EIS801072DE
United States Region V
Protection 230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
November, 1980
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Environmental Impact
Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Water Pollution
Abatement Program
Appendix VI
Local Alternatives
Appendix VII
Water Quality
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by +he
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
and
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
MADISON, WISCONSIN
with the assistance of
ESEI - ECOLSCIENCES ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
November 1980
SUBMITTED BY.-
HOWARD S. DRUCKENMILLER
DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
IONAL ADMINISTRATOR
VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX VI
LOCAL ALTERNATIVES
NOVEMBER 1980
1670
-------
LOCAL ALTERNATIVES EIS APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 EIS SCREENING METHODOLOGY
3.0 CADDY VISTA SANITARY DISTRICT
4.0 VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN
5.0 CITY OF MUSKEGO
6.0 CITY OF NEW BERLIN
7.0 CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE
8.0 VILLAGE OF THIENSVILLE
9.0 PRIVATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
10.0 ENERGY AND RESOURCE IMPACTS
11.0 SUMMARY
-------
FIGURES
Figure
Number
1-1 Land Application Approaches
3-1 Caddy Vista WWTP
4-1 Germantown WWTP
4-2 Germantown Land Application Site and Conveyance
Route
5-1 Muskego Northeast WWTP
5-2 Muskego Northeast Alternative A
Land Application Site and Conveyance Route
5-3 Muskego Northwest WWTP
5-4 Muskego Northwest Alternative A
Tess Corners Creek Outfall Conveyance Route
5-5 Muskego Northwest Alternative A
Land Application Site and Conveyance Route
5-6 Muskego Northeast Alternative B
Conveyance Route to Northeast WWTP
6-1 New Berlin Service Areas
6-2 Regal Manors WWTP
6-3 New Berlin Alternative A
Regal Manors Land Application Site and Conveyance
Route
6-4 New Berlin Alternative B
Southeast Land Application Site and Conveyance
Route
6-5 Final New Berlin Actions
7-1 South Milwaukee WWTP
8-1 Thiensville WWTP
11-1 Service Area and Facility Map of the Regional
Alternative
11-2 Service Area and Facility Map of the Local Alternative
ii
-------
TABLES
Table
Number
1-1 DNR Water Use Objectives
1-2 Comparison of Irrigation, Overland Flow, and
Infiltration/Percolation for Municipal Wastewater
1-3 Comparative Characteristics of Irrigation,
Overland Flow, and Infiltration/Percolation
Systems
6-1 Summary of Preliminary Costs for New Berlin
Northeast and Southeast Wastewater Treatment
Plants
6-2 Feasible New Berlin Sewage Treatment Alternatives
10-1 Local Alternative Year 2005 Resources Requirements
10-2 System Level Resources 2005
11-1 Summary of Final Local and Connection
Alternative Impacts
111
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is an appendix to the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program (MWPAP). The main body of the EIS describes,
generally, the reasons why Milwaukee needs a pollution
abatement program, the purposes of the program, the develop-
ment and evaluation of possible actions for the abatement of
sewage-related pollution, and how those alternative actions
would affect the natural and man-made environments.
The central planning document of the MWPAP is the Wastewater
System Plan (WSP). The areawide planning process of the WSP
was the first step in the total planning process of the MWPAP.
This step identified general concepts for sewage treatment in
the planning area. General locations for wastewater treat-
ment plant (WWTPs), interceptors, and storage facilities were
determined based on the location and condition of existing
facilities, anticipated population growth, and land avail-
ability.
The WSP considered three approaches (local, subregional and
regional) for providing sewer service to the MWPAP planning
area. In the main body of the EIS the various treatment and
conveyance alternatives for each approach or system-level
were evaluated. It was concluded that no subregional alter-
natives were acceptable because of high costs and adverse
environmental impacts. Local and regional alternatives were
determined to be feasible.
The key difference between the local and regional system-
levels would be the number of communities or agencies operating
WWTPs in the planning area. Currently there are eight manage-
ment agencies and eight private institutions operating WWTPs
that discharge treated effluent to surface waters or to land.
The eight management agencies are listed below :
Caddy Vista Sanitary District
Village of Germantown
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
Village of Menomonee Falls
City of Muskego
City of New Berlin
City of South Milwaukee
Village of Thiensville
The eight private WWTPs are listed below with the community in
which they are located :
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Oak Creek
School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mequon
Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant, Mequon
1-1
-------
Muskego Rendering Company, Muskego
Highway 100 Drive-in Theater, Franklin
St. Martins Road Truck Stop, Franklin
Cleveland Heights Grade School, New Berlin
New Berlin Memorial Hospital, New Berlin
Under the local system-level each of the above agencies and
institutions would continue to operate and finance their own
treatment facilities. The regional system-level would involve
.the,abandonment of all of the WWTPs in the planning area except
those operated by the MMSD. Conveyance systems would be built
to connect the sewage flows from the abandoned WWTPs to the
MMSD. The Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs would be operated
by the MMSD under both the local and regional system-levels.
The proposed actions at both of these plants are discussed in
separate appendices.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Local Alternatives Appendix is to discuss
the seven management agencies and eight institutions currently
not receiving sewer service from the MMSD and assess how both
the local and regional system-levels affect each agency and
business as well as the total planning area. This appendix
includes descriptions of the existing WWTPs, the alternatives
for continued local sewage treatment, and the alternatives for
connection of the local service areas of the seven agencies and
eight institutions to the MMSD.
The initial alternatives for each of the management agencies and
private institutions were proposed by the MWPAP. The EIS study
team reviewed this list of alternatives. Next, separate MWPAP
and EIS analyses of environmental impacts, costs, and technical
feasibility were done. These analyses were done primarily with
MWPAP data, but were also independently verified with separate
EIS data. The data and conclusions in this appendix are based
on the conclusions of the EIS study team based on its review of
the MWPAP planning process and additional independent analysis.
A detailed description of the methodology used for the EIS
analysis is presented in Chaper 2.
1.1.1. Assumptions
There were a number of assumptions made by the MWPAP and by the
EIS study team with respect to the evaluation of alternatives for
the eight management agencies and the eight private WWTPs which
had a direct impact on the conclusions presented in this appen-
dix. These assumptions are outlined below:
1-2
-------
The WSP planning area analysis was done by the MWPAP on a
conceptual basis only. The alternatives evaluated by the
MWPAP were developed based on typical state-of-the-art
wastewater treatment processes and were not intended to
represent all of the possible means of meeting specific
levels of treatment.
Because the WWTP and sewer connection alternatives were
not identified in the Notices of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement, the EIS analysis presented
in this appendix was also done on a conceptual level only.
After a final local or regional approach for each agency
is approved by EPA and DNR, a detailed facilities plan and
environmental assessment will be prepared prior to the
design and construction of any facilities.
The MWPAP assumed that the marginal increased cost to the
MMSD to treat additional wastewater flows from the local
management agencies was insignificant. The implications
of this assumption are discussed in this appendix.
The EIS and this appendix evaluated water quality impacts
with respect to existing DNR water quality goals. The
MWPAP evaluated water quality impacts with respect to the
future goals recommended by the regional 208 planning
agency, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Com-
mission (SEWRPC). In general the recommended 208 water
quality goals are more stringent than the existing DNR
goals. Consequently, there are alternatives in which the
MWPAP has concluded that water quality goals would not be
met whereas the EIS has concluded that they would. These
differences are noted in the discussion of the alterna-
tives.
The costs presented in this appendix are costs developed
by the MMSD except for alternatives which were evaluated
only in the EIS. All MMSD costs were reviewed by the EIS
study team and were found to be consistent with published
EPA cost data. However, there are instances when final
cost estimates are much higher than preliminary costs. The
impact of this situation is discussed in this appendix.
1.2 Background
The seven local sewage management agencies not served by the
MMSD currently operate nine WWTPs. These plants are listed
below :
Caddy Vista WWTP
Germantown WWTP
Menomonee Falls Riverside WWTP
1-3
-------
Menomonee Falls Parkview WWTP
Muskego Northeast WWTP
Muskego Northwest WWTP
New Berlin Regal Manors WWTP
South Milwaukee WWTP
Thiensville WWTP
The two Menomonee Falls treatment plants will soon be abandoned
because of previously approved construction of interceptors
that will connect the Menomonee Falls service area to the MMSD.
For this reason Menomonee Falls sewer service will not be
discussed further in this anpendix.
There are other private wastewater treatment facilities in the
planning area besides the eight listed earlier. However, the
eight facilities being evaluated in this appendix discharge to
waters of the State of Wisconsin and thus require Wisconsin
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits.
In June 1979 SEWRPC completed Planning Report No. 30, A Regional
Water Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin: 2000
( commonly referred to as the 208 Plan). The 208 Plan made a
number of recommendations with respect to the continued operation
of both the public and private WWTPs in the MMSD planning area.
The Plan recommended the abandonment of all public WWTPs except
the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs operated by the MMSD and
the City of South Milwaukee WWTP. It was recommended that all
eight private WWTPs be abandoned.
The 208 Plan recognized the fact that the MWPAP would reevaluate
many of the recommendations made in the 208 Plan, especially
recommendations relating to the abandonment of local public and
private WWTPs. Specifically, the 208 Plan called for further
analysis of the WEPCO WWTP because the location of this plant
could make abandonment much more costly than continued operation.
Detailed analysis of the other public and private WWTPs in the
planning area could also result in conclusions which differ froi-
those presented in the 208 plan. The final MWPAP facility plan
upon its adoption by the EPA and the DNR will serve as an
amendment to the 208 plan.
1.3 Alternatives
Plant documents were reviewed by the MWPAP to determine each
public and private plant's process train, design size, average
and peak flows, and effluent characteristics. Onsite investi-
gations were carried out for all of the public plants except
South Milwaukee. These investigations were used to assess the
general condition of each plant and to identify any structural
1-4
-------
problems. Community records and infiltration/inflow studies
were also examined in order to evaluate the conveyance system to
each WWTP.
The EIS study team reviewed the documents prepared by the
MWPAP. A full list of references is included at the end of this
appendix. The EIS study team also visited each public WWTP
except South Milwaukee.
After the existing conditions of each WWTP had been assessed, an
evaluation was made of the steps necessary to enable the facility
to treat future wastewater flows to the levels specified by DNR
as tentative effluent limits for the planning period (1985-2005).
No bypassing of inadequately treated wastewater would be permit-
ted. Seven alternatives were developed:
No Action - The WWTP would continue operation with no
major renovations. Existing operation and maintenance
(O&M) procedures would be followed.
Upgrade Operations and Maintenance (O&M) - The WWTP would
continue to operate using existing processes, but O&M
would be improved by training personnel or improving O&M
procedures.
Expand Existing Plant - By adding new equipment and pro-
cesses, similar to those already in place, the capacity of
the WWTP would be expanded. This alternative would assume
the optimization of O&M procedures.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to the Fox River Basin -
Every public local WWTP was evaluated for the feasibility
of discharging effluent to the Fox River Basin. Feasi-
bility was based on the size of the WWTP and the distance
to a suitable discharge location. If discharge was feasi-
ble, the new processes required to enable the plant to meet
the effluent standards necessary for discharge to the Fox
River basin were determined. For WWTPs now discharging to
the Lake Michigan basin, this evaluation included the cost
and environmental acceptability of constructing conveyance
facilities to a new discharge site in the Fox River basin.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to the Lake Michigan Basin
- A similar evaluation was made to determine the feasi-
bility of discharging WWTP effluent to the Lake Michigan
Basin. For WWTPs where discharge was feasible, the new
processes required to enable the plant to meet the effluent
standards for discharge to the Lake Michigan basin were
determined. For WWTPs now discharging effluent to waters
in the Fox River basin, the evaluation included the cost
and environmental acceptability of constructing conveyance
facilities to a new Lake Michigan basin discharge site.
1-5
-------
Land Application of Effluent - For each WWTP, the cost,
technical feasibility, and environmental impacts of devel-
oping land application treatment processes were determined.
Four application alternatives were evaluated: high rate
irrigation, normal rate irrigation, infiltration/percola-
tion, and marsh application.
Recycle and Reuse of Effluent - Consideration was also
given to the possibility of treating wastewater to such
levels that the effluent could be .used by industry or
recreational facilities.
Each WWTP was evaluated for all of these alternatives to deter-
mine the steps necessary to meet the future effluent standards
established by the DNR. Also determined was the amount, avail-
bility and location of land necessary for WWTP expansion or for
application of effluent; the cost of each alternative; and the
environmental impacts of each alternative.
1.3.1 Surface Discharge Alternatives
For treatment plants discharging to surface waters, analyses
were also conducted to ensure that the receiving waters would
meet DNR water quality goals. Receiving water goals for all
waters in the planning area are listed on Table 1-1. Secondary
level treatment is always required and in some cases advanced
secondary treatment (AST) would also be required for discharge
to surface waters.
Secondary treatment is defined by EPA in Program Requirements
Memorandum PRM No. 79-7 as a treatment level meeting effluent
limits for 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODr) and suspended
solids (SS) of 30/30 mg/1 on a maximum monthly Basis or 85 per-
cent removal of these parameters, whichever is more stringent.
Advanced secondary treatment refers to a treatment level meeting
effluent limits for BOD5/ss between 30/30 and 10/10 mg/1 on a
maximum monthly average, effluent limits which call for ammonia
removal, or effluent limits which require both. Advanced waste
treatment (AWT) is treatment meeting effluent limits for BODe/SS
less than 10/10 mg/1 on a maximum monthly average, effluent
limits which provide for a total nitrogen removal of greater
than 50 percent, or effluent limits which require both. The
specific effluent limits are listed for each WWTP.
1.3.2 Land Application Alternatives
The four land application alternatives are very different in
their application methods and effluent limits. Infiltration/
percolation systems would employ a pond in highly permeable soil
where biological and chemical action would occur.
1-6
-------
1
e
en
QJ
•H
4J
U
Q)
•r— i
^Q
O
QJ
en
£3
^
QJ
03
IS
03
IS
«.
QJ
en
ft 3
EH
S rH
IS 03
C
4J 0
< -H
4-1
03
QJ
S-l
U
Q)
O
•H
4J
03
3
03
T3
C
03
>.
SH
Q)
r]
tn
•H
4H
SH
QJ Q)
4J 4-t
03 -r-l
5 rH
1
g
s_i
03
IS
-
QJ
tn
3
i-H
03
G
0
•H
4->
03
QJ
SH
O
0)
OS
O
•H
4-1
03
3
0!
its
t3
OS
!>i
SH
QJ
A
en
•H
4H
j^
QJ QJ
4-1 4-4
05 -H
S rH
1
e
in
oj
J2
».
QJ
en
3
rH
03
C
O
-H
4J
03
Q)
SH
O
QJ
0
•H
4J
03
3
Cr
03
T3
G
03
>K,
J_J
QJ
x;
en
•H
4H
SH
Q) QJ
4-) 4H
03 -H
!5 rH
-
OJ
en
3
rH
03
G
O
•H
4-1
03
QJ
S_i
U
Q)
QJ
4H
•H
rH
0
•r-l
4-1
03
3
O1
03
Q)
4-1
03
•H
T!
QJ
£
^_i
Q)
4-1
C
M
QJ
tn
3
i-H
03
C
•H
(ji
S-|
03
2
U
•H
I 4->
T3 03
rH 3
o cr
U 03
OJ C
en 03
Cu
a
3
en
03 QJ
C A
O tn
•H -H 15
4J 4H
03 O
QJ SH -H
SH QJ QJ H
O 4J 4H X!
0) 03 -H 3
OS S rH ft
Q)
4-1
03
w
34
en
Q)
•H
4-1
U
QJ
QJ
tn
D
SH
Q)
4J
03
S
OS
0)
en
G
QJ
•H
C
s
o
03
M
QJ
(0
4-1
en
•H
03
U
-P
en
03
0)
£
4J
S-t
0
2
QJ
X
tn
3
S
tn
S-l
O
G
03
2
03
Oi
Q)
C
•H
0)
m
QJ
2
OJ
QJ
X
3
(0
-H
s
4-1
3
O
SH
QJ
4-1
03
QJ
O
03
4H
Q)
•iH
QJ
QJ
-X
3
03
rH
(H
QJ
Q)
QJ
C
O
O
C
QJ
s
QJ
>
-H
O
o
OS
QJ
QJ
M
U
eo
!H
QJ
C
M
O
U
en
Q)
QJ
QJ
S-l
U
5-1
Q)
QJ
Q
M
W
U3
W
tn
U
•H
QJ
^
03
QJ
U
5-)
3
O
1-7
-------
The water would then infiltrate the groundwater aquifer. The
size and loading rate to the infiltration/percolation pond would
depend on the type and permeability of the soil. Effluent could
be applied year round.
Two of the land application alternatives involve high rate and
normal rate irrigation of crop land. Nutrients found in munici-
pal wastewater have been found to be beneficial to crops. How-
ever, because pathogens may be present, wastewater irrigation is
not allowed for crops that would be eaten raw. The presence of
certain pollutants in the effluent would preclude the use of this
system on crops whose edible parts easily accept toxic sub-
stances. The rate of irrigation would depend on the permea-
bility of the soil and the level of saturation allowable for
growth of the crop. These types of treatment would not be fea-
sible during the nongrowing season. Storage facilities large
enough to store effluent for seven months between growing
seasons would be required.
Effluent treated by infiltration/percolation and both high and
normal rate irrigation requires pretreatment by a secondary type
treatment process. The effluent limits for this pretreatment,
as set by subsection NR 214.07 (3) of the Wisconsin Admini-
strative Code, require BOD^ concentrations which do not exceed
50 mg/1 in more than 20 percent of the monitored samples
required during a calender quarter. Disinfection is also
required for spray irrigation systems. Federal guidelines for
land application systems are generally less stringent than those
required by the State of Wisconsin. Effluent limits are nor-
mally based on the proximity of the land application sites to
residents, schools or commercial areas. Isolated rural sites
may require only primary treatment while sites near populated
areas may require a secondary treatment. Because most of the
potential land application sites in the planning area are near
populated areas, the State limits were adopted for planning
purposes.
Although chlorination is not required by the DNR for infil-
tration/percolation systems or irrigation systems which do not
spray wastewater, the MMSD included chlorination facilities in
all of its land application alternatives. The inclusion of
these facilities unnecessarily in some of the alternatives did
not appreciably affect the alternative analysis because generally
these facilities amounted to less than 1 percent of the total
alternative cost.
The fourth land application alternative evaluated was marsh
application or enhancement. Marshes are diverse ecosystems
providing habitat for a wide variety of flora and fauna.
Because of their slow water movement, they serve as nutrient and
sediment traps and provide storage for flood control. Marsh
application has been used in Wisconsin for small treatment
1-8
-------
facilities. However, winter application is not considered fea-
sible and storage facilities must be utilized. The Wisconsin
DNR has required a treatment level of 20 mg/1 BODc and 20 mg/1
suspended solids for other marsh application projects. Eight
marshes near the planning area were determined to be suitable
for application of effluent.
A fifth land application alternative (overland flow) was consid-
ered during alternative development. However, this process was
found unsuitable for the planning area for three main reasons:
excessive amounts of phosphorus would be carried by runoff into
surface waters; the climate is too cold for adequate operations;
and the process is unproven in the United States for sanitary
sewage treatment.
Most overland flow eventually enters surface waters with phos-
phorus concentrations of about 4 mg/1. The DNR limit of 1 mg/1
which is applicable for most streams in the planning area would
be exceeded. Overland flow cannot be used in cold weather
because the vegetative growth needed for treatment would not
exist. Secondly, an overland flow system requires from 50 to
120 days of start up time before adequate treatment can be
achieved. Accordingly, the operating season of an overland flow
system would be only about four months of the year.
A schematic of the various types of land application is shown in
Figure 1-1. A comparison of the various types of land appli-
cation can be found on Tables 1-2 and 1-3.
For screening purposes, land application sites were located by
eliminating all areas designated as residential, flood-plain,
wetland, scientific study areas, or otherwise sensitive. Prox-
imity to surface waters was also considered. Soil testing and
other site specific analyses would be conducted if a facility
plan for such a project should become necessary.
1.3.3 Recycle and Reuse Alternatives
In general recycle and reuse was determined to be infeasible for
all WWTPs. In all cases, higher levels of treatment and addi-
tional pumping costs made this alternative too costly.
1-9
-------
EYAPORAT ION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE
APPLI CAT ION
SLOPE
VARIABLE
T—DEEP
PERCOLAI ION
(a) IRRIGATION
EVAPORATION
SPRAY APPLICATION
SLOPE 2-6'.
GRASS AND VEGETAT I VE LITTER
,-RUNOFF
/ COLLECTION
(b) OVERLAND FLOW
SPREADING BASIN
SURFACE APPLICATION
PERCOLATION THROUGH
UNSATURATED ZONE
ZONE OF AERATI8H
AND TXEATKEKT
OLD WATER TABLE-
(c) IHFILTRATIOH-PERCOLAT10N
FIGURE ]__]_
DATE
November
1980
LAND APPLICATION APPROACHES
PREPARED BY
SOURCE EPA
fl EcolSciences
ill ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Table 1-2. Comparison of Irrigation, Overland
Flow, and Infiltration-Percolation for
Municipal Wastewater
Directive
L'se as a treatment process with
i rcco\er\ of rer.cvateJ ivater
1.50 l":- treatr.cn t Dc>'or.d
sec or. dory .
1. For BOD and suspended
solids renoval
2. For nitrogen removal
3. For phosphorus removal
L?e to grc.~ crops for sale
Use a? direct recvcle to
the land
Use to recharge groundwater
Use ir. cold climates
Tyne of aiiro-:.1'
Infiltration -
Irrigation Overland flow percolation
Impractical SO to 60*. '..'- t : 93*.
recovery recovery
90-99* 90-991 90-9r-».
Up to 90'.a 7C-905. C-81;
50-99', 50-604 7&-931
Excellent Fair Poor
Complete Partial Co-plete
0-30'. 0-10*. L'p, to SC*
Fair b .-c Excellent
a. Dependent upon crop uptai-e.
b. Cir.flictir.5 data--woods irrigation acceptable, cropland irrigation marginal.
c. Insufficient data.
Table 1-3. Comparative Characteristics of
Irrigation, Overland Flow, and Infiltration-Percolation
Systems
Factor
Liquid loading rate
Annual application
Irrigation
0.5 to 4 in./wk
2 to 8 ft/yr
Type of Approach
Overland flow
2 to 5.5 in./wk
8 to 24 ft/yr
Infi 1 tration-
percolation
4 to 120 in./wk
18 to 500 ft/yr
Land required for
1-mgd flow
Application
techniques
Soils
Probability of
influencing ground-
water quality
Needed depth to
groundwater
Wastewater lost to:
140 to 560 acres
plus buffer zones
Spray or surface
Moderately per-
mejble soils »ith
good productivity
when irrigated
Moderate
About 5 ft
Predominantly
evaporation or
deep percolation
46 to 140 acres
plus buffer zones
Usually spray
Slowly permeable
soil.s such as clay
loams and clay
Slight
Undetermined
Surface discharge
dominates over
evaporation and
percolation
2 to 62 acres
plus buffer zones
Usually surface
Rapidly permeable
soils , such as
sands , loamv sands,
and sandy loans
Certain
About 15 ft
Percolation to
groundwater
a. Adapted from [62].
b. Irrigation rates of 4 in./wk are usually seasonal; yearly »axiaun loads of 8 ft/yr
would average about 2 in./wk.
Source: EPA, 1973
1-11
-------
CHAPTER 2
EIS SCREENING METHODOLOGY
-------
2.0 EIS SCREENING METHODOLOGY
The MWPAP planning process was initiated specifically to address
the sewage treatment problems of the MMSD and its member commu-
nities. Specifically, the MWPAP was designed to address sewage
treatment problems at the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs,
bypasses in the MIS and local sewers as well as combined sewer
overflows in the City of Milwaukee and the Village of Shorewood.
Because the project would involve actions by EPA and DNR
including funding a portion of the project and plan approval, it
was necessary to prepare an EIS in accordance with the require-
ments of NEPA and WEPA.
Planning, however, was not limited to the existing MMSD service
area. It included planning for the entire area designated as
the the MMSD planning area. This area includes all or a por-
tion of the seven communities and eight private WWTPs discussed
in Chapter 1. For this reason, the MMSD also evaluated sewage
treatment alternatives for these communities and private
institutions as part of the MWPAP. This analysis was done
only on a conceptual basis. No detailed refinement of alter-
natives was attempted.
Although the Notices of Intent to Prepare an EIS did not address
specific actions for the communities currently not receiving
service from the MMSD, the impacts of the proposed actions were
evaluated in this EIS because the action would occur in the
MMSD planning area. The EIS analysis was aimed at identifying
major impacts. The analysis concentrated on the following
criteria:
0 Water quality
° Groundwater quality
0 Energy and resource use
Cost
0 Engineering feasibility
0 Legality
The EIS analysis involved both review and independent analysis
activities. These activities included review of MWPAP screen-
ing and design criteria, site plans, and conclusions. The EIS
study team reviewed the assumptions, the data base, and the
final conclusions made by the MMSD to ensure that the data,
procedures, and results were consistent with local, state, and
federal regulations.
Independent analysis was used as both a separate check of MWPAP
conclusions and as a means of developing new information for pre-
sentation in the EIS. As a means of checking MWPAP conclusions,
alternative screening methodologies and separate data references
were used. New information was developed for the EIS in areas
such as energy and resources use.
2-1
-------
Both the review and the independent analysis process are dis-
cussed further below.
2.1 Alternative Screening
The MWPAP developed the comprehensive list of actions for the
seven management agencies and eight private institutions
currently not served by the MMSD. This list included the alter-
natives for upgrading each local sewage treatment system as well
as the actions necessary for each independent service area to
connect to MMSD facilities. This list of alternatives served as
the starting point for the alternative screening process. The
results of the screening process are presented in the main body
of the EIS and in Chapters 3 through 9 of this appendix.
The EIS screening and impact analysis was undertaken in two
stages: primary screening and secondary screening. These two
stages are outlined below.
2.1.1 Primary Screening
Primary screening was aimed at eliminating those preliminary -
alternatives that were too costly, likely to cause excessive
environmental impact, or illegal. The MMSD developed general
treatment plant locations, typical process trains, and tenta-
tive conveyance corridors. The MMSD then prepared preliminary
costs for all the alternatives that were not eliminated because
of overriding legal, technical, environmental or implementation
constraints. EPA cost curves, existing project bid data, and
construction cost estimates for recent wastewater treatment
projects' were used in this analysis. These costs had an accuracy
range of +50 to -30%.
The EIS reviewed these data to ensure that the conclusions were
reasonable. Site visits were used to verify impacts identified
in the MMSD facility plan. EPA cost curves were used to make
an independent check of the MMSD cost figures. The EIS next
performed an independent screening of the preliminary alterna-
tives .
2.1.2 Secondary Screening
The results of the EIS primary screening were very similar
despite the independent analysis. In cases where the EIS and
the MWPAP results differed, the alternative was included for
further study by both groups.
The alternatives that survived the primary screening process were
labeled as "feasible" alternatives. These feasible alternatives
were next evaluated in further detail by the MMSD. Plant sites
were specifically located, unit processes were sized and located
on these plant sites, conveyance routes and pipe sizes were
2-2
-------
determined, and detailed costs were prepared based on EPA Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines. The costs for this analysis
were based on specific cost data from bid tabulations of past
projects, current manufacturers' equipment price quotations,
published literature values such as the Means or Richardson cost
estimating guides, and published EPA cost curves. The costs had
an accuracy range of +30 to -15%.
The EIS study team again reviewed the MMSD data. Independent
methodologies were developed in order to assess water quality
impacts and energy and resource use. Treatment processes were
reviewed for reliability. An independent cost analysis was
undertaken based on published EPA' cost data. The independent
costing was also done using the EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Guidelines.
In some situations new alternatives were identified and evaluated
in the EIS. This analysis was usually done as a means of miti-
gating environmental impacts. These new alternatives are
discussed in the following chapters.
2.2 Summary
The EIS evaluation of the local alternatives was done concurrent-
ly with the MMSD facility planning process. The analysis was
based on MMSD data but was often Aerified through independent
analysis. The results of the EIS analysis are summarized in
the following chapters of this appendix.
2-3
-------
CHAPTER 3
CADDY VISTA SANITARY DISTRICT
-------
3.0 CADDY VISTA SANITARY DISTRICT
3.1 Introduction
The Caddy Vista Sanitary District is located along the Root River
in the town of Caledonia in northern Racine County. The waste-
water treatment plant and conveyance system were built in the mid
1950's. The present service area is approximately 100 acres with
one commercial, one institutional and 266 single family connec-
tions. The served population is approximately 1,030 persons.
Based upon DNR and EPA Environmental Assessment, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FNSI) was issued by EPA on September 18, 1980
for a pump station and force main to replace the Caddy Vista
WWTP. The project would connect to the Oak Creek sewer system
for conveyance to the MMSD for treatment. This decision removes
Caddy Vista from further consideration in the EIS process. This
chapter, then, will serve for informational purposes only.
The sewer system consists of 3 miles of 8-inch to 10-inch
gravity sewers with no force mains, lift stations, or relief
devices. The sanitary district has its own cleaning equipment
and sewers are cleaned as needed with regular inspection of
points considered potential problem areas. A 1977 I/I study
conducted by the sanitary district found the sewers in fair to
good condition. Some excess infiltration was identified.
The Caddy Vista WWTP is located to the north of the Caddy Vista
subdivision on the Root River (see Figure 3-1) . The plant is
surrounded on the north and west by a heavily wooded sector of
the Root River County Park land. To the east are agricultural
fields. Houses are within 200 feet of the plant properly line
and a school and recreational area are approximately 400 feet to
the south. Plant facilities utilize only the northern half of
the plant compound site. The WWTP creates some odor problems,
but they are not considered severe. The plant produces very
little noise. Because of the wooded location, the plant is not
visible from the school or homes in the area.
The treatment plant processes consist of a comminution basin,
a lift station, a primary clarifier, a low rate trickling filter,
and a final clarifier. In 1977, a liquid chlorine dosing system
was added following the final clarifier. Effluent is discharged
to the Root River.
Within the plant there are three bypass points. The first is a
manual bypass prior to the lift station. The second is an
automatic bypass at the lift station to protect the pumps. The
final bypass is manually operated and located just prior to the
trickling filter. This bypass is designed to protect the filter
from overloading.
