EIS801072DB
V-/EPA
United States
'tal Protection
Region V
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 II
Jones Island
Appendix III
South Shore
-------
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 +he assistance of
ESEI - ECOLSCIENCES ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
November 1980
r'.'r;. j>>.•if.-ri ->-,Ci'',r,1 Protection A-"'-'.or
..-.i.^.'i .j. :" '.V'.v.r/ SCi I. -:,/>}
':• 5. !,V.r.T;:ov-a Stiest, Hoom 1670
- '.ct-.go, IL 60604
SUBMITTED BY:
HOWARD S. DRUCKENMILLER
DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
McGUlRE
IONAL ADMINISTRATOR
VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX II
JONES ISLAND
November 1980
-------
JONES ISLAND EIS APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Summary and Conclusion 1-1
A. Introduction 1-1
B. Jones Island WWTP 1-1
C. Alternatives 1-1
D. MMSD's Recommended Plan 1-2
II. Introduction II-5
A. Purpose II-5
B. Wastewater Treatment at Jones Island II-6
C. Planning Area II-7
D. Operating Problems II-7
E. Relationship with other EIS Elements II-7
F. Scope of the Jones Island EIS Appendix II-8
III. Existing Conditions III-9
A. General III-9
B. Collection System III-9
C. Process Description 111-10
1. Preliminary Treatment 111-10
2. Secondary Treatment 111-14
a. West Plant 111-14
(1) Flow channels and galleries 111-14
(2) Aeration Basins 111-15
(3) Clarifiers and thickeners 111-15
b. East Plant 111-16
(1) Flow channels and galleries 111-16
(2) Aeration Basins 111-17
(3) Clarifiers 111-17
c. Pickle Liquor System 111-18
3. Solids Handling 111-18
4. Disinfection of Effluent 111-19
D. Wastewater Influent Characteristics 111-20
E. Wastewater Effluent Characteristics 111-23
F. Wastewater Bypasses 111-27
G. Evaluation of Jones Island WWTP 111-29
H. Energy Consumption 111-29
I. Operation and Maintenance 111-33
J. Staff 111-33
K. Resources 111-33
-------
IV. Alternatives IV-35
A. Introduction IV-35
B. Evaluation of Alternatives IV-36
C. Monetary Analysis IV-40
D. Future Conditions IV-41
1. Planning Period IV-41
2. Projected Wastewater Characteristics IV-41
3. Effluent Limits IV-44
4. Projected Service Area IV-44
5. Projected Populations IV-44
E. Combined Sewer Overflows IV-44
F. Industrial Pretreatment IV-46
G. No Action IV-47
H. Feasibile Process Alternatives IV-47
1. Alternative 1 - Expansion and Upgrading IV-48
of East and West Plants
2. Alternative 2 - Air Activated Sludge IV-49
with Primary Treatment
3. Alternative 3 - Single Air Activated IV-54
Sludge System.
4. Alternative 4 - Two Parallel Air IV-62
Activated Sludge Systems.
5. Alternative 5 - High Purity Oxygen IV-63
(HPO) Activated
Sludge System.
6. Alternative 6 - Activated Biofilter IV-67
(ABF)/Activated
Sludge System.
I. Disinfection Alternatives IV-75
J. Lake Michigan Outfall IV-77
K. Land Expansion Alternatives IV-82
L. Engineering Evaluation of Process IV-85
Alternatives
M. Comparison of Alternatives IV-88
N. MMSD's Recommended Plan IV-88
V. Affected Environment V-95
A. Introduction V-95
B. Water Quality V-95
C. Aquatic Biota V-97
D. Threatened or Endangered Species V-97
E. Air Quality V-99
F. Public Health V-99
G. Noise and Safety V-99
H. Historical and Archaeological Sites V-100
I. Land Use V-100
J. Economics V-101
K. Transportation and Access V-101
-------
Page
L. Energy V-103
M. Resources V-103
VI. Environmental Consequences VI-105
A. Introduction VI-105
B. Impacts of the Alternatives VI-107
1. Water Quality VI-107
2. Aquatic Biota VI-110
3. Threatened or Endangered Species VI-111
4. Air Quality VI-111
5. Public Health VI-112
6. Noise and Safety VI-113
7. Historical and Archaeological Sites VI-114
8. Land Use VI-114
9. Economics VI-116
10. Transportation and Access VI-116
11. Energy VI-117
12. Resources VI-118
C. Environmental Consequences of the MMSD's VI-119
Recommended Plan.
-------
JONES ISLAND EIS APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number Page
III-l Unit Process Description Summary III-ll
III-2 Influent Wastewater Characteristics 111-21
Summary
III-3 Average Annual Influent Character- 111-22
istics
III-4 Wastewater Source Identification 111-24
III-5 Combined Effluent Characteristics 111-25
III-6 Total Effluent Characteristics 111-26
III-7 Bypass Loads 111-28
III-8 Evaluation of Treatment Capacities 111-30
III-9 Age of Existing Facilities 111-31
111-10 Energy Use 111-32
III-ll Summary of Operations and Maintenance 111-34
Costs
IV-1 Projected Plant Flows and Loads IV-42
IV-2 Unattenuated Flows and Loads for IV-43
1985-2005
IV-3 Effluent Limitations and Monitoring IV-45
Requirements
IV-4 Annual Energy Requirements for Alter- IV-50
native 1
IV-5 Annual Chemical Requirements for IV-51
Alternative 1
IV-6 Alternative 1 - Cost and Staff IV-52
Requirements
IV-7 Alternative 2 - Cost and Staff IV-55
Requirements
-------
IV-8 Annual Energy Requirements for IV-56
Alternative 2
IV-9 Annual Chemical Requirements for IV-57
Alternative 2
IV-10 Alternative 3 - Cost and Staff IV-59
Requirements
IV-11 Annual Energy Requirements for IV-60
Alternative 3
IV-12 Annual Chemical Requirements for IV-61
Alternative 3
IV-13 Alternative 4 - Cost and Staff IV-64
Requirements
IV-14 Annual Energy Requirements for IV-65
Alternative 4
IV-15 Annual Chemical Requirements for IV-66
Alternative 4
IV-16 Alternative 5 - Cost and Staff IV-68
Requirements
IV-17 Annual Energy Requirements for IV-69
Alternative 5
IV-18 Annual Chemical Requirements for IV-70
Alternative 5
IV-19 Alternative 6 - Cost and Staff IV-12
Requirements
IV-20 Annual Energy Requirements for IV-73
Alternative 6
IV-21 Annual Chemical Requirements for IV-74
Alternative 6
IV-22 Design Criteria - Chlorination IV-78
IV-23 Design Criteria - Dechlorination IV-79
IV-24 Design Criteria - Ozonation IV-80
IV-25 Comparative Summary of Desinfection IV-81
Alternatives
IV-26 Alternative Sites for Chlorine IV-86
Contact Basins
-------
IV-27 Comparative Cost Summary of IV-89
Alternatives
IV-28 Annual Energy Consumption IV-90
IV-29 MMSD's Recommended Plan Cost IV-91
IV-30 Staffing Requirements Summary IV-93
IV-31 Cost Estimates IV-94
V-l Water Quality of Jones Island V-96
Effluent and Outer Harbor
V-2 Existing Air Quality at Jones V-98
Island and National Primary
Ambient Air-Quality Standards
V-3 Industries located on Jones Island V-102
V-4 Energy Consumption of the Jones V-104
Island WWTP
VI-1 Pollutant Loads to the Outer Harbor VI-108
VI-2 Land Impacts VI-115
VI-3 Matrix for Environmental Consequences VI-124
- Liquid Treatment Alternatives
-------
JONES ISLAND EIS APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Figure Number Page
II-l Vicinity Map II-6
II-2 MMSD Sewerage System Service Area II-6
II-3 Relationship of MWPAP-EIS Elements II-7
III-l Map of Jones Island WWTP III-9
III-2 Jones Island WWTP Schematic 111-10
IV-1 Alternative 1 - Upgrade/Expand IV-48
Existing Air Activated Sludge System
IV-2 Alternative 2 - Air Activated Sludge IV-53
with Primary Treatment
IV-3 Alternative 3 - Single Air Activated IV-51
Sludge System
IV-4 Alternative 4 - Two Parallel Air IV-62
Activated Sludge Systems
IV-5 Alternative 5 - High Purity IV-66
Oxygen Activated Sludge System
IV-6 Alternative 6 - Activated IV-70
Biofilter/Activated Sludge System
IV-7 Alternative Sites IV-82
IV-8 Site Layout for MMSD's Recommended IV-91
Plan
IV-9 Process Schematic IV-92
-------
I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Introduction
This appendix summarizes the environmental impact analysis
performed for alternative methods of sewage treatment at the
Jones Island Wastewater Treatment Plant CWWTP). The Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) is responsible for the
operation of the WWTP and has instituted the Milwaukee Water
Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP) to analyze various
forms of sewage treatment in order to minimize water pollution
in its service area. This appendix is part of the overall
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared on
the MWPAP.
B. Jones Island WWTP
The Jones Island WWTP is located at the northern end of
the Jones Island pennisula in the City of Milwaukee. It is
situated in close proximity to facilities which are used by
the Port of Milwaukee. Parts of the WWTP are fifty years
old and are eligible to be included on the National Register
of Historic Places. The Jones Island WWTP utilizes the
following wastewater treatment processes: coarse screening,
grit removal, fine screening, air activated sludge treatment,
phosphorus removal by pickle liquor addition, secondary
clarification, and chlorine disinfection, and the following
solids handling processes: chemical conditioning, vacuum
filtration, and heat drying which produces Milorganite, a low
grade organic fertilizer. Since the Jones Island WWTP is
presently operating at its capacity, it must be expanded and
upgraded in order to meet effluent discharge limitations as set
by the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES).
C. Alternatives
In order to meet future effluent limits, the MWPAP analyzed
alternatives in the Jones Island Facility Planning Element
(JIFPE) for liquid treatment processes, location and dis-
infection. The liquid treatment processes analyzed were as
follows:
- Alternative 1: Upgrade/expand existing air
activated sludge system.
- Alternative 2: Air activated sludge system
with primary treatment.
- Alternative 3: Single air activated sludge
system.
1-1
-------
- Alternative 4: Two parallel air activated
sludge systems.
- Alternative 5: High, purity oxygen activated
sludge system.
- Alternative 6: Activated biofilter activated
sludge system.
Disinfection alternatives include:
Chlorine
Ozone
Chlorine Dioxide
Location alternatives analyzed include:
New site
Existing site
Expansion sites
Although numerous alternatives were analyzed, the above three
groups are considered to be feasible. These alternatives are
discussed in more detail in Chapter IV, Alternatives.
D. MMSD's Recommended Plan
The MMSD's Recommended Plan is Alternative 2 using chlorine
disinfection facilities located on a 9.5 acre (3.8 hectare)
lakefill, adjacent to the existing East Plant, in the Outer
Harbor. The MWPAP's analysis showed this alternative to
have advantages over other alternatives analyzed. The
MMSD's basis for recommendation is based on the following
factors:
• The MMSD's recommended treatment system is within 5% of
the lowest cost alternative.
• Annual energy requirements are lower than present consump-
tion and lower than the other alternatives.
• The liquid treatment and solids handling system can be
located at the present WWTP site.
• The solids management system has flexibility for alternative
solids disposal and utilization options.
The chlorine disinfection system is the lowest cost system
and has the most wide spread usage of the various alter-
natives considered.
1-2
-------
The recommended wastewater treatment process is as follows:
coarse screens, grit removal, primary clarification, air activated
sludge treatment, phosphorus removal by pickle liquor addition,
secondary clarification, chlorine disinfection, dechlorination
with sulfur dioxide.
Solids handling process changes are discussed in the Solids
Management Facility Plan Element (SMFPE) and the Solids
Management EIS appendix.
Presently, the average annual flow to the Jones Island WWTP
is 135 million gallons per day CMGD) (5.91 cubic meters per
second, m^/sec). The JIFPE did not identify average annual
flows for the planning period. The projected flows (MGD)
are as follows:
1985 2005
Average Base (Dry Weather) 115 95
Maximum Month 160 150
Maximum Week 190 190
Maximum Day 300 300
Note 1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3/sec
Wastewater flows would decrease by more than 15% during the
planning period. The JIFPE discusses the MMSD's Recommended
Plan more thoroughly.
Implementation of the MMSD's Recommended Plan would have the
following impacts:
• All wastewater bypasses which dump untreated sewage
into the Inner Harbor of Milwaukee would be eliminated.
• Influent wastewater flows and loads would decrease by
more than 15% over the planning period.
9.5 acres (3.8 hectares) of the Outer Harbor would be
filled to site disinfection facilities.
• Short term employment would be generated during con-
struction .
The Milwaukee Harbor Commission would lose a small
amount of land.
Employment at the Jones Island WWTP would drop from 290
to 240 (these employees could be shifted to the South
Shore WWTP which will require additional staff).
Energy consumption would decrease from 2,500 billion
BTUs/year (2,645 x 109 kj/yr) to about 424 billion
BTUs/yr (448 x 1Q9 kj/yr).
1-3
-------
• Energy consumed during construction is projected by the
JIFPE to approximately 765 billion BTUs C8Q7 x 109 kj) .
• Chemical consumption would be as follows:
Chlorine 1055 tons/yr C 958 metric tons/yr)
Sulfur dioxide 352 tons/yr C 320 metric tons/yr)
Pickle liquor 1697 tons/yr as iron C1541 metric tons/yr)
Polymer 70 tons/yr C 64 metric tons/yr}
» Discharge limits as set by the Wisconsin Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) would not be
exceeded.
• The MMSD would incur the following costs:
Wastewater treatment capital cost $241.61 million
On-site solids handling capital cost $ 88.06 million
Off-site solids handling capital cost $ 8.20 million
Total capital cost $337.87 million
Total operation and maintenance cost $ 13.82 million
Total present worth $504.59 million
Effluent flows and loads would change as follows (Water
Quality appendix):
Flow - 17%
Suspended Solids (SS) - 17%
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - 17%
Phosphorus - 17%
Nitrogen + 200%
Ammonia + 275%
Cadmium - 17%
Chromium - 17%
Lead - 17%
The increase in nitrogen and ammonia is due to the addition
of anaerobic digestion as a form of sludge stabilization. No
form of side-stream nitrogen removal is presently proposed
by the JIFPE.
These impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter VI, Environmental
Consequences.
1-4
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
This appendix summarizes the environmental impact analyses
for the Jones Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP),
which currently serves a portion of the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MMSD). The evaluation of wastewater
treatment process alternatives contained in this appendix is
an integral part of the environmental impact study (EIS)
being carried out on the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program's (MWPAP) Wastewater System Plan (WSP). This study
has been prepared in accordance with the National,,Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Clear Water Act of 1977, and
the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1972 (WEPA).
The primary function of the MMSD is to minimize water pollution
in its service area by treating commercial, industrial and
domestic wastewater. The scope of the MMSD's water pollution
control effort has been altered by the judicial decisions of
three court cases: (1) The Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane
County, Case No. 152-342, (2) United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
Case No. 72C-1253, and (3\ United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, Case No. 77-2246. A more detailed
discussion of these three court cases is presented in the
MWPAP EIS.
In order to comply with the Federal and State requirements
as well as court decisions, the MMSD instituted the MWPAP
to investigate alternative courses of action for minimizing
water pollution in the planning area. The MMSD would choose
the most cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative
for treating wastewater flows in its planning area.
The expanded pollution control efforts of the MMSD would
require significant funding from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Construction
Grants Program. Since this funding constitutes a significant
major Federal action, an EIS for the MWPAP is required by
NEPA. The EPA issued two "Notices of Intent" related to the
MMSD's two large WWTPs (Jones Island and South Shore) on
October 21, 1977 and March 23, 1978. The issues listed in
the Notices of Intent are: construction impacts on water
quality, land use as a result of expansion, economics, energy,
water quality, aquatic habitats, fish and wildlife and limno-
logic effects of lakefill. These issues are considered in the
environmental impact analyses of alternatives for the Jones
Island WWTP*
II-5
-------
B. Wastewater Treatment at Jones Island
The Jones Island WWTP is located at the north end of the
Jones Island peninsula. It is bounded by the Kinnickinnic
River on the west, the Milwaukee Inner Harbor entrance on
the north, and the Milwaukee Outer Harbor adjacent to Lake
Michigan on the east. It is bounded on the South by the
Milwaukee Harbor Commission facilities. Figure II-l shows
the location of the WWTP. The plant serves the east central
portion of the service area as shown in Figure II-2.
The Jones Island WWTP was one of the first large activated
sludge treatment plants in the world. The original facility,
now called the West Plant, was designed to treat a flow of
85 million gallons per day (MGD), (3.7 m3/sec) and was
placed into operation in 1925. Pilot testing of wastewater
treatment processes preceeded construction of the plant,
which began in 1919. The East Plant, which was designed for
70 MGD (3 m3/sec), went into operation in 1935, and was
expanded in 1952 to accommodate an additional 45 MGD (2.0
m^/sec). In 1974, the Jones Island WWTP was designated a
National Civil Engineering Historic Landmark by the American
Society of Civil Engineers. It became eligible to be listed
on the National Register of Historic Sites in 1979.
The existing wastewater treatment processes at the Jones
Island WWTP consist of preliminary and secondary treatment
as well as phosphorus removal and disinfection. A soil
conditioner and low grade fertilizer, Milorganite, is pro-
duced from heat-dried wastewater solids.
Wastewater enters the WWTP through influent siphons running
under the Milwaukee and Kinnickinnic Rivers. Preliminary
treatment is performed by bar screens, grit chambers and
fine screens which remove large solids, trash and grit. The
fine screens serve the purpose of the more common primary
settling basins. Solids removed from the wastewater during
preliminary treatment are sent to a landfill.
Secondary treatment consists of an air activated sludge
process and phosphorus removal. Solids settle out in the
secondary clarifiers and are then sent to sludge thickeners
where the sludge is chemically conditioned before being sent
to vacuum filters for dewatering. The dewatered sludge is
heat-dried and processed to make Milorganite. Sludge in
excess of the capacity of the Milorganite processing faci-
lities is taken to a landfill.
The effluent wastewater is disinfected with chlorine before
being discharged into the Milwaukee Outer Harbor.
II-6
-------
FIGURE
DATE
VICINITY MAP'JONES ISLAND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SOURCE
M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
HfjEcolSciences
^III ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
-------
2
IT
0
0
a:
OL
h- 1-
LJ UJ CO
^"" *"^ ^1
S£g 2
X
v«
u
c
0>
a.
o.
o
(A
0
V.
O
0
a>
CO
•o
(n
l_
1
15
0
a
Z l_ H 2
O 0 5
h- < O u
3 2 != >
, ~~ z CO
— 1 , LU z
i_ ^ X
(£ Z S£ ^
uj uj ° £
61° 2
5 o o
or o
QJ ^~
li I J^
0 UJ
<
3t
2
X
TD
C
0>
Q.
a.
o
c
0)
E
c
o>
<
k.
0
"o.
a>
u
0)
c
a.
0.
a
a.
3
t
•o
c
5
1
<
t
\
t
A
A
i%
V
0
-3
X
•o
0)
o.
o.
o
"o
o
Q.
E
D
7
3
C
O
U
CO
X
c
a.
o.
o
a.
i_
^^
^
4
*
^
«
••
E
c
0>
k.
o
^^
CO
J
*•
3
0
CO
X
^p^
C
O
.£ o.
TJ a.
c o
a>
a- o
8- 1
a. c
£ s
^ f
1 I
—I U.
"•5
c
<
D
a.
a.
o
«h
1 p*
0)
>
o
<~
1
«
4
^
»
"o
- WWTP
>>
"o
O
0
1
1
!
X
'•o
«
&
0
"c
•>
o»
a
0
'f
m^
(
b
A
•TO
"o
CO
co
CO
>J
^ *^
5-S
o"^r
— «
O c
lx ^s
o.
o.
o
M
a>
*^
o
c
a>
"a
O
CO
0
i
"o
O
a>
I
_c
__ ^
LU 3
O
fO ^«* ^»
2
•-1 » E
""^ ^ 3
2 o
£ o
3
o>
iZ
Q.
Ld 3
|__ CO
CO
-------
C. Planning Area
The Jones Island WWTP serves the older portions of the City
of Milwaukee. Figure II-2 indicates the service areas which
are tributary to the Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs
along with the MMSD's planning area. MMSD has designated
three general service areas: (1) that area which the Jones
Island WWTP serves; 92 square miles C238 km2), which includes
23.2 square miles C60.1 km2) of Combined Sewer Service Area
(CSSA), (2) that area served by the South Shore WWTP; 31 square
miles (80 km ), and (3) a common area which is served by both
WWTPS; 82 square miles (212 km2). Flow diversion structures
in this common area allow wastewater to be diverted to either
WWTP.
D. Operating Problems
The Jones Island WWTP has experienced problems in the past
which have caused it to exceed the effluent limits as set by
its Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
permit. There have been numerous violations of the five day
biochemical oxygen demand (BODr), suspended solids (SS), fecal
coliform and total phosphorus limits. Recently, improved
operating procedures have reduced the number of violations.
The major problems of the Jones Island WWTP are due to bypasses
of sewage and solids overflows within the facility caused by
insufficient preliminary treatment and solids handling faci-
lities. The sludge dryers and vacuum filters are presently
overloaded, thus limiting solids handling capacities.
Although the design capacity of Jones Island (200 MGD; 9 m3/sec)
is rarely exceeded, effluent violations can occur at flows
greater than 140 MGD (61 m-^/sec) due to insufficient solids
handling capacity and flow limitations at the fine screens.
Therefore, structures and mechanical units are being con-
sidered for replacement during the 1985-2005 planning period.
E. Relationship with other EIS Elements
The Jones Island EIS appendix is an integral part of the
comprehensive EIS that is being prepared for the Milwaukee
Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP-EIS). Figure II-3
shows how the various EIS elements are interrelated. The
Jones Island EIS appendix primarily addresses the environmental
impact analyses of the feasible wastewater treatment processes.
The Solids Management EIS Appendix addresses the environmental
impacts of the various solids handling alternatives for the
Jones Island and South Shore WWTPs.
II-7
-------
F. Scope of the Jones Island EIS Appendix
The Jones Island appendix of the MWPAP EIS includes the
following:
A brief history of the Jones Island WWTP
The effluent limitations required both the Wisconsin
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit
and the related court cases.
• A description of the existing conditions at the Jones
Island WWTP along with an evaluation of the existing
facilities.
The projected wastewater flows and organic loads for
the planning period which would be used to design the
proposed wastewater treatment facilities.
• An identification of the feasible alternative waste-
water treatment processes.
• An evaluation of the feasible alternative wastewater
treatment processes, disinfection and location of
treatment facilities.
The environmental impacts of the feasible wastewater
treatment processes, disinfection alternatives, and
alternatives for location at the proposed treatment
facilities.
MMSD's Recommended plan for wastewater treatment at
Jones Island WWTP.
• A summary of the impacts of MMSD's Recommended Plan.
NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1500, 40 CFR. 6).
• WEPA requirements (NR 150).
II-8
-------
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. General
The age of the process equipment at the Jones Island Waste-
water Treatment Plant (WWTP) ranges from 25 to 55 years and
much of it has outlived its service life. The Jones Island
WWTP utilizes the conventional air activated sludge secondary
treatment process along with fine screening of wastewater
solids and chlorine disinfection of the treated effluent.
Solids are heat-dried to produce the soil conditioner and
low-grade fertilizer Milorganite (short for Milwaukee
organic nitrogen). A more in-depth discussion of the existing
conditions at the Jones Island WWTP follows.
The Jones Island WWTP is surrounded by the Outer Harbor,
the Kinnickinnic River, and the Milwaukee River. Figure III-l
shows the physical layout of the WWTP. The Jones Island
WWTP consists of the original West Plant, which was completed
in 1925, and the East Plant, which was expanded in 1935, and
again in 1952.
B. Collection System
The service area contributory to the Jones Island WWTP
consists of 98 miles (158 km) of interceptor sewers, rang-
ing in size from 8 to 84 inches (20 to 210 cm) in diameter,
and approximately 553 miles (890 km) of combined sewers,
ranging in size from 8 to 156 inches (20 to 396 cm) in
diameter. An area within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD), known as the diversion area, contributes to
either the Jones Island or South Shore treatment facility.
At the present time this diversion area is served entirely
by the South Shore WWTP.
The intercepting sewers serving the Jones Island WWTP are
divided into the low-level and high-level interceptor systems.
The low-level interceptors serve the portion of the Jones
Island service area along the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and
Kinnickinnic Rivers. These areas are generally lower in
elevation than the rest of the service area and contain a
large number of industrial connections. The high-level
interceptors serve the remainder of the Jones Island service
area. These areas are generally higher in elevation and
consist of residential and commercial connections.
III-9
-------
Influent wastewater from the low-level intercepting
sewer system and the high level intercepting sewer system
enters the Jones Island treatment facility through two
inverted, double-barreled siphons which cross the inner
portion of the Milwaukee Harbor. The Erie Street siphon
lies under the harbor entrance, east of the Park Street
siphon, which crosses the mouth of the Kinnickinnic River.
Both siphons terminate in the Coarse Screen House on Jones
Island.
C. Process Description
A detailed discussion of the wastewater treatment processes
at Jones Island WWTP follows. Figure III-2 shows the
schematic of the facility. Table III-l contains the speci-
fications of the various unit processes. The Jones Island
Facility Plan Element (JIFPE) can be consulted for addi-
tional information.
1. Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary treatment at the Jones Island WWTP is comprised
of mechanically cleaned coarse bar screens, grit removal
chambers, and fine screens. Coarse screening in wastewater
treatment is provided to remove large materials which would
damage or clog pumps, valves, or other downstream mechanical
equipment.
Grit chambers are designed to remove sand, gravel, or other
heavy inorganic and non-putrescrible organic material
having a specific gravity near that of sand and silt. Grit
is removed to protect downstream mechanical equipment from
abrasion and accelerated deterioration, and to reduce
deposition of solids in pipelines, channels, and conduits.
The fine screens remove small solids which are not readily
biodegradable in the downstream secondary process and would,
therefore, interfere with effluent quality.
The high and low-level coarse screens are operable and
remove large debris from the influent wastewater. However,
during high flow or high solids loading conditions, all
screens are in operation with no redundancy (i.e. no backup),
The screened debris from both the high and low-level flows
is ground and partially dewatered in a hammer mill-type stem
crusher and taken to a landfill.
111-10
-------
HIG
SE
KINNICKINNIC
RIVER
LEGEND
Raw Sewage
—" " Mu*f *jonu^
Mix Liquor
Return Sludge
Waste Sludge
Effluent
Fertilizer
FIGURE
DATE
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EcdSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Nvoinotw axvi
*
i
if
-*l
§3
m
J
J
*
81
OS
UJ
O.
u.
UJ
o
cc
o
Ul
I
Ul
c
a.
QJ
O
UJ
X
O
CO
0_
I-
Q
z
CO
CO
UJ
o
-3
C\J
oc
n
O
-------
TABLE III-l
UNIT PROCESS DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
PRIMARY TREATMENT
Coarse Bar Screens
No. of Units - High Level 1
No. of Units - Low Level 2
Low Level Pumps
No. of Pumps 3
Capacity of Each Pump 30.2 MGD
Grit Channels
No. of Channels 8
Fine Screens
No. of Units 8
Capacity 137 MGD: Limiting Factor
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Aeration Tanks
No. of Tanks
West Plant 24
East Plant 20
Hydraulic Retention Time at Design
Flow = 200 MGD l'2
West Plant 5.7 hrs.
East Plant 5.7 hrs.
Hydraulic Retention Time At Peak
Flow - 300 MGD I'2
West Plant 4.2 hrs
East Plant 4.2 hrs
Clarifiers
No. of Units
West Plant 15
East Plant 10
III-ll
-------
TABLE III-l (CONTINUED)
UNIT PROCESS DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Overflow Rate at Design Flow = 200 MGD2•
West Plant
East Plant
Overflow Rate at Peak Flow = 300 MGD2
West Plant
East Plant
Return Activated Sludge Pumps
No. of Pumps
West Plant
East Plant
Total capacity of Pumps
West Plant
East Plant
950 gpd/sq. ft.
1050 gpd/sq. ft.
1420 gpd/sq ft.
1570 gpd/sq. ft.
36 MGD
45 MGD
Disinfection
Chlorinators
Detention Time
200 MGD
300 MGD
1 sq. ft. = 9.29 x 10~2 m2
1 gpd/sq ft. = 0.0407 irfYm2/ - day
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10 2m3/sec
1 Ib/day = 0.4536 kg/day
Disinfection
10 min.
7 min.
Point of application
Effluent channel where
East Plant effluent is
combined with West Plant
effluent
Plant Outfall
Receiving Body of water
1
Lake Michigan
Milwaukee Outer Harbor
Based on a 58:42 flow split between the East and West Plants.
Based on a West Plant RAS flow of 36 MGD (1.6 m3/sec1 and an East
Plant flow of 45 MGD (2.0m /sec).
Based on a detention time of 15 minutes at a flow of 138 MGD
(6.05 m /sec).
111-12
-------
After passing through the coarse bar screens, the low-
level wastewater flow is combined with the screened, high-
level wastewater flow. The combined coarse screened wastewater
flows into the North Gate House (see Figure II-2) where the
flow is divided among eight parallel grit removal channels.
Flow through the channels is controlled by manually operated
sluice gates located at the inlet and outlet ends of the
channels. The velocity of the screened wastewater in the
grit channels is maintained at less than one foot per second
(0.3 m/sec) by opening or closing the sluice gates. At this
velocity, grit settles to the bottom while the organic
material remains suspended in the wastewater.
The present average influent flows are less than the design
of 200 MGD (9 m3/sec), ranging from approximately 130 to 150
MGD (5.7 to 6.6 m^/sec); therefore, the velocity through the
channels is less than the design velocity, resulting in
additional settling of grit.
The wastewater flows from the grit chambers into the fine
screen house where it is divided between two feed channels.
Each channel feeds a bank of four stainless steel rotary
fine screens which are individually controlled by influent
and effluent motor operated gate valves. The fine screens
have a capacity of 140 MGD (6.1 m3/sec) with all screens in
operation and this provides the limiting hydraulic capacity
for the WWTP.
Wastewater enters the interior of the rotating fine screen
through small rectangular slots leaving the solids lodged on
the outer surface of the drum. Revolving bristle brushes
operating along the top of the drum roll the solids onto a
belt conveyor which transports solids to a manually controlled
ejector. Screenings from the two ejectors are taken to a
landfill. The fine screened flows are combined and proceed
to secondary treatment.
The fine screens remove inorganic material and screenings
which pass through the coarse bar screens and grit chambers.
During high-flow periods (greater than 140 MGD, 6.1 m-^
the screens clog and have a damming effect on the flow
channels. This results in channel backup and subsequent
discharge into the final effluent channel via the flow
diversion structure.
111-13
-------
2. Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment is provided at the Jones Island WWTP by
the conventional activated sludge process, consisting of
aeration tanks, clarifiers, and a recycle line. The objective
of the activated sludge process is to introduce the wastewater
into a suspension of highly active microorganisms which
remove the biodegradable organic matter that exert an oxygen
demand. The active microorganisms multiply during aeration
of the wastewater and are removed as sludge in the secondary
clarifiers, along with inert and non-biodegradable suspended
matter. A recycle line is provided to introduce a portion of
the microorganisms from the secondary clarifiers into the
wastewater entering the aeration tanks from preliminary
treatment. Recycling retains the microorganisms in the
treatment system longer than the wastewater flow, allowing a
more efficient removal of the organic pollutants. Jones
Island WWTP secondary treatment facilities are divided into
two systems; the West Plant and the East Plant, which are
described below.
a. West Plant
(1) Flow Channels and Galleries
The West Plant receives 40% of the wastewater flow through a
fixed weir bypass which is controlled by downstream sluice
gates. The flow enters an aerated mixing channel where it is
combined with return activated sludge (RAS) from the recycle
line and filtrate from the sludge dewatering process. This
mixed liquor then flows into the secondary process flow
system which is controlled from within the West Plant gallery
complex.
The mixed liquor enters a vault in the west gallery con-
taining four sluice gates, which control flows to the
aeration basin feed channels. Throttling these gates causes
head increase in the mixing chamber and bypass structure
with eventual bypassing of fine screened wastewater to the
effluent channels. These gates may also be used to control
the flow split between the East and West Plants, although
they are not utilized in this fashion in present operation.
Mixed liquor is split at the sluice gate vault more or less
equally between the north and south galleries. Each gallery
feeds twelve aeration basins from one of the two feed chan-
nels provided for system redundancy. The aeration tank feed
rate is controlled by influent gate valves and measured by
flow meters.
111-14
-------
(2) Aeration Basins
The 24 West Plant aeration basins are two-pass plug-flow
tanks, each. with, a center wall that divides the tank into
two flow channels. The 12 north bank aeration basins have
an effective length of 472 feet C144 ml. The 12 south bank
basins have an effective length of 443 feet C136 ml. Process
air is provided at the East and West Plants by two air
compressors, with two compressors used as stand-by units.
Air is introduced into the aeration tank through ceramic
porous-plate fine bubble diffusers, arranged on the bottom
in a four-row ridge and furrow pattern and fed by pipes which
extend down from a double air header. Air flow to each
basin is metered.
The influent stream is baffled, and the effluent spills into
a steel weir box which discharges and meters the flow.
The operational characteristics for the West Plant are
fairly typical of conventional activated sludge systems.
However, the flow split to the West Plant and to each
aeration tank is not adjusted regularly. This would overload
the aeration tank during high solids loading periods and/or
under-aerate a portion of the mixed liquor, reducing the
unit's efficiency.
Control of return activated sludge is required to maintain
adequate suspended solids concentrations in the aeration
basins. The return sludge capacity appears inadequate for
proper solids control. This becomes evident during high
flow periods when substantial decreases in mixed liquor
concentration are observed and solids are washed into the
secondary clarifiers. This results in a decreased treatment
efficiency in the aeration basins.
(3) Clarifiers and Thickeners
Mixed liquor from each bank of aeration basins flows into
channels located between the north and south galleries which
feed the clarifiers and thickeners. In the original design
and construction, eleven 98-foot (30 m) diameter clarifiers
and four 43-foot (13 m) diameter sludge thickeners were
provided for solids separation. In recent years, modifications
have been made to the design and operation of the clarifiers
and thickeners to increase the solids concentration of the
waste activated sludge/ and allow improved dewatering prior
to sludge drying. As a result, three clarifiers have been
converted into modified sludge thickeners, and thickeners 1
through 4 are fed mixed liquor rather than return sludge.
(See Figures III-l and III-2).
111-15
-------
The four 43-foot (13 m) diameter thickeners and each of the
three 98-foot (30 ra) diameter converted clarifiers receive
the mixed liquor flows from eight aeration tanks, with two
aeration tanks supplying the mixed liquor flow to each
thickener. The remaining eight clarifiers receive the mixed
liquor flows from the remaining sixteen aeration tanks.
The primary distinction between the clarifiers and modified
thickeners is their settling modes. The thickeners are
operated at an average overflow rate approximately 40 to 50
percent less than the clarifiers and provide some storage
for the waste activated sludge (WAS).
