980 Year 2000
Liquid, Raw
Liquid, Digested
Liquid, Lime Stabilized
Dewatered, Raw
Dewatered, Digested
Dewatered, Lime Stabilized
Dried
Ash
Char
Compost
847
616
1,060
847
616
1,060
847
431
431
1,388
1,064
772
1,330
1,064
772
1,330
1,064
585
585
1,744
5-104
-------
Q
I
in
•H
C
-------
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.
-------
a) l
o 1-1
0 I
ormance/
oblens
U.I U
^4 CU
CJ
n,
>.
j->
-H
o
ra
a
rd
CJ
?"
5 <"
-rl c
•P R
u 5
-* '3
t* ~-*
«s
CJ
tn
0
a
n
3
n.
U)
w
OJ
(_J
o
^
u
•^
r.
:3
(U
3
o to in TJ I
l/> (N n f: CJ O
nJ >i o CJ • t- ~ >H
ai e r: r-i j-> H >r o Oi Dt
U O H
rH 10 • rH p, C O U
CN Id td rH flj H CJ-PC
43 .p ra ,» 10 >* -u o
"^ £ *--i i o 11
-P rH -H CJ O > -H 1H t/1
rd id (O -P M M GJ rC O CJ
£ > .C O >-l
-H o 4J M d O -* -o Oj-j
-p e e oj 3 v< 30 -o
tfJCJOQjU'HO rHOOGJ
W ^1 Ei O W O ? W ^ 4-J O
o -d
o o
°^
o e
Ol CJ
*3* V4
•• >1
C id
cnt)
-H ^\
10 CO
OJ 43
Q 3
CJ CO
• > e
[0 10 (0 Vj
x n .c f f
CO C
ItJ rrj 4J (0 M fCt
.p c o .v; o
0) CJ C 4J CO
VJ r-l 10 O Dl
-rl W d 3 C
OJ (d rH -H O rH O
p; js >
4J > -H
06 on
e o e m
CJ U CJ rH
(4 U4 « O
i)
c «
o en
u c
— -^ c
G o
a fc -H
r -H jj
ni X C)
IJ rH
a t) C rH
o r: o o
M rj -^ O
H 4J
CJ U OJ
> W OJ tn
IV rt rH -0
1C CJ rH 3
e M o r-«
3 O O V)
JH
n<
0 1 £ rH
>H 3 c: en rH
•P *J -H -H id
C 0 C. C > 43
o id -*-i a>
OJ 10 rH O X rH "*4
.P E; -.-1 0
•dfl) tJ r; c
>H « — 1 -*H • CJ W
OJ 43 3 w tl Cn 4J
•o o er1 o) o >i n
on -H .p o X id
>: ft >3 id er> o Ot
IT
^"•d
rrt ^^ ^
^J , — , o
Cn "O c -H
E Cn cj 10
E en c
0 ^ >< "J
O O x CU
VD in 0 >?
rH ^ a
" " *O Tl
c d en en
Cn Cr* p c:
-rH -rt ^ ^
w w o o
OJ OJ 0 0
Q Q n y)
13
01 » I O C 1
OJ 14 QJ -H S CJ C
di -H tn -P t-i en o
w w < -o o >• o
cu 3 fd • x
OJ g rH CJ O lH
rH 3 — to C Cn CJ
43 D< w cj -0 rH -a
Cn3»rHC3O
rjX C04JXCOQ -H
id rt rj o -r< co 4J
>0 43> -ajJCU
O or< O CJ -4 -H 3
3 *• 5 O 3 *d 13 *d ^-*
t-icM HrdD«>«d43lo
Vt Of
O -r| «)
1-1 1 C 4J
•P Id LO
o >* *d (o cn ra
••H tn OJ E V< S
e »v jr >-i wo
id OJ Cn -P -H C
Cn C 3 C 0) -H
n • oj o >, id 4->
O rH >-l Vj Cn /d rH
ti oj 45 id Vi rH id
CJ-rl *U4JtJ O-H-H*
>u -H c" OGHH
O 1) Z-* 3 O 4-* V/ *H (LJ 01
e*j o o o c: u LI 4^ -P
OitJ V4.HQJO -HWdlXJ
p:e p*tMwe Kcie3:
4J
f.
o
t.
4-
fj a»
CJ J-*
>4 rj
t-* --H
•a c:
>i o tr» O
v* t; c: -H
*~J "rt *-1
r- 1 J-1 t
C 4J [4 W
o c -3 0
O M O« r<
-------
\
o
o w
n E;
nj GJ
ti *~~i
^ JJ
t8 °
H P.
QJ
ij1
-H
U
a
r^
u
Existing
Equipment
tu
o
D,
3
P,
tn
CJ
O
o
Mj
iJ
~r-1
C
:D
•<
'«i
14
£
tn
•r4.
QJ
•O
yi
0
rt
S
•O
tn
O
tn
c
tn
•H
W
O
Q
..
tn
14
CJ
-H
114
•r4
V4
rt
.-4.
U
-H
13
O
o
-H
4-1
U
rt
CJ
4J
rt
>i
«
0,
c
to
4J
c
o
o
o
1J -H
6 rt
C o
4-» -H
rt 14
O -H
14 U
H rt
> u
M
•O rt
c c
O -H
U (!«
a
to
r:
QJ
"tj
-rt
J-
4J
4J
o
c
rt
O
tn
4J
C
V4
CJ
-H
14
U
rt
O
n
QJ
a,
operating
Cn.
1
4J
to
rt
5
E
0
o> m it o i:
tt t: r: -'i 4J 4>
J-4 -'4. rt -.I
>, 3 in 4J o cj
r-4 4J rt r. o
V4 QJ .£-1 -H tn r:
QJ V4 rt * -r4
04 C K CM
O W O rH
4J rt X E
tn QJ »— ( o
TJ QJ rt .0 GJ o
•H O O C O -
w >4-i 4-> a En
1
-H
)•<
tn -4. «4
BOO
0 OJ 4J
O C 3 O
<-J O O O
^1 JC >4 >
4J QJ V4
14 -H -H OJ
O S •« 10
C
0
•H O
4-> O
o to
3
V4 .H
4J
tn II
c 13
O QJ QJ
O -H 4J
3 rt
CJ O
13 -C 3:
c o OCM
P U) ^1 4J
t4-l *M
II V4 \
QJ -O
CM -y]tn > 04
rH |fs o Cn
•
C
^K;
O
-r4
x:
•0
id
CJ
rt
>
ri r:
rj u*
4' 1 CJ -<
irt 4' i: .ty)
L', (ttu O .O Q>
in to QJ ,Q o rt *u
-r4 3 •
cjS^4Jrttn 4J4J
CJ 4J 14 O -H O rt
In 14 C C tn C
>, 1-1 0 c 0 rj E
X O rt XI CJ V<
O - O 13 *-4 O >i
QJ E CJ JJ rt H4 4J
VitncitncXc: V4-H
O3^H4J-HO tnGJO
rtJ3-^4rt4J O4O4rt
V4UO£4-Jtn C 04
-H CJ V4 -r4 4J -H 3 O It)
rtCQO^r-tidtn P44JO
•O
tn
E
•a
E o)
1
tn o\
CN ^
.. ..
C .-«
Cn rt
•^ 3
to 4J
0 0
O <
to
e.
rt t)
C
«w rt
o - o.
S >4 3:
rt o
V4 -^ in
'O «4-l CN
•-4 r\
~- >4
•a- rt ^~
— ^4 ^H
O —
M
3 V4 CI
o o t:
tu O, O
E
o •
V4 U)
o
CJ -rl
Cn 14
T3 --<
3 V4
^ rt
to rH
u
u
o rt
E C
0 -H
P* 14
O
Cn
•a
3
CO
tn
C C
3 a
•" 6
•d
tn
E
r^.
«
C
tn
•H
to
O
Q
•a
tn
K
>n
to
°4
a,
X
-H
10
E
O
M
14 CJ
tn
tn 13
tn 3
rt *-*
f. to
-St,
Q QJ
one
> > 0
0 "< 4J
K 4J in
CJ O >,
D« n) to
tn
c
-H
to
rt
s
CJ
•a
3
to
1
li
to u
fl C 4J
V4 V4 C
It) 3 M
4>
D' CJ QJ tl)
c »4 x: 3
-H 4J C
E; 14 CJ
fc CJ O >
-H -*4 4-* rC
n -H to c
V4 tn O
" rt C tn .
fN »H -H V4 Vt
— U E CJ O
E "4-4 4J
O Vl -H 14 O4
J£ C» AC QJ QJ
H 04 in hi o
to .
ci ,
> 4J
td -H
.c o
rt
>, 04
rt rt
s: o
^
rt
X.
c
o
4->
CO
^
4J
C
rt
04
r.
rj
tn
X
O
u
CI
tn
o
^i
O
o
c
c. o
CJ -H
d- 4J
>i rt
X W
O CI
rt
CJ
•a c •
~r\ Ct 10
> tn X
0 >, C
M X rj
O- O 4->
O
i)
rt
o
r:
Cn
y
0
I
H
U 1
r
CJ -t- ^-J
N 0
H C C
W C 3
T 0
>. ' j "O
^-i •- 1>
(TJ 'O -*
C D- -P
HEP
•H O ^
k, 0 J=
O ^ P
Jj
O
c
*4-l
o
o v<
o o
in o
O r-4
i
c;
o
o
PJ 10
"*" 0
o :*
0 0
O r-4
- .Q
r-
^H
^ rj
•-^ U
O -H
£ 4.
j^
_.
»
O w
Vi r3
-H -P
rd
c
CJ O
-a •*-*
> 0
o v*
m cj
CU rj
V*
^
Q
rj
T*
a
,~i
^j
ff
^-
c.
c
•^
0
-------
a
x:
C
D
o
u in
18 CJ
E rH
o o
*+-< V4
M P*
O)
o*
>J
-H
O
jj
C C
'*4 01
•p e
in n
W o1
M
01
o
c.
n
3
P.
