EIS-79-
0976F
Vol.1
c.l
&EPA
EIS790976F
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
June, 1979
Water Division
Environmental
Impact Statement
Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
for the
Metropolitan Area
Columbus, Ohio
Final
-------
EPA-5-OH-FRANKLIN-COLUMBUS-WWTP&INT-79
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA
COLUMBUS, OHIO
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
And
BOOZ, ALLEN AND HAMILTON, INC. With HAVENS & EMERSON, INC,
BETHESDA, MARYLAND CLEVELAND, OHIO
APPROVED BY:
Envt;-"-
)HN MCGUIRE
2GIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
JUNE 1979
-------
VOLUME 1
Recommended Alternatives, Technical
Analysis and Impacts
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
PREFACE
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
II. INTERCEPTORS II-l
2.1 Population Projections II-l
2.2 Sewer Sizing II-5
2.3 Infiltration Rate II-6
2.4 Subarea Analysis II-6
III. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES III-l
3.1 Basis of Design III-2
3.2 Mainstream Treatment Recommendations III-6
3.3 Sludge Handling and Disposal
Recommendations III-15
3.4 Summary of Cost Analysis 111-20
IV. IMPACTS IV-1
4.1 Environmental Impacts of Brewery
Pretreatment IV-1
4.2 Primary Air Quality Impacts of
Sludge Incineration IV-2
4.3 Secondary Air Quality Impacts IV-4
4.4 Impacts of Alternative Sludge
Disposal Options IV-4
4.5 Water Quality Impacts on the Scioto
River IV-5
11
-------
INDEX OF FIGURES
Page
Number
II-1 Planning Area for Metropolitan Columbus II-2
III-l EIS Recommended Mainstream Treatment Concept
for Jackson Pike and Southerly WWTF's III-7
III-2 EIS Recommended Sludge Handling and Disposal
Concept for Jackson Pike and Southerly WWTF's 111-16
INDEX OF TABLES
1-1 Final EIS Chronology 1-3
II-l Comparison of Draft EIS and Final EIS
Franklin County Population Projections II-4
III-l Proposed Effluent Requirements-Facilities
Plan and Draft EIS III-2
III-2 Average Day Design Wastewater Characteristics III-5
III-3 Cost Analysis of Brewery Waste Treatment
Scenarios for the Southerly Treatment
Facilities (Millions of Dollars, 1974/1975
Basis) III-ll
III-4 Project Cost Comparison Summary (Millions
of 1974-1975 Dollars) 111-21
111
-------
PREFACE
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Columbus, Ohio Wastewater Treatment Facilities consists of
the three following volumes:
Volume I: "Recommended Alternatives, Technical
Analysis, and Impacts"
Volume II: "Response to Comments and Final EIS
Appendices"
Volume III: "The Draft EIS (Editecf)"
Volume I discusses the essence and substance of the
final collection, treatment, and disposal recommendations,
highlighting any recommendations that differ from the
Draft EIS. The intent of Volume I is to provide a concise
overview of the recommended system, emphasizing areas of
significance (e.g., regionalization, pretreatment, sludge
disposal). Detailed analyses supporting the conclusions
can be found in the Appendices to Volume II and in Volume
III.
Volume II contains the written record of public com-
mentary and appropriate responses to the issues raised by
this commentary. There are over 330 specific comments by
Federal, state and local governments and private concerns
for which detailed responses have been developed. Volume
II also contains additional appendix material which was
developed in response to the comments on the Draft EIS.
Volume III is the Draft EIS edited only for identified
omissions and errors. Asterisks in the margins indicate
those sections, lines, or words that have been changed,
added, or deleted.
IV
-------
Summary Sheet for Environmental
Impact Statement
Columbus, Ohio Facilities Plan
EPA Project No. EPA-5-OH-FRANKLIN-
COLUMBUS-WWTP & INT-79
Draft ( )
Final (X)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
1. Type of Action; Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. Brief Description of Proposed Action
The subject action of this Environmental Impact State-
ment is the Facilities Plan submitted by the City of Columbus
to expand and upgrade wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal facilities within the Columbus metropolitan area.
The proposed project includes three major actions.
Selection of addition liquid & solids handling treatment
facilities for sewage processing at the Southerly and
Jackson Pike sewage treatment plants (STPs).
Construction of two sludge incinerators and associated
dewatering facilities for processing sludge from sewage
treatment at Southerly STP .