3-1
-------
o
>
_ Crt
a ~"
o
O
>
O
o
CO
>
aa
aaaaaaaaaaaaan
Saratoga Dr.-
a a a a a
o
o
a
a
o
o
o
a
a
a a
o
o
u
D
a
a
<"
a D
a
a
-aa
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
1
) a a
,--
N
^ r— i /
ITl
-^
1 i
3-
O
0_
-n
^
A
r f
' J
r*r* J
" (
f 0
0 >
i a. ,
r CB <
1 i. Q. '.
13
O
-------
Solids at the plant are channeled to an anaerobic digestor and
then to sludge drying beds. Dried sludge is made available for
public use as a lawn and garden fertilizer and soil conditioner.
3.1.1 Effluent Limits
The WWTP is registered under the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge
Elimination System and operations are governed by the require-
ments of its discharge permit (number WI-0030376-2). The permit
was originally issued on December 12, 1974. The current permit
expires in December, 1981.
The tentative future permit requirements are compatible with
water quality goals in the Root River. The present and ex-
pected future effluent limits are listed below.
Parameter Present Future
BOD (mg/1) 70 (mo. avg.) 30 (mo. avg.)
100 (wk. avg.) 45 (wk. avg.)
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 70 (mo. avg.) 30 (mo. avg.)
100 (wk. avg.) 45 (wk. avg.)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) — 400 (30-day avg.)
pH (standard units)
(summer) — 6-7.2 (wk. avg.)
(winter) — 6-7.2 (wk. avg.)
NH3-N (mg/1)
(summer) — 2 (wk. avg.)
(winter) — 4 (wk. avg.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) — 6 (min.)
3.1.2 Wastewater Flows
The existing Caddy Vista WWTP was designed for an average daily
flow of 0.25 MGD. Existing wastewater flows in the Caddy Vista
service area were determined during the MMSD I/I Study. Expected
year 2005 wastewater flows were determined by the MMSD based on
SEWRPC population forecasts, estimated I/I removals, and a pro-
posed water conservation program which is expected to reduce
average daily base flows by 10%.
The EPA requires the staging of all WWTP construction and expan-
sion. Staging is used to minimize the possibilities of over-
designing treatment plants if future population and flow pro-
jections are not achieved. The MMSD determined treatment plant
staging periods based on the Flow Growth Factors outlined in the
EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines. According to these
factors, if wastewater flows are expected to increase by more
than 80% during the planning period, the staging period is 10
years. If flows are expected to increase by 30 to 80%, the
3-3
-------
staging period is 15 years. If the flows are expected to in-
crease by less than 30%, the staging period is the entire
planning period of 20 years.
Wastewater flows in the Caddy Vista service area are expected
to increase by 54%. Accordingly, a 15-year staging period was
adopted. This 15—year staging period means that the first
portion of any Caddy Vista treatment plant construction would
be based on year 2000 wastewater flows and loadings. At the
year 2000, the plant would be expanded so that it could adequate-
ly treat the expected year 2005 wastewater flows.
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and populations
for the Caddy Vista service area are listed below.
1978 2000 2005
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 0.072 0.090 0.111
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) — 0.342 0.503
Peak Flow Rate (MGD) — 0.552 0.749
BOD5 Loading (Ib/day) 134 209 253
SS Loading (Ib/day) 126 272 262
Population Served 1035 1393 1600
SS= Suspended Solids
1 MGD (Million Gallons/Day)= 3785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound= 0.454 Kilogram
3.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions
The Caddy Vista WWTP is in generally poor condition. The com-
minutor basin is inoperative and heavily corroded. A metal grating
has been placed across the channel between the basin and the
adjacent lift station and acts as a bar screen. Most above
ground concrete structures (primary clarifier, anaerobic di-
gestor, and buildings) are cracked and in need of repair. The
side walls of the trickling filter are a cyclone type fence and
are protruding outward. The sludge drying beds are in fair to
good condition but metal corner posts are badly corroded. The
plant has no emergency power system. Most of the facility
would have to be replaced prior to 2005.
3.2 Preliminary Alternatives
Alternatives considered during preliminary analysis for Caddy
Vista were no action, upgrade O&M, expansion, upgrade treatment
3-4
-------
and discharge to the Fox River or Lake Michigan basins, land
application, and connect to the MMSD.
No Action
If no action is taken to improve conditions at the Caddy
Vista WWTP, the present plant equipment and structures
would continue to deteriorate. The entire plant would
need replacement before the end of the planning period.
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the service area population
is expected to increase to approximately 1,600 persons by
the year 2005, augmenting the average daily base flow to
0.111 MGD and the peak flow to 0.750 MGD.
Because of these increased loadings to the plant and more
stringent discharge requirements, it is doubtful that the
plant would be able to function properly or consistently
throughout the planning period. The declining state of
the facilities would compound this problem.
Upgrade O&M
Upgrading the O&M of the present plant would have little
effect on effluent quality because of the extensive deterio-
ration of the existing plant processes. If the WWTP could
be operated at its optimum level of efficiency, it would
still not have the capacity to meet expected flows nor the
necessary unit process to meet future effluent limits.
Expand Existing Facilities
The expected service life (the period of time a piece of
equipment will operate effectively) of most of the plant's
processes is less than the 20-year planning period. For
this reason it would be necessary to replace as well as
expand the existing unit processes. An expanded plant would
meet the hydraulic requirements of the planning period.
However, it is doubtful that an expanded plant could meet
future effluent limits.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
In order to meet future effluent limits for discharge to
the Root River, the existing plant would have to be a-
bandoned. A new AST plant would be built to meet the
effluent limits for BOD5, suspended solids, pH, and ammonia.
Disinfection facilities would also be required. The plant
would have the hydraulic capacity to treat all anticipated
flows during the planning period. Preliminary costs for
this alternative were $0.77 million for the treatment plant
and $18,000 for annual O&M.
3-5
-------
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Fox River Basin
In order for the Caddy Vista WWTP to discharge to the Fox
River Basin, effluent would have to be treated to levels
greater than required for discharge to the Root River and
then pumped to the Wind Lake Canal south of Big Muskego
Lake. The cost and environmental impacts of this alterna-
tive would be greater than the cost and impacts of con-
tinued discharge to the Root River.
Land Application of Effluent
As an alternative to discharging to the Root River, four
types of land application alternatives were considered for
effluent disposal: high and normal rate irrigation,
infiltration/percolation/ and marsh application. There were
no marshes or infiltration/percolation sites suitable for
effluent application within a reasonable distance of the
Caddy Vista area. For the remaining two alternatives the
amount of land required (based on average effluent quality
and flow), the distance to the nearest possible land ap-
plication site and the cost were determined.
Alternative
High Rate
Irrigation
Normal Rate
Irrigation
Required Distance Treatment
Area to Site Capital Cost Annual
(acres) (miles) ($ x 10 ) O&M ($)
44
110
2.75
2.00
30,000
40,000
Connect to MMSD
In the master plan for the MMSD written in the late 1950s,
an interceptor was identified to connect the Caddy Vista
subdivision to the MIS system. The MWPAP has concluded that
there would be no demand for this interceptor until late in
the planning period. Therefore, the planning and design
efforts on this interceptor were discontinued.
However, Caddy Vista wastewater could be conveyed to the
MMSD by constructing approximately 6,000 feet of 8-inch
sewer from the treatment plant to a 10-inch Oak Creek local
sewer located 600 feet north of Elm Road in Nicholson Road.
A pump station would be needed at the existing plant site.
The cost for this alternative would be $0.48 million with an
annual O&M of $6,300.
3-6
-------
The costs of the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting the
requirement of the planning period for the Caddy Vista Sub-
division are summarized below.
Treatment or
Conveyance
Capital Cost Annual
Alternative ($ x 1Q6) O&M ($)
Upgrade Treatment Discharge 0.77 18,000
to Root River
Land Application-Normal Rate 2.00 40,000
Irrigation
Land Application-High Rate 2.75 30,000
Irrigation
Connect to MMSD 0.48 6,300
Based on cost and environmental impacts, Upgrade Treatment and
Discharge to the Root River was determined to be the most
feasible alternative for continued local operation of the Caddy
Vista WWTP. If the plant were to be abandoned the flows from
Caddy Vista would be connected to the MMSD. Each of these
feasible alternative were next evaluated in further detail.
3.3 Feasible Alternatives
3.3.1 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to the Root River
As discussed above, only Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to the
Root River would be feasible for continued operation of the
Caddy Vista WWTP. It would be necessary to construct additional
processes to meet future effluent limits. A package plant could
be purchased to provide first stage aeration and intermediate
clarification. Separate second stage nitrification basins,
final clarifiers, chlorination and pH control facilities, and a
postaeration basin would follow the package plant. The package
plant would be preceded by manually cleaned bar screens. Con-
struction would be staged for year 2000 conditions and year 2005
conditions.
The existing site would have adequate space for new process
equipment. The increased capacity and improved treatment pro-
cesses would improve water quality in the Root River. Noise,
traffic disruption, and dust from the construction site could be
expected, but these would be short-term impacts. Because of its
proximity to the Caddy Vista subdivision, final design for the
plant site and equipment should be developed to minimize noise
and odor impacts on the community and to be aesthetically
pleasing to residents and users of the Root River Park land.
3-7
-------
Total present worth of this alternative including local sewer
rehabilitation would be $2.64 million. The annual O&M would be
$0.081 million.
3.3.2 Connect to the MMSD
If the Caddy Vista WWTP were abandoned, the sewage flows could
be connected to the MMSD through the Oak Creek sewer system.
EPA staging requirements for the construction of conveyance
systems differ from the WWTP requirements. The conveyance system
staging period has been set at 20 years. A longer staging period
not to exceed 40 years may be used if it can be shown that this
longer period would minimize construction impacts, would be
consistent with projected land use goals, and would reduce over-
all primary and secondary environmental impacts. For the Caddy
Vista service area a 20-year staging period was selected.
Positive environmental impacts of this alternative include the
elimination of a point source of pollution to the Root River, a
source of odors to the Caddy Vista community, and an increase in
sewerage capacity available to the community. The route chosen
for the connection should have no adverse environmental impacts
if proper construction practices are employed. Extreme caution
is advised to protect the natural environment where the con-
veyance line crosses the Root River. Total present worth of
this alternative including local sewer rehabilitation would be
$0.55 million. The annual O&M would be $0.018 million.
3.3.3 Summary
The costs of the feasible alternatives for serving the Caddy
Vista Subdivision are summarized below.
Total Present
Alternative Annual O&M ($) Worth ($ x 106)
Upgrade Treatment 76,100 2.64
Discharge to
Root River
Connect to MMSD 18,000 0.551
-'•Does not include MMSD capital or O&M costs to treat Caddy Vista
wastewater.
As was discussed in Section 1.1.1, Assumptions, there were in-
stances when final cost estimates were much higher than the costs
developed for the preliminary alternatives. This situation
occurred during the analysis of the Caddy Vista alternatives.
3-8
-------
The preliminary capital cost of the Upgrade Treatment and Dis-
charge to the Root River alternative was $770,000. During the
determination of the total present worth of this alternative, a
more detailed capital cost of $1,895,400 was developed. This
cost was over 145% greater than the preliminary cost estimate.
O&M costs also increased 320% from $18,000 to $76,100 per year.
Large increases in capital and O&M costs could invalidate a
screening process if the final costs of a preferred alternative
are greater than the costs of a preliminary alternative that was
screened out because of excessive cost. For the Caddy Vista
analysis the final upgrade treatment alternative costs were
very close to the preliminary costs for normal rate irrigation.
If the alternative for connecting Caddy Vista to the MMSD had not
received a FNSI from EPA and DNR, it might have been necessary
to evaluate normal rate irrigation in more detail to ensure that
its costs were indeed over twice the costs of the upgrade alter-
native as the preliminary costs had indicated.
3.4 Final Alternatives
The least cost alternative for serving the Caddy Vista Sub-
division during the planning period would be to abandon the
existing WWTP and connect to the MMSD. This alternative would
eliminate a source of pollution to the Root River. As noted in
Section 3.1 this alternative has been issued a FNSI and will be
implemented. The location of this and the other connections to
the MMSD are shown in Figure 11-1.
As noted in the cost summary, the cost for connection to the MMSD
does not include the present worth of the MMSD capital expendi-
ture or annual O&M attributable to the treatment of wastewater
flows from the Caddy Vista Subdivision. In the MWPAP alterna-
tive analysis it was assumed that the additional flow to the
MMSD treatment plants (Jones Island and South Shore) from Caddy
Vista would be insignificant.
A comparison of projected 2005 flows from Caddy Vista and to the
MMSD without any local flows is made below.
2005 Average Daily 2005 Peak Flow
Location Base Flow (MGD) (MGD)
Caddy Vista 0.111 0.749
MMSD 195.0 550.0
The Caddy Vista flows would represent a 0.06% increase to the
MMSD base flow and a 0.1% increase to the MMSD peak flow. For
3-9
-------
the purposes of planning and designing conveyance and treatment
facilities, these incremental flows are indeed insignificant.
However, they do represent some portion of the overall MMSD
system and consequently do contribute to the system's cost.
This cost should be added to the cost of the conveyance
facilities required to connect a local community to the MMSD
in order to determine the true cost to the community. In this
manner a fair comparison in cost between the final local and
the final connection (regional) alternatives can be made.
This refined cost comparison was not made by the MMSD in the
WSP. Because the Caddy Vista connection to the MMSD has
received a FNSI, this cost comparison between the final
local and connection alternatives will not be necessary.
However, for the other local communities (Germantown, Muskego,
New Berlin, South Milwaukee, and Thiensville), it will be
necessary to determine the MMSD treatment costs prior to
the selection of a preferred wastewater treatment alternative
for these communities. These costs will be determined for
inclusion in the Final EIS.
Although this comparison of final engineering present worth
cost is not included in the Draft EIS, a fiscal analysis of
both the final local and regional alternatives has been
completed. This analysis shows the cost of each final
alternative to a typical homeowner in each planning area
community. This analysis is contained in the Fiscal/
Economic Appendix.
If a Local System Level alternative had been chosen, upgrading
the existing facility would have been the least costly, and
would have produced fewer environmental impacts than the
other alternatives considered. DNR water quality standards
would also have been met in the Root River. The location of
this local WWTP and other local treatment systems are shown
in Figure 11-2.
3-10
-------
CHAPTER 4
VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN
-------
4.0 VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN
4.1 Introduction
The Village of Germantown is located to the northwest of
Milwaukee in Washington County. The Village covers ap-
aproximately 35 square miles of which 1.9 are served by the
Village-owned WWTP. The remainder of the community is served
by private on-site systems.
Sewer construction began in 1956, although the majority
(approximately 70%) of the existing system was added during a
major expansion period after 1971. The present system consists
of 28.3 miles of gravity sewer ranging in size form 8 inches
to 48 inches in diameter. The system also has 3.8 miles of
force main, and five operating pump stations. One bypass
exists at the pump station at Carnegie Drive and Mequon Road
and is used only in the event of power failures at the sta-
tion. Sewer maintenance is performed as needed. Manholes
are inspected and some sewers are flushed on a yearly basis.
A 1975 I/I study by the MMSD showed.that most of the infil-
tration and inflow problems in the system are located in the
Old Village area (constructed in 1956). The study concluded
that the efforts required to remove this flow would not be
cost effective. In 1976 the Village passed an ordinance pro-
hibiting the discharge of clear water from roofs, sumps,
cooling equipment, and surface and subsurface sources into the
sanitary sewer system.
The Germantown WWTP is located to the west of the Village of
Germantown, at the end of Main Street. The plant is sur-
rounded by a golf course except to the southeast where a
large apartment complex is located. The facility stands on
the southeast corner of the site and is totally visible from
the road, apartment complex, and golf course. (See Figure 4-1),
The existing plant was constructed in 1970 to replace a
plant on the present site which had been designed to serve a
nearby subdivision. Processes at the facility consist of a
comminutor basin, lift station, aerated contact chamber,
final clarifier, Parshall flume for flow monitoring and a 3.4
acre polishing pond. Effluent is discharged to the Menomonee
River. Chemicals are added to the lift station wet well for
phosphorus control. Liquid chlorine is added at a manhole
located between the Parshall flume and the polishing pond.
The plant has one bypass located prior to the polishing pond
to allow disinfected effluent to be discharged directly from
the chlorination manhole to the river. Solids are pumped to
an aerobic digester where they are retained for 13 to 21
days. The digested sludge is either pumped to a decanting
tank and hauled by a commercial hauler, or hauled in tank
4-1
-------
o
>
O
«
o
m
2
O
35
^
H
T3
-------
trucks directly from the digester. Solids disposal is left to
the discretion of the hauler but solids are usually land
filled or applied to cropland.
4.1.1 Effluent Limits
Operations at the Germantown WWTP are presently regulated by
the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System under
permit number WI-0020567-2, issued on November 30, 1977. The
permit expires in June, 1982. Present limits for discharge
to the Menomonee River and future limits for discharge to
both the Menomonee and Fox Rivers are given below.
Parameter
BOD5
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Phosphorus (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
pH (standard units)
(summer)
(winter)
NH.-N (mg/1)
(summer)
(winter)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
4.1.2 Wastewater Flows
Present
2 0 (mo. avg .)
30 (wk. avg.)
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
1.0 (mo. avg.)
200 (geo. mean)
6.0 - 9.0
6.0 - 9.0
Future
10 (wk. avg.)
10 (wk. avg.)
1.0 (mo. avg.)
400 (30 day avg.)
6.0 - 7.2
6.0 - 7.4
2 (wk. avg.)
4 (wk. avg.)
6 (minimum)
The existing Germantown WWTP was designed for an average daily
flow of 1.0 MGD with a peak design capacity of 2.0 MGD. Exist-
ing wastewater flows in the Germantown service area were
determined based on the MMSD I/I Study. Expected year 2005
wastewater flows were determined by the MMSD based on SEWRPC
population forecasts, estimated I/I removals, and the pro-
posed water conservation program. Wastewater flows in
Germantown are expected to increase by 353%. Accordingly,
a 10-year .treatment plant staging period was used.
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and
populations for Germantown are listed below.
4-3
-------
1978
1995
2005
1.86
4.94
6.61
2.54
6.37
8.45
4630 6450
5270 7340
19501 27545
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 0.72
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)
Peak Flow Rate (MGD)
BODs Loading (Ib/day) 1280
SS Loading (Ib/day) 1430
Population Served 5825
1 MGD = 3785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound - 0.454 Kilogram
4.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions
The present structures are in good to excellent condition
and all buildings should last throughout the planning period.
The package plant is in good condition, but the plant has
no cathodic protection for sub-surface equipment. Consequently,
corrosion of metal below ground is a serious problem.
Mechanical equipment at the plant is expected to be replaced
as part of the normal maintenance schedule prior to 2005.
The polishing pond is in good condition with no reported
problems or leaks. Problems were experienced with phosphorous
until April of 1976. At that time, pickle liquor was substituted
for ferric chloride. Since that time, phosphorus concentrations
have consistently been within acceptable limits. Average daily
flow to the plant is 0.81 MGD.
Influent to the plant is consistently septic. Low flow
velocities in the conveyance system are the suspected cause
of this problem. The plant accepts 100,000 gallons per month
from holding tanks but accepts no known septic tank waste.
Some odors have been noticed at the WWTP. Because of the
proximity of the apartment complex, there is the potential
nuisance associated with the odors. During periods when the
polishing pond is not in operation, floating solids accumulate
in the Southwest corner of the pond. This situation contributes
to the odor problem.
4.2 Preliminary Alternatives
Preliminary alternatives considered for the Germantown WWTP
included no action, upgrading O&M, expansion, upgrading
treatment with continued discharge to the Menomonee River or
4-4
-------
a new discharge to the Fox River, land application, and
connection to the MMSD.
0 No Action
It is doubtful that the plant would be adequate for the
year 2005. The expected population growth from 5,800
to 27,500 persons would produce flows far in excess of
design capacities of the WWTP. More stringent effluent
standards would include requirements beyond the cap-
ability of the plant.
0 Upgrading O&M
Because of the large increase in service population,
the present plant size would be inadequate despite
improvements in operation and maintenance.
0 Expand Existing Plant
Expanding the existing plant would provide sufficient
hydraulic capacity for the future growth, but the
plant would not meet future effluent limits for
discharge to the Menomonee River.
0 Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
In order for the Germantown WWTP to continue discharging
to the Menomonee River, the existing plant would have to
be upgraded to provide AWT. This AWT plant would be
required to meet the more strict effluent limits for
BODr, suspended solids, pH, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen
Disinfection facilities would also be required. The
overall plant hydraulic capacity would also need to be
expanded to treat all anticipated flows during the plan-
ning period. Preliminary costs for this alternative
were $11.67 million for the treatment plant and to pro-
vide new conveyance in the Village for expansion of the
service area. Annual O&M would be $0.270 million.
0 Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Fox River Basin
For the Germantown plant to discharge to the Fox River,
the same level of treatment would have to be achieved
as for the Menomonee River. In addition to improve-
ments necessary to continue present discharge practices,
new pumping and conveyance facilities would also be
required. The cost of these additional facilities would
make this alternative less desirable than improving the
existing plant. The cost of this alternative would be
$14.9 million for the treatment plant, new conveyance in
4-5
-------
Germantown, and conveyance to the Fox River. Annual
O&M would be $0.280 million.
Land Application of Effluent
While the existing plant is capable of meeting effluent
standards for land application of current flows, anti-
cipated future flows would greatly exceed the plant's
design hydraulic capacity. Consequently, the plant
would have to be expanded. There is sufficient land
at the existing plant site for this expansion. For
the actual application of the treated effluent the
nearest possible sites, land requirements, and costs for
the four types of land application analyzed are listed
below. The cost to expand the plant are included.
Required Distance Treatment
Area to Site Capital Cost Annual
Alternatives (acres) (miles) ($ x 10 ) 0 & M ($)
High Rate
Irrigation 920 3 30.50 460,000
Normal Rate
Irrigation 2,400 3 10.00 360,000
Infiltration/
Percolation 110 3 13.30 400,000
Marsh Application 1,020 8 23.70 590,000
The major reasons for the higher costs of the irriga-
tion and marsh application alternatives is the require-
ment for winter effluent storage facilities.
Connect to MMSD
The original design for the connection of the Village
of Germantown to the MMSD was to construct a local
sewer from the existing WWTP south to the Washington
and Waukesha County Line and then east to the MMSD
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor. The northern
leg of Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor would
run north from Bradley Road along 124th Street to the
County Line.
It was later determined that a considerable cost
savings was possible if the northern leg of the
Menomonee Falls-Germantown Interceptor was instead
built in an east-west direction along the Ozaukee and
4-6
-------
Milwaukee County Lines to 107th Street. There, the
interceptor would be connected to an existing 57-inch
MIS. The capital cost for the total connection would
be $5.4 million. The annual O&M would be $0.085 million.
The costs of the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting
the requirements of the planning period for the Village of
Germantown are summarized below.
Treatment or
Conveyance
Capital Cost Annual
Alternative ($ x 10 ) O&M ($;
Upgrade Treatment Discharge
to Menomonee River 11.67 270,000
Upgrade Treatment Discharge
to Fox River 14.90 280,000
Land Application - Normal
Rate Irrigation 19.00 360,000
Land Application - High
Rate Irrigation 30.50 460,000
Land Application -
Infiltration/Percolation 13.30 400,000
Marsh Application 23.70 590,000
Connect to MMSD 5.40 85,000
Connection to the MMSD was by far the least expensive of all
the alternatives and also provided the additional benefit of
removing an effluent discharge from the Menomonee River. The
most feasible of the local alternatives for Germantown would
be to upgrade treatment and continue discharge to the Menomonee
River. The next most attractive local alternative was land
application by infiltration/percolation. This alternative
would provide local control of waste treatment, would eliminate
discharges to the Menomonee River, and would cost within
15 percent of the discharge to the Menomonee River alternative.
The remaining alternatives had costs at least 20 percent
greater than the costs of the discharge to the Menomonee River
alternative and offered no additional environmental benefits.
Consequently, they were eliminated from further analysis.
4.3 Feasible Alternatives
As discussed above, the most feasible alternatives for the
continued local operation of a Germantown WWTP would be to
4-7
-------
4.3.2 Land Application - Infiltration/Percolation
As discussed under Preliminary Alternatives, secondary treat-
ment for land application could be provided by expanding the
existing plant. However, during the later, more detailed
analysis of the feasible alternatives, the MMSD determined
that it would be less costly to provide secondary treatment
by aerated lagoons. In order to treat the expected wastewater
flows in Germantown/ aerated lagoons totalling 27.5 acres would
be required. Seven infiltration/percolation ponds, each cover-
ing 11.6 acres, would be required for the application of the
treated effluent. Because the staging of the aerated lagoons
and the infiltration/percolation ponds would not be economical,
both systems were designed for the estimated year 2005 flows
and loads.
The existing treatment plant site is not large enough to accom-
modate the aerated lagoons. However, there is a site in north-
western Germantown with soils suitable for infiltration/percola-
tion and large enough to accommodate both the aerated lagoons
and the infiltration/percolation ponds. The existing WWTP would
be abandoned and a force main would be constructed to the new
treatment site. The planned conveyance system would begin at
the existing plant site and run west to River Road, north to
Freistacit Road, west to Maple Road, north to Highway 145, and
northwest along Highway 145 to the application site. The con-
veyance system would consist of approximately 19,000 lineal
feet of 20-inch force main and two 8.45 MGD pump stations.
Figure 4-2 shows the proposed land application site and convey-
ance route.
The force main would be constructed by open cut methods at
a typical depth of six feet. Most of the construction would
be along existing roadways. The first mile of construction
would be across a golf course and open fields. The route would
cross the Menomonee River once and a tributary to the Menomonee
River once. All impacts would be minimal and short-term in
nature. Special care during construction would be required
at the river crossings.
The abandonment of the existing plant would improve the
aesthetics of the area. It would also eliminate a point source
of pollution to the Menomonee River. In conjunction with the
208 Plan, this alternative would result in the achievement of
DNR water quality standards in the river. The MMSD concluded
that recommended 208 Plan water quality goals would not be
met under this alternative. However, the frequency of non-
conformance would be reduced.
The new land application WWTP would provide enough capacity to
allow the abandonment of septic systems and permit the planned
level of growth in Germantown. The potential secondary growth
4-8
-------
either upgrade the existing facilities and continue discharges
to the Menomonee River or to land apply treated effluent by
infiltration/percolation.
4.3.1 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to the Menomonee River
There is adequate land at the existing plant site for the
necessary plant expansion if the existing lagoon is filled.
The upgraded plant would consist of mechanically and manually
cleaned bar screens followed by an influent pump station and
grit chambers. Following the grit chambers would be primary
clarifiers, first stage aeration basins, intermediate clari-
fiers, second stage nitrification aeration basins for ammonia
control, and final clarifiers. Final treatment would be
provided by mixed media filters, a postaeration basin, and
chlorination facilities. Solids would be anaerobically
digested, mechanically dewatered, stored and applied to
agricultural land or landfilled. The plant would be upgraded
in two stages, for 1995 estimated flows and loads and for
2005 estimated flows and loads.
The construction required to upgrade the plant would cause
short-term disturbance to the users of the golf course
surrounding the plant and to the apartment complex southeast
of the plant. Because Main Street provides the only means of
access to the plant, construction traffic on this road would
be increased. The upgraded plant would meet WPDES effluent
limits, and DNR water standards would be met except for
occasional ammonia violations at the plant outfall. Based on
recommended 208 Plan water quality goals, the MMSD concluded
that this alternative would increase the frequency of nonconform-
ance with both the un-ionized ammonia and phosphorus st^rrlarris.
The increased treatment capacity would allow the abandonment
of septic systems and would permit the planned level of growth
in Germantown. The total present worth of this alternative
including new conveyance in order to serve more areas of
Germantown would be $17.03 million. The annual O&M would be
$0.472 million.
The planned level of growth in Germantown cited in the VJaste-
water flows section above has been identified by the EIS as a
potential problem. The EIS analysis of secondary growth impacts
resulting from the MWPAP has shown that there is an overlap
in the housing market between Germantown and the northwest
side of Milwaukee. Based on this overlap, it is possible that
the provision of 'sewerage capacity for increased growth in
Germantown could attract some development that otherwise
could occur on the northwest side of Milwaukee. This issue
is further discussed in Chapter V of the EIS and in greater
detail in the Secondary Growth Impacts Appendix.
4-9
-------
O ABANDONED WWTP
• NEW AERATED LAGOONS
NEW INFILTRATION/PERCOLATION PONDS
CONVEYANCE ROUTE
STATE HIGHWAY
F COUNTY ROAD
GERMANTOWN LAND APPLICATION SITE
AND CONVEYANCE ROUTE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
DATE
November
1980
-------
impacts discussed earlier would also be possible under this
alternative. The land application treatment system would require
approximately 110 acres of agricultural land in the Village.
The plant could be a potential source of groundwater pollution.
This problem could be minimized by proper construction and
operation of the plant. The proposed application site was
selected based on a general land use and soil type survey. If
a land application plant were to be constructed, a detailed
soil analysis would be undertaken at the proposed site to ensure
that the soils were acceptable for the infiltration/percolation
process. This analysis would further minimize the risk of
groundwater pollution. Prior to construction, wells would be
drilled for the purpose of assessing the groundwater conditions
in the area. These wells would be used to monitor the system
after it is in operation.
A major concern related to the land application of sewage is
the development of groundwater pollution due to high nitrate
concentrations. High nitrate concentrations in humans can
cause methemoglobinemia, a blood poisoning that can be particu-
larly fatal to children. If high nitrate concentrations were
found and determined to be endangering the health of the public,
the polluted groundwater could be pumped to the surface and dis-
charged to a surface water. If the water could not meet surface
effluent discharge limits, a new treatment scheme would have to
be developed.
An infiltration/percolation land application system is
considered to be alternative technology by EPA. Consequently,
it would be eligible for 85 percent federal funding if it is
part of the cost effective solution to an area's sewage treat-
ment problems. Additionally, if an alternative technology
treatment system fails within three years, repair or replace-
ment is eligible for 100 percent federal funding.
The total present worth of the infiltration/percolation alter-
native including new conveyance to serve more areas of German-
town would be $13.17 million. The annual O&M would be $0.422
million.
4.3.3 Connect to the MMSD
Connection of the Germantown service area to the MMSD would
have many of the benefits of the land application alternative
without its possible adverse impacts. ' Benefits of connection
to the MMSD would be improved aesthetics due to abandonment
of the existing plant, achievement of DNR water quality standards
in the Menomonee River, abandonment of septic systems, and
availability of sewerage capacity to permit the planned level
of growth in Germantown. Also there would be no need to remove
agricultural land from production and no possibility of ground-
4-11
-------
water pollution. The adverse impacts of the connection alterna-
tive would be the same secondary growth impacts discussed for
the other alternatives, plus the loss of local control of
sewage treatment. As with the infiltration/percolation alter-
native, the MMSD concluded that recommended 208 Plan water
quality goals would still not be met occasionally.