Each unit is equipped with either a sludge scraper or
suction arm sludge removal mechanism. The thickener settled
sludge flows by gravity to the acid house for processing
into Milorganite. The clarifier settled sludge is piped by
gravity into one of the two RAS channels provided for system
redundancy in the central gallery.
The influent to both the clarifiers and the thickeners is
mixed liquor, and the effluent from both is discharged into
the plant effluent channels.
Secondary clarification is a critically important unit
process since its operation ultimately determines effluent
quality. The conversion of some clarifiers to the thickening
mode places the remaining clarifiers under strain. This
strain is most evident under high flow conditions when the
actual overflow rates in the clarifiers may be well over
1000 gpd/ft2 (40.7 m3/day-m2) while the overall average
shows smaller values. The West Plant clarifiers also do not
use influent baffles to dissipate inlet velocities, which
results in short-circuiting. This problem could be compounded
if the effluent weirs are not level.
b. East Plant
(1) Flow Channels and Galleries
Approximately 60 percent of the fine screened wastewater
flows to the East Plant in a single channel to a fixed weir
bypass similar to that in the West Plant system. As in the
West Plant, duplex feed channels and RAS channels have
provided for system redundancy and all channels are aerated
by fine bubble diffusers to promote aerobic conditions.
111-16
-------
The wastewater then flows from east to west the full length
of the West Plant in one of two parallel aerated channels
running along the north wall of the Milorganite Storage
Building. These channels discharge into a mixing channel in
which return activated sludge (HAS) and pickle liquor
(ferrous sulfate) are added. This mixed liquor then enters
the eastern most gallery, one of two East Plant galleries
which run parallel north to south. The east gallery con-
tains two channels, which feed mixed liquor to the 20 East
Plant aeration basins. The west gallery contains two RAS
channels and a pump station.
(2) Aeration Basins
The aeration basins in the East Plant, numbered 1 through 20
north to south, are similar to those in the West Plant. They
are two-pass flow tanks with a center dividing wall and
ceramic porous-plate coarse-bubble diffusers set in a five
row longitudinal pattern.
The East Plant basins are approximately 268 feet (81.7 m)
longer than those in the West Plant, providing a flow
channel 22 feet (6.7 m) wide and 720 feet (220 m) long. The
diffusers in the East Plant are arranged in a four-row
longitudinal pattern, rather than in the ridge and furrow
pattern used at the West Plant. A single elevated air
header feeds two passes in adjacent tanks.
The operational characteristics for the East Plant are
similar to those of the West Plant, both being typical of
conventional activated sludge systems. As in the West
Plant, the flow split to the East Plant and to each aeration
tank is not adjusted regularly, overloading the aeration
basins during high solids loading periods and/or under-
aerating a portion of the mixed liquor.
The East Plant return sludge capacity appears inadequate,
especially during high flow periods when appreciable de-
creases in mixed liquor concentration are observed and
solids are washed into the secondary clarifiers.
(3) Clarifiers
Mixed liquor from the aeration basins flows into channels
which feed ten double-tank clarifiers located between the
east and west galleries. Each clarifier consists of two
adjacent tanks situated in an overlapping figure "8" ar-
rangement and discharge to an East Plant effluent channel.
This channel in turn discharges to the two plant effluent
channels which pass under the East Plant.
111-17
-------
The secondary clarifiers in the East Plant are baffled,
reducing the possibility of short circuiting and permitting
a greater degree of quiescent settling of the mixed liquor
suspended solids from the aeration tanks. If the weirs
were not level and high flows occurred, then excess solids
could be washed into the clarifiers from the aeration
tanks, increasing the solids escaping in the effluent.
The weirs were recently releveled.
c. Pickle Liquor System
Pickle liquor (ferrous sulfate) is a by-product of a local
manufacturing operation and is utilized for precipitating
phosphorus from the wastewater with the settled sludge.
Pickle liquor is added in excess to the East Plant mixed
liquor to promote carryover of iron in the East Plant waste
activated sludge to the West Plant system. Pickle liquor
leaves the Jones Island system in the effluent as soluble
iron and as carryover solids. The pickle liquor dosing rates
do not vary with plant flows or influent soluble phosphorus
loadings. The iron in the pickle liquor combines with the
phosphorus causing it to settle. This iron-phosphorus complex
is removed during secondary clarification.
A contingency plan has been developed to supply iron for
phosphorus removal in the event the pickle liquor supply is
unavailable. Ferric chloride which is presently used to
condition the sludge could be added to the aeration basins.
3. Solids Handling
Grit is removed from each settling channel by an overhead
clamshell-type shovel. Influent and effluent channel gates
are closed, the channel is dewatered and the grit is removed.
Solids removed by the fine screens are removed by a pneumatic
ejector system. Fine screening was intended to serve in lieu
of primary clarification. The heavier organic loading to
the activated sludge system results in larger sludge volumes
which facilitate Milorganite production. Primary clari-
fication would preclude Milorganite production.
All solids removed in preliminary treatment processes were
previously incinerated in a five-stage, multiple hearth
furnace. Fuel oil was used to support combustion in the
furnace. Presently, these solids are taken directly to a
landfill.
111-18
-------
All waste activated sludge is gravity thickened in the West
Plant. (See Figure III-2) Thickened sludge is then condi-
tioned by ferric chloride addition. The sludge is dewatered
by vacuum filters producing filter cake. The filtrate is
returned to the head end of the West plant. The filter cake
(dewatered sludge) is then passed to the Dryer House. There
the filter cake is fed to the dryers to produce the soil
conditioner, Milorganite. Excess filter cake is landfilled.
Exhaust gases pass through a wet scrubber and then are
discharged to the atmosphere through a stack. Particles are
screened into three size classifications. The largest are
recycled, while the two smaller classes become the finished
product. Milorganite is bagged, sealed and shipped through-
out the country. Solids handling is discussed more thoroughly
in the Solids Management Facility Plan Element (SMFPE), the
Total Solids Management Program and the Solids Management
EIS Appendix.
4. Disinfection of Effluent
Chlorine solution for disinfection is applied at the point
where the effluents of the East and West Plants meet.
Liquid chlorine shipped in railroad tank cars is stored in
the chlorine unloading station, which houses two railroad
spurs and equipment for drawing chlorine out of the tank
cars. Evaporators convert the liquid chlorine to the
gaseous form. The gas is fed by two chlorinators with two
on standby. Potable water serves as the source of water
supply for chlorine solution. A compound system is used
to automatically pace the chlorinator dosages. Control signals
obtained from the operative plant effluent flow meter and from
two chlorine residual analyzers are superimposed to provide
control of chlorine dosage and residual as both the flow and
chlorine demand vary. Current dosages typically range from
3,000 to 12,000 Ib/day (1400 to 5400 kg/day.)
After chlorination, the effluent passes through flow measure-
ment devices. Since only one effluent channel has a monitoring
and recording device installed, its reading is multiplied by
two as an estimate of total WWTP flow. Total plant effluent
includes secondary effluent plus inplant bypasses and gravity
thickener overflows, and is recorded in the west gallery.
The effluent channel continues beneath the East Plant to the
bulkhead at the lake edge. Here, the effluent passes up a
vertical riser and is discharged to Lake Michigan through a
rectangular port in the bulkhead.
111-19
-------
Effluent quality improved after July 1977, when additional
solids disposal capacity became fully operational. Monthly
reports sent to the DNR indicated 18 monthly violations for
Suspended Solids CSS} and 5 monthly violations for five day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD} for the period from
January 1975 through December 1977. For the period after
December 1977, there was one monthly SS violation and no
monthly BOD violations.
D. Wastewater Influent Characteristics
Jones Island influent wastewater flows and loads are presently
greater than those going to the South Shore WWTP. The
average constituent concentration in the Jones Island
influent is greater than a typical facility experiences due
to the large number of industries and breweries in the
service area. This is an aid to the production of Milorganite,
but can cause difficulties in the WWTP's efforts to meet the
WPDES permit limitations. Table III-2 summarizes influent
wastewater characteristics.
A statistical analysis of the historical influent wastewater
flows to the Jones Island WWTP indicates that the average
weekday flow is 16 percent greater than the average weekend
flow. This observation is attributed to the effect of
industrial wastewater flows. Wastewater flow during 1977-78
was significantly less than 1975-76 due to an increased flow
diversion from Jones Island to the South Shore WWTP.
Examination of the historical BOD data indicates that the
BOD concentration has decreased approximately 10 percent
from 1975 to 1978. The decrease in concentration, coupled
with decreasing flows, shows a substantial reduction in BOD
mass loads to the plant. However, this observed decrease
does not necessarily indicate a trend, since the errors
associated with BOD determination may be of this magnitude.
The average BOD mass loading for January-June 1978 was 11
percent greater than for July-December 1977.
The total suspended solids mass loads for January-June
1978 were 15 percent greater than for July-December 1977.
Examination of the operating characteristics also indicated
an increase in SS concentrations in the aeration basins.
No statistically significant trends were noted for phosphorus
and nitrogen loadings to the plant. Table III-3 shows the
trend in constituent influent concentration to Jones Island.
111-20
-------
TABLE III-2
INFLUENT WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
Parameter
Flow
BOD
BOD
SS
SS
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
TKN
TKN
Units
MGD
mg/1
1000
mg/1
1000
mg/1
1000
mg/1
1000
Ib/d
Ib/d
Ib/d
Ib/d
Minimum
Day
69.
100.
98.
151.
112.
2.
2.
18.
15.
6
0
7
0
3
5
8
5
7
Maximum
Day
234.
670.
643.
662.
741.
12.
13.
54.
65.
0
0
1
0
7
1
4
5
3
Average
Day
127.
314.
327.
329.
346.
6.
6.
37.
38.
5
0
3
0
6
6
8
2
7
Note: January 1975 - June 1978
1 Ib/d = 0.4536 kg/d
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3/s
Reference: JIFPE
II1-21
-------
TABLE III-3
AVERAGE ANNUAL INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter
Flow
BOD
BOD
SS
SS
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
TKN
TKN
Units
MGD
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
Through
Jan 75
Dec 76
139.1
335
386.7
298
345.0
6.3
7.2
35.1
40.2
Through
Jan 77
Jun 78
127.5
314
327.3
329
346.7
6.6
6.8
37.2
38.7
Through
Jan 75
Jun 78
134.1
327
362.8
311
345.9
6.4
7.0
35.9
39.6
Reference: JIFPE
1 Ib/d = 0.4536 kg./day
1 MGD = 4.3813 x lo"2 m3/s
TKN: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen includes organic
and ammonia (NH-^) nitrogen
111-22
-------
Approximately 430 industries discharge their wastewater into
sewers which flow to Jones Island WWTP. Jones Island serves
43 of the 59 major industries identified in the User Charge/
Industrial Cost Recovery Study. These industries were res-
ponsible for 19.5 MGD (0.85 m^/sec), 265,000 Ibs. per day
(120,000 kg/day) of BOD and 156,000 Ibs. per day (70,800
kg/day) of SS. Table III-4 delineates the relative contribution
of flows and loads to Jones Island originating from each
source.
E. Wastewater Effluent Characteristics
Typically, Jones Island WWTP removes 95% of common influent
wastewater constituents (i.e. BOD, SS, phosphorus) and
discharges an effluent of 20 mg/1 of BOD, and 20 mg/1 of SS and
0.5 mg/1 of phosphorus. The WPDES requires effluent limits
(monthly average) of 30 mg/1 for BOD, 30 mg/1 for SS and 1 mg/1
for phosphorus. These limits are shown in Table IV-3.
However, when flows to the WWTP are high, as is typical of
early spring, effluent violations are frequent. Biological
activity for secondary treatment is slower during these cold
periods coinciding with higher organic and hydraulic loads.
Also, the high wastewater flows cause solids handling
problems, increasing the likelihood of effluent violations.
Possible reasons for these violations are: (1) higher
emphasis on Milorganite production than on optimum process
operation, (2) inadequate solids handling capacity, (3)
hydraulic washout of solids from the secondary clarifiers
and thickeners, (4) spring runoff causing excessive waste-
water and large quantities of inorganic material in the
sludge, adversely affecting sludge dewaterability, (5) vari-
ability in the industrial production period which is higher
during the week, and, (6) higher hydraulic and organic
loads occur during a cold weather period when biological
activity is lowered. Consequently, higher solids inventories
are required to treat the increased pollutant loads to the
WWTP, and hydraulic washout of solids in the WWTP effluent
occurs regularly. Although the WWTP was designed to treat a
flow of 200 MGD (9.7 m /sec), effluent violations can occur at
flows greater than 140 MGD (6.6 m^/sec) . For more information
on effluent limitations consult Jones Island Facility Plan
Element (JIFPE).
Effluent characteristics from the East and West Plants are
listed in Table III-5. Total effluent characteristics are
listed in Table III-6. In-plant wastewater bypasses (discussed
further in the next section) are added after the effluent is
combined (See Figure III-2). Even though in-plant bypasses
exist, average effluent concentrations do not exceed WPDES
limits.
111-23
-------
CfP
in
in
ro
o
in
•H
C
-H
C
Q
O
CQ
m
CM
I
o
in
i
• H
C
•rH
C
H
Cn
H
I S
M H
H Q
M H
W W
r4 U
m a
«C D
EH O
w
K
H
EH
I
H
EH
W
<
s
1
in
o
CM
i
in
in
ro
in
CM
l
in
03
•H
O
SH-
0)
g
0
o
TD
C
0}
0
•H
^j
(0
a)
g
o
a
M
m
0)
u
0
Jt-j
P,
i— -1
03
•H
!H
-P
ui
3
r^J
C
H
C
0
•H
4J
03
^
-P 5
rH O
-H r-H
U-J IH
C C
H H
V-l
QJ
JJ
(0
S
en
C
•H
rH
0
O
u
(1)
01
Oi
(S
d
111-24
-------
0)
m
H
H
PQ
<]
EH
:TERISTICS
^NT
\_/ r^
PH CM
ffi EH
u en
H
EH 5
2
rT"i Q
D 2
J <
fa
EL, £H
w en
P H
W
M
CQ
s
0
u
1 %BOD % SS %TOTP %TKN
j/1) Removed Removed Removed Removi
f-4 W '
t^ (~?
EH ~
rH
CM \
t-3 Cn
Oc
G
cn ~
i
r— i
EH tP
OP
c
EH •—
, — ,
iH
\^
en Cn
en J_
rH
D Cn
0 g
PQ •—
>> r^
i> t-4
O O
rH S
fa
r^ i
[^ ^O
o^ r*^
r*** vo
^^ o^
co in
en en
o in
o r^
rH
cn o
O rH
0 0
cn Tf
iH CN
0 0
cn rH
iH
o oo
iH rH
in o
oo in
oo ro
rH rH
-P
CO
!>i 3
i — i cn
r^ 3 3
r — t~o
r- in
en cn
0 rH
0 0
rH rH
r^ rH
0 rH
0 0
O CO
CN CN
0 0
o ^o
rH rH
H CN
rH rH
CO CO
m r^
CN rH
rH rH
iH
iH CU
cu &
A g
o cu
-P r>
u o
O 2
cn
in
in
O^
^D
Q}
CO
1
1
1
1
1
00
CN
0
00
rH
-5T
i~D
CN
rH
iH
CU
n
g
CU
o
cu
Q
in
en
oo
cn
cn
i — i
0
o
in
o
cn
rH
00
rH
00
rH
O
rH
^1
SH
(0
rj
C
co rd
I** l"73
cn
rH
vo in
in oo
cn cn
in CN
O CO
rH
cn cn
0 0
0 0
o cn
00 CN
o o
o **
CN CN
CO rH
rH CN
oo cn
co m
O CN
rH rH
>1
SH
rd
3 JC
in U
& SH
cu to
fa S
cn co
r*- r-
00 OO
oo ^r
cn cn
OO -31
l> CO
o cn
rH O
O O
00 «3-
^r tr
o o
CN 00
CN CN
i> cn
rH rH
cn oo
rH V£>
m oo
rH rH
rH
•H
SH >i
O< (0
< S
CO
in
cn
in
CN
o
rH
rH
rH
O
T
rr
o
co
CN
rH
CN
<*
r>
OO
rH
CU
C
rj
ro
r^»
in
cn
in
in
00
0
rH
O
iH
00
0
[ —
rH
in
rH
^_
r>
CN
rH
0)
rd
i-J
CU
^
<;
CO
00
g
CN
I
O
X
ro
00
ro
P
O
S
w
CM
CU
U
C
0)
iH
0)
cu
K
1
cu
Q
C
0)
Cn co
O rH
O
en
td
o
•H
g
0)
cu
c
cu
o
o
•H
PQ en
CO
in
O
O
en
en
c
0)
co tn
3 o
CO SH £
3 O i
SH & z
o a
£ co 7!
DJ O -S
COXrg
O CM H
CM (1) V?
rd 3 rd
-P rH 4J
O O O
E-i cn EH
CM CM ••
EH J 2
O O W
EH en EH
111-25
-------
STICS
H
W
EH
rH g
H <|
H 33
u
rH" EH
ca 2
< w
EH D
t-3
Cn
W
J
EH
O
EH
%BOD5 % SS %TOTP %TKN
1 ) Removed Removed Removed Remov<
\
K^ C
Ps "••*'
^_^
rH
CM "X.
Op
PH
CO *•-
^~,
rH
P, \^
EH tT1
OcS
C
P . ^,^
,-^
rH
\
CO g
• — •
„ — ,
rH
mx.
P C7>
0 g
CQ —
5f~\
1— 1
O O
H 'S,
Cn — '
•"31 oo «a<
co r-- r--
VD m vo
in m vo
00 O rH
•=3- r- en
rH CN O
rH rH rH
O O O
^r ^o in
CN CN CN
000
rH "V OO
rH rH rH
co m r--
rH rH
CN in •=!<
rH VO rH
^3" OO OO
rH rH rH
^1
CD
Q
4-1 g
01 CD
>< 3 4J
rH !jl Q.
r~ 3 3 0)
r~ hi >o en
^^ 00 VO
0 rH 1
rH rH 1
O O 1
r- us oo
CN OO OO
000
in vo in
rH rH rH
r~ co H
rH rH iH
^J* ^D ^D
p"** o*^ ^>o
CN rH CN
rH rH rH
M &H
H CD CD
CD n &
O p p^
o CD CD
4-) > U
o o CD
O 2 P
in co
r-- r-
oo in
en en
oo in
CN rr
CN en
en oo
CN rH
CN rH
o o
rr oo
m oo
0 0
0 0
CN CN
oo m
CM CN
in o>
rH 00
O 0
rH iH
>
SH (0
tO 3
rj ^Q
co rO QJ
r~ *~i fa
en
rH
CO
CN
00
00
CN
rH
O
OO
00
O
[^
CN
00
CN
•*r
m
CN
rH
r|
O
tO
S
o en CN
00 f^ 00
CN n< m
CN OO «C<
CN CN OO
en m r-~
<& r- ^o
•5J- OO CN
rH rH rH
O O O
in rH i C
Cu tO 3
< S 1-3
OO
in
en
-y
00
r-
OO
iH
o
**o
oo
o
cn
rH
cn
rH
cn
CO
CN
rH
(D
Cn
(0
C
3
n_i
•4H
0)
T3
CD
C
•H
&
g
O
U
rH
tO
3
G1
CD
01
O
rH
4H
rH
cfl
4-1
O
EH
>•
0)
4-1
O
2
rp
M
H
0)
rH
,£3
to
c^
.
01
CD
01
Ul 01
(0 \
O-i oo
>» g
& CN
1
'O O
C rH
m M
'VJ H-H
x a,
0] h
(D oo H
•H rH ho
U CO
>1 OO
u . ..
aj ^ CD
M O
II C
0)
p M
O CD
S *w
CD
rH 05
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
• e ..
DH CM
EH J
O 0
EH CO
13
C
(0
n\
QJ
P
C
0)
^-1
X
O
rH
(0
u
•H
g
CD
ff,
U
O
•H
CO
p
o
CQ
C
CD
Cn
o
4J
•H
H
JZ
T)
-------
F. Wastewater Bypasses
Wastewater bypasses the Jones Island WWTP, on the average,
several times a month, which results in raw or partially
treated sewage entering surface waters. There are two types
of bypasses: (1) in-plant bypasses and (2) bypasses of the
entire WWTP ("above-plant bypasses"). In-plant bypasses are
caused, for example, by the clogging of fine screens, which
sends coarse screened sewage into the effluent channel to be
disinfected and discharged. Figure III-2 shows the numerous
bypasses structures within the WWTP. Bypasses of the entire
WWTP ("above-plant bypasses") are caused by the incoming
Wastewater having a volume which exceeds the hydraulic capacity
of the bar screens, which requires the operator to close the
influent gate valve slightly. This action effectively dumps
raw sewage into the Inner Harbor at the nearest combined
sewer overflow (CSO) outfall.
In-plant bypasses occurred for over 184 hours between January
and November, 1979, (MMSD monthly summaries 1979) at a rate
adding an estimated 130 million gallons (493,000 m ) of screened,
disinfected sewage to the Outer Harbor per year. Overload
bypasses occurred on fifty days between May 30, 1975 and June 30,
1978, which resulted in an estimated 110 million gallons
(414,000 m^) of raw sewage bypassing the treatment process each
year. Changes in weather conditions and wastewater characte-
ristics may cause fluctuations in the volume of bypassed sewage,
which may change by fifty percent from year to year.
Bypasses of the entire WWTP have lower concentrations of
organic matter and SS than in-plant bypasses because these
bypasses always occur during heavy rainstorms, when waste-
water is diluted by stormwater. In-plant bypasses do not
necessarily occur. Loadings from both kinds of bypasses are
given on Table III-7.
Water quality parameters typically measured, include BOD,
SS, dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus,
and nitrogen. Fecal coliforms, although harmless to humans,
have the same source as pathogenic microbes. However, fecal
coliforms are found at much higher densities. Therefore, the
presence of fecal colifoms serves as a indicator of the pre-
sence of pathogens (For example, no fecal coliforms indicates
a very low probability of finding a pathogen). Untreated raw
sewage also enters the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan
through CSO structures.
The East and West plant effluent are combined and shown in
Table III-5. Bypasses are added after the effluents are
combined and this forms the total WWTP effluent loading
which is listed in Table III-6. Comparing total effluent
characteristics with combined effluent characteristics (in-
plant bypasses comprise the difference), it can be seen that
these bypasses cause a 1% reduction in effluent removal
efficiencies.
111-27
-------
TABLE III-7
BYPASS LOAD
Parameter
Flow
BOD
BOD
SS
SS
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
NH3
NH3
BOD
SS
Phosphorus
NH3
Units
106gal/yr
mg/1
1000 Ibs/yr
mg/1
1000 Ibs/yr
mg/1
1000 Ibs/yr
mg/i
1000 Ibs/yr
Total
Bypass
239
560
630
10.5
28
Above-
Plant
114
245
230
304
290
5.3
5
14
13
Total
Bypass
Percentage
of
Effluent
Loadings
5%
6%
3%
1%
In-Plant
125
315
330
325
340
5.3
5.5
14
15
gal/yr = 3.7854 x 10~3m3/yr
Ibs/yr = 0.4536 kg/yr
Reference:
Bypass concentrations from MMSD (1978)
Bypass loadings calculated from MWPAP (1978)
111-28
-------
G. Evaluation of Jones Island WWTP
The effective treatment capacity of the Jones Island WWTP is
140 MGD C6.1 m3/secl. When flows exceed 140 MGD C6.1 m3/sec)
the fine screens are bypassed and it is possible for effluent
violations to occur. Table III-8 lists representative design
criteria, present operating parameters and compares them to
Recommended Standard for Sewage Works (1978} . Most of the
problems that presently exist at Jones Island WWTP are related
to insufficient solids handling capacity, old equipment or
overloaded treatment processes.
If no facilities were abandoned or no new facilities con-
structed at the WWTP, numerous maintenance improvements
would have to be carried out in order for the WWTP to
maintain operation (assuming no increase in wastewater flows
and loads through the end of the planning period. Table III-
9 lists the ages of the existing facilities. However, Jones
Island WWTP would be unable to treat any additional flows
that might occur during the planning period. JIFPE contains
a more thorough evaluation of the WWTP.
H. Energy Consumption
Jones Island WWTP is a large consumer of energy, especially
natural gas and fuel oil which are used in the gas turbines
to produce electricity and to fuel the sludge dryers which
produce Milorganite. Typically, the Jones Island WWTP
consumes over 2.6 x lO1^ BTU/yr (2.6 x 102 kj) from natural
gas, fuel oil, and purchased electricity. Table 111-10 lists
a breakdown of energy consumption at the WWTP.
The gas turbine driven electrical generators can produce up
to 90 percent of the WWTP's needs. The remainder is purchased
from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO). However,
the typical efficiency of a WEPCO electric generator is
32.5% compared to the 16% efficiency of the gas turbines.
Although much of the waste heat is used for the sludge
dryers, it can not be considered to be free. Attaching a
value to this waste heat shows the Milorganite process to be
energy intensive. The TSM-EIS Technical Memorandum (June 1979)
and Solids Management EIS appendix discuss this further.
111-29
-------
H
C
0
•H
4-1
rd
3
•rl
C
CD
M
3
en
•H
E
0)
C
C
id
u
o
8
w
w
H
EH
H
o
ft C
s
3
3
CD
O
rH
CD
C
G
CD
>
S
"S
•H
as
rd
,c
G
0
|
0
U
2
O
H
EH tn
D SH
,-3 i T! tn CD
4-1 CD CD C
•rl rrj rrj Q
O "H
rd > -V £
ft O
CD
tn
3
id 4-1
. . CD -rl MH
ft ft 3 0
in
G
CD
CD
M
U
W
M
id
ffl
CD
tn
k
rd
s
in
rH
CD
c
G
fd
x;
u
MH
O
S-l
0)
•••Q
€
2
rH
CD
C
C
t~]
O
l-l
fd
^
0
s
CD
OS
4-1
•H
iH
O
H
O
rH
4J
C
8
in
C
CD
CD
|L)
U
CD
C
•H
fe.
K"I
•p
•H
O
rd
ft
u
4-1
C
(8
•P
in
CD
S
4-1
G
(d
4J
tn
rd
W
Q
S
O
Q
a
cn
r-
r-
o
o
vo
Q Q
a a
^f VD
CO CN
o in
O
o
IN
•H
X
tn
0)
•rH
MH
•H
J_j
It)
rH
U
>i
1^
id
T!
G
O
U
0)
C
•rl
13
rd
3
o
•H
rH
3
(ti
iH
t3
K
4J*
^i
fjH
w
•\
Q
ft
through June, 1978.
r-
[•^
CTi
i-H
»
rH
3
rH
O
MH
Ti
CD
CP
m
iH
cn
o
4J
in
^
Q)
•H
MH
•H
iH
(d
rH
u
CD
4-1
MH
o
CD
g
0
tn
MH
0
C
0
•rl
4J
nj
M
CD
M
c
o
o
CD
3
rH
rd
}^
-------
TABLE III-9
AGE OF EXISTING FACILITIES
THROUGH THE PLANNING PERIOD (YEARS)
Facility 1985 2005
Siphons 67 87
Coarse Screen House 60 80
Low Level Pump Station 60 80
Influent Feed Channel 60 80
Grit Removal Channels 60 80
Fine Screen House 60 80
West Plant Feed Channels 60 80
West Plant Aeration Basins 60 80
West Plant Clarifiers/Thickeners 60 80
West Plant RAS Pumps 60 80
East Plant Feed Channels 50 70
East Plant Aeration Basins 32 & 50 52 s 70
East Plant Clarifiers 32 & 50 52 s 70
East Plant RAS S WAS Pumps 50 70
Pickle Liquor Feed System 14 24
Chlorination System 14 24
Effluent Channel 50 70
Milorganite Facilities 60 80
Process Air Supply Facilities 13 33
Plant Power Supply & Distribution 13 33
Instrumentation s Control 32, 50 S 60 52, 70 S 80
Laboratory 60 80
Machine Shop 60 60
Boiler House 60 80
Administration Building 60 80
III-31
-------
TABLE I I I- 10
ENERGY USE
Natural Gas MCF/yr1 Energy Conversion B :BTU/yr2
1976 2,293 1000 BTU/ft3 2,293
1977 1,980 1,980
1978 2,197 2,197
Electricity Mkwh
Purchased
1976 10,723 10,500 BTU/kwh4 113
1977 5,952 62
1978 14,477 152
Generated Natural gas and fuel oil used to produce
this electricity
1976 84.278
1977 81.963
1978 75.156
Fuel Oil Gallons
1976 217,700 141,000 BTU/gal 31
1977 4,395,500 620
1978 534,700 75
TOTALS TOTALS
1976 2,437
1977 2,662
1978 2,424
million cubic feet 1 cubic foot=0.02832 cubic meters
2s BTU billion British Termal Units 1 BTU = 1,054.8 joules
3MKwh: million Kilowatt hours 1 kwh = 3600 kilo joule
410,500 BTU/kwh is energy conversion figure used to determine energy
usage generated by WEPCO. Natural gas and fuel oil are excluded
(Reference: Wesner 1977, MCD-32 EPA-600/2-77-214)
II I-32
-------
I. Operation and Maintenance
The Jones Island WWTP has a high operation and maintenance
(O&M) cost due to the age of the equipment and its reliance
on Milorganite production. Nearly one third of the budget
goes to energy used to produce Milorganite. South Shore
WWTP, which does not produce Milorganite, has a much smaller
energy budget. Estimated 1979 O&M costs are listed in Table
III-ll.
J. Staff
The Jones Island WWTP staff numbers over 275 employees, with
65% in plant operations and 35% in plant maintenance.
K. Resources
In addition to the fuel consumed by Jones Island WWTP (listed
in Table 111-10) , several chemicals are required for waste
water treatment. During 1977 the daily consumption was as
follows:
Chlorine - 5,000 Ibs/day
Ferric chloride - 100,000 Ibs/day
Waste pickle liquor - 10,000 Ibs/day (as iron)
The consumption of chlorine and ferric chloride is directly
related to wastewater flows, while waste pickle liquor
addition is not dependent upon flows. Waste pickle liquor
is received from local industry at no charge to the MMSD.
111-33
-------
TABLE III-11
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Estimated
Unit Process 1979 Cost
Preliminary Treatment Facilities
a. Coarse Screen $ 251,000
b. Grit Chambers and Fine Screens 761,000
Screening and Grit Disposal Facilities 733,000
Raw Sewage Pumps 187,000
Aeration Basin Facilities 535,000
Air Compressors 2,519,000
Secondary Clarifiers 746,000
Phosphorus Removal Facilities 8,000
Chlorination Facilities 184,000
Sludge Dewatering Facilities 2,553,000
Sludge Drying Facilities 5,384,000
Milorganite Shipping Facilities 1,541,000
Milorganite Sales 309,000
Filter Cake Hauling 913,000
General Plant 1,498,000
Sub-Total $18,122,000
Milorganite Revenue 4,279,000
Sub-Total 13,843,000
Natural Gas Price Inflation* 198,601
Total $14,041,601
*4% of 1979 budget request for natural gas of $4,965,033,
III-34
-------
IV.
ALTERNATIVES
A.
Introduction
The alternatives considered for the Jones Island WWTP involved
wastewater treatment processes, disinfection method, and the
location of the proposed facilities. Since the Jones Island
WWTP is presently operating at its capacity, (hydraulic and
solids), it must be expanded and upgraded in order to meet
effluent discharge limitations as set by the Wisconsin Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES). The effluent limits
set by the court cases are the same as those set by the WPDES.
The alternatives discussed in this chapter were developed
and evaluated by the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program (MWPAP). In addition, an EIS screening methodology
was developed to evaluate the various alternative wastewater
treatment processes for the Jones Island WWTP. The screen-
ing effort was based upon an independent evaluation of waste-
water treatment process alternatives. This approach was taken
to allow the EIS study team to become more acquainted with
the impacts and technical considerations that are pertinent
to the various alternatives. Solids handling alternatives
are considered in the Solids Management EIS appendix. Although
the EIS performed an independent analysis for the MWPAP's final
alternatives, all levels of the alternative screening were
also reviewed.
In order to meet future effluent limits, the MWPAP analyzed
alternatives in the Jones Island Facility Planning Element
(JIFPE) for liquid treatment processes, location and dis-
infection. The liquid treatment processes analyzed were as
follows:
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
Alternative 6:
No Action -
Expansion and upgrading of the East and West
Plants
Air activated sludge system with primary
treatment
Single air activated sludge system
Two parallel air activated sludge systems
High Purity Oxygen (HPO) activated sludge
system.
Activated Biofilter (ABF)/activated sludge
system
No upgrading or expansion of the Jones Island
WWTP
IV-35
-------
Disinfection alternatives include:
- Chlorine
- Ozone
- Chlorine Dioxide
Location alternatives analyzed include:
- New site
- Existing site
- Expansion sites
Although numerous alternatives were analyzed, the above groups
constituted those which were considered to be feasible. The
JIFPE can be consulted for a more thorough discussion of alter-
natives than is contained in this chapter.
B. Evaluation of Alternatives
The alternatives developed by the MWPAP for various liquid
treatment processes at the Jones Island WWTP went through a
multifaceted evaluation process. The evaluation of process
alternatives, also called screening, is discussed in this
chapter. The method utilized by the MWPAP for the identification,
screening, selection and evaluation of alternatives is summarized
as follows:
1. Identify all possible alternatives.
2. Determine major constraints which will be used to
develop preliminary list of alternatives.
3. Perform initial screening.
4. Develop preliminary list of alternatives.
5. Develop additional information.
6. Perform final screening.
7. Develop feasible alternatives.
8. Perform detailed analysis.
9. Recommended plan for the MMSD.
Steps 1 through 7 were reviewed by the EIS study team. An
independent analysis was performed for Step 8.
IV-36
-------
Alternatives were identified from those discussed in the
MMSD's 1978 Total Solids Management Program (TSM) and
various other sources, including a desk-top analysis.
Involvement in the identification of alternatives came from
the MWPAP staff (including MMSD engineering, WWTP operations
staff) and the EIS study team. There were two general
categories of alternatives: (1) those involving the existing
facilities, and (2) those involving entirely new facilities.
Also, a combination of new and existing facilities was
considered to be possible.
The major constraints used to reduce the number of alternatives
considered by the MWPAP were as follows: (1) land requirements,
(2) effluent limitations, (3) implementation, (4) legality,
(5) operation, (6) environmental factors and (7) energy
requirements. These major constraints were utilized to
develop preliminary alternatives for both the Jones Island
and South Shore WWTPs (See South Shore EIS Appendix for a
discussion of the alternatives considered at South Shore
WWTP) .
After the initial number of alternatives was reduced, the
final screening process took place. The initial evaluation
included a comparison of costs, technical considerations,
environmental factors and the ability to implement a given
alternative. Costs included construction costs, (capital
costs), operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and net present
worth.
For the purposes of the MWPAP-EIS, a general approach toward
evaluation of alternatives was initially undertaken. These
general types of alternatives, which are discussed in more
detail in the MWPAP-EIS, are listed below:
1. No Action
2. Upgrade Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of WWTP,
3. Expansion.
4. Upgrade treatment (and facilities).
5. Recycle/Reuse.
6. Land Application of effluent.
IV-37
-------
The alternative for upgrading the Jones Island WWTP (as
defined here) is not necessary since Jones Island only has
to meet the present effluent limits set by the WPDES.
Recycle/reuse of effluent is not commonly used for WWTPs
that have average annual flows of over 100 MGD (4.4 rn3/sec) .