M
W
01
O
o
1-1
flt
4J
-H
•J-l 1
O -H -,< 3
"n o
-P >
^ n3 Oi
nJ J3 w
0) >H 0)
•P -0
WO 3 D>
Co c E
O O -H
*i E o
0 0
00 1^ rH
OI tH r-t rH
b)
rt
O •- w
MM 1
.« ^) o o)
e o -P o •
nJ -P n) u
f a c o o>
•d o ii -H
^: 3 4J
r-l fl) O 13 -H
•rl CO
Itf r-J ^ O >J
tS rH rl Oil
T)
U) CD fl)
C O 4-) Vl "
cu • u-i jj rj o 1 w
tJ> 01 nJ W «H 0 C
o c; 13 t) o
X ~-l rl w 13 fl) en
-P M mitto EOo
It! O tn rH -H JJ X
O, rH O) rH 4J 4J
.C 4-1 0 O 01 18
>,' O rtCH OCQj
O H -H 4J -O -H
»H 0) OX4C -Hl-l>i
4J H dOO >OO
O) JJ > X -J JZ -P
Q to uuid at, u n
& %
o o i-
4J O Q
C « rM 0
•-H W O .,,
4J C C .-
u TJ "d -^
11 0 0 o
to u O fi
-H
O
o
rH
O
Vj •
4J O
C 4J
o us
u n
r^ *d
O 0)
o i "d C
O O O rH rg iJ
w pi. r^ ft o *a
X <])«>,
nf o O O to c/i >tl
kr^ ^*H ^ **-( *^4 CM HH E
o r; -H
•11 M M cfl P J-4 M
01 "• O O< O< tx* Cl4 0) Oi
C CMrH f; tj C E
-H rH -H • 33" -H C >, 0)
O 01 O ~4 tj o O
Ttvir-tE «nvD£ EEP.1"
JC
w *d -Po AJ o
nc m jJ -HO
•d W Id Itf J ? rH
c: o « vj o *w
rf X M U rH U) rH
Q)i/l E3 OO idiflO
4-1 O £ O* -r< rH 0
*fl X- •"< -rl E r-A -(H tj C
JJ Ot O^i' OO ECO
M 04— .CW Urd-^4
O|O O j:*>
-HIT-* o.^^ c oort
O-tJ 14XO »do 4J G
24J o o o cj o X in C
Gl^-HtM CJ -rl rd O
fw ffi W ft — ' fo «J 37 5" **-*
i
r»
^J fl* u
*J t." O
> rt o
S H tJ rH
go 0> tu
m •*-* O
K. "> to -d
" "rJ "^
rj ITJ rf
ij 0 0 U> C
° "e r ^ °
r- fc *: -^f -H
•Q, W 0 X *J
g 5 62^
o.
11-35
-------
**s.
o
O f>
C E
r3 O
6 •— *
H .Q
o o
*i-l V4
JK| |X
o
fX,
JJ
•rf
o
nJ
OH
n
O
tn 4J*
C C
•<-« (U
-u E
to CX(
-M -H
X 3
W tr1
CO
,
JJ
-H
n)
Vl
C7>
U)
O
Cx
•d
3
rH
(0
o
JJ
Vl
JJ
d
CJ
U
c
o
U
JJ
c
6 tr.
rcl -H
CJ C
Vl CJ
6
CJ -rl
CT C.
'O H
^
to
•
^
rH
w
CJ
0,
o
V4
•d
O)
nj
VI
CJ
0<
o
IM
-rl
CJ*
JJ
n
3
u*
t)
CJ
•a
^3
o
^fj
CO
if^
0
id
o>
6
O
o
o
VD
r-l
1
O
3
to vi
^ -jj
C to
(d d
H 0
o
c n
-•H W
c "d
O) 3
rH C
/3 n o
-H
(N -t- JJ
*O 'CJ
t: o
n)
nj jj
F. U •
••H Itf tf>
Vl CJ
jj *d
X to 3
"H Id .H
K ^ w
c
-.H
•O
C
OJ
^H
cq
,
u
•«
b-
u
•o
id
CJ
^H
rH
-r-l
^
.
m
01
o
o
o
^
o
o
o
ro
^
rH
to
d
n)
jj
ID
C
U) O
C -H
O JJ
-H O
JJ 3
-H O
M VI
m
Vl
O
jj
to
•d
o
QJ
(u
VI
O
f£
>,
rH
O
P.
tn
d
-H
Vi
CJ
jj
id
CJ
•d
o
>
o
Q*
E
M
tP
c:
c
o
] %
•H
•o
d
O
o
o
tn
•d
3
rH
IT)
>M
O
-H
JJ
CU
O
0.
1
n
0 f-
*W CP
V) -rl
d £.
JJ
•d 3
O A
o
CT -
>i O
(!) id
> E
P.
f\J
r-
I
CO
li
C
-rl
to
* -H (X
JJ
••H 10 O
rH -rl JJ
3 CJ tt)
Or* 3
O
(!) n d
E co ca .
•H JJ JJ rH
JJ rH M O
-rl -rH Vl
S d d
O >" O O
•a o o o
a.
JJ
CO
o
rH
.11
d
o>
to
0.'
•d
3
0
J».
VD
rH
VH
H
X U)
CJ VI
rH 0
(j, JJ
6 rH
O -H
O , -d
U> CO
JJ
rH 10
o ra
n >
d q
o -H
0
0 JJ
JJ rH
<9 3
3 W
W 0)
O V)
•O
m E
d co
H JJ
o o
n) n)
O CO
.d J^
o. a,
jjj _IJ
CN CO
rH ^i
** 4>
M M
M
(
01
c
•rl
U
K
-rJ
to
M
X -
OJ to
rH Vl
Dt O
B 4J
O n)
CJ Vl
1
c
o
U
VI .
o o
JJ CJ"»
rt tl
CO 1/1
jj
n) CO
W JJ
,;
o
-H
JJ
3
rH
rH
O
ft
Vl
a
o
o
- o
CJ 3
3 0
(H
fH
X -
a) co
rH VI
D. o
o n>
CJ H
11-36
-------
Q
O
U -H
O I
.
C)
O >n
t: b
id o
E ^
Vl XI
0 0
M-l i)
Vl Pv
Q)
D.
AJ
0
id
a,
id
U
tn +1
C C
-^ Q)
-U E
in a.
•H -H
X 3
W &
W
0)
10
O
a
VI
3
P<
in
GJ
O
O
IX
_^J
c
VI
o
VI 01
r-l -r>
id -H
p w
•a
3 E
in o
0) Vl
U> r-l
vi cd
a- >
Pi O
u e
vi 5
0, U
r-1
10
o
cx
to
Q
1
-3
*t3
-^
OJ
a:
q
in"
-*->
fd
a
jj
c -
(V CJ
ci XJ
o itf
Id r-|
rH -H
& 2
(*4 id
04
in
CM
„
C
(Jl
-H
(n
o
•o
__,
3
rH
«. -r-l
tt) U-l
tn -d
>o c
Vj nJ
O rH
Vl
Vi nJ
C -H
•H G
fg ry
-P tA
C
O O
O 4J
id
O
p.
•a
in
G
g
O)
Q)
O
i
XI
o
a.
tf
c
jj
d
a)
Wi
O
>t w
c e
id cu
S ^
X
CM
in
M
c
en
•H
in
(U
•O
0)
jj
nJ
c)
C
-H
O
C
c o
XI 13
3
0) -H
tn W
vi x:
O -P
iJ -H
w S
/d
in
o
O.
in
.^i
t)
-^
VI
o
ir)
d
rH
XI
O
Vl
D,
VI
o
c
s
K
0.
in
CO
C
in
Q)
•d
1
•a
c
id C
JC M
X 0)
in Cn
Vi
0 O
-p w w
id M
E » (U
3 Cn CU
QJ C d
C -H O
P4 rH X>
,_,
cd
10
a
tn
•r-l
•a
JZ
in
•^
1
f>
O
Vl
CM
cn
C
^j
li
G)
11.
O
f.
id
S
O
in
id
01
Vi
.c •
•P Vl
Vl 0
rd -P
o ca
01
0) -H
•U 0
n) c
'f -H
1
E
ji "id
CT W
O
•a c.
c w
t)
n in
id tn
VI —1
U E
in
E
o
rH
11-37
-------
APPENDIX 11.5
Suburban Wastewater Districts
Serving Individual Communities
11-38
-------
1/1
o
-H
*•»
•r-t
e
1
o
u
r-l
rt
•3
•O
~
|\
"c
w
bo
£4
O
y
in
^j
(J
IA
b
^
C"
«J
C3
3
Cl
tf»
rl
•r*
e
rt
t.
3
J-J
in
•?
0
Cj
o
O
Vj
o
Vl 0,
O 1J
-i-i O fll
flj V< W
2£ 0- ID
Jr)
C
rl
0>
•M C W
0 -rl XI
Vl C
• 01—4
O *> O
2 41 O.
£
01
1 2 3
•rl 3 O
X O rH
10 -H fc.
rf
O
XI
id
r-4
r)
0,
o
D.
Ul
01
tl
u
*^
.5
rt
o
r-l
«0
o
**
x»
VI
Hi
t/>
•o
c
•*4
"9
.s
8
,r-|
a
Q
£4
01
XI
«j
Vi
n.
10
•o
01
c
JQ
o
o
. w
C
•O 1,
t-i 6
(i
1
Vl
01
c
M
m
01
X O
o o>
SS 0
(*V
*M
o
0 -=
I s'
n
«4 0
O -1
O,
"f O
• o
0 0.
0
m
CM
»
v
o
o
09
f)
1
1
,_,
CO
X
o
O <7l
vD eo
1
.
_s^
M
«
n.
c
01
o
1 >
u
-
•55
*j
4U
C
c
o
o
01
0
£
y">
CA
K)
•-H
O
&
m
At
5
a
E
01
M Vl
>. 0
n >
01
01 41
Vl -H
O 0
Vl
Vl t*
0) 01
c o
0 0
0 .U
r-l
r~^
c
01
Cl
t* 1
o
tl
"u
Vl
0
0,
0)
u
01
4J
c
JJ
c
—1 01
O — i o
O.TJ D>
. XI P
8SS
vi oi c
01 4J «« .
> £ H
O O O
*» -0 >
*M C C -H
CM "H pfl K
1
Vl
0
C
H
m
01
X 0
ji 1 1
rl 0,
O 01
z u
CM
^
M
"B
n
u
o
o
rH
O
O
O
O
r-4
O
o
o
o
0
o
H
to
o
r-l
CO
X
o
VD O
^D ^
• KJ
in vo
r-l^-'
"e?
X
o
o> o
o m
*• CO
CM >—
cd
o
en o
in o
» in
to in
r-< V— '
r:
|
rl
01
O
,1
0
e>
•
O 01
01 q
Qi S
^ d
CM r>
t
VI
OI
c
xi
n
u
S u
X O
•M xl
Vl 0,
o o>
z u
t-4
^_^
VI
K)
*
O
«
«M
U
m
vo
o
o
O
^_l
o
o
o
o
o
in
^^
a
0
CO 0
o <»
r-l V-,
V
X
o
o eo
^ **^
"tt
X
o
** CN1
VO ^-
*
C
o
o*
c
-H
E
vo ro
eo «~'
cd
X
0
0 p-
rH r-l
cd
X
o
O r-l
CM •— •
01
c
-rl
O
A.
01
n
m
O
Vl
u
%4
O
tl
0
•O -H ri
j 01 •
U -) X C x>
01 0> K O C U)
C Vl (u 10
e s xi x o>
o m •* a o .*
O 0 0 -H *
r-l V, > C iJ
« U XI 01
•n c oi vi Q. o
> U O O 0 xl,
01
u
n
o
r-l
u
c
w
01
01
Vl
X
o
b.
o>
c
yr
g
r-f
%4
r<
r^
rt
O
O
VO
CM
rH
1
VO
CO
CM
•i
(M
••H
r— »
c«
X
0 0
to 10
O CO
CM *~-*
1
1
V
X
Kl '
rH O
r-. o\
- vo
o>
c
o
c.