The tentative conveyance route for connection to MMSD would
begin at the existing WWTP. It would extend south along an
easement and South Division Road to County Line Road. It
would then extend east along County Line Road to North 107th
Street where it would connect to an existing 57-inch MIS.
The total connection would consist of 12,300 feet of 12-inch
force main, 6,000 feet of 24-inch force main, 5,000 feet of
24-inch gravity sewer, and 8,800 feet of 30-inch gravity
sewer all constructed by open cut methods, and 1,600 feet
of 30-inch tunnel. The impacts of this construction would
be limited because most of the construction would be along
existing roadways. There would be some disruption of traffic.
The total present worth of the connection to the MMSD including
new conveyance to serve developing areas of Germantown would
be $5.95 million. Annual O&M would be $0.085 million.
4.3.4 Summary
The refined costs of the feasible alternatives for serving
Germantown during the planning period are summarized below.
Total Present
Alternative O&M ($) Worth ($ x 1Q6)
Upgrade Treatment 472,000 17.03
Discharge to Menomonee
River
Land Application - 442,000 13.17
Infiltration/Percolation
Connect to MMSD 85,000 5.951
Does not include MMSD capital or O&M costs to treat Germantown
wastewater. (See Section 3.4 for further discussion.)
A review of the preliminary and final costs of the Germantown
alternatives shows a consistency between costs. The only
preliminary alternative eliminated because of excessive cost,
which had a cost less than a final alternative, was the alterna-
tive Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to the Fox River. This
alternative, however, required treatment processes identical
4-12
-------
to those required for discharge to the Menomonee River. Its
higher cost estimate during preliminary analysis was a result
of conveyance costs to the Fox River. Accordingly, its cost
could still be greater than the final Menomonee River discharge
alternative cost as well as the final infiltration/percolation
alternative cost.
4.4 Final Alternatives
Excluding the MMSD cost to treat Germantown wastewater, the
least cost alternative for serving Germantown during the
planning period would be connection to the MMSD via the 57-
inch interceptor in North 107th Street. The route from the
treatment plant to the connection point would not traverse
any environmentally sensitive areas. Abandoning the treat-
ment plant would eliminate a point source of pollution to the
Menomonee River. Present noise and odor problems would also
be eliminated and visual aesthetics would be improved in the
area. The location of this connection is shown in Figure 11-1.
If a local system is the chosen alternative, a land application
process employing infiltration and percolation would be the
most attractive alternative. Proper design would be necessary
at the land application site and along the conveyance system
to avoid disturbing any environmentally sensitive sites.
Groundwater contamination would be possible if the land
application system was net designed and operated properly.
The location of this system is shown in Figure 11-2.
Prior to the selection of the preferred wastewater treatment
alternative for Germantown, a determination of the MMSD cost
to treat Germantown's wastewater will be made. This cost will
be added to the $5.95 million cost of the connection in order
to determine the actual total present worth cost of this alter-
native. In the Final EIS, EPA, in accordance with NEPA, will
describe its preferred alternative for wastewater treatment
for Germantown. This alternative will be based upon findings
set forth here and in other sections of this EIS, comments
received from various review agencies, and comments received
during the public comment period and at the public hearings.
4-13
-------
CHAPTER 5
CITY OF MUSKEGO
-------
5.0 CITY OF MUSKEGO
5.1 Introduction
The City of Muskego presently operates two WWTPs, the Muskego
Northeast WWTP and the Muskego Northwest (Woods Road) WWTP.
The Northeast plant serves a 2.1 square mile area of northeast
Muskego with a 1978 population of 4,950. The Northwest plant
serves a 2.4 square mile area of northwest Muskego with a 1978
population of 6,050.
Two sets of alternatives were developed for the Muskego service
area. The first alternative involved the continued operation of
both WWTPs. The second involved the abandonment of the North-
west plant and the upgrading of the Northeast plant to serve the
entire Muskego service area in the planning area. The devel-
opment of these alternatives is outlined below. The preferred
two-plant and one-plant alternatives will be identified as the
two most feasible local alternatives for the City of Muskego.
Next, these two alternatives will be compared to the regional
alternative of connecting Muskego to the MMSD. The impacts of
each alternative will be identified.
5.2 Alternative A
For Alternative A, techniques for the continued operation of
both the Northeast and Northwest WWTPs were considered. A
description of each plant and the alternative evaluation process
of each plant is outlined below.
5.2.1 Muskego Northeast WWTP
5.2.1.1 Introduction: The Muskego Northeast WWTP is located in
northeastern Muskego southwest of the City of Milwaukee. The
plant serves approximately 2.1 square miles with over 1,300
building connections. There are 28.6 miles of gravity sewers
tributary to the treatment facility ranging in size from 8 inches
to 60 inches in diameter. The system has four lift stations and
no relief devices or force mains. This system is reported to be
in good condition.
The Department of Public Works for the City of Muskego operates
an inspection and maintenance program to note problems with any
sewer elements. An I/I study performed by the MMSD identified
excessive amounts of clear water in the system. The City has had
a clear water ordinance since 1953 which requires all buildings
to be equipped with sump pumps. The Muskego Northeast WWTP is
located on McShane Road (See Figure 5-1).
5-1
-------
o
a
O
3
CO
01
CO
7Z
m
o
o
H
X
m
>
CO
H
-t
-0
-------
New residential units are being built on both the east and west
sides of the plant with some houses built directly adjacent to
the treatment plant's polishing pond. The close proximity of
these new houses magnifies the severity of impacts from any noise
or odor problems at the plant. Trees near the gravel pit screen
much of the plant from view along McShane Road, but the plant is
clearly visible from most of the new housing areas.
The Muskego Northeast WWTP was constructed in 1971 with phos-
phorus controls added in 1974. The plant consists of a lift
station, comminutor, chemical phosphorus removal equipment,
aeration basin, clarifier, polishing pond, and chlorine contact
chamber. Effluent is discharged to the Root River via a tribut-
ary of Tess Corners Creek. Detention time in the polishing pond
aerobic digesters. The digested sludge is either hauled dir-
ectly to land application sites or is spread on sludge drying
beds. Dried sludge is then applied to land.
5.2.1.1.1 Effluent Limits: The Muskego Norhteast WWTP is reg-
istered under the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination
System and operations are regulated by the requirements of its
discharge permit, number WI-0021164. This permit was issued on
July 29, 1974 and expired March 31, 1979. The permit has not
been renewed because the plant has consistently had problems
meeting its effluent limits. Presently, the City and the DNR
are involved in a number of actions aimed at eliminating the
sewage treatment problems in the City.
The effluent limits in the expired WPDES permit are outlined
below. Also listed are the effluent limits that the DNR has set
for future effluent discharges from the Northeast WWTP to the
Lake Michigan basin (Tess Corners Creek) and to the Fox River
basin (Big Muskego Lake).
5.2.1.1.2 Wastewater Flows: The existing Muskego Northeast
WWTP was designed for an average daily flow of 0.50 MGD with a
peak design capacity of 1.30 MGD. The existing wastewater flows
to the Muskego Northeast WWTP were determined based on the MMSD
I/I study. Expected year 2005 flows and loads were determined
by the MMSD based on SEWRPC population forecasts, estimated I/I
removals, and the proposed water conservation program. Waste-
water flows are expected to increase by 269% by 2005. Accord-
ingly, a 10-year staging period was used.
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and popula-
tions for the Muskego Northeast service area are listed below.
5-3
-------
Effluent Limits
Future
Parameters
Present
Tess Corners
Creek
Big Muskego
Lake
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(#/100 ml)
Phosphorus
(mg/1)
NH -N (mg/1)
tMay to Oct.)
(Nov. to Apr.)
pH (standard units) 6.0-9.0
Residual Chlorine
(mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
30 (mo.avg.) 15 (mo.avg.)
45 (wk.avg.) 30 (daily max.)
3 0 (mo.avg.) 20 (mo.avg.)
45 (wk.avg.) 30 (daily max.)
10 (wk.avg.)
10 (wk.avg.)
200 (mo.avg.) 400 (30 day avg.) -400 (30 day avy.]
400 (wk.avg.)
1.0 (mo.avg.) 1.0 (mo. avg.)
3.0 (wk.avg.)
6.0 (wk.avg.)
6.0-9.0
0.5 (max.'.
4.0 (rain.)
1.0 (wk.avg.)
2.0 (wk.avg.)
2.0 (wk.avg.)
6.0-9.0
Wastewater Flows
Average Daily Base Flow
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)
Peak Flow Rate (MGD)
BODs Loading (Ib/day)
SS Loading (Ib/day)
Population Served
1 MGD = 3,785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound = 0.454 Kilogram
(MGD)
)
1978
0.39
—
—
650
520
4,950
1995
0.76
3.01
4.61
2,030
2,100
7,790
2005
1.05
3.34
4.98
2,950
3,160
9,460
5-4
-------
5.2.1.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions: Inspection of the plant
found it to be in generally good condition. The lift station
has a dry well made of welded plate metal, and the package treat-
ment plant (the aeration and clarification basins) are also of
welded plate metal. These structures have induced current ca-
thodic protection to prevent corrosion. There are no known leaks
in these structures and they should remain useful through 2005.
The polishing pond is clay lined. This lining is reported to
have isolated leaks and is not expected to remain in use through
the planning period.
5.2.1.2 Preliminary Alternatives; Alternatives considered for
the Muskego Northeast WWTP during preliminary alternative analy-
sis included no action, upgrade O&M, expansion, upgrade and dis-
charge to the Lake Michigan basin or to the Fox River basin, and
land application of effluent.
No Action
The plant does not consistently meet its discharge permit
requirements for phosphorus. Population in the service
area is expected to increase by 78 percent. The additional
population would increase average flows to the plant to
1.05 MGD. This increase in flow would overtax the treat-
ment system and increased discharge violations could be
expected.
Upgrade O&M
Upgrading the O&M of the present plant would have little
effect on the plant's ability to meet future effluent
limits. The capacity of the existing plant would be
exceeded. In addition, the plant would not have the
necessary unit processes to meet the effluent limits
for continued discharge to Tess Corners Creek.
Expand Existing Facilities
An expanded, well operated Northeast WWTP would be able
to meet the future limits for many of the parameters for
discharge to Tess Corners Creek. However, an expanded
plant would not be able to meet the limits for ammonia
or dissolved oxygen and would have trouble meeting the
more stringent 8005 and suspended solids limits. Accordingly,
the expansion alternative would not be acceptable.
• Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
In order to meet the future effluent limits for discharge
to the tributary to Tess Corners Creek, the existing plant
would have to be expanded and new processes to remove
5-5
-------
ammonia and provide postaeration would have to be added.
The capital cost for this alternative would be $3.40 mil-
lion for the treatment plant. The annual O&M would be
0.11 million.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Fox River Basin
Effluent limits for discharge to Big Muskego Lake are more
stringent than those for discharge to the Tess Corners
Creek tributary except for chlorine residual and dissolved
oxygen. However, to meet these limits no change in treat-
ment processes would be required and, in fact, a post-
aeration basin could be eliminated. However, a longer
outfall conveyance system to Big Muskego Lake would be
required. This route would require approximately 4,500
feet of gravity sewer south to the lake. The initial
capital cost of this alternative was $3.20 million for
the treatment plant and conveyance. The annual O&M would
be $0.11 Million.
Land Application of Effluent
As an alternative to discharging to surface waters, high
and normal rate irrigation, infiltration/percolation, and
marsh application alternatives were evaluated. The amount
of land required, the distance to the nearest suitable
site, and the cost of each alternative is listed below.
Treatment
Required Distance to Capital Cos't Annual
Alternative Area (acres) Site (miles) ' ($ x 10 ) O & M ($)
Normal Rate
Irrigation 1,000 3.6 9.70 150,000
High Rate
Irrigation 380 3.6 14.20 190,000
Infiltration/
Percolation 50 9.5 8.00 180,000
Marsh Application 420 14.0
The cost of the marsh application alternative was not
determined because the additional cost for the longer
conveyance and additional pretreatment would make the
alternative infeasible.
The cost of the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting the
requirements of the Muskego Northeast WWTP service area during
the planning period are summarized below.
5-6
-------
Treatment and
Conveyance
Capital,Cost Annual
Alternative ($ x 10 ) O&M ($)
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Tess Corners Creek Tributary 3.40 110,000
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Big Muskego Lake 3.77 110,000
Land Application - Normal Rate
Irrigation 9.70 150,000
Land Application - High Rate
Irrigation 14.20 190,000
Land Application - Infiltration/
Percolation 8.00 180,000
Based on these costs only upgrading and discharging to Tess
Corners Creek and Big Muskego Lake would be considered feasible
alternatives. Both alternatives were further analyzed during
detailed analysis.
5.2.1.3 Feasible Alternatives
5.2.1.3.1 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to Tess Corners Creek: In
order to upgrade treatment and discharge to Tess Corners Creek,
it would be necessary to expand and upgrade the existing plant.
The existing plant site would not be large enough for the pro-
posed expansion unless the existing lagoon was filled. This
expansion would also be very near a new housing development just
east of the existing plant. In order to minimize these impacts,
the proposed plant would have to be moved south of McShane Road
on city-owned land. The existing treatment plant and polishing
pond would be abandoned.
The new plant discharging to Tess Corners Creek would consist of
an aerated grit chamber followed by primary clarifiers, first
stage aeration basins, intermediate clarifiers, second stage
aeration basins for ammonia removal, final clarifiers, filters,
and postaeration and chlorination facilities. Solids would be
anaerobically digested, mechanically dewatered and land applied
or land filled.
The construction of the plant would cause short-term impacts due
to noise and dust. Because the plant would be located in a rela-
tively isolated area, these impacts would not be severe. The
plant could make the development of residential housing north of
McShane Road less desirable. The new plant would meet WPDES
effluent limits.
5-7
-------
In conjunction with the 208 Plan, water quality standards would
be met in this reach of Tess Corners Creek except for occasional
un-ionized ammonia violations which could occur during Q-_,., flow
conditions (the lowest flow rate to occur during 7 consecutive
days in a 10 year period) depending on the temperature and pH
conditions of the creek. The increased phosphorus loads from
the plant would contribute to the long-term eutrophication of
Whitnall Park Pond and the Root River. The MMSD concluded that
this alternative would result in nonconformance with the recom-
mended 208 Plan un-ionized ammonia and phosphorus water quality
goals for Tess Corners Creek. The total present worth of this
alternative including local sewer rehabilitation would be $11.0
million. The annual O&M would be $0.205 million.
5.2.1.3.2 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to Big Muskego Lake:
The proposed AST plant for discharge to Big Muskego Lake ^would
be identical to the plant for discharge to Tess Corners Creek
except postaeration would not be necessary. The effluent outfall
to Big Muskego Lake would consist of 4,500 feet of 24-inch grav-
ity sewer. The outfall would run south to Durham Road and then
southwest across the marshy area surrounding the lake. This con-
struction would disrupt wildlife habitat and could affect fish
spawning which occurs in the near-shore area of the lake. The
construction impacts at the plant site would be identical to
those of the Tess Corners Creek alternative. The plant would
meet the WPDES effluent limits for discharge to Big Muskego Lake
but the increased loads of phosphorus and nitrogen would sustain
the continued eutrophication of the lake. Tess Corners Creek
would become intermittent if no other treatment plants were to
discharge to it. The creek would meet DNR water quality standards
at well as recommended 208 Plan goals. The total present worth of
the treatment plant, conveyance and local sewer rehabilitation
would be $11.13 million. The annual O&M would be $0.287 million.
5.2.1.3.3 Summary; The costs of the feasible Muskego Northeast
WWTP alternatives are summarized below:
Total Present
Alternative O&M ($) Worth ($ x 106)
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Tess Corners Creek Tributary 285,400 11.00
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Big Muskego Lake 286,500 11.13
The costs for these two alternatives are essentially equal.
However, environmentally neither alternative is desirable
because of their impacts on water quality. The MWPAP did not
analyze a land application alternative in their detailed
analysis.
5-8
-------
The EIS study team has; however, developed the costs of such an
alternative based on the MWPAP costs for a land application
infiltration/percolation plant to serve all of Muskego. (This
plant is discussed later under Alternative B.) Based on this
analysis, the total present worth of the plant plus local reha-
bilitation and conveyance to the land application site would be
approximately $9.50 million. The annual O&M would be approxi-
mately $0.300 million.
This cost is lower than either of the surface discharge altern-
atives. The aerated lagoons and the infiltration/percolation
ponds would be located in the Town of Vernon southeast of the
intersection of State Highway 15 and County Road F. The lagoon
system would cover approximately 12.1 acres and there would be
seven ponds each covering approximately 4.8 acres. There is suf-
ficient land at the site for the ponds, the lagoons and a 500
foot buffer from all roads and residences.
The conveyance route to the application site would be 8.6 miles
in length. It would begin at the existing plant site and run
west through an easement along Easy Street, through another ease-
ment and along Roger Drive to Mystic Drive. The pipe would then
proceed north on Mystic Drive to Woods Road, southwest along
Woods Road to State Highway 24 (Janesville Road), southwest on
Janesville Road to Edgewood Avenue, west on Edgewood Avenue to
County Road F, and north on County Road F to the application
site. The route would contain four river crossings. Figure 5-2
shows the proposed land application site and conveyance route.
The infiltration/percolation alternative for the Northeast WWTP
would permit the abandonment of a treatment plant in a growing
residential area. DNR water quality standards would be achieved in
Tess Corners Creek and no additional pollutant load would be
added to Big Muskego Lake. Construction impacts along the con-
veyance route would be short-term and mostly along existing road-
ways. The most inconvenience and disruption would occur in the
housing area west of the existing plant. It would be necessary
to acquire from 50 to 100 acres of agricultural land in the Town
of Vernon. There would be the same potential for groundwater
pollution as was discussed in detail for the Germantown infil-
tration/percolation alternative (Section 4.3.2).
5.2.2 Muskego Northwest WWTP
5.2.2.1 Introduction: The Muskego Northwest plant is located
in central Muskego on the northwest side of Big Muskego Lake.
The plant services 2.4 square miles with approximately 1,900
building connections.
5-9
-------
-------
The sewer system consists of 32.3 miles of gravity sewer ranging
from 8 inches to 42 inches in diameter with 5 lift stations.
There are no regular relief devices in the system but an auxil-
iary pump is available if flows exceed the capacity of the Woods
Road lift station. The system is reported to be in good con-
dition. The Department of Public Works of the City of Muskego
operates an inspection and cleaning program on a block by block
basis, noting any major problems with the system. An I/I study
performed by the MMSD identified excessive amounts of clear
water in the system during wet weather. The City of Muskego has
had a clear water ordinance since 1953 which requires sump pumps
in all buildings.
The Muskego Northwest treatment plant is located south of Woods
Road approximately 1 mile east of the intersection of Woods Road
and Racine Avenue (Figure 5-3). The plant is surrounded com-
pletely by open or agricultural land. Some residential units
are located along Wood Road but the nearest house is over 600
feet from the plant site. Big Muskego Lake lies approximately
one-half mile southeast of the plant.
Noise and odors are not a problem at the plant. Because of its
isolated location potential impacts are considered slight.
Trees screen much of the plant from view and the facility is
almost unnoticeable from the road.
The Muskego Northwest WWTP was originally constructed in 1966 as
a series of quiescent stabilization ponds. In 1971, subsurface
aeration was added. Phosphorus removal was added in 1977. The
present plant consists of a lift station, an 8.7 acre aerated
lagoon, a 4.2 acre aerated lagoon, a 4.8 acre aerated lagoon,
and a chlorine contact chamber. Effluent is discharged to
Little Muskego Creek, a tributary to Big Muskego Lake. The la-
goons were designed with excess capacity to accumulate solids.
5.2.2.1.1 Effluent Limits: The Muskego Northwest WWTP is reg-
istered under the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination
System and operations are regulated by the limits of its dis-
charge permit, number WI-0021750. This permit was issued July
29, 1974 and expired March 31, 1979. The permit has not been
renewed because of problems meeting permit requirements for sus-
pended solids and phosphorus. These problems are most severe
during warm weather when algae grow in the lagoons. As with the
Northeast WWTP, the City and the DNR are involved in a number of
actions aimed at ending the sewage treatment problems at the
Northwest WWTP.
The effluent limits in the expired permit are outlined below.
Also listed are the effluent limits set by the DNR for possible
future discharges to the Lake Michigan basin (Tess Corners Creek)
and the Fox River basin (Big Muskego Lake).
5-11
-------
o
c
I
i
o
CJ1
i
04
(0
C
CO
7^
m
o
o
H
X
3>
m
CO
H
H
-0
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
5.2.2.1.2 Wastewater Flows: The average daily design flow and
peak design flow of the existing Northwest WWTP are 0.7 MGD and
1.08 MGD respectively. Existing wastewater flows and loads were
determined by the I1MSD based on their I/I study. Estimated year
2005 flows and loads were based on SEWRPC population forecasts,
estimated I/I removals, and the proposed water conservation pro-
gram. Wastewater flows in the Northwest WWTP sewer area are
expected to increase by 204% by 2005. Therefore, a 10-year stag-
ing period was used.
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and popula-
tions for the Northwest WWTP service area are listed below.
1978 1995 2005
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 0.45 0.74 0.92
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) — 2.67 2.90
Peak Flow Rate (MGD) — 4.04 3.83
EODs Loading (Ib/day) 370 1,220 1,730
SS Loading (Ib/day) 460 1,430 2,010
Population Served 6,050 10,111 12,500
1 MGD = 3,785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound = 0.454 Kilogram
5.2.2.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions: The WWTP is generally in
good condition. Occasional problems are experienced with clog-
ging .of the aeration equipment. This clogging places excessive
back pressure on the blower equipment which increases blower
maintenance requirements and reduces service life. The lagoons
are in good condition with no known leaks. The lift station is
in good condition, but it is 12 years old. The plant has no
auxiliary power supply. All structures should remain useful
through the year 2005. Mechanical equipment would require replace-
ment prior to the end of the planning period as part of normal
maintenance.
5.2.2.2 Preliminary Alternatives; Alternatives considered for
the Muskego Northwest WWTP included no action, upgrade O&M,
expansion, upgrade and discharge to the Lake Michigan basin or
the Fox River basin, and land application of effluent.
• No action
The existing facilities do not consistently meet discharge
permit requirements for suspended solids and phosphorus.
The service population is expected to increase to 12,500
persons, augmenting average daily flows to 0.92 MGD, with
peak flows at 5.83 MGD. This increase in flow would lead
to further effluent violations and would hydraulically
5-14
-------
overload the plant. The WWTP is presently operating with-
out a valid WPDES permit. Improvements would be needed
before a permit could be reissued or the plant would have
to be abandoned.
Upgrade O&M
Upgrading the O&M of the present plant would have little
effect on the plant's ability to meet future effluent
limits. The capacity of the existing plant would be
exceeded. In addition, the plant would not have the nec-
essary unit processes to meet the effluent limits for con-
tinued discharge to Big Muskego Lake.
Expand Existing Facilities
An expanded, well operated Northwest WWTP would be able to
meet some of the parameters required of its future effluent
limits for discharge to Big Muskego Lake. However, an
expanded plant would not be able to meet limits for
ammonia, BOD!-, suspended solids and probably phosphorus.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Fox River Basin
It was not deemed technically feasible to upgrade the exist-
ing lagoons in order to meet the more stringent future
limits for discharge to Big Muskego Lake. Accordingly,
for this alternative the existing lagoons would be aban-
doned and replaced with a two-stage activated sludge plant
with ammonia and phosphorous removal capabilities followed
by filtration and chlorination. The initial capital cost
for this alternative would be $3.90 million. The annual
O&M would be $0.10 million.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
In order to discharge to Tess Corners Creek, a new treat-
ment plant similar to the plant proposed for discharge to
Big Muskego Lake would be required. However, postaeration
facilities would have to be added to the plant to meet min-
imum dissolved oxygen levels. In addition, 18,000 feet of
force main would be required to convey the treated waste-
water to Tess Corners Creek. The initial capital cost of
this alternative including new treatment and conveyance
facilities would be $5.35 million. The annual O&M would
be $0.10 million.
Land Application of Effluent
As an alternative to discharging to Big Muskego Lake or
Tess Corners Creek, four land application alternatives
5-15
-------
were evaluated: normal and high rate irrigation, infil-
tration/percolation, and marsh application. The land
required, the distance to the nearest possible site, and
the cost of each alternative are summarized below.
Alternative
Normal Rate
Irrigation
High Rate
Irrigation
Infiltration/
Percolation
Marsh Application
Treatment
Required Distance to Capital Cost Annual
Area (acres) Site (miles) ($ x 10 ) 0 S M ($)
910
330
44
370
2
2
5
10.7
7.00
10.40
5.30
10.70
190,000
230,000
220,000
300,000
The costs of the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting the
treatment requirements for the Northwest WWTP during the planning
period are summarized below.
Alternative
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Big Muskego Lake
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Tess Corners Creek
Land Application - Normal Rate
Irrigation
Land Application - High Rate
Irrigation
Land Application - Infiltra-
tion/Percolation
Marsh Application
Treatment
Capital,. Cost
($ x 10b)
3.90
5.35
7.00
10.40
5.30
10.70
Annual
O&M ($)
100,000
100,000
190,000
230,000
220 ,000
300 ,000
The least cost alternative would be to upgrade the existing plant
and continue discharging effluent to Big Muskego Lake. However,
there are potentially major adverse water quality impacts if
effluent discharges to Big Muskego Lake continue. Also the City
does not favor continued discharge. Discharge to Tess Corners
Creek or to an infiltration/percolation system are the next
least costly alternatives and they would eliminate the Big Mus-
kego Lake discharge. Consequently, they and the Big Muskego Lake
discharge alternative were evaluated in further detail.
5-li
-------
5.2.2.3 Feasible Alternatives
5.2.2.3.1 Upgrade Treatment: The treatment plants for dis-
charge to Big Muskego Lake and Tess Corners Creek would be very
similar. Both treatment plants would require an aerated grit
chamber, first stage aeration basis, intermediate clarifiers,
second stage nitrification basins for ammonia removal, final
clarifiers, filters, and chlorination facilities. In order to
meet minimum dissolved oxygen levels, postaeration would also be
required for discharge to Tess Corners Creek. Both plants would
aerobically digest solids and apply them to agriculutral land or
dispose of them in certified landfills.
Both plants would result in the abandonment of the existing
lagoons. The southwest corner of the lagoons would be converted
to an aerated sludge storage lagoon. New process expansion
would require five acres of land to the west of the existing
lagoons in an area currently zoned suburban residential. There
are currently very few houses near the existing lagoons. How-
ever, the expanded plant v/ould be built in the direction of some
existing housing.
Although both plants would meet their future WPDES effluent
limits, the impacts of each plant on their respective receiving
water would be very different. The plant discharging to Big
Muskego Lake v/ould cause an increase in the phosphorus and nit-
rogen loads to the lake. These increased loads v/ould foster
the accelerated eutrophication of the lake.
If the upgraded Northwest plant were to discharge to Tess Corners
Creek, all DNR water quality standards v/ould be met except for
occasional un-ionized ammonia violations. These violations
could occur during Q-j_-\n flow conditions depending on the tem-
perature and pH conditions of the creek. There would be an
increase in phosphorous loads to the creek. Since Tess Corners
Creek is tributary to Whitnall Park Pond, this added phosphorous
load would contribute to the long-term eutrophication of the
pond. The MMSD concluded that both phosphorus and un-ionized
ammonia 208 Plan water quality goals for Tess Corners Creek
would not be met.
The present worth of the new treatment plant to discharge to
Big Muskego Lake including local sewer rehabilitation v/ould be
$10.29 million. The annual O&M would be $0.282 million.
As discussed in the analysis of preliminary alternatives, dis-
charge to Tess Corners Creek would require 18,000 feet of force
main. The force main would run from the new plant northeast on
Woods Road to Mystic Road, south on Mystic Road to Roger Drive,
east on Roger Drive across an easement to Easy Street, and east
on Easy Street across another easement to the tributary to Tess
5-17
-------
Corners Creek. This force main would cause some traffic dis-
ruption on Woods Road and some construction noise and dust impacts
to the houses along Mystic Drive, Roger Drive and Easy Street.
This conveyance route is shown in Figure 5-4.
The total present worth of the new Northwest plant discharging
to Tess Corners Creek including new outfall conveyance and
local sewer rehabilitation would be $13.1 million. The annual
O&M would be $0.309 million.
5.2.2.3.2 Land Application - Infiltration/Percolation: The
proposed infiltration/percolation land application system for
the Northwest plant would consist of aerated lagoons at the
existing plant site and infiltration/percolation ponds at a site
in the Town of Vernon. In order to upgrade and enlarge the
existing lagoons, approximately 62,000 cubic yards of fill
would be brought in to construct new dikes. The lagoons would
not be dug any deeper than they are now because of the high
groundwater in the area. The upgraded lagoons would be lined
on the interior slopes to prevent exfiltration and erosion due
to wave action.
The infiltration/percolation pond site in Vernon would require
approximately 74 acres of agricultural land southwest of the
intersection of State Highway 15 and County Road F. The convey-
ance system to the ponds would require approximately 30,200 feet
of 16-inch force main and one pump station. The conveyance
route would run from the lagoon site west and north along
Woods Road to State Highway 24 (Janesville Road), southwest
along Janesville Road to Edgewood Avenue, west along Edgewood
Avenue to County Road F, north on County Road F to Cheri Avenue,
west on Cheri Avenue, and finally north to the pond site in
Section 11 of the Town of Vernon. The entire route would be
along existing roadways. There would be one stream crossing.
The proposed conveyance route and infiltration/percolation pond
site are shown in Figure 5-5. The impacts of the land application
system would be identical to those identified in the discussion
of the Germantown infiltration/percolation system (Section 4.3.2)
including the potential for groundwater pollution. The system
would be considered an alternative technology and would be
eligible for 85% federal funding if the system were part of
the cost-effective areawide pollution abatement program.
The benefits to water quality of this alternative would be the
elimination of the existing plant's phosphorus and nitrogen
loads to Big Muskego Lake. This reduction in nutrient loads
would slow the lake's eutrophicaticn. In conjunction with the
208 Plan, DNR water quality standards would be achieved in Tess
Corners Creek. The MMSD has concluded that recommended 208 Plan
water quality goals would also be achieved. The present worth
of this alternative including conveyance and local sewer reha-
bilitation would be $10.25 million. The annual O&M would be
$0.220 million.