No publicly owned treatment works (POTW) in this country,
with a flow of over 30 MGD (1.3 m^/sec), uses land application
of effluent. Muskegon, MI, is the largest WWTP of this kind,
with a flow of 28.5 MGD (1.2 m3/sec) (EPA, 1977).
The upgraded O&M alternative is also not feasible since the
plant does not have sufficient hydraulic and solids handling
capacity to handle future wastewater flows and loads. The
focus of the Jones Island study is on the expansion alterna-
tive. The No Action alternative was retained for purposes
of comparison.
The analysis used in evaluating the environmental impacts
of the various alternatives is discussed further in MWPAP-EIS.
The specific criteria used for evaluation of the Jones Island
alternatives are as follows:
Aquatic Biota
• Historical and Archaeological Sites
• Threatened and Endangered Species
• Water Quality
• Recreation
• Access to businesses, residences, industries, etc.
• Noise
• Air quality
• Aesthetics
• Traffic flow
Safety
Public Health
• Land use
• Economic stability
Energy
• Engineering feasibility
Cost
IV-38
-------
These criteria are discussed in Chapter V, Affected
Environment and Chapter VI, Environmental Consequences.
In the consideration of various feasible liquid process
alternatives, the engineering criteria (energy, engineering
feasibility, and cost) were of critical importance for
developing alternatives. Resources considered include
materials, chemicals, labor, fuel, and land requirements
Types of energy considered include electricity, fuel oil,
diesel oil, natural gas, and digester gas. Costs considered
include capital (construction), O&M and present worth.
Engineering feasibility considered the flexibility, capacity,
reliability, space requirements, ease of operation and
sensitivity of the system. The capacity of the system
involves the capability of producing the desired level of
treatment, process flexibility and limitations to peak
conditions. Space requirements considered additional land
requirements and compatability with existing processes. The
construction flexibility at Jones Island would allow for
staged construction of future expansion. A viable alter-
native would have to be sensitive to changes in wastewater
flows and loads. Future changes in legislation, litigation
or regulations are speculative and beyond the scope of this EIS,
In addition, any alternative must be relatively easy to operate,
Alternative wastewater flows and loads to the Jones Island
WWTP are developed in the MMSD's Wastewater System Plan (WSP)
and are discussed in the main body of the MWPAP-EIS and the
WSP. The wastewater flows and loads are chosen for the plan-
ning period of 1985 to 2005 and are discussed later in this
chapter.
Cost of a new site was shown to be nearly 1.5 times as
expensive as the existing site and was therefore dropped
from further consideration (JIFPE). Also, sufficient land
near the lake and close to the present site was not avail-
able for construction of a new WWTP.
Numerous liquid wastewater treatment process alternatives
for preliminary treatment such as equalization, in-system
screening and pretreatment, course screening, grit removal
and fine screening were identified. Primary treatment
alternatives were also identified. The following types of
treatment process alternatives were identified: physical-
chemical, fixed film, suspended growth, combination process,
and other processes. Both physical and chemical disinfection
processes were considered.
Only the final alternatives combined as a complete system are
evaluated in the EIS.
IV-39
-------
C. Monetary Analysis
The development of cost estimates for the various liquid
treatment alternatives include construction costs, capital
costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and present
worth. These costs are discussed more fully in the JIFPE.
Normally, facility planning cost estimates have an accuracy
of +50% to -30%.
Construction costs are those incurred in the building of a
specific unit process. Construction costs were projected to
dollars which would be spent in the Spring of 1980 (using
the Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index of 3300).
Facility planning, in the preparation of construction costs,
include the following: (1) utilization of pilot scale data
to size various unit processes, (2) consultation with equip-
ment manufacturers to determine specific needs, (3) revisions
as required, (4) development of unit prices for specific
construction activities, (on small items, percentages were
used to estimate costs), and (5) the consideration of the
difficulty factors involved.
Capital costs include construction and non-construction
costs, such as engineering design, geotechnical investiga-
tions, mapping and surveying, administrative, financial and
legal services. The capital costs are estimated by the MWPAP
to be 30% more than the construction costs.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates include costs
for chemicals, energy, labor, and supplies required to
operate and maintain a WWTP. The unit costs developed by
the MWPAP used to estimate O&M costs are as follows:
Staff positions - all categories $29,000/yr.
Electrical energy $0.03/kwh
• Fuel oil and diesel oil $0.75/gallon
Natural gas $3.36/106 BTU
• Chemicals
- Chlorine $120/ton
- Sulfur dioxide $200/ton
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
1 BTU = 1.0548 kj
1 Kwh = 3600 kj
Though the O&M unit costs may have changed since the cost
estimates were prepared, any changes would be the same for
all alternatives. A sensitivity analysis for increased
energy costs is contained in the MWPAP-EIS. Electrical
energy costs are not expected to increase drastically due to
WEPCO's high dependence on nuclear energy and coal.
IV-40
-------
In order to consider the total value of the WWTP over the 20
year planning period, the present worth is used. Present
worth includes the capital costs, the O&M cost for the
entire planning period (as well as an interest rate for the
project, 6 7/8%), salvage values, replacement costs and
allowances for interest during construction.
Cost estimates throughout the planning process are revised
by the MWPAP as additional information is gathered. These
revisions usually reflect cost increases. This is best exam-
plified by examining the cost estimate differences for Alter-
native 2 (when it was first considered as a feasible alterna-
tive, versus, as later modified, the MMSD's Recommended Plan).
D. Future Conditions
Alternatives were evaluated using the planning period,
wastewater flows and loads, effluent limits and other criteria
discussed below.
1. Planning Period
The DNR's and EPA's intent in designating a 20 year planning
period is to enable a community to plan for future wastewater
flows. As mentioned earlier, the planning period is from 1985
to 2005, with 1985 being the design year for the Jones Island
WWTP. The highest wastewater flows are projected for 1985.
2. Projected Wastewater Characteristics
The MMSD expects the average wastewater flows and loads would
decrease over the planning period, thus 1985 becomes the
critical year. This would be due to a decrease in popula-
tion in the Jones Island service area and additional waste-
water flows being diverted to the South Shore WWTP. During
the Facility Planning process carried out by the MWPAP
wastewater flows and loads to Jones Island WWTP were revised
several times. The projected wastewater flows and loads to
be treated at the Jones Island WWTP are listed in Table IV-1.
The MWPAP will revise these flows and loads in their Advanced
Facility Planning (AFP). These flows are based upon some
form of flow attenuation within the Metropolitan Intercepting
Sewer (MIS) system. Flow attenuation involves the storage
of peak wet weather flows in some type of centrally located
system. If no form of flow attenuation took place, then
the Jones Island facility would have to significantly increase
treatment capacity. Table IV-2 lists unattenuated flows to
the Jones Island WWTP. Since the effective hydraulic capacity
is presently 140 MGD, there would be numerous wastewater
bypasses. The MWPAP has determined that flow attenuation is
IV-41
-------
TABLE IV-1
PROJECTED PLANT FLOWS AND LOADS (1985)
Average
Base
115.
323
332
6
36
3
,600
,000
,200
,100
Maximum
Month
160
420
464
8
43
,700
,800
,700
,300
Maximum
Week
190
517
630
10
50
,800
,800
,600
,600
Maximum
Day
300
711
763
12
61
,900
,600
,400
,400
Item
Flow (MGD)
BOD5 (Ib/d)
SS (Ib/d)
Phosphorus (Ib/d)
TKN (Ib/d)
Note: The loadings presented represent 1985. Loadings
are projected to decrease during the planning
period.
1 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2m3/s
1 Ib/d = 0.4536 kg/d
Reference: JIFPE
3V-42
-------
TABLE IV-2
UNATTENUATED FLOWS AND LOADS (MGD)
FOR 1985-2005
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1980 1985 2005
Average Dry Weather-Base Flow - 115 96
Effective hydraulic capacity 140 ]_40 149
Maximum Monthly Flow - 160 160
Maximum Weekly Flow - 200 210
Maximum Daily Flow - 450 450
Reference: JIFPE
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3/sec
IV-43
-------
cost-effective. Flow attenuation is discussed in the text
of the MWPAP-EIS and the WSP. Included in the WSP assumptions
is a 10% dry weather flow reduction due to water conservation,
industrial pretreatment and user charge implementation.
Also, since peak wet weather flows would increase due to the
abatement of combined sewer overflows (CSOs), some form of
flow attenuation and/or additional treatment capacity would
be required. CSO abatement is discussed in a later section
and in the CSO-EIS appendix.
3. Effluent Limits
The Jones Island WWTP effluent limits, as required by the
WPDES permit (WI-00247672), are listed in Table IV-3. The
WWTP currently is required to meet these limits and they are
used as the effluent limits that must be met during the
planning period. Current WPDES effluent limitations are
used in the analysis of alternatives. Future modifications
in the effluent limitations were not anticipated in the
planning process, with the exception of a 0.5 mg/1 chlorine
residual.
4. Projected Service Area
The projected Service Area for the Jones Island WWTP is
delineated in Figure II-2 and would remain virtually un-
changed throughout the planning period.
'5. Projected Populations
The projected population for the Jones Island service area
is 436,400. For the area commonly served by South Shore and
Jones Island WWTPs, the population is projected to be
460,800 (JIFPE).
E. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
Since the Jones Island WWTP serves the older portions of the
City of Milwaukee, many of the sewers carry both sanitary
sewage and storm water. These combined sewers flow at or
near capacity during and immediately following periods of
precipitation (rainfall or snowfall).
There are a series of flow regulators that limit flow within
the MIS system. These regulators also limit the flow to
Jones Island WWTP and prevent wastewater surcharges back
into homes and businesses. Even with the flow regulators,
flows during precipitation events can sometimes exceed Jones
Island WWTP's hydraulic capacity. The resulting bypasses
and decreased treatment efficiency can cause the WPDES
effluent limits to be exceeded.
IV-44
-------
TABLE IV-3
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Effluent Parameters
Flow
BOD5
Monthly Average
Weekly Average
Suspended Solids
Monthly Average
Suspended Solids
Weekly Average
pH, Standard Units
Fecal Coliform !
Monthly Average
Fecal Coliform
Weekly Average
Total Phosphorus
Monthly Average
Residual Chlorine
Daily
Free Available Chlorine
Daily
Effluent
Limitations
Sample
Frequency
Sample
Type
Continuous
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
6.0 to 9.0
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
1.0 mg/1
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Twice Weekly
Twice Weekly
Daily
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
24-Hour
Composite
Daily
Grab
Twice Weekly Grab
The MMSD reports the geometric mean in compliance with the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 210.09.
Reference: WPDES Permit
IV-45
-------
Overflow structures were constructed to alleviate peak flows
at the Jones Island WWTP and to eliminate surcharges. In
1974, a facility planning effort was undertaken by MMSD to
correct the CSO problem. However, the 1977 ruling of the
U.S. District Court in Illinois (72-C-1253) stated that
the CSO discharges containing sanitary waste must be eliminated,
and that CSO events be abated during wet weather periods up
to the magnitude of the largest storm on record (since
1940) .
This ongoing CSO facility planning project was modified in
order to comply with the U.S. District Court ruling. The
CSO Facility Plan Element (CSOFPE) contains results of the
present facility planning process. The EIS, being prepared
on this element, is being incorporated into the MWPAP-EIS.
Elimination of CSOs will increase peak wet weather waste-
water flows and loads (due to infiltration and inflow of
clear water) to the Jones Island WWTP, necessitating flow
attenuation and/or additional treatment capacity at the
WWTP. CSOs are discussed at length in the aforementioned
reports.
F. Industrial Pretreatment
During the planning period of 1985-2005, the MMSD will
institute a form of user charge for industrial, commercial
and residential wastewater discharges. A study was carried
out by the MMSD in 1978 entitled User Charge and Industrial
Cost Recovery Program.
It is anticipated that the MMSD's water pollution abatement
efforts, e.g., user charges, will facilitate domestic, indus-
trial, and commercial water conservation and industrial pre-
treatment. The WSP assumes that these actions could reduce
industrial loads to the Jones Island WWTP by 10%. This is
addressed further in the WSP. It is speculative for the EIS
to predict the effects of industrial pretreatment on waste-
water flows and loads. The JIFPE used historical data in
projecting wastewater flows and loads during the planning period,
Industrial pretreatment will not be addressed in AFP; however,
the MMSD is currently developing an industrial pretreatment
program which will be implemented before the start of the
planning period (January, 1983).
IV-46
-------
G. No Action
The No Action alternative is not feasible because the Jones
Island WWTP would be unable to meet WPDES effluent limits
for the projected wastewater flows and loads during the
planning period. Jones Island WWTP requires extensive up-
grading of various unit processes, expansion, and rehabili-
tation in order to comply with the effluent limits and the
rulings set by the courts. It is difficult to assess the
total cost of the No Action alternative for several reasons.
First, the MMSD would be in contempt of court and could
incur fines and penalties. In addition, the annual O&M
costs would increase significantly in order to repair and
replace equipment that had outlived its service life. For
these reasons the No Action alternative is not considered to
be feasible. Chapter III contains a description of the
current WWTP and serves as a discussion of the "No Action"
alternative.
H. Feasible Process Alternatives
A monetary analysis of alternatives for expanding, upgrading,
and rehabilitating the liquid treatment facilities at the
Jones Island WWTP was performed by the MWPAP to determine
the most cost effective alternative. The MWPAP developed
the costs for the various alternatives. EPA cost information
(EPA 1976) was used by the EIS study team in the review of
MWPAP costs, and it was found that the relative rankings of
alternatives were similar. The JIFPE goes into greater de-
tail in the development of costs.
It is important to consider the Jones Island WWTP as a complete
facility, therefore, both on and off-site solids handling
costs are included with liquid treatment costs. Energy and
chemical requirements of the complete system are also included.
The EPA study team developed independent energy requirements
using EPA information (EPA 1978), and it was found that the
relative rankings of alternatives were similar to those deve-
loped in the JIFPE. The environmental impacts of solids
handling, for both on and off-site processes, are discussed
in Solids Management EIS Appendix and the Site Specific Analysis
EIS Addendum, respectively.
The feasible alternatives considered for the Jones Island
WWTP would have to treat flows over the 1985-2005 planning
period. These flows were discussed previously (See Table
IV-1) .
IV-47
-------
Six liquid treatment alternatives for the Jones Island WWTP
were developed for consideration. Costs, energy, chemical
consumption, and land requirements are considered for each
alternative. The alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1 - Expansion and upgrading of the East
and West Plants.
Alternative 2 - Air activated sludge with primary treatment.
Alternative 3 - Single air activated sludge system.
Alternative 4 - Two parallel air activated sludge systems.
Alternative 5 - High Purity Oxygen (HPO) activated sludge
system.
Alternative 6 - Activated Biofilter (ABF)/activated
sludge system.
A description of these alternatives follows:
1. Alternative 1 - Expansion and Upgrading of the East and
West Plants.
This alternative involves rehabilitating the secondary
treatment facilities for the East and West plants. The
siphons, coarse screens, grit removal channels, fine screens,
sludge pump stations, waste sludge thickeners, pickle liquor
system, all Milorganite facilities and various service
buildings will be abandoned. New liquid facilities include
siphons, coarse screens, grit removal channels, fine screens,
one 98-foot (30 m) and six 120-foot (37 m) diameter secondary
clarifiers, a sludge pump station, and a pickle liquor
system. On the land presently occupied by the General Cargo
Terminal Building No. 1, a chlorination building, three 2.4
MG (9,100 m^) chlorine contact basins, and an effluent pump
station could be built. The disinfection and effluent
pumping facilities would have a dual-use function with the
cargo terminal building.
Figure IV-1 shows the facilities layout for Alternative 1.
Expansion would occur to the south of the present MMSD property
and would require obtaining the land presently occupied by
the oil storage facilities. The JIFPE estimates that con-
struction would take less than three years. Renovation of
the existing secondary treatment facilities includes work on
both the East and West Plants.
IV-48
-------
V.**?.
•SIPHONS
•COARSE SCREENS
•GRIT REMOVAL
•FINE SCREENS
•SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
6 EA - 120 FT DIA
EA - 98 FT DIA IN WEST PLANT
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
PICKLE LIQUOR SYSTEM
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
1 3 EA 24 MG
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
PERVICS BUILDINGS
GRAVITY THICKENERS
19 EA - 75 FT DIA
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
18 EA - 2 5 MG
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
BELT FILTER PRESSES
1? EA - 19 2 IPD
FILTER CAKE STORAGE
3 DAY CAPACITY
SERVICE BUILDINGS
IGURE
ATE
IV-1
SOURCE J1FPE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
In the West Plant, the following work is required: (1) replace-
ment of concrete to one foot below water surface, (2)
replacement and modification of clarifier equipment, (3)
rehabilitation or replacement of all galleries, (4) improved
flow measure and control systems, and (5) grease and scum
collection and removal equipment for the clarifiers.
Work on the East Plant would involve, (1) replacement of the
air headers, (2) addition of scum removal equipment from
clarifiers, and (3) improved flow control to clarifiers.
Additional land requirements are as follows (JIFPE):
MMSD Additional Land Requirements Acres
Chlorination Facilities 3.9
Liquid Treatment Facilities 6.5
Solids Handling Treatment Facilities 16.4
Subtotal 26.8
Potential Joint Use Facilities
Chlorination Facilities
Potential Transfer of Land to Harbor Commission
Existing plant site where facilities
would be abandoned (See Figure IV-7,
Site F) 8.6
Harbor Commission Net Loss of Land 14.3
(1 acre = 0.4047 hectare, ha.)
Annual energy and chemical requirements are listed in
Tables IV-4 and IV-5, respectively. Costs and staff require-
ments are delineated in Table IV-6.
2. Alternative 2 - Air Activated Sludge with Primary
Treatment
This alternative involves a rehabilitation of the existing
secondary treatment facilities, the addition of primary
treatment facilities, and new Chlorination facilities, as
well as the replacement of solids handling facilities.
IV-49
-------
D
EH
pa
id o
4J H
0 X
EH «•"
r— j
in
o
[>.'
VO
cn
0
o
o
ID
(V)
1
in
U3
H
r--
0
r-
00
t*-
^D
rj
1
H
H
-------
TABLE IV-5
ANNUAL CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
. , Solids System
Liquid ^
Chemical Units System On-Site Off-Site Total
Chlorine tons 1055 — — 1055
Sulfur Dioxide tons 352 — — 352
Pickle Liquor tons 1697 — — 1697
Polymer tons — 70 — 70
This represents tons of pickle liquor as Iron (Fe), using an Fe:P
ratio of 15:1.
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
Reference: JIFPE
IV-51
-------
TABLE IV-6
ALTERNATIVE 1
COST AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Construction Capital Annual Present Staff
Cost Cost OSM Cost Worth Positions
Liquid Treatment 143,800 186,940 9,124 281,230 210
Solids Handling
On Site 70,380 91,490 2,771 129,350 50
Off Site 11,920 15,500 2,652 47,630 57
Total System 226,100 293,930 14,547 458,210 317
All costs in $1000
For application to agricultural land
Reference: JIFPE
IV-52
-------
Figure IV-2 shows the layout for Alternative 2. The siphons,
coarse screens, grit removal channels, fine screens, the
north bank of aeration basins in the West Plant, the West
Plant Sludge pump station, waste sludge thickeners, pickle
liquor system, chlorination building, Milorganite production,
and service building would be abandoned. New liquid treat-
ment facilities to be constructed would include siphons,
coarse screens, grit removal channels, twenty 40-foot (12 m)
by 200-foot (60 m) primary clarifiers, eight 100-foot (30 m)
diameter and one 98-foot (30 m) diameter secondary clarifier,
a new pickle liquor system, chlorination facilities including
three 2.4 MG (9100 m3) chlorine contact basins, an effluent
pump station, and new service buildings.
Approximately 20.9 acres (8.5 ha) of land would be required
for new chlorination facilities, liquid treatment facilities,
and solids handling facilities. The land required for the
chlorination facilities would also be used by the Harbor
Commission. There would be 8.6 acres (3.5 ha) of land
retained by the Harbor Commission, which would result in a net
loss of 8.4 acres (3.4 ha). Land requirements are sum-
marized below (JIFPE) :
MMSD Additional Land Requirements Acres
Chlorination Facilities 3.9
Liquid Treatment Facilities 7.3
Solids Handling Treatment Facilities 9.7
Subtotal 20.9
Potential Joint Use Facilities Acres
Chlorination Facilities 3.9
Potential Transfer of Land to Harbor Commission
Existing plant site where facilities would
be abandoned (See Figure IV-7, Site F) 8.6
Harbor Commission Net Loss of Land 8.4
(1 acre = 0.4047 hectare, ha)
The construction would occur in stages so that wastewater
teatment during construction can be maintained. Construc-
tion and rehabilitation would be as follows:
IV-53
-------
• Rehabilitation of the West Plant aeration basins.
• Rehabilitation of the West Plant clarifiers.
• Rehabilitation of the East Plant clarifiers.
• Conversion of the aeration basins to single-pass tanks.
• Modifications of the existing West Plant feed channels
to clarifier distribution channels.
• Construction of secondary clarifiers in place of aera-
tion basins in the West Plant.
Construction of a new secondary effluent channel to
connect the existing effluent outfall to the new
chlorine contact basins.
The cost and staff requirements for Alternative 2 are listed
in Table IV-7. Table IV-8 lists the annual energy requirements
while Table IV-9 lists the annual chemical requirements for
Alternative 2.
3. Alternative 3 - Single Air Activated Sludge System
Alternative 3, shown in Figure IV-3/ involves building new
liquid and solids facilities while abandoning liquid treat-
ment facilities and Milorganite production. The following
facilities would be abandoned: siphons, coarse screens, grit
removal channels, fine screens, West Plant aeration basins,
waste sludge thickeners, pickle liquor system, chlorination
building, Milorganite production, and service buildings.
New liquid treatment facilities would include new siphons,
coarse screens, grit removal channels, fine screens, twenty-
two 14 MG (53,000 m-3) aeration basins, sixteen 115 foot
(35.1 m) diameter secondary clarifiers, sludge pump stations,
pickle liquor system, chlorination building, three 2.4 MG
(9100 n\3) chlorine contact basins, effluent pump station,
and service buildings.
Land requirements are listed below:
MMSD Additional Land Requirements Acres
Chlorination Facilities
Liquid Treatment Facilities
Subtotal 23.8
B7-54
-------
v > <.** < * ^ , i -
i V HL »v' *- i --
LIQUID
SIPHONS
COARSE SCREENS
GRIT REMOVAL
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
20 EA - 40 FT X 200 FT
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
1 EA - 98 FT DIA
8 EA - 100 FT DIA
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
PICKLE LIQUOR SYSTEM
CHLORINATION BUIDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
3 EA - 2.4 MG
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
SERVICE BUILDINGS
SOLIDS
OAF THICKENERS
11 EA - 20 FT X 90 FT
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
14 EA - 25 MG
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
BELT FILTER PRESSES
9 EA - 27 TPD
FILTER CAKE STORAGE
3 DAY CAPACITY
SERVICE BUILDINGS
SOURCE J1FPE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
.^ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
TABLE IV-7
ALTERNATIVE 2
COST AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Construction Capital Annual Present Staff
Cost Cost OSM Cost Worth Positions
Liquid Treatment 159,110 206,840 8,249 292,810 197
Solids Handling
On Site 2 55,270 71,850 2,231 102,060 38
Off Site 16,630 13,820 2,133 39,750 45
Total System 225,010 292,510 12,613 434,620 280
All costs in $1000
For application to agricultural lands. This was later revised to
landfill when Alternative 2 became the MMSD's Recommended Plan.
Reference: JIFPE
IV-55
-------
EH
(J>*
i-H 0
(d r-l
4-1
0 X
CN
0
0
•
r-
P
o co
O CN
t •
o r~
3 ^
co
in
•
^
Ql
o
r-
o
CO
CN
CO
1
H
>
H
EH
J2
s
w
EH
<
Ci
g
to
EH
2
0)
4-1
•H
6
0)
4->
tn
to
tn
n3
•H
H
0
co
to
1
U-l
14-4
O
0)
•H
to
1
C
o
£3
H
D
Oi
O
A
W
2
W
D
2
*O g
•r4 0)
3 4-1
O1 tn
•H >i
i-q to
3
O
CO
01
(U
W
CN
ro
o
o
m
m
o
co
X
rg
3
^"1
4-1
•H
0
•H
^
4->
O
0)
H
H
tn
g
CD
EH
in
id
O
!H
0)
4-1
W
(y
01
Q
X
Q
§H
03
ro
i-l
0)
3
tn
H
CD
tn
0)
•H
Q
ated by WEPCO steam turbine generators
r4
cu
^
V^
D
EH
«
O
O
in
o
,— i
H
a production rather than a consumption
tn
-U
§
M
0)
pi
0)
C
0|
tn
tn
3
•H
g
.^
CN
C
0
r-l
H
rd
tn
D
EH
ffl
O
0
0
0
1
ro
in
in
CU
4J
•H
H
in
CO
D
EH
r-in
t
ro
II
G
0
H
r-l
01
r-l
O
r-l
II
g
£5
0)
EH
r-t
h^
b co
^r
o m
0 0
vD ••
ro H
II II
A D
3 EH
r-H r-l
H
CM
["T,
H
b
••
0)
U
fi
o
^1
0)
M-4
0)
Pi
IV-56
-------
TABLE IV-9
ANNUAL CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
Chemical
., Solids System
Liquid *
Units System On-Site Off-Site Total
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
Pickle Liquor
Polymer
tons
tons
tons
tons
1055
352
1697*
70
1055
352
1697
70
*Represents tons of pickle liquor as iron (Fe) using Fe:P ratio of 1.5:1
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
Reference: JIFPE
IV-57
-------
Potential Joint Use Facilities Acres
Chlorination Facilities 3.8
Aeration Basins 8.2
Subtotal 12.0
Potential Transfer of Land to Harbor Commission
Existing plant site where facilities would
be abandoned (See Figure IV-7, Site F) 8.6
Harbor Commission Net Loss of Land 2.8
(1 acre = 0.4047 ha)
The following facilities must be constructed:
• Siphons and preliminary treatment facilities
• East Plant modifications
• Disinfection facilities
• Aeration basins
• Secondary clarifiers and sludge pump station
• Abandonment of existing West Plant facilities
Solids handling facilities
• Flow channels
• Harbor Commission facilities
Plant wastewater treatment operations would be affected by
modifications to the East Plant and flow channels. Con-
struction of solids handlings facilities must be delayed
until West Plant aeration basins and clarifiers are replaced,
Costs and staff positions for Alternative 3 are listed in
Table IV-10. Annual energy requirements are listed in Table
IV-11. Table IV-12 lists annual chemical requirements.
IV-58
-------
SIPHONS
COARSE SCREENS
GRIT REMOVAL
FINE SCREENS
AERATION BASINS
22 EA - 1 4 MG
SECONDARY CLARIFtERS
16 EA - 115 FT DIA
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
PICKLE LIQUOR SYSTEM
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
3 EA - 24 MG
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
SERVICE BUILDINGS
GRAVITY THICKENERS
'9 EA - rs fT
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
BELT FILTER PRESSES
12 EA - 192 TPD
FILTER CAKE STORAGE
3 DAY CAPACITY
SERVICE BUILDINGS
FIGURE
1V-3
DATE
SOURCE JIFPE
PREPARED BY
HEcolSciences
11 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
TABLE IV-10
ALTERNATIVE 3
COST AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Construction Capital Annual Present Staff
Cost Cost O&M Cost Worth Positions
Liquid Treatment
Solids Handling
On Site
Off Site
211,900
70,380
11,920
275,470
91,490
15,500
9,027
2,771
2,652
367,340
129,350
47,630
205
50
57
Total System 299,200 382,460 14,450 544,320 312
All costs in $1000
2
For application to agricultural land
Reference: JIFPE
IV-59
-------
1
G"*
iH O
(Tj i-H
^j
0 £
r-l
O
ro
•
CM
px
01
O
0
•
0
*«0
ro
1
in
v£
»
H
r-
in
cri
•
ro
00
H
!-l
1
^>
H
ta
(4
9
EH
RNATIVE 3
W
EH
i
1-4 W
O
in
CM
01
O
CN
O
CO
in
l
o
o
co
VO
o
in
in
O
•-(
X
£.
3
X,
4J
•H
O
•H
^1
4J
U
(U
H
(H
X
tn
6
CU
t/3
fO
o
^
cu
4-1
to
cu
en
•H
o
0
1— \
X
D
EH
ffl
ro
CU
g
H
0)
tn
cu
•H
Q
Ul
M
0
4J
«
M
C
CJ
0^
^
C
•H
M
3
4J
e
cu
4>J
W
O
u
(li
H
S
j?
TJ
0)
4J
Iti
CU
C
0)
tn
W
US
,c
S
*v*
\
^3
EH
O
O
in
^
o
H
C
O
•H
4J
a
3
c
0
u
«
C
JS
4J
0)
4-1
(0
C
0
•H
4J
O
3
'H
^
Dn
(C
tn
4J
n
0)
tn
(U
a
0)
j^
C
en
•H
en
w
3
C
•H
g
CN
C
o
i-H
^1
nJ
N^
D
EH
ffl
O
O
o
^
o
•^
ro
cu
-P
•H
in
co
D ID oo
EH J* •
'S1
o in
o o
« o \o -
ro rH ro iH
II II II II
o e
u
0)
IV-60
-------
TABLE IV-12
ANNUAL CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
Chemical
. , Solids System
Liquid *
Units System On-Site Off-Site Total
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
Pickle Liquor
Polymer
tons
tons
tons
tons
1055
352
1697*
70
1055
352
1697
70
*Represents tons of pickle liquor as iron (Fe) using Fe:P ratio of 1.5:1
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
Reference: JIFPE
IV-61
-------
4. Alternative 4 - Two Parallel Air Activated Sludge
Systems
Alternative 4, which involves two parallel air activated
sludge systems, is similar to Alternative 3, because the
liquid treatment processes are the same. However, the
configuration of the treatment processes are different.
Figure IV-4 shows the layout of the plant. The West Plant
would be abandoned and new solids handling facilities would
be built on the land it presently occupies. New secondary
treatment processes would be built on land presently occupied
by oil storage tanks.
The following facilities would be abandoned: siphons, coarse
screens, grit removal channels, fine screens, West Plant
aeration basins, clarifiers, sludge pump station and thick-
eners, pickle liquor system, chlorination building, Milorganite
production, and service buildings. New liquid treatment
facilities would include: siphons, coarse screens, grit
removal, fine screens, thirty 1.4 MG (5300 m3) aeration
basins, sixteen 115 foot (35.1 m) diameter secondary clarifiers,
sludge pump station, pickle liguor system, chlorination
building, three 2.4 MG (9100 rrr) chlorine contact basins,
effluent pump station, and service buildings. Five of the
existing aeration basins in the East Plant would be converted
to chlorine contact basins.
Land use would be as follows:
MMS_D Additional Land Requirements Acres
Liquid Treatment Facilities 23.9
Potential Joint Use Facilities
Aeration Basins 10.5
Potential Transfer of Land to Harbor Commission
Existing plant site where facilities
would be abandoned (See Figure IV-7,
Site F) 8.6
Harbor Commission Net Loss of Land 4.8
(1 acre = 0.4047 ha)
IV-62
-------
'' >v"lv^ * ' v V- \ " ^
-^v*.** ,,/.\ -4 ?;*.
..
NEW FACILITIES
SOLIDS
SIPHONS
COAHSE SCREENS
GRIT REMOVAL
FINE SCREENS
AERATION BASINS
30 EA - 1 4 MG
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
16 EA - 115 FT DIA
SLUDGE PUMP STATIONS
PICKLE LIQUOR SYSTEM
CHLOHINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
CONVERSION 3 EA - 24 MG
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
SERVICE BUILDINGS
GRAVITY THICKENERS
19 ['A - ib FT OIA
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
18 EA - 2 5 MG
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
BELT FILTER PRESSES
12 EA - 192 TPD
FILTER CAKE STORAGE
3 DAY CAPACITY
SERVICE BUILDINGS
FIGURE
DATE
IV-4
SOURCE vllrPE
PREPARED BY
=?[lEcolSciences
LZDU ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Although Alternative 4 would require additional land on Jones
Island, construction of new secondary facilities can be
completed before the West Plant is abandoned and used for
solids handling facilities. Also, the conversion of several
East Plant aeration basins to chlorine contact basins would
have minimal impacts on the operation of treatment facilities
during construction. Construction would also include building
new facilities for the Harbor Commission. Construction of
the facilities would take 60 months. Liquid treatment
facilities would be finished in 36 months. East Plant
modifications would be finished within 48 months.
Costs, and staff requirements for Alternative 4 are listed
in Table IV-13. Annual energy requirements are listed in
Table IV-14, and annual chemical requirements are listed in
Table IV-15.
5. Alternative 5 - High Purity Oxygen (HPO) Activated
Sludge System
This alternative is different from Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and
4 in that high purity oxygen (HPO) is used instead of air to
provide an oxygen source for microorganisms in the aeration
basins. Half of the aeration basins in the East Plant would
be converted to HPO activated sludge aeration basins. The
other half of the East Plant aeration basins could be con-
verted to chlorine contact basins. The West Plant aeration
basins would be demolished and replaced with secondary clar-
ifiers, anaerobic digesters, coarse screens, fine screens,
digester gas storage, belt filter presses, and sludge facilities
would be located on land to the south of the present Jones
Island WWTP. Figure IV-5 shows the layout of the HPO activated
sludge systems.
The following facilities would be abandoned: siphons,
coarse screens, grit removal channels, fine screens, West
Plant aeration basins, process air compressors, West Plant
sludge pump station, waste sludge thickeners, pickle liquor
system, chlorination building, Milorganite production and
service buildings. New liquid treatment facilities would
include: siphons, coarse screens, grit removal channels,
fine screens, conversion of 11 East Plant aeration basins to
one 1.7 MG (6400 m3) closed-tank HPO four stage basins,
twenty 105 foot (32 m) diameter secondary clarifiers, a
sludge pump station, pickle liquor system, chlorination
building, three 2.4 MG (9100 m^) chlorine contact basins, an
effluent pump station, and an oxygen generation building. A
single 165 TPD (150 metric tons/day) oxygen generation
facility would have to be built and a 1,200 ton (1,100 metric
tons) liquid oxygen storage facility would be provided for a
seven day oxygen supply. Additional oxygen could be trucked
IV-63
-------
TABLE IV-13
ALTERNATIVE 4
COST AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Construction Capital Annual Present Staff
Cost Cost O&M Cost Worth Positions
Liquid Treatment 215,050 279,570 9,101 371,830 209
Solids Handling
On Site 70,380 91,490 2,771 129,350 50
Off Site 11,920 15,500 2,652 47,630 57
Total System 247,350 386,560 14,524 548,810 316
All costs in $1000
2
For application to agricultural land
Reference: JIFPE
IV-64
-------
D
EH
CO
0*1
rH O
ftJ i— (
4J
0 >i O
O
O
, — |
t— { 1 ^
1 CO
O ^D
W
CO
73 CU
•H 4J
i-H -H
O C/3
W 1
C
O
CM O
o ^D in
• • in
(N ro «.
i-l I n
ro £
•H CU
3 4-1
D1 CO
•H >,
J CO
in
i i
en i i
r^
2
O
X
j..