O)
n
I
u
O n
^* VI
X* K)
O '"
T T /I /\
-------
C
•H
4J
C
O
u
I Overflows
i
i
Vl
o
jj
vi a
O 01 -d
f-» O V
a vi tn
X 01 3
c
M
tn
tt4 C «
O -4 "
H C
. m — i
o *> o
zoo.
JE
01
Ifl,
-ISO
X O -H
Id r-( t.
Z -H
<
C
o
u
a
a,
o
P.
0)
Of
^
C
id
K
'id
0
H
01
4>
n)
Vl
id
a.
10
•a
0*
c
-§
O
0
»-l
4)
4J
o
01
.^
id
cu
01
in
•o
a)
^
.O-
6
O
(J
^ n
id c
•d f,
C. l'
M 0
o
0>
e x
ai «
0, J
O
01 r-l
Vl 01
o e
Cv U
O
•^ o
ci *J
D-
*-* ft>
•rf l>
0 V.
•M 4-*
ft> C
a >-•
01
in
E
CM
01
IM
U
CO
o
o
0
to
""*
1
o
o
o
\a
•-i
O d
O .C
*• o
£-
1
V
o ^
*jp *-*
^ "*
•^ v^
at
C
0
a.
01
10
o
Vl
UJ
o
X.
>» n
<-> id
*H P4
C k
1st. Clair, how-
;ever, no known
[Overflow points
iin the internal
sewer system.
VI
01
r* Vl
-rl O
Oi W
0,
^J flj
M U
O VI
Vl Q>
** *>
oi c
a M
ai
c
o
*
o
IM
^J
id
o
o
to
to
OI
1
0
K>
>o
ot
o cd
T JZ
n
- o
r-l ^9-
in
1
°5
fl
^ o
»-< "J^
\^
X
u
K
id
.u
£
X
IM
O
^1
•H
Cl
1
Three connections
located on & Mile
Road.
Vl
o>
> VI
-H O
3 4J
a
1J 0>
-< o
O VI
Vi a>
AJ 4J
01 c
O M
0)
C
o
E
8
n
id
OI
>,
i
O
V
o
0
0
fSJ
K>
I
O
o
o
OI
M
o
en
.,
tH
1
O
01
o>
••
•d
c
jd
K
cr>
X
IM
O
H
^> Vl
f id
•-< P.
ri
o c «• ft \o
Vi «3 X ~> — 1
0 Vl iJ 0.
Sow o
«> > •> c ci j;
S ^j c. a " .
^ 41 ? "-• JC c
«J CT» --4 5 C D ^
*-i D ^-* O * O X
W Q -4 ~1 0 W
3 K U IM £ 01
O 3 Vl 5 A> o
O 01 O Vi
C .C —1 t> O
1
Vi
CJ
XJ
c
l-l
13
n
o>
3 Vl
ss
vi a.
o 01
z u
01
c
o
z
.-. 4J
1 in c
01 l4/!> "*
^01*^ •"*
J3 ™ E o.
o e -i E
° o M ° ° "
•H c ^j o *w MM
**: •* •» *"* «• f?J^
n ti • IM ^-^L
*< • > M o ,, ^
>n O l< acn ^ o
O Oi 25 O O *^ *"" '
o
o
rO
•"*
O
o
I/)
M
r^
1
?
0 JC
•O
!»• O
•O
r-l O>
"a
0 X
to
l~ O
• o
""* t<
o
r-t
•O
c
>
^1
X
+4
o
^1
X>
-r4
ri
11-41
-------
APPENDIX 11.6
Suburban Wastewater Districts
Serving Multiple Communities
11-42
-------
to
w
H
£•*
M
I
8
M
p.
E-
t
5
8
»-
£
b
Ul
CO
c
0
H
U
c
05
1
3
u
5
SUBURB
| Overflows
w
o
4J
U Q.
O 0> T3
•«-> O «
id vi n
a: «> a
c:
M
o>
O "4 41
Vi C
O 4J O
Z U 0.
£
a
§ .a
& n *
•H S O
X 0 -4
id •-• tn
X »-4
«J
O
**
C «
0 4>
2 2
3 s,
3 01
Q. M
O
p, • ' •
7
c
E
8
r,
2
Vl *
0 *J
< 2
r- «S
.b o,
H CO
t- -
co n
(^ ^-^
. — .
id
O
ro o
. \o
« 1
id 41
» o
0 .1
U) Vl
Of -A 41
•H Q C
id .-< o
> id O
M
,
§•-4 "1
Q 3:
c:
w
4> VI
^4
r> S J
« a) in
X c w
3 ° •*
i ^3 iJ
Vl
0)
> Vi
p2 4>
cu
JJ 01
-rl O
O Vl
«j c
^
m
«4
o
r~
o
10
in
"
o
>o
n
>
T •-<
"a
o
co o
en o
<-t CO
^^
^,
•3
A
O O
^ r-4
C^ f-4
>. r-4
>,
C
•3
Q
o u
4) -~l
c: M
>t 41
nj in
41
W >t
id vi
U
--4 O
a. 2
cu
4> O
-1 O
O VI
VI ID
U 4>
O C
J3.t-<
r-t
w
«*)
XT
^—
n
o
CM
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
n
8
co
.-4
VD
I
So
cn <0
^ CO
"id
0 f.
•at o
0? O
r-i in
^^^
id
J5
O
o n
CM CO
in r-i
Vl
4>
Tl
f.
: o
•>4,
x: n
u u
3 vi
O -H
in O
11-44
*»
4»
C
U 04
a
o e *»
o •»<
OK -r4 O
.m U Vi
o 41 e
O «H O V O
0. 5 Q M
•* o E «
. 0 0 0 >,
O Q. O 41 01
O
0
s
m
a\
01
o
o
f>
r-
M
o
«
^^
5
o o
o» in
CA co
f-i •»
"id
O
O 0
O f-
- CO
U
VI
4*
M
n
tr
o
c
it
Ul
o
u
•E
:n-line storage
(100 acre-ft}
190 acse-ft re-
tention basin.
Excess overflows
are skimmed and
-
•»4
S
9
^^
3u
c u
> a
0 O
I/I I/I
•
X.
rt
B
CO
n
10 rH
CO 0
^* (V
o m
id
o x
co o
^* o^
« \D
^4 CO
U
4»
•0 O
C
-"? i7
•
04: c
«l id
M O Q
O -4 C
4» W 3
C CK
O S T3
-4 x: «
«M 0 OC
-------
01
O
•O 3 ,
O
.
s* *
3 «M
SU
»
C*
.C .-< .H It C
*> U »-4 -4
« U >4 4
o _< a « w
t« > vj >M a
CO
w
H
E-i
M
•ST*
0
u
en
a
^
M
EH
.3
t—K
D
S
O
2
M
K T3
W 0)
CO 3
C
CO •!-(
Cj Jj
r* ••— '
CJ C
H 0
K u
E-i =
to
H
Q
t£
W
EH
..f
f-*4
EH
co
-*«
1
2
»<
§
D
D
CO
V. 04
O
ii
id
u
a •
Qj
a
in
•a
CJ'
c
1
S
^
id
4->
g
(U
JJ
•tf
1_-
H
, u
M O
tj -rl
*^ Vl
M «J
C U1
H3 •-<
u) a
j 3
I O 14
1 K> O
X U
1 CU
•o w
C U
o u
^1 01
J« «J
id c
O •-•
i
i
i
o
o
•W CM
to en
i-i — •
id
0 O
in <*>
m o
f 00
^T *H
4J
U
•a -^
c w
« 4-1
•H Vt
X -H
« 0
0
1 >•
c w
O nl
Jj 1J
C M
as
O
en
o
o
o
o
in
m
o
O
in •»
CM f
- f*»
vo «—
co
I
O M
O> CO
^t •
N CD
VO r-l
.
o
o co
co 01
in —
C l>
•^ -r)
E H
M U
«J 01
CM -4
I 0
41 >,
0) U
M »
O C.
> 1
t\ CO
T\ -
-------
APPENDIX 11.7
Suburban Wastewater Treatment Facilities
11-46
-------
3
XI
3
Ul
Remarks
3
(U
M
JJ
yj
CP
c
r^
r-l
QJ
jJ V^
u
(0 uj
cu o
fd
U D
Ov
H
*W (fl
O ,
^V|
*AJ 4-1
O -H
C
g §
£: E
iB E
Z 0
U
01
•o
id
tj>
a.
3
•a
c
id
•a
c
id
x
c
0
O tJ
u o
01 >, •
x: w u
AJ IB 01
AJ >
U C
01 0)
•O AJ E
(Ji rH iJ
e H IB
y-i oi
in VA
r-< tj» AJ
• C
0 H >.
X IB
U -O
•H C
Ij O
• H 0
as
o
x o
c u •
3 T3
H 0 Q
PH
cox:
n) C 4J
f^" 2 o
01 m z
x: jj ^
frt fU
•" w c
0
x: xl A;
AJ H ai
3 Q;
o c M
Ul 0 CJ
IAJ
O
01
tr IB
IB T3
r-< Id
f-l C
> <
^
10
x: Q
U Ul
in 3
11 continue to di
s effluent into C
stem.
•H AJ >
3 -M Ul
^i
0
QJ
U
^
QJ
C
M
0)
M
O
X
01
QJ
^
*
c
o
o
T3
^ e
0 ^
'H ^
4J ***<
H H
(13 C£
-H
U tU
rH
-t-1 Q)
trt 03.
in
H
X
a
e
OJ
s
<4-4
O
^
AJ
H
(J
r-;
AJ
01
>*
AJ
C
01
B
(TJ
n
*-* C
O^ Q> CJ
c^e
-rl 4J
.rrently construct
mbined sewers and
on basin and trea
cility.
P O -H fO
U U -P "w
^
H
CC
c
o
JJ
c;
•H
O
Tf
f*T^
F
O i
0 Q)
** U)
"~* V) C
•- S 1
t3 ^ AJ
CP -^ id
E *A-I OJ
O C3^ AJ
fl -^ i>l
rH VA
u -a
•< c
U O
H 0
u
•B
OJ
C
^>
H
U u
111
x; -H
tl C
o o
T3 C
d H
u
W 01
c
3
O
»A4 in
O C
01
>- e
AJ ai
H ^H
U U
^
- TJ
01 CT*
•o e
ra
n to
o> r-
Q, •
3 -1
- O
•a AJ
i-H
•H *a
3 C
xi mr
01 of
M x
H C
•
JJ
U)
01
x
IB
,4
C
•H
^
IB
31
^
0 U
x: ^
o id
c ->
< U
rr^
\
m
e i
0 u
o m
CD
^ VJ
-~ oi
T3 AJ
CP -t
E -1
in
r^ t^
• c
O -^
.-H
0
t-4
•a
c
id
•o
id
0
01 01
"~* V<
2: o
IN y
IB
VA CL
zLu_
3
2 0)
*w O
o e
^ -iJ
U M
-H (tJ
u to
IX
\
T
s
_i^__
jJ
C
E
iJ
<3
OJ
U
^,
Vi
t3
C
O
O
1
0) **-»
TJ O
1
0) U
*i o
f S.
in rt
O
at
CT» C
m o
r-< -H
•r-t H
> o
0)
x
AJ
(0
,_(
^>
H
fO
r-H
U ^
. 2!