5-18
-------
-------
-------
5.2.2.3.3 Summary: The costs, of the feasible alternatives for
serving the Muskego Northwest service area are summarized below.
Annual Total Presentg
Alternative O&M ($) Worth (.$ x 10 )
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Big Muskego Lake 309,200 13.10
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to
Tess Corners Creek 282,100 10.29
Land Application - Infiltration/
Percolation 220,300 10.25
The least cost alternative for serving the Muskego Northwest
service area would be to construct an infiltration/percolation
land application system. This system would also have the great-
est environmental benefits in terms of water quality improvement
However, it would require the greatest amount of new land for
construction.
5.3 Alternative B
Under Alternative B a single WWTP would serve the entire devel-
oped portion of Muskego in the planning area. This alternative
was developed at the request of the City as a means of abandoning
the very unpopular Northwest WWTP.
5.3.1 Northeast (B)
5.3.1.1 Introduction: The City-owned land south of McShane
Road was chosen as a suitable site for the Northeast (B) WWTP.
Because the City did not want to continue discharging to Big
Muskego Lake, discharge to the Lake Michigan basin was the only
surface discharge considered.
5.3.1.1.1 Effluent Limits: The effluent limits for discharge to
Tess Corners Creek are outlined below.
5-21
-------
Parameter
Future Limit
BODr- , ,, .
5 (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
pH (standard units)
NH--N (mg/1) (May-Oct)
(Nov-Apr)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Residual Chlorine (mg/1)
Phosphorus (mg/1)
15 (mon. avg.)
30 (daily avg.)
20 (mon. avg.)
30 (daily avg.)
400 (30 day avg.)
6.0 - 9.0
3 (wk. avg.)
6 (wk . avg .)
4 (min.)
0.5 (max.)
1 (mon. avg.)
Discharges in the Fox River basin other than Big Muskego Lake
would be possible. The two closest discharge locations would be
the Wind Lake Canal and Deer Creek, both approximately five miles
from the proposed plant site. There would be little, if any,
advantage in discharging to these surface waters because the
effluent limits would be very similar to those required for dis-
charge to Tess Corners Creek. The outfall conveyance costs
would also be considerable.
5.3.1.1.2 Wastewater Flows: The service area of the Northeast
(B) WWTP would be the combined service area of the Northeast
WWTP and Northwest WWTP service areas. Accordingly, both the
existing and future wastewater flows and loading and populations
were computed in the same manner as the Alternative A values.
These MMSD estimated values are listed below.
1978
1995
1.50
5.80
7.44
3,260
3,540
17,900
2005
1.98
6 .07
7.85
4,680
5,700
21,960
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 0.84
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)
Peak Flow Rate (MGD)
BOD5 Loading (Ib/day) 1,020
SS Loading (Ib/day) 980
Population Served 11,000
1 MGD = 3,785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound = 0.454 Kilograms
The 136% increase in base flows between the current situation
and 2005 resulted in the selection of a 10-year staging period.
5.3.1.2 Preliminary Alternatives: The alternatives which were
considered during preliminary analyses were treatment and dis-
charge to the Lake Michigan basin and land application.
5-22
-------
Treatment and Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
In order to meet the expected effluent limits for discharge
to Tess Corners Creek, a new WWTP with a two stage acti-
vated sludge process, filtration, disinfection, and post-
aeration would be built. The existing Northwest WWTP
lagoons would be abandoned and connected to the new North-
east WWTP via a combination force main gravity sewer.
This connection would proceed northeast along Woods Road
and then east to the existing Northeast plant site. The
total Muskego wastewater flows would then be treated at
the new plant. The initial capital cost of this alterna-
tive including the new plant and conveyance would be $11.55
million. The annual O&M would be $0.260 million.
Land application of Effluent
All four land application alternatives were considered for
a new Northeast WWTP. During preliminary analysis, it was
assumed pretreatment would occur at the new Northeast
plant site using an activated sludge secondary level of
wastewater treatment. For marsh application fine screens
would be added to the process and postaeration would be
provided at the application site. The land required, dis-
tance to the nearest possible site and cost of each alter-
native is outlined below.
Alternatives
Required
Area (acres)
Distance to
Site (miles)
Treatment
Capital Cost
($ x 10 )
Annual
0 & M ($)
Normal Rate
Irrigation 1,900
High Rate
Irrigation 720
Infiltration/
Percolation 84
Marsh Application 8,810
6.5
6.5
9.5
13.8
20.75
32.45
15.15
24.16
280,000
370,000
340,000
520,000
Comparing the costs of the land application alternative with the
cost of discharging to Tess Corners Creek shows that discharging
to Tess Corners Creek would be the least costly. However, the
water quality impacts of a relatively large discharge (1.98 MGD
average daily base flow) on Tess Corners Creek could be signifi-
cant. Accordingly, the least cost land application alternative,
infiltration/percolation, was also considered during detailed
analysis.
5-23
-------
Muskego. The aerated lagoons and the infiltration/percolation
ponds would be located at the Town of Vernon site discussed in
Alternative A.
The lagoon system would cover approximately 22 acres. There
would be seven ponds each about 9.1 acres in size. The total
system including buffer land would require approximately 115
acres of agricultural land.
The conveyance route to the land application site would be 8.6
miles in length. The route would contain four river crossings.
The conveyance pipe would be a 20-inch force main constructed at
a typical six foot depth. Four pump stations would be required.
This route would be identical to the route described for the
Northeast WWTP infiltration/percolation system shown in Figure
5-2.
The infiltration/percolation alternative to serve all of the
developed portions of Muskego would permit the abandonment of
both the Northeast and Northwest WWTPs. Abandonment of the
Northeast WWTP would make further residential development in
that area of Muskego more attractive. DNR water quality standards
would be achieved in Tess Corners Creek and no additional
pollutant load would be added to Big Muskego Lake. Construction
impacts along the conveyance route would be short-term in nature
and mostly along existing roadways. The most inconvenience and
disruption would occur in the housing area west of the existing
Northeast plant. The MMSD concluded that the 208 Plan recom-
mended water quality goals would also be achieved.
5.3.1.3.3 Land Application - Infiltration/Percolation (EIS):
The EIS study team during its review of the MWPAP detailed
analysis, proposed that the existing lagoons at the Northwest
WWTP be rehabilitated to provide pretreatment for all Muskego
wastewater flows prior to land application by infiltration/
percolation in Vernon. The aim of this proposal was to possibly
lower costs by utilizing an existing lagoon system and by
reducing the amount of land to be purchased in Vernon. The
impacts on water quality in Big Muskego Lake or Tess Corners
Creek would not change. The conveyance route would also not
change. However, because it would be easier to pump treated
wastewater, only two pump stations would be required.
The analysis of the rehabilitation requirements for the North-
west lagoons identified a number of impacts. Firstly, because
it would not be possible to enlarge the existing lagoons by
digging them deeper, a substantial amount of fill would have
to be acquired in order to build higher lagoon levees. The cost
for this additional fill and the need to maintain treatment during
rehabilitation would exceed the cost of constructing new lagoons
by approximately $800,000. Secondly, the lagoon rehabilitation
could require work in the wetlands and floodplain that surrounds
5-26
-------
the existing lagoons. The benefits of rehabilitating the North-
west lagoons would be a 17 acre reduction in the amount of agri-
cultural land required in Vernon.
The total present worth of this alternative was determined by the
SIS study team to be approximately $15.49 million.
5.2.2.3.4 Summary: The cost of the feasible alternatives for
serving all of Muskego on a local level are summarized below.
Annual Total Presentg
Alternative O&M ($) Worth ($ x 10 )
Upgrade Treatment Discharge to 448,100 16.72
Tess Corners Creek
Land Application-Infiltration/ 435,200 14.57
Percolation (Vernon)
Land Application-Infiltration/ 435,200 15.49
Percolation (Northwest)
(EIS Alternative)
The least cost alternative for serving all of Muskego with one
wastewater treatment facility would be to construct an
infiltration/percolation system in Vernon and abandon the two
existing WWTPs. This system would have the greatest environ-
mental benefits in terms of water quality improvement. However,
it would require the acquisition of new land and could result in
groundwater pollution.
5.4 Final Muskego Alternatives
There are three final alternatives for serving the developed
areas of Muskego during the planning period. The first is a
combination of the final Northeast and Northwest WWTP alterna-
tives developed for Alternative A. Both of these alternatives
involve infiltration/percolation systems and would result in the
elimination of WWTP discharges to Tess Corners Creek and Big
Muskego Lake. The total present worth of this alternative would
be $19.75 million. The total annual O&M would be approximately
$0.520 million.
The second alternative is a single infiltration/percolation WWTP
located in the Town of Vernon and serving all of Muskego. This
alternative would also eliminate effluent discharges to Big
Muskego Lake and Tess Corners Creek. The total present worth of
this alternative would be $14.57 million.
5-27
-------
The environmental impacts of both the one-plant and two-plant
alternatives are nearly identical. They both involve conveyance
networks along the same route and land application in the same
areas of Vernon. They both would improve water quality.
However, the one-plant alternative would be much less expensive
and would not require the continued operation of a WWTP in the
sensitive wetlands surrounding Big Muskego Lake. The cost
savings of the single plant would be expected because of
economy-of-scale factors. Also the cost to rehabilitate the
Northwest lagoons and continue operation of the plant during
this work was found to be more expensive than the construction
of a new lagoon system. For these reasons the one-plant infiltra-
tion/percolation alternative would be the preferred local alterna-
tive for Muskego.
The third alternative for Muskego would be the regional approach
of connecting to the MMSD. This approach would require the
construction of a connection from the Northwest WWTP to the
Northeast WWTP. This connection would be identical to the
connection discussed under Alternative B. The remainder of
the connection to the MMSD would consist of a 20-inch force
main and one lift station. The force main would begin at
the Northeast plant site and would run due east along an ease-
ment to Forest Home Avenue, northeast along Forest Home Avenue
to a point directly east to College Avenue. There it would
proceed directly east to College Avenue where it would connect
to an 84-inch MIS.
The proposed construction corridor contains a variety of land
uses including residential, commercial, open space, and community
facilities. This construction would cause noise and dust impacts
typical of open cut sewer construction. The force main would
cross Tess Corners Creek one time and its tributary near the
Northeast plant one time. Sedimentation of the creek could
occur if proper erosion control construction methods are not
employed. Any impacts to Tess Corners creek could also affect
Whitnall Park Pond. The connection would have long-term bene-
fits to Tess Corners Creek by eliminating wastewater treatment
plant discharges. All DNR water quality standards for Tess
Corners Creek would be met. Pollutant loads to Big Muskego
Lake would also be reduced due to the abandonment of the Northwest
WWTP. The MMSD concluded that the recommended 208 Plan water
quality goals for Tess Corners Creek would also be achieved.
The force main would be constructed at a depth of 6 to 10 feet.
Groundwater is present along the construction route at depths of
less than 10 feet during periods of high groundwater. Other
areas have groundwater at 10 to 30 foot depths and, in a smaller
area, groundwater may be found at depths greater than 30 feet.
5-28
-------
There is one known archaeological site along the construction
route. It is located north of the intersection of St. Martins
Road and Cape Road just South of Tess Corners Creek.
The cost of the connection alternative includes conveyance from
the Northwest plant to the College Avenue MIS plus the cost of
the rehabilitation of local Muskego sanitary sewers. The total
present worth of the connection alternative would be $5.65
million. The annual O&M would be $0.044 million.
The cost of the final alternatives for serving the City of
Muskego are summarized below.
Annual Total Present,-
Alternative O&M ($) Worth ($ x 10 )
Northeast and Northwest WWTPs 520,300 19.75
Infiltration/Percolation
(Alternative A)
Northeast WWTP 435,200 14.57
Infiltration/Percolation
(Alternative B)
Connect to MMSD 43,700 5.651
Does not include MMSD capital or O&M costs to treat Muskego
wastewater. (See Section 3.4 for further discussion.)
A review of the preliminary and final costs for both the
Northeast WWTP and Northwest WWTP alternatives as developed under
Muskego Alternative A shows that many of the alternatives
eliminated due to excessive cost had costs less than some of the
final alternatives. During its review of the costs of
Northeast WWTP alternatives, the EIS study team determined that
the infiltration/percolation alternative was actually less costly
than the upgrading of the plant for surface discharge. The
infiltration/percolation alternative had been eliminated due to
its apparent high cost during preliminary analysis. The normal
rate irrigation alternative preliminary cost was also less than
the final surface discharge alternative costs. A similar
situation exists for the Northwest WWTP. All of the preliminary
costs were less than all or some of the final alternatives costs.
This situation did not occur for the new Northeast WWTP under
Alternative B. None of the final alternatives has costs greater
than the preliminary alternatives which were eliminated based on
cost.
5-29
-------
As a result of the inconsistencies in costs under Alternative A,
it is possible that a combination of the preliminary alternatives
at the Northeast and Northwest WWTPs which were originally
eliminated due to excessive costs could produce a total cost
lower than the final Muskego Alternative B infiltration/percolation
cost. To check this possibility, a cost comparison was made
between the total capital and annual O&M costs of the Alternative A
normal rate irrigation alternatives at the Northeast and North-
west WWTPs and the total capital and annual O&M costs of the
Alternative B infiltration/percolation system. The costs are
shown below.
Total Capital Annual C&M
Alternative A ($ x 106) ($ x 1Q6)
Northeast WWTP
Normal Rate Irrigation 9.70 0.150
Northwest WWTP
Normal Rate Irrigation 7.00 0.190^
Total " 16.70 0.340
Alternative B
Northeast WWTP
Infiltration/Percolation 10.14 0.435
A comparison of these costs shows that the Alternative B infiltra-
tion/percolation system would still be the least costly local
alternative for treating wastewater in the City of Muskego.
Each of the final alternatives would have the same impacts on
water quality because they would eliminate WWTP discharges to
Tess Corners Creek and Big Muskego Lake. The land application
alternatives would require the purchase of land in the Town of
Vernon and could cause groundwater pollution if not operated
properly. However, as alternative technology, they would be
eligible for increased federal funding if they were part of
the most cost effective sewage treatment plan. The location of
the connection to the MMSD is shown in Figure 11-1. The location
of the Alternative B infiltration/percolation system is shov/n
in Figure 11-2.
Prior to the selection of the preferred wastewater treatment
alternative for Muskego, a determination of the MI1SD cost to
treat Muskego's wastewater will be made. This cost will be
added to the $5.65 million cost of the connection in order to
determine the actual total present worth cost of this alternative.
In the final EIS, EPA, in accordance with NEPA, will describe
the preferred alternative for wastewater treatment for Muskego.
5-30
-------
This alternative will be based upon findings set forth here
and in other sections of this EIS, comments received from various
review agencies, and comments received during the public comment
period and at the public hearings.
5-31
-------
CHAPTER 6
CITY OF NEW BERLIN
-------
6.0 CITY OF NEW BERLIN
6.1 Introduction
At present the eastern portion of New Berlin in the planning
area receives wastewater treatment by three means: the MMSD,
the Regal Manors Subdivision WWTP, and on-site septic systems.
Figure 6-1 shows these service areas.
Two alternatives for local sewer service during the planning
period were proposed for New Berlin. The first alternative
would expand the Regal Manors WWTP to serve all areas of the
New Berlin service area not presently served by the MMSD. The
areas currently served by the MMSD would continue to be served
throughout the planning period. The second alternative for
New Berlin would be the construction of a new WWTP to serve
the entire New Berlin service area in the planning area. The
northern portion of the Roberts Golf Park and vacant area west
of Lower Kelly Lake were identified as possible new treatment
plant sites. Both of these local alternatives will be dis-
cussed and compared prior to an overall comparison of the im-
pacts of all of New Berlin connecting to the MMSD.
6.2 Alternative A
6.2.1 Regal Manors WWTP
6.2.1.1 Introduction: The first local alternative would in-
volve continued use of the Regal Manors WWTP. The Regal Manors
WWTP was originally constructed in 1969 to service the Regal
Manors and Glen Park subdivisions. The WWTP is located at the
end of Harcove Drive east of the intersection of Regal Drive.
The Regal Manors subdivision, a medium density residential
area, is located adjacent to the plant site on the west and
directly across Harcove Drive on the south (See Figure 6-2).
Immediately east of the plant is Deer Creek beyond which lie
agricultural fields to the east and north of the plant.
Directly to the north of the treatment facility lies an aban-
doned polishing pond. Because of the close proximity of the
houses to the site, noise and odors have been a source of
constant, potentially severe, impacts. There are no open
spaces or trees to buffer the subdivision from the plant.
The present service area is approximately one square mile, with
282 single family, 29 commercial, and one multi-family sewer
connections. The conveyance system to the plant consists of
4.2 miles of gravity sewer 8 to 18 inches in diameter and two
lift stations. There are no known bypasses in the system.
Sewers are cleaned and inspected annually by the City of New
Berlin with repairs performed as needed. An I/I analysis of
the sewer system conducted by the MMSD showed that the system
6-1
-------
CHAPTER 6
CITY OF NEW BERLIN
-------
LEGEND
NEW BERLIN CORPORATE LIMITS
NEW BERLIN AREA IN THE PLANNING AREA
REGAL MANORS WWTP SERVICE AREA
MMSD SERVICE AREA
ON-SITE SYSTEMS
FIGURE
DATE
6-1
MOV 1980
NEW BERLIN SERVICE AREAS
SOURCE MMSD
PREPARED BY
=?[] EcolSciences
-3LJ ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
o
0.
cr
?
UJ
V)
UJ
o
a.
3
O
-------
is in good condition and I/I flows are so minimal that removal
was not considered cost effective.
Plant processes consist of a comminution basin, chemical
addition for phosphorus control followed by flash mixing,
aeration basins, final clarifiers, a single media sand filter,
a lift station, and a chlorination chamber. Effluent is dis-
charged to Deer Creek, a tributary of the Fox River. Solids
are pumped to aerobic digesters. The digested sludge is then
spread on drying beds. Once dried, the sludge is used by the
New Berlin Parks and Recreation Department as a soil condition-
er at City parks and in new subdivision areas. A 1978 expan-
sion program added aeration and clarifier capacity, the sand
filter, and phosphorus removal systems.
6.2.1.1.1 Effluent Limits: The Regal Manors treatment plant
is registered under the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System and regulated under the limits described in its
permit, number WI-0028347-2. This permit was issued November
30, 1977, and will expire June 30, 1982. Current effluent
limits as well as future limits for discharge to Deer Creek or
a new discharge to the Root River are listed below.
Parameter
BOD5
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Phosphorus (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
pH (standard units)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Residual Chlorine (mg/1)
Present
20 (mo.avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
6.0 - 9.0
4.0 (min.)
Future
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
1.0 (mo. avg.)
400 (30 cons, days)
6.0 - 9.0
4 . 0 (min.)
0.5 (max.)
6.2.1.1.2 Wastewater Flows: The existing Regal Manor WWTP
was designed for an average daily flow of 0.65 MGD with a
peak design capacity of 1.625 MGD. The existing wastewater
flows to the Regal Manors WWTP were determined based on the
MMSD I/I study. Expected year 2005 flows and loads were
estimated by the MMSD based on SEWRPC population forecasts,
estimated I/I removals, and the proposed water conservation
program. Wastewater flows are expected to increase by 956% by
2005. Accordingly, a 10-year staging period was used.
6-4
-------
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and popu-
lations for the Regal Manors WWTP service area are listed below.
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD)
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD)
Peak Flow Rate (MGD)
1978
0.18
1995
1.25
3.36
4.47
2005
1.90
4.72
6.22
c Loading (Ib/day)
SS Loading (Ib/day)
Population Served
1 MGD = 3,785 Cubic Meter/Day
1 Pound = 0.454 Kilogram
210
90
3,230
2,080
3,370
16,884
4,770
5,300
24,916
6.2.1.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions: Presently the plant is in
very good condition. The structures built in 1978 would remain
useful through the planning period. The original package plant
would need to be replaced prior to 2005. Mechanical equipment
would require replacement on normal maintenance schedules. The
sand filter is presently not in operation because of clogging
problems. The current problem appears to be excess solids
flowing over the weirs in the final clarifiers. The plant
operators have reported very low suspended solids in the
effluent. Poor sampling technique is felt to be the cause.
6.2.1.2 Preliminary Alternatives; The alternatives considered
for the Regal Manors WWTP included no action, upgrade O&M,
expansion, upgrading the existing plant with continued discharge
to the Fox River basin, discharge to the Lake Michigan basin, and
land application of effluent.
0 No Action
As shown in Section 6.2.1.2, the existing WWTP would be
inadequate to treat anticipated year 2005 flows. Addi-
tional capacity would be required. The peak flows are
expected to be four times the peak hydraulic capacity of
the existing treatment system.
0 Upgrade O&M
Upgrading the O&M of the existing plant would have little
benefit because the plant would still not be large enough
to handle anticipated year 2005 flows.
6-5
-------
Expand Existing Facilities
Expanding the existing facilities would provide the
necessary treatment processes and capacity to meet all
future effluent requirements except dissolved oxygen.
Consequently, by itself, expansion alone would not
satisfy the requirements of the planning period.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Fox River Basin
In order to continue discharges to Deer Creek the
existing plant would be expanded and a postaeration
basin would be added to the plant. Land for expansion
would be available by filling in the abandoned polish-
ing pond. Capital cost for this alternative including
new conveyance to serve a larger area of New Berlin
would be $8.00 million. The annual O&M would be $0.240
million.
Upgrade Treatment and Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
The nearest receiving water to the Regal Manors plant in
the Lake Michigan basin is the Root River. As discussed
earlier the effluent standards for discharge to this
river are identical to the Fox River standards. How-
ever, additional pumping and conveyance would be required
to convey the effluent to the Root River. The cost
associated with this additional conveyance would make
this alternative less attractive than continuing to dis-
charge to Deer Creek. The capital cost of this alterna-
tive including new conveyance to serve a larger area of
New Berlin would be $9.00 million. Annual O&M would be
$0.240 million.
Land Application of Effluent
The existing treatment plant has the necessary unit pro-
cesses to provide acceptable levels of pretreatment for
land application. However, to adequately treat the
anticipated increase in future flows, additional capacity
would have to be added to the lift station, blowers, and
chlorine contact chamber. The package plants would also
be replaced.
Land requirements, the distance to the nearest acceptable
site, and estimated costs for the four types of land
application considered are indicated below.
6-6
-------
Alternatives
Treatment
Required Distance to Capital Cost Annual
Area (acres) Site (miles) ($ x 10 ) 0 & M ($)
High Rate
Irrigation 620
Normal Rate
Irrigation 1,800
Infiltration/
Percolation 80
Marsh Application 760
7.4
7.4
4.0
12.0
26.90
19.80
12.20
390,000
300,000
340,000
No costs were prepared for the Marsh Application alterna-
tive because of the distance to the nearest suitable marsh.
The costs for the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting the
requirements of the planning period for the City of New Berlin
are summarized below.
Alternative
Upgrade Treatment Discharge
to Deer Creek
Upgrade Treatment Discharge
to Root River
Land Application - Normal
Rate Irrigation
Land Application - High
Rate Irrigation
Treatment or Conveyance
Capital Cost Annual
($ x 106) O&M ($)
8.00
9.00
19.80
26.90
Land Application - Infiltration/ 12.20
Percolation
240,000
240,000
300,000
390,000
340,000
The most feasible of the local alternatives for New Berlin's
continued operation of the Regal Manor WWTP would be to upgrade
treatment and discharge to Deer Creek. The EIS analysis of
water quality impacts to Deer Creek indicated that no existing
DNR water quality standards would be exceeded. Deer Creek is
currently classified as a marginal surface water by the DNR.
Accordingly, it has no water quality criteria for ammonia
concentrations.
The MMSD water quality analysis was based on 208 Plan recommended
water quality goals which include ammonia limits for Deer Creek.
6-7
-------
Consequently, during the MMSD detailed analysis of an alternative
for upgrading treatment, a nitrification process was added to the
treatment system. Because water quality impacts on Deer Creek
could still be a problem even with further upgraded treatment,
the MMSD also evaluated the least cost land application alterna-
tive, infiltration/percolation in further detail. The MMSD did
not evaluate any other alternatives further. However, the EIS
study team did evaluate an alternative for upgrading the Regal
Manors WWTP without adding nitrification processes. This analysis
is discussed in detail below.
6.2.1.3 Feasible Alternatives
6.2.1.3.1 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to Deer Creek: Because of
the potential water quality impacts to Deer Creek, further analy-
sis of two local treatment alternatives for the Regal Manors WWTP
was undertaken. In order to reduce the possibility of ammonia
violations in Deer Creek, the MMSD added a two stage nitrifica-
tion process to the treatment plant. The new plant would consist
of bar screens followed by a grit chamber, primary clarifiers,
first stage aeration basins, intermediate clarifiers, second
stage aeration basins for ammonia removal, final clarifiers,
filters, and chlorination and postaeration facilities. Solids
would be anaerobically digested, mechanically dewatered and
applied to agricultural land or landfilled.
The construction impacts of the plant expansion would be severe
due to the proximity of housing and the necessity of using sub-
division roads for all truck traffic. Noise and dust due to
construction would be severe for those homes near the plant.
The expanded plant could be expected to cause long-term
increased noise and odor problems.
The upgraded plant would meet WPDES effluent limits and would
also have additional ammonia control. However, recommended
208 Plan water quality standards for ammonia could still not
be met according to the MMSD. The increased treatment capacity
would allow the abandonment of septic systems and would permit
the planned level of growth in New Berlin. The total present
worth of this alternative including the new conveyance would be
$20.83 million. The annual O&M would be $0.433 million.
If the plant were upgraded without adding the nitrification
processes, the intermediate clarifiers and second stage aera-
tion basins could be eliminated. All of the construction impacts
of the proposed nitrification plant would also occur for this
plant. WPDES effluent limits would be met and DNR water quality
standards would be met in Deer Creek. The total present worth of
this alternative including the new conveyance would be $19.54
million. The annual O&M would be $0.398 million.
-------
6.2.1.3.2 Land Application - Infiltration/Percolation: As
discussed under the Germantown land application alternatives,
secondary treatment for land application would be less costly
if aerated lagoons are used for pretreatment. In order to
adequately treat the expected wastewater flows from the Regal
Manors service area, an aerated lagoon system covering 22 acres
would be necessary. The treated effluent would be applied to
seven infiltration/percolation ponds each covering 9.1 acres.
There would not be adequate land at or near the present plant
site for either the lagoons or the application ponds. How-
ever, there would be sufficient land in the Town of Vernon at
a site southeast of the intersection of State Highway 15 and
County Road F.
The existing WWTP would be abandoned and a force main would be
constructed to the new treatment site. The conveyance system
would run from the existing WWTP west along Mark Drive, then
north on Church Drive, then southwest along County Road ES
(National Avenue), and finally south on County Road F to the
application site. The force main would consist of 44,400 lineal
feet of 16-inch pipe and three 6.22 MGD pump stations. Figure
6-3 shows the location of the proposed conveyance route and
application site.
The force main would be constructed entirely along existing
roadways using open cut construction at a typical depth of
six feet. A portion of the construction would be through
the Regal Manors Subdivision and would cause short-term noise,
dust,and traffic congestion impacts.
The abandonment of the existing plant would significantly improve
the aesthetics of the area. It would also eliminate the dis-
charge of effluent to Deer Creek. The elimination of this dis-
charge would cause Deer Creek to become an intermittent stream
that would be dry most of the year.
The new land application WWTP would provide enough capacity to
allow the abandonment of septic systems and permit the planned
level of growth in New Berlin. It would be necessary to ac-
quire approximately 80 acres of land in the Town of Vernon.
The potential for groundwater pollution and the benefits of
using an alternative technology are the same as described for
the Germantown land application alternative (see Section 4.32.)
The total present worth of the infiltration/percolation alterna-
tive including new conveyance to serve additional areas of New
Berlin would be $19.27 million. The annual O&M would be $0.407
million.
6-9
-------
-------
6.2.1.3.3 Summary: The refined costs of the feasible alterna-
tives for serving the Regal Manors service area of New Berlin
are summarized below.
Total Present
Alternative O&M ($) Worth ($ x 106)
Upgrade Treatment Discharge 432,900 20.85
to Deer Creek (Ammonia
Removal)
Upgrade Treatment Discharge 398,000 19.54
to Deer Creek (No Ammonia
Removal)
Land Application-Infiltra- 406,900 19.26
tion/Pereolation
These final costs are consistent with the preliminary costs
developed for the Regal Manors WWTP.
6.2.1.4 Final Alternative: The least cost of the feasible
alternatives for the future Regal Manors service area would be
the construction of a new infiltration/percolation WWTP. It
would allow the abandonment of the existing plant located in a
subdivision and would eliminate a point source to Deer Creek.
However, it would be necessary to acquire land in the Town of
Vernon.
6.3 Alternative B
6.3.1 Introduction
The evaluation of a new treatment plant to serve all of New
Berlin was undertaken at the request of the City. Two
potential sites were selected: 1) the Roberts Golf Course
near the Root River; and 2) a vacant parcel of land west of
Lower Kelly Lake.
6.3.1.1 Effluent Limits: Effluent limits would be identical
for discharges to the Root River, Tess Corners Creek, Deer
Creek, or Big Muskego Lake. The anticipated future effluent
limits are listed below.
6-11
-------
Parameter Future Limit
BOD5 (mg/1) 10 (wk. avg.)
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 10 (wk. avg.)
Phosphorous (mg/1) 1.0 (mo. avg.)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) 400 (30 day avg.)
pH (standard units)
(summer) 6.0 - 7.2
(winter) 6.0 - 7.4
NH -N (mg/1)
(summer) 2 (wk. avg.)
(winter) 4 (wk. avg.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6 (min.)
6.3.1.2 Wastewater Flows: The service area of both the pro-
posed Northeast and Southeast WWTPs would include all of the
planned sewered area of New Berlin in the planning area. The
existing and future wastewater flows and loadings and popula-
tions were computed in the same manner as the Alternative A
values. These MMSD estimated values are listed below.
1978 1985 2005
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 1.83 4.14 5.39
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) — 11.51 12.68
Peak Flow Rate (MGD) — 15.53 16.47
BOD5 Loading (Ib/day) 5,270 12,600 16,050
SS Loading (Ib/day) 6,620 15,000 18,940
Population Served 14,470 38,100 52,000
1 MGD = 3,705 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound = 0.454 Kilograms
The 195% increase in base flows between the existing situation
and 2005 resulted in the selection of a 10-year staging period.