^
k>i
4J
•H
O
•H
^_l
4-1
0
CU
r-l
w
VD
0
1-1
X
10
CD
j~^
EH
CO
rO
O
^1
0)
4J
(0
CU
IT1
•r-{
Q
VO
O
i — 1
D
EH
ffl
iH
cu
p
fa
H
«J
SH-
CO
c
0)
Oi
0)
c
•H
,a
M
p
4-1
CD
P
CO
O
CJ
&
W
S
>i
.a
•8
4-1
id
£_i
CU
c
0)
tn
CO
fO
.c
A!
X.
D
EH
ffl
0
0
in
•.
o
i— t
^
c
o
•H
4->
ft
g
^
CO
C
0
0
(0
c
S
4-1
n
CD
,C
4-1
(T)
i-l
C
o
•H
4->
O
3
T3
O
!-l
ft
(0
CO
4J
d
0)
CO
CD
^
a
cu
S-l
c!
01
•ft
CO
CO
3
-M
S
eN
C
o
1-1
1-1
(0
\
D
EH
ffl
O
0
O
«.
O
-=r
n
CO
CU
•H
H D 1-3 CO
in co rf
co o in
r-m o o
• o vo -
n i—i n H
II II II II
O g
H M
iH CU
r8 £
Cn EH
S EH
y CQ
W
CH
fa
H
CU
O
c
CU
VI
-------
TABLE IV-15
ANNUAL CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
Solids System
Chemical
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
Pickle Liquor
Polymer
Units
tons
tons
tons
tons
System On-Site Off-Site
1055
352
1697*
70
Tota:
1055
352
1697
70
*Represents tons of pickle liquor as iron (Fe) using Fe:P ratio of 1.5:1
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
Reference: JIFPE
IV-66
-------
-
iX
SIPHONS
COARSE SCREENS
GRIT REMOVAL
FINE SCREENS
HPO BASIN CONVERSION
11 EA - 1 7 MG
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
?0 EA • 105 FT DIA
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
PICKLE LIQUOR SYSTEM
•VJRJJ CHLORINATION BUILDING
* 118 CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
f^n CONVERSION 3 EA - 2 4 MG
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
OXYGEN GENERATION BUILDING
SOLIDS
GRAVITY THICKENERS
CONVERT WEST PLANT CLARIFIERS
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
18 EA - 2 5 MO
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
BELT FILTER PRESSES
12 EA - 192 TPD
FILTER CAKE STORAGE
3 DAY CAPACITY
SERVICE BUILDINGS
FIGURE
IV-5
DATE
SOURCE \JIFPE
PREPARED BY
^flEcolSciences
JZULI ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
to the plant. Many of the preliminary, effluent pumping and
solids handling facilities used for Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and
5 would be the same. Since many of the existing facilities
would be converted, wastewater treatment operation during
construction could be severely impacted. Construction of
the proposed facilities is estimated to take four and one-
half years.
Land use requirements are summarized below:
MMSD Additional Land Requirements Acres
Liquid Treatment Facilities 2.6
Solids Handling Facilities 10.6
Potential Joint Use Facilities 0
Potential Transfer of Land to Harbor Commission
Existing plant site where facilities
would be abandoned (See Figure IV-7, Site F) 8.6
Harbor Commission Net Loss of Land 4.8
(1 acre = 0.4047 ha)
Costs and staff requirements for Alternative 5 are listed in
Table IV-16. Annual energy requirements are listed in
Table IV-17, and annual chemical requirements are listed in
Table IV-18.
6. Alternative 6 - Activated Biofilter (ABF)/Activated
Sludge System
Alternative 6 is different from Alternatives 1 through 5 in
that it uses a roughing filter, i.e., an activated biofilter
(ABF), to precede an air activated sludge system, whereas
Alternatives 1 through 5 use no filter at all. Primary
settling basins precede the ABF units. Alternative 6 requires
nearly 40 acres (16 ha) of additional land to build the new
facilities. However, the West Plant would be abandoned and
the land returned to the Harbor Commission. Alternative 6
is shown in Figure IV-6.
The ABF units are circular towers where flow is uniformly
distributed at the top over the tower media by rotary dis-
tributors. The ABF treatment is a fixed growth process,
while the activated sludge is a 'suspended growth process.
IV-67
-------
TABLE IV-16
ALTERNATIVE 5
COST AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Construction Capital Annual Present Staff
Cost Cost OSM Cost Worth Positions
Liquid Treatment 152,500 198,250 7,951 282,420 184
Solids Handling
On Site 66,810 86,850 2,771 129,350 50
Off Site 11,920 15,500 2,652 47,630 57
Total System 231,230 300,600 13,374 454,400 291
All costs in $1000
For application to agricultural land
Reference: JIFPE
IV-68
-------
D
EH
oa
Cn
H O
ITS rH
4-1
O X
EH —
CM
0
•
in
co
o m
O v£
• t
O i-H
^D r^
ro
I
m
o
•
r-
CM
O
in
[^
iH
1
£>
H
w
m
H
H
EH
[2
K
H
EH
J
<;
OS
O
W
EH
3
s
(fl
0
EH
CO vO vD
^1" ro i— I
r- I r-
4J
•H
g
0)
4-1
tn
£>i
to
CO
•a
, — |
o
05
CO
1
M-f
M-t
o
0
o
H
p^ 1 ^
i co
O v£
1
O"1
M
a
G
4-)
i
4-1
•rH
o
•H
M
4-1
O
0)
rH
0)
T3
0)
4J
m
M
0)
G
s
(fl
CD
4-1
W
O
CJ
CM
H
S
M
0
MH
T3
CD
}H
^3
&
0)
rj
3
\^
D
EH
oa
o
o
in
^
o
^
oj
H
0)
4H
rH
0)
CO
cu
•rl
rQ
C
o
i-H
rH
(fl
^^
a
EH
m
0
o
0
*.
O
^r
r— 1
00
tn
r>-4
(D
4-> I-J
•H
H D ID co
EH pi^ • PL]
m cQ ^* ft
co o m PL,
r-in o o H
- o ID » ID
ro i-H ro i— 1
II II II II
(1)
C O
0 g C
i-H 0) -C D >4
(fl XI 3 EH (1)
CU
rH H rH H A
IV-6 9
-------
TABLE IV-18
ANNUAL CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 5
Solids System
Chemical
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
Pickle Liquor
Polymer
Units
tons
tons
tons
tons
System On-Site Off-Site
1055
352
1697*
70
Total
1055
352
1697
70
*Represents tons of pickle liquor as iron (Fe) using Fe:P ratio of 1.5:1
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
Reference: JIFPE
IV-70
-------
v£S**yv
'
j ** >•"» •r "
SIPHONS
COARSE SCREENS
GRIT REMOVAL
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
20 EA - 40 FT X 200 FT DIA
ABF TOWERS
8 EA - 190,000 CUBIC FEET
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
16 EA - 115 FT DIA
SLUDGE PUMP STATION
PICKLE LIQUOR SYSTEM
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
3 EA - 24 MG
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
SERVICE BUILDINGS
DAF THICKENERS
11 EA - 20 FT X 90 FT
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
14 EA - 25 MG
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
BELT FILTER PRESSES
9 EA - 27 TPD
FILTER CAKE STORAGE
3 DAY CAPACITY
SERVICE BUILDINGS
FIGURE
DATE
IV-6
SOURCE dlFPE
PREPARED BY
sflEcolSciences
-TZHJ ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
The following facilities would be abandoned: siphons,
coarse screens, grit removal channels, fine screens, West
Plant aeration basins, West Plant clarifiers, sludge pump
stations, waste sludge thickeners, pickle liquor system,
chlorination building, Milorganite production, and service
buildings. New liquid treatment facilities would include:
siphons, coarse screens, grit removal channels, twenty 40-
foot (12 m) by 200-foot (60 m) primary settling basins,
eight 190,000 cubic feet (5400 m33) ABF towers, sixteen
115-foot (35 m) diameter secondary clarifiers, sludge pump
station, pickle liquor system, chlorination building, three
2.4 MG (.9100 m3) chlorine contact basins, effluent pump
station, and service buildings.
Land requirements would affect the Harbor operations during
construction. Land requirements are listed below:
MMSD Additional Land Requirements Acres
Chlorination Facilities 3.9
Liquid Treatment Facilities 26.7
Solids Handling Treatment Facilities 8.7
Subtotal ' 39.3
Potential Joint Use Facilities
Chlorination Facilities 3.9
Primary Treatment Basins 3.5
Subtotal 7.4
Potential Transfer of Land to Harbor Commissions
Existing plant site where facilities
will be abandoned (See Figure IV-7, Site F) 8.6
West Plant 13.4
Subtotal 22.0
Harbor Commission Net Loss of Land 9.5
(1 acre = 0.4047 ha)
Construction of Alternative 6 would take 48 months. Costs
and staff requirements for Alternative 6 are listed in Table
IV-19. Annual enerry ant1 chemical requirements are listed
in Tables IV-20 anaiv-21, respectively.
IV-71
-------
TABLE IV-19
ALTERNATIVE 6
COST AND STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Construction Capital Annual Present Staff
Cost Cost OSM Cost Worth Positions
Liquid Treatment 225,150 292,700 8,533 380,580 201
Solids Handling
On Site 55,270 71,850 2,231 102,060 38
Off Site 10/630 13,820 2,133 39,750 45
Total System 291,050 378,370 12,897 522,390 284
1 All costs in $1000
2
For application to agricultural land
Reference: JIFPE
IV-72
-------
D
EH
ffl
CTl
H 0
(S rH
4J
O X
EH -'
ro
0
O}
•
LO
0>
r**.
0
o
•
0
r— (
^F
i
co
,
r~
in
co
H
•
CO
•sr
5
W
o
CM
|
H
!
5]
£n
H
EH
2
S
W
EH
Hi
sC
PS
0
fa
CO
H
2
H
D
CX
3
>H
O
Pi
W
2
H
0)
1 1
E
0)
4J
tn
>,
W
tn
•a
•H
r-t
0
CQ
+•*
-H
in
M-l
14-1
O
CD
4J
•H
tn
c§
'O S
•i-i CD
3 -P
a1 tn
HI w
Cn
CD
H
CO
in
CM
UD
o
co
CM
LO
o
o
10
m
m
o
co
0
1
X
jZ
U
H
(S
u
J^
4-1
U
CD
H
W
X
tn
e
CD
rj
4J
W
S
CD
jj
tn
(U
on
•H
Q
O
X
D
EH
m
H
"fl)
^
fa
H
CD
to
CD
Q
H
o
4-J
CD
tn
a)
T>
j^
O
1-1
n3
tn
^
EH
ffl
O
O
O
^
O
*vT
r-l
H
C
O
•H
4-1
CH
tn
C
0
0
id
c
IS
f,
4-1
CD
f,
4-1
(0
C
0
•rH
4J
O
3
•8
j_(
a
IS
to
4-1
C
CD
tn
cu
a
CD
^
tn
3
C
•H
e
i^
CM
^
o
fl
CD
G
CD
Cn
e
Q)
tn
O
0
CM
H
^
£*i
•Q
•a
CD
•H
3
CD
(~|
§
vf
D
EH
03
O
0
in
^
o
^
ro
CD
4-1
•H
m
CO
ro
II
o
D
EH
CO
O in
o o
CD
£
EH
D
EH
CO
H
fa
H
CD
O
C
CD
IV-7 3
-------
TABLE IV-21
ANNUAL CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 6
Chemical
Chlorine
Sulfur Dioxide
Pickle Liquor
Polymer
. , Solids System
Liquid -
Units System On-Site Off-Site
Total
tons
tons
tons
tons
1055
352
1697*
70
1055
352
1697
70
*Represents tons of pickle liquor as iron (Fe) using Fe:P ratio of 1.5:1
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
Reference: JIFPE
IV-74
-------
I. Disinfection Alternatives
Disinfection is the use of an agent, typically a chemical,
to destroy large numbers of potentially pathogenic microorganisms
in wastewater. Three types of disinfectants were studied in
detail for treating wastewater for this project: (1) combined
chlorine, (including hypochlorite) (2) chlorine dioxide, and
(3) ozone. They are discussed below. Other types were
considered, but for technical reasons were eliminated from
further consideration.
Chlorine dioxide is a water-soluble gas that is unstable and
extremely explosive. It is used to remove taste and odors,
and may be used as a bleaching agent for wood pulp, fats and
oils. Ozone is molecular oxygen composed of three oxygen
atoms per molecule. Ozone is highly unstable and decomposes
rapidly to its more stable oxygen constituents. This rapid
decomposition to oxygen makes ozone a powerful oxidizing
agent. Ozone has bactericidal properties that are superior
to those of chlorine. It has been used extensively in
Europe to remove color, iron, manganese, odor, and taste
during water treatment. Ozone is a very effective dis-
infectant once its inital demand has been satisfied. However,
this initial demand can be quite high. Historically, chlorine
and chlorine compounds are the most widely used disinfectants
in the Unites States. Combined chlorine is the concentration
of chlorine that is combined with ammonia as a chloramine
or as other chlorine compounds which can still oxidize
organic matter.
Initial monetary evaluations of combined chlorine, ozone,
and chlorine dioxide showed chlorine to have the highest
present worth cost. Although chlorine dioxide has the
lowest capital cost, it has the highest operation cost due
to the high cost of the chemicals. The high operation cost,
the lack of the proven performance record of chlorine dioxide,
and siginificant safety problems eliminated chlorine dioxide
from further consideration as a disinfecting agent. For
these reasons, only ozone and combined chlorine are further
evaluated. The JIFPE discusses disinfection more extensively.
During the initial evaluation of combined chlorine and ozone
as disinfection alternatives, design criteria were used to
size the disinfection facilities. The design criteria for
combined chlorine disinfection are as follows:
Average chlorine dosage 6 mg/1
Chlorine contact time
- average flow 60 minutes
- maximum flow 30 minutes
IV-75
-------
In order to reduce the toxic effects of chlorine addition,
dechlorination facilities would be required. Sulfur dioxide
is commonly used in dechlorination to reduce chlorine resi-
duals. Sulfur dioxide dosages would be 2 mg/1 for both
maximum conditions and average conditions. One disadvantage
of using sulfur dioxide is that it reduces dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations in the effluent. This decrease requires
some form of post aeration to increase DO to acceptable
levels.
Ozone has shown much promise recently as a viable alternative
to chlorine disinfection. One of its main advantages is
that it increases DO levels in wastewater. Since ozone is
unstable and degrades to its oxygen components readily,
effluents disinfected with ozone are not toxic to aquatic
biota unless a residual concentration is present (Roselund,
1975 and Arthur et al, 1975). Asbury and Coler (1980) have
found that residual ozone concentrations in natural waters
should remain below 50 mg/1 because of the sensitivity of
larvae. Fish eggs are sensitive to ozone residual concentrations
of 100 mg/1.
Since ozone is such a powerful chemical oxidant, it is a
better disinfectant than chlorine and requires a shorter
contact time. Ozone is known to be more effective than
chlorine in killing viruses. Ozone disinfection is un-
affected by the pH or ammonia content of wastewater, while
chlorine disinfection is directly affected by ammonia and
pH. Also, ozone is relatively safe to use. Since ozone is
generated onsite, an ozone leakage at the Jones Island WWTP,
is a risk only to personnel operating the equipment.
By comparison, chlorine is typically transported in railroad
tank cars, and a leak caused by a derailment may necessitate
the evacuation of large numbers of people from the nearby
downtown Milwaukee area. An accident in 1979, near Toronto,
Canada, involving chlorine caused the evacuation of nearly a
quarter of a million people.
Although ozone disinfection has advantages, it also has
numerous disadvantages. Ozone must be generated on-site and
requires a tremendous amount of electricity to be produced.
Design criteria used to size the ozone facilities were
initially set as follows:
Average dosage 4 mg/1
Contact time
- average flow 30 minutes
- maximum flow 15 minutes
IV-76
-------
Ozone dosage rates are difficult to maintain due to changes
in treated effluent concentrations, especially those dis-
solved solids and organics not removed by upstream processes.
Design criteria were revised during the facility planning
process as additional information was developed. Also, an
additional form of disinfection, hypochlorite, was introduced.
There are two types of hypochlorite used in wastewater dis-
infection: sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite.
Sodium hypochlorite has safety advantages over chlorine
because it can be stored in an aqueous solution. In spite
of this advantage, sodium hypochlorite should still be
considered to be a hazardous substance. Most of the equip-
ment used to add chlorine or hypochlorite to treated
wastewater is the same. Hypochlorite and chlorine take the
same chemical form in wastewater. Sodium hypochlorite can
be generated on site, which is more cost effective than
shipping the hypochlorite to the site. Hypochlorite used
for disinfection has the same disadvantages as chlorine with
respect to the toxic effect to aquatic life. Hypochlorite
could be studied further in AFP or in design (Step II of the
Construction Grants Program).
Pilot plant studies were carried out by the MWPAP for ozone
disinfection to develop revised design criteria which called
for an applied dosage of 25 mg/1 with a 10 minute contact
time at maximum day flows. Tables IV-22, IV-23, and IV-24
list the the finalized design criteria. Chlorine and ozone
were never compared in parallel, i.e., run concurrently on
the same wastewater stream.
A cost-effective analysis was performed which showed chlorine
gas to be the most cost-effective form of disinfection. The
results are summarized in Table IV-25. The JIFPE recommends
chlorine disinfection with sulfur dioxide dechlorination.
J. Lake Michigan Outfall
Presently, the liquid effluent from the Jones Island WWTP is
discharged directly into the Milwaukee Outer Harbor. Since
the Outer Harbor acts as a natural settling basin, pollutants
tend to remain within the embayment. Although discharges
from CSOs would end and non-point source pollution is predicted
to decrease during the planning period, the Jones Island
effluent would still constitute a large portion of the
pollutant load to the Outer Harbor. Construction of an
effluent outfall that would discharge treated effluent
directly into Lake Michigan could help alleviate this problem.
However, the pollutant loading would be increased to Lake
Michigan by this action. This proposed outfall would consist
IV-7 7
-------
TABLE IV-22
DESIGN CRITERIA - CHLORINATION
ITEM Average Base Maximum Day
Wastewater Flow (MGD) 115.3 300.0
Chlorine Dose (mg/1) 6.0 6.0
Chlorine Requirements (Ib/d) 5,765 15,000
Minimum Contact Time (min) 60a 30.0
Contact Volume (MG) 4.8 7.2
Chlorine Residual (mg/1) 2.0 2.0
Chlorine Storage (tons) 90.0 90.0
aGoverning criteria with one basin out of service.
1 MG = 3.7854 x 103 m3
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10-2m3/s
1 ton = 0.9078 metric tons
Reference: JIFPE
IV-78
-------
TABLE IV-23
DESIGN CRITERIA - DECHLORINATION
Item Unit
Wastewater Flow (MGD)
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
Sulfur Dioxide Dose (mg/1)
Sulfur Dioxide Requirements (Ib/day)
Sulfur Dioxide Storage (tons)
Average Jjase
115.3
2.0
2.0
925
30
Maximum Day
300.0
2.0
2.0
5005
30
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~ m3/day
1 Ib/day 0.4536 kg/day
1 ton = 0.907 metric ton
Reference-: JIFPE
IV-79
-------
TABLE IV-24
DESIGN CRITERIA - OZONATION
Item Average Base Maximum Day
Wastewater Flow (MGD) 115.3 300.0
Applied Dose (mg/1) 25.0 25.0
Utilized Dose (mg/1) 22.5 22.5
Ozone Percent by Weight 2.5 2.5
Ozonation Rate (Ib/d) 24,100 62,600
Minimum Contact Time (min) — 10.0
Contact Volume (MG) — 2.1
Make-up Oxygen (TPD) 20.0 51.0
Cryogenic Oxygen Plant
Capacity (tpd) 30.0 30.0
Liquid Oxygen Storage (tons) 140.0 140.0
MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3/day
Ib/day = 0.4536 kg/day
MG = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3
tpd = 0.9078 metric tons per day
tons = 0.9078 metric tons
Reference: JIFPE
iv-80
-------
TABLE IV-25
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES
Chlorine Sodium Ozone
Gas Hypochlorite Gas
Capital Costs:
Contact Basin $11,700,000 $11,700,000 $ 5,900,000
Buildings & Equip. 6,400,000 11,300,000 34,100,000
Total System $18,100,000 $23,000,000 $40,000,000
O&M Costs:
Labor ($/yr) 290,000 406,000 290,000
Energy ($/yr)2 27,000 174,100 1,597,800
Chemicals ($/yr) 197,500 171,700 0
Materials &
Supplies ($/Yr) 26,100 72,900 254,600
Total O&M ($/yr) $540,600 $824,700 $2,142,400
Present Worth 23,300,000 31,200,000 64,100,000
Staff Requirements:
Operations 58 5
Support 56 5
Total Staff 10 14 10
Costs for dechlorination are included.
2
Onsite requirements only.
Reference: JIFPE
IV-81
-------
of 5,000 feet (.1525 m) of 132 in C3.35 ml diameter reinforced
concrete pipe which would convey wastewater from the effluent
pumping station into Lake Michigan.
The outfall could be modeled after the South Shore WWTP:
(diameter 132 inches), four 96-inch (.2.4 m) diffusers
pointing upwards, constructed of concrete pressure pipe 5
feet (1.5 m) below the Lake bottom. Water sampling con-
duits, like at South Shore, would be included. The outfall
pipe could be built through the breakwater or be routed
through the central opening. The cost of the South Shore
outfall in 1963 was $1.76 million, equivalent to $5.99
million in 1980 dollars. The outfall for Jones Island
(3,000 feet, 915 m, to the breakwater and 2000 feet, 510 m,
beyond) would cost $16.6 million. This cost does not include
the cost for O&M or traversing the breakwater. Effluent
pumping facilities are part of the MMSD's Recommended Plan
for Jones Island WWTP.
The precise location of the outfall would require further
study. Acceptable locations would avoid contaminating
bathing beaches and water intakes. Two principles apply:
the effluent should be well diffused, and the plume should
not be carried by the closest near-shore currents. The
outfall should therefore extend from the breakwater and any
water intakes. It is likely that suitable locations exist
east and east-northeast from the Jones Island WWTP.
K. Land Expansion Alternatives
After the MWPAP determined that retaining the existing site
would be cost-effective, additional land requirements were
identified. Six sites in close proximity to the present
site are described below and shown in Figure IV-7. The
various sites are not identified by specific boundaries and,
therefore, acreages are approximate. Also, the time that
may be required to obtain these sites has not been specified.
Site A - Land immediately south of the existing Jones Island
WWTP controlled by the Milwaukee Harbor Commission
(MHC) and occupied by oil company storage tanks.
Site B - North Harbor tract which is used by the "Summerfest"
recreational area.
Site C - Lake fill of approximately 10 acres (4 ha)
east of the East Plant.
Site D - New pier.
Site E - Land at the south end of the harbor.
IV-8 2
-------
JONES ISLAND
WWTP
:o o o
ATLANT1CRICHFIELD
oo o o o
FIGURE
IV-7
DATE
ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR UPGRADING OR
EXPANDING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
EC
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
^TlEcolSciences
—• ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Site F - Land currently occupied by the Jones Island WWTP.
It could be exchanged with the MHC for Site A.
The JIFPE contains a more thorough description of the six
sites.
Site A is the most accessible of the six sites since it is
adjacent to the existing WWTP. The land is now occupied by
oil storage tanks but could be converted to treatment
facilities. Use of this land is part of MMSD's Recommended
Plan.. This land could be exchanged with the MHC for Site F.
Site B was not considered to be feasible since it was not
easily accessible and it is separated from the WWTP by the
Milwaukee River. It is approximately 10 miles (16 km) round
trip from this site to the Jones Island WWTP via roadways.
Also, Site B is used for Summerfest, an annual two week
recreation and entertainment fair. Although the City of
Milwaukee would allow MMSD to use this site for a WWTP, they
stipulated that it should not be noticeable to people at-
tending Summerfest. Therefore, it would be difficult for
the MMSD to operate a WWTP on this site since Summerfest is
attended by over 100,000 people on some days.
Site C would create additional land at an estimated cost of
$15 million in the Outer Harbor. It is part of MMSD's
recommended plan and the JIFPE proposes to use it as a
construction staging area and for disinfection facilities.
It could also be used for future expansion. However, the
lakefill would come under review of the following State and
Federal agencies:
• EPA (section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972).
• U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers (River and Harbor Act of
1899) .
• DNR (through review of the MMSD's Facility Plan).
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (through review
of the MMSD's Facility Plan).
The County of Milwaukee has a Lake Bed Grant from the
Wisconsin State Legislature for the construction of highways
or parks along the Lake Michigan near-shore area. The MMSD
could also apply for a Lake Bed Grant. Implementation of
the lakefill due to the involvement of State, Federal and
local authorities could be difficult. The issue may ul-
timately be resolved by a court case.
IV-83
-------
The MMSD would not make a formal application to the Corps
until after this EIS is published. The Corps would ad-
minister the permits under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and the River and Harbor Act. If a change in the align-
ment of a shipping channel was noted in the permit application,
an Act of Congress could also be required.
Analysis of the bottom sediments would be required to
determine if disruption caused by lakefill would release
hazardous waste materials. If heavy metals or PCBs were
found in excess of the limits which signify hazardous waste
materials, (e.g. 50 ppm for PCBs, 40 CFR 761) then it is
possible that the lakefill would not be approved by EPA.
The Corps would deny a permit in such situations. However,
recent studies carried out by the MMSD (1980) found PCB
concentration to be less than 50 ppm (dry weight basis) in
the proposed fill area.
The land occupied by Bulk Terminal No. 1 (General Cargo
Terminal No. 1), which is a portion of site A, could be used
for disinfection facilities. This site would be a viable
alternative to filling in 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) of the outer
harbor at Site C for additional land. The disinfection
facilities could be built in such a manner that the MMSD and
the MHC could both utilize the land. Also, the MMSD has
identified this dual-use facility as a contingency to Site
C. The portion of Site A occupied by oil storage tanks and
containerized storage facilities would be required by the
MMSD for expansion, whether or not Site C is utilized.
Site D would involve the construction of a new pier for the
MHC which would be paid for by the MMSD. The site would
provide 15 acres (6 ha) at an estimated cost of $30 million
and is, therefore, more expensive than the other sites.
Greater cost in comparison to the other sites eliminates
this site from further consideration.
Site E would be a remote site used to locate additional
treatment facilities. Fifteen acres (6 ha) of land could be
acquired easily within this area. The cost involved with
the transportation of wastewater to and from the site, in
addition to the difficulty of operating a separated WWTP,
makes the site infeasible.
Site F could be returned to the MHC by the MMSD in exchange
for the land taken at Site A for treatment facilities. It
would cost the MMSD $11 million to the 8 acres (3.2 ha) for
MHC use.
IV-84
-------
In the discussion of the six process alternatives (Alternatives
1-6), all expansion was assumed to take place on existing
land (as shown by Figures IV-1 through IV-6). A possible
lakefill to the east of the East Plant aeration basins was
considered (Site C), but the MWPAP did not investigate it fur-
ther due to implementation considerations. This alternative
was re-evaluated when the MWPAP concluded that the constraints
associated with other sites outweighed the disadvantages of
creating additional land. Disadvantages would be higher
cost, implementation problems, and water quality problems.
However, MWPAP stated that the advantages outweighed the addi-
tional cost. Table IV-26 compares the lakefill costs with
using General Cargo Terminal No. 1 for location of the
disinfection facilities.
The 9.5 acre (3.6 ha) lakefill site would require 800,000
cubic yards (611,680 m3) of lakefill (JIFPE). Sources for
this fill were not identified in the JIFPE. It should be
noted that the lakefill at Site C could aggravate already
severe wave propagation problems in South Slip No. 1. The
E.M. Ford, a freighter, sank in South Slip No. 1 during a storm
in December, 1979.
L. Engineering Evaluation of Process Alternatives
In addition to the cost estimates, energy consumption, manpower
needs and land requirements, the alternatives were subjected
to a qualitative analysis by the EIS study team. The alter-
natives were analyzed using the following engineering criteria:
• Feasibility: The alternative must be technically possible
and practicable. Well established and proven past history
of processes in the alternative would make it readily accept-
able (thus practicable) by the designers, contractors, and
operators.
Compatibility: The individual elements of the alternative
must be compatible with overall plant layout, site conditions,
and treatment objectives. This would include maintaining
plant integrity and achieving right degree of treatment.
• Flexibility: The alternative should offer capability to
respond to changes in flow and load conditions and also to
plant operations within reasonable amount of time.
• Reliability: The alternative should be dependable in
consistently achieving desired quality effluent under
anticipated varying conditions.
• Safety: The potential for creation of hazardous conditions
within the plant or in the surrounding area, or for occur-
rence of accidents must be minimum for the alternative.
IV-85
-------
TABLE IV-26
ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
Facilities Not
Common to Both
Alternatives
Filling of the Lake
Joint Use Facilities on
Chlorine Contact Basins
Appurtenant Channels
Total Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Reference: JIFPE
Lakefill
$15,457,000
3,043,000
$18,500,000
$24,050,000
General Cargo
Terminal No. 1
Southeast
Dock Site
$ 5,323,000
8,746,000
$14,069,000
$18,290,000
IV-86
-------
• Capability: The alternative must be able to achieve desired
degree of treatment.
• Operations & Maintenance: The alternative should have
minimum impact on existing O&M procedures and practices.
• Interim Status: An alternative which would not require
total or partial shutdown, or would create least disruptions
in operations of the existing plant during construction of
new facilities would be preferrable. A shorter construction
time would have obvious advantages.
Future Expansion: The alternative should allow for
expansion of plant in future, if and when necessary.
All of the air activated sludge systems (Alternatives 1 through
4) are feasible. Alternative 5 (HPO activated sludge) does
not have the proven history of operation that the air activated
sludge systems possess. Alternative 6 is not an established
treatment method and does not have a proven history of operation.
Alternative 6 would not be as compatable with the overall
plant layout since the roughing filters could affect the air
activated sludge system that follows them.
All alternatives should be reasonably flexible to respond to
changes in wastewater flows and loads. Alternative 6 could
be less reliable since it is not a widely used and studied
treatment system. Alternative 5 (HPO activated sludge) poses
a special safety problem due to volatility of pure oxygen.
All alternatives would be designed to meet the desired level
of treatment, so they would be capable of meeting WPDES effluent
limits.
All alternatives would have an impact on the present O&M pro-
cedures . Systems which are the most akin to the present WWTP
would have the least effect on O&M procedures. Alternatives
5 (HPO) and 6 (ABF) would cause the most disruption to WWTP
operation since they are the most different from existing
processes.
Creation of additional land, e.g. by lakefill, would allow for
future expansion. No process alternative offers any advantage
for future expansion.
Chlorine has a proven history of performance, while ozone is
not as widely used for disinfection. Each form of disinfection
would be compatible with the proposed plant layout, and would be
flexible enough to respond to changes in effluent characteristics,
Each method poses its own safety problems, as discussed earlier.
Since chlorine is presently used, its use would have less of an
effect on existing O&M practices. Both forms of disinfection
would be designed to meet WPDES effluent limits under varying
effluent characteristics.
IV-8 7
-------
M. Comparison of Alternatives
Table IV-27 presents a cost estimate summary for the various
process alternatives for Jones Island WWTP. Table IV-27
is a matrix that lists the six feasible liquid treatment
alternatives and five feasible types of solids handling
alternatives (considered in the SMFPE). Energy consumption
is summarized on Table IV-28. Chemical consumption is
essentially the same for all alternatives, with the exception
that Alternative 5 consumes 1200 tons (1,100 metric tons) of
02/year.
When the six liquid treatment process alternatives were
evaluated, the agricultural spreading alternative (J12/J16)
was used in the development of cost estimates. When land-
filling Jones Island solids (J30/J31) was recommended by the
SMFPE/ this became part of the MMSD's Recommended Plan for
the Jones Island WWTP. Other feasible solids handling
alternatives are included in Table IV-27 for comparison.
N. MMSD's Recommended Plan
Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 were cited by the MWPAP for further
analysis based upon preliminary and detailed evaluation.
Alternative 2 is favored by the MMSD over Alternatives 1 and
5 due to energy efficiency, community acceptance, and
historic preservation. Alternative 2 is also favored by the
MMSD due to feasibility, compatability, flexibility, reli-
ability, safety, capability, O&M, interim status, and future
expansion. Table IV-29 summarizes the costs for Alternative
2. The difference in present worth between Alternatives 1,
2 and 5 is less than 5%. Liquid treatment present worth
costs for these alternatives are listed in Table IV-27.
The MMSD's Recommended Plan (Alternative 2), differs somewhat
from that described earlier. The Facilities Planning process,
by nature, is dynamic and revisions are ongoing. The changes
involve the location of the anaerobic digestors, gas storage
facilities, and chlorination facilities. The C&O car ferry
slip and an area east of the East Plant would be filled in.
Also, further evaluation of solids handling process alternatives
showed landfill to be preferred over land application of
solids (the SMFPE discusses this further).
Figure IV-8 shows the revised layout of MMSD's Recommended
Plan. It has been modified from the original Alternative 2.
It provides for a minimum of land loss to the Harbor Commission.
However, a lakefill of 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) is being proposed
to locate disinfection facilities, provide a construction
staging area, and could be used for future expansion.