JJ H
in &
o AJ
X •-<
rtj fl
*J in
TD
m
ti 1
QJ
o en
CO
\£> \_j
— ai
13 -t-1
E -t
u~<
00
^H CP
• C
o -*
•H
0
-H
fc-t
Jr
<0
QJ
c
0)
H
K
—t
11 TJ
Ul ft)
O
d) Oi
•J-J QJ
C H
o s:
> X
vD
1
*J C 1 I
n QJ c i
o w c ±J
Vj X O O t/l
o <« u ••-*
AJ
jrovements comple
e
vj
0)
^»
^
OC
c
o
AJ
c
H
u
QJ
Til
^
^-<
y)
QJ
*j
>
AJ
U
O
H
Q)
C
o
J^J
c:
(Q
D-4
X
O
__ffl_
o
id
H
c
o
0.
IAA
O
».
jJ
H
U
^
O
AJ
in
c
nj
r-4
a
o
z;
y>
r-
&>
•-*
c
_jd
ti
c
H
JQ
E
O
U
X
AJ
r^
3
U)
c
»0
D«
C
w
at
in
TJ
QJ
c
H
0)
>
a
c
0
AJ
C
LL
e
AJ
Ul
t/)
Q
l/l
X
AJ
C
o
jn
T3
cn
E
m
m
(N
—
VJ T3
m
AJ
^ O
nj "^
s^*
u2
>1
-IJ
r-t
U
0)
4J
Uj
O
c-
o
•jj
u
o
11-48
-------
CO
GJ
4J
H
•H
O
MH
4-)
U
E :
-U TJ
nl
1-1
jj
i/i
c
*>
-.H
at
u
a;
c
•o o
(Q jl
t>i Q)
JJ VJ
U
a o
O (U
>i
H
IM t/i
O a.
•r-4
C -4-1
O H
-jj H
ffl U
u a]
O tu
O H
OJ §
e e
tJ E
z o
u
fl>
I i d- W
T) at c: -p (a
TJ o x: at CO)
_. 1H. y ^ 1H_1H_
jj
a)
10
0)
j:
jj
ii-j
o
X
U VI
C 0)
10 >
VI H
CQ a
„ 1
•a JJ
•a c
C^ H X
X nj
O u T3
L^l H c
• VJ O
OHO
•o
c
a
•a
o
cs
jj
id •
T" JJ
VI 0)
(1) O
Z b.
TJ
C
0
p
U
a:
o
S1
o
CO
1 VI TJ
J«i O • (1) 1
Q) O O< H C C ffl
IX d) d) JJ C
rHJJdlOtOgtUCS
•H XVlJ'EJ^dlO
id CjJd)co*06
>rj JJfOOEdJOl
10 t*H C 3 d) > JJ
>* O *H )W >, o ^l
Ul JJ JJ JJ Vj
10 -H E Jj --H C -H Q* Q)
XUVjg CDUEMW
id -H-^di
>, a. o -H xi ai -H -H
jJiUtJid X>i-HjJ
•rH OCXEWJJVlJJ-rH
d)rHT3JJXJJ'n H
d)rH^;ctn idoitjo
XjO<0'0>,jJXOCid
H IdO-Ht/lMJJOlO1*-!
VI
Q)
^J
Cli
c
o
Jj
c
o
•a
ro JJ
_ H C
O jj nj
• U rH
1X1 < a
o
^
10
•a
c
D
o
X)
d
o
JJ
fd Jj
0) H
X U
JJ
3 d)
o x
C/) 4J
Vt
QJ
U-l JJ
O ui
dl
JJ U
H Q
U c2
en
1 d)
U -r-(
d) JJ
T> -H
build and mo
isting facil
d) X
VI d)
rH 01
rH N
3 C
J«i
OJ
d)
TJ
0
jj
Ul
id
i
rrj Ul J
rrj~" VI C
C d) CD
JJ C
rH 'H U
CN »JJ d)
CN VJ
— 0- JJ
C
TJ H >,
01rH VJ
E i! id
CJ -O
^•0 -rH C
• VJ O
H 0
Vi
id
d)
C
•a
10
o
K
01
£ .
CN rH
r*1 CJ
3
C 0
O DJ
O
d)
e
o
ti
0
d)
Cn
id
3
>
O
e
C ID
0 V<
•H Cn Q
TJ Civ O
o,
X C C
0) O -H
•H O
Q> JJ J — !
3 (T)
coo
•H -H 4J
4J UH
C -H W
O TJ C
0 0 ro £
E rH CD
rH Cij -U
H C O >•
3 fQ 2 {/7
C
O
*J
c
a: j3 o;
^ C JJ
rr) -T3 Id
-T rH D
m 0, VJ
e oj
o f?1 d)
\D TJ Cr
CN 3 Id
^ '.n i/i
ro
rH T) TJ
--' d! Vj
JJ H
TJ 10 X
Cn > jj •
£ H jj
JJ TJ C
U3 O C OJ
" rt re E
«
d)
c:
c
id
Vj
O TJ
id
C O
3 c2
OJ
T) • -1
CD -H
o: s;
d -a-
O rH
c
d>
Vj
Vi
id
S
O
jj"
U
r-H
11-49
-------
APPENDIX 11.8
Consent Judgment
11-50
-------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Defendant and
Counter-Plaintiff
and Cross-Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF DETROIT, a ) ~- ^
municipal corporation, ) ."• —
THE DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE ) £__--.
DEPARTMENT, ) —j
Defendant and )
Cross-Defendants )
v. )
All Communities and Agencies Under )
Contract With The City of Detroit )
For Sewage Treatment Services. )
CONSENT JUDGMENT
The above captloned Complaint having been filed herein, and with plaintiff and
defendants by their respective attorneys having consented without trial or
adjudication of any Issue of fact or law herein to the entry of this Judgment,
and without this Judgment constituting any evidence or admission by any party
hereto with respect to any issue of fact or law herein; and,
The parties having acknowledged that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended In 1972 (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et. seq., prescribed a date of
July I, 1977, for the achievement of full secondary treatment; and,
The parties having acknowledged that jurisdiction Is vested in this Court pursuant
to the provisions of Section 309 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. Sec. I3l9(b) and 28 U.S.C,
Sec. 1345; and,
The parties, in order to avoid the expense, further delays and uncertainties of
protracted litigation, desire to establish a compliance schedule to achieve
secondary treatment In the shortest reasonable period of time after July 1,1977;
and,
11-52
-------
- 2 -
The parties having stipulated and agreed that the provisions of this Consent Judgment
shall apply to and be binding upon all parties herein, jointly and severally,
and to each of their agents and successors; and,
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter U.S. EPA) and
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter MONR), having shown
and expressed their desire to cooperate fully with the City of Detroit (hereinafter
Detroit) In carrying out the provisions of this judgment; hereby affirm and state
that they will, to the extent possible under law, so cooperate; and
The parties recognize that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES)
Permit No. Ml 0022802 expired on July I, 1977 and Michigan Water Resources Commission
Final Order No. 1780 are hereby superseded. The State agrees that before the
completion of the requirement or requirements of this Consent Judgment, a NPOES
permit shall be issued to Detroit for all flows from sewage treatment plants
operating in Detroit and,
The parties recognize that as a result of State, Federal, and International
Studies, the phosphorus limitation expressed In this Consent Judgment may not be
final and may be subject to revision by the parties and the Court following
completion of these studies.
The parties shall comply with all present and future applicable state and federal
laws, rules and regulations which Include, but are not limited to: Michigan
Act 245 of 1929 as amended being MCL 323.1; Michigan Act No. 98 of 1913 as amended
being MCL 325.201; Michigan Act No. 348 of 1965, as amended, being MCL 336.11;
the Revenue Bond Act of 1933 being MCL 141.101; Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended being 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1250; Federal Air Pollution Control Act, as amended,
being 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1857; and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation.
The parties, recognizing the goals of the National Policy on Energy as stated
by the President of the United States, agree that in execution and enforcement
of this Judgment, such goals shall be considered, and that compliance with the terms
of this Judgment shall be achieved in such manner as to promote maximum energy
conservation; and,
11-53
-------
- 3 -
The parties recognize the need to provide sufficient Immediate revenues ana a
continuing revenue system to properly manage, operate, maintain, control,
supervise, test, staff, train, design, construct, finance, renovate, replace,
repair, equip, control industrial wastes In ah efficient, economic and cost
effective manner, and to meet the local capital cost share for matching funds
for construction grants by the U.S. EPA and the state of Michigan, for the
treatment works serving the treatment jurisdiction, and therefore, that an
Immediate fair and reasonable sewage rate Increase appears necessary; and
The parties having further stipulated that the following definition of terms
as used in this Consent Judgment shall be:
A. The term "Industrial Cost Recovery System" shall mean,
A system of payment by Industrial users of the treatment plant commen-
surate with Section l284(b)UXB) of Title 33 of the United States
Code and any regulations promulgated thereunder, as such statutory
and regulatory provisions are currently in effect or as they may
from time to time be amended.
8. The term "User Charge System" shal I mean,
A system of payment for wastewater treatment at the treatment plant by
those receiving the benefit of such treatment and which system Is commen-
surate with Section I284(b)(I)(A) of Title 33 of the United States Code
and any regulations promulgated thereunder as such statutory and regula-
tory provisions are currently In effect or as they may from time to time
be amended.
C. The term "Local Capital Cost Funding System" shall mean,
A system of borrowing principal and amortizing resultant debt service
charges for local capital construction costs associated with existing
and/or future wastewater treatment works projects.
D. The tem "treatment jurisdiction" shall mean,
The geographical area including all municipalities and other political
11-54
-------
- 4 -
jurisdictions of any kind. In which sewage disposal services of the
Detroit are rendered and received.
E. The term "treatment works" shall mean,
Any devices and systems used In the storage, treatment, recycling,
and reclamation of municipal sewage or Industrial wastewater, *hicn
enters the Detroit sewerage system within the treatment
jurisdiction Including but not limited to the treatment plant.
Interceptors, and their appurtenances,
F. The term "treatment plant" shall mean.
The wastewater treatment facility located at 9300 West Jefferson Avenue,
Detroit, Michigan.
G. The term "effluent" shall mean.
The aqueous discharge from the treatment plant.
H. The term "load" shall mean,
The total Influent or effluent by weight of a specified pollutant
characteristic which enters or leaves the treatment plant for one
24-hour day.
I. The term "sludge" shall mean,
An aqueous solution and/or suspension of solid material such as silt,
organic matter and Inorganic solids which results from the gravity
settling processes,' and, which may be further concentrated to produce
a material suitable for final disposal.
J. The term "Interim sludge disposal" shall mean,
A procedure for the off-site disposal of all sludge generated by the
treatment plant which can not be processed by existing on-slte sludge
disposal facilities until permanent sludge disposal facilities become
operatlonaI.
K. The term "permanent sludge disposal" shall mean,
A procedure for the on-slte reduction of all sludge generated by
11-55
-------
- 5 -
the treatment plant unless an off-site alternative is approved as a
permanent procedure for sludge disposal and the off-site disposal of
ash or other residue.