6.3.2 Preliminary Alternatives
6.3.2.1 Northeast Plant: The Northeast plant could be built
at the Roberts Golf Course along the Root River. There is
sufficient land at the proposed site to build the plant and
6-12
-------
provide a 500-foot buffer between the plant and local resi-
dences. In order to abandon the Regal Manors plant and connect
presently unsewered portions of New Berlin to the Northeast
plant, two new interceptors would be necessary. The first
would run from the Regal Manors plant southeast through a
presently unsewered but fully developed residential area of
New Berlin to Grange Road, then east along Grange Road to 124th
Street. The second interceptor would run along 124th Street
from Grange Road to the proposed plant site.
The alternatives considered for the Northeast plant included
treatment and discharge to the Lake Michigan basin, treatment
and discharge to the Fox River basin, and land application of
effluent.
0 Treatment and Discharge to the Lake Michigan Basin
In order for the Northeast plant to discharge effluent
to the Root River, an advanced secondary treatment (AWT)
plant capable of meeting the effluent limits listed above
would have to be constructed. The capital cost for this
alternative including the cost for the two new inter-
ceptors would be $35.45 million. The annual O&M would
be $1.02 million.
° Treatment and Discharge to the Fox River Basin
Because effluent limits to Deer Creek are identical to
those of the Root River, the same type of AWT plant
would be required. Additional conveyance would be
required to convey the treated effluent to Deer Creek.
The capital cost for this alternative including the
cost of all new conveyance would be $39.75 million.
The annual O&M would be $1.04 million.
0 Land Application of Effluent
Suitable land for high rate and normal rate irrigation
and infiltration/percolation land application systems
was found in the Town of Vernon about 10 miles from the
Northeast plant site. The closest suitable marsh
application site was the Vernon Marsh located about 15
miles southeast of the Northeast site.
Land requirements, the distance to the potential appli-
cation sites, and the estimated costs for each of the
land application alternatives are outlined below. The
costs include both conveyance to the plant and to the
land application sites.
6-13
-------
Treatment
Required Distance to Capital Cost Annual
Alternatives Area (acres) Site (miles) ($ x 10 ) O s M ($)
High Rate
Irrigation 1,900 10 77.35 960,000
Normal Rate
Irrigation 5,100 10 58.55 760,000
Infiltration/
Percolation 230 10 39.55 820,000
Marsh Application 2,190 15 59.85 1,020,000
6.3.2.2 Southeast Plant: As an alternative to the Northeast
plant, another proposed plant to serve all New Berlin in the
planning area would be located in southeastern New Berlin west
of Lower Kelly Lake. This area is presently undeveloped and has
suitable land for the proposed Southeast plant.
An interceptor system similar to the one described for the
Northeast plant would be required. In order to abandon the
Regal Manors plant, an interceptor would be built southeaster-
ly to Grange Avenue. Another interceptor would be built along
124th Street from Greenfield Avenue south to Grange Avenue,
west on Grange Avenue to where it would intersect the Regal
Manors interceptor and further west and south to the Southeast
plant site.
The alternatives considered for the Southeast plant included
treatment and discharge to the Lake Michigan basin, treatment
and discharge to the Fox River basin, and land application
of effluent.
0 Treatment and Discharge to the Lake Michigan Basin
The effluent limits for discharge to Tess Corners
Creek are identical to those for discharge to the
Root River and Deer Creek. Consequently, an AST
plant would be necessary at the Southeast site. The
capital cost for this alternative including the cost
for the two new interceptor would be $38.55 million.
The annual O&M would be $1.06 million.
0 Treatment and Discharge to the Fox River Basin
Effluent would be discharged to an unnamed tributary of
Big Muskego Lake. The effluent requirements were iden-
tical to those for discharge to Tess Corners Creek.
Additional conveyance would be required to convey the
treated effluent to the tributary. The capital cost
of this alternative including the new conveyance would
6-14
-------
be $41.85 million. The annual O&M would be $1.08
million.
Land Application of Effluent
The same land application sites proposed for the North-
east plant could also be used for the Southeast plant.
Land requirements, distances to the potential applica-
tion sites, and the estimated costs of each land appli-
cation alternative are outlined below. The costs in-
clude all conveyance to the plant anrl to the land
aT^.l: c~.-'-.icn sites.
Alternatives
High Rate
Irrigation
Normal Rate
Irrigation
Infiltration/
Percolation
Treatment
Required Distance to Capital Cost
Area (acres) Site (miles) ($ x 10 )
1,900
5,100
230
Marsh Application 2,190
8.6
8.6
8.6
12.4
81.15
62.35
43.45
63.15
Annual
0 S M ($)
990,000
790,000
860,000
1,040,000
6.3.2.3 Summary: All of the costs of the Northeast and South-
east plants preliminary alternatives are summarized in
Table 6-1.
All of the normal and high rate irrigation and marsh applica-
tion alternatives were infeasible because of their high costs.
Of the remaining alternatives, the two treatment and discharge
alternatives and the infiltration/percolation alternative for
the Northeast plant were less costly. However, the Northeast
site was very unattractive in terms of land use compatibility.
It infringes on the Roberts Golf Course and is near Greenfield
Park and existing residences.
Consequently, in spite of the slightly higher preliminary costs,
it was decided to further analyze only the feasible Southeast
plant alternatives. These alternatives are treatment and dis-
charge to Tess Corners Creek or the unnamed tributary of Big
Muskego Lake and land application by infiltration/percolation.
The cost of the Southeast plant alternatives were 5 to 9 percent
higher than the feasible Northeast plant alternatives.
6.3.3 Feasible Alternatives
6.3.3.1 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to Tess Corners Creek: To
meet the anticipated effluent requirements for discharge to Tess
Corners Creek an AST type plant would be necessary. This new
olant would consist of bar screens followed by a grit chamber,
6-15
-------
(0
3
C
C
CM •"* ^o vo CN CN
o o r- cri oo o
r-H rH O O O rH
VO CO CTi O1 VD •*
o o r-~ cri oo o
.-H rH O O O rH
H OH
1-3
4-1
en
Q) O
O U
0)
4-1
tO
Q)
> -H
c
J-i O (0
EH U U —
in LTI m un un
r^ un ro in co
in cyi co
n n m
in en in m ITS
in oo m rH ^
00 H CM rH ro ro
ro ^r \o oo «5r \a
Cu
i—i
CQ
SH
QJ
>
•H
«
4-1
O
O
Pi
o
4J
CD
Cn
rH
to
U
en
•H
Q
4J T3
C C
(^ f^
in rH
0) PH 4->
•H 4-1 (1)
4-1 cn g
fO (04-1
C (U (0
in X! 0)
CD 4-1 SH
4-1 SH EH
rH O
<; | 2
X
0)
0)
S_j
U
SH
0)
QJ
Q
0
4-1
QJ
Cn
SH
to
XI
CJ
en
•H
Q
13
C
tO
4-1
C
QJ
e
4-1
tO
QJ
SH
£H
C
0
-H
4->
tO
G
0
•H
Cn4->
•H
}_l
SH
H
Q)
4-1
(0
Pi
rH
10
SH
O
2
1
G
0
•H
4-1
(0
CJ
•r-t
rH
DH
DH
(0 4J
tO O G
O "H fO
•iH i-H rH
rH DH PH
DJ DJ
DH t
-------
primary clarifiers, first stage aeration basins, intermediate
clarifiers, second stage aeration basins for ammonia removal,
final clarifiers, filters, and chlorination and postaeration
facilities. Solids would be anaerobically digested, mechani-
cally dewatered and applied to agricultural land or landfilled.
The plant would be constructed in a presently undeveloped area
of New Berlin. Accordingly, noise and dust impacts would be
reduced. However, the two proposed interceptors would cause
major disruption. The first interceptor would begin at the
abandoned Regal Manors plant and run approximately 14,000 feet
south and east along Deer Creek to Sunny Slope Road, south on
Sunny Slope Road for approximately 600 feet and lastly south-
easterly along a drainage ditch through a subdivision to Grange
Avenue. The interceptor would consist of a 30~to 36-inch grav-
ity sewer constructed by open cut methods.
The second interceptor would run south on 124th Street from
Needham Avenue to Grange Avenue. It would then turn west on
Grange Avenue, intersect the Regal Manors connector and fin-
ally turn south to the treatmentplant site. This interceptor
would consist of 11,400 feet of gravity open cut sewer and
20,300 feet of open cut constructed force main. Four pump
stations would be required.
The Regal Manors connector would be disruptive to the resi-
dential area between Grange Avenue and Beloit Road. The
interceptor along 124th Street would also be disruptive to
traffic and homes along the route because the road is very
narrov.
A long-term impact of the treatment plant would be the loss of
11.5 acres of land currently zoned for residential development.
The Surrounding land could become less attractive for develop-
ment because of its proximity to the proposed plant. The new
plant would meet WPDES effluent limits. Tess Corners Creek
would meet DNR water quality standards and would have a per-
manent flow. However, the discharge to Tess Corners Creek
would increase the phosphorus loads to the creek and to Whitnall
Park Pond thereby adding to the long-term eutrophication of the
pond. The MMSD concluded that this WWTP would result in non-
attainment of the phosphorus water quality goals of the 208
Plan for the Root River, Tess Corners Creek, and Whitnall Park
Pond. The recommended un-ionized ammonia water quality goals
for Tess Corners Creek would also not be met. A new Southeast
plant would allow the abandonment of septic systems and would
permit the planned level of growth in New Berlin. The total
present worth of this alternative including the new conveyance
would be $38.53 million. The annual O&M would be $0.825 million.
6-17
-------
6.3.3.2 Upgrade Treatment, Discharge to Deer Creek; The
original Fox River basin alternative would have had the South-
east plant discharging effluent to an unnamed tributary of
Big Muskego Lake. Subsequent detailed environmental analysis
determined that any discharges to Big Muskego Lake would be
unacceptable. Consequently, the discharge location was moved
to Deer Creek.
The Southeast plant alternative for discharge to Deer Creek would
be identical to the alternative for discharge to Tess Corners
Creek except for the discharge location and the resulting water
quality impacts. The new conveyance along 124th Street and from
the Regal Manors would be the same. And since the effluent limits
for discharge to Deer Creek and Tess Corners Creek are identical,
the plant processes would also be the same.
Deer Creek is naturally an intermittent stream. It currently
receives effluent from the Regal Manors WWTP which results in
a minimum flow of approximately 0.3 ft^/sec. If the New Berlin
Southeast plant were to begin discharging effluent to Deer Creek,
the minimum flow would be increased to 8.3 ft^/sec. DNR water
quality standards would be met. However, the MMSD concluded that
208 Plan un-ionized ammonia and phosphorus goals would not be met.
The plant effluent would be conveyed to Deer Creek via a 30-inch
force main along Sunny Slope Road. The total present worth of
this alternative including new conveyance would be $40.01 million.
The annual O&M would be $0.879 million.
6.3.3.3 Land Application - Infiltration/Percolation: Secondary
treatment for the Southeast plant infiltration/percolation pond
system would be provided by aerated lagoons. An aerated lagoon
system would require 221 acres of land including 500 feet of
buffer from existing housing. The proposed Southeast plant site
would have sufficient land for the lagoons. The treated effluent
would be applied to 21 infiltration/percolation ponds each cover-
ing 8.2 acres of land in the Town of Vernon. The application site
would be located at a site southeast of the intersection of State
Highway 15 and County Road F.
The conveyance system to the application site would run south
along Sunny Slope Road to County Road HH (College Avenue), west
on County Road HH to County Road Y (Racine Avenue), north on
County Road Y to County Road ES (National Avenue), west on County
Road ES to County Road F, and finally south on County Road F to
the application site. The conveyance system would consist of
50,000 lineal feet of 30-inch force main and one 12.68 MGD pump
station. The entire force main would be constructed by open cut
methods along existing roadways. It would be necessary to cross
five streams and construct along 1500 feet of swampy area. The
aerated lagoon site and the conveyance route are shown in Figure
6-4.
6-18
-------
-------
The construction of a southeast land application plant coupled
with the abandonment of the Regal Manors WWTP would cause Deer
Creek to become an intermittent stream that would be dry most
of the year. Tess Corners Creek would also be intermittent if
Muskego ended its discharges. The new land application WWTP
would provide enough capacity for New Berlin to abandon septic
systems and meet planned levels of growth. The potential for
groundwater pollution and the benefits of using an alternative
technology are the same as described for the Germantown infil-
tration/percolation alternative (Section 4.3.2).
The total present worth of the infiltration/percolation alter-
native including new conveyance to serve New Berlin would be
$39.43 million. The annual O&M would be $0.754 million.
6.3.3.4 Summary: The refined costs of the feasible alternatives
for serving the service area of New Berlin at a Southeast WWTP
are summarized below.
Total Present
Alternative O&M (S) Worth ($ x 106)
Treatment and Discharge 824,500 38.53
to Tess Corners Creek
Treatment and Discharge 878,900 40.01
to Deer Creek
Land Application-Infiltration/ 753,600 39.43
Percolation
These final costs are consistent with the preliminary costs
developed for the New Berlin Southeast WWTP.
6.3.4 Final Alternative
The least cost alternative for a New Berlin Southeast WWTP would
be an AST plant discharging to Tess Corners Creek. However, this
plant would have several disadvantages when compared to the land
application alternative. Firstly, discharging to Tess Corners
Creek would result in the continued nutrient enrichment of
Whitnall Park Pond. Secondly, the O&M cost of the AST plant is
greater than the land application WWTP. And thirdly, because
land application is an alternative technology, it is considered
more cost effective than a conventional alternative if its cost
is less than 115 percent of the least cost conventional alter-
native.
The disadvantages of the infiltration/percolation alternative
were its high land requirements both in New Berlin and the
town of Vernon. Also, the potential for groundwater pollution
6-20
-------
could be a problem. Based on a comparison of all the impacts,
infiltration/percolation was judged to have the most beneficial
features. Consequently, for planning purposes, a Southeast
infiltration/percolation WWTP was compared to the final Regal
Manors alternative and the alternative for connection to the
I1MSD. Because the costs for each of the three feasible south-
east WWTP alternatives were so close in cost (less than a four
percent difference), the selection of any one of them for
comparison to the Regal Manors alternative or the connection to
the MMSD alternative would have a negligible impact on the
selection of a final New Berlin wastewater treatment system.
6.4 Final New Berlin Alternatives
The selected most feasible Regal Manors alternative was to
construct a new infiltration/percolation WWTP with a total
present worth of $19.26 million. A new Southeast infiltra-
tion/percolation WWTP to serve all of New Berlin had a total
present worth of $39.43 million. The Regal Manors alterna-
tive would require part of New Berlin to continue MMSD sewer
service. The proposed Root River interceptor would serve West
Allis, Greenfield and a portion of the MMSD service area in
New Berlin. In order for all of New Berlin to be served by
the MMSD, a second interceptor, the Hales Corners interceptor,
would also have to be constructed. A sewer from the Regal
Manors WWTP would connect to the Hales Corners Interceptor.
A schematic of each of these three actions is shown in Figure
6-5. A list of components and their costs for each action is
shown in Table 6-2.
A direct comparison of the costs of each alternative is not
appropriate because of the different possible service areas
of the Root River Interceptor. For the Regal Manors WWTP
alternative, only the present MMSD service area in northern
New Berlin with an estimated year 2005*population of 17,749
would be tributary to the Root River Interceptor. The Inter-
ceptor would also serve an additional 12,505 people in West
Allis and Greenfield. For the connect to the MMSD alterna-
tive, the New Berlin population tributary to the Root River
Interceptor would be 24,349. The interceptor would serve the
same 12,505 people in West Allis and Greenfield. For the South-
east WWTP alternative, the Root River interceptor would serve
only West Allis and Greenfield.
6-21
-------
<0
CO
o
o
CO
O
O
2
m
O
O
o
o
o
rn
O
m
m
x
CO
o
m
33
r~
o
o
3J
T3
O
33
Z
Z
3J
m
0)
a
-------
TABLE 6-2.
FEASIBLE NEW BERLIN SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Regal Manors WWTP
Action
Land Application WWTP
New Berlin Sewer
Two Local Force Mains
Root River Interceptor
Local Sewer Rehabilitation
Total
Present,Worth
($ x 10b)
18.16
13.17
1.10
32.43
Southeast WWTP
Action
Land Application WWTP
New Berlin Sewer
124th Street Sewer
Local Sewer Rehabilitation
Total
Present,Worth
($ x 10b)
38.33
1.10
39.43
Connect to MMSD
Action
New Berlin Connection
Root River Interceptor
Hales Corners Interceptor
Local Sewer Rehabilitation
Total
Present,Worth
($ x 10b)
2.80
13.17
2.08
1.10
19.15
Source: MMSD, 1980c
6-23
-------
The Root River Interceptor would be designed for existing
flows because flows are expected to decrease during the
planning period. This flow reduction would be due to the
removal of excessive clear water, and the implementation of
water conservation and user charge programs. Therefore, the
cost of the interceptor would be most appropriately appor-
tioned to the three communities it would serve based on the
1978 peak flows. The community flows are listed below.
ROOT RIVER 1978 PEAK FLOWS
Community Peak Flow (MGD) % of Total Peak
New Berlin 13.84
West Allis/ 17.18
Greenfield
31.02
Based on these figures, the New Berlin share of the Root River
Interceptor cost, regardless of the future population served
under the Regal Manors WWTP alternative or the connect to MMSD
alternative, would be 45 percent of the total present worth or
$6.23 million. The total present worth of the construction and
O&M costs to serve New Berlin for each feasible alternative are
summarized below.
Alternative Total Present Worth ($ x 106)
Regal Manors WWTP 25.491
Southeast WWTP 39.43
Connect to MMSD 12.211
-1-Does not include MMSD capital or O&M costs to treat New Berlin
wastewater.
Based on these values the least cost alternative for serving the
City of New Berlin would be to connect to the MMSD. This con-
clusion again is predicated on the assumption that there would be
no incremental cost to the MMSD to provide New Berlin with sewer
service through the planning period. Connection to the MMSD
would result in the abandonment of the Regal Manors WWTP and the
elimination of effluent discharges to Deer Creek. The construc-
6-24
-------
tion of the Root River and Hales Corners Interceptors and
the Regal Manors Connection would cause short-term construction
impacts.
Assuming no MMSD treatment costs, the Regal Manors WWTP alterna-
tive would be the least cost local alternative for New Berlin.
It would have the same beneficial impacts as the Southeast WWTP
alternative of abandoning the existing Regal Manors WV7TP and
eliminating its discharge to Deer Creek. However, New Berlin
would still be served by two sewage treatment agencies. Accord-
ingly, the Southeast WWTP would be the preferred local alternative,
Regardless of which alternative for sewer service in New Berlin
is chosen, there is a possibility that New Berlin would develop
at a faster rate than called for in SEWRPC's 208 Plan. This
accelerated growth would likely occur in southeastern New Berlin.
This area is a prime area for development because it is physi-
cally attractive, is accessible by major highways, has local
employment opportunities, and has a great deal of vacant,
developable land.
This increased development could occur at the expense of other
southwestern suburbs such as Franklin and Greenfield where
sewered vacant land for development already exists . Further
discussion of. this issue may be found in the Secondary Growth
Impacts Appendix.
The locations of the connection conveyance routes are shown
in Figure 11-1. The Southeast WWTP infiltration/percolation
system is shown in Figure 11-2.
Prior to the selection of the preferred wastewater treatment
alternative for New Berlin, a determination of the MMSD costs
to treat New Berlin's wastewater for both the Regal Manors and
the MMSD connections alternatives will be made. These costs
will be added to the $25.49 million cost of the Regal Manors
alternative and to the $12.21 million cost of the MMSD connection
alternative. These new costs will then be compared to the
Southeast WWTP alternative costs.
In the final EIS, EPA, in accordance with NEPA, will describe
the preferred alternative for wastewater treatment for Thiensville
This alternative will be based upon findings set forth here and
in other sections of this EIS, comments received from various
review agencies, and comments received during the public comment
period and at the public hearings.
6-25
-------
CHAPTER 7
CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE
-------
7.0 CITY OF SOUTH MILWAUKEE
7.1 Introduction
The City of South Milwaukee is located in Milwaukee County,
south of the City of Milwaukee. South Milwaukee is the only
community within Milwaukee County that has not joined the MMSD.
The South Milwaukee sewer system serves 4.9 square miles. Popu-
lation within the service area is approximately 23,400 persons.
The system has four known bypasses.
The South Milwaukee WWTP is located between South 5th Avenue
and Lake Michigan on the east side of the City of South
Milwaukee (See Figure 7-1). Housing units are located directly
across South 5th Avenue from the treatment plant site. An
apartment complex is located to the south of the plant, but is
buffered by a stand of trees.
The plant facilities are located in the eastern portion of the
plant site. The highest topographic elevation on the site is in
the western portion, hiding much of the plant from view. The
plant has occasional odor problems but these are not considered
severe.
The treatment plant was originally constructed in 1937 with major
modifications in 1952, 1962 and 1972. The plant consists of grit
removal chambers, a comminutor, primary clarifiers, aeration
basins, final clarifiers, and chlorine contact chambers. Efflu-
ent is discharged directly to Lake Michigan. Solids are pumped
from the clarifiers to anaerobic digestors. Ninety percent (90%)
of the anaerobic digested sludge is oxidized by use of the Zimpro
wet oxidation process. The by-product is then landfilled. The
remaining ten percent (10%) of the sludge is spread on sludge
drying beds and distributed to local residents as fertilizer.
7.1.1 Effluent Limits
Operations at the South Milwaukee WWTP are regulated by WPDES
discharge permit number WI-0028819. The permit was originally
issued on December 12, 1974 and will expire on June 30, 1982.
Current WPDES effluent limits for the plant are outlined below.
7-1
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Parameter Present Limits
BOD5 (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.. )
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) 200 (mo. avg.)
400 (wk. avg.)
pH (standard units) 6.0-9.0
Phosphorus (mg/1) 1.0 (mo. avg.)
These limits are not expected to change before the end of the
planning period. The South Milwaukee WWTP consistently meets
all effluent parameters except phosphorus which is occasionally
in excess of 1.0 mg/1.
7.1.2 Wastewater Flows
The existing South Milwaukee WWTP has an average daily flow
design capacity of 6.0 MGD and a peak design capacity of 12.0 MGD.
The existing wastewater flows to the South Milwaukee WWTP were
determined based on the MMSD I/I Study. Year 2005 estimated flows
were determined by the MMSD based on SEWRPC population forecasts,
estimated I/I removals, and the proposed water conservation
program.
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and popula-
tions for the South Milwaukee service are are compiled below.
1978 2005
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 3 3
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) — 12
Peak Flow Rate (MGD) — 16
BOD5 Loading (Ib/day) 3620 4720
SS Loading (Ib/day) 3520 4770
Population Served 23390 22615
1 MGD= 3785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound= 0.454 Kilograms
Since no increase in wastewater flow is expected during the
planning period, a 20 year staging period was used.
7.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions
It is reported that the entire plant is in very good condition
and well maintained.
7-3
-------
Preliminary Alternatives
The alternatives considered for South Milwaukee WWTP included
no action, upgrade O&M, expansion, and connect the MMSD.
Because the existing plant has the capacity and treatment
processes to meet the expected planning period wastewater
flow, no expansion or upgrading was necessary for continued
discharge to Lake Michigan. In order to discharge to the
Fox River Basin, the existing plant would have to meet more
stringent effluent limits and the effluent would have to be
pumped at least nine miles to the nearest Fox River basin dis-
charge point which is at Big Muskego Lake. The cost and
impacts of this alternative were considered excessive.
Another impact would be the interbasin transfer of 3 MGD.
This amount of water originally drawn from Lake Michigan
could be considered excessive and in violation of interbasin
water transfer Iwas.
Land application alternatives were also considered infeasible
because of cost and impacts. Treatment costs would be
virtually identical to the cost for discharge to Lake Michigan
because land application requires a secondary type pretreatment,
meaning the existing plant would probably continue operation.
However, the plant effluent would have to be pumped a long
distance to any land or marsh application site. The cost of
acquiring this land and operating the facilities would exceed
the cost of discharging to Lake Michigan.
• No Action
The population of South Milwaukee is expected to
decrease slightly over the planning period, thus
decreasing the flow to the treatment plant. The WWTP
is hydraulically adequate and has no major problems
meeting existing effluent standards. However, the City
is presently in the planning process for upgrading its
solids handling system.
• Upgrade O&M
Upgrading O&M would improve the effluency of the plant
and reduce phosphorus limits violations but would not
solve the solids handling problems. The solids handling
system would have to be upgraded to handle expected
increases in solids as a result of increased industrial
contributions. No cost was available for this upgrading
at the time of preliminary analysis.
Connect to MMSD
The community of South Milwaukee has chosen not to join
the MMSD and is strongly opposed to such action. To connect to
7-4
-------
the MMSD, a sewer would be constructed starting at the
existing WWTP and running south along South 5th Street to
the South Shore Interceptor at Puetz Road. Approximately
6,000 feet of sewer would be required. The cost for this
alternative would be a $2.25 million capital cost for the
connection with a $0.012 million annual O&M.
The costs of the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting the
requirements of the planning period for South Milwaukee are
summarized below.
Treatment and
Conveyance
Capital Cost Annual
Alternative ($ x 106) O&M ($)
Upgrade O&M Discharge to a) a)
Lake Michigan
Connect to MMSD 2.25 12,000
a) No preliminary cost prepared.
Both of the alternatives were evaluated in more detail below.
7.3 Feasible Alternatives
7.3.1 Upgrade O&M.. Discharge to Lake Michigan
The most feasible alternative for continued local operation
of a South Milwaukee WWTP would be to continue operation of
the existing treatment, improve O&M procedures to eliminate
phosphorus violations, and upgrade solids handling. Because
the current solids upgrading program is still underway, a
solids handling program similar to that for the South Shore
WWTP was assumed. Solids would be thickened by dissolved air
flotation, anaerobically digested, mechanically dewatered,
and stored prior to land application or landfilling. The
total present worth of this alternative including operation
of the WWTP over the planning period would be $7.01 million.
The annual O&M would be $0.41 million.
The continued operation of the South Milwaukee WWTP would
result in the continued discharge of effluent to Lake
Michigan. If the South Milwaukee WWTP were abandoned, its
flows would be conveyed to the South Shore WWTP. Since the
two plants have the same effluent limits, the amount and
quality of effluent entering Lake Michigan would be the
same. There would be some local degradation of water quality
near the South Milwaukee outfall, but this would influence
only a small area.
7-5
-------
7.3.2 Connect to MMSD
If South Milwaukee were abandoned, the proposed sewer con-
nection to the South Shore WWTP would not encounter any
environmentally sensitive areas. Proper construction
technique would minimize traffic congestion, noise, dust and
other detrimental impacts. Abandonment of the plant would
provide a site along the Lake Michigan shoreline that could
be developed into a prime recreational area. The total
present worth of this alternative including the construction
and operation of the force main would be $3.21 million. The
annual O&M would be $0.032 million.
7.3.3 Summary
The costs of the feasible alternatives for serving the City
of South Milwaukee are summarized below.
Total Present
Alternative O&M (s) Worth ($ x 106)
Upgrade O&M Discharge 410,000 7.01
to Lake Michigan
Connect to MMSD 31,600 3.211
1-Does not include MMSD capital or O&M costs to treat South
Milwaukee wastewater. (See Section 3.4 for further discussion)
These final costs are consistent with the preliminary costs
developed in Section 7.2
7.4 Final Alternative
While connection to the MMSD is the least cost alternative
for South Milwaukee,socioeconomic conditions make upgrading
the existing facility a more attractive alternative. While
abandoning the treatment plant would cost less, the fiscal
burden to the average household in South Milwaukee would
increase by 630%. Furthermore, the City of Milwaukee has
continuously fought to remain independent of the MMSD and
the City of Milwaukee. Further discussion of the fiscal
impacts of the South Milwaukee alternatives can be found in
EIS Chapter V, Environmental Consequences.
Prior to the selection of the preferred wastewater treatment
alternative for South Milwaukee, a determination of the MMSD
cost to treat South Milwaukee's wastewater will be made. This
cost will be added to the $3.21 million cost of the connection
in order to determine the actual total present worth cost of
this alternative. In the final EIS, EPA, in accordance with
7-6
-------
NEPA, will describe its preferred alternative for wastewater
treatment for South Milwaukee. This alternative will be
based upon findings set forth here and in other sections
of this EIS, comments received from various review agencies,
and comments received during the public comment period and
at the public hearings.
7-7
-------
CHAPTER 8
VILLAGE OF THIENSVILLE
-------
8.0 VILLAGE OF THIENSVILLE
8.1 Introduction
Thiensville is a small community located in Ozaukee County,
north of Milwaukee. The Thiensville wastewater treatment plant
has a service area of one square mile which includes 790
single family, 300 multi-family, and some light commercial
connections.
The sewer system consists of 14.8 miles of gravity sewer ranging
from 6-inch to 18-inch in diameter, 0.4 miles of force main,
one pump station, and three relief devices. The Village
contracts for all maintenance work as needed.
There have been two I/I studies prepared on the system. The
first one was conducted in 1971 by the Village. It found that
I/I contributed between 1.3 and 2.5 MGD during wet weather.
The recommendation of this study was to institute a clear water
ordinance and a program to inspect portions of the sewer system
by television. In 1976, the MMSD also conducted an I/I study
which concurred with the data gathered in the 1971 study. As
a result of these studies the Village has televised nearly 40,000
lineal feet of sewer (51% of the entire system). These studies
found numerous leaks and major structural failures. Home
connections and infiltration from high groundwater were also
identified as major sources of clear water in the system. The
Village clear water ordinance (revised in 1975) requires sump
pumps to be installed in all residences to eliminate discharges
from basement and foundation drains to the sewer system.
The Thiensville WWTP is located west of the Village's commercial
district on Freistadt Road. The plant is located at the north
end of the Village's public works yard (see Figure 8-1). North
and west of the WWTP is low lying wooded land which is susceptible
to local flooding. To the south of the plant is a residential
area. To the east of the plant is the Village's main commercial
district. The business district is buffered from the plant by a
railroad corridor. The residential area to the south is screened
from the plant by the remainder of the public works yard. Odors
and noise could have a moderately severe impact on the commercial
district because of its location, but to date no serious problems
have been experienced.
The Thiensville WWTP was constructed in 1951 and remodeled in
1963. The plant processes consist of a comminutor, an aerated
grit chamber, primary clarifiers, aeration basins, final clari-
fiers, and a chlorine contact chamber. Disinfected effluent is
5-1
-------
o
»
Z '
o
< 00
5 —
00
o
H
I
m
z:
CO
m
-------
discharged to the Milwaukee River at the confluence with Pigeon
Creek. Waste solids are pumped from the clarifiers to a system
of primary and secondary anaerobic digesters. Digested sludge
is either spread on drying beds or hauled by a commercial hauler
and spread on agriculture fields in Germantown. In the treatment
process, chemicals are added prior to the aeration basins for
phosphorus control and prior to the final clarifiers to improve
solids settling and aid in the removal of phosphorus.