IV-8 8
-------
CN
I ^ *3*
CD
ID
CN
I
H
W
ffi
en
w
«rH
W —•
iJ O
O -H
2
en ffi
O
en
O EH
CJ 2
W
w en
> w
H K
EH ft
s
o
CJ
CN
rH H
H ro
•H ID
HH X
13 o
d rO
to ID
rO
SH
CN
4-1 O ID
rH -H rH
3 4-> ID
O CJ X
•H CD rH
SH T-l rH
en C ID
CN
ro
SH
3 tn ^^>
4-1 d ^5
rH -rl rH
3 13 ID
O rO X
•H CD CN
SH SH rH
tn
< en
CM
o
co
ro
co
ID
CN
co
in
ro
o
1^5
o
CN
ro
ro
VD
ID
CO
O
r-
LD
ID
a\
co
LD
ID
co
co
•<*
ID
00
ID
CTi
ID
O
CO
ID
cn
(U ^
ffi EH
CO rrj
13 -H
•H p
rH ^
O -H
i— |
CD
>
-H
4J
rd
C
j_i
CD
4->
rH
13
CD
4-1
rO
£>
•H
4-1
O
13 f£
C
<0 SH
D--H
X i<
W
x tn
cu c
rO 4-1
SH 10
tn-H
a x
D W
s
CO
tn
en
CD
tn
13
3
,— I
cn
4J
d
CD CD
tn g
13 4-^
3 (0
rH CD
en SH
EH
13
CN 4-> SH
ro fd
CD > g
> -H -ri
•H 4-1 SH
4-J U ft
rO
•H
4-1
0 g
ro 4->
ri tn
CD -H >,
> < en
•H
4J CD CD
rd rH tn
C CTH3
SH C 3
CU -H rH
4-1 en en
rH
*3*
CD
>
•H
4-1
rd
C
SH
CD
4->
H
SH CD
-H tn
•H
0 4J
,5 U
EH <
tn
g
CD
4-1
tn
>i
en
LD
CD
>
•H
4J
rd
g
SH
CD
4->
rH
C
CU
tn d)
>i tn
X 13
O 3
rH
>icn
4-)
•H 13
SH CD
3 4->
ft (0
>
£ -H
tn-P
•H O
33 <
\
SH
CD
4J
rH CD
•H 0^
4H ^
O 3
•H rH
vo CQ en
CU 'O 13
> CD CD
•H 4-J 4-1
4-1 rd rd
rO £> t>
C -H -H
SH 4-i 4-)
CD O U
4J r< <
rH
o
o
ro
O
O
OO
en
13
•iH
g
CD
SH
H
CM
en
4-1
c
CD
co
rH
w
c
rd
H
ft
-P
•H
rH
•H
o
ro
-------
TABLE IV-28
ANNUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Q
Alternative Annual Energy Consumption (BTU x 10 /yr)
Rank
1 678.70 5
2 424.28 1
3 683.95 6
4 673.45 4
5 497.05 3
6 443.18 2
llncluding liquid and solids handling (agricultural
spreading)
BTU = 1.0548 KJ
IV-90
-------
CTi
CN
l-H
CQ
EH
cn
O
u
Q
W
D
2
W
s
s
o
u
w
K
U)
Q
cn
Annual
Present Capital Construction Annual Energy
Worth Cost Cost O & M Cost
tn
CD
•H
-p
•H
rH
•H
U
to
fa
4->
C
CD
e
-P
tO
CD
JH
EH
tn
CD
•H
4-1
•H
rH
•H
U
to
fa
CD
4-J
•H
tn
c
o
0
o
0
m
rH
CN
O
O
o
cn
o
r-
•00-
o
o
0
o
tn
00
in
00
rH
0
o
o
0
rH
rH
CN
•to-
es
o
o
o
Ljp
o^
O"^
CN
ro
tn
CD
•H
4-1
•H
rH
•H
tO C
fa fO
4-1 >i
C rH
CD to
e c
4-1 -H
to e
CD -H
rH rH
EH CD
rH
T3 OH
• H
P 3
cr CD
-H 2
i-q
CD
- 4-1
in (0
CD >
•H -H
4-1 4J
•H U
H ! CD
rH T3
to to
S &H
•H Cn
rH Ol
P! £3
ities
, — )
3 -rH
>i CD 0
rH 2 tO
(0 fa
T3 ^
C C C
O (0 O
0 -H
CD -P -P
cn c u
CD CD
CD £ 4-<
tn-P C
T3 (0 *rH
p CD cn
rH rH -rH
cn EH D
o
o
o
ro
CO
in
1
o
0
o
ro
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
VD
O
CO
CO
0
o
o
o
rH
ro
rH
tn c
CD O
•H -H
4-1 4-1
•H tn
rH 0)
•H Cn
U -H
tO Q
fa
v
Cn Cn
C C
•H -H
rH C
T3 CD
c! A***
tO CJ
ffi -H
rC
CO EH
73
•H 3
rH CD
O 2
cn
CD
O
-P
cn
T3
c
(0
Cn
C
•H
rH
CD e
-P CD
tO -P
3 tn
CD >N
G cn
0
0
o
VD
in
H
o
o
o
ro
CN
rH
rH
O
O
O
o
o
in
ro
m
CN
•oo-
o
o
o
o
cn
CN
ro
•oo-
0
o
o
o
ro
lp
^O
•co-
in
CD
•H
-P
•H
rH
•H
O
(0
fa
0
4-1
•H
tn
C
O
rH
(0
4->
O
EH
O
0
O
0
00
rH
0
O
0
m
in
CN
0
o
o
0
rH
ro
0
O
O
O
0
CN
CO
O
O
0
0
CN
CN
CO
ro
rH
H
•H
T3
tn c
CD (0
•rH h-}
4->
•H T3
rH C
•H fO
O
fO 4-1
fa M
O
CD a
H-) tn
•H C
cn to
H | ^j
4-t EH
O
0
o
0
in
r~
rH
o
o
o
rH
CO
ro
rH
O
O
o
o
O
O"^
G^
in
CN
O
o
o
o
00
r-
ro
ro
•00-
o
o
o
0
cn
m
o
m
CD
-p
(0
g
•H
4-J
tn
w
e
CD
4J
tn
>i
cn
rH
fO
4-1
o
are included in the reported O & M cost.
the Recommended Plan vary from the screening level estimates
4-1 4-4
tn o
O
U 4-J
cn
O
>i O
Cn
Si
CD CD
C ^
W EH
• •
in
CD
4-1
0
ditional development and refinement of cost estimates.
ressed in terms of 1980 dollars and ENR construction cost index of 3300.
T3 PI
(0 X
CD
4-J
O CD
^
CD (0
tn
P cn
(0 4-1
o cn
0) O
& u
from methane gas produced by anaerobic digesters.
4J
•H
CD
fi
CD
ffl
tn
CD
4J
o
CD
Q
rH
H
O<
fa
H
,,
CD
o
c
CD
CD
4-1
CD
IV-91
-------
The solids handling facilities which had been proposed for
the land currently occupied by oil storage tanks would now
be located on land now occupied by containerized storage
facilities and the Milorganite handling and shipping area.
Figure IV-9 shows a process schemative of the recommended
plan. Staffing requirements are listed in Table IV-30.
Detailed costs are listed in Table IV-31.
IV-9 2
-------
\'
"***-*
\\r .
v4pM*«ii«rr
i^m,
i vj .*t
,
-------
0)2;
oi
O
UJ
X
o
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
cr
o_
-------
TABLE IV-30
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
Area of
Responsibility
Current
Staff for
Existing Plant
A. Operations
General Plant Operations
Liquid Treatment System
Solids Handling System-Onsite
Solids Handling System-Offsite —
B. Maintenance
2
C. Laboratory
Total
Estimated
Staff for
Recommended Plan
40
42
88
—
106
13
289
36
33
48
28
80
13
238
Does not include MIS system maintenance
Does not include South Shore and other laboratory testing
Reference:
JIFPE
IV-9 3
-------
TABLE IV-31
COST ESTIMATES:
MMSD'S RECOMMENDED PLAN
_ ^ .. Present JSorth
Construction (SIO^
Cost
Facility (SIC6)
Site Work s Demolition
Siphons
Preliminary Treatment
& Influent Pumping
Primary Treatment
Aeration
Secondary Clarifier
Disinfection
Effluent Pumping
Lakefill
Support Buildings
Relocation &
Land Acquisition
Other
SUBTOTAL - LIQUID
TREATMENT SYSTEM
Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Filter Press Dewatering
S Storage
SUBTOTAL - ONSITE SOLIDS
HANDLING SYSTEM
Transportation
Landfill
SUBTOTAL - OFFSITE SOLIDS
HANDLING SYSTEM
TOTAL LIQUID AND
SOLIDS SYSTEM
Liquid
5.51
8.74
21.59
28.64
31.84
37.51
13.56
1.89
15.46
9.25
9.99
1.37
185.85
11.32
33.39
22.53
67.74
1.22
5.09
6.31
259.90
Cost Treatment
Parameter System
Capital Cost $241,610
Present Worth $329,960
,000
,000
Replacement Salvag
—
2.99
1.49
—
2.87
_-
—
--
—
-_
—
7.35
1.56
2.39
4.85
8.80
0.55
1.12
1.67
17.32
Solids
Handling
Onsite
$ 38,060,000
$136,410,000
0.87
0.81
2.56
3.01
3.85
4.22
1.46
0.10
2.45
0.82
—
0.30
20.45
1.28
3.13
2.86
7.27
—
0.20
0.20
27.92
Solids
Handling
Offsite
$ 3,200,
$ 38,220,
Annual Annual
OSM Energy
— ("V^G^ (*r\es1~
\-OSt LOSI^
e ($103) (S103)1
47
13
438 128
342 13
1,530 1,235
523 135
462 72
86 40
39
4,129 536
—
— —
7,609 2,159
351 27
297 -709
3,006 99
3,654 -583
698 106
1,856 74
2,554 180
13,817 1,756
Total
Treatment
System
000 $337,870,000
000 $504,590,000
Annual OSM cost includes annual energy cost.
Reference: JIFPE
IV-9 4
-------
V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Introduction
Environmental elements that may be affected by the operation,
upgrading and expansion of the Jones Island WWTP include
water quality, aquatic biota, threatened or endangered
species, air quality, public health, historical or
archaeological sites, land use, economics, transportation
and access, energy and resource consumption, and noise and
safety. These elements are discussed below.
B. Water Quality
The Jones Island WWTP discharges treated wastewater (see
Table V-l) to Milwaukee's Outer Harbor. The Outer Harbor is
a portion of Lake Michigan that is separated from the lake
proper by a breakwater, and from the inner harbor by the
entrance canal to the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers openings. The breakwater allows limited mixing of
the Outer Harbor waters with those of the nearshore waters
of Lake Michigan. The only outflow of the three rivers is
through the Outer Harbor where potential for mixing and
dispersion is limited by the breakwater. Thus, pollutants
carried by the rivers from different sources accumulate in
the harbor's waters and sediments. The Water Quality
appendix of the MWPAP-EIS discusses Outer Harbor and Lake
Michigan water quality further.
Pollutants found in the waters and sediments of the Outer
Harbor include cadmium, chromium, lead, PCBs, and other
toxic substances. Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus
in the Outer Harbor have been up to ten times greater than
levels reported in Lake Michigan. Normally, oxygen levels
appear to be near saturation except near the harbor bottom,
however, the lack of complete data does not permit a com-
prehensive evaluation of the temporal (time related) and
spatial (space related) dissolved oxygen concentrations.
High chlorine concentrations may be a problem in the effluent
discharge plume from the Jones Island WWTP. In addition,
unionized ammonia (as N) in the effluent is higher than the
DNR water quality goal of 0.04 mg/1 and four times as con-
centrated as the 0.02 mg/1 criterion recommended by the
EPA.
The sources of pollution to the Outer Harbor include the
Jones Island WWTP which discharges both treated effluent and
occasionally chlorinated raw sewage. In addition, the three
rivers (the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic) carry
combined sewer overflows (CSO), storm sewer inputs, and non-
point source pollutants from upstream lands. The CSO and
V-95
-------
TABLE V-l
WATER QUALITY OF JONES ISLAND EFFLUENT
AND THE OUTER HARBOR
Effluent
Outer Harbor
BOD (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform
(#/100 ml, Geometric Mean)
Cadmium (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Ammonia Un-ionized (mg/1)
19
19
0.36
0.0076
0.26b
0.063b
0.081b
0.067b
0.159b
3.9°
3.4
8
0.06
<0.0002
0.04
0.016
<0.003
<0.020
0.01
Based on July 1977-June 1978 data,- source MMSD Wastewater
System Plan.
Based on 1978 data; Summary of Heavy Metal Weekly Composites.
£»
Based on 1978 Pilot Plant Investigation
Sources: Bothwell, 1975; Torrey, 1976; IJC, 1979; EPA, 1978;
EIS Water Quality Appendix
V-96
-------
Water Quality appendices provide details on the magnitudes
of these loadings. The Jones Island WWTP ' s effluent is a
major source of phosphorus, nitrogen, suspended solids, and
organic matter (measured by BOD) to the Outer Harbor.
C. Aquatic Biota
The aquatic community of the Outer Harbor consists of fish,
plankton, benthos (bottom dwelling organisms), and algae,
attached to surfaces in shallow waters. In the vicinity of
Jones Island, the benthic community is largely composed of
oligochaetes (.aquatic worms) that feed on the organic sediment
deposited by the three rivers and by the Jones Island WWTP
effluent (Hausmann 1974) . Clams and midge larvae occur in
small numbers. Attached algae, such as Cladophora, grow
densely and often become a nuisance to boats and visitors to
the lakefront. The Outer Harbor is inhabited by Lake Michigan
fish such as lake trout, coho salmon and alewife, as well as
catfish and minnows from the rivers. (Veith and Lee 1971).
D. Threatened or Endangered Species
No endangered or threatened species are known to live in the
Outer Harbor. An endangered fish (the longjaw cisco) was
reported in the deep offshore waters of Lake Michigan, but
has never been known to enter the shallow harbor waters.
Endangered and threatened species which live in the Milwaukee
River have not been found in the Outer Harbor.
E. Air Quality
Jones Island is located in an air quality nonattainment area
(i.e. ambient air quality is below national standards) for
particulate matter, carbon monoxide and ozone. Air quality
data, as measured less than onehalf mile from the Jones
Island WWTP, are shown in Table V-2 .
Air pollutant emissions resulting from wastewater treatment
at Jones Island are generated from turbine generators which
produce electricity and from boilers which produce heat for
the plant. Emissions from these sources represent less than
0.3% of the total point source emission in Milwaukee County,
as illustrated below.
Jones Island1 Milwaukee County 2
Tons/Yr Metric Tons/Yr Tons/Yr Metric Tons/Yr
Particulate matter 8.5 (7.7) 6,095 (5,533)
Carbon monoxide 17.1 (15.5) 6,839 (6,208)
Sulfur dioxide 13.7 (12.4) 157,850 (143,296)
Nitrogen dioxide 87.7 (79.6) 38,884 (35,299)
Hydrocarbons 6.6 (6.0) 22,200 (20,153)
1980
2SEWKPC 1980, (Milwaukee County Point Source Emmissions 1977)
V-97
-------
H H
(d
o
•H
g
§
A
O
0
-P
0
A
ft
tn
-P
C
(d
•0
•H
X'
O
c
J3
^_l
cd
0
tn
id
•O
0)
^
3
in
id
CD
2
CD
•0
•H
X
O
•H
Q
C
0)
tn
O
^
-p
•H
IS
CD
•0
•H
X
O
C
0
2
0)
3
X
0
•H
Q
^1
^
4-4
r-l
3
CO
p
p
2
0)
P
id
r-i
3
0
•H
p
^
in
H
OS
OJ
o
M
3
o
CO
V-98
-------
F. Public Health
Sewage contains pathogens (disease-causing organisms) which
pose a threat to human health. The Outer Harbor currently
receives combined sewer overflows (CSO) which contain large
doses of pathogens, about 50 times a year. The presence of
these pathogens is indicated by the number of fecal coliform
bacteria found in the water. The use of fecal coliform
bacteria as an indicator is a standard procedure in waste-
water analysis. The number of pathogens contributed by the
CSO is typically several orders of magnitude larger than the
normal Jones Island output. Beach closings and restricted
recreational use of the Outer Harbor in the past occurred
because of the presence of a high number of pathogen indicating
bacteria. The EPA carried out 2 studies in 1978 and 2 studies
in 1979 to study the health effects of a WWTP and was unable
to draw any correlation relating diseases to people living
near WWTPS.
G. Noise and Safety
There is no site specific data for ambient noise levels in
the Jones Island study area. The Jones Island WWTP is
completely isolated from residential areas in that it is
surrounded by a commerical-industrial area. Noise levels
are acoustically undetectable when compared with surrounding
shipping, railroad and trucking facilities. Characteristic
noise levels are 55 to 70 decibels (dba). The air compressor,
exhaust gas turbines, and pumps, which are the noisiest
equipment, are isolated so that noise levels are at a minimum
outside their enclosures.
The Jones Island WWTP experiences most of the same safety
problems indicative of most large publicly owned treatment
works (POTW). The MMSD has an active safety program which
causes the WWTP to operate in a safe manner. However, there
are two areas which are cause for additional safety concerns :
(1) The age of the facility may cause added safety problems
and (2) The Milorganite facilities include sludge dryers where
minor explosions have been known to occur. The explosions
occur within the dryers and present a safety hazard.
The transportation of chlorine gas via rail car and waste
pickle liquor via tank truck could cause safety problems, in
the event of an accident. A leakage of chlorine gas could
require the evacuation of residents near the spill site.
Although there are no homes within a one mile radius of the
Jones Island WWTP, workers in the nearby downtown Milwaukee
area may have to be evacuated. The waste pickle liquor is a
corrosive waste by-product of the metal finishing industry
and causes irrevocable damage to substances with which it
comes into contact.
V-99
-------
H. Historical and Archaeological Sites
The Jones Island (West Plant) was the first large-scale
application of activated sludge wastewater treatment in this
country and has been designated a National Historic Civil
Engineering Landmark. The MMSD initiated procedures to
determine its eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places, and on September 11, 1979, it was deter-
mined eligible.
The study area encompasses a segment of Milwaukee which has
had human occupancy for several thousand years. Its cultural
history was influenced primarily by aboriginal and later
Euro-American subcultures. Fourteen archaeologic sites have
been recorded in the study area, and 27 other buildings,
structures, and objects have received some form of official
recognition. Thirteen properties have been listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. The JIFPE Environmental
Assessment discusses this further.
The "Jones Island: West Plant, Preliminary Case Report",
prepared by MMSD states that controlled text excavations,
will be performed during the summer of 1980 to insure the
absence of sites in the plant expansion areas. According to
the "Phase I Inventory of the Jones Island Planning Area",
prepared by the Great Lakes Archaeological Research Center,
Inc., the purpose of such test excavations would be to
provide a' determinative conclusion regarding the presence or
absence of archaeological deposits. Should such archaeo-
logical deposits be encountered during the test excavations
and should they be determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, then either recovery in com-
pliance with the current National Advisory Council pro-
cedures or avoidance of the archaeological deposits would be
required.
I. Land Use
The Jones Island WWTP lies on the northern end of Jones
Island, at the harbor entrance to the Port of Milwaukee.
The plant occupies 57 acres or approximately 20% of the
island. It is surrounded on three sides by water, and on
the fourth side by port related facilities (docks, storage
areas, oil company storage tanks, and cargo handling equi-
pment) . Most of Jones Island is occupied by oil company
tank farms which were originally constructed to store
petroleum products arriving by ship. Today, almost all of
the oil companies, with the exception of American Oil Company
(Amoco) are supplied by pipeline. The American Oil Company
remains the only company still supplied by ship.
V-100
-------
The surrounding harbor area is dominated by port related
facilities and operations, as well as industries which
require harbor access. Directly across the port entrance is
a tract of land owned by the City of Milwaukee, and used for
recreational purposes (Summerfest grounds).. Located north
and south of the harbor area are four major lakefront parks
(Juneau, McKinley, South Shore, and Bay View).
The City of Milwaukee owns Jones Island and leases most of
the land to private companies. Companies which lease land
on Jones Island from the city are listed in Table v-3.
The City of Milwaukee zoning ordinance regulates the type,
design, and use of the land in the city. Jones Island and
the lands immediately adjacent are all zoned for high
density industrial development with a 125 foot (38 meter)
height limit. The existing land use generally reflects the
zoning since the area is almost fully developed.
J. Economics
The harbor area, which surrounds the Jones Island WWTP is a
valuable element of the Milwaukee area economy. The
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce estimates
that the area economy accrues $23 for every ton of general
cargo handled by the Port of Milwaukee. Likewise, bulk
cargo tonnage adds $4 to $10 per ton to the economy. Total
tonnage handled by the Port of Milwaukee peaked in 1959 at
8.8 million tons (8.0 million metric tons) and since that
time, the annual tonnage has decreased to the present level
of about 3.5 to 4 million tons (3.2 to 3.6 million metric
tons). The principal commodities that pass through the
Port of Milwaukee are bulk cargo, coal, petroleum, lime-
stone, and grain.
The operation and maintenance of the Jones Island WWTP also
provides a stimulus to the area's economy through the em-
ployment of approximately 300 persons.
K. Transportation and Access
The primary transportation systems in the Jones Island area
are motor vehicle, rail, and water transportation. The Lake
Freeway (1-794) and other arterial streets provide vehicular
access to Jones Island WWTP. These streets are South Lincoln
Memorial Drive, South Harbor Drive, and South Carferry
Drive. East Jones Street runs east and west, bisecting the
island and the Southern edge of the treatment plant. No
traffic problems were found on streets on or providing
access to the Jones Island WWTP. (SEWRPC 1978).
V-101
-------
TABLE V-3
INDUSTRIES LOCATED ON JONES ISLAND
Domtar, Inc.
Meehan Seaway Service, Ltd.
American Oil Co. (Amoco)
Marathon Oil Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Shell Oil Co., Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
West Shore Pipeline Co.
Advanced Renting Venture
Roland H. Becker
C&J Transport Co.
Duchow's Island Yachts, Inc.
Edward E. Gillen Co.
International Salt Co.
The Jacobus Co.
Koenen Corp.
Miller Compressing Co.
Ruan, Inc.
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Naval and Marine Corps.
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (C&O)
Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co.
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co.
V-102
-------
Extensive railroad facilities in the harbor area connect to
a network of municipally owned track on Jones Island which
provides railroad service to the WWTP.
The Jones Island WWTP is surrounded on three sides by water,
and is situated in close proximity and connected by rail and
roadway to the port facilities. Therefore, the Jones Island
WWTP is connected to the waterborne transportation network.
L. Energy
Energy consumption for Milwaukee County in 1976 is listed in
Table V-4. In that year, Jones Island consumed approxi-
mately 2,293 million cubic feet (65 million cubic meters) of
natural gas as compared to a total of 94,948,938 million
cubic feet (2,688,954 million cubic meters) consumed by
Milwaukee County. The Jones Island WWTP was responsible for
less than one percent of Milwaukee County's annual natural
gas consumption.
In addition to natural gas, the Jones Island WWTP used in
1976 88,346,000 kwh (3.18 x 1011 kj) of electrical energy,
10,723,000 kwh (3.86 x 1010 k j) was purchased from Wisconsin
Electric Power Company, while the remainder was produced
by electric generators powered by gas turbines. 217,700
gallons (824 cubic meters) of fuel oil was purchased in
1976. Table 111-10 gives a more complete summary of energy
consumption for 1976, 1977, and 1978.
M. Resources
For purposes of this appendix, resource consumption at Jones
Island WWTP would only include chemicals required for
wastewater treatment. As discussed in Chapter III, resource
consumption at Jones Island WWTP is as follows:
Chemical (1977)
Chlorine 912.50 tons/yr
Ferric Chloride 18,250 tons/yr
Waste pickle liquor 1,825 tons/yr (as iron)
1 ton = 0.9078 metric ton
1 ft3 = 0.02832 cubic meters
1 gallons = 3.785 x 1Q~3 cubic meters
V-103
-------
o o
o o
o o
CO ro
r- CM
CN r-
00
I
Q
2
co
H
w
3
O
ID
w
z
o
H
S
D
w
2
O
O
•p
•H
O —
M >^i
•P \
O f-
0) S
H «-
*• ••
'O 'C
-------
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Introduction
This chapter presents the probable environmental conse-
quences associated with the designated alternatives for the
wastewater treatment processes for the Jones Island Facility
Plan (.See Table VI-3 at the end of this chapter for a
matrix of environmental consequences for various wastewater
treatment alternatives.) Also presented are the environmental
consequences associated with two alternative forms of dis-
infection and the two sites for disinfection facilities at
the Jones Island WWTP. The process alternatives, site
alternatives, and disinfection alternatives (ozone and
chlorine) are addressed together under each environmental
concern.
The alternatives are as follows:
• No Action
Alternatives 1 through 6 are considered to be "Action"
alternatives:
Alternative 1: Expansion and upgrading of the existing
air activated sludge system.
• Alternative 2: Air activated sludge system with
primary treatment.
• Alternative 3: Single air activated sludge system.
• Alternative 4: Two parallel air activated sludge
systems.
• Alternative 5: High Purity Oxygen (HPO) activated
sludge system.
Alternative 6: Activated Biofilter (ABF)/activated
sludge system.
After analysis of all the action alternatives, the MMSD
determined that Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 were not cost-
effective and did not offer any significant advantage that
would offset their higher costs. For these reasons, the
MMSD eliminated Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 from further
consideration, although a discussion on their environmental
consequences are retained in this chapter.
VI-105
-------
Disinfection alternatives are:
• Chlorine with dechlorination
Ozone
Location alternatives for disinfection facilities:
9.5 acre (.3.8 ha), lakefill to the east of the East Plant.
• Site presently occupied by General Cargo Terminal
No. 1.
The alternatives for disinfection include chlorination and
ozonation. Chlorination would be accomplished by appli-
cation of either sodium hypochlorite or chlorine gas and
ozonation is accomplished by direct application of ozone gas
to the treated wastewater. The environmental consequences
of the alternative disinfection methods are discussed along
with the consequences of the treatment and expansion alter-
natives as appropriate.
The alternatives for site expansion include two possibil-
ities. The first is the MMSD's preferred method involving
expansion of the plant by lakefilling 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) of
the Outer Harbor east of the WWTP to site an effluent pump
station and chlorine contact basins. Should the lakefilling
plan prove to be unacceptable, another possible location for
these facilities lies adjacent to and south of the East
Plant, where General Cargo Terminal Number One (GTC No. 1)
now stands. GTC No. 1 is presently used for salt storage
and is in a state of disrepair. Environmental consequences
for each of these sites and disinfection alternatives are
discussed in the following section along with the conse-
quences of the wastewater treatment alternatives.
This chapter is organized by environmental concerns which
include water quality, aquatic biota, threatened or
endangered species, air quality, public health, noise and
safety, historical and archaeological sites, land use,
economics, transportation and access, energy and resources.
Also included in this chapter are the environmental con-
sequences of the MMSD's Recommended Plans for wastewater
treatment at the Jones Island WWTP.
VI-106
-------
B. Impacts of the Alternatives
1. Water Quality
Water quality effects would vary for different disinfection
alternatives and outfall locations (Outer Harbor versus Lake
Michigan); but not for different wastewater treatment alternatives,
which produce virtually the same effluent quality. Therefore,
the alternatives having distinct water quality effects are
(a) No Action, (b) expand the WWTP, disinfect with chlorine
and maintain the existing outfall, (c) disinfect with ozone,
(d) construct a new effluent outfall to Lake Michigan beyond
the Outer Harbor breakwater, (e) construct a lakefill to the
east of the present WWTP.
No Action would continue the pollution of the Outer Harbor
with Jones Island WWTP effluent, which is presently a major
source of phosphorus (39% of the total annual load), nitrogen
(44%), organic matter (54% of the BOD load), cadmium (71%),
chromium (56%) , and lead (86%) . The WWTP would continue to
add free chlorine, a toxic substance, at 2 mg/1 - 100 times
the EPA criterion - and a variety of toxic chloramines and
chlorinated hydrocarbons. In-plant bypasses would continue?
these would only be responsible for about 5% of the loads of
the above pollutants. It could, however, be a major source
of fecal coliform bacteria. The result of this continued
pollution would be continued high levels (relative to Lake
Michigan) of phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, fecal coliform
bacteria, and heavy metals in the waters and sediments of
the Outer Harbor, regardless of what other pollution abate-
ment measures are taken. There would still be a zone of
toxicity for fish around the outfall, and the central
portion of the Outer Harbor would continue to be rich in
algal nutrients.
Expansion and upgrading of the WWTP would cause the same
impacts to water quality, with two exceptions. Dechlorin-
ation would remove much of the free chlorine but not the
chlorinated hydrocarbons. Also, the use of anaerobic sludge
digesters would increase the effluent ammonia concentration
from less than 8 mg/1 to over 18 mg/1, thus increasing the
zone of fish toxicity. Other pollutants would be added at
an equivalent rate. Pollutant loads from the WWTP and from
bypasses are shown in Table VI-1.
Ozonation is an alternative means of disinfection that
oxygenates the effluent and can oxidize some of the organic
matter in it. The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in
ozonated effluent may be well above the air-saturated
concentration. Substituting ozone for chlorine would also
eliminate the addition of residual chlorine to the Harbor
and the production of chloramines and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
VI-107
-------
TABLE VI-1
POLLUTANT LOADS TO THE OUTER HARBOR
Average
Flow
(MGD) BOD
Fecal
SS Total p Coliform
(10 Ib/yr) (10 Ib/yr) _4_ (#/yr)
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
a
Bypasses
Jones Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant
0.2 180 220
132b 8,440b 9,600b 169b
14
4 324x10
2,130b O.SxlO14
NO ACTION:
Bypasses
Jones Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant
>6,360d >7,700d
d 14
>1,770 >0.5xlO
MMSD'S RECOMMENDED PLAN:
(Without Anaerobic. Digestion)
Bypasses
Jones Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant
110
6,3608 7,700e 1316
p 14
3,014 0.5x10
MMSD'S RECOMMENDED PLAN:
(With Anaerobic Digestion)
Bypasses 0
Jones Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant 110
6,360e 7,700e 131e
e 14
7,367 0.5x10
Reference: JIFPE
Loads calculated based on WPDES monitoring and MWPAP I/I Analysis. Bypasses are
"ahead of the plant", i.e. to the Inner Harbor.
Source: 1978 monthly operations summary.
The precise quantity of water going through the plant would depend upon
the amount of wastewater bypassed in and before the plant. Both quantities
of wastewater bypassed are unknown.
Increased bypassing due to inadequate plant capacity would increase loads.
Also plant structural failure or operations problems due to aging facilities
could increase loads.
Existing effluent characteristics and future average day flow 110 MGD
used to calculate loads.
VI-108
-------
A new outfall for Jones Island effluent east of the Outer
Harbor would completely remove that source of pollutants
from the Harbor. However, this action would add the pol-
lutants directly to the lake. As shown in the MWPAP-EIS
Water Quality Appendix, this measure would greatly lower
the concentrations of ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
heavy metals in the Harbor, as well as reducing the zone of
fish toxicity. The construction of the outfall, in com-
bination with other pollution abatement measures in the
Inner Harbor, would allow the water of the Outer Harbor to
become more similar to nearshore Lake Michigan water in
chemical composition.
The Water Quality appendix also shows that reasonable
outfall locations exist in Lake Michigan that would avoid
polluting water supply intakes or beaches. The outfall could
be modeled after the South Shore WWTP outfall, and it is
anticipated that the plume of effluent from Jones Island
would rise to the surface and be carried at most a few
thousand feet before it became indistinguishable from lake
water.
Pollution from both outfall locations would have the same
long-term effect on the eutrophication of Lake Michigan. The
lake's water residence time is about 100 years; while the
Harbor's residence time is about 6 days. Sediments that are
deposited in the Outer Harbor are decomposed at least as
rapidly, and interact with Harbor water at least as thor-
oughly, as- sediments in the main part of Lake Michigan.
In the past, the sediments in part of the Outer Harbor were
dredged and deposited in a diked disposal area. This
practice removes the sedimented pollutants from those areas
in the short term, but the disposal area is designed to
exchange water through the dike and thus allows some of the
solubilized pollutants to return to the Lake. The diked
disposal area has a design life of 10 years. Dredging has
stopped at present, pending further chemical analyses of
sediments for hazardous substances, e.g. polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB). Over 100 years, there is no guarantee that
Outer Harbor sediments will remain undisturbed or in the
dike area. Sediment decomposition rate is a function of
deposit depth, oxygen (02) concentration in the overlying
water column, temperature, rate of deposition, mixing effects
and organic content of the sediment (Burdick, 1976). With-
out defining these factors it would be difficult to predict
the relative decomposition rate of the same sediment in two
different locations. However, once the pollutants reach the
Lake from whichever point, they add to the gradually in-
creasing levels of plant nutrients in the lake, which is the
cause of eutrophication.
VI-109
-------
If the Jones Island WWTP is expanded to the east, a lakefill
would be built on 9.5 acres (3.8 ha), of Outer Harbor.
Construction would disturb the sediments. If the sediments
were found to be laden with excessive quantities of toxic
substances (for example, equal to or more than 50 mg/kg of
PCBs as per 40 CFB. 761), the construction would be under
very restrictive procedures set by the EPA to prevent toxic
concentrations of pollutants in the water.
2. Aquatic Biota
The effects upon the aquatic biota of the Outer Harbor and
of Lake Michigan will vary with respect to the particular
combination of alternatives being considered.
The process alternatives include two possible sets of
impacts: those from the No Action Alternative and those
from the Action Alternatives (all of which have similar
impacts). Under the No Action Alternative, no change in the
aquatic biological community is expected to occur. This
would be the case even though the pollutant loads would be
reduced due to a decrease in the average annual and dry
weather flows. This reduction in pollutant loads would
result in a smaller plume area.- However, increased peak wet
weather flows would increase the frequency and magnitude of
bypassing so the estimated effect would be similar to
present conditions.
All of the action alternatives would eliminate shock pollu-
tant loads to the Outer Harbor and would improve the aquatic
habitat, especially for the less tolerant species that exist
there. The MWPAP has suggested that Lake Michigan fish
might even increase their movement into the Outer Harbor.
Disinfection of the wastewater effluent may be accomplished
by using either a chlorination-dechlorination system or an
ozonation system. The chlorination-dechlorination alterna-
tive may involve chlorination with either chlorine gas or
hypochlorite. A result of either type of chlorination would
be the addition of free chlorine, to the wastewater. Free
chlorine, as well as the products of chlorine's interactions
with ammonia and organic substances (such as chloramine,
chloroform, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons) are also
considered to be toxic to fish. Sulfur dioxide, used in the
dechlorination process would form sulfuric and hydrochloric
acids in effluent, but there would be almost no effect on
the acidity of effluent or Harbor water because of the high
buffering capacity of those waters.
The ozonation process would result in a well-oxygenated
effluent but this is expected to have no impact upon the
aquatic biota since dissolved oxygen levels are normally
high in the Outer Harbor.
VI-110
-------
Expansion of the Jones Island WWTP may occur on land (Site
A, see Figure IV-7) or require that part of the Outer Harbor
be filled in. Expansion on land would have no long-term
effect upon the water quality.
Expansion via lakefill would eliminate the aquatic biota and
aquatic habitats at the proposed site. The site is presently
inhabited by aquatic worms with some molluscs and insect
larvae. Dredging and transporting of sediments and fill
material would temporarily increase the turbidity of the
water which could affect the aquatic organisms. In addition,
any turbulence and scouring of the sediments during the
lakefilling operations could cause the release of pollutants
and oxygen-demanding and hazardous substances in the sediments
which could reduce the oxygen content of the water and
increase the availability of toxic or hazardous materials
for uptake by organisms.
Outfall location alternatives include leaving the outfall at
its present position or moving it to discharge directly to
Lake Michigan. The effects of leaving the Jones Island
effluent outfall at its present location have been previously
discussed. However, the altered location of the point of
discharge could affect the aquatic community. Because
effluent would be more thoroughly mixed with lake water in
the open lake, a smaller zone of toxic concentration of non-
ionized ammonia would form around the alternative outfall
location east of the breakwater. In addition, moving the
outfall could lower the production of attached algae in the
Outer Harbor and increase phytoplankton densities in the
plume area in Lake Michigan.
3. Threatened or Endangered Species
No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit or
utilize the area affected by activities at Jones Island.
(The longjaw cisco has not been reported in Lake Michigan
since 1964, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980.) Therefore, No
Action would not adversely affect any protected species, nor
would there be adverse affects from the process alternatives,
disinfection, or expansion on the two alternative sites.
4. Air Quality
Under No Action there would be no changes in air quality
from wastewater treatment, nor would there be any degradation
of air quality resulting from short-term increases in con-
struction and/or demolition emissions.
VI-111
-------
Long term air quality effects would occur from the possible
burning of digester gas or the continuation or increased
burning of natural gas and oil to provide power and heat to
Jones Island. Emission rates from natural gas and fuel oil
combustion would be similar to those from digester gas
combustion at South Shore. The Clean Air Act (PL 95-95)
prohibits any new or increased emissions into a non-attain-
ment area unless the increase is counter-balanced by a
decrease at another source in the area. All action alterna-
tives, because the Milorganite drying process is eliminated,
would reduce particulate emissions. This is discussed
further in the Solids Management EIS appendix.