Construction of separate sanitary sewer interceptors
within the Columbus planning area.
-------
3. Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
The proposed action will have the following beneficial
impacts:
(1) Alleviation of existing adverse conditions in the
Scioto River caused by law quality wastewater dis-
charges
(2) Improved treatment and disposal of wastewater
sludges
(3) Upgraded and integrated treatment facilities to
accommodate existing and future sources of waste-
water
(4) Elimination of the need for onsite disposal sys-
tems and package plants where they are unsuitable.
The proposed action will have the following adverse
impacts:
(1) Potential erosion of treatment plant sites and
interceptor routes during construction
(2) Temporary noise and odor impacts during construc-
tion
(3) Increase traffic activity during construction
(4) Air emmissions from sludge incineration will be minized
by offsets from existing incinerators and application
of lowest achievable emission rate technology.
4. Summary of Alternatives Considered
Regional wastewater collection alternatives, including
the no service alternative, were considered for eleven sub-
areas within the Columbus planning area. Preliminary
screening indicated that eight of these were suitable for
possible inclusion into a regionalized system. A summary of
the alternatives considered, in addition to the no-action
alternative, for each of these eight subareas is given
below:
VI
-------
Subarea
West Scioto
Big Run
Minerva Park
Big Walnut Creek
Rocky Fork
Blacklick Creek
Groveport
Rickenbacker Air Force
Base
Number of
Alternatives
Considered
2
1
2
Alternative Types
Two new interceptors
One new interceptor
One new interceptor
Upgrade existing
plant
Five new interceptor
systems
Upgrade existing
plant
Two new interceptors
Upgrade existing
plant
Two new interceptors
In addition, four pretreatment alternatives for a major
Columbus-area brewery currently discharging to the Southerly
Plant were considered. These alternatives ranged from no
pretreatment to total on-site brewery waste treatment to
Southerly NPpES effluent restrictions.
Treatment plant alternatives considered various ways of
utilizing and upgrading the two existing Columbus wastewater
treatment plants (Southerly and Jackson Pike). Alternatives
for liquid treatment and disposal included: treatment and
land application, treatment and reuse, and treatment and
discharge.
Alternative disposal concepts considered for the solids
produced by the two Columbus plants included: several
codisposal opportunities, four resource recovery schemes,
and a landfill disposal option. The EIS also examined the
resource savings that might be available with the following
alternative treatment technologies: phosphorous removal,
intermediate sedimentation, oxygen production and dissolu-
tion, secondary solids thickening, conditioning and de-
watering, recycle management, and pyrolysis. Finally, a
variety of process optimization alternatives were analyzed
for cost-effectiveness. These were: flow equalization,
VII
-------
reduction of electrical energy charges, the activated sludge
system, effluent filtration, and waste solids processing.
5. Federal, State and Local Agencies and Officials Notified
of this Action
Federal Agencies
Council on Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District
Department of the Air Force
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Water Resources Council
Members of Congress
Honorable John Glenn U.S. Senate
Honorable Howard G. Metzenbaum U.S. Senate
Congressman Samuel L. Devine U.S. House of Representatives
Congressman Chalmers P. Wylie U.S. House of Representatives
Congressman John M. Ashbrook U.S. House of Representatives
Congressman William H. Harsha U.S. House of Representatives
Congressman Clarence E. Miller U.S. House of Representatives
State
Honorable James A. Rhodes, Governor, State of Ohio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Department of Health
Local
Honorable Tom Moody, Mayor, City of Columbus
Board of Franklin County Commissioners
City of Reynoldsburg
City of Westerville
Grove City
Village of Dublin
Village of Grove Port
Village of New Albany
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Mid-Ohio Health Planning Federation
Delaware County Regional Planning Commission
Licking County Regional Planning Commission
Fairfield County Regional Planning Commission
-------
6. Date made available to CEQ and the Public
The Final Statement was made available to CEQ and the public on
June 15, 1979.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Columbus, Ohio owns and operates two large
conventional wastewater treatment plants: Jackson Pike built
in 1937 and Southerly built in 1967. Combined, the plants
serve an area with a population of over 800,000 people, yet
discharge to the Scioto River less than ten miles from one
another. In order to meet the river's stringent water quality
standards both plants must be upgraded and/or expanded. Hence,
the City applied for a Federal 201 Construction Grant to help
meet these needs.