L. The term "secondary treatment" shall have the same meaning as
found In Section 133.102 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
M. The term "Facilities Plan" shall mean,
A written document prepared pursuant to U.S. EPA Construction Grant
No. C262920-OI and the content requirements of 40 C.F.R. 35.917,
which sets forth criteria for the upgrading and/or expansion of
the treatment works such that said works can provide to all received
wastewater, the level of treatment defined as secondary treatment
plus removal of phosphorus from received wastewater as required,
disposal of wastewater sludge as required, and other quality
requirements.
K. The term "Operation and Maintenance Manual" shall mean,
A detailed document containing all Information necessary for effective
operation and maintenance of a I I equipment used In any wastewater
treatment processes In the treatment works, and which meets the
requirements of U.S. EPA publication EPA 430/9-74-001, "Considerations
for Preparation of Operation and Maintenance Manuals."
0. The term "implement" shall mean, to begin action or procedure to ensure
the fulfillment of the program element.
NOW, THEREFORE, upon reading and filing the attached Complaint and in
consideration of the foregoing and before the taking of any testimony,
upon the pleadings, and without adjudication of any issue of fact or law
herein and upon consent of the parties hereto to perform their respective
responsibilities for the control of water pollution and the mitigation of
Impacts upon the quality of streams and lakes, air and land, and the Court
being fully advised in the premises, it Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed
as follows:
11-56
-------
- 6 -
IMMEDIATE FINANCING, USER CHARGE, INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY AND LOCAL CAPITAL COST
FUNDING SYSTEMS
A. Immediate Financing
1. Detroit has agreed and did procure the services of a rate consulting
firm to prepare a sewage rate determination on July I, 1977, for the
Immediate financing needs of the treatment works. The Detroit Water
and Sewerage Department did recommend the adoption of the above rate
schedule to the Board of Water Commissioners and the Detroit City
Counc11.
2. The Board and Council adopted rates necessary to meet the Immediate
financing needs of the treatment works; such rates being effective
on all billings on and after September I, 1977, for sewage disposal
services rendered to all users of th« treatment works.
B. Continuing Revenue System and Sewer Use Ordinance
Detroit shall develop and enact a Sewer Use Ordinance, a User
Charge System, an Industrial Cost Recovery System, and a Local
Capital Cost Funding System to provide revenue necessary to meet the
terms of this Judgment, and to provide secondary sewage treatment as
required by law In accordance with the following:
I. On June 3, 1977, Detroit did prepare and present for approval
to the U.S. EPA, Region V and the KONR, a detailed description
of its proposed sewer User Charge System, Industrial Cost
Recovery System and Local Capital Cost Funding System including
but not limited to budgets, cost allocations, user classifications,
revenue projections, Industrial Cost Recovery methods, draft
ordinances for Sewer Use, User Charges, Industrial Cost Recovery,
and Local Capital Cost Funding, and projected alterations to
existing service contracts.
11-57
-------
- 7 -
2. On or before December 15, 1977, Detroit shall enter Into an agreement
with a rate study consultant to develop the User Charge System,
Industrial Cost Recovery System, and Local Capital Cost Funding
System as required by law and Issue notice to the consultant to
proceed with the work.
3. On or before June I, 1978, Detroit shall submit a report to the
U.S. EPA, Region V and MDNR describing in detail the progress to date
on the development of the Sewer Use Ordinance, User Charge System,
Industrial Cost Recovery System and Local Capital Cost Funding
System such report to Include, but not to be limited to any
Interim outputs sumbltted to Detroit by the rate study consultant.
4. On or before January I, 1979, Detroit shall submit a report to the
U.S. EPA, Region V and the NCNR describing In detail the progress to
date on the development of the Sewer Use Ordinance, User Charge System,
Industrial Cost Recovery System, and Local Capital Cost Funding
System, such report to Include, but not to be limited to any
Interim outputs submitted to Detroit by the rate study consultant.
5. On or before May I, 1979, Detroit shall complete the proposed
Sewer Use Ordinance, User Charge System, Industrial Cost Recovery
System and Local Capital Cost Funding System and submit tne rate study
consultant's report and recommendations to the Detroit Board of Water
Commissioners. Submit same to the Detroit City Council on or before
July I, 1979, for their action.
6. On or before September I, 1979, Detroit shall complete all
City Council actions for the Implementation of the User Charge System,
Industrial Cost Recovery System, and Local Capital Cost Funding System
and for the enactment of the recommended ordinance for the regulation
of sewer use.
7. On or before January I, I960, the User Charge System, Industrial
Cost Recovery System and Local Capital Cost Funding System shall
11-58
-------
- 8 -
become effective on all bills rendered in accordance therewith,
except that, the Industrial Cost Recovery System shall be retro-
active to the time that a construction grant project became operable,
II
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL
To minimize the discharge of pollutants Into the treatment works which may
interfere with, pass through or be IncompatabIe with the operation of the
treatment plant, Detroit shall Implement the following program.
A. On August 19, 1977, Detroit did submit to the MDNR for approval, and shared witi
the master contract agencies and the municipalities within the treatment juris-
diction whose approval Is not required, a preliminary plan for Industrial
Waste Control, describing a proposed program for the enforcement of Ordinance
No. 129-H, Chapter 56, Article 6 of the Code of the City of Detroit;
such plan to include but not be limited to personnel and equipment needs.
B. On or before January I, 1978, Detroit shall submit to the U.S. EPA, and
and the MDNR and obtain the approval of the MDNR, a plan which details
the Detroit's program for the enforcement of the Detroit ordinance
number 129-H, Chapter 56, Article 6.
C. On or before March I, 1978, Detroit shall begin Implementation of the
approved enforcement program.
D. On or before August I, 1978, Detroit shall place the aforementioned
approved plan in full effect.
E. On or before January I, 1979, and each January I, thereafter, Detroit shall
submit to the U.S. EPA and the M0NR,
I. A management report summarizing the actions taken and the
program results obtained pursuant to subsection (D) above,
11-59
-------
- 9 -
Including but not limited to; regulatory actions taken,
implementation problems and corrective action.
2. A detailed report describing the staff retained to carry out the
required pretreatment program; such report to include but not to be
limited to staff duties and functions.
11 I
STAFFING, TRAINING, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Detroit shall undertake and complete the following staffing, training, and operation
and maintenance programs.
A. Staff Procurement
I. On July 5, 1977, a staffing program was submitted to the MDNR
for their approval detailing the manpower needs for Detroit to operate
and maintain the existing treatment works. Satd program Included
a schedule for the procurement of any additional manpower Identified
In the aforementioned program. This program has been approved by the
U.S. EPA and is being reviewed by the MDNR to insure that it Is In
accordance with 40 C.F.R. 35.935-12 and page VI-35 of EPA's Handbook
of Procedures.
2. Detroit shall proceed with the skilled maintenance work
as provided under Contract No. PC-414 as was commenced on
April 4, 1977. If prior to the completion of Contract
PC-414 a full complement of permanent skilled maintenance personnel
has not been obtained and trained, then a contract similar to PC-414
shall be awarded for performing the additional required maintenance.
Such contract and subsequent similar contracts shall be
issued until a fulI complement of permanent skilled maintenance
personnel has been obtained and trained.
3. On or before October I, 1977, Detroit shall Implement the afore-
mentioned approved staffing program.
11-60
-------
- 10 -
4. On or before July I. 1978, Detroit shall procure and maintain all
personnel required to operate and maintain the existing treatment plant
in accordance with the aforementioned approved program.
5. Detroit shall review and update the approved staffing program annually
and beginning on September I, 1978, and each September I thereafter
submit an updated staffing program, In accordance with Section At I)
above, to MDNR and obtain the approval thereof.
6. Any material deviations from an approved staffing program shall be
immediately reported in writing to the MDNR.
B. Staff Training
I. On August 31, 1977, Detroit did submit to the MDNR and requested
the approval thereof, a schedule for the training of personnel
In accordance with Section B(2) below. Said schedule shall
Include all existing treatment works personnel and all new
personnel hired after the Implementation of this program.
2. On or before October I, 1977, Detroit snail begin the training program
developed by Detroit's Operation and Maintenance Manual contractor.
3. On or before November I, 1978, Detroit shall submit to the MDNR
and obtain the approval thereof, a continuing training program.
4. On or before April I, 1979, Detroit shall place the aforementioned
approved continuing training program Into full effect for treatment
plant and collecting system operation and maintenance personnel.
C. Operation and Maintenance Manual
On or before October I, 1978, Detroit shall complete an Operation and
Maintenance Manual under contract CS-803 In accordance with 40 CFR 35.935-12.
11-61
-------
0. Treatment Plant Maintenance and Repair
I. On or before April I, 1978, the following maintenance and repair
items sh
-------
- 12 -
b. Four additional rectangular clarifiers rehabilitated on or
before August 31, 1979
*c. Final four rectangular clarifiers and the t*o circular
primary clarifiers rehabilitated on or before August 31,
1980.
*d. After August 31, 1980, one clan I Her shall be removed from
service every eight months and maintained or repaired
as required to prevent future failure and promote
maximum efficiency.
3. Sludge Conveyor System Maintenance:
a. Detroit shall on a regular and frequent basis inspect
all sludge conveyor drives, belts and rollers and
lubricate as required to assure proper operation.
b. On or before January I, 1978, submit a preliminary
engineering report and basis for design Identifying all
locations and components where access to equipment and/or
current lubrication systems are inadequate for Inspection,
operation and maintenance of the sludge conveyor systems
to the MDNR and obtain the approval thereof. Said report
will include the basis of design for the correction of
all Identified Inadequacies.
I. Complete design of the Items identified in the
report above on or before April I, 1978.
ii. Begin construction on or before October I, 1978.
III. Complete construction and begin operation on
or before June I, 1979.
4. On or before July I, 1978, renovate and/or install and begin and main-
tain the operation of flow monitoring equipment necessary to measure
and record the quantity of the plant effluent.
* See Segmented Facilities Plan Requirements
11-63
-------
- 13 -
5. Detroit shall on a regular and frequent basis, remove scum and
clean the effluent wlers on all primary and final clarifiers that
are in service at the treatment plant to assure maximum clarif>er
efficiency.
6. Repair and maintain on a continuing basis such other equipment at
the treatment plant which is necessary to maintain maximum operational
efficiency in pollution control.
E. Procurement
On June 30, 1977, Detroit did prepare and submit a procurement plan to the
MDNR. This procurement plan describes procedures and authority and responsi-
bility necessary for procurements required to meet the terms of this Consent
Judgment and to provide secondary treatment, phosphorus removal and other air
and water pollution controls that are required by law. The plan did consider
the procurement of supplies, equipment, materials, skilled maintenance services
consulting services, and the processing of purchase requ1st Ions and con-
struction contracts. On or before September 30, 1977, Detroit shall identify
procedures available to Detroit to procure materials and services on an
accelerated basis when needed or to make advance preparation for such need.