If the Milorganite process is abandoned then the MMSD could
gain an air quality credit (due to the elimination of
Milorganite associated emissions). Since the DNR has not
completed the regulations for air quality credits, they
presently do review on a case by case basis. The MMSD could
gain a credit which could be traded (or sold) to a nearby
industry.
Air quality near the WWTP would suffer short-term effects
from construction and demolition dust and exhaust emissions
from construction vehicles. The projected emissions from
construction activities for the lakefill alternative (Site
C, see Figure IV-7) would be greater than expansion utilizing
General Cargo Terminal No. 1. Measures to reduce particulate
matter emissions would include dust suppression by water
sprinkling or chemical stabilization, and construction
equipment speed reduction. All action alternatives would
include construction activities at the site, emission rates
would be on a similar scale.
5. Public Health
No changes would occur at the Jones Island WWTP under the No
Action alternative. The proposed change in the WPDES
effluent limits for residual chlorine concentration of 0.5
mg/1 from the present 2.0 mg/1 would have an impact on dis-
infection. The WWTP would be unable to adequately disinfect
the effluent (as measured by fecal coliform bacteria) unless
residual chlorine concentration of over 2.0 mg/1 is main-
tained. Maintaining a 0.5 mg/1 residual chlorine concentration
would allow high amounts of fecal coliform bacteria to
survive. This would serve as a direct indication of the
risk to public health from inadequate disinfection.
VI-112
-------
If the recommended form of disinfection, chlorination-
dechlorination, is implemented, then proposed WPDES effluent
limits would be met and public health concerns due to in-
adequate disinfection would be abated. Ozone disinfection
would have nearly the same effects as chlorination-dechlorination
disinfection. Both forms of disinfection would reduce patho-
gens as measured by fecal coliform bacteria, but ozone would
be more effective at destroying viruses.
No Action would still allow wastewater bypasses to occur,
thereby dumping raw sewage into the Inner Harbor. Bypass
at the WWTP would be eliminated by all six action alternatives,
so fecal coliform numbers in the Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor,
and nearshore Lake Michigan areas would be reduced. Numbers
of disease-causing organisms would also be reduced.
There would probably be no effects to public health resulting
from expansion at either site A or C.
6. Noise and Safety
There would be no changes in noise levels resulting from No
Action at Jones Island, nor would No Action result in any
changes in the degrees of safety associated with operation
and maintenance of the WWTP.
There would be no significant changes in noise levels
associated with any of the six process alternatives.
Alternatives 1 through 4 would not cause any changes with
respect to safety. Chlorine tank cars would still pose a
large hazard to public safety: if a derailment or a major
leak occurred, it might require evacuation of part of down-
town Milwaukee. Alternative 5 involves a high purity
oxygen activated sludge requiring oxygen tanks. Oxygen is a
highly explosive gas, and although the tanks are considered
safe, there is still a potential for combustion. Maintenance
of the activated biofliters (ABF) for Alternative 6 may
require workers to work on top of the Distribution Box or
the ABF towers at 45 and 30 feet (14 and 9 meters), res-
pectively. These heights would present a safety hazard to
WWTP employees working on the structures.
Expansion involves construction of new buildings and demol-
ition of several old buildings. This activity would cause
short-term increased noise levels, a short-term reduction of
aesthetics, and potential safety hazards to both the public,
WWTP employees, and construction workers. Safety hazards
could be minimized by restricting access and fencing
potentially dangerous areas of demolition and construction.
Safety precautions relevant to the WWTP employees and con-
struction workers should be adequately covered by accepted
construction techniques and management.
VI-113
-------
7. Historical and Archaeological Sites
The West Plant at Jones Island is eligible to be included on
the National Register of Historic Places. The No Action
alternative would make no improvements to the WWTP other
than those for routine operation and maintenance. With
time, deterioration of the historic West Plant would occur.
In addition, there would be no alteration of archaeological
deposits on the island under this alternative.
Alternative 1 entails the upgrading and expansion of the
existing air activated sludge system at Jones Island WWTP.
Structural improvements for the historical buildings and
treatment facilities are included under this alternative.
Alternative 2, air activated sludge with primary treatment,
would require significant modification of historic facili-
ties in the West Plant but would not eliminate all of these
facilities. The construction changes are discussed in
Chapter IV, Alternatives.
Alternatives 3 through 6 would result in the elimination of
historic West Plant treatment facilities.
Construction on WWTP expansion areas would be preceded by
preliminary test excavations by an archaeologist to determine
whether archaeological or historical sites or deposits are
present in the areas proposed for expansion. In the case of
lakefill expansion, destruction of archaeological or historical
assets would be unlikely.
Should any archaeological deposits be encountered during the
test excavations, and should they be determined eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, then either recovery
in compliance with the current National Advisory Council
procedures or avoidance of the archaeological deposits would
be required.
8. Land Use
The land use effects of the Jones Island WWTP expansion are
essentially defined by the extent to which these effects
impact the Port of Milwaukee's operations and future plans.
With the "No Action" alternative there would be no resulting
effects upon land use, since no additional land or construction
is required.
Table VI-2 is a numerical description of the differential
impacts of the six feasible alternatives analyzed in this
study. Alternative 2 was selected by the MMSD as the
Recommended Plan and is discussed fully at the end of this
chapter.
VI-114
-------
TABLE VI-2
LAND IMPACTS
(Acres)
Alternative
Expansion and
Upgrading of East
and West Plants
Additional Land Transfer Net Impact
Acres to Harbor Joint (Acres Required)
Required Commission Use on Port
26.8
8.6
3.9 14.3
Air Activated
Sludge With
Primary Treatment
20.9
8.6
3.9 8.4
Single Air
Activated Sludge
System
23.5
8.6
12.1 2.8
Two Parallel
Air Activated
Sludge Systems
23.9
8.6
10.5 4.8
High Purity
Oxygen Activated
Sludge System
13.4
8.6
4.8
Activated Biofilter/
Air Activated
Sludge System
38.9
22.0
7.4 9.5
1 acre = 0.4047 hectare
Reference: JIFPE
VI-115
-------
The land use impacts of the two expansion alternatives
(sites A and C) would be minimal. Chlorine disinfection is
the recommended alternative and is used in all land require-
ment figures. However, for comparison, ozone disinfection
would require one acre of land while chlorine requires
three. Both alternatives may cause disruption to Port
activities during construction. The severity of the dis-
ruption is difficult to determine. Expansion at Site A would
necessitate a loss to the Port of General Cargo Terminal No.
1 until construction is completed. The terminal could be
rebuilt and be in full use after construction of the chlorine
contact basins.
9. Economics
Since the No Action alternative requires no additional land,
construction, or financing, no major economic impacts would
result. However, the MMSD would be in contempt of the state
and federal court orders and could incur fines and other
penalities.
During construction for the process and expansion alterna-
tives at Jones Island there would be a short-term increase
in employment, and construction-related businesses in the
area may receive some economic stimulus. In the long-term,
employment is expected to drop slightly below the present
figures at the WWTP.
All of the action alternatives would provide some degree of
economic stimulus to the area resulting from the transfer of
State and Federal funds. In addition, operation and main-
tenance (O&M) costs would decrease over the planning period
(in 1980 dollars). This decrease should minimize user
costs, although the decrease in user costs would be offset
by high capital costs. One third of the projected capital
cost for the Recommended Plan will be funded by State and
Federal funds, but the balance must be funded locally and
would contribute to the nearly $1 billion that Milwaukee
County would owe by the late 1980 "s under present financing
assumptions. The MWPAP-EIS text contains a more thorough
discussion of the economic impacts of the MMSD's Wastewater
System Plan (WSP).
10. Transportation and Access
The No Action alternative would not alter transportation or
access to Jones Island. The upgrading and expansion of the
Jones Island WWTP should have no significant long term
impacts upon transportation. The transportation of sludge
to a landfill site should not cause excessive traffic
problems, since the roads at present are used under their
capacity. For further discussion see the Solids Management
VI-116
-------
EIS appendix. However, noise, dust, and odor would affect
the routes, especially along a recreational greenway on the
south side of Bay Street. With the MMSD's Recommended Plan,
the number of daily truck trips to the landfill is estimated
at 44 (SMFPE}. Current truck trips to the landfill vary
since solids are only landfilled when Milorganite capacity
is exceeded. This increase may possibly disrupt cargo
handling operations at the Port. However, these problems
can be minimized by coordination of transport routes.
During the construction period there may be some significant
impacts upon transportation and access in the Port area.
General congestion caused by construction activities may
cause some traffic problems and disrupt Port operations.
Therefore continuous coordination between the MMSD and Port
of Milwaukee will be essential. The use of Jones Street for
the plant expansion would eliminate East-West access for
Port vehicles between the heavy lift operation and the
general cargo terminals. Jones Street could be relocated to
just south of the proposed treatment facility site before
construction commences.
11. Energy
Jones Island WWTP has a present energy consumption of
2.5 x 1012 BTU/year (2.64 x 1012 kj/year). The No Action
alternative would have decreased average wastewater flows.
(See Table VI-2), which would cause energy consumption to
decrease slightly (approximately 10-20%) during the planning
period. Energy consumption would decrease if any of the
wastewater treatment or recommended solids handling
alternatives were implemented. The elimination of
Milorganite production would be the primary reason for this
decrease. (See the Solids Management EIS appendix for a
further discussion.)
It has been estimated that construction at Jones Island WWTP
would require 764 x 109 BTU (806 x 10y kj/year) (JIFPE).
This is approximately one-third of the present annual energy
consumption (2.5 x 1012 BTU/year, 2.64 x 1012 kj/year) and
would be added to present consumption only during the period
of construction. If the MMSD's Recommended Plan (Alternative
2) were implemented, annual energy consumption would be
425 x 109 BTU/year (448 x 109 kj/year) after construction.
The energy consumed presently (and under No Action) is
greater than that required for construction and the pre-
ferred alternative (.2.5 x 1012 BTU/year, 2.64 x 1012 kj/year,
versus 1.2 x 1012 BTU/year, 1.25 x 1012 kj/year). A com-
parison of energy consumption for the various alternatives
is shown in Table IV-28.
VI-117
-------
Present electrical consumption (1978) of Jones Island WWTP
is approximately 88 x 1Q6 kwh/yr (317 x 109 kj/year), of
which- 14 x 106 kwh/year (30.4 x 109 kj/year). is purchased
from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (.WEPCO) and
74 x 106 kwh/year (266 x 109 kj/year). is generated on-site
using gas turbines. Electrical requirements for the MMSD's
Recommended Plan would be 42 x 106 kwh/year (151 x 109 kj/year)
(JIFPE). All of the electricity for the Recommended Plan
could be purchased from WEPCO or generated on site. The
present gas turbines would be abandoned and new electric
generators utilizing methane gas from the proposed anaerobic
digesters would supply 4 x lO^-l BTU/year (422 x 109 kj/year)
of energy which can be utilized to produce approximately 30
x 106 kwh/year (108 x 109 kj/year) of electricity. 13,500
BTU (14,200 kj) of digester gas are required to produce 1
kwh, 3600 kj, of electricity. This reduction of electrical
consumption would be 14 x 10^ kwh/year, (50.4 x 109 kj/year),
for the No Action alternative versus 12 x 10^ kwh/year,
43.2 x 109 kj/year for Alternative 2.
Primary energy requirements for disinfection for the
alternative methods would be as follows (JIFPE):
chlorine gas 10 x 104 BTU/yr (10.5 x 104 kj/yr)
sodium hypochlorite 61 x 104 BTU/yr (64.3 x 104 kj/yr)
ozone 559 x 104 BTU/yr (590 x 104 kj/yr)
Chlorine gas would consume the least amount of energy.
(Primary energy is the energy consumption on-site, while
secondary energy is the energy consumption during the
manufacturing of the various chemicals used in wastewater
treatment).
No quantitative information was developed for the various
expansion alternatives except lakefill. Energy consumption
would increase as the distance from the present site to the
expansion site increased. Lakefill would require approximately
250,000 gallons (946,250 liter) of diesel fuel to haul in
641,000 yd3 (490,109 m3) of fill using 20 yd3 (15.3 m3)
trucks from a typical site 20 miles (32 kilometers) from
Jones Island WWTP (assuming 4.3 mpg, 1.8 km per lit.).
12. Resources
There would be no changes in chemical requirements for the No
Action alternative.
VI-118
-------
There would be no differences in chemical requirements for
the various liquid treatment alternatives, although Alterna-
tive 5, a high purity oxygen activated sludge system, will
require 1200 tons (1089 metric tons) of oxygen per year.
Construction of new facilities at the Jones Island WWTP
could require the following materials (JIFPE):
190,000 cubic yards (145,275 m3) of concrete
61,000 tons (55,375 metric tons) of steel
800,000 cubic yards (611,680 m3) of fill material.
The lakefill of 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) at Jones Island will
require 641,000 cubic yards (490,109 cubic meters) of fill
materials (JIFPE).
Sources for this fill material have not yet been identified.
Although spoil from underground storage facilities and
intercepting sewers could be used for fill material.
Resource consumption for the various disinfection alternative
would be as follows:
• Chlorine disinfections
- chlorine 1055 tons/yr (960 metric tons/yr)
- sulfur dioxide 352 tons/yr (320 metric tons/yr)
Ozone disinfection
- Ozone 4400 tons/yr (4000 metric tons/yr)
C. Environmental Consequences of the MMSD's
Recommended Plan
MMSD's Recommended Plan at Jones Island involves air acti-
vated sludge with primary treatment (Alternative 2), chlorine
(gas) disinfection and lakefilling 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) east
of the WWTP for location of the disinfection facilities.
Implementing the Recommended Plan at Jones Island would
cause long and short-term environmental impacts. Short-term
impacts are associated with construction of the proposed
facilities, while long-term impacts result from the opera-
tion of the existing and proposed facilities throughout the
planning period. These impacts are summarized below and in
Table VI-3 at the end of the chapter.
In the short term, the surface waters surrounding Jones
Island could be degraded and aquatic biota affected by
increased sediment loads originating from lakefilling and
construction site runoff. Although these sediment loads
VI-119
-------
would decrease with time, hazardous materials, such as heavy
metals or PCB's, that are presently held by the sediments,
could be released to the water by the construction activity.
However, PCB's, chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, and oils
do not easily dissolve in water and therefore may not present
a serious problem (Choi and Chen, 1975). Most of these
compounds tend to bind to organo-clay particles in the
sediments and thus become immobilized. The sediment particles
could be ingested by zooplankton, filter feeders or by
phytoplankton, and in this way, these compounds could enter
the food chain. Ingestion of the contaminated particles
would occur only if the bottom sediments were disturbed
enough to distribute them through the water column. The
rate of release of toxic metals from the sediments is con-
trolled by sediment compostion, redox potential, and pH
(Gambrell et.al_. 1976; Brannon et.al_. 1978).
In the long term, the elimination of bypasses would result
in decreased fecal coliform bacteria loads. Pollutant loads
would decrease in proportion to the decrease in wastewater
flows over the planning period. However, ammonia concentration
in the Jones Island effluent would increase (see Table VI-
1). The dissolved oxygen concentrations in effluent would
increase from 2 mg/1 to 6 mg/1, due to post-aeration, but
this would only locally affect the oxygen content of the
Outer Harbor, which is normally near saturation (8-10 mg/1
depending on water temperature).
Since no threatened or endangered species are known to
inhabit or depend upon the area affected by activities at
Jones Island, the MMSD's Recommended Plan would not affect
any protected species.
Air quality near the WWTP would suffer short term increases
of construction and demolition dust and exhaust emissions
from construction vehicles. However, in the long-term,
atmospheric particulate emissions would be reduced by 99
percent with the removal of Milorganite production.
Noise levels would be temporarily higher during construc-
tion, but would decrease to normal operating levels afterwards.
Noise levels of the MMSD's Recommended Plan after construction
are not expected to differ significantly from present levels.
The MMSD's Recommended Plan would eliminate bypassing of
wastewater at the WWTP, thereby reducing numbers of fecal
coliforms and potential pathogenic organisms from entering
harbor waters. The result would be reduced threat to public
health. In addition, disinfection with chlorine gas would
reduce numbers of fecal coliforms and pathogens in the
treated effluent.
VI-120
-------
Safety concerns for the MMSD's Recommended Plan primarily
consist of the hazards of handling and transporting chlorine,
and of temporary hazards associated with construction at the
site, including the lakefill and the facilities located
there. These hazards would be to the public, WWTP employees,
and construction workers. Safety hazards to the public
during construction may be minimized by restricting public
access and fencing potentially dangerous areas of construction.
Demolition of a major portion of the original Jones Island
WWTP would result in the loss of an historic site. Should
archaeological deposits be encountered during test excava-
tions, and should they be determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, then either recovery
in compliance with the current National Advisory Council
procedures or avoidance of the archaeological deposits would
be required. Unless preliminary test excavations are per-
formed, significant historic or archaeological deposits
could be destroyed.
Upgrading and expansion at Jones Island WWTP, under the
MMSD's Recommended Plan, would result in a number of impacts
with respect to land use. At the time that Alternative 2
became the recommended alternative, the recommended solids
management alternative changed from agricultural application
to landfill (This is discussed further in the Solids Management
Facility Plan Element and Solids Management EIS appendix).
However, the onsite solids handling for a landfill alternative
requires essentially the same treatment processes and
accompanying on-site acreage as an agricultural application
alternative. The required land configuration for the re-
commended alternative was also modified at this time (compare
Figure IV-2 with rv-8). The new site plan suggested lake-
filling 9.5 acres (3.8 ha) on the eastern edge of the plant
for the purpose of providing land for the disinfection
facilities. It is listed as a possible future expansion
area since it is unknown at this time if the MMSD would be
awarded a permit or a Lake Bed Grant to fill the area (as
previously discussed in Chapter IV).
At the time of this writing the formal permit procedure had
not been initiated. If the permit or grant is not granted,
the disinfection facilities would be located under the
existing General Cargo Terminal No. 1, as joint use facilities.
In addition, the plan calls for filling the Chesapeake and
Ohio (C&O) car ferry slip to allow extension of the Port's
Heavy Lift facilities. The land occupied by the MMSD dryer
house is intended to be used by the port for storage area.
The car ferry slip fill 4 acres (1.6 ha) is proposed as a
land trade for the 6 acres (2.4 ha) needed for treatment
VI-121
-------
facilities immediately south- of the plant, where the Port
has plans for containerized storage. The fill is listed as
a possible action because the possibility for use of the C&O
car ferry slip is unknown at this time. Also, the action to
fill must he approved by both the Sewerage Commission and
the Harbor Commission. At the time of this writing no
formal agreement had been made by the two Commissions
although there has been much contact between the commissions
concerning this issue.
The implementation of both lakefills would leave the Port of
Milwaukee with a net loss of only one acre. However, the
Port's plans for expansion would be affected. The Port's
current container storage area is 4 acres (1.6 ha), and
operating at capacity. The Port's unoffical expansion plans
call for a total storage area of 16 acres (6.5 ha).Since the
treatment plant will take 8 of 16 planned acres (.3,2 of the
6.5 ha), expansion of the container storage area would be
restricted to 8 additional acres (3.2 ha).
The offsite land use requirement for the Jones Island WWTP
consists of approximately 410 acres (166 ha) needed
for the landfilling recommended solids alternative. Further
discussion of this issue is in the SMFPE, the Solids Manage-
ment-EIS appendix, the Site Specific Analysis (SSA) and the
SSA-EIS (which will be prepared as a supplement to the EIS).
During construction there may be additional land needed for
the storage of construction materials. This would result in
certain short-term land use impacts associated with the
relocation of cargo facilities to provide for materials
storage. There may also be certain other land use impacts
resulting from the construction related disruption of Port
activities. There is the possibility that the Port facili-
ties or a business may be disrupted to the point that use of
the land becomes unprofitable and is therefore discontinued
(sold, leased, abandoned, etc.).
Long term employment effects of the Jones Island WWTP would
be slightly negative since the number of persons employed
for Alternative 2 would drop from approximately 290 to 240
employees. Some of the staff could be shifted to the South
Shore WWTP. There would be a short term positive effect
upon employment during the construction period, since the
construction activities would employ approximately 475
persons per year. There would also be some economic stimulus
to construction related businesses in the area. In addition,
some economic stimulus to the planning area would result
from the transfer of State and Federal funds. Port oper-
ations would be disrupted during construction as well as
from loss of container storage area. The Port would benefit
from the expansion of berth and storage areas for heavy lift
operations.
VI-122
-------
Long term capital costs incurred under the .Recommended Plan
would be high. The net present worth of the recommended
alternative is estimated at $504 million. Approximately
one-third or slightly more (depending on MWPAP allocation
decisions) would be funded by State and Federal funds. The
remainder of the costs would have to be locally financed and
would contribute to the nearly $1 billion that, under present
financing assumptions, Milwaukee County would owe by the
late 1980's. To cover these expenditures, the MMSD would
require increased revenues and would thereby increase total
costs to the community. Although capital costs would be
high, a long term benefit would be reduced annual operational
and management (O&M) costs. The reduction in O&M costs
would be from $15.2 million per year to $13.8 million per
year (1980 $). In addition, energy requirements at the
plants would be reduced with the replacement of old equipment,
the elimination of Milorganite production, and the use of
energy recovery systems. Before overall energy reduction
can be attained however, the construction activities would
require a slight escalation in energy usage for the period
of construction only. The temporary escalation would be
minimal when compared to the energy conserved over the
planning period.
Construction related activities would also cause increased
local traffic congestion temporarily. Traffic related
problems would not be expected to persist once construction
of the new facilities is completed.
VI-123
-------
co
w
o
2
w
a
Cx to
w w
CO CO
2 CO
O W
CJ CJ
o
HH1 ££
n <; cu
1 EH
H 2 EH
£> M 2
a§H
eg ft! <
f^ 1 — 1 W
EH > K
2 EH
W
_ Q
ft! H
O a
fc CX
H
x: J
H
fVJ
EH
S
CJ
to
a
-d
c
5
_<-.
4-1
H
33
U
•rl
H
a
y
£K,
4-1
•H
rH
rd
3
O^
S^
•rl
f£
to
CU
•H
U
13 CU
C ft
rd CO
T! 13
CU CU
C M
cu cu
4-1 01
rd C
0) rrj
43 C
EH a
id
4-1
o
•rl
ffl
u
•rl
rd
3
<
>1
•H
rH
id
<§<
^
0)
4J
1
o
frt
ft
g
•H
2
01
c
•H C
43 rH (d
rH O Q 01 •
rd 13 (d 42 -H CU
U G CU SH 43 to
CU rd SH rd O rd
MH --• 33 -rl CU
-. S M
4H to to SH u
0 E C CU CU C
C cu 4J ,v -H
SH O CP 3 rd
CU 4H 0 O i4 13
43 -H 43 H
g rH 4J CU 13 3
3 O rd 43 C 0
2 0 ft 4-1 rd 3
4-1
0
a
g
•H
0
4J
O
1
•rl
O
2
i-H
CU O
43 -rl
4-1 01
o
C rH tO
•H O -rl 0
•H 4->
CU 43 >i
01 4-1 73
C 0 -rl CU
rd -H C 4-i •
43 4-1 3 U rH
O (d g CU 3
3 g ft O
O W 0 X 0
2 id O CU O
CU
10 » to
01 tO (d rH tO tO
C U CU \ CU 0i 13
• rl-H» SH0I C 13 rH C CU
13 G G Ogr^ -HCU rd -H • CU
rd (d ^3 CU G P-t g4-i •O'dtOU •
00i 43 H r>j H rdrdtOCUrdCUXrd
i— 1 SH ^ -P c-3S-lGC4HOtOCU pr|
OS ® 0> O'HO rHtO SH
173 U C • G ^ i-H SH 43 13 rd3i -rf
•rl » U 0< 3 CUCUOOOCU4H GO
c ^TSMHcux-HX'd'aorHO u
OMH13 CMH SHCUSnOC ^COS-I'd^
CJ OO rd CU 4H — O 4-1 rd43H UM-JOH
VI-124
c
0
•rl
4-1
o
0
to
cu
ll
o
rd
4J
cu
2
H
rd
o
cu
4H
4H
0
C
o
•H
4-1
0
t3
CU
a!
i
rd
01
0)
rrj
g
p
a>
i
4J
^1
0
43
to
4->
O
id
ft
•H
O
MH
0
4-1
•H
to
CU
£>
•H
Q
MH
O
C
0
•rl
4J
id
G
•H
g
•H
i-H
W
•0
cu
•rl
3 r^o
0* *
1 rH
rd O
g ft
to •>
cu cu
•H tO
O rd
cu cu
ft SH
to o
t3
to
CU MH
to 0
to
rd C
ft 0
>1 -H
42 4J
O
CM P
EH -d
S CU
13
a
X
H
i-H "X
cu
TD
n5
ft"
D
^ n
cu A-i
C M
C rd CU
H 33 ,V
CU SH K)
43 CU
•P H-l CU
3 !"H
GOO
•rH 43
- to
~ SH SH
to Q rd
C 42 0)
CU SH C
0i rd
O 33 13
1
O
1 3
•rl SH
CU U 4J
4J O to
rd CO C
H 10 0
3 rd O
U
•H to 43
4-1 C H->
SH 0 -rl
rd -rl 3
ft to
to 13
13 -rl CU
G g -P
id cu rd
13
tO -rl
CU 4-1 O
•H 3 >
O 43 rd
CU
ft M >,
to rd r-H
CU CU
CU ft ^1
> ft -rl
•rH (tj r~|
4J 0)
•H SH 13
CO rH
C >i 3
to g 3
^
C
1 rH
g o U
IH 3
0 T3 CU
MH 0) CU
•H SH SH
rH 4H
0 -
O 01 4H
C O
rH -rl
rd 13 G
O id 0
CU O -H
4-1 rH 4J
to
CU
S
13 tO
4-1
11 J-"
to rd
Id rH
W Qi
•
to
id
cu
rd
c
n3
o^
•rl
43
CJ
•rl
S
•
c
0
•H
4J
CU
^
rd
JZ
o
to
•H
•d
4-1
c
0)
3
rH
MH
MH
cu
>)
43
01
•H
43
CU
3
C
•H
4-1
C
0
O
C
O
•rH
4-1
u
3 CU
•d -P
0) rd
3
g 0
CU 4-1
4-1 M
i id
01 ft
c
r-3 *H
|
5
MH
o
4J
C
cu
g
rd
•H
SH
cu
4J
•H
SH
0
4J
G
rd
rH
ft
43
4-1
•rl
3
cu
4J
rd
•rH
u
43
to
•rl
M-l
c
(d
01
•rl
43
O
•H
S
1
f
33
2
G
•rl
CU
to
rd
cu
SH
0
C
H
•
to
G
O
•rl
4-1
rd
CU
ft
o
SH
J5
SH
rd
33
CU
43
4J
O
4-1
G
•H
1
g
O
SH
4H
cu
43
i-H
rH
•H
[5
2
CU
rH
43
•rl
to
to
O
ft
r-l •
X H
01 X
g 01
cn e
co
G rH
rd
43 SH
4J CU
^
to o
to
CU 0
rH 4->
-------
en
H
CJ
Z
a
Sen
H H
tn tn
z en
O W
CJ CJ
Q
73
CU
3
C
•H
4J
8 .
— EH
> H
S
H Z
O EH
OS <
. . EH
H
Q
OH H
O D
PL, CX
x 3
H
•a
c
td
T3
01
c
i
•r-
rH
id
3
a
rH
•H
tn
cu
o
0)
ft
en
rrj
0)
j^
cu
Cn
C
id
73
c
id
4-1
O
•H
U
•H
4J
id
3
CT
•H
rH
(d
3
a
rH
<1)
rd
tn
0)
SH
U
id
^
•
00
tn
id
cu
g
id
en
tn
rd
0)
g
fCj
CO
4-1
u
id
ft
g
•rH
O
Z
tn
id
cu
g
en
tn
id
cu
g
id
en
fM
73
cu
M
•H
3
CU
rH
CU
^
•H
4-1
Id
C
cu
4-1
H
a;
^
•H
4J
id
G
SH
Q)
4-1
,_{
<:
r-l
O
>
4J
id
c
0)
4-1
rH
rH
-H 4-1
•H 5 C
4J >i I)
O CU H g
^ tn rd 4-^
73 g rd
rH 3 -rH 0)
•rl rH !^ M
< en CM EH
to
^J
J_l
u
id
00
•
(N
tn
rd
0)
g
rd
en
tn
id
0)
g
id
en
4-1
O
id
ft
g
•H
O
Z
tn
id
0)
id
en
tn
id
cu
rd
en
m
73
(U
jq
•H
3
W
0)
i-H
CU
>
4J
id
c
cu
•P
rH
rH
0
>
•rH
[1
f^J
G
0)
4J
rH
<
rH
(1)
>
4-1
rd
C
CU
4-1
i-H
rH
0)
>
•rH
4-1
id
C
^f
cu
4-1
rH
<
VI-
^
•H 73
< CU
4-1
cu rd cu
rH > Cn
en «H 13
C 4J 3
•rl O rH
tn < en
125
g
a)
4-1
en
en
tn
CD 0) 73
SH .Q cu
O rH
id 73 -H
rH 3
CO 3 0*
• 9 <"
TP 3 SH
0)
>
•H
4-1
tn id
id c
0) 0)
en
cu
•H
4-1
tn id
id c
M
0) CU
e -n
id H
en <
o
I
•H
O
Z
•H
4J
Bl Id
id c
CU 0)
E 4J
Id rH
en <
CU
•H
4-1
en rd
id G
cu cu
6 n-1
t3 S
CU 4-1 4-1
I-H id tn
id -H en
in 4-1
id o 0)
OH r£ en
73
0 SH 3
3 -rH rH
EH i=C en
tn
cu a) -o
M rQ CU
O rJ
id t3 -H
oo 3
4J
O
I
•H
£
cu
•H
4J
tn id
id c
JH
•rH
4-1
tn id
id c
r-l
! 4-1 3
X O rH
o id tn
tn
0) 0) T)
!H 42 0)
U iH
id -a -H
rH 3
in 3 cr1
• 0
•H
4-1
tn id
id C
rH
cu a)
Id rH
en <
(U
•H
4-1
tn rd
id C
rH
<1) CU
c ll 1
ft) 1^
tn <=c
4-1
u
I
•rH
0
Z
en id
id C
!H
cu a)
0)
•H
4-1
tn rd
id C
rH
0) a)
g 4J
Id rH
en 01
•H 4J
tn
o >i
m < en
•H
4-1 O 4-1
-------
H
00
w
ot w
w w
to co
& CO
88
<; cu
EH
3 EH
S §
3 S
O EH
>
S
H
O D
fa Oi
H
X J
S
EH
tn
dJ
u
3
0
in
d}
a
s*i
cn
0) 0
C -H
H 4-1
ft
H g
(8 3
3 in
c c
CJ O
(5J o
c
0
•H
4-1
(8 tn
4-i tn
S-l d)
0 CJ
ft o
in <
C
(fl 'C
M C
EH nj
in
0
•H
g
0
C
0
u
ra
tn
d)
4-1
•H
cn
r-l
10
0
* '§,
O iH
•H O
S-l d)
O 18
4J JC
in u
•H S-)
a «i
1^1
4-1
0)
(8
to
03
0)
tn
•H
0
2
tn
CD
•H
4-1
tn i
4J rH
CH (H
18 (0
H 3 d)
ft 13 4J
(8 (8
4-i SH S-i
tn cn o
d) -H
IS 13 SH
rH d)
0) 3 4-1
4J 3 13
d)
C
•H
£-|
rC 0
4-1 H
-H J3
3 0
T3 4-1
(U 4-J O
4-i SH
(8 0 d)
•H ft Cn
U CO (8
0 C S-l
in 18 o
tn SH 4-i
rrj +J tn
i
C
0)
4J
0
ft
01
4J
13
(8
tn
(8
en
.
d)
Cn
(8
(8
0)
c
o
•H
4J
0
3
4J
tn
c
cS
i
u
3
"O
^|
-P
fj
tj>
-H
rH
W
U
a
c
4H
O
C
O
•H
4-1
0
3
4-1
CO
C
0
u
c
o
• H
4-)
O
<
0
2
in
(^
Gr)
g
CO
^*
>1
in
c
0 d)
3 "H
m 14-1 x
in r-i o
O 3 -H
H to a
c
0 1
-H ft
4-1 g
ft 0) 0)
g tn EH
3 <8
tn d)
C 1M *
O 0 g
O 0) SH
-d d)
>i 4J
cn -a i
M H Cn
(U 3 C
COO
W 3 H
|
*& 1
rH CO
3 JC 0)
9-P *H
•H 4J
3 -H
tn >
d) d) -H
•r-l S-l 4-1
4-1 d) 0
•H MH (0
K" SH
•r-l Q) 4-1
4-1 4-1 ^
0 C O
(8 -H fti
4-> 1
g rC 4-1
P Cn SH
0) -H 0
4-1 rH J5
I CQ in
en
C - C
O 4-1 -H
rH C
V d)
C i in
•H >i (0
0 d)
C rH M
O ft O
•H g C
4J aj -H
13
rH M-l
3 0 rH
O (8
3 d) o
g -H
d) in o
•r-l 4J
4-i >i in
•H 0 -H
rH S-l rC
-H 4-1
u tn a)
(8 d) JC
Hi r^ jj
_
SH
\
in
c
O a) SH
4-1 rH 0
ly* «
CN U t?
in -H -H
m (X J
c
C 0
•H -H
4-1 X!