The project proposed by the City, beginning with formal
initiation of facilities planning in October, 1974, included
five major actions:
Construction of additional liquid treatment faci-
lities for sewage processing at the Southerly
and Jackson Pike sewage treatment plants
Design and construction of a pilot plant in order
to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended
plan to solve the bulking activated sludge prob-
lem at Southerly
Construction of three sludge incinerators and
associated dewatering facilities for processing
sludge from sewage treatment
Construction of separate sanitary sewer inter-
ceptors within the Columbus planning area
Selection of a cost-effective and environmentally
acceptable system to minimize combined sewer
overflows.
Due to the size of the undertaking, the expressed need
to develop additional system alternatives, and the poten-
tial for resultant adverse economic and environmental impacts
U.S. EPA published on March 15, 1976 a "Notice of
Intent" to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
More specifically the determination to prepare the EIS was
based on the following concerns:
The cost-effective liquid sewage treatment alter-
natives that would enable the attainment of water
quality standards in the Scioto River
1-1
-------
The cost-effective wastewater system
for facility receiving significant
organic loads from a brewery
The feasible methods for environmentally accept-
able sludge treatment and disposal
The environmental effects of the construction
and operation of the proposed sewage treatment
and collection facilities
The induced growth and secondary environmental
effects of building interceptors in and through
sparsely developed rural and agricultural areas.
The Draft EIS was published in February, 1978 with a
public hearing taking place in Columbus on March 31, 1978.
Extensive comments on the Draft EIS were received at the
public hearing and later in written submittals; so much so
that the original deadline for receipt of review comments
was extended by U.S. EPA from April 10, 1978 to April 26,
1978. The key issues raised in the comments focused on:
Population projections
Intercepting sewers including needs, sizes,
location, impacts
Design of wastewater treatment facilities in-
cluding reliability, cost effectiveness, and en-
vironmental impacts
Pre-treatment of brewery wastes
Sludge handling and disposal methods
The need for a large-scale pilot plant.
As can be seen by the chronology of events listed in Table
1-1, U.S. EPA undertook considerable additional analysis
in order to resolve the outstanding issues before publication
of the Final EIS.
This Volume of the Final EIS is intended to provide a concise
overview of the recommended system, empahsizing both areas of concern
and changes between the final recommendations and those presented in
the Draft EIS.
1-2
-------
rH
1
H
W
EH
*^j
tP
0
O
C
0
H
W
r-H
-H
a.
w
o
U)
41
lumbus, Ohio between representat
c
H
S
H
41
01
E
CO
£
w
rH
i
4J
a
01
in
o
H
-C
u;
|
s
c
to
0)
u
i
p.
4J
IB
Q
CTi
H
fl
CJ
1
Ul
< 3
o .a
. >.H ,H
U r-l Q Q
C 3 U
y of Columbus and Anheuser-Busch
ew conclusions of John Stamberg'
rts, the preliminary results of
dy, the Beltsvllle Lab analysis
s > as
U 4> 0) Ul
41 Qi
.C TJ CO C
4J C I- H
< ra Q
O u rM S
4-1
C
o
u
01
01
IU
o
a
4)
U
0>
o
01
c
TJ •
Original de,
of Draft El
o
1-1
H
1
T)
01
1
•H
tn
arious alternatives available fo
e intercepting sewer sizings .
> .e
0)
& -0
4-1 C
01 -
3 tn
rH O
tn ft
C
u
2
0)
it-i
o
a
0)
u
OJ
o
c
TJ •
ffl I/)
Extended de,
of Draft El:
CO
i£>
(N
1
O
C 01
0 >
informatl
78 letter
alternatl
V requested in the August 25, 19
Blackllck Creek regionalization
O 01
0 H
The City
US EPA- Re
regardin.