8.1.1 Effluent Limits
The Thiensville WWTP is registered under the Wisconsin Pollution
Discharge Elimination System and its operations are regulated by
the limits of its permit number WI-0020320-2 . The current permit
was issued December 31, 1977 and will expire October 31, 1981.
The present limits defined in the permit for discharge to the
Milwaukee River are listed below and are not expected to change
during the planning period.
Parameters Present and Future Limits
BOD
5 (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg. )
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg. )
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) 200 (mo. avg.)
400 (wk. avg.)
pH (standard units) 6.0 - 9.0
Phosphorus (mg/1) 1.0 (mo. avg.)
8.1.2 Wastewater Flows
The existing Thiensville WWTP has an average daily flow design
capacity of 0.24 MGD and a peak design capacity of 0.36 MGD. The
existing wastewater flows to the Thiensville WWTP were determined
based on the MMSD I/I Study. Year 2005 estimated flows were
determined by the MMSD based on SEWRPC population forecasts, esti-
mated I/I removals, and the proposed water conservation program.
The existing and future wastewater flows and loads and populations
for the Thiensville service area are compiled below.
i-3
-------
1978 2005
Average Daily Base Flow (MGD) 0.46 0.47
Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) — 2.18
Peak Flow Rate (MGD) — 3.05
BOD5 Loading (Ib/day) 590 740
SS Loading (Ib/day) 840 1010
Population Served 3520 4200
1 MGD=3785 Cubic Meters/Day
1 Pound= 0.454 Kilograms
Since less than a 30% increase in wastewater flow is expected
during the planning period, a 20-year staging period was used.
8.1.3 Existing Plant Conditions
General conditions at the treatment facility are fair. The
average daily flow to the plant is 0.59 MGD, which is in excess
of its peak hydraulic capacity. The digesters are made of con-
crete and vent walls are badly deteriorated. The sludge drying
beds are in poor condition and occasionally flood due to high
groundwater. Presently the plant has occasional problems with
3005, suspended solids, and phosphorus levels in its effluent.
8.2 Preliminary Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Thiensville WWTP were no action,
upgrade O&M, expansion, land application of effluent and con-
nection to the MMSD.
No Action
As stated above, the plant is presently hydraulically
overloaded. Over the planning period, the service popula-
tion is expected to increase by 8% which would add to the
overloading problem. Improved solids handling facilities
are also needed. The plant is presently having problems
keeping within its discharge permit. Therefore action must
be taken at this plant in order to meet the expected
effluent limits for the planning period.
Upgrade O&M
Upgrading the O&M would have little benefit because the plant
would not be large enough to handle future flows or meet
future effluent limits.
8-4
-------
Expansion
By expanding the existing unit processes and upgrading the
solids handling facilities, the existing treatment plant
could meet all future effluent requirements. Capital cost
for this alternative would be $1.40 million. The annual
0±M would be $0.060 million.
Land Application of Effluent
The existing treatment plant processes would be capable of
meeting land application pretreatment limits. However,
the plant would have to be expanded. For marsh application
additional treatment would be required. The expanded plant
processes would be followed by microscreens and postaeration
at the marsh application site.
Land requirements, the distance to the nearest site, and
the estimated costs for the four application alternatives
are shown below.
Alternatives
Required
Area (acres)
High Rate
Irrigation 170
Normal Rate
Irrigation 460
Infiltration/
Percolation 22
Marsh Application 190
Distance to
Site (miles)
2.3
2.3
7.2
6.2
Treatment
Capital Cost
($ x 10 )
7.00
4.90
4.40
7.20
Annual
0 & M ($)
110,000
90,000
100,000
280,000
The two irrigation sites were located in Mequon and the
infiltration/percolation site was located in northeastern
Germantown. The most suitable marsh was the Germantown
Marsh also located in northeastern Germantown
Connect to MMSD
Connection to the MMSD would require approximately 18,000
feet of gravity sewer. The route of the connector sewer
would start at the existing treatment plant site and run
east along Friestadt Road (County Road M) to Cedarburg Road
(State Route 57). The sewer would continue south along
Cedarburg Road to County Line Road where it would connect
to an existing 48-inch Milwaukee Intercepting Sewer (MIS).
The portion of this connector from the Thiensville village
line to the county line is already planned for construction
in order to provide sewer service to western Mequon. In
order for this connector to also serve Thiensville it would
3-5
-------
have to be increased from a 36-inch to a 42-inch pipe. The
capital cost for this size increase and for the remainder
of the connection in Thiensville would be $2.04 million.
The annual O&M would be $0.002 million.
The costs of the preliminary alternatives capable of meeting the
requirements of the planning period for the Village of Thiensville
are summarized below.
Treatment and
Conveyance
Capital Cost Annual
Alternative ($ x 10^) O&M ($)
Expansion and Discharge to 1.40 60,000
Milwaukee River
Land Application - Normal Rate 4.90 90,000
Irrigation
Land Application - High Rate 7.00 110,000
Irrigation
Land Application - Infiltration/ 4.40 100,000
Percolation
Marsh Application 7.20 280,000
Connect to MMSD 2.04 1,600
The most feasible of the local alternatives for the continued
operation of a Thiensville WWTP would be to expand the existing
plant and continue discharging to the Milwaukee River. The other
local land and marsh application alternatives would all require
at least the same level of treatment and would have significantly
greater conveyance and land requirements, with resulting costs 200
to 400 percent higher. Because all DNR water quality standards
would be met in the Milwaukee River if the plant were expanded,
only that local alternative was further analyzed. The MMSD also
concluded that the 208 Plan recommended water quality goals
would also be met in the Milwaukee River.
The second least costly alternative would be connection of
Thiensville to the MMSD. This alternative would permit abandon-
ment of the existing WWTP and the elimination of a point dis-
charge to the Milwaukee River. Both this connection and plant
expansion were further analyzed.
8.3 Feasible Alternatives
8.3.1 Expansion and Discharge to the Milwaukee River
The most feasible alternative for local operation of a Thiensville
WWTP would be to expand the existing plant. The expanded plant
8-6
-------
would consist of grit removal, primary clarification, aeration,
final clarification, phosphorus removal, chlorination and dis-
charge to the Milwaukee River at Pigeon Creek. Solids would be
anaerobically digested, dried on sludge drying beds and land-
filled or applied to agricultural land.
The expansion of the plant would cause some short-term noise and
dust impacts to the surrounding area. These impacts would be
minimal due to the relatively isolated location of the plant.
Increased truck traffic on Freistadt Road would cause some distur-
bance to the commercial and residential areas south of the road.
Because the existing plant is surrounded by low lying land often
subject to local high groundwater and flooding, plant expansion
may require the regrading of some land. Expansion to the north
was identified as the most feasible location. This expansion
would require the acquisition of 0.9 acres of industrially zoned
land within the Village.
Provided that the expanded plant would meet its WPDES permit
limits, the plant discharge would meet water quality standards
for the Milwaukee River. The increased treatment capacity
would eliminate bypassing and would permit the planned level
of growth in Thiensville. The total present worth of this
alternative would be $5.17 million. The annual O&M would be
$0.128 million.
8.3.2 Connect to the MMSD
Under this alternative, there would be few additional environmental
benefits over the local alternative of expanding the existing
WWTP. Bypasses would be eliminated and the Milwaukee River
would meet DNR water quality standards. The Village would have
sufficient sewage treatment capacity to meet its planned level
of growth. Connection to the MMSD would mean a loss of local
control of sewage treatment.
The total present worth of Thiensville's share of the Mequon/
Thiensville connection plus local sewer rehabilitation would
be $1.56 million. The annual O&M would be $0.002 million.
8.3.3 Summary
The refined costs of the feasible alternatives for serving
Thiensville during the planning period are summarized below.
i-7
-------
Total Present
Alternative O&M ($) Worth ($ x 106)
Expansion and Discharge to 128,600 5.17
Milwaukee River
Connect to MMSD 1,600 1.561
not include MMSD capital or O&M costs to treat Thiensville
wastewater. (See Section 3.4 for further discussion.)
The total capital cost of the WWTP expansion alternative
developed during the analysis of the feasible alternatives
was $3.76 million. Although this value is larger than the
preliminary capital cost estimate for this alternative, it
is still less than all of the preliminary cost estimates cf
the other local treatment alternatives which were eliminated
due to excessive costs.
8 .4 Final Alternatives
Excluding the MMSD cost to treat Thiensville wastewater, connec-
tion to the MMSD would be the least cost alternative for serving
the Village. This connection would result in the abandonment
of the existing plant, the elimination of a discharge to the
Milwaukee River, and the loss of sewage treatment control for
the Village. Impacts due to construction of the connector
would be short-term and only along existing right -of -ways. The
proposed conveyance route is shown in Figure 11-1.
There would be little long-term difference in impacts if the
local alternative were chosen. However, the cost of an expanded
plant would be much greater than the connection costs. The
location of the expanded WWTP is shown in Figure 11-2.
Prior to the selection of the preferred wastewater treatment
alternative for Thiensville, a determination of the MMSD
cost to treat Thiensville1 s wastewater will be made. This
cost will be added to the $1.56 million cost of the connection
in order to determine the actual total present worth cost of
this alternative. In the final EIS, EPA, in accordance with
NEPA, will describe the preferred alternative for wastewater
treatment for Thiensville. This alternative will be based
upon findings set forth here and in other sections of this EIS,
comments received from various review agencies, and comments
received during the public comment period and at the public
hearings .
8-8
-------
CHAPTER 9
PRIVATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
-------
9.0 PRIVATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
9.1 Introduction
There are eight private WWTPs in the planning area with effluent
discharges regulated by the DNR through WPDES permits. These
WWTPs were constructed primarily because municipal sewer ser-
vice was not available. The eight private plants to be evaluated
are listed below with the community in which they are located.
• Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Oak Creek
• School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mequon
• Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant, Mequon
Muskego Rendering Company, Muskego
Highway 100 Drive-in Theater, Franklin
St. Martins Road Truck Stop, Franklin
Cleveland Heights Grade School, New Berlin
New Berlin Memorial Hospital, New Berlin
The 208 Plan for southeastern Wisconsin has recommended that
all eight private WWTPs under the jurisdiction of the DNR be
abandoned. The study further recommended that the DNR develop
a schedule for this abandonment based on the extension of public
centralized sanitary sewerage systems. Because of the location
of the Wisconsin Electric Power Company WWTP, the 208 Plan
recommended further study to determine if abandoning the plant
was the most cost effective alternative.
The following is a summary of the alternative analysis per-
formed by the MMSD. The MMSD evaluated a number of alterna-
tives for each of the eight facilities and selected a preferred
alternative.
9.2 Wisconsin Electric Power Company
9.2.1 Introduction
The Wisconsin Electric Power Company operates a small treatment
plant at its power generating facilities in Oak Creek. The
facilitiy has 450 employees with a maximum of 300 working at
any given time.
The WEPCO WWTP was constructed in 1962. It has a design
capacity of 0.04 MGD average and a peak capacity of 0.1 MGD.
Average flow to the plant is 0.06 MGD. Processes at the plant
consist of a comminutor, an aeration basin, a final clarifier,
and a chlorine contact chamber. Effluent is discharged to Lake
Michigan via an abandoned tile field where it is mixed with yard
drainage. Solids are stored in an abandoned septic tank. The
sludge is hauled away by private contractor as needed and used
for land application. The plant has the capability to bypass
9-1
-------
the aeration basin. Bypassed flows can re-enter the system at
the final clarifier or be discharged directly to the Lake.
9.2.1.1 Effluent Limits: The power plant has twelve outfalls
used to discharge cooling and process water as well as yard
drainage and treatment plant effluent. All outfalls are regu-
lated by a single WPDES permit, number WI-0000914-2. The permit
was issued December 31, 1974 and modified September 2, 1977.
The current permit will expire December 31, 1981. The effluent
limits in the current permit are identical to the tentative
limits for future discharges to Lake Michigan. These limits
are summarized below.
Parameter
BOD5 (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
pH (standard units)
Residual Chlorine (mg/1)
Present and Future Limits
30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.)
3 0 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.)
200 (mo. avg=)
400 (wk. avg.)
6.0 - 9.0
0.5 (max.)
9.2.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: Conditions at the WWTP
found to be good to excellent. No major structures would need
replacement during the planning period, but some mechanical equip-
ment would need to be replaced as part of normal maintenance pro-
cedures .
9.2.2. Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company
WWTP included no action and connect to the local sewer system.
Land application was not considered because the company does not
own any suitable land near the plant.
No Action
The WEPCO WWTP is presently operating within its discharge
permit limits and no expansion is expected at the power
plant. All structures are expected to last the planning
period with normal maintenance. The continued operation
of the existing WWTP would result in an annual O&M cost of
$14,200.
9-2
-------
• Connection to the Local Sewer System
If the plant is connected to the local sewer system, a
lift station, a manhole, and approximately 5,000 feet
of force main would be required. The total initial
capital cost of this alternative would be $201,500. The
annual O&M would be $24,100.
Final Alternative
Continued operation of the existing facility would be the least
costly alternative for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company. At
present, the plant causes no adverse or potentially severe
environmental impacts to Lake Michigan. Because no expansion
is expected, no adverse impacts would occur in the future. If
this MMSD recommendation is approved by DNR and EPA, the 208
Plan will be amended.
9.3 School Sisters of Notre Dame Academy
9.3.1 Introduction
The academy of the School Sisters of Notre Dame is located on
the Lake Michigan shore in Mequon (Ozaukee County). The academy
constructed the WWTP in 1958 to provide sewer service for a
convent and school population of 400. Presently, the service
population is 200 persons.
The design capacity of the plant is 40,000 gallon per day. The
plant consists of a bar screening and comminution facility, an
aeration basin, and a final clarifier. Effluent is discharged
to Lake Michigan. The plant has a sludge holding tank which
is not used because solids are not wasted from the system. A
chlorine contact chamber following the final clarifier was
added in 1979.
9.3.1.1 Effluent Limits; Operations at the WWTP are regulated
by WPDES permit number Wl-0029882-2. The permit was issued
November 30, 1977 and will expire June 30, 1982. The effluent
limits in the current permit are identical to the tentative
limits for future discharges to Lake Michigan. These limits are
summarized below.
9-3
-------
Parameter Present and Future Limits
BODs (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.)
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) 200 (mo. avg.)
400 (wk. avg.)
pH (standard units) 6.0 - 9.0
9.3.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: MWPAP inspection of the
facility found the plant in good to excellent condition. The
plant has no emergency power facilities and flows are not
monitored.
9.3.2 Alternatives
Alternatives evaluated for the School Sisters of Notre Dame
WWTP were no action, upgrade O&M, and connect to the local
sewer system. Land application was not considered because
suitable land was not owned at the academy and the cost to
purchase suitable land was considered excessive.
No Action
Enrollment at the school is not expected to increase.
The plant consistantly meets its permit requirements
and is expected to continue to do so through the
planning years. However, the plant does not have an
emergency power source, flow monitoring equipment or
a solids handling system. This additional equipment
would be necessary in order to insure adequate treatment
during the planning period.
9-4
-------
Upgrade O&M
The plant has adequate hydraulic capacity and with
normal maintenance should continue to operate well
throughout the planning period. Auxiliary power faci-
lities and flow monitoring equipment would be added.
Solids handling could be provided by using the existing
solids handling tank and having excess solids removed by
a contractor. The solids could be land applied, land-
filled or discharged at an approved location in a public
sanitary sewer system. The total initial capital cost of
this alternative would be $14,200. The annual O&M would
be $15,400.
• Connect to Local Sewer System
Connection to the local Mequon sewer system would require
4,000 feet of 4-inch force main, a lift station, and a
manhole. The total initial capital cost of this alter-
native would be $149,900. The annual O&M would be
$12,700. In addition, the academy could also be expected
to pay a connection charge plus an annual user charge.
Final Alternative
The least costly alternative for the School Sisters of Notre
Dame would be to continue operation of the existing WWTP with
minimal upgrading of facilities. The flows from the plant are
very small and they would continue to have an imperceivable
impact on Lake Michigan water quality. If local sewers are
extended to areas closer to the academy in the future, it may
become less costly for the academy to connect to the public
sewer system. At that time, connection fees and user charges
would have to be determined.
9.4 Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant
9.4.1 Introduction
The Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant is located on Lake Michigan in
the City of Mequon. The restaurant owns and operates its own
wastewater treatment facility to serve the sanitary needs of
the establishment. The plant was constructed in 1956 and con-
sists of a primary clarifier and an anaerobic sludge digester.
Effluent from the clarifier is treated with a chlorine bleach
solution and discharged to the lake. The plant has a design
capacity of 25,000 gallons per day. Flows are intermittent,
peaking at early afternoon and again in the early evening.
Solids are digested in the anaerobic digester and pumped out by
a commercial hauler on an as needed basis.
9-5
-------
9.4.1.1 Effluent Limits; Operations at the plant are regulated
by WPDES permit number WI-0030058-2. The permit was originally
issued November 22, 1974 and modified December 29, 1977. It will
expire June 30, 1982. The effluent limits in the current permit
are similar to the tentative limits for future discharge to Lake
Michigan. The present and future limits are summarized below.
Parameter Present Future
BOD5 (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.) 45 (wk. avg.)
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 30 (mo. avg.) 30 (mo. avg.)
45 (wk. avg.) 45 (wk. avg.)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) — 200 (mo. avg.)
400 (wk. avg.)
pH (standard units) 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
No discharge records have been submitted to the DNR to date.
9.4.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: On-site investigation was
not permitted. It is reported that the plant is in very poor
condition due to lack of maintenance. The bleach solution is
not considered effective for treatment of primary effluent.
9.4.2 Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant
WWTP included no action, upgrade existing facilities, and
connect to the local sewer system. Because the restaurant
does not own suitable land for application and the cost to
procure such land would be excessive, this alternative was
not considered.
No Action
If no action is taken at this plant, deterioration of
this facility would continue. While there is no
monitoring data available, it is doubtful that this
plant is now operating within its discharge limits.
Upgrade Existing Plant
Present facilities are not expected to remain useful
through the planning period. In order to achieve the
future effluent limits, the plant would have to be
modified. The clarifier would be replaced, secondary
treatment facilities would be added, and disinfection
would be upgraded to normal chlorine contact, instead
9-6
-------
of addition of a bleach solution. Because flows to the
plant are intermittent, strict process control would be
required to maintain proper operations. The initial
capital cost of this alternative would be $190,000
with an annual O&M cost of $19,000.
Connect to MMSD
The restaurant could be connected to a local City of
Mequon sewer in Lake Shore Drive. The connection would
require 4,300 feet of force main and a small lift station.
The initial capital cost of this alternative would be
$100,000. The annual O&M would be $19,000.
9.4.3 Final Alternative
The least cost alternative for Chalet-on-the-Lake Restaurant
would be connection to the local sewer system. The abandonment
of this treatment would slightly reduce pollutant loads to Lake
Michigan.
9.5 Muskego Rendering Company
9.5.1 Introduction
The Muskego Rendering Company is located in western Muskego
in an area not currently served by sanitary sewers. The comp-
any processes animal carcasses into greases which are used in
the manufacturing of cosmetics, animal food, and medicines. The
wastewater treatment plant was designed to process sanitary waste
of employees as well as process wastes. The company processes
between 170,000 and 200,000 pounds of raw materials during a 10
hour operating day.
The Muskego Rendering Company WWTP was constructed in 1973.
Major expansion took place in 1978 to relieve severe odor
problems. Treatment processes include a primary clarifier
equipped with settling and scum skimming facilities, an
aerated pond, and a final clarifier. Effluent is discharged
to a 1.18 acre soil absorption field. Solids produced in the
clarifier are hauled to a licensed sanitary land fill.
9.5.1.1 Effluent Limits: The treatment plant operations are
regulated by WPDES permit number WI-0052272. The current
permit was issued in January, 1980, and will expire June 30,
1983. Effluent limits required by this permit for land
application are listed below.
Parameter Present
BOD5 (mg/1) 50 (80% of required samples
during a quarter)
9-7
-------
The tentative effluent limits for future land application of
effluent would be identical to the existing limit.
9.5.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: The WWTP is reported to be
in good to excellent condition. All parts of the treatment
system are either new or were totally renovated in the 1978
expansion. The absorption pond was also regraded and repaired
at that time, but it is not large enough to accommodate planned
future flows.
9.5.2 Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the Muskego Rendering Company WWTP
included no action, continued land application, discharge to
the Fox River basin, and connect to the local sewer system.
* No Action
The treatment facilities at the plant have recently
been upgraded. The Company is expecting to increase
production from 200,000 to 500,000 pounds of raw
material per day. The hydraulic capacity at the
treatment plant should be adequate to handle the
expected 83,000 gallons per day flow. However, the
absorption pond has a capacity of only 24,000 gallons
per day. Under no action it is not likely that the
plant could meet its future effluent limits.
Continued Land Application of Effluent
In order for the rendering company to continue land
applying its treated wastewater, three acres of land
would be required for the expansion of the absorption
ponds. There is a 9.7 acre site on the northwest corner
of the company's property approximately one-half mile
from the current WWTP with soils suitable for the
infiltration/percolation process. Approximately 3,200
feet of 4-inch force main and one pump station would
be necessary. In addition to the increased pond
capacity, the treatment plant would also have to be
upgraded to meet the future effluent limits. Two
possible schemes were identified: 1) additional package
plant treatment following the existing system; and 2)
chemical addition to enhance coagulation in the existing
system. The cost of the two systems are summarized below,
9-i
-------
Total Initial ' Annual
Alternative Capital Cost ($) O&M ($]
Land Application - 761,900 74,900
Package Plant
Chemical Addition 705,200 79,900
" Discharge to Fox River
Effluent from the treatment plant would be discharged
directly to the Fox River or to Big Muskego Lake.
Expected effluent standards for either of these re-
ceiving waters would be much more stringent than those
required for discharge to the absorption ponds. The
treatment plant would have to be equipped with advanced
treatment processes, nitrification, and phosphorous
removal equipment. It is over a mile to the nearest
receiving stream in this basin. The additional treat-
ment and conveyance equipment required to.implement
this alternative would make it more costly than land
application. No cost estimates were prepared for this
alternative.
* Connect to the Local System
Influent loads to the existing treatment facility
average 4500 mg/1 BODc and 2,900 mg/1 suspended solids.
These high concentrations could not be discharged
directly to the local sewers without pretreatment. The
existing treatment plant could be used for this purpose
without modification. Approximately 6,900 feet of sewer
would be constructed to connect the flows to a local City
of Muskego sewer in Janesville Road. The sewer would
consist of a 4-inch force main and a lift station. The
total capital cost of this alternative would be $334,400.
The annual O&M would be $46,000. The company would also
incur connection and user charge costs.
9.5.3 Final Alternative
The least capital cost alternative for the Muskego Rendering
Company would be connection to the local Muskego sewer system.
The proposed route for the connection to the local sewer would
not traverse any environmentally sensitive areas. Elimination
of the absorption pond would decrease chances of groundwater
contamination. However, if connection fees and user charges
are high and a land application system acceptable to the DNR
can be implemented, the company may choose to continue to
operate its own treatment plant.
9-9
-------
9.6 Highway 100 Drive-in Theatre
9.6.1 Introduction
The Highway 100 Drive-in Theater is located in southwest
Franklin, in an area not served by public sewers. The plant
is owned and operated by the drive-in proprietors to serve the
drive-in and its patrons. The plant is operated on a
seasonal basis; the theater is closed during the winter months.
Presently, the theater is closed and up for sale.
The plant was constructed in 1965. It consists of a septic
tank, a dosing tank, and a subsurface sand filter. Effluent
is discharged to an absorption pond. Solids are stored in
the septic tank and hauled to a land application site as
needed.
9.6.1.1 Effluent Limits: A WPDES permit was issued to the
treatment plant on December 31, 1975. Permit number WI-0060364
expired on June 30, 1979. Neither the owner of the theater nor
the DNR has made any attempt to renew this permit and it is
doubtful that this permit would be reissued. The permit required
only that the maximum load to the plant be less than 6,000 gal-
lons per day. There is no sampling data available.
9.6.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: The facility is reported
to be in poor condition. .The septic tank, sand filter, and
absorption pond are not expected to remain useful through the
planning period. There is very little, if any, maintenance
performed at the treatment plant. According to the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture and the DNR, the existing absorption pond
is located on unsuitable soil. Any future land application
would have to meet the land application effluent limits dis-
cussed in Chapter 1.
9.6.2 Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the WWTP at the Highway 100 Drive-
in Theater were no action, upgrade existing facility, land
application, and connect to the local sewer system.
• No Action
The existing facilities at the treatment plant are in
poor condition and it is doubtful that the plant would
be able to meet the future land application effluent
requirements. Most of the existing equipment would
not remain useful through the planning period.
9-10
-------
Upgrade Existing Facilities
The plant is in such poor condition that much of its
equipment would need replacement during the planning
period. Furthermore, the existing absorption pond is
unsuitable for continued land application of effluent.
Therefore, no costs estimates were prepared for this
alternative.
• - Land Application
In addition to the present absorption pond system,
infiltration/percolation, normal and high rate irri-
gation, and marsh application were also considered.
No suitable sites were located within a reasonable
distance of the drive-in for the infiltration/percola-
tion and marsh application alternatives. A site suitable
for both forms of irrigation exists to the east of the
theater. However, the odors generated by an irrigation
system could be a nuisance to the residents of the
Security Acres subdivision located just northeast of
the drive-in as well as to the patrons of the drive-in.
For this reason no costs were prepared for this
alternative.
Connect to Local Sewer System
The drive-in theater is included in sewerage plans for
the Security Acres subdivision, which is planning to
build new sanitary sewers to replace failing septic
systems. Connection to the local sewers in the sub-
division would require 1,500 feet of gravity sewer.
The initial capital cost to connect to the local system
would be approximately $55,000. Annual O&M costs would
be approximately $4,000. Connection fees and annual
users charges would be an additional cost.
9.6.3 Final Alternatives
If the theater re-opens, the most feasible alternative would
be connection to the local sewer system. Abandoning the
plant would eliminate a potentially hazardous source of
groundwater pollution.
9.7 St. Martins Road Truck Stop
9.7.1 Introduction
The St. Martins Road Truck Stop is located in southwest
Franklin in an area not served by public sanitary sewers.
9-11
-------
The wastewater treatment plant is owned by the truck stop and
provides sanitary service for its patrons and operators.
The plant is an activated sludge package unit constructed in
1964. Processes consist of a comminutor, a bar screen, an
aeration basin, a final clarifier, and a chlorine contact
chamber. Effluent is discharged to a drainage ditch which is
tributary to the Root River. Solids are stored in a sludge
holding tank and hauled by a commercial hauler as needed.
9.7.1.1 Effluent Limits; No WPDES permit has ever been issued
to this treatment facility. Litigation is underway by the DNR
against the owners of the truck stop for illegal pollutant
discharge. No monitoring data is available.
If the treatment plant were upgraded, it would have to meet the
following effluent limits in order to continue discharge to the
drainage ditch.
Parameters
BOD
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
NH3~N(mg/l) (May-Oct)
(Nov-Apr)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Residual Chlorine (mg/1)
Future Limits
15 (mo. avg.)
30 (daily max.)
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (daily max.)
400 (30 cons, days)
3 (wk. avg.)
6 (wk. avg.)
4 (min.)
0 . 5 (max.)
9.7.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: The treatment facility is
reported to be inoperative because of poor maintenance.
Inadequately treated sewage is being discharged to an open
drainage ditch. Because of the poor condition, it is doubt-
ful that the plant could economically be put back into operation.
9.7.2 Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the St. Martins Road Truck Stop WWTP
included no action, upgrade the existing facility, and connect
to the local system. Land application was not considered because
there are no suitable sites nearby for this purpose.
9-12
-------
• No Action
Presently the plant is inoperative and has no WPDES
permit. Operators of the truck stop are being sued by
the DNR to ensure compliance with existing water quality
standards.
Upgrade Existing Facilities
This plant is in such poor condition that it could not
economically be put back into operation. It was assumed
that the entire plant would be replaced with a two stage
aeration nitrification process followed by filtration,
chlorination, and postaeration. The initial capital
cost of this plant would be $200,000. The annual O&M
would be $19,000. Because of the complexity of the
proposed treatment processes, a full-time state
certified sewage treatment plant operator would be
required.
Connect to Local Sewer System
The truck stop is included for service in the Franklin
master development plan, but sewers in this area have
not yet been constructed. A temporary holding tank
would be possible for the truck stop un'til sewers can
be installed in this area. At that time the truck stop
would need only construct a lateral to the local sewer.
The cost to connect to the local system would be negli-
gible. There would also be a connection fee and an
annual user charge. These fees would be considerably
less than the cost of constructing a new treatment plant.
9.7.3 Final Alternative
The least cost alternative for the truck stop would be connec-
tion to the local sewer system. Until this alternative can be
implemented, a holding tank could be used for storage of sani-
tary waste. The waste could be removed by a contractor and
discharged to an approved location in a public sanitary sewer
system. The abandonment of the present treatment facility would
reduce the pollutant load to the Root River and eliminate a
potential health hazard.
9.8 Cleveland Heights Grade School
9.8.1 Introduction
Cleveland Heights Grade School is located in an area of New
Berlin not presently served by public sewerage facilities.
The New Berlin School District owns and operates a wastewater
treatment facility at the school to serve the needs of the
9-13
-------
students and staff. Enrollment is presently 750 students. The
school does not operate a kitchen. Flows are generally from
showers and domestic waste.
The plant was constructed in 1968 and has an average design
capacity of 15,000 gallons per day. Processes consist of a
septic tank, dosing tanks, subsurface sand filter, and polish-
ing pond. Effluent is discharged to a drainage canal tributary
to Poplar Creek in the Fox River drainage basin. Solids are
stored and hauled away as needed to a local land application
site. Average flow to the plant is 5,000 gallons per day.
9.8.1.1 Effluent Limits; Operations at the plant are regulated
by WPDES permit number WI-0029980-2. The permit was issued
November 22, 1974 and will expire June 30, 1982. The effluent
limits in the current permit are similar to the tentative limits
for future discharge to the drainage canal. The present and
future limits are summarized below.
Parameter
BOD5
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml)
pH (standard units)
Residual Chlorine (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Present
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
20 (mo. avg.)
3 0 (wk. avg.)