0) Q, 4-1
CQ g -H
(8 3 3
d) in
SH C -o
O O d)
C U 4->
•H <8
^i -H
>i Cn o
SH SH 0
18 d) tn
SH C tn
0 d) (8
^
o
3
S_i g
EH 6
4-1 EH
* NS*» t?
g 0 3
M 4-1 "\
d) rH
4-1 U H
1 -H -H
1 1 t| | t| |
S-l UH "O
0 18 C
A SH (8
tn 4-i H
1
4-1 0
C 3
Q) SH
g 4J 4J
>, in .c
0 C Cn
rH 0 -H
ft O rH
g tn
d) Cn
C -
g'H C
M 0
dJ 3 -H
4-1 13 4-1
A
SH
T) 3 rH
r-l 4-1 18
3 tn o
O -H -H
O 13 Cn
o
13 >1 rH
C rH O
(8 ft d)
•H 18
in tn x;
d) tn u
C O SH
O ft nj
^
>i
in
c
o
4-1
p*.
o^
^0
rH
•
c
0
•H
4-1
D
3
4-1
tn
c
o
u
0
Cn
18
o
4J
ft
3
CO
•H
rrj
?*i
r8
O
4-1
in
3
rH
3
g
•H
4-1
in
•
in
d)
4-1
•rH
to
i
c
0
•H
r[ |
O
CO
0)
•H
4-1
•H
^
•H
4J
U
C8
Cn •
C 4-1
•H SH
rH O
•o cu
(8 4H
A 0
13
0)
-P •- 0)
n) C rH 4->
rH 0 (8 SH (8
0) -H SH 0) rH
5-i -U OJ IH p
o T3 in g
tn 3 o> c -H
0) SH fa (8 -P
tn 4-i SH tn
w cn <-3 4J
0) C 13
C O d) CQ rH
•H O 4-1 13 3
en 10 C O
3 o 4-i 3 x:
^3 4j co 4H in
n c g
•» IM \ o >i SH
C rH C 4-1 4-1 4-1
>l<4HOCn>lr-l3 10 1
g O-H SrH-H OT3H cn
o 4J-Hd)jaOd) c
CC18134-1 4-JCUO
O 0 SH C* 18 r-H dJ (0 *C rH
O "H CD 3 g ^" d) g 4-1
d) 4-1 ft 4H -rt M -H
ftO Xd)34-)>(in
rH 3 iH O jfi (8 CO •Q "
(OSn4-iiOSH4-i3dJ O
utns-ioft rH CDOO
0 'H O 0 ft 4H -rH CO 3 (T>
rH13 ftrH rt! OS-H OrH
„
tn
4J
U)
0
o
S
08
o
13
CU
U
3
d)
M
VI-126
c
o
•H
4->
O
0
rH
-------
n
I
H
^
w
*-3
§
EH
CO
Ed
CJ
2
Ed
D
Oi CO
Ed Ed
co co
2 CO
O Cd
U U
O
M CM
rfj £U
EH
2 EH
Ed 2
S Ed
2 2
0 EH
H Ed
> OS
2 EH
Ed
Q
K H
O D
En Oi
X i-3
H
OH
EH
<|
?j
01
0)
o
J.
c
01
0)
a
^"1
tT>
M C
0) C
H 4«i
ft
rH g
<0 5
3 01
C C
S8
c
0
•rl
4-1
(0
4-J
SH co
O 01
ft
.^
4-1
(fl
C
0)
4->
r_f
< H
C C
0 CO
•rH 1 -rl -rl
4-1 ft 4-> X!
ft OJ g 0) ft 4J
£ Ul 53 CO £ -rH • 0) t)
3(OEHr033CCSHEH
010) 0)01 00-rlffl
CM • M C T3 -rH -rl 3
oogooo)4-i4-ioyi
oa>Sco4->ooa)o
•dO-H (033MH
M >i 4-1 >i -rl SH SH
>iOiT3 1 >iCTiCJ4J4->rOX
"XMrHIJlMMOOlOlrH
DO)3C(0
•rl
4J
Ifl
^
0)
4J
i-H
rH
QJ
^
•H
4-)
(fl
C
^l
0)
4-1
rH
rH
i C^TI
D 0) 3
EH C 0
ffl Ed 3
H
0)
>
•H
4J
10
C
(U
4J
rH
rH
0)
•H
4J
<0
J.
0)
4J
H
rH
0)
•H
4J
(0
^
OJ
4J
rH
C
c o
1 -rl -H
ft 4J A
§i -H
1 >i Di O
CT> M iH 0
C (fl 0) 01
O M C 01
rH 0 0) (0
•
C
o
•rH
4J
o
H
cons
0)
•H
4-1
01 (0
(0 C
rl
CJ (L)
e i i
ffl r-H
co i=c
CTi
C
o
•rl
4-1
ft
£3
01
c
0
u
£*1
Ui
0)
CD
(0
0)
M
O
0)
-a
T3
(
ft
d)
£-4
•
g
D
-P
1
•H
0)
CD
(0
0)
M
O
C
•H
>i
0
•H
4-1
ft
j3
CD
C
0
u
^"1
Cn
x:
-P
•H
3
-a
0)
4J
id
•r4
u
•
C
o
•H
4J
U
3
SH
4-1
COOrlCOlQ
0)
•H
-
M rO
(0 C
M
0) (U
e -w
(0 i-H
LO fll
0)
-rH
4-1
01 rO
(0 C
M
0) 0)
e -P
(0 rH
CO <
0)
•rl
4J
01 (0
fl C
M
0) 0)
g 4J
(0 rH
W <
C
o
•H
4-)
I
01
(0
CO
-------
o
w
D
Ol CO
H W
co co
BS
u o
I EH
H S EH
H
S <
H W
W
ed
O
fa
•x
s
EH
Q
O)
->"l
en
01
G
w
rH
id
c
€
G
O
•H
•P
id
4-1
o
a
tn
C
(d
&
"O
c
id
o
•H
^
o
4-1
tn
•rH
as
tn
0)
o
^
3
O
tn
0)
os
G
0
•H
•P
a
3
tn
c
s
tn
en
01
u
o
rtj
rrj
G
id
tn
0
•H
§
c
0
u
w
tn
.p
•rH
CO
r-H
U
•rH
Cn
o
i-H
o
01
id
rC
o
%
•P
0)
id
to
c3
0)
tn
•rH
0
2
tn
id
01
g
id
to
CM
o
rH
X
r-H
t
f^
CM
«
tn
cd
01
to
tn
id
f
0
M-l
o
^1
>1
c
•rH
0)
tn
id
01
o
•H
^,
M
id
0
•
,-^
p
£
C
0
•H
•P
a
3
tn
0
0
^1
tj^
^
0)
0)
•1
x;
4J
is
"8
.p
id
•rH
O
0
tn
tn
id
•
c
0
•H
U
3
^f
4J
in
G
0
0
O)
•rH
tn n)
id C
0) 01
g -P
*l
o
rH
X
CN
•
n
^j*
Ti1
M
>i
X^
D
EH
PQ
C
0
•H
4-1
a
tfl
0
o
t>1
C"
CD
C
Oi
tn
id
01
o
Ol
t)
•0
H
3
IS
a
EH
g
1^
0)
4J
1
en
G
0
r-H
G
•H
Ol
tn
id
01
o
c
•H
>l
^
id
0
umption
tn
0
o
>i
Cn
0)
G
01
4->
S
1
4-1
id
•H
U
0
tn
tn
id
C
o
•H
U
3
4-1
tn
C
o
o
01
•rH
4->
tn id
id G
01 01
g -P
id H
to <;
Ol
•H
4-1
in id
id c
in
0) 0)
o>
•H
4-1
w id
id G
01 oi
rt I t
id rH
to <
c
0
tn -H
(C -P
u
0
z
VI-128
g 0)
3 G
•H -rH
g M
O 73 0 O
. . Id H C g
£ 0) Si -H g
U rJ O N tS!
II II II II II
CN
H G OS
U N S
id
f>*
^*
0
^
o
II
01
u
id
tn
o
rH
§
CO
•
^j*
in
o
rH
II
D
£H
PQ
metric tons
co
o
CM
CD
II
G
0
4-1
tn
3
rH
0
"a
tn
O
CM
II
G
0)
en
o
!H
4J
•H
II
£
3
•H
S
S
u
z u
-------
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX III
SOUTH SHORE
November 1980
-------
SOUTH SHORE EIS APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary and Conclusions 1-1
A. Introduction 1-1
B. South Shore WWTP 1-1
C. Alternatives 1-1
D. MMSD's Recommended Plan 1-2
II. Introduction II-5
A. Purpose II-5
B. Wastewater Treatment at South Shore II-6
C. Service Area II-7
D. Operating Problems II-7
E. Relationship with other EIS Elements II-8
F. Scope of the South Shore EIS II-8
III. Existing Conditions 111-10
A. Introduction 111-10
B. Preliminary Treatment 111-10
C. Primary Treatment 111-16
D. Secondary Treatment 111-17
E. Solids Handling 111-19
F. Disinfection of Effluent 111-20
G. Influent Characteristics 111-21
H. Effluent Characteristics 111-27
I. Wastewater Bypasses 111-32
J. Energy Use 111-33
K. Operation and Maintenance 111-33
L. Staff 111-36
IV. Alternatives IV-37
A. Introduction IV-37
B. Effluent Limits IV-40
C. Industrial Pretreatment IV-42
D. Development of Costs IV-42
E. No Action IV-43
F. Development and Screening of Liquid IV-44
Treatment Alternatives
G. Discussion of Alternatives IV-47
1. Preliminary Treatment IV-47
2. Primary Treatment IV-47
3. Secondary Treatment IV-47
4. Disinfection IV-49
a. Chlorination - Dechlorination IV-49
b. Ozonation IV-50
c. MMSD's Recommended Disinfection IV-50
Method
5. Outfall IV-52
6. Expansion Alternatives IV-52
-------
IV. Alternatives (continued)
a. . Alternative 1 - Expansion and IV-52
upgrading of the existing plant
by lakefill
b. Alternative 2 - Expansion and IV-53
upgrading of the existing plant
on the lake level by excavating
the bluff
c. Alternative 3 - Expansion and IV-53
upgrading of the existing plant
on lake level by excavating the
bluff and filling the lake
d. Alternative 4 - Expansion and IV-53
upgrading of the existing plant
on the bluff
e. East, South, West Expansion IV-54
Alternatives
(1) Alternative 5 - East Alter- IV-54
native
(2) Alternative 6 - South Alter- IV-54
native
(3) Alternative 7 - West Alter- IV-56
native
f. Alternatives developed by the EIS IV-56
study team
(1) Modification of Aeration IV-56
Basins
(2) Modification of Expansion IV-56
Alternatives
(3) Alternative 8 - Six acre IV-57
lakefill
(4) Alternative 9 - Lake level IV-57
expansion
H. Evaluation of Alternatives IV-58
I. Energy and Resource Consumption IV-60
J. MMSD's Recommended Plan IV-60
V. Affected Environment V-69
A. Introduction V-69
B. Water Quality V-69
C. Aquatic Biota V-71
D. Threatened or Endangered Species V-73
E. Terrestrial Habitats V-73
F. Air Quality V-73
G. Odors V-75
-------
V. Affected Environment (continued)
H. Public Health V-76
I. Noise V-76
J. Safety V-76
K. Land Use V-77
L. Economics V-78
M. Transportation and Access V-78
N. Resources V-78
0. Energy V-78
VI. Environmental Consequences VI-81
A. Introduction VI-81
B. Impacts of the Alternatives VI-82
1. Water Quality VI-82
2. Aquatic Biota VI-92
3. Threatened or Endangered Species VI-93
4. Terrestrial Habitats VI-93
5. Air Quality VI-94
6. Odors VI-94
7. Public Health VI-95
8. Noise VI-96
9. Safety VI-96
10. Land Use VI-97
11. Economics VI-98
12. Transportation and Access VI-99
13. Resources VI-100
14. Energy VI-101
C. Environmental Consequences of MMSD's VI-102
Recommended t>lan
-------
SOUTH SHORE EIS APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Page
11-1 South Shore WWTP II-6
II-2 MMSD Service Area II-7
II-3 Document Outline II-8
III-l Process Schematic 111-10
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV- 5
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
IV-11
IV-12
V-l
VI-1
Air Activated Sludge Process
Alternative 1-30 acre lakefill
Alternative 2-14 acre bluffcut
Alternative 3-9 acre lakefill/
3 acre bluffcut
Alternative 4 - Top of the bluff
Alternative 5 - Expansion to the east
Alternative 6 - Expansion to the south
Alternative 7 - Expansion to the west
Alternative 8-6 acre lakefill
Alternative 9 - Lake level expansion
MMSD's Recommended Plan Process Schematic
MMSD ' s Recommended Plan
Existing Land Use
Nearshore Bathymetric Study Area
IV-45
IV-53
IV-53
IV-54
IV-54
IV-54
IV-54
IV-54
IV-56
IV-56
IV-68
IV-68
V-77
VI-95
-------
SOUTH SHORE EIS APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES
Table Nuin^r
— Page
III-l Liquid Treatment Process Description lll-ll
III-2 Design Hydraulic Capacity 111-13
III-3 Evaluation of Treatment Capacities 111-14
III-4 Influent Flow Data 111-22
III-5 1979 Average Influent and Effluent Data 111-23
III-6 Mass Influent BOD Data 111-24
III-7 Mass Influent Suspended Solids Data 111-25
III-8 Mass Influent Phosphorus Data 111-26
III-9 Mass Influent TKN Data 111-28
111-10 Average Dry Weather Daily Wastewater 111-29
Characteristics
III-ll Summary of Wastewater Treatment Efficiencies 111-30
and Effluent Violations
111-12 Summary of Disinfection Data 111-31
111-13 Energy Use 111-34
111-14 Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs 111-35
IV-1 Design Flows and Loads IV-39
IV-2 Effluent Parameters and Limits IV-41
IV-3 Existing and Required Facilities IV-48
IV-4 Disinfection Cost Comparison IV-51
IV-5 Alternative Costs IV-55
IV-6 Energy and Chemical Requirements IV-61
IV-7 MMSD's Recommended Plan Cost IV-62
IV-8 Summary of Existing and Proposed Treatment IV-63
Facilities for Alternative 1
IV-9 Energy Requirements for MMSD's Recommended IV-67
Plan
IV-10 Staff Projections for Alternative 1 IV-68
V-l Water Quality V-70
V-2 Bottom Dwelling Organisms Found in the v-72
Reference Area near the Lakeside Power Plant
V-3 National Primary Ambiend Air Quality standards v-74
and Existing Air Quality at South Shore WWTP
V-4 1977 Fuel Consumption for Milwaukee County v-80
VI-1 Annual Pollutant Loads from the South Shore WWTP VI-S3
VI-2 5 unmary of Environmental Consequences VI-84
-------
I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Introduction
This appendix summarizes the environmental impact studies
carried out for the South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) investigated wastewater treatment alternatives
for the WWTP. This appendix is part of the comprehensive
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS being carried out
on the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP).
B. South Shore WWTP
The South Shore WWTP was completed in 1968 and designed
as a primary treatment facility with a 60 MGD (million
gallons per day, 2.7 m^/sec) design capacity (average
day conditions). Forty acres (16 hectares) of Lake Michigan
were filled in for wastewater treatment facilities. In
1974, the WWTP was upgraded to secondary air activated
sludge treatment and a 120 MGD (5.3 m^/sec) design capacity
(average day conditions). The liquid treatment processes
are as follows: coarse screens, grit channels, primary
sedimentation, air activated sludge treatment, phosphorus
removal, secondary clarification and chlorine disinfection.
Solids handling processes include dissolved air flotation
(DAF), anaerobic digestion, and sludge lagooning of solids
prior to land application. Solids from the coarse screens
and grit channels are landfilled. The South Shore WWTP
is discussed further in Chapter III: Existing Conditions.
C. Alternatives
Alternatives for South Shore WWTP considered by the MMSD
in the South Shore Facility Plan Element (SSFPE) include:
- Alternative 1: Expansion in the Lake to the North
(a) Enclosing 30 acres (12 ha) and
filling 12 acres (5 ha) of Lake
Michigan.
- Alternative 2: Expansion on the shoreline by cutting
14 acres (6 ha) of Lake Michigan.
- Alternative 3: Expansion by filling 9 acres (4 ha)
of Lake Michigan and cutting 3 acres
(1 ha) of bluff.
- Alternative 4: Expansion on the top of the bluff.
The existing wastewater treatment process would be retained.
1-1
-------
Three additional alternatives are considered in this appen-
dix in response to requests from nearby residents. They are:
- Alternative 5: East expansion filling in 9 acres
(4 ha) of Lake Michigan to the east of
the present lakefill.
- Alternative 6: South expansion filling in 6 acres
(2 ha) of Lake Michigan to the south
of the present lakefill.
- Alternative 7: West expansion cutting 9 acres (4 ha)
of bluff to the west of the present lake
fill.
Two additional alternatives are proposed in this EIS:
- Alternative 8: A 6 acre (2 ha) lakefill to the north
of the present lakefill.
- Alternative 9: Expansion at lake level without any
bluff cut or lakefill.
Also, as required by EIS regulations (40 CFR 1500, 40 CFR
6), the No Action alternative was considered for purposes of
comparison and to allow a baseline for evaluation. The No
Action alternative assumes that the MMSD's Wastewater System
Plan (WSP) is implemented and no improvements occur at South
Shore WWTP.
The alternatives are discussed further in Chapter IV: Alternatives
Alternatives.
D. MMSD's Recommended Plan
The MMSD's Recommended Plan is Alternative 1 - filling in 12
acres (5 ha) of Lake Michigan and enclosing 30 acres (12 ha)
for future expansion. The existing wastewater treatment
process would be expanded and dechlorination facilities
would be added. Aerating capacity would be expanded by 16%,
and secondary clarification capacity would be expanded by
50%. Preliminary and primary treatment facilities would
remain unchanged, while new chlorine disinfection facilities
would be constructed. Solids handling process changes are
addressed in the Solids Management Facility Plan Element
(SMFPE) and the Solids Management EIS appendix.
1-2
-------
Implementation of the MMSD's Recommended Plan would have the
following impacts:
• 30 acres of an unpolluted nearshore area of Lake
Michigan would be removed by lakefill.
Effluent flows and loads would increase as follows
(Water Quality appendix):
Flow 40%
Suspended Solids (SS)* 138%
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)* 233%
Phosphorus* 100%
Nitrogen 67%
Ammonia 67%
Cadium 41%
Chromium 47%
Lead 40%
*Assumes future concentrations are equal to the
maximum concentrations. Actual values may be lower.
• Net energy requirements would be as follows (SSFPE):
Electrical1 13.71 GWh/yr (49.3 GJ/yr)2
Digester gas (production) 515.00 TBTU/yr (543.2 TJ/yr)3
Natural gas4 0.475 MTherm/yr (50 TJ/yr)5
Diesel fuel5 385,000 gal. (1,457,000 1)
Net consumption 241.5 TBTU/yr
Energy required to
operate WWTP 7.56 TBTU/yr
Construction will require 302.1 billion BTU of energy.
Chemical consumption will be as follows (SSFPE):
Pickle liquor (as iron) 3030 tons/yr
Chlorine 700 tons/yr
Sulfur dioxide 350 tons/yr
110,500 BTU/kWh for electric generator
2c-= 10 9
3T= 1012
4100,000 BTU/Therm
SM= 106
6130,000 BTU/gallon
1-3
-------
Staff projections would be as follows:
1980 1985
Onsite
Offsite
78
0
108
31
2005
124
38
Construction of the MMSD's recommended plan would
employ approximately 165 persons during a 3.5 year
construction period.
Air emissions for the 3.5 year construction period
would be as follows:
particulate matter:
sulfur dioxide:
hydrocarbons:
nitrogen dioxide
28 tons ( 25.5 metric tons)
13 tons ( 11.8 metric tons)
37 tons ( 33.6 metric tons)
150 tons (136.1 metric tons)
Resources consumed during construction would be as
follows:
430,000 yd3 fill material (329,000 m3)
33,000 yd3 of concrete ( 25,200 m3)
36,000 yd3 of stone and granite (27,500 m3)
6,600 tons of steel (6,000 metric tons)
The MMSD would incur the following costs:
Wastewater treatment capital cost $53.90
Onsite solids handling capital cost $49.80
Offsite solids handling capital cost $23.85
Total capital costs $127.55
Total operation and maintenance cost $9.87
Total present worth $237.45
million
million
million
million
million/yr
million
Discharge limits as set by the Wisconsin Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) would not be
exceeded.
These impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter VI:
Environmental Consequences.
1-4
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
This appendix summarizes the environmental impact assessment
studies for the South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant
CWWTP), which currently serves portions of the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD). The evaluation of
wastewater treatment alternatives contained in this appendix
is an integral part of the environmental impact analysis
contained in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
which is being prepared concurrently with the Milwaukee
Water Pollution Abatement Program, (hereafter referred
to as the MWPAP-EIS).
The focus of the MMSD's water pollution control effort
has been altered by the judicial decisions of three court
cases: (1) The Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County
(Case No. 152-343) , (2) United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case
No. 72-C-1253), and (3) United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit (Case No. 77-2246). The Dane
County Court case required the MMSD to meet effluent
limits specified in their Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WPDES) effluent limitations, while
the U.S. District Court case set more strict effluent
limits than required by their WPDES permit. Each court
case set up a series of deadlines that the MMSD would
have to meet for the construction of wastewater conveyance,
storage and treatment facilities. The U.S. Court of
Appeals overturned the effluent limits set out by the
U.S. District Court, but did not alter the deadlines.
In order to comply with the Federal and State requirements
(PL 92-500 and PL 95-217), as well as the court decisions,
the MMSD instituted the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program (MWPAP), which is responsible for investigating
alternative courses of action for treating wastewater
in the planning area. The MMSD will choose the most
cost-effective (as defined in 40 CFR 35) plan for treating
wastewater in the area. A Wastewater System Plan (WSP) is
being formulated to accomplish this decision making process.
The South Shore Facility Plan Element (SSFPE) of this
Plan addresses the upgrading and expansion of the South
Shore WWTP as required by the court decisions and Federal
and State legislation.
II-5
-------
In response to the court decisions, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA1 issued two Notices
of Intent, dated October 21, 1977 and March. 23, 1978,
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement CEISI for
improvements to the existing MMSD WWTPs in the Milwaukee
metropolitan area. The issues identified in the Notices
of Intent are the construction impacts on water quality
and air quality, land use as a result of expansion, econo-
mics, energy, water quality, aquatic habitats, fish, wild-
life and limnological effects of lakefill.
B. Wastewater Treatment at South Shore
In the 1950's, as flow to the Jones Island WWTP approached
design capacity, the MMSD initiated a study to build
an additional treatment facility. A 108 acre (44 hectares)
site for the new facility was purchased in 1940 at the
eastern end of Puetz Road, in the City of Oak Creek.
It was bordered to the north by the City of South Milwaukee,
to the west by Fifth Street, to the south by the Peter
Cooper Company, and to the east by Lake Michigan. The
South Shore WWTP, completed in 1968, was designed as a
60 MGD (2.6 m3/sec) primary treatment facility. Forty
acres (16 hectares) of Lake Michigan were filled in for
the liquid treatment facilities. In 1974, the WWTP
was upgraded to secondary treatment capability, utilizing
air activated sludge processes, and the design capacity
was raised to 120 MGD (5.3 m3/sec). A thirty acre (12 hec-
tares) site, on the west side of Fifth Street, was subse-
quently purchased in 1977 for the purposes of future expan-
sion (see Figure II-1).
The South Shore WWTP is a conventional secondary treatment
facility which, in 1979, met EPA and Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) effluent discharge standards
(See Table III-ll). Previously the WWTP had difficulty
in meeting these effluent limits. Preliminary treatment
at the South Shore WWTP involves coarse screening and
grit removal. The screenings and grit are currently being
landfilled. Primary treatment consists of sedimentation.
A conventional air activated sludge process constitutes
secondary treatment. Phosphorus is removed by pickle
liquor addition and waste activated sludge is thickened
by dissolved air flotation (DAF). The treated effluent
is disinfected with chlorine and discharged into Lake
Michigan.
The primary settled sludge and DAF thickened waste activated
sludge is combined and digested anaerobically. The result-
ing sludge is stored and partially dewatered in lagoons
II-6
-------
q
V)
Ul
u
O
(Do
/\"
Co
05
(Of
Oi
Q
UJ
oc
2
UJ
Q_
H
Ul
LU
tr
ir
LJ
I
UJ
CO
UJ
o:
o
X
CO
ID
O
CO
<
o
-------
located at the site prior to final disposal by application
to agricultural land. The MMSD currently has a program
to administer the agricultural application of the sludge.
The liquid treatment facilities and administrative building
are located on 40 acres (.16 hectaresl of land reclaimed
from Lake Michigan. The DAF thickener building is also
a part of this complex. The rest of the solids processing
facilities, along with the electricity generating equipment,
are located on the adjacent bluff.
C. Service Area
Figure II-2 shows the MMSD'a planning area along with
areas which are served by the Jones Island and South
Shore WWTPs. There are three service areas: (1) that
area which the Jones Island WWTP serves, 92 square miles
(238 square kilometers); (2) that area served by the South
Shore WWTP, 31 square miles (80 square kilometers); (3)
a common area, which is served by both the WWTPs, 82
square miles (212 square kilometers). Flow diversion
structures in this common area allow wastewater to be
directed toward either WWTP.
D. Operating Problems
The South Shore WWTP experienced numerous problems in
the past which caused it to exceed the effluent limits
as set by the WPDES (permit no. WI-0024775). Recently,
steps have been taken to bring South Shore WWTP into com-
pliance with its WPDES permit. However, when the secondary
treatment facilities began operation in 1974, the WWTP
experienced operational problems which were primarily
caused by additional sludge volumes, causing overloaded
conditions in the sludge digesters and storage facilities.
Inadequate sludge digestion resulted in sludge reaching
the lagoons in a partially septic condition, thus causing
an odor problem.
Abandonment of the northern sludge lagoons in September, 1979,
has eliminated some of the odors. Sludge is currently
being trucked to farmland for agricultural application,
and external digester heaters have been provided for ade-
quate sludge digestion. The WWTP staff has become more
familiar with the processes, minimizing operational
difficulties. There were no WPDES violations in 1979.
II-7
-------
E. Relationship with other EIS Elements
The South Shore WWTP Environmental Impact Statement
appendix is part of the EIS being prepared on the Milwaukee
Water Pollution Abatement Program (MWPAP) . The MWPAP
has several facility plan elements, and therefore, several
corresponding EIS elements are being prepared. The South
Shore Facility Plan Element (SSFPE), contains relevant
information about the facility planning being done for
the MMSD. This element is comprised of a Planning Report
(PR) and an Environmental Assessment (EA). For further
information on the planning efforts, see the MWPAP-EIS,
as well as the individual MWPAP elements. Figure II-3
shows the EIS documents and how they relate to each other.
F. Scope of the South Shore EIS
The South Shore appendix of this EIS includes the following:
A brief history of the South Shore WWTP.
• The effluent limitations required both by the WPDES
permit and related court cases.
A summary of the existing conditions at the South
Shore WWTP and an evaluation of the existing faci-
lities.
• The projected wastewater flows and organic loads
for the planning period used for design of the
wastewater treatment facilities.
An identification of the feasible alternative treat-
ment process systems, along with their development.
An evaluation of these feasible alternative treatment
process systems.
• MMSD's Recommended Plan for wastewater treatment
at South Shore.
• A summary of the impacts of MMSD's Recommended
Plan.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requirements (40 CFR 6, 40 CFR 1500).
• Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1972 (WEPA)
requirements CNR 150).
II-?
-------
-------
2
cr
o
0
or
a.
t- i-
z z
LU LJ CO
UJ LJ W
22 UJ S
fln ^^ I^Z ^*^
< CO E §:
il < O uj
^ Q. •—
5 s t -
Ij ~" LU W
O — } ^ ui
H 3 I
UJ LU O IT
1— 2 • "•
^ o o
a: o
UI ^
UJ ^y
c
a>
o.
a.
\
3
CO
(
O
«*-
CD
CD
K
8
\ji
•o
CD
!5
J
~5r LjjJ
«.?
1
;
X
TJ
C
O
ex
o.
o
c
CD
E
c
.?
<
o
0.
CD
U
k.
CD
"c
:
<
TJ
CD
O.
O.
o
u
0
ex
E
k.
o
•o
c
0
CD
CO
i^
^
I
Q.
O.
^
3
o.
c
^
_«•
M
•>
C
~3
X
'•o
c
ex
o.
o
Q.
(_
CD
0
.c
(O
3
O
CO
;
X
T
1
3
^
.2 ex
•o a.
C 0
CD
a. u
o 'E
o
a. i
i— (
^ 4
1 l
•<
5
^
u
1 I
J Lu
<
'•&
C
§:
i
3
P
o
2
to
5
"o
CO
'•5
a>
Q.
a.
o
IP
'.^
o
c
«
^
I
3
-WWTP
tf
H
»>
o
d
1
i
•
CO
CO
i
•5 ""k-
z »
^ •*-
/n
:
T_
*
n
p
(
V
Q.
0.
O
1
1
•
•
'i
»
V
*
^
O
c
k.
cu
"o
O
CO
0
t
«
•
9%
o
O
k.
i
" U- C
0 g
$1
* a
w ,2
|_ CO
CO
C
UJ ^
o
rt
f < "c
^2 «
CD |
k. O
a
il
-------
This report documents the environmental impact analysis
for the South Shore WWTP and will allow the reader to
evaluate environmental impacts, engineering feasibility,
implementability, cost-effectiveness, and compliance with
applicable legislation, regulations, and judicial actions.
II- 9
-------
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Introduction
The South Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was designed
as a primary treatment plant, with a capacity of 60 MGD
(2.7 m-Vsec) and went into operation in 1968. In 1974, its
capacity was expanded to 120 MGD (5.3 m-Vsec), and the
facility was upgraded to secondary treatment. The primary
and secondary treatment processes were built on 40 (16 ha)
acres of land reclaimed from Lake Michigan. Solids handling
facilities, electrical generators, and air compressors are
located on the top of the bluff on the original 108 acre (44
ha) site. The reclaimed land is composed of sand and is
enclosed by a double-wall steel breakwater. All structures
were built without piling. Figure III-l shows a schematic
of the WWTP. Table III-l gives specifications for all
liquid treatment equipment, Table III-2 lists the hydraulic
capacities, and Table III-3 compares the design specifi-
cations with current operating conditions, along with typically
accepted engineering standards ("Ten States standards"). On
the average, current operations do not exceed design speci-
fications. However, peak flow conditions cause them to be
exceeded, resulting in violations of the effluent limitations.
Wastewater flow enters the WWTP by gravity through a 150
inch (380 cm) diameter sewer with a maximum design capacity
of 320 MGD (14 mVsec) • Design capacity is based on the Pi~'e
running full, without any surcharge.
The bypassing of primary treatment is not possible with
existing facilities, however, there are facilities capable
of bypassing secondary treatment by means of the primary
effluent outfall conduit which was constructed as a part of
the original primary treatment plant. Primary effluent
flows exceeding 240 MGD (10.5 m-vsec) a^e presently bypassed
by means of this facility, as allowed by the current
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
permit (No. WI-0024767).
A. Preliminary Treatment
Preliminary treatment at the South Shore WWTP consists of
coarse bar screens, grit removal channels and the plant
influent flow distribution and metering facilities. Coarse
screens are used to remove large materials that could damage
downstream equipment. The South Shore Facility Plan Element
(SSFPE) has identified a major problem in preliminary treat-
ment regarding removal of large solids such as timbers. All
large solids are presently removed by the coarse bar screens.
in-:
-------
TABLE III-1
LIQUID TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION
I. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
A. Coarse Bar Screens
Number of Units
B. Grit Channels
Number of Channels
Type
Horizontal Flow with
Gravity Separation
II. PRIMARY TREATMENT
Number
Detention Time
Surface Loading Rate
16 tanks arranged in
quadrants of 4 tanks each.
2.0 hours @ 120 MGD
1200 gpd/SF @ 120 MGD
III. SECONDARY TREATMENT
A. Aeration Tanks
Number
Detention Time
24, 4 batteries of 6 basins
6 hours @ 120 MGD
B. Air Diffusion Equipment
Type
00 Transfer Efficiency
Porous plate, fine bubble
diffusers
12%
C. Air Supply
Number of Blowers
Fuel Source
4 (1 of which serves as standby)
Digester gas/Natural gas
III-H
-------
UJ
0.
u.
o
K
o
M
2=
• o
i!
05
"Si
O>
O
Ld
X
O
CO
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
a:
a.
4
a
-------
D. Secondary Clarifiers
Number
Surface Settling Rate
16
761 gpd/SF @ 120 MGD
E. Return Activated Sludge Pumps
Number
Recycle Ratio
12
80% @ 120 MGD
IV. DISINFECTION
A. Pre-Chlorination
Point of Application
Head end of treatment
B. Post-Chlorination
Equipment and Capacity
Evaporator
Chlorinator
Point of Application
Contact Basin
Detention Time
3 @ 8,000 Ibs./day (1 standby)
3 @ 8,000 Ibs./day (1 standby)
Secondary Outfall
Plant Outfall
20 minutes @ 120 MGD
V. PLANT OUTFALL
Size
Length
Receiving Body
Points of Diffusion
11' Diameter
1800 ft.
Lake Michigan
3
1 ft.
1 hp
1 CF
1 SF
1 Ib
= 0.3048 meters
= 1.3558 joules
= 2.8317 x 10~3 irr
= 9.29 x 10~2 m2
= 0.4536 kg
1 in. = 2.54 centimeters
1 MGD = 4.381 x 10~2 m3/sec
1 MG = 3.785 x 103 m3
1 gal. = 3.785 x 10 "3 m3
1 gpd/SF = .0407 m3/m2/day
Reference: MMSD, SSFPE
111-12
-------
TABLE III-2
DESIGN HYDRAULIC CAPACITY
I. Influent Sewer
II. Preliminary Treatment
A. Coarse Bar Screens
B. Grit Channels
C. Metering
320 MGD
320 MGD
320 MGD
(without surcharge)
flows of over 350 MGD
have been observed
III. Primary Treatment
A. Design 60 MGD
Allow Effective Use 120 MGD
Peak Hydraulic Capacity 320 MGD
IV. Secondary Treatment
Design
Bypass at Flows Greater
Return Activated Sludge
Capacity
120 MGD
240 MGD
96 MGD
Reference:
Metric Conversions
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3/sec.
111-13
-------
ro
I
H
&H
H
a
ft
<:
o
B
S
tn
4-1 C
ccj (0 x:
MHO
a) ft cS
ft 0)
0 0)
4J tn
° 2 "c
arfl
4J
0) QJ
c tn rr
S1^. ^
•H ^ XI
VD
0) 4-1
4-1 C
fl ccj XI
MHO
a) a ro
ft C)
0 0)
4-1 (fl
0 nj ^
4-1 M C
a CO
4-1
U) (1)
C tfl "*
s>
•H ^r AI
tn 4-1
CD tn -H
D (0 3
00
en
^H
Q
O M
S 0
14H
u
© o
1
IM 14-1
X <1)
'U 0"*
ft a
Cn S-i
Q)
0 >
CN i<
00 >-*
Q
0
O
CN
©
(4-1
•x.
T3
en
O
0
CM
~ Q
CO O
r- S
r~H ^J*
CO
^1
0 ®
111
14-1
O H
(Tj 'd
S-l ft
0) 01
>
OJ
co
0)
o
rt
4-1
S-l
3
CO
Q)
en
(0
a)
^
(5ij
c
en
•H
m
a
l^l
.- 1
^1
3
0
ffi
H
a
Q
p
(U
PH
0)
4-1
frt
CM
en
c
•H
^: mo
nJ
ft
Q
O
CQ
(0
3
C
0)
S
4J
-------
in
Q
O
ffl
MH
O
oo
©
MH
M MH
\ to
ft T3
r-
o CM
in rH
tn \
>H tn
0 T3
4J
*
•H
§
ft
O o
rH O
S O
u co
ro -P
o
O r-l H
o \ \
CO Cn Cn
CO, e e
CM CM
CN CN CM
^r— V
•O
<1)
£
•H
4J
C
"
00
w
t-^
PQ
rtj
£H
CITIEi
rtj
CU
rf
0
EH
3
1
1
£-*
PM
o
2
o
H
EH
D
^
^
H
tn
•O
SH
(0
t!