CO
cri
v
S
i
4J
a
i/i
3
rH 0 >,
H 4J ,Q
a 0) T3
0) rH ffl
-c H a
o o ft
>i C H
a o s
tO >i
tO C -H
" rj "
e oi 3
tn o
C 01 LO
ij 4-i 01
3 H JJ
"1 M
O 0) CP
0 M C
>i a 41
H Vi (J
O I
CO 01
CO
rH
__
I
ormation
4-1
c
H
ffl
0
H
CO
i
c
rH
0
CJ
0
H
U
0)
CO
CTi
-
OJ
o
8
to
01
t/i
Dr. Robert ;
to
4-
CD
CTi
IH
a
01
01
0)
4J
C
H
S
4J
E
0
4-1
JJ
•o
c
ra
OJ
H
"t"3
4-1
C
OJ
a
c
0)
3
4J
Ul
3
S
Meeting in >
CO
rH
1
TJ
01
au
H
O rH
a u
s: sa
4J
"+J CT
o 5
smits findings of an inspection i
ek Intercepting Sewer route thro
C 0)
-4 U
jj
The OEPA
Blacklic:
S
o>
rH
*
CN
1
41
U
Q
01 0
.C 4-1
4-1
» IH
0- -Q O
w to UH
O T3
rH tO
C C >
O >. H
-rl 01 4J
u c
01 4-1 -J
WOO)
4-1
G >i r-l
O 4-1 tO
H H
4-1 U l-l
ffl 01
to J3 0)
a 4J ui
0)
y) *° w
M ££5
i "e Q
C 3
O -H Of
H o x;
1 O U
< 4)
3 U H
cu
2
4J
0)
E
0
O
3
0)
iH
ffl
U
H
V-l
4)
0)
01
Blacklick b
4!
4J 41
H C
Ul H
rH &
(0 0>
C U
tan Park District transmits an a
environmental impact of an inter
h the Blacklick Woods Metro Park.
rH T! 3
0 C 0
&*£
The Metr.
economic
routed t.
4J
H 4)
ffl a
C 0) tn
tO 4-1 W
41 3 IB
ul Q
OJ .C
S O 4-1
4-1 4-1
^ s
jj E OJ
C T! H
H ffl 4-1
U C
C > O
u c u
Meeting in
USEPA Reg 10
alternative
CD
O>
CD"
I
c
H
E 41
e Regional
to discuss
5 o,
0 H
0>
H D
0) E •
4-i in
4-1 ffl M
0) W
C OJ
ra ra
4-1 01 M-.
ui 01 w
ffl O
jj 01 ra
tn H rH
3 3 U
e u o
3 E u
O C OJ
O -U
"o ^ -a
4-1 O
O ffl 3
01 4-1 ffl
01
t—
rH
„•
u
M
E
c
O P
H 3 nj
D, CQ
0 rH
0) C
S H d
(0 01 CJ
>i 4-1
13 C
3 O TJ
0 ffl CD
1 -Q JJ
ffl 0 g
•asj
,a o in
§ rH Ol
rH rH
ss „
Revision of
Projections
of the Cens
CO
r-
-
(N
01
3
CJ-
C
H
4-1
01
01
E
C
H 41
W 4-1
s a letter to John McGuire reque
e status and the conclusions of
H 4-1
tn tn
c w
4-> If!
H
OH
8 5
^
t^
en
rH
CO
U
1
V
u
<4H
VI
0
o
01
41
4-)
H
fti
C
<
of Economic
year 2000.
EH tJ>
son Pike W
City of
Reynoldsbu
V representative toured the Jack
abilitation work included in the
lities Plan, toured the City of
o w to
< en E
W rH
D 4-> U
£
CTl
lO
o
IH
E
4J
E C
Sj o)
o e
O QJ 41
M O
"B H
ffl U 4J
W M rH
"§ H l£
>, o>
o
4-1 ffl w
U 4-1 rl
C C ffl
8 S S
> is
USEPA-Regio
Energy and
an independ
r^
rH
-
s
I
01
c
Intercept
and toure<
ce Main to
the route of the Blacklick Creek
the Blacklick Woods Metro Park,
enue route of a Reynoldsburg For
0) P
- rl C
t ss
1 $ ij
>.
ffl
c
u
1
>, >
4-1
H C
rH O
ffl H
EC
h
H <
W
>l
•g «
0 4-1
U C
0> ffl
CO 4J
rH
Sxibmittal o
by EIS cons
r^
r^
>i
3
•-3
0)
01
JJ
AJ
ffl
OJ
1
<
w
JJ
£
•§
4J
t/l
G
jG
O
ID
5
4->
a
41
rH
H
CO
r^
O>
rH
*
(N
><
3
tJ
01
T)
3
U
1
ffl
4-1
Ul
3
S
0
4-1
U
01
?
rH
rH
O
rl
C
0
c
1
0)
.c
4J
ties Plan for rehabilitation of
requested during the WWTP tour.