6.0 - 9.0
4.0 (min.)
Future
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.)
400 (30 cons, days)
6.0 - 9.0
0.5 (max.)
4.0 (min.)
9.8.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: The plant is in fair to
good condition. The sand filter would require new sand within
the next 10 years. The plant has available land for expansion.
9.8.2 Alternatives
Alternatives considered for the treatment plant at Cleveland
Heights Grade School included no action, upgrade the existing
plant, discharge to the Lake Michigan basin, and connect to
the local sewer system. No ,land application sites were
readily available for use: by the school system, so this
alternative was not considered.
9-14
-------
No Action
The plant would not meet future effluent standards.
Effluent quality tends to decline in the summer months
due to algae growth in the polishing ponds.
Upgrade Existing Facility
In order to meet future effluent standards the entire
existing treatment work would be abandoned and replaced
with a small activated sludge package treatment plant.
Following the package treatment plant, postaeration
and disinfection facilities and a tertiary filter system
would have to be added. The polishing pond could be
used but provisions should be made to bypass the pond
when algae becomes a problem. The initial capital cost
for the new treatment processes would be approximately
$150,000. The annual O&M would be approximately
$19,000.
* Discharge to Lake Michigan Basin
In order to discharge to the Lake Michigan basin, the
same WWTP upgrading would be required as for continued
discharge to the Fox River basin. In addition, approx-
imately 12,000 feet of force main would be required to
convey effluent to the Lake Michigan basin. The total
initial capital cost of this alternative would be
approximately $460,000. The annual O&M would be
approximately $21,000.
Connect to Local Sewer System
The Cleveland Heights Grade School is located 2,000
feet from the nearest City of New Berlin local sanitary
sewer. Approximately 2,000 feet of force main and a
lift station would be necessary to convey the school's
wastewater to the local sewer. The total initial capital
cost of this alternative would be $55,000. The annual
O&M would be about $19,000. Connection fees and annual
user charges would be an additional cost.
9.8.3 Final Alternative
The least cost alternative for Cleveland Heights Grade School
would be connection to the local sewer system. Abandonment
of this plant would reduce pollutant loads to Poplar Creek. Odors
associated with the treatment plant and the polishing pond would
be eliminated. The route proposed for conveyance would not tra-
verse any environmentally sensitive areas. No severe construc-
tion impacts would be expected.
9-15
-------
9.9 New Berlin Memorial Hospital
9.9.1 Introduction
New Berlin Memorial Hospital is located in an area of the City
without sanitary sewers. The hospital owns and operates its
own treatment facility to treat the sanitary wastes it
produces.
The WWTP was constructed in 1966. The treatment plant consists
of a screening structure, an aeration basin, a clarifier, a
chlorine contact chamber, and a polishing pond. Effluent is
discharged to a drainage ditch which flows to the Root River.
Solids are stored in a sludge holding tank which is pumped
out as needed by a private hauler. The solids are then spread
on a land application site. The plant has a design capacity of
19,000 gallons per day.
9.9.1.1 Effluent Limits: Operations at the plant are regulated
by WPDES permit number WI-0030244-2. The permit was originally
issued December 12, 1974, and will expire June 30, 1982. Efflu-
ent limits required by this permit and the limits for future dis-
charges to the drainage ditch or to a Fox River basin stream are
listed below.
Parameter Present Future
BOD5 (mg/1) 20 (mo. avg.) 20 (mo. avg.)
3 0 (wk. avg.) 30 (wk. avg.)
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 20 (mo. avg.) 20 (mo. avg.)
30 (wk. avg.) 30 (wk. avg.)
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) — 400 (30 cons, days)
pH (standard units) 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0
Residual Chlorine (mg/1) — 0.5 (max.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 4.0 (min.) 4.0 (min.)
9.9.1.2 Existing Plant Conditions: The treatment plant is in
fair condition. WPDES permit violations have occurred for
BOD5, suspended solids'", ana pH. These problems appear to be due
to excessive flows. Average flow at the plant is '^6,000 gallons
per day. The package treatment plant (aeration basin and clari-
fier) is constructed of 1/4 inch metal plate, as is the sludge
holding tank. None of these structures are supplied with cath-
odic protection against corrosion. Algae grow in the polishing
pond during the warmer seasons. Very little process control is
exercised at the plant. There are no provisions for auxiliary
power.
9-16
-------
9.9^.2 Alternatives
The alternatives considered for New Berlin Memorial Hospital
WWTP were no action, upgrade existing facilities, discharge
to the Fox River basin, and connect to the local City of
New Berlin sewer system. No land application sites were located
within suitable distance of the hospital for this option to
be considered.
No Action
The WWTP would have the capability to adequately treat
present flows to secondary treatment levels with proper
operation and maintenance procedures. However, future
effluent limits are more stringent than secondary limits.
Frequent effluent violations could be expected, making
this alternative unacceptable.
Upgrade Existing Plant
In order to meet the anticipated future effluent limits,
new equipment would have to be added for postaeration, and
pH control. Based on present conditions at the plant, it
is doubtful that the existing plant would remain operable
through the planning period. Much of the facility would
have to be replaced. Flow monitoring and auxiliary power
equipment would also be needed. The initial capital cost
for process replacement and upgrading would be $210,000.
The annual O&M would be $19,000.
• Discharge to Fox River Basin
Discharge to the Fox River basin would require the same
effluent quality as discharge to the Root River. In
addition to the improvements required to continue dis-
charge to the Root River, changing the discharge location
to the Fox River basin would require facilities to convey
effluent from the treatment plant site to the new re-
ceiving body. A 4-inch force main 5,000 feet in length
would be constructed to Poplar Creek. The initial capital
cost for the upgraded plant and the new outfall would be
$390,000. The annual O&M would be $21,000.
• Connect to Local System
A local sewer has been proposed by the City of New Berlin
along National Avenue. Upon completion of this sewer,
a gravity lateral could easily be constructed to it from
the present treatment plant site. The cost to connect to
the local system would be negligible. Connection fees and
annual user charges would be an additional cost.
9-17
-------
9.9.3 Final Alternative
The least cost alternative for the New Berlin Memorial Hospital
would be connection to the local sewer system. Elimination of
this facility would reduce the pollutant loads to the Root
River. Because the hospital is a sensitive site, any construc-
tion that occurs in the area should minimize noise and dust
generation.
9-18
-------
CHAPTER 10
ENERGY AND RESOURCE IMPACTS
-------
10.0 ENERGY AND RESOURCE IMPACTS
10.1 Introduction
An important aspect of the EIS analysis was the determination
of the energy and resource impacts of the various alternatives.
Resources utilization is a very important part of wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) operation for two reasons. The first is
the growing shortage of a number of resources. Severe shortages
of a particular resource can jeopardize the operation of a sew-
age treatment facility. The second area of concern is cost. The
resources consumed in the operation of a treatment facility must
be paid for entirely with local funds. Costly O&M can be a
major fiscal burden on a community.
10.2 EIS Analysis
The energy and resources requirements of each of the six local
management agencies were computed for the operation of the
preferred local WWTP and for the preferred alternative for
connection to the MMSD. For the WWTPs each unit process was
evaluated to determine its energy and resource requirements.
The overall needs of each plant varied greatly according to
size and unit processes. Wastewater treatment plants discharg-
ing to surface waters required the greatest amount of chemical
addition;mostly for the purpose of phosphorous removal and solids
conditioning. The only major energy requirement for the land
application WWTPs was electricity for the operation of aerators
in the aerated lagoons and force main pump stations. As dis-
cussed earlier, the MMSD included chlorine disinfection
facilities in its analysis of all alternatives although the DNR
does not require chlorination of wastewater applied to infil-
tration/percolation ponds. Chlorination was chosen for dis-
infection for both the surface discharge and land application
WWTPs because it has a lower cost than other disinfectants,
and it is a proven technique.
Resources required for conveyance facilities were limited to
electricity for pumping.
Resources were computed for each treatment and conveyance
component for the year 2005. The year 2005 was selected for
comparison because it represented the peak year for resources
consumption. The quantities of electrical power, natural gas,
diesel fuel, and chemicals required for the local WWTPs were
developed from EPA publication MCD-32, "Energy Conservation in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment" (1978). Conveyance system and
solids handling resource requirements were developed from data
presented in the MWPAP WSP.
10-1
-------
10.3 Results
The total resources requirements of the preferred local WWTP
alternatives and the preferred alternative for connection to
the MMSD are summarized in Table 10-1. As can be seen from the
table, more resources would be used for the operation of the
local WWTPs than would be required to operate the conveyance
facilities for connection to the MMSD. Both the New Berlin
and Thiensville connections would be gravity sewers and accord-
ingly would not require any resources for operation. The
other connections would require only electricity for the opera-
tion of pump stations.
For local WWTP operation, use of chemicals other than chlorine-
would be limited to the Thiensville and South Milwaukee WWTPs.
Both would use polymer as a sludge conditioner. The Thiens-
ville plant would use alum and South Milwaukee would use ferric
chloride for phosphorous removal.
Both the Thiensville and South Milwaukee WWTPs would use anaerobic
digesters for solids stabilization. The digester gas produced during
the anaerobic solids stabilization process could be used as a
supplementary energy source for these olants. Diesel fuel would be
required for the trucks carrying the digested solids to land
aoolication or landfill sites.
The total resources requirements of the preferred local WWTPs
or the connections to the MMSD are a small percentage of the
total local system-level or regional system-level alternatives.
Table 10-2 summarizes the total resource requirements of pro-
posed MWPAP actions in the planning area for the year 2005. As
can be seen from the table, the Jones Island and South Shore
WWTPs would consume the greatest amount of resources in the
planning area for both system-levels. The Inline Storage
alternative is the assumed CSO system. It was also assumed
that all of the private WWTPs would be abandoned except for the
WEPCO and School Sisters of Notre Dame WWTPs.
The values in Table 10-2 show that the total resource require-
ments of the local system-level would be greater than the
requirements for the regional system-level. Some of this
difference is a result of the assumption that Jones Island and
South Shore O&M would not be affected by the relatively low
flows from the Caddy Vista, Muskego, New Berlin, Germantown,
Thiensville, and South Milwaukee service areas or the flows
from the private WWTPs. However, most of the difference is a
result of the lower resource requirements of conveyance systems
versus small local WWTPs.
10-2
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
tn
H
U
OS
D
O
S
u
\
r-i
O
*H rH X
41 "4 — 1
3 O <3
U. CT
r-l
-I 0
41 -I -H
in D x
4) 3 r— t
H Ud O
Q 0-
01 -1
-< 0 >
3 -1 X
in Q H
4)
£
•H
U U
O >
rH \
£ H
U
>,£ >
rH Ul \.
U. < E-
4) U
.J t-<
C
• o ^
U J3 >•
U W \
U r-l
m
UJ
— 4 n T)
0) O
J^ 3 ^
o cr >-
-< -H X
O. J £-
at
U -0
H -4
U U W
l-i 0 >
41 -4 V.
U, £ t^
u
41
1.5
»H x
0 t-
d.
3 >
*H X
< £-
E
u
in
ui
nj ^
u 0
S i
»-
m m
in CO C*l rH
r-
cNincNff»roO Or-onp- \o
OincN^OO OrHOcO*13" O
•H r- iH
in
r-
^
o
r^"
in
o ^ o p* r*-
r-t mm CN m in o
O O O rH CN rH m
rH m
CN O
m in
o
•Q'rHvDQ^r-'in cN-j-iLno
IN ^ rn ^j -H
O
O
^
\o
o
o
s
o o
CO CO
fN CN
r- o
^ t*i
\Q O
O
n °
^ rs)
OD
n ^> o o
• CT> rH
o ^r CN in
(-1
iH
41 Q
H m 1 u)
•P S MS
td O !/ >. S
Ul 0) 2 g T3 W C
CO rH „ C 41 0 O
4J U C C rH UJ •> TO t. 0) 4IH E
>owS|«| s""|B^E?,
•* >» QJ ffl rrj > H) O^WXWEC'HWW
> (OW3^-HW a*'nC.3Cjj^i*uwo
U ifl34)(UjC-H UnOOO W
•1 US2OHW Sy^f^UlU U
CO
p^
ry
^
°1
rH
rH
in
^
0
"^
in
o
o
n
CM
0
o
CTl
rH
O
O
s
o
O
i
r-j «
SrH
re
E- c
cn :
fl rH
in . 3 U
2 'O W rH 4)
C 41 O rH
li-l ID Ll 4) C rH E
O4) rHOO-HO~(i)
g « x: c — u e jj
01 f3 M CO fO 4) U]
vi Q >. tn D jj >i
•H U3 O O 0 CO
10 S t~3 C/) 0 U
•a-
o
fN
in
[N
O
O
fN
O
O
CO
o
H
cn
in GJ
4
0
-------
CHAPTER 11
SUMMARY
-------
11.0 SUMMARY
11.1 Introduction
An analysis of the sewage treatment alternatives for the Cities
of New Berlin, Muskego and South Milwaukee; the Villages of
Germantown and Thiensville; the Caddy Vista Subdivision; and
eight private WWTPs was undertaken by the MMSD as part of the
development of the MWPAP Wastewater System Plan. The EIS
study team reviewed the MMSD analysis and independently checked
major issues such as water quality, energy and resource use, and
cost.
11.2 Summary
Table 11-1 summarizes the major impacts of the feasible local
and regional sewage treatment alternatives identified by the
EIS study team in this appendix. Figures 11-1 and 11-2 show
the locations of each of the final local wastewater treatment
alternatives and the regional alternatives for connection to the
MMSD.
11-1
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
O
CJ
H
J
ffl
<
EH
CO
JJ
O
ro
a
s
H
CO
0)
>
•H
JJ
03
c
!H
•
£ rj > >, r-
a) TO c -=
jJ C it O II
a g rH CD
0) *~ rH ~
10 C (B 0) U
0 in > C
1) -H 3-^3
!u jj jj jj
U 03 r-i TJ JJ
<0 r- 3 C C
o o v. a;
0-1 O -r. a (ft
O G"1 ^ r>"4
< 0. fT3 < £X
O '-
CJ1 •
0) JJ
y C
in o
3 U
• G
W JJ
(0
d) (U
10
J= "~ C
JJ TO 0
rH JJ >
fO JJ 0) C C j2 TXC
aCJJtO^tO rnO
g 0) C rH 0 r-l T3 3rH
•FJ jj --< a cu G
C rH C > 3 X
c a aj * ^~
•Wi-HrO-r-! QJ^SUl
!/] i"4 r"1 ^ E <~^ ^ [|
a 3 CT C ^ ^ O
0 Q ^ 0 C H *H p^I
U 5 y-f 3 XI •*- -u
rJ ^-1 4J -P C-i VH
£d)»i£OrOCC DO
^JJOJ (U OJ •-» *H tn 3
QJ ft3 QJ Ul SM £ r— 4 C
jW 3 ^4 CJ — * C ^ >0 O* ^J
I'CO^CJCO^ CC
4J "C O O ^ C2 -^ "^ i)
w 3 ^ ft] cn d c '"••^ c/(
oca; re ? - —i
J3 0
O
C r!
o a;
•H a,
JJ ^x
(0 C
0 O
•H -H
rH JJ
a. ITJ
<" JJ
TJ -r.
CO
C rt 0)
•H 0 >
rH C -rt
M 13 JJ
0) 2 (0
ra c
rH r-l
3 r->
JC C 0
jj cr 0 v.
aj 3 c
«- A: 0
0 01 ."C —
3 C JJ U-
JJ 2 (0 (0 G
0) rH b
0 'J- jj co
£ -ri Tj — i 0) jj
a) •-* w c
>. JJ C *- O 10
>H C C C fS —
TO 01 N -« -a
JJ C TO
TO jj >t 0) "" j, c
• C -n r4 b !N C 3
01 10 E — ' O G C
^ W fH ($ C • ^
t04J(D -^ C "CC W
•HC4J JJ (N OJ03 4*
X0;c C 'IT C .£ -r"
a; 4-« -f-t a; xo; c«3
jj 13 i v *o a;
tn^.HD •-« I-H r--a:>.-cr^
4^0w3WUWto*"ccC^CC •
CJ-rHQj C^13!UU3'"3'^-*™"2C*'
3J-'^^!T' 2JC" XCCr*"
W 3 QjWr-< rOCO^aJ^c o>
jj r— < ^ D (TjrM 3 i^t^ c C ui_^^
(/) |— I r^ Xj ^T C^J d) G H ^ fQ W r~" ||
CC3UO 2-WC-— • r-j u O 3
co,o crj> cno- c-'^j-JC-c
O 3 01 — f r-t C r— J- 3 4J
J— V^'OQJ-^^OjCQUj^.i) r-
ECJJ^d) 4-1 i-*0--C&>CC
ij .jw dj c c/i fC 'O o *r— 3 c y^ °^H *"* 2
d) f3 d) r^Jj£QjfO»J4-' ^C iJ 1™^
4-* 3 -"* G '^ '** ^ 1*3 r— • S tT ^ r- i.
1 T3 O O XdJ-*r-n3 CCOJC
J-J C T3 CdJ »CO*~^'rH--XCJ
IM Z3 W (O d) ^ C CN (J -"^ fG ^^ d) U"i
0 G QJ CO TJ ^ - "~^ r>4 ^ CT "** • ' 3 1*
£2, i^ O dJ ™ O* d/ 0^ O" C/ fC f—* O ^
W U Q f-« d^ tf jQ ^ " . fj Q^ [^ »^ ^ Q_
• A A A A A ^ A A A A
^ V W V w 9 V V V V
C
2
4J
03
t— ^
0
o
c -.
o ai
•H a.
jj \
10 C
0 0
•H -«H
rH JJ
a
rH 01 -H
^_i n3 JJ
CD CU (0
CQ 4^ G
•P V-*
3 D 0)
cu c -u
S W rH
tf*
11-3
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
LEGEND
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
WATER' RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC
MAJOR HIGHWAYS
M.MSD LIMITS
2005 AREA SERVED BY M.M.S D
AREA SERVED LOCALLY
COMBINED SEWER SERVICE AREA
PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS
PRIVATE TREATMENT PLANTS
PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPGRADED
NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'D
CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEING
DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED
CONNECTING SEWER
South Milwaukee WWTP
Shore WWTP
""'' V?Wisconsm Electric
. X.\ F c
( wcl vw.
SERVICE AREA AND FACILITY MAP
OF THE LOCAL ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
LEGEND
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
COUNTY LINE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES
WATER RIVERS,CREEKS, ETC
MAJOR HIGHWAYS
MMSD LIMITS
2005 AREA SERVED BY M M S D
COMBINED SEWER StRVirF AREA
PUBLIC TREATMENT PLANTS
PUMP STATIONS TO BE UPGRADED
NEW CONVEYANCE TO BE CONSTR'D
CONVEYANCE PRESENTLY BEINF
DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED
CONNECTING SEWER
South Shore WWTP
MMSD
FIGURE
ll-l
DATE
NOV 1980
SERVICE AREA AND FACILITY MAP OF
THE REGIONAL ALTERNATIVE
PREPARED BY
TEcolSciences
J ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1970, Manual of Practice 9;
Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. New
York: ASCE.
, 1977. Manual of Practice 8; Wastewater Treatment Plant
Design. New York: ASCE.
Aware, Inc., 1974. Process Design Techniques for Industrial
Waste Treatment. Edited by C.E. Adams, Jr. and W.W.
Eckenfelder, Jr. Nashville, TN.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 6. Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements.
. Part 35. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works;
Construction Grants Program.
. Part 1500. Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements.
Menomonee Falls, Village of, 1973. Zoning Ordinances. Menomonee
Falls, WI.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1976. Facilities Plan.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1977a. Environmental Assessment - Memononee Falls-
Germantown Interceptor. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
,1977b. Environmental Assessment - Root River Inter-
ceptor. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979a. Energy Impact and Resource Recovery Analysis.
MMSD. March 1, 1979. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979b. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Executive
Summary. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979c. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume I, Part I:
District-Wide Analysis. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979d. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume II, Part II:
Community Summaries. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979e. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume III, Part II
Community Summaries. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
-------
, 1979f. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume IV, Part II:
Community Summaries. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979g. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume V, Tart
III: Appendices A-P. f'MSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979h. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis: Volume VI, Part
III: Appendices O-S. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1979i. "Economics Procedures Manual," Technical Memo-
randum. 5/2-13. February 14, 1979.
, 1980a. Environmental Assessment, Volume 2A and 2B.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1980b. Franklin-Muskego Interceptor Facility Plan
Element. MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
, 1980c. Wastewater System Plan, Volumes A, B, C, D.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
Muskego, City of, 1972. Selected Codes. Muskego, WI.
New Berlin, City of, 1978. Zoning Ordinance. New Berlin, WI.
Newman, Donald G., 1977. Engineering Economic Analysis. San
Jose, CA: Engineering Press.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, 1974. A
Regional Sanitary Sewage Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin.
Planning Report No. 16. Waukesha, WI.
, 1978. Codes and Ordinances of the Village of
Germantown, WI. Chapter 17: Zoning Ordinance. Waukesha,
WI.
, 1979. /> Regional Water Quality Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin: 2000. Planning Report No. 30.
Waukesha, WI.
Thiensville, Village of, 1974. Selected Codes. Thiensville,
WI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. Wastewater Treatment
and Reuse by Land Applications, 2 Volumes. EPA 660/2-73-006b.
Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC.
, 1975a. Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Office of Water Program Oper-
ations. EPA 43/9-75-016. Washington, DC.
2
-------
_, 1975b. Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan. Office
of Water Program Operations. EPA-430/9-76-015.
, 1975c. Cost of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application.
Office of Water Program Operations. EPA-430/9-75-003.
, 1976a. Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Works. Office of Water Program Operations.
EPA-430/9-76-003. Washington, DC.
, 1976b. Model Plan of Study. Office of Water Program
Operations. EPA-430/9-76-004. Washington, DC.
, 1976c. Quality Criteria for Water. Office of Water
Planning and Standards. Washington, DC.
, 1977a. Process Design Manual: Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for Sewered Small Communities. EPA Techology
Transfer. EPA-625/1-77-009. Washington, DC.
, 1978a. Analysis of Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA 430/9-77-015.
Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, DC.
, 1978b. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Conveyance Systems: 1973-1977. Office of Water Program
Operations. EPA-430/9-77-015. Washington, DC.
, 1978c. Construction Costs for Municopal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977. Office fo Water Program
Operations. EPA-430/9-77-013. Washington, DC.
, 1978d. Design Seminar Handout, Small Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities. Washington.
, 1978e. Energy Conservation in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment. (MCD-32) EPA-430/9-77-011. Office of Water
Program Operations, (WH-547). Washington, DC.
, 1978f. Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment
Manual. (Draft) EPA-430/9-78-009. Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1972. Topographic Maps of the Milwaukee
Area, 7-1/2'. USGS. Washington, DC.
Wisconsin Administrative Code. Section NR 102, Water Quality
Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters. Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Water Pollution Control Laws of 1978, Chapter 147:
Pollution Discharge Elimination. Madison, WI.
-------
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX VII
WATER QUALITY
NOVEMBER 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
PROCEDURE 1
ASSUMPTIONS 6
ACCURACY 6
MILWAUKEE RIVER 7
MENOMONEE RIVER 7
TESS CORNERS CREEK 10
ROOT RIVER 12
DEER CREEK 14
BIG MUSKEGO LAKE 16
OUTER HARBOR 16
LAKE MICHIGAN 24
REFERENCES 30
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number Page
1. Pollutants in Sewage Effluent 3
2. Water Quality of the Milwaukee River
at Thiensville 8
3. Water Quality of the Menomonee River
at Germantown 9
4. Water Quality of Tess Corners Creek
at Muskego 11
5. Water Quality of the Root River
at Caddy Vista 13
6. Water Quality of Deer Creek at
New Berlin 15
7. Pollutant Loads to Big Muskego Lake 17
8a. Water Quality and Loads to the
. Outer Harbor: Solids, Phosphorus
and Metals 20
8b. Water Quality and Loads to the
Outer Harbor: Non-Conservative
Pollutants 21
8c. Water Quality and Loads to the
Outer Harbor: The Nitrogen Group 22
8d. Annual Pollutant Loads from the
Jones Island WWTP 23
9a. Water Quality and Loads to Lake
Michigan: Solids, Phosphorus and
Metals 25
9b. Water Quality and Ldads to Lake
Michigan: Non-Conservative Pollutants 26
9c. Water Quality and Loads to Lake
Michigan: The Nitrogen Group 27
9d. Annual Pollutant Loads from the
South Shore WWTP 28
-------
INTRODUCTION
The goal of the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program is
to eliminate unacceptable sources of water pollution and bring
the water quality of affected streams closer to the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) objectives. However, water quality-
-the chemical, physical, and biological state of water bodies—
is determined by many factors, of which sewage pollution is
only one. Storm runoff, resuspended sediment, and the atmo-
shere are often major contributors. Once the pollutants are
in the water they are subject to dispersion, sedimentation,
chemical and biological transformation, and outgassing. A
stream or lake is a dynamic, complex system in which many
different processes must be considered when predicting the
fate of pollutants.
The prediction of water quality impacts necessitates that the
alternatives under consideration and the processes occurring
within the rivers and lakes must be defined and many simplifying
assumptions must be made. It is hoped that the simplifications
and assumptions will not deviate too far from the real situation;
therefore, the most important part of this Appendix is the
discussion of assumptions and procedures, on which the appli-
cability of all results inevitably hinge. The purpose of these
sections is not to ignore complications; rather, it is to put
all of the processes in perspective. This will serve to
create a conception of how water quality is affected so that
the complications can be considered, and their relative
importance judged.
This Appendix covers the impacts of wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) effluent on lakes and streams. Other types of water
quality impacts which are expected to occur and are covered
elsewhere in this EIS include: construction-related impacts,
impacts due to induced urbanization, combined sewer overflows,
and sanitary sewer bypassing. (Where any of these affect the
assessment of WWTP impacts, they are taken into account here.)
The presentations of the impacts are grouped by water body.
PROCEDURE
The procedure for assessing water quality impacts is to:
1) characterize the present water quality, both upstream
and downstream of existing WWTPs:
-------
2) estimate the future quantities of pollutants added by
alternative WWTPs;
3) estimate the future quantities of pollutants added by
other sources;
4) compute the resultant concentrations of pollutants in the
water body (if mixing can be assumed); and
5) modify the loads or concentrations by any factors that
significantly affect them in the water body.
Of the 169 substances that the EPA has identified as water pollutants,
11 are common in sewage effluent and are listed in Table 1. In
addition to these substances, there are 3 parameters (dissolved
oxygen concentration, pH, and temperature) that are part of water
quality and also affect the other pollutants' impacts. Additional
pollutants, such as PCBs and pesticides, which may be of importance
with respect to water quality, were not generally discussed because
of a lack of evidence suggesting that discharges of such
pollutants from existing or proposed WWTPs are creating or could
create a problem.
The quantities (loads) of pollutants added to lakes and streams
from treatment plants is readily calculated:
Le = CeQe
where Le is the effluent load, Ce is the effluent concentration,
and Qe is the flow rate of effluent. All pollutants follow this
equation; however, some pollutants, like BOD, degrade, while some,
like chlorine and ammonia, evaporate or are chemically transformed,
and others, like fecal coliform bacteria, die off in receiving
waters. Therefore, when estimating changes in water quality re-
sulting from the addition of sewage effluent, it is necessary to
consider these "non-conservative" pollutants in a different manner
than the "conservative" ones.
The change in water quality due to a conservative pollutant load
is assessed by applying the mass-balance principle: the quantity
of the substance remains constant at all dilutions. Thus, if
the addition of effluent into a stream dilutes the effluent to
50% of its strength, then the concentration of a conservative
pollutant will be the half of the upstream concentraton plus half
of the effluent concentration, to maintain constant quantities.
In formula form,
c = (CSQS) + (ceQe)
Qs + Qe
-------
TABLE 1
POLLUTANTS IN SEWAGE EFFLUENT
Pollutant Type
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Non-conservative
Particulate Solids Conservative
Dissolved Solids Conservative
Total Phosphorus Conservative
Total Nitrogen Conservative
Ammonia Non-Conservative
Chlorine Non-Conservative
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Non-Conservative
Cadmium Conservative
Chromium Conservative
Lead Conservative
"Conservative" means that the pollutant can be diluted but not
degraded; "non-conservative" means that the pollutant can be
degraded or lost.
Source: ESEI
-------
where C is the mixed concentration, C and C are the concentra-
tions in the stream and effluent, respectively, and Qs and Qe
are the respective flow rates of stream effluent. As the affected
stream flows farther downstream, there may be more water added,
diluting the pollutant even more, but the mass-balance relationship
would still be applicable.
The non-conservative pollutants do not generally follow the mass-
balance principle. BOD quantities diminish as they become oxidized
(that is, combine with oxygen) and chlorine quantities diminish as
they become reduced in open waters, but they can be considered to
mix thoroughly before they are depleted. Fecal coliform bacteria
do not mix thoroughly; they remain in clumps of high density.
Coliforms are assessed in terms of loads only.
Nitrogen is a pollutant that has several related forms. Ammonia
is the form that is common in sewage; at low pH it is mostly
ionized and relatively harmless to aquatic organisms, while at high
pH it is mostly un-ionized and very poisonous. Ammonia is oxidized
under aerobic conditions to form nitrogen gas, nitrite, and nitrate,
all of which are harmless to aquatic organisms except in large
concentrations. Although total nitrogen is conservative, ammonia
acts as a non-conservative pollutant because it gradually converts
to nitrate in streams and lakes.
Dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature are qualities of water that
can be affected by sewage effluent. The concentration of dissolved
oxygen in water is a function of temperature, the amount of agita-
tion in the water, the rate of oxygen uptake by sediments and
animals, the rates of oxygen production and uptake by algae and
other plants, the load of oxidizable carbonaceous organic matter
(measured as total organic carbon and indicated by BOD), and the
load of other oxidizable matter (ammonia, sulfide, ferrous iron).
Except for temperature, all of these factors affect a stream's
oxygen concentration in complicated ways and are not easily
predicted. However, for large rivers without appreciable sediment
oxygen demand or algae, predictions of small changes in dissolved
oxygen concentrations can be approximated by the Streeter-Phelps
equation (Metcalf & Eddy 1979). This formula should not be applied
to any of the receiving waters in this analysis because all are
strongly affected by algae and sediment, many are too small to be
properly described by the equation, and the formula does not apply
to lakes. The pathways of oxygen depletion and replenishment are
traceable, however, and this is done for all alternatives.