F. Final Ciarifiers
The final clarifiers were tentatively designed to operate at an average rate
of 50 million gallons per day of mixed liquor, resulting in an overflow rate
of 1,600 gallons per day per square foot, and a detention time of 1.92 hours.
Since phosphorus, BOD and phenols in the secondary effluent are directly
related to the suspended solids level contained In the effluent, improvement
in the settling and thickening processes of the clarifler Is required for 3
reduction of the suspended solids in the effluent. A program to upgrade the
performance of the final clarifiers to remove suspended solids and thickening
of return sludge at a satisfactory level shall be undertaken as follows:
I. On August 12, 1977, Detroit submitted a report detailing
which clarif ler will be used as the test unit and
11-64
-------
- 14 -
testing program to the MDNR for thatr approval.
2. On or before October 10, 1977, Detroit shall obtain the
material and manpower and shall modify the inlet piping of
the test clarlfler on or before November 30, 1977.
3. On or before March 15, 1978, Detroit shall perform a series
of tests under various loading and water temperature
conditions to determine optimum clarlfier performance.
4. On or before April 15, 1978, Detroit shall prepare a
report of the test results together with recommendations for
revision and/or modification of the remaining final
clarlfiers or on the need to further modify the prototype
tank to obtain optimum clartfler performance.
5. On or before May I, 1978, If the Inlet piping modification
Is successful, Detroit shall file a grant application for
revisions and/or modifications to remaining clarlfiers.
6. If design revisions or modifications Of existing clarlfiers
are required, or more than 25 final clalrlfiers are needed
for satisfactory operation, Detroit shall submit to the
U.S. EPA, Region V and the MDNR a schedule on or before
May 30, 1978, for such revisions, modifications, or
additions which, after approval by ell parties herein and
by this Court, will be made fully enforceable as a part of
this Judgment.
IV
FACILITIES PLAN
A. Segmented Facilities Plan
Detroit shall submit and obtain approval of MDNR and U.S. EPA cf a "Segmented
Facilities Plan" on or before May 15, 1978, and accomplish the following progress
tasks pursuant to completion of said Plan:
11-65
-------
- 15 -
I. Amend existing consultant agreements on or Before September 30,
1977.
2. Pesolve between the parties the following issues on or before
December 31, 1977: plant site. West Arm Interceptor, permanent sludge
disposal program and air quality control.
3. Prepare a combined sewer overflow sampling schedule on or before
December 31, 1977, for use as guidance In developing a work plan for
Section B, below.
4. Prepare, publish and distribute a segmented Facilities Plan with an
environmental assessment on or before January 31, 1978.
8. Final Fact. 11 ties Plan
I. Detroit shall select and retain a consultant to prepare a final
facilities plan on or before December 31, 1977.
2. Detroit shall submit to MDNR and U.S. EPA, on or before February 25,
I960, Interim reports which Include but need not be limited to:
a. Establishing the quantity and quality of combined sewer overflows
within the service area.
b. Calibrating the precise capibillty and capacity of the then
existing plant.
c. Establishing the total influent flow end characteristics from botn
combined and sanitary sewers.
d. Identifying and describing the facilities required at the existino
treatment plant or any other identified site to treat combined sewer
overflows as well as dry weather flows.
e. Developing a time schedule and cost estimates for the work TC De
performed within the planning period.
11-66
-------
- 16 -
f. Providing an Imp lamentable site plan for all facilities required
during the planning period.
g. Describing all outfall requirements and limitations for eacfi treat-
ment faciIity.
h. Resolving any and all air qua I l-ty standard attainment issues associate
with ultimate sludge disposal.
I. Preparing an environmental assessment for all facilities and sites.
3. Submit a final facilities plan which provides solutions and recommendations
for all necessary wastewater treatment facilities on or before March 31, 1981.
V
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Detroit shall dispose of or provide for the disposal of sludge generated from
treatment of sewage at the treatment plant In accordance with the following
schedule:
A. Interim Sludge Disposal:
I. On or before October I, 1977, submit an interim sludge disposal
report to the MDNR and the U.S. EPA, and obtain approval of
said plan from the MDNR. Said report must include but need
not be Iimtted to:
a. A description of each Interim sludge disposal
alternative considered by Detroit.
b. The feasibility of each alternative with respect to
maximum efficiency, effectiveness and environmental
compatibility of interim sludge disposal.
c. The cost of each alternative.
d. A quantification of the ability of each alternative
to process Increasingly larger amounts of sludge as
11-67
-------
- 17 -
additional treatment facilities become operational
at the treatment plant.
e. Identification of the alternative which is proposed for
Implementation.
2. On or before January 15, 1978, submit final plans for Interim
sludge disposal to the MDNR and obtain approval thereof. Said final
plans will include but need not be limited to disposal location, hydro-
geology, rates, process and method of conveyance of sludge to disposal site.
3. Award a contract for Interim sludge dlsplosal on or before
March I, 1978.
4. Begin Interim sludge disposal on or before April I, 1978.
B. Permanent Sludge Disposal
I. Detroit shall select a permanent sludge disposal program In accordance
with the Segmented Facilities Plan, and submit a request for approval
of such program to the MDNR.
2. If the alternative chosen pursuant to paragraph (I) of
this subsection is the program for construction of Sludge Complex 111
currently planned under Detroit public contract designated
as PC 295 (hereinafter PC 295), construction shall be completed
and operation shall begin on or before September I, 1981.
3. If pursuant to paragraph CI) of this subsection, PC 295 is
modified in concept or capacity or an alternative sludge disposal
method is selected as the permanent method of sludge disposal
at the treatment plant, construction shall be completed no later
December I, 1983, In accordance with the requirements set forth in
the Segmented Facilities Plan.
11-68
-------
- 18 -
VI
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Detroit shall provide complete secondary sewage treatment at the treatment plant in
accordance with the following schedule, plus any additional requirements necessary
to attain complete secondary treatment. The effective capacity for secondary
treatment shall be Increased to 1,050 MGO on or before September I, 1980.
A. Detroit completed construction pursuant to Detroit public contract
designated as PC 284 (hereinafter PC 2845 of four final clarlfiers, on
June 24, 1977. Detroit shall assure operational capability of these
clarlflers on or before December I, 1977.
B. Detroit completed construction pursuant to Detroit public
contract designated as PC 283 (hereinafter PC 283) of aeration
basins three and four on July 15, 1977. Detroit shall assure
operational capability of these aeration basins on or before
December I, 1977.
C. Detroit shall redesign piping structures on four final clarlfiers pursuant
to Detroit public contract designated as PC 285 (hereinafter PC 285)
In accordance with the schedule set forth In Section III, subsection
F of this Judgment on or before May I, 1978.
D. Detroit shall complete construction pursuant to Detroit public contract
designated as PC 406A of four final clarlfiers on or before June 2, 1978.
Detroit shall assure operational capability of these clarlfiers on or before
December I, 1978.
E. Detroit shall complete construction, pursuant to Detroit public contract
designated as PC 408 (hereinafter PC 408) of four final clarlfiers on or before
February 28, 1979. Detroit shall assure operational capability of
these clarlfiers on or before September I, 1979.
11-69
-------
- 19 -
F. Detroit shall complete construction pursuant to Detroit public contract
designated as PC 288A (hereinafter PC 288A) of an oxygen plant, on or
July 18, 1979. Detro't shall place this unit into operation, on
or before, December 30, 1979.
* G. Detroit shall complete construction of two primary clariflers pursuant to
PC 276 on or before July 15, 1980.
* H. Detroit shall complete construction of four final ctarifiers pursuant to PC 28^
on or before December I, 1980.
I. On or before September I, 1980, all flows of effluent front the treatment
plant shall have received secondary treatment.
VII
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Detroit shall achieve the phosphorus effluent concentration limitation In accordance
with the requirements set forth In the Segmented Facilities Plan In the following schedu
for design and construction of a phosphorus removal system at the treatment plant;
A. Construction target dates
I. Begin design on or before January I, 1978.
2. Complete design on or before February I, 1979.
3. Begin construction on or before September I, 1979.
4. Complete construction and begin operation on or before
September I , I 98 I .
B. Detroit shall achieve and maintain a concentration of total phosphorus in the
treatment plant effluent no greater than one milligram per liter on or before
April I, 1982.
* Subject to Segmented Facilities Plan requirements.
11-70
-------
- 20 -
VIII
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Effluent discharges from Detroit outfalls 049 and 050 of the treatment plant shall oe
Iimited as follows:
A. Beginning on the effective date of this Judgment and lasting until June 30, '978.
ef fluent
Characteristic
8005
Total Suspended Solids
Phenol
01 I & Grease
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Fecal Collform
pH 6.5 - 9.0 SU
Discharge Load Limitations
Ib/day
30-Day Avg.
7-Day Avg.
Discharge Concentration
Limitations
mg/l
30-Day Avg. 7-Day Avg.
650,000
1,200,000
1,900
-
-
-
975,000
1,800,000
2,300
-
-
-
67
160
0.25
-
4.0
200/100 ml
130
240
0.3
45
-
400/100
B. Beginning on July I, (976 and lasting until December 30, 1979.
Effluent
Characteristic
BODS
Total Suspended Solids
Pheno I
01 I 4 Grease
Total Phosphorus (as P)
Fecal Col I form
pH 6.5 - 9.0 SU
Discharge Load Limitations
Ib/day
30-Day Avg.
7-Day Avg.
Discharge Concentration
Limitations
30-Day Avg. 7-Day Avg.
525,000
826,000
1,900
-
-
-
788,000
1,280,000
2,300
-
-
-
70
no
0.25
-
4.0
200/100 ml
105
170
0.3
30
-
400/ 1 00
11-71
-------
- 21 -
C. Beginning on December 31, 1979 and lasting until December 30, 1981.
Discharge Concentration
Effluent Discharge Load Limitations Limitations
Characteristic Ib/day mg/l
30-Day Avg. 7-Day Avg. 30-Day Avg. 7-Day Avg.
8005 250,000 375,000 30 45
Total Suspended Solids 250,000 375,000 30 45
Phenol 850 1,700 O.I 0.2
01 I 1 Grease - - - 15
Total Pnosphorus (as P) - 2.5
Fecal Collform - - 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
pH 5.5 - 9.0 SU
D. Beginning on December 31, 1981 and lasting until the expiration date.
Discharge Concentration
Effluent Discharge Load Limitations Limitation
Characrerlstlc Ib/day mg/l
30-Day Avg. 7-Day Avg. 30 Day Avg. 7-Day Avg.
8005 263,000 394,000 30»* 45
Total Suspended Sol ids 263,000 394,000 30** 45
Phenol 900 1,800 O.I 0.2
Oil & Grease - - - 15
Total Phosphorus (BS P) - - 1.0 -
Fecal Coliform - - 200/100 ml 400/100 ml
pH 6.5 - 9.0 SU
** The monthly average removal efficiency shall not be less than 85 percent.
The limitations herein are premised on the following projected maximum daily flows averaged
over a 30 day period.