H Ul
u ~
ffl PH
.C
TJ
01
C
en ffl
ffl u
4J t/)
O
H O
S rH
S 0
U U
i*-- -a
U-i C
o to
cr
C H
IiS
C 01
Discussion
regarding t
en
*
tM
>,
3
01
>
I
01
r4
C
I
ra
01
O
>
C
0
en
0)
C
Meeting
£
rH
iH
O
S
4J
O
ft
OJ
CO
1-1
rH
rH
P
C
H
the statu
V, OEPA, and the City to discuss
us ions of the EIS.
y
41
1 .C
< 4-1
o,
D ffl
>,
Tl
3
4-1
C
1
E
H
<
W
0
IH
O
>
C
o
H
Cn
S
>i
J3
4J
41
U
&
[--
C
§ £§
H i «
QJ Q- rH
ra D 4-1
01 14-1
^°a
yH ui
O 01 01
> .c
4J
H C Ul
cp 01 ui
41 W 3
H 01 -5
H >^ H
4J TJ 4J
0) O 0)
CO
r^
rH
CO
^J
ra
3
en
3
W
ffl
Q
OJ
0
to
H
H
0)
4J
rH
U
ffl
4-1
C
ffl
0)
4-1
Id
QJ
for wastewa
*-> o .c o
CTi H TJ
en rt >, 3 4-1 c
C 4J ffl 0 U 3
H H rl 41 CM
oJ W ° S 5 W G
4) M 01 H ffl O
E w j- e -a H
jlumbus delivers a request for a
tatus and the conclusions of the
-n representatives of USEPA and 1
rtment of Natural Resources trans
that an intercepting sewer route
3s Metro Park would be conslderec
t of the Land and Water Conservat
U ra oi ffl c o °
3 ft o O ^
'o £ 0) Q 4J S ^
^ ra 0 C u p
4-lra013 HHHO
H 10 C fl ^ E rH
U3H§ Or4J^"
U 4J 3 0) O «-i •
ClUlOlrH OJ 4J CTI
rH rH
rH rH
-H H
df a
eC rt
(
a
v>
^
to >,
0 4-i 3 qj
M H IJ-I rH -DC
4-1 0 4-i 3D1
4) X a C 0) JH- 4-)Ol4)01,C O£C
H 41 M E J-i iw |
fflC4JrHMUH «&
U) U O C Q ffl Ul
0) 4> O ffl H -HO
t< Ul W 4-> Ul -M
(3. 4-) 0) 3 C >i
41CCX:^4) rH>,
HE 3 p CO
o> ffl O tn o ffl
HrH3OJ2 01^4
Jja>mi4-i3 T3J3
41414IHOO 3ffl
XI IH D TJ S4 rH iJ
ft* >, DI ra
3U).C4JHO> • OU
ft-t 4-1 U _C ffl H In
w ra 4-1 oj £ B
rH>c^3j^C'=C tn
S<3 S 4J O - OJ
c 3 c ra a;
O "I rH >, 4J 10 3
CH3OX1C4-) J301
HCJi^U 0)H E— 1
01 1 TJ E rH 3 rH
tjicesnaiao H-H
cirHoiinoa ot>
HrtO4->njrHo o*n
jjc-afflaairi *J
0>W 4IOIP-4-I d» rH
Olt/lU--JHt40)01 [C<11
EDouaos: Sen
OS CO
r^ r~-
rH rH
n in
4-1 4->
ui ra
3 3
I I
: USEPA-
scuss the
lal EIS.
Lumbus between representatives oJ
EIS consultants, and OEPA to dis
jmmendations contained in the fir
O 01 O
cj JT 41
4-> U
c
Meeting j
Region V,
technical
o\
en
^
1-1
ffl
•s,
ffl
H
4J rH
-C ffl
o
ET
0)
41
U
M
, ~!
U
ffl
1 rH
ra
"
1
01
3 S
-Q -r|
S 4-1
3 ffl
USEPA- Regio
City of Col
tion altern
CO
r-
(N
4-t
f
1 tH >4H
< o o
>, ra
W 4J C
3 H O
Lumbus between represenatlves of
EIS consultants, OEPA, and the C
LSCUSS the technical recommendat]
4J O
Meeting j
Region V,
Columbus
01
o
(N*
fN
1
41
4J
ra
0) T!
H-l ffl
C M
01 01
•d 3
H 0)
|