The acidity of water, measured by pH, is affected by the addition
of effluent. The pH affects the toxicity of ammonia, the solubility
of phosphorus, iron, and many other compounds, and extreme pH is
itself harmful to plants and animals. The waters of the Milwaukee
-------
area resist changes in pH because of their high buffering capacity
(alkalinity) , but sewage effluent is just as well buffered, so
that below pH 8.5, the mass-balance principle is reasonably close.
Acidity is calculated as follows:
(10~PHs Qs) + (10~PHeQe)
PH = - log - -
for pHs (stream) and pHe (effluent) less than 8.5.
As a stream flows beyond the effluent discharge point, its pH
will gradually return to its upstream value. The processes that
cause a stream to have its particular pH (groundwater inputs, losses
of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and to plants, inputs of carbon
dioxide from decomposition of organic matter) will drive the pH
back to its upstream value. The rate at which pH returns to its
upstream value is unknown but it is probably much less rapid than
the mixing of stream and effluent.
Water temperature is also modified by the temperature of sewage
effluent, which varies seasonally between about 54°F(12°C) and
64°F(20°C). Large WWTPs have a smaller temperature range; between
about 59°F(15°C) and 65°F(18°C). The mixed temperature is calculated
by the mass-balance equation.
In predicting the future water quality of streams upstream of
wastewater discharge, the changes in other treatment plants up-
stream of that point were taken into account. If the upstream
plants were themselves subject to alternative actions in this
project, all feasible combinations were assessed. Conservative
pollutants were added or subtracted from upstream water by the
mass-balance formula; non-conservative pollutants were considered
dissipated shortly after discharge.
Lakes are different from streams in several respects and are
handled differently in this EIS. Effluent does not quickly mix
thoroughly with lake water; it forms a plume of pollutants which
undergoes settling, chemical transformation, biological uptake,
and dilution at the same time. Conservative pollutants tend to
end up in sediments unless the lake's water residence time
(the time it takes for a volume of water equal to the lake's
capacity to flow into a lake) is very short, in which case the
lake is well flushed and acts more like a river. The pollutants
in sediment are released to the water at a rate which may be
related to their concentrations in the sediments. Since the
water quality of lakes may be affected by the past accumulation
of pollutants, it is more appropriate to consider loads than to
make unreliable mixture calculations. The dynamics of the
effluent plume are of importance and are discussed where relevant.
-------
In Big Muskego Lake, pollution from nonpoint sources was compared
to that from point sources. These nonpoint loads were estimated
by multiplying the amount of land of each land use category in the
watershed (SEWRPC 1975) by the appropriate load coefficient
(IJC 1978).
ASSUMPTIONS
A. Streams are most susceptible to degradation when they are
flowing at the lowest rate over seven consecutive days in
a ten-year period (Q7,-,0) (Holmstrom 1979).
B. There is no pollution of streams from nonpoint sources
during low flow conditions. Nonpoint pollution is assumed
to be carried into rivers by rain and melted snow runoff.
C. During low flow, upstream water quality is assumed to be in
the future as it is at present. If there are other sewage
treatment plants upstream, the upstream water quality is
modified to include all alternatives changes to the upstream
plants.
D. On an annual basis, nonpoint pollution is assumed to be
abated according to SEWRPC (1979) recommendations: 25% in
the watersheds of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, Kinnickinnic,
and Fox Rivers, 50% in the Root River and Oak Creek water-
sheds, and 75% in most of the Big Muskego Lake watershed.
E. The concentrations of pollutants in effluent will be the
maximum allowed by the WPDES permits anticipated to be in
force in the future (MWPAP 198Oa). If a pollutant concen-
tration is not specified, it will be set at a reasonable
average value for plants with similar treatment processes
(MMSD 1978, MWPAP 1978).
F. Effluent and stream are assumed to mix completely at the
point of discharge. No such assumption is made for lakes.
ACCURACY
The overall level of accuracy of the numerical predictions in this
Appendix is one order of magnitude. Smaller differences between
predictions should be considered insignificant.
There are two reasons for this qualification. First, there is
considerable uncertainty in some of the baseline data, especially
for the small streams and Big Muskego Lake. Too few samples were
taken, and different investigators used different sampling and
testing techniques. Although baseline data were assembled as care-
fully as possible, the uncertainty remains.
-------
Second, the assumptions simplify and limit the analysis. Predictions
are actually extrapolations of present conditions, and any unfore-
seen changes in conditions will negate them. Also, the streams and
lakes are more complicated than they are portrayed, and the large-
scale predictions here do not apply on a smaller scale.
This Appendix may be used to compare the probable effects of various
alternatives on the water quality of lakes and streams, and to gain
a general understanding of the nature and magnitude of these effects.
MILWAUKEE RIVER
The Milwaukee River receives sewage effluent from one treatment plant
in the planning area, at Thiensville. There are 13 small treatment
plants upstream (SEWRPC 1970), but because they are from 10 to 70
stream miles upstream of Thiensville and comprise less than 20% of
the low flow, it is doubtful that small changes in their effluent
quality would affect the water quality at Thiensville.
The Thiensville WWTP could either be expanded, from its present
average daily base flow-of 0.46 MGD (0.01 m3/sec) to a future 0.47
MGD (0.02 m^/sec), or abandoned. If expanded, it would maintain
its secondary process with phosphorus removal.
Table 2 shows the predicted concentrations of water quality para-
meters of the Milwaukee River just after it is mixed with Thiens-
ville WWTP effluent under present and expanded plant flow conditions,
and without Thiensville effluent. The plant would increase the low
flow of the river by 3%.
Dissolved oxygen levels fluctuate greatly over a 24-hour period due
to the large amount of algae in the water (USGS 1978); the algae
produce oxygen during the day and consume it at night. However,
even the lower concentration is generally adequate for fish and is
normally above the DNR minimum standard (USGS 1978) .
MENOMONEE RIVER
With the imminent abandonment of the two sewage treatment plants in
Menomonee Falls, the only plant discharging to the Menomonee River
is the Germantown WWTP. This plant may either be expanded and
upgraded to tertiary treatment, or abandoned. (Land application
has the same effects on the river as abandonment.)
The changes in the Menomonee River's water quality are estimated in
Table 3. The water of the river would be mostly effluent during
low flow if the WWTP is expanded from 0.72 MGD (0.03 m3/sec) to
2.54 MGD (0.11 m^/sec). If the plant is abandoned, there would be
little flow in the river at those times.
-------
TABLE 2
WATER QUALITY OF THE MILWAUKEE RIVER AT THIENSVILLE
Low Flow (Qj ^Q)
BOD
Particulate Solids
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Un - ionized Ammonia
@21°C
PH
Chlorine
Fecal Coliforms
Present
42 ft3/sec
7 mg/1
20 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
2.3 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
0.016 mg/1
8.3
0.005 mg/1
4 billion/day
Expand WWTP
42 ft3 /sec
8 mg/1
20 mg/1
0.3 mg/1
2.5 mg/1
0 . 3 mg/1
0.022 mg/1
8.3
0.01 mg/1
4 billion/day
Abandon WWTP
41 ft3 /sec
1 mg/1
20 mg/1
0 . 3 mg/1
2.2 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
Oi009 mg/1
8.3
nil
—
1 ft3/sec = 28.3 liters/sec
Source: ESEI
-------
TABLE 3
WATER QUALITY OF THE MENOMONEE RIVER AT GERMANTOWN
Low Flow (Qj ^Q)
BOD
Particulate Solids
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Un - ionized Ammonia
(3210C
pH
Chlorine
Fecal Coliforms
Present
1.1 ft'/aec
8 mg/1
10 mg/1
0.7 mg/1
20 mg/1
8 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
7.5
0.5 mg/1
5 billion/day
Expand WWTP
3.9 ft3/sec
10 mg/1
10 mg/1
1 mg/1
20 mg/1
2 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
Abandon WWTP
0.01 ft'/sec
5 mg/1
8 mg/1
1 mg/1
5 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
7.2- 7.9
0.5 mg/1 nil
38 billion/day —
1 ftVsec = 28.3 liters/sec
Source: ESEI
-------
The river is impounded at the Germantown WWTP outfall; therefore,
it tends to accumulate plant nutrients and organic matter. This
promotes dense algae growths and raises the pH which causes more
of the ammonia to become un-ionized and toxic. A simple measure
to remedy the situation would be to relocate the outfall to
downstream of the pond. This measure would probably reduce
ammonia problems in the pond, but not algae growths, because
the accumulated nutrients would remain for a long time.
The impoundment probably has large daily oxygen concentration fluc-
tuations around a fairly low mean. The large algae population
would add oxygen during the day and remove it at night. The organic
matter in sediments would remove oxygen from the water at all
times. Neither upgrading nor removing the WWTP would change this
situation. One of the major differences between the alternatives would
be the amount of water flowing in the river below the impoundment.
The DNR water quality standards could likely be met on the
f::ee-flowing portions of the river under the local alternative
~1 the plants maintain compliance with strict water quality
related effluent limitations. The impounded areas would
probably not meet the DNR standard for oxygen content regard-
less of the alternative chosen; continued discharge into the
pond could cause the ammonia standard to be exceeded as well.
Relocation of the outfall to a point below the pond would
lessen the ammonia problem.
TESS CORNERS CREEK
A multiplicity of alternatives complicates the analysis of the
future water quality of Tess Corners Creek, a small tributary
of the Root River. Briefly, there is presently one treatment
plant (Muskego Northeast) discharging effluent to the creek.
This plant could be upgraded or abandoned. The Muskego Northwest,
New Berlin Southeast, or a combined Muskego WWTP could add sewage
effluent to Tess Corners Creek, or they could send the wastewater
elsewhere. After eliminating some incompatible combinations, there
are five combinations that could occur, as shown in Table 4.
Again, land application alternatives would have the same effects
on water quality that abandonment would.
Without the effluent from the Muskego Northeast WWTP, Tess Corners
Creek would have little flow in dry weather. The DNR has in
fact classified it an intermittent stream. However, four of the
five alternatives add water (up to 11.3 ft-Vsec [0.32 m-Vsec] )
to the creek and allow it to flow permanently. The water that would
be added from the Muskego plants is somewhat richer in solids, phos-
phorus, nitrogen, fecal coliforms and organic matter than the up-
stream water. The proposed New Berlin Southeast WWTP's effluent
would be similar to the creek's existing water quality.
10
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
If only Muskego WWTPs discharge effluent to Tess Corners Creek,
the concentration of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen would normally be
high and could occasionally exceed the DNR's limit of 0.04 mg/1.
This would probably be a rare occurence if the New Berlin Southeast
WWTP also added effluent to the creek. Any alternative would
lower the amount of ammonia in the creek from present conditions.
Dissolved oxygen levels have been moderately high in the creek;
most measurements are in the range of 6-8 mg/1 (DNR 1976).
There is little algae since much of the creek is shaded by
trees along the banks. The major causes of oxygen depletion
appear to be sediment uptake and oxygen demand in treatment
plant effluent, but these seem to be far outweighed by natural
re-aeration. Decreasing the flow rate could create slow-flowing
reaches that could accumulate sediment and have slower rates
of re-aeration, resulting in lower oxygen concentrations in
these reaches.
There is an impoundment about 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) down-
stream from the Muskego Northeast WWTP, in Whitnall Park. This
pond becomes green with algae each summer, partly because of
the nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), that are added to
Tess Corners Creek by the treatment plant. The algae cause
large variations in oxygen concentrations and probably deplete
dissolved oxygen in the winter and spring, when decomposition
and oxygen-consuming processes are at their maximum. Elimina-
ting sewage effluent from the creek would slow the rate of
accumulation of nutrients in Whitnall Park Pond, but problems
would persist for many years.
ROOT RIVER
The water quality of the Root River upstream of Caddy Vista is
not fixed; it depends upon which sewage treatment plants are add-
ing effluent to its tributary, Tess Corners Creek. There are five
combinations of WWTP discharges, ranging from zero to 11.3 ft3/sec
(0.32 m^/sec), as shown in the previous section. Although there
are ten miles of stream between Tess Corners Creek and Caddy Vista,
and stream quality will change as it flows (due to settling, bio-
logical uptake, chemical reactions, and atmospheric losses), all
of the parameters except BOD, chlorine, ammonia, and coliform are
treated as if their quantities did not change over distance. The
results are shown in Table 5. These figures are a slight over-
estimate of the levels of most parameters except pH, which is
slightly under estimated.
The sewage treatment plant at Caddy Vista could either be rebuilt
(and its capacity enlarged from 0.07 MGD [0.003 m3/sec] to 0.11 MGD
[0.005 m^/sec]), or abandoned, with connection to the MIS. The
rebuilt secondary plant would remove nitrogen, control pH, and
aerate its effluent.
12
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Table 5 shows that the dominant influence on the Root River's water
quality would be the Tess Corners Creek treatment plants; the
Caddy Vista plant does not contribute significantly to the water
quality. This result stems partly from the simplifying assumptions
that 100% of the loads of conservative pollutants (e.g. phosphorus)
are carried from Tess Corners Creek to Caddy Vista and that non-
conservative pollutants (e.g. BOD) do not reach Caddy Vista at
all. The actual situation is most likely somewhere between these
two extremes some phosphorus is lost and some BOD persists.
Even with these errors in prediction, the quality of the Root
River would remain within State standards during low-flow periods,
and the main difference between alternatives would be the amount
of water in the river during low flow.
A number of factors in the stream contribute to occasional low
dissolved oxygen levels: abundant algae, substantial deposits
of degradable sediments from agricultural runoff, and a slow,
unperturbed flow that does not efficiently aerate the water.
DEER CREEK
Deer Creek, a small tributary of the Fox River, is extensively
channelized. It carries little or no water except for rain,
snow melt, and sewage effluent. It presently receives "effluent
from the New Berlin Regal Manors plant, and in the future would
receive either no effluent, 1.9 MGD (0.083 m^/sec) of New Berlin
Regal Manors WWTP effluent, or 5.4 MGD (0.24 m3/sec) of New Berlin
Southeast WWTP effluent. Table 6 shows the expected effect on
the creek's water quality.
Little is known about the present water quality of the creek.
Since the effluent is nearly 100% of the creek's low flow, it is
assumed that the water quality at low flow is the same as the
effluent quality.
The creek is filled with cattails; algae coating the submerged
stems probably add some oxygen and take up some phosphorus and
ammonia. The small size of the creek facilitates re-aeration, but
oxygen may be slightly depleted in pools where sediments may
accumulate and the current velocity is reduced.
DNR water quality goals would not be met if the Regal Manors plant
is expanded. The expected level of un-ionized ammonia-nitrogen
would normally be higher than the acceptable level of 0.04 mg/1.
This problem would not occur with the New Berlin Southeast WWTP
alternative. This alternative would noticeably change the character
of Deer Creek from an intermittent stream with a channel full of cat-
tails to a permanent stream, probably with cattails only along the
banks. DNR goals for both intermittent and permanent streams could
normally be met with this alternative, provided that the plant main-
tained compliance with the effluent limits designed to achieve the
applicable DNR water quality standards.
14
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
BIG MUSKEGO LAKE
Big Muskego Lake is a large, shallow lake that is rapidly being
encroached upon by marsh. The lake has an area of 2,177 acres
(5,380 hectares) and an average depth of 2.5 feet (0.8 meters).
Its level is maintained by a spillway at its outlet, at the south
end of the lake. Only one permanent creek—Little Muskego Creek—
feeds Big Muskego Lake; the creek also drains Little Muskego Lake
and has an average flow of 3 ft^/sec (0.085 m^/sec). Big Muskego
Lake also receives runoff from 19 square miles (22,000 hectares)
of predominatly flat rural watershed.
The Muskego Northwest sewage treatment plant sends its effluent to
Big Muskego Lake at the rate of 0.5 MGD (0.02 m3/sec). Future
options for lake discharge are: (1) upgrade the Muskego Northwest
plant to AWT and expand to 0.9 MGD (0.04 m3/sec); (2) upgrade
both the Northwest and Northeast .plants to AWT and discharge both
to the lake at 2.0 MGD (0.09 m^/sec); or (3) cease discharging to
the lake, either by converting to land application, discharging to
Tess Corners Creek, or connecting to the MIS system. In Table 7,
the loads of pollutants from all sources are shown for each alter-
native .
Nonpoint pollution was estimated by applying a load factor (IJC
1978) to the area of each type of land use in the Big Muskego
Lake watershed (SEWRPC 1979): rural, urban, urban developing. The
loads from Little Muskego Creek were estimated from data collected
by the MWPAP. Since the lake is very shallow, it is well mixed and
oxygenated at all depths (except during ice cover). The residence
time for water is approximately 5 months.
Nonpoint pollution, especially from developing urban land, is the
largest source of sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen. However, the
sewage treatment plant supplies almost as much phosphorus and is a
major source of nitrogen. This condition will continue whether the
Northwest plant or the two Muskego plants discharge to Big Muskego
Lake, although the overall load could be as small as one-fourth
the present load due to proposed controls on nonpoint sources of
pollution (SEWRPC 1979).
Halting the discharge of effluent to Big Muskego Lake will result
in a substantial reduction in the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen
added to the lake each year. This action would not reverse the
eutrophication of the lake, since it will not remove nutrients al-
ready present. It will, however, make future lake rehabilitation
programs more likely to succeed.
OUTER HARBOR
Milwaukee's downtown lakefront is protected by a breakwater that
surrounds 1,450 acres (3600 hectares) of Lake Michigan. This
16
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
area is known as the Outer Harbor to distinguish it from the
Inner Harbor, the portions of the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
Kinnickinnic Rivers that are dredged deep enough for shipping.
The Outer Harbor's southern basin is periodically dredged to a
depth of 27 feet (8 meters).
The breakwater restricts the mixing of Lake water with Outer Harbor
water. The Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers and the
effluent from the Jones Island WWTP are constant sources of input
water to the Outer Harbor, with an annual average flow of 175
billion gallons. Inputs are smaller in the summer and winter and
larger in the spring and fall. Mixing of lake water depends on
the strength of the near-shore currents, which in return depends
on the strength and direction of the wind. Uniform mixing in
the Outer Harbor is unlikely and cannot be assumed but the central
portion of the Harbor probably mixes more thoroughly than either
the northern or southern parts because the three rivers and the
largest breakwater opening are located there.
The Outer Harbor is being polluted from three major sources: the
three rivers, combined sewer overflows, and the Jones Island WWTP
effluent. In addition, organic sediments in the Inner and Outer
Harbors—the results of decades of pollution, runoff from land, and
CSOs--degrade water quality every time they are re-suspended
(Meinholz et at. 1978). The effects of CSOs on the Inner Harbor
are dealt with in Appendix V of this EIS. The pollution of the
Outer Harbor from three extreme CSO alternatives (no action,
complete sewer separation and complete storage and treatment at
Jones Island WWTP) are considered here; other alternatives will
have intermediate impacts, depending on how much CSO is allowed
and how much storm water is allowed to enter the rivers untreated.
Average conditions and pollutant concentrations in the Milwaukee
River were obtained from the USGS station at Estabrook Park,
and in the Menomonee River at the USGS station at Wauwatosa.
The Kinnickinnic River's pollutant concentrations were assumed
to be the same as in the Menomonee River.
The relative proportions of Lake Michigan water, water from the
three rivers, and Jones Island WWTP effluent are estimated by
using conductivity as a tracer. Conductivity is a measure of
the concentration of ionic salts in solution; it is conservative,
additive, and is not subject to biological or chemical trans-
formation. Data from Bothwell (1975) indicate that the central
portion of the Outer Harbor is approximately 75% lake water and
25% input water from the three rivers and the treatment plant.
The percentages vary seasonally, from 40% input water in the
spring to 12% input water in the late summer.
Estimates were made of the expected concentrations of pollutants
in the Outer Harbor, assuming 25% input water and no losses.
This analysis is limited to the ideal condition of uniform inputs,
18
-------
no biological uptake, settling or sediment inputs, and only the
relatively well-mixed central portion of the Outer Harbor is con-
sidered. Nonetheless, the projected present conditions (Tables 8a
and 8c) agree well with observations (Bothwell 1975). Further
refinement of these estimates will be made as part of a study
to be conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for
the MMSD. The preliminary results will be available in early 1981.
Tables 8a through 8c present the loads and concentrations of
pollutants in the Outer Harbor as a result of the proposed
expansion of Jones Island in the context of three CSO
alternatives. Table 8d gives the present and future pollutant
loads from the Jones Island WWTP. Particulate solids, BOD, and
phosphorus are given as maximum permissable loads; others are
average annual loads. The loads and concentrations are based
upon all sources of input. These include the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic rivers, the Jones Island WWTP
combined sewer overflows and the inputs from Lake Michigan.
The Jones Island WWTP would add 7% of the input water volume,
but would contribute from 47% to 56% of the phosphorus load,
from 75% to 94% of the ammonia-nitrogen load, and from 39%
to near 44% of the cadmium load. The input of organic solids
from Jones Island would continue to be large, perpetuating the
accumulation of polluted sediment in the Outer Harbor. The
estimated levels of un-ionized ammonia in the Harbor, although
somewhat overestimated by the procedure used, would probably
exceed the criterion set by the DNR, and this would certainly
be the case close to the outfall. These impacts represent
continuations or increases in the loads of pollutants from
the Jones Island WWTP to the Outer Harbor.
Relocation of the outfall to a point in Lake Michigan beyond the
breakwater would greatly reduce the loads of all pollutants
(except fecal coliforms) to the Outer Harbor and allow the Harbor
to meet DNP standards for levels of un-ionized ammonia. It would not
greatly change the pollutant loads to Lake Michigan; it would
only allow the pollutants to be mixed with more lake water more
quickly, and it would stop the Outer Harbor from acting as a settl-
ing basin for pollutants in Jones Island effluent. CSOs are by
far the largest sources of fecal bacteria. Other toxic substances
are introduced in small quantities by the Jones Island WWTP: chlorine,
chloramine, and chlorinated hydrocarbons, and heavy metals; these
would affect the area near the outfall no matter where it is located.
The decrease in input flow to the Outer Harbor due to the relocation
of the outfall would be inconsequential to water levels or mixing
rates.
Dissolved oxygen levels are high in most parts of the Outer Harbor
(MWPAP 1980b). The large amount of algae (Bothwell 1975) elevates
the oxygen level even higher during the day. The Jones island
WWTP's effluent would be post-aerated, thus alleviating the
potential depletion of oxygen at the outfall.
19
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
w >
to Q w
J < fr.
m O <
g J§
a u
i
in c
.3
JJ -W
0) i
K-;
0) O
0) '.,
4-> Uj
1) nl
21
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
TABLE 8d
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS
FROM THE JONES ISLAND WWTP
Existing Future5
Water q
(x 10 gallons/yr) 49.0 45.6
Suspended Solids
(x 10 pounds/yr) 11.4 11.8
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand - Ultimate
(x 10b pounds/yr) 18.0 16.0
Phosphorus
(x 10 pounds/yr) 261 231
Ammonia^
(x 10b pounds/yr) 2.13 6.8
Cadmium-
(x 10 pounds/yr) 3.27 2.90
Lead .,
(x 10 pounds/yr) 28.6 31.9
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 14 ,,
(counts per year) 3.70 x 10 3.45 x 10
1 pound = 0.45 kilograms
1 gallon =3.78 liters
aThis assumes the Modified Total Storage Alternative for CSO
abatement. It represents the maximum loads to be discharged
from the treatment plant under any of the CSO abatement
alternatives.
Source: ESEI.
23
-------
The location of a new outfall for the Jones Island WWTP is a
subject requiring further study. It is likely that suitable
locations exist that would not contaminate Milwaukee's water
supply intake or bathing beaches. There are two guiding prin-
ciples: the effluent should be well diffused and the regime of
the near-shore currents should be considered. These principles
lead to locations at least a few hundred meters beyond the
breakwater, east or southeast from Jones Island. The plume
of effluent would only rarely be detectable beyond two hundred
meters from the outfall, based on the experience at the South
Shore WWTP (MMSD 1979) .
LAKE MICHIGAN
Lake Michigan is the ultimate recipient of conservative pollutants
from the Milwaukee area. Except for locally polluted harbor
areas, the lake is considered to have excellent water quality
(EPA 1978) and a thorough circulation system, so pollution is
rapidly diluted with clean lake water. Although diluted, the
pollutants do not vanish. The Lake retains water for about
100 years, and sediments are essentially permanent. Gradually,
the pollutants accumulate, causing greater algae density (eutro-
phication) and harmful levels of poisonous substances in fish
(as has already happened with PCBs). The long-term pollution
of Lake Michigan has been studied by the International Joint
Commission, and recommended maximum pollutant loads to the
lake have been published (IJC 1978) .
Four sewage treatment plants would discharge effluent directly
to Lake Michigan: The South Shore WWTP, the South Milwaukee
WWTP, private plants at the Sisters of Notre Dame Academy and
the Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Oak Creek Plant. The
Jones Island WWTP would also discharge its effluent directly
if a new outfall beyond the Harbor breakwater is constructed.
All other plants, except those that would discharge effluent
to Deer Creek or Big Muskego Lake, would be indirectly adding
pollutants to Lake Michigan. The existing plants add an
amount of phosphorus to Lake Michigan basin each year equal
to 3% of the total load (IJC 1978). Ninety-five percent of
these loads are from the Jones Island and South Shore plants.
Tables 9a through 9d present the expected concentrations and
loads from all WWTPs that would discharge direct to Lake
Michigan.
The proposed expansions of these two plants may result in
increases in phosphorus loads and in nitrogen loads
as shown in Tables 8 and 9. Loads in every category would increase.
However, if the Jones Island and South Shore plants will be operated
to generate effluent well within the WPDES permit limits, as is
being done now, the increases in pollutant loads would be smaller.
24
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
TABLE 9d
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS FROM THE SOUTH SHORE WWTP
Existing
Water (xlO gallons/
Yr.)
Suspended Solids
BOD
Phosphorus
Ammonia
Cadmium
Lead
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Effluent
30,000
7.5 million Ibs/yr
7.5 million Ibs/yr
b
250,000 Ibs/yr
4.5 million Ibs/yr
1700 Ibs/yr
15,000 Ibs/yr
0.2 x 1015/yr
Relief Bypass
Discharge
300
290,000 Ibs/yr
250,000 Ibs/yr
13,000 Ibs/yr
20,000 Ibs/yr
25 Ibs/yr
320 Ibs/yr
0.007 x 1015/yr
Future
42,000
10 million Ibs/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
350,000 Ibs/yr
6 million Ibs/yr
2500 Ibs/yr
21,000 Ibs/yr
0.3 x 1015/yr
1 Ib = 0.45 kilogram
1 gal =3.78 liters
Relief Bypass Discharges consist of material in the MIS which is discharged
to the surface waters prior to being treated in the WWTP.
Assumes maximum WPDES concentrations. Actual values may be lower.
Source: ESEI
28
-------
There is no reason to expect decreases in pollutant loads from
the treatment plants below those currently occurring.
South Shore WWTP would continue to use its present outfall: four
outlets located on the bottom of Lake Michigan, 1800 feet {550 meters)
northeast of the plant. Effluent, being warmer than lake water,
rises to the surface where it spreads into a plume a few inches
deep (MMSD 1979). The plume is carried at most a thousand meters
by winds and currents before it is diluted to background conditions.
Water quality monitoring (MMSD 1979) shows that sewage constituents
are detectable 300 meters from the outfall less than 10% of the time.
Plumes from the South Milwaukee WWTP and the two private plants
would be expected to be much smaller and affect a smaller area.
The Outer Harbor generates plumes of pollutant-laden water from
its four openings, but these plumes would be of a different nature
than sewage effluent plumes. There is little temperature difference
between lake water and harbor water, so instead of floating in a
thin surface layer, subject to dilution outward and downward the
water moves out at all layers, subject only to outward dilution
and because of the larger volume is less easily dissipated in the
lake. Furthermore, the harbor flow from the north or south openings
in the breakwater may flow along the shore, spoiling beaches.
Sewage effluent contains more impurities than lake water. It
contains 100 times more phosphorus, 150 times more ammonia, and 10
times more cadmium per unit volume. The area near the South Shore
outfall (and the new Jones Island outfall, if it is built) would
have higher concentrations of un-ionized ammonia than is recommended
by the DNR for the protection of fish. However, only a portion of
the plume would be likely to have high levels of ammonia, since
oxidation, outgassing, and biological uptake will reduce the quan-
tity of dissolved ammonia as dilution reduces the concentration.
There would be no local accumulation of ammonia in Lake Michigan.
29
-------
REFERENCES
Bothwell, M.L. 1975. Studies on the Distribution of Phytoplankton
Pigments and Nutrients in the Milwaukee Harbor Area, and
Factors Controlling Assimilation Numbers. Ph.D. thesis.
University of Wisconsin/ Madison.
Holmstrom, B.K. 1979. Low-flow Characteristics of Wisconsin
Streams at Sewage-treatment Plants and Industrial Plants.
WRI79-31. USGS, Madison, Wisconsin. 128p.
International Joint Commission. 1978. Environmental Management
Strategy for the Great Lakes System. IJC, Windsor, Ontario.
115p.
Meinholz, T.L., W. Kreutzberger, M. Harper, and K.J. Fay. 1979.
Verification of the water quality impacts of CSO using
real-time data. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. 188p.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment,
Disposal, Reuse. 2nd Edition. Edited by G. Tchobanoglous.
McGraw-Hill, New York. 92Op.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. 1978. Jones Island
operational data, January 1977 - June 1978. MMSD, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
1979. South Shore plume study - unpublished data.
MMSD, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1970.
A Comprehensive Plan for the Milwaukee River Watershed.
Planning Report No. 13, Vol. 2. SEWRPC, Waukesha, Wisconsin,
514p.
. 1975. A Regional Land Use Plan and a Regional
Transportation Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin. Planning
Report No. 25, Vol. 1. SEWRPC, Waukesha, Wisconsin. 414p.
. 1979. A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin - 2000, Planning Report No. 30,
Volume 3. SEWRPC, Waukesha, Wisconsin. 309p.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Lake
Michigan: some preliminary findings. Great Lakes National
Program. Region V, U.S. EPA, Chicago, Illinois. 24p.
30
-------
• United States Geological Survey. 1978. Water Resources Data
for Wisconsin: Water Year 1977. WRD/HD-78/024. USGS,
Madison, Wisconsin. 639p.
Water Pollution Abatement Program. 1978. Pilot Plant
Investigations: Phase I Technical Report. MMSD, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
, 1980a. Wastewater System Plan: Facilities Plan.
MMSD, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
. 198Ob. Wastewater System Plan: Environmental
Assessment. MMSD, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1976. Southeastern
Wisconsin River Basins: A Drainage Basin Report, WDNR,
Madison, Wisconsin.
31
-------
------- |