From present to June 30, 1978 900 MGO
From July I, 1978 to December 30, 1979 900 MGD
From December 31, 1979 to December 30, 1981 1,000 MGD
From December 31, 1981 to Future 1,050 MGO
The aforementioned flows as well as flows to be reported under the terms and conditions of
this Consent Judgment are the actual effluent flows as nearly as can be determined from
adjusted readings based on test information and related data. Such flow consists of comoined
flow received Into the plant which includes sanitary, industrial, Infiltration inflow and
storm flow but excludes flow recycled within the plant and evaporation losses. Such effluent
flow also Includes the potable water received into the plant.
11-72
-------
- 22 -
IX
REPORTING
A. Beginning October !, 1977, and every three months thereafter,
Detroit shall submit to the U.S. EPA and the MDNR a report detailing
the up-to-date status and/or progress on a I I pr6grams or projects
ordered In this Judgment, Including but not limited to Identification
of any Items that might affect scheduled completion. A projection of
the work to be performed under the terms and conditions of this Consent
judgment during the subsequent twelve month period Is to be Included In
each quarterly report.
B. A summary of the report described in subsection A of this section shall
be submitted to each party herein and the full report shall be evlalble for
Inspection by any party at the office of the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department.
C. In addition to the quarterly reports required In subsection A
of this section, not later than fourteen calendar days following
any date on which an action Is required of Detroit by this
Judgment, Detroit shall submit to the U.S. EPA and the M3NR,
a written notice that the action has been taken or completed
as required or that the action has not been taken or completed
as required. If the action has not been taken or completed
as required the notice she I I Include the reasons and/or
causes for the Inaction or failure to complete action, and the
probability of meeting the next scheduled requirements. A statement
shall be included which describes the actions to be taken or being
taken to return the program element to the required schedule.
11-73
-------
- 25 -
S°ECIAL REQUIREMENTS
This section incorporates NPDES language to apply In lieu of a current NPDES
permit unfit such new NPDES permit is issued.
A. Monitoring and Reporting
I, Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
2. Reporting
Detroit shall submit monitoring reports containing results obtained
during the previous month and shall be postmarked no later than
the 10th day of the month following each completed report period.
3. Detroit shall perform the following sampling, analysis and program
as their self-monitorIng program. The pollutant characteristics, including
Industrial wastes, shall be monitored by collecting the Indicated type
of sample with the designated frequency. Except as listed otherwise in
the table, each characteristic shall be reported for each major influent
sewer and for each effluent sewer which transmits flow to the Detroit
or Rouge Rivers.
Effluent
Characteristic
5-day 20 C Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
Suspended Sol ids
Phenol
Oil
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Total Phosphorus
Flow
pH
Cadm i urn
Chloride
Chromium, Total
Chromium, Hexavalent
Copper
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample Type &
Frequency Location
7 x/week 24 Hr. Comp.
Influent Samp I ing
Not Required
7 x/week 24 Hr. Comp.
7 x/week 24 Hr. Comp.
7 x/week 24 Hr. Comp.
I x/shift Grab, Averaged each day
7 x/week 24 Hr. Comp.
7 x/week Daily Total flow
7 x/week Grab - No Averaging
I x/week** 24 Hr. Comp.
3 x/week** 24 Hr. Comp.
I x/week»* 24 Hr. Comp.
I x/week** 24 Hr. Comp.
I x/week** 24 Hr. Comp.
11-74
-------
- 24 -
3 x/week»*
1 x/shlft
7 x/week
1 x/week*«
1 x/week**
1 x/week**
3 x/week»*
7 x/week
1 x/week*«
3 x/week«*
3 x/week»*
I x/week»*
1 x/week»*
1 x/week«*
1 x/shlft
7 x/week
1 x/week**
1 x/week»«
1 x/week*«
1 x/week»*
1 x/week»*
1 x/week»«
1 x/week»*
1 x/week**
1 x/week««
1 x/week**
1 x/week»»
1 x/week**
24 Hr.
Report
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
Grab -
Grab -
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
24 Hr.
Comp.
as da! ly average
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp .
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Report Dally Average
Report Dally Average
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
Comp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
AIumlnum
Arsenic
Mercury
SeI en I urn
Bar I urn
CaIcI urn
Magnesium
Manganese
Sod I urn
Chlorine, Free
Chlorine, Combined
PoI yen I or Inated bIphenoIs
Arochlor 1242
Arochlor 1254
Arochlor 1260
HexachIorobenzene
Carbon tetrachlorlde
HexachIorocycIopentadIene
HexachIorobutad!ene
PentachlorophenoI
Benzene
TrIchIoroethyIene
TrIchIoroetnane
Trlhalomethanes
** Randomly vary the days of the week on which the samples are collected.
4. Definitions.
a. The 30 consecutive day average other than for fecal or total
conform bacteria, is defined as the sum of the concentrations and/or
weights of the individual samples divided by the number of samples
taken during a 30-day period. When less than dally sampling Is required,
the 30-day average Is defined as the sum of all the values recorded
divided by the number of samples taken. The 30 consecutive day
average for fecal or total collform bacteria Is the geometric mean
of the samples collected In a 30-day period.
b. The 7 consecutive day average other than for fecal or total
coliform bacteria, Is defined as the sum of the concentrations and/or
weights of the Individual samples divided by the number of samples taxen
during a 7 day period. The 7 consecutive day average for fecal or to+al
coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of the samples collected in s 7
day period.
11-75
-------
- 25 -
c. The maximum limitation is defined as the permissible maximum
concentration and/or weight In any Individual sample taken during
the month.
5. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform
to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, under which such procedures may be
required.
6. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this
Judgment, Detroit shall record the following Information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The dates the analyses were performed;
c. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
d. The analytical techniques or mentods used; and
e. The results of all required analyses.
7. Additional Monitoring by Detroit
If Detroit monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein
more frequently than required by this Judgment, using approved analytical
methods as specified above, the results of such monitoring shall be included
in the calculation and reporting of the values required in the Monthly
Operating Report. Such Increased frequency shall also be indicated.
8. Records Retention
All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities
required by this Judgment including all records of analyses performed ana
calibration and maintenance of instrumentation and recordings from contlnous
monitoring instrumentation shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years,
or longer if requested by the Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA or MDNR.
11-76
-------
- 26 -
B. Management Requirements
I. Change In Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and
conditions of this Judgment. The discharge of any pollutant Identified
In this Judgment more frequently than or at a level In excess of that
authorized Is prohibited. Any anticipated facility expansions, or process
modifications which will result In new, different, or Increased discharges
of pollutants must be reported to MDNR, and U.S. EPA, Region V, if such
changes will violate the effluent limitations specified In this Judgment.
2. Containment Facilities
Detroit shall provide approved facilities for containment of any accidental
losses of concentrated solutions, acids, alkalies, salts, oils, or other
polluting materials In accordance with the requirements of the Michigan
Water Resources Commission Rules, Part 5.
3. Operator Certification
Detroit shall have the waste treatment facilities under the direct
supervision of an operator certified by the MDNR, as required by Section
6a of MCI 325.201.
4. Spill Notification
Detroit shall Immediately report any spill or loss of any product, by-
product, Intermediate product, oils, solvents, waste material, or any
other polluting substance which occurs to the surface or groundwaters
of the State by calling the MONR 24-hour Emergency Response telephone
number (517) 373-7660; and Detroit shall within ten (10) days of the
spill or loss provide the MDNR with a full written explanation as to
the cause and discovery of the spill or loss, clean up and recovery
measures taken, preventative measures to be taken, and schedule of
Implementation.
5. Adverse Impact
Detroit shall minimize any adverse Impact to navigable waters resulting
11-77
-------
- 27 -
from noncompllance with any effluent limitations specified in this
Judgment, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as
necessary to determine the nature and Impact of the noncomplying
discharge.
6. By-passing
Any diversion from or by-pass of facilities necessary to manitain
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Judgment is
prohibited, except (I) where unavoidable to prevent loss of life
or severe property damage, or (It) where excessive storm drainage
or runoff would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with
the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this Judgment. Detroit
shall promptly notify MDNR and U.S. EPA, Region V, in writing,
of such diversion or by-pass.
7. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed from or
resulting from treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of In a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials
from entering navigable waters, or the entry of toxic or harmful
contaminants thereof Into the groundwaters In concentrations or amounts
detrimental to the groundwater resource.
8. Power Fa 11ures
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations
and prohibitions of this Judgment, Detroit shall either:
a. Provide an alternative power source sufficient to operate
faclI I ties utiI ized by Detroit to maintain compliance with
tne effluent limitations and conditions of this Judgment whlcn
provision shall be indicated in this Judgment by inclusion
of a specific compliance date in each appropriate "Schedule
of Compliance for Effluent Limitations".
b. Upon the reduction, loss, or failure of one or more of the
11-78
-------
- 28 -
primary sources of power to facilities utilized by Detroit to
maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and conditions
of this Judgment, Detroit shall halt, reduce or otherwise con-
trol all discharge in order to maintain compliance with the
effluent limitations and conditions of this Judgment.
C. ResponsiblI(ties
I. Right of Entry
Detroit shall allow the MDNR and U.S. EPA, Region V. and/or their
authorized representatives, upon the presentation of the credentials:
a. To enter upon Detroit's premises where an effluent source
is located or In which any records are required to be kept under
the terms and conditions of this Judgment, and;
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records
required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
Judgment; to Inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring
method required In this judgment; and to sample any discharge
of pollutants.
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
In the event of any change In control or ownership of facilities
frtxn which the authorized discharge emanates , Detroit shall notify
the succeeding owner or controller of the existence of this
Judgment by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the
MDNR, U.S. EPA, Region V, and this Court.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the
Federal Water Pollution Act and Rule 2128 of the Water Resources Commission
Rules, Part 21, all reports prepared In accordance with the terms of this
Judgment shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the MDNR
11-79
-------
- 29 -
and U.S. EPA, Region V. As required by *he Ac*, effluen* da*a
shall no* be considered confIden+lal.
4. Ho* Ice -"-o Public U*I II*les
I* Is fur+her made a condl+lon of *hls Judgmen* +ha* De*rol*
give no*lce *o *he public u*III*Ies in accordance wl*h Ac* 43 of
*he Public Ac*s of 1974, being MCL 460.701 *o 460.718, and comply
wl*h each of +he requIremends of *ha* Ac*.
D. Combined Sewer Overflows
The Cl*y of De*rol* Is required *o continue l*s program for o'^alnmen*
of con+rol of overflows from -*-he combined sewer sys*ero discharge
poin+s number 001 +hrough 048 and 501 +hrough 080 (as I den*I fled In
De+rol+'s appllca+ion submi*+ed *o ob+aln NPOES Perml* No. Ml 0022802).
The Cl*y shall opera+e *he existing *rea*men'»- faclll*les (including
*he combined sewer sys+em and ^he *rea+Tnen* plan*) In such a manner
as *o minimize •'•he discharge of combined sewer overflows *o *he De*rol +
River, +he Rouge River and *heir +r Ibu+ar les. The CKy shall maximize
u+lIl2a*lon of all available In-sys+em s+orage for re+en+ion of combined
was*ewa*er.
XI
STATE APPROVAL
Plans for ell construction projects De*rol+ undertakes pursuan* +o *he Judgmen* mus*
receive approval from +he MONR. In addition all federal construe*I on gran* projects
mus+ be cer*|fied by +he MONR pursuan* *o 33 U.S.C. I284(B)(3) and subml**ed *o *he
U.S. EPA for approval.
11-80
-------
- 30 -
XII
CUSTOMER RELATIONS
De+rol* shall es+al>llsh In •'•he De+rol* Wa+er and Sewerage Depar*men+ an Office of
Customer Relations which shall maintain Improved relations be*ween +he De^ro'i* Wa*er
and Sewerage Depar+men* and l*s Cl+y and Suburban customers. The Office of Customer
Relations shall also serve as a clearinghouse for customers' Inpu* for Improved service.
XI I I
FINANCIAL AUDIT
De+roi* shall provide •••ha* a financial audi* of +he De+rol* Wa+er and Sewerage
Depar+men-*- be conducted by a major private sec*or accounting firm no* less +han
every *welve mon*hs. Such audl+s shall be made available *o *he par+ies
pMxcwk.1 ^o^ninan
herein as shall be any o>herA_audl*s(lrou*rnely conducted a* *he De+rol* Wa*er
and Sewerage Depar*men*. Such aud!*s shall con*lnue *hroughou* *he *erm
of *his Consen* Judgment
XIV
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND CIVIL PENALTIES
The per+Ies are unable *o reach agreemen* on •'•he measures of civil pena!*ies and
liquidated damages, If any, and, being unable *o reach agreemen*. subml* *o *he
Cotir-*- for de*erm! na* I on of +hese issues.
XV
NONCOMPLIANCE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE
Should Ac*s of God or con+rac* related even+s occur over which De*roi+ has no control,
De*rol+ shall immediately no+lfy *he MDNR and *he Regional Admlnis+ra*or of *he U.S.
EPA, Region V, in wrl+ing of +he delay or an*lclpe*ed delay, describing In ae*ai I *ne
an+lclpa*ed length of delay, *he precise cause or causes of +he delay, +^e measures
*aken and +o be +aken by Oe+rol* *o preven* or minimize *he delay, and *he *ime*able
by which +he measures shall be imple(nen*ed. The Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA,
Region V, and MDNR shall make a de+ermlna+lon if any schedule In *his Consen*
Judgmen* will be revised based on *he Information subml*+ed by Oe*rol*. If De*ro!*
11-81
-------
- 31 -
Is In disagreement with the decision of the Regional Adnnlnlstratorand MONR, Its
recourse Is before this Court.
XVI
CAUSE FOR HEARING
Any failure to comply with any terms of this Judgment shall be cause for any party
to request the Court to place the case on the calendar for hearing on the merits.
XVI I
AMENDABILITY
Any party may apply to this Court for such further orders and directions as may
be appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED
11-82
-------
- 32 -
The following parties do hereby consent:
CITY OF DETROIT
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BY
COLEMAN A. YOUNG, Mayor
BY
RE. CRAIG, Corporation Counsel
J. XELLEY, Attorney Genera
CITY OF DETROIT
CITY COUNCIL
STATE OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN OEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BY
City Council President
BY
CITY OF DETROIT
BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS
BY :&:-r7- x^vV
P. KANTERS - Director
UNITED STAGES OF AMERICA
A
-JAMES ROBINSON, U.S. Attorney
It Is so Ordered:
; ro
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY
'.. ALEXANDER, JR.
Regional Administrator
A8LE FEDERAL COURT JUDGE
11-83
-------
COUNTY OF OAKLAND, G. W. KUHN,
DRAIN COMMISSIONER, on behalf of
CLINTON-OAKLAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM,
EVERGREEN-FARUINGTON SEWAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEM and SOUTHEAST OAKLAND SANITARY
DISPOSAL DISTRICT:
C-7
George V/ Kunn,'Drain Commissioner
Date:
11-84
-------
APPENDIX 11.9
Letter of Intent
11-85
-------
I
5
V
\
UJ
O
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
AUG 3 1975
TO ALL
ED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Federal riater Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the
Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements {EIS) as published in the
Federal Register;, April 14, 1975, the attacned is a Notice
the proposed EPA action
of. intent
described
to prepare
below:
an EIS for
Financial assistance for the design and construction
of wastewater treatment facilities for The City
Detroit, Board of Water Commissioners.
of
EPA, Region V, has declared its intent to prepare an SIS on
the subject project concurrently with the development of the
Overview Plan which includes the facilities plans. The Board,
in conjunction v/ith EPA, will contract with two independent
consultants to provide an Overview Plan and an EIS.
The public is invited to provide information and encouraged
to participate in the development of the draft EIS. To this
end, a series of public information meetings will be held in
the project area at key stages in the development of
Further notification of meetings will be supplied at
date.
the EIS.
a later
Comments or requests for
directed to Gene Wojcik,
at the above address.
additional information should be
Chief, EIS Preparation Section,
In addition to the public information meetings, an official
public hearing will be scheduled upon completion of the
draft EIS to receive comments from concerned parties.
Sincerely yours ,
R. Alexander, Jr. /
Regional Acministrator
Attachment
/
'
11-87
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
AUG 3 1975
Notice of Intent
To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
*• Project Location
The project is the expansion of the City of Detroit Treat-
ment Plant and interceptor facilities to serve the City
of Detroit and neighboring communities in Wayne, Oakland,
and Macomb Counties. These areas are drained by the Clinton
River Basin and Rouge River Basin into Lake St. Clair and
the Detroit River with the exception of the areas which
drain directly into Lake St. Clair or the Detroit River.
II. Purpose
The purpose of the expansion and improvements of the waste-
water plant and interceptor collection system is to protect
the water of Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River, and Lake
Erie as well as inland streams of the Rouge River Basin
and Clinton River Basin. Increased treatment capacity with
upgrading to secondary treatment is required to meet the
projected population growth in the Detroit area. New
interceptors will relieve flows through combined sewers
and provide additional instream storage capacity. Eight
new sludge incinerators, designated as Sludge Complex III,
will increase the existing incineration capacity by 640
dry tons per day (TPD) to a total of 1563 TPD. Additional
work to be considered includes the separation of combined
sewers to provide storm relief in several areas under study.
III. Proposed EPA Action
The proposed action is federal financial assistance for the
design and construction of expanded wastewater treatment
facilities, relief interceptors, and additional sludge
disposal facilities for the City of Detroit. EPA has
determined that the proposed project could significantly
impact the human environment and, therefore, has decided
to prepare an EIS. For more effective and timely use of
.QVJJIIO^
••»•«*
11-88
-------
_2 —
the £13 as a planning and decision-making tool, EPA, The
City of Detroit, Board of Water Commissioners, and the State
of Michigan have entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding"
which allows for the preparation of the EIS and the Overview
Plan concurrently. Facilities planning tasks will be included
in the Overview Plan.
IV. Major•Issues to be•Evaluated
1) The development of relief interceptors designated as
the Armada, Bruce, Richmond and Lake Shore Arms. In these
areas secondary growth impacts will be generated by the
increased flow capacities and instream storage capacities.
New interceptors will provide flow capacities to allow one
wastewater treatment plant to be phased out by the 1980's.
2) Detroit is a Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA).
The impacts of the existing incinerators and those soon to
be constructed have been documented. Discussions of the
relationship of these twenty-two incinerators to the overall
alternatives for future sludge disposal must be developed.
The need for auxiliary fuels for sludge disposal must be
addressed.
3) The development of new ash lagoons and ultimate
disposal sites for fly and bottom ash should be addressed.
Land disposal alternatives for sludge and sludge cake should
be addressed. Techniques and monitoring systems for all dis-
posal should be adequately outlined.
4) The acquisition of land for expansion of the treatment
plant should be adequately addressed. Timetables and costs to
purchase lands for wastewater treatment facilities at sites ad-
jacent or removed from the existing site should be developed.
5) The time necessary to upgrade the plant to a secondary
treatment facility with 30% phosphorous removal and BOD removal
should be discussed in connection with increased flows and
sewer-separations.
6) All aspects of social growth within the plan of study
area should be discussed. This includes, but is not limited tor
economic growth, residential development, industrial and com-
merical development, strip development along new interceptors,
political development in the suburban areas, and retirement
of existing wastewater treatment facilities. The potential
of the existing plant site to be developed for future flows
should be examined. This may be especially important when
Highland Park and Hamtrarnck upgrade their collection systems.
11-89
-------
I . i1-:..* \ . -,|- v • • • i • • 5- ',
' \ -' i • t C '
r~ j - - ' » ,-" \ , MUS«Y,--r-. ", = 5 v
I f ~*•'" l ' ^""" .i ci~^ «_^NOC*CC v ,5
.._,_ I —— ^ _ ~»-«.^
AVISON i , "'-r -"^ * • • *- cttot •»
> . . .. .\ T 1—: A. - *-• I —-• ^{t-
.1 t ....-' • \ V»«*u S-.'
Plan
i- L_,-d
ln-Vercep-1-or CapccHu
Ovctrview PVanninC|
OCTROIT
PUJV.N OF-
11-90
-------
APPENDIX 11.10
Public Hearing Comments and
Responses to Review Agencies
11-91
-------
-------
To Be Prepared Following
Hearing and Review
11-93
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. EPA Project Officer
DWSD Consultant Liaison
Doug Ehorn
W.J. Wilson, P.E,
EcolSciences1 Study Team
Principal-in-Charge
Project Manager
E.F. Bradley,
J.H. Baldwin
Environmental Team
L.M. Katz
*W.A. Bailey
M.L. Reiser
*J.D. Ochs
C.E. Mitchell
P.P. Swinick
j.A. Leake
*J.A. Burkholder
*M . R . Kanney
R.J. Pavone
Engineering Team
J.E. Shirk, P.E.
*K.J. Lanfear, P.E.
*G.P. James, P.E.
W.C. Taylor
*J.J. Coll
D . C . McGaw
Senior Technical Advisors
A . T . Bowyer
J.J. Barile
M.S. Friedman
P.R. Spinney
R.W. Dennis
*W.P. DeWitt
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
M.S.
M.S.
M.S.
B.A.
B.S.
B.S.
B.S.
M.S.
M.S.
B.S.
Ph.D.
M.S.
M.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
M.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
Ph.D
Subconsultants
W.J. Weber
Ph.D.
Professional Skills Alliance
W. Hawkins B.S.
B. Mitchell M.B.A.
V.G. Myers Assoc.
J.A. Battle B.A.
H.J. Fox L.L.D.
R.E. Williams M.S.
R. Owens M.B.A.
P.E,
Biology
Biology
Biology
Biology
Urban Planning
Economics
Forestry
Biology
Environmental Sciences
Technician
Sanitary Engineering (Team Leader)
Sanitary Engineering (Team Leader)
Civil Engineering
Chemistry (Deceased)
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Engineering
Sanitary Engineering, P.E.
Environmental Sciences & Eng,
Marine Sciences
Biochemistry
Civil Engineering
Biology
Water Resources Engineering
Biological Sciences
Business
Political Science
Social Work
*Former Employees of EcolSciences
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, II 60604-3590
------- |