C
(0
co-
co
OJ
(0
4J
w
c
0)
EH
C
Cn
•H
tn
(U
Q
1
I
T3
(0
0
w
CO
C/5
§
s
D
1
i_3
O
i-H
r^
(0
0)
ft
in
Q
O
ffl
X^
o
0 •
o
in
rH
•
^i
H
(0
O
tn
H
g
+
Q
2
O
CM
rH
©
MH
cn
i-H t>
4-1
(0
a
ft
MH C3J
tn
\ MH
d) T3 cn
rH ft \
ft Cn -0
•H \
4J O =8:
iH O
3 CM O
S rH in
Cn
•H
iH
4J
4J
0)
cn
o> c
4-1 -H
« (fl
sa
MH
> 0
O CO
(C
•O
w \
M tn
o -a
(0
So
r-l O
x: o
o co
CO
0
H
M-l
(0
O Q
O
O r-l
O
CO
O
CM
CN
M-l
O
4-1
•H
C
O 3
4J
4J
>> tn
XI 0)
tn ra
4-1 c
D cn i 3
4-1 rH
H MH SH
O MH (1)
(0 W ,Q
ft g
4J 3
rtj 3
ineers, 1978
Cn
W
K*I
SH
•H
C
W
0)
4-1
rfl
4-1
co
MH
0
SH
ifl
0
tn
CO
g ro 13
CM CO g I
1 gro CM
Oco I g
rH 0 0 <
•
g
U
^*
in
CM'
II
C
•H
rH
X
CO
rH
CO
ro
•*?'
II
Q
S
rH
rH r-r
tyl ly*
t*1 ^S
in in
co co
r^ r-
co co
II II
O (8
S Cn
rH H
1
g
f^
o
^3*
O
0
II
MH
tn
x^
u
CP
rH
3
•H
ft
ft
•H
tn
tn
cn
tn
SH
(U
ft
a
D
tn
(1)
4J
to
0
SH
O
cn
ro
tn coco CM
SH 0)i g
0) rH CCM
4-1 3 rHI
(DO O
e -i-> x H
co co r^ x UD
^T in rH CO
o m co ft
MH £
r-l H rH
p4 fa
u M
111-15
-------
The bar screen clearing mechanisms are not designed to
handle the large solids, and equipment failure occurs
during heavy loadings.
Grit channels remove heavy inorganic material (which has a
specific gravity near that of sand). Grit materials are
generally abrasive, and their removal protects and extends
the life of downstream mechanical equipment. Accumulated
grit clogs the removal equipment and can damage downstream
process equipment. Large quantities of grit have been found
in the anaerobic digesters which may be a reason for their
poor operation.
In March of 1976, peak flows of 368 MGD (16 m3/sec) flushed
the collection system, and resulted in an overload to the
coarse screen cleaning mechanism causing an equipment failure,
The screens blinded, allowing the wastewater to overflow the
channel and flood the WWTP.
As a result of the 1976 flood, two experimental, manually
cleaned trash racks were installed upstream of the bar
screens. Operation of the trash racks indicated that they
provided good protection for the bar screens, but the auto-
matic cleaning mechanisms are required to make it a reliable,
efficient, and economical unit process. The manually
cleaned trash racks were removed in 1977 because they could
not be kept sufficiently clear of debris by manual cleaning.
C. Primary Treatment
Primary treatment removes the readily settleable solids and
floating materials and thereby reduces the Suspended Solids
(SS) of the wastewater. Organic materials, as measured by
the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) are also removed.
Gravity settling is employed to remove suspended matter in a
relatively quiescent environment of a large basin. Primary
treatment at South Shore WWTP is provided by 16 rectangular
sedimentation tanks which are arranged into quadrants of
four tanks each.
Prior to December, 1977 operational difficulties were
experienced with the primary clarifiers. Problems included
gasification, offensive odors, floating solids, and poor BOD
removal. In December of 1977, operational modifications
were made which increased primary treatment efficiencies for
BOD and suspended solids.
Ill- 16
-------
Presently, primary treatment does not remove scum and grease
adequately. These have to be skimmed manually from the
primary clarifiers. Scum and sludge removal occurs by the
chain and flight scraper mechanism, which maintains a
constant flow of primary solids to the anaerobic digesters.
However, it is difficult to maintain optimum flow. Also,
algae have been known to accumulate on the effluent weirs of
the primary settling basin.
D. Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment at South Shore WWTP is achieved with a
conventional activated sludge process. This process brings
wastewater into contact with a highly active biological mass
which oxidizes the dissolved organics in wastewater. The
source of the biological mass is the microorganisms developed
during aeration and removed as sludge in the secondary
clarifiers.
Primary effluent from each quadrant of four sedimentation
tanks flows by gravity to four distribution channels each
feeding a corresponding quadrant (battery) of aeration
tanks. Each quadrant of aeration tanks contains six basins
providing a total of 24 aeration tanks. The design of the
WWTP provides the flexibility to operate the plant both in
the conventional and the step feed modes. The step feed
mode is a modification of the conventional activated sludge
process. The conventional treatment mode involves the addi-
tion of all of the wastewater at head end of the aeration
basin. In the steep feed mode, wastewater in three or four
equal increments is introduced to the aeration basin at
different points, equal distances apart. The current practice
at the South Shore plant is to operate in the conventional
mode for flows under 100 MGD (4 m^/sec). The step feed models
used for flows in excess of 100 MGD (4 m-^/sec) to improve
system hydraulics.
Process air for the aeration tanks is supplied by four
blowers. Normally two of the blowers are operated at a
time. The engines that drive the blowers operate with
natural gas until the engine's idle speed is reached. The
fuel system then automatically switches over to methane gas
which is produced by the anaerobic digesters. Air is sup-
plied to the mixed liquor through porous ceramic plate
diffusers arranged uniformly across the tank bottom.
Ill-17
-------
Phosphorus removal occurs in the secondary treatment operation.
Pickle liquor, an indusrial waste product generated from the
pickling of ferrous metals, provides an iron source for
phosphorus precipitation. Phosphorus reacts with iron and
settles in the secondary clarifiers where it is removed as
sludge. The pickle liquor facilities include six receiving
tanks, and two storage tanks, together with metering and
control mechanisms which accurately apportion the iron in
accordance with the total phosphorus entering the WWTP.
Following aeration the mixed liquor flows by gravity to
sixteen clarifiers arranged in four quadrants. Solids in
the clarifiers are removed by a collector and are either
pumped to the aeration basins as return sludge or trans-
ferred as waste activated sludge to thickeners for process-
ing. Scum is removed from the basins' surface by skimmers.
The scum is presently hauled from the WWTP for landfill
disposal or used at a scum rendering facility.
Effluent from each clarifier is discharged into a common
collecting trough, conveyed by gravity to the 132-inch (335
cm) outfall conduit and discharged into Lake Michigan
approximately 1,800 feet (550 m) from the landfill and 2500
feet (760 m) from the shoreline. Prior to discharge, the
effluent is disinfected with chlorine.
Loadings to the aeration basins are well below design cap-
acity and allow stable plant operation with the ability
to accept peak hydraulic and pollutant loads.
The WWTP has been limited from the standpoint of process
control. The return activated sludge (RAS) flow meters have
been inoperative since the 1976 flood. Consequently,
monitoring of the RAS pumps has been accomplished by taking
manual measurements of suspended solids concentrations in
the aeration basins.
The aeration basin suspended solids concentration was reduced
during 1978 to maintain a higher food to mass (F/M) ratio
while keeping 20 of the 24 aeration basins in operation to
absorb both peak hydraulic and pollutant loading conditions.
A higher F/M ratio allows more "food" for the microorganisms
to digest.
Maintenance of high quality effluents is dependent on proper
operation of the secondary clarifiers to maintain efficient
solids separation and prevent solids from becoming entrained
in the liquid effluent. Instances have been observed for
the South Shore secondary clarifiers where solids separation
capability has been reduced because peak hydraulic loads
have caused clarifier surface settling rates to exceed
IH-18
-------
design rates. Reduction in the depth of the sludge blanket
in each clarifier has minimized solids being blown by wind
into the effluent channel during flow conditions. However,
the reduction in sludge blanket depth has reduced the con-
centration of return activated sludge (RAS). This can affect
the operation of the activated sludge process if not enough
microorganisms are returned to the aeration basins.
E. Solids Handling
Sludge from the primary clarifiers proceeds to the anaerobic
digesters where it is mixed with thickened waste activated
sludge. Scum and grease are taken to a landfill for disposal.
Waste activated sludge is thickened by dissolved air flotation
(DAF) prior to anaerobic digestion. DAF involves the use of
air to cause sludge to float, then it is collected and
pumped to the digesters which biologically stablilize the
sludge. Sludge lagoons are used to thicken and store
anaerobically digested sludge prior to land application. In
1979 384,000 yd3 (294,000 m3) of sludge at 12% solids were
applied on 5053 acres of (2292 hectares) agricultural land.
Methane gas is produced as a by-product of digestion and is
used to drive gas engines connected to the blowers that
supply air to the aeration basins. Excess methane gas is
also used to drive engines connected to generators which
supply a major portion of the WWTP's electrical power demand.
Poor operation of the anaerobic digesters has been caused by
low temperature, inadequate mixing, inefficient feeding
methods, and insufficient capacity. These operational problems
caused poorly digested sludge to enter the sludge lagoons
creating offensive odors. Cooling water from engines and
electrical generating units is used to heat the digesters.
A new heating system is being introduced to increase sludge
digestion and improve performance.
Inadequate mixing is caused by mechanical problems with the
digester mixers or gas recirculation systems. Inefficient
feeding methods involve fluctuating raw sludge feed rates,
and insufficient preheating of sludge to digester temp-
erature. Poor grit removals allow grit to enter the digesters
causing mechanical and process difficulties. The digesters
were designed for a 60 MGD (2.7 m3/sec) primary treatment
plant and therefore do not have sufficient capacity to
handle solids generated by a 120 MGD (5.3 m3/sec) secondary
treatment plant.
The inability of the anaerobic digesters to stabilize the
sludge required modifications to the operation of the
lagoons. Polymer was added to the digested sludge to optimize
solid-liquid separation in the lagoons.
111-19
-------
Solids handling at South Shore WWTP is discussed further in
the SSFPE and the Solids Management Facility Plan Element
(SMFPE), the Total Solids Management Program (TSM), the
TSM EIS Technical Memorandum (June 1979) and the Solids
Management EIS Appendix (April 1980).
F. Disinfection of Effluent
Chlorine is used for disinfection at the South Shore WWTP
and is applied to the WWTP effluent just prior to entering
the outfall structure. The WWTP outfall conduit is of
sufficient size and length to provide the required contact
time for flows up to 160 MGD (7.0 m^/sec). Liquid chlorine
is shipped to and stored on the plant site in 55 ton (50
metric tons) railroad tank cars. Space is provided for six
tank cars. Liquid chlorine is piped from the chlorine
unloading station to the post chlorination building, where
it is converted to the gaseous state, mixed with screened
secondary effluent, and added to the plant effluent. Chlorine
dosages are normally controlled and adjusted as necessary to
achieve the required chlorine residual in the final effluent.
A separate facility is available to prechlorinate the raw
wastewater, as an odor control measure, however it is seldom
used.
A proposed WPDES discharge permit indicated that chlorine
residuals should be maintained at a concentration no greater
than 0.5 mg/1. In order to maintain a 0.5 mg/1 chlorine
residual, the amount of chlorine used on a daily basis was
decreased starting in July, 1977. The WWTP operators found
that keeping the residual chlorine concentration in a range
of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/1 resulted in constant violations of the
fecal coliform limits set by the South Shore WWTP WPDES
permit of 200 colonies per 100 milliliters. In an effort to
comply with the fecal coliform limits, it was determined
that the chlorine residual would have to be maintained above
0.5 mg/1. A decision was made to maintain a higher chlorine
residual, in the range of 0.7 to 1.0 mg/1. Chlorine residuals
maintained in this range were found to be marginal in meeting
the permit limit for fecal coliform. Chlorine residuals of
1.0 to 1.3 mg/1 were also found to be too low to meet permit
requirements. As of November, 1977, chlorine residuals are
maintained in the range of 1.7 to 2.0 mg/1, well in excess
of the proposed 0.5 mg/1 standard, in order to eliminate the
possibilities of fecal coliform permit violations. (See
Tables III-ll and 111-12.)
III-20
-------
G. Influent Characteristics
The wastewater flow is composed of flow from system users
and clear water infiltration and inflow. An analysis was
performed to account for infiltration and inflow and the
average dry weather base flows reported in Table III-4.
Analysis of annual average and dry weather base flows
indicated that seasonal flow variations are predominately
affected by infiltration and inflow. Average 1979 influent
and effluent flows and pollutant loads are given in Table
III-5.
In the evaluation of physical, chemical and biological
wastewater characteristics, mass loads are expressed in
terms of pounds of pollutants per day (kgs/day). This
allows the evaluation of contribution of pollutants from
individual sources, and eliminates the dilution effects of
flow volume on concentration. Mass loads provide a true
representation of the amount of pollutants being discharged.
Measurements of concentrations taken from diluted samples of
varying flow rates can be misleading, and the resulting
pollutant loads may actually be much higher than concentrations
indicate.
The concentration of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is used
to estimate the oxygen requirements for stabilization of
organic material. Table III-6 presents a summary of BOD
loadings reported in pounds per day. The review of influent
BOD loads shows mass loads to be nearly the same for both
dry and wet weather conditions. Industrial discharges are
the major source of loads since they account for only 19% of
the flow but 50% of the BOD loads. (See Table 111-10.) BOD
loads decreased from 1977 to 1978.
Suspended solids (SS) represent the suspended matter in
wastewater and indicate the amount of solids or sludge to be
handled by various processes. Table III-7 presents a sum-
mary of the suspended solids mass loads for 1977-78. As with
BOD, the dry weather base flow loads for SS were significantly
different from the average annual value. However, SS did not
experience the same reduction trend from 1977 to 1978,
as did BOD.
Phosphorus loads are listed in Table III-8. Phosphorus is
removed during secondary treatment by the addition of waste
pickle liquor. As discussed earlier, phosphorus reacts with
the iron contained in the waste pickle liquor and is eventually
removed as sludge.
111-21
-------
TABLE III-4
INFLUENT FLOW DATA
Year
1977
1978
Average
Annual
Flow
MGD
72
84
Weekday
Average
MGD
74
85
Maximum
Calendar
Month
MGD
87
107
Maximum
30 - Day
Average
MGD
93
109
1977
1978
Maximum
7 - Day
Average
MGD
129
182
Maximum
Weekday
Average
MGD
129
145
Maximum
Day
MGD
250
353
Average
Dry Weather
Base Flow •
MGD
67
75
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2m3/sec,
Reference: SSFPE
III-22
-------
TABLE III-5
1979 AVERAGE INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT DATA
Parameter
BOD
SS
Phosphorus
Flow
Fecal Coliform
Chlorine
Geometric Mean
Metric Conversions
1 MGD = 4.3813 x 10~2 m3/sec
Reference: MMSD monthly summaries, 1979.
Unit
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MGD
(#/100 mil)
mg/1
Influent
196
239
8.2
91.7
—
-
Effluent
12
15
0
91
26
1
.6
.7
1
.6
.43
Violations
0
0
0
1 Ib = 0.4536 kilogram
111-23
-------
TABLE III-6
MASS INFLUENT BOD DATA
(1000 Lbs/Day)
Maximum Maximum Maximum
Average Weekday Calendar 30-Day 7-Day Maximum Maximum
Year Annual Average Month Average Average Weekday Day
1977 173 200 — 205 258 282 462
1978 138 154 — 179 214 206 388
1. Metric Conversion
1 Ib = 0.4536 kilogram
Inference: SSFPE
111-24
-------
TABLE III-7
MASS INFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA
(1000 Lbs/Day)
Maximum
Average Weekday Calendar Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
Year Annual Average Month 30-Day 7-Day Weekday Day
1977 161
1978 153
182
171
185
180
241
238
266
238
606
446
1. Metric Conversion
1 Ib = 0.4536 kilograms
Reference: SSFPE
III-2-5
-------
TABLE III-8
MASS INFLUENT PHOSPHORUS DATA
(1000 Lb/Day)
Year
1977
1978
1977
1978
Average
Annual
6.60
6.50
Maximum
7 - Day
Average
11.81
9.03
Weekday
Average
—
Maximum
Weekday
__
Maximum
Calendar
Month
7.72
7.24
Maximum
Day
24.82
22.44
Maximum
30 - Day
Average
8.29
7.71
1 Ib = 0.4536 kilogram
Reference: SSFPE
III-25
-------
Nitrogen loads as represented by Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN), which includes organic and ammonia nitrogen, are
listed in Table III-9. Nitrate and nitrite are not included
in TKN measurements. Nitrogen, which can appear in several
chemical forms, e.g. ammonia CNH^) , nitrate (1*103), nitrite
(N02), or organic nitrogen, is not significantly removed by
secondary treatment. The small amount utilized by micro-
ogranisms is removed when they are removed as sludge during
secondary treatment.
The influent temperatures at South Shore range from 65°F
(18° C) during mid-summer to 54° F (12° C) during the coldest
weather. Influent pH averages 7.6 and ranges from 7.1 to
8.6.
The average dry weather daily wastewater characteristics by
various contributors are presented in Table 111-10. It
should be noted that the majority of the wastewater flow
comes from domestic sources while industrial sources account
for most of the BOD and SS loads. Clearwater which in-
filtrates into the sewer system does not contain measurable
BOD or SS.
H. Effluent Characteristics
The South Shore WWTP has had numerous effluent violations of
its WPDES discharge permit after it was expanded to secondary
treatment in 1974. However, since 1977, the frequency of
effluent violations have been reduced. Effluent quality has
improved because: (1) a new sludge hauling program was
installed to dispose of accumulated solids; (2) the practice
of returning poor quality digester supernatant to the head
of the plant was eliminated; (3) polymer is added to increase
solids concentration in the lagoons; and (4) effective
chlorine residual concentration is maintained. Table III-ll
presents a compilation of the wastewater discharges, ef-
ficiencies, and WPDES violations for the South Shore WWTP
for 1975 through 1978.
Table 111-12 presents a summary of disinfection data, which
include average combined chlorine residuals and geometric
mean of the effluent fecal coliform levels. During the
period July through mid November 1977, plant personnel
attempted to maintain the residual chlorine concentrations
between 0.2 and 0.5 mg/1, as requested by Wisconsin DNR.
This resulted in violations of the fecal coliform limits in
the WPDES permit that is set at 200 colonies per 100
milliliters.
III-2 7
-------
TABLE III-9
MASS INFLUENT TKN
(1000 Lb/Day)
Year
1977
1978
Average
Annual
22.96
21.27
Weekday
Average
25.15
24.03
Maximum
Calendar
Month
26.01
24.67
Maximum
30 - Day
Average
27.12
25.13
1977
1978
Maximum
7 - Day
Average
29.97
30.03
Maximum
Weekday
32.30
33.86
Maximum
Day
46.11
55.93
1 Ib = 0.4536 kilogram
TKN = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, represents organic and ammonia nitrogen
Reference: SSFPE
III-28
-------
<*(>
•o ><
C M ra
o a
ft -H \
w i-H ^a
3 0 >J
W C/3 •-'
O
O
O
lO
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
o
o
o
<*>
o
in
o
H
H
H
H
W
04
w
EH
W
^
X
os
Q
w
CO
CJ —
H >i
EH rd
CO Q
OS Q A
I §d
0
0
O
in
r-
2
X
U
Pi
W <*>
EH
VD
in
o
0
o
CN
H
0
H
O
0
o
o
00
0"* m
i-l iH
o
0
0
m
p^
rH
s
>H
fa
in
(N
en o
O 0)
rH (fl
T!
4J
C
0)
C
0
ft
g
s
^J
0)
tn
D
•0
ft
Cn
in
i~-
(S-
u
•H
-P
W
S
S
ft
tN
i-H
H
•rH
u
0)
3
0
u
flj
3
CO
3
•0
C
1-H
C
0
•H
-P
fd
-P
rH (J
-M <
M-l EH
C O
H EH
^— *
2
($
Q
f»«.
(•»*
O*^
rH
ersion:
^
0
u
0
•rH
!H
01
H
co co
(U
o
(1)
cu
S
111-29
-------
TABLE III-ll
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
AND EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS
Year
Average Annual Flow
BOD
Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
% Removal
WPDES Permit Limitations
Cone month/week (mg/1)
Monthly Violations
Weekly Violations
Suspended Solids
Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
% Removal
WPDES Permit Limitations:
Cone month/week (mg/1)
Monthly Violations
Weekly Violations
Phosphorus
Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
% Removal
WPDES Permit Limitations:
Concentration (mg/1)
Monthly Violations
Fecal Coliform
WPDES Permit Limitations:
Colonies/100 ml
Monthly Violations
1975
73.7
1976
62.4
1977
71.6
1978
83.5
200
5
1
4
200
0
1979
91.6
28
90
30/45
5
7
71
82
30/45
11
32
3.9
68
28
90
30/45
4
10
52
85
30/45
0
17
2.7
78
18
93
30/45
1
4
20
92
30/45
2
2
1.5
86
20
88
30/45
0
0
20
90
30/45
0
2
1.2
87
12
94
30/45
0
0
15
94
30/45
0
0
0.6
93
1
0
200
0
* Permit limitations did not apply.
1 January through June only.
Reference: MMSD, WPDES
II1-30
-------
TABLE 111-12
SUMMARY OF DISINFECTION DATA
Month
Combined Chlorine fCh)
Residual
Average mg/1
1978
1979
1980
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
NA*
NA*
MA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.5
*Data Not Available
Fecal Coliform
Geometric Mean
col/100 ml
13
75
31
42
17
3,732
400
206
253
305
20
35
49
9
17
27
31
35
66
17
53
37
26
74
37
3.3
12
22
15
21
25
10
47
59
12
9
12
26
297
48
13
4.3
Reference:
MMSD - South Shore Pollution
Abatment Reoorts 1977-1980
111-31
-------
BOD is used as a measure of the oxygen required to oxidize
organic material in a treated effluent. Athough it may not
be a completely accurate test, it provides an adequate
indication of the organic strength of an effluent discharged
into a water course. The effects of BOD on a water body are
discussed further in the Water Quality Appendix and in
Chapters V and VI of this appendix. Table III-ll shows
effluent concentrations (mg/1) of BOD for the years 1975
through 1979. The average concentration for the five years
is 21.2 mg/1, and there were no monthly or weekly violations
of the WPDES permit in 1978 and 1979.
Suspended solids (.ss) are also measured in the effluent dis-
charges. SS measures the (particulate) solids in a water
body that have not settled out. The impacts of SS on a
water body are discussed in the Water Quality Appendix and
in Chapters V and VI of this appendix. Table III-ll shows
effluent concentrations (mg/1) of SS from 1975 to 1979.
Concentrations steadily decreased within that time period
from 71 mg/1 in 1975 to 15 mg/1 in 1979.
Phosphorus is a nutrient required for plant and animal life
which causes the eutrophication (increase in plant production)
of water bodies. The average monthly valves of phosphorus
concentration are relatively consistent and do not exceed
the WPDES permit. The average yearly contributions in the
effluent from South Shore are shown in Table III-ll. Phos-
phorus is discussed further in the Water Quality Appendix
and in Chapters V and VI of this appendix.
Nitrogen is another essential nutrient and may increase the
potential for algae blooms and eutrophication. Conversion
of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate exerts an oxygen demand which
may have a noticeable effect on secondary treatment or the
receiving water body. Also, ammonia is toxic to aquatic
life causing fish to avoid the area around the effluent
discharge. Ammonia can combine with chlorine to form
chloramines which are more toxic than ammonia and are con-
sidered to be carcinogenic. The South Shore WWTP discharges
approximately 6 million pounds of nitrogen per year and 4.5
million pounds of ammonia per year. Nitrogen is discussed
further in the Water Quality appendix and in Chapters
V and VI of this appendix.
I. Wastewater Bypasses
The South Shore WWTP allows primary treated wastewater to
bypass the secondary treatment process if the influent
exceeds 240 MGD (10.5 m^/sec). There are no other WWTP
bypasses (in March, 1976, the flow exceeded even the primary
treatment facility's capacity, and the WWTP was flooded).
The bypassed effluent is disinfected with chlorine and
discharged into Lake Michigan from a separate outfall at the
revetment wall.
Ill--3 2
-------
During 1979, 300 million gallons (1.14 million cubic meters),
or 1% of the WWTP's annual flow, bypassed the secondary
process. Most of the bypasses occurred during four days in
March, and the entire duration of bypassing was 98 hours.
These bypasses were responsible for 370,000 pounds (170,000
kg) of suspended solids, 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) of phosphorus,
38,000 pounds (17,000 kg) of ammonia nitrogen, and organic
matter equivalent to 150,000 pound (68,000 kg) of BOD.
These loadings represent 3% of the yearly effluent load of
suspended solids, 4% of the effluent phosphorus load, 1% of
the ammonia nitrogen load, and 1% of the BOD in the effluent.
Fecal coliforms are also discharged in effluent which bypasses
secondary treatment, although chlorination removes most of
them. Fecal coliform counts (See Table III-ll and 111-12)
are a combination of mixtures of bypasses and secondary
effluent. The 1979 loading from bypasses is estimated to be
7 x 10 cells, or 3% of the yearly loading from the effluent.
The concentration of fecal coliforms in bypasses of secondary
treatment is only slightly higher than the concentration the
WWTP normally discharges.
J. Energy Use
South Shore WWTP has two sources of electrical power. About
half of the electrical power comes from Wisconsin Electric
Power Company (WEPCO) while half is generated on-site by the
use of methane gas from the anaerobic digesters. Table III-
13 delineates South Shore WWTP energy use. Digester gas is
also used to fuel engines that drive the compressors which
supply air for the activated sludge process. On-site
generation is provided by three dual fuel (utilizing either
digest or natural gas) engines which power electric generators.
Currently, only one engine is operated at a time because of the
high amount of maintenance required for the equipment. There
is inadequate standby power in the event of an outside (WEPCO
supplied) power failure.
K. Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The South Shore WWTP, being a much newer facility than the
MMSD's Jones Island WWTP, requires much less operation and
maintenance work. The O&M budget for South Shore is listed
in Table 11-14. The largest element of the budget is the
sludge hauling contract. Because South Shore energy is
generated internally, the amount spent on energy is much
less than for Jones Island.
111-33
-------
TABLE 111-13
ENERGY USE
Natural Gas
Therms
391,700
Energy Conversion
10 BTU/yr
39,170
Digester Gas
Produced
Used
Wasted
Therms
2,076,500
1,850,600
255,000
207,650
185,060
22,500
Electricity
Purchased
Generated
kwh
3,531,600
4,427,200
10,500 BTU/kwh'
12,822 BTU/kwh"
TOTAL
Energy required to run Souch Shore WWTP'J
37,082
57,031
94,113
261,312
1 1 therm equals 105 BTU
2
Energy conversion using WEPCO power
Calculated by dividing digester gas (BTU) used for
generating power by the total generated power (kwh)
4
Natural gas + digester gas used + purchased electricity
1 BTU = 1.055 kJ
1 kwh = 3600 kJ
Reference: SSFPE, MMSD, Solids Management EIS Appendix
111-34
-------
TABLE 111-14
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Estimated
Unit Process 1979 Cost
Preliminary Treatment Facilities $ 459,000
Screenings, Grit and Scum Disposal Facilities 93,000
Primary Clarifiers 338,000
Primary Sludge Pumps 206,000
Aeration Facilities 225,000
Air Compressors 289,000
Secondary Clarifiers 186,000
Phosphorus Removal Facilities 111,000
Chlorination Facilities 169,000
Sludge Thickening Facilities 468,000
Anaerobic Digestion Facilities 497,000
Sludge Disposal Facilities 362,000
Sludge Hauling Contract 4,430,000
General Plant 628,000
Sub-Total $8,461,000
Natural Gas Price Inflation* 4,914
Total $8,465,914
* 4% of the 1979 budget request for natural gas of $122,850.
Reference: MMSD
III-35
-------
L. Staff
The South Shore WWTP staffed by approximately 80 people
(with 40% in operations, 50% in maintenance and 10% in
laboratory services). There had been a lack of operators
and supervisors required to perform daily operational
routines. This lack of manpower caused problems with the
operation of the sludge lagoons and an inefficient operation
of the dissolved air flotation units. Also, there has been
a tendency to rely on computerized operations without in-
creasing operating personnel. However, the MMSD has made
efforts to correct these problems, and the SSFPE has deter-
mined that the present staff is sufficient.
111-36
-------
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction
This chapter discusses alternative wastewater treatment
processes and alternative expansion sites for the South
Shore Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The purpose of
considering the various alternatives is to ensure that all
feasible methods of treatment and expansion are considered.
Economic, environmental and engineering criteria were used
in the evaluation of South Shore alternatives. The most
cost-effective (as defined in 40 CFR 35) alternative will be
chosen for adoption and implementation.
The treatment alternatives considered in this chapter in-
volves the various liquid processes developed in the South
Shore Facility Plan Element (SSFPE). Solids handling
alternatives are discussed in the Solids Management EIS
appendix and the Solids Management appendix and the Solids
Management Facility Plan Element (SMFPE).
The discussion of alternatives focuses on the following
items:
• Effluent limits which must be met during the planning
period (1985-2005)
• Development of costs
• No Action
• Process alternatives
• Disinfection
• Expansion alternatives
(i) proposed by MMSD
(ii) proposed by local residents
(iii)proposed by EIS study team
• MMSD's recommended plan
A dual approach was used in the evaluation of alternatives
in the EIS: (1) a review of the analysis performed by the
SSFPE was carried out, and (2) an independent analysis of
the alternatives was carried out. This independent analysis
led to the development of additional alternatives.
Alternatives were ranked on the basis of cost, energy and
resource consumption. The EIS cost estimates (EPA 1976 and
EPA 1978) of alternatives were found to be the equivalent of
the rankings from the SSFPE. Cost, energy, and resource
consumption figures presented in this chapter are from the
SSFPE.
IV- 37
-------
The planning period for the South Shore WWTP is 20 years,
from 1985 to 2005, as designated by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This 20 year period allows the
community to plan for future expansion and increased waste-
water flows and loads. The current population of the area
served exclusively by the South Shore WWTP is 212,100. The
common area served by both the South Shore and Jones Island
WWTPs has a present population of 286,706. Population
projections for 2005 for these two areas are 380,000 and
460,000 respectively. Much of the area now serviced by the
South Shore WWTP is not fully developed. It is expected
that these undeveloped areas will experience growth during
the planning period, thereby increasing wastewater flows and
loads. To accommodate projected flows and loads, the
facilities at South Shore WWTP will be designed for the year
2005. A form of flow attenuation (equalization) will be
implemented as part of the MMSD's recommended plan for their
entire planning area. Flow attenuation involves the equal-
ization of influent wastewater flows in order to eliminate
peak conditions (such as the March 1976 flood) and allow for
optimal process operation. Flow attenuation is discussed in
the MWPAP-EIS and the MMSD's Wastewater System Plan (WSP).
Design flows and loads for the year 2005 with and without
flow attenuation are shown in Table IV-1.
The alternatives considered to be feasible and discussed in
detail in this chapter are as follows:
• No Action - no expansion, no upgrading and no improve-
ments are made at the existing WWTP. However waste-
water flows and loads would increase due to implementation
of the MMSD's WSP.
Alternative 1 - Expansion and upgrading the existing
WWTP by lakefill to the north
a) filling in 12 acres (5 ha) but enclosing 30 acres
(13 ha)
b) filling in and enclosing 12 acres (5 ha)
Alternative 2 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
WWTP by excavating 14 acres (6 ha) of bluff.
• Alternative 3 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
WWTP by excavating 3 acres (.1 ha) of bluff and filling
9 acres (4 ha) of Lake Michigan.
• Alternative 4 - Expansion and upgrading the present
WWTP by locating additional facilities on top of the
bluff.
IV-38
-------
TABLE IV-1
DESIGN FLOWS AND LOADS
(YEAR 2005)
Flow Wastewater Flow Sewerage
Treatment Plant System (Not
Flow Conditions (Attenuated) Attenuated)
Average Dry Weather 100 MGD 100 MGD
Average Annual 115 MGD 120 MGD
Maximum Month Average 150 MGD 165 MGD
Maximum Week Average 220 MGD 240 MGD
Maximum Day 250 MGD 400 MGD
Average Maximum Maximum Maximum
Parameter Annual Month Week Day
BOD5
Loading (Ibs/day) 265,000 335,000 403,000 592,000
Suspended Solids
Loading (Ibs/day) 265,000 335,000 428,000 656,000
Phosphorus
Loading (Ibs/day) 8,300 10,700 12,000 22,000
TKN
Loading (Ibs/day) 29,000 34,000 41,000 54,000
Reference: SSFPE
1 MGD = 3785 m3/day
lib = 0.4536 kg
IV-39
-------
• Alternative 5 - East alternative, proposed by local
residents, involves filling 9 acres (4 ha) of Lake
Michigan to the east of the existing lakefill.
• Alternative 6 - South alternative, proposed by local
residents, involves filling 6 acres (2 ha) of Lake
Michigan to the south of the existing lakefill.
• Alternative 7 - West alternative, proposed by local
residents, involves excavating 9 acres (4 ha) of the
bluff to the west of the existing lakefill.
Alternative 8-6 acre (2 ha) lakefill, proposed by
the EIS study team, involves the expansion and upgrad-
ing of the existing WWTP (as do Alternatives 1-7), but
expanding to north by filling only 6 acres (2 ha) of
Lake Michigan.
• Alternative 9 - Expansion at lake level without lakefill
and without excavating the bluff, but still making
necessary improvements to expand and upgrade treatment
capacity.
Alternatives 1 through 4 were developed by the SSFPE, Alternatives 5
Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 were also developed by the SSFPE in
response to requests by local residents and Alternatives 8
and 9 along with No Action alternative were developed by the
EIS study team. These alternatives are discussed in more
detail below. All alternatives assume implementation of the
MMSD's WSP.
B. Effluent Limits
The quality of the water discharged by the South Shore WWTP
into Lake Michigan is measured by certain parameters. These
parameters are used to set effluent limits for the South
Shore WWTP and are contained in Table IV-2. The establish-
ment of effluent limitations is done by the DNR under the
Wisconsin Polluatant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)•
Under this System a WPDES permit is required from the DNR
for any point source discharge of pollutants into any re-
ceiving body of water. This system of permits is required
by both the Federal and State legislation. All alternatives
will be designed to meet the WPDES effluent limits listed in
Table IV-2.
IV- 40
-------
TABLE IV-2
EFFLUENT PARAMETERS AND LIMITS
Effluent Parameters
Flow (MGD)
BODc (monthly average)
BODc (weekly average)
Suspended Solids
(monthly average)
Suspended Solids
(weekly average)
pH, Standard Units
Fecal Coliform
(monthly average)
Fecal Coliform
(weekly average)
Total Phosphorus
(monthly average)
2
Residual Chlorine
(daily)
Free Available Chlorine
(daily)
Effluent
Limitations
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
Sample
Frequency
Continuous
Daily
Daily
Daily
45 mg/1
6.0 to 9.0
200/100 ml
400/100 ml
Daily
Daily
Twice
Weekly
Twice
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Twice
Weekly
Sample
Type
Continuous
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
24-Hour
Composite
Grab
Grab
The MMSD reports the geometric mean in compliance with the
Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 210.
2
At such time as effluent limitations for chlorine residual
are finally promulgated in the Wisconsin Administrative
Code, this permit may be modified to incorporate either the
final limitations or interim limitations and a compliance
schedule to achieve the final limitations. Design of the
WWTP will be to maintain less than 0.5 ma/1 of chlorine
Reference: WPDES Permit
IV- 41
-------
C. Industrial Pretreatment
The MMSD will continue its user charge system (implemented
in January, 1979) for industrial, commercial, and residential
wastewater discharges during the planning period. It is
anticipated that a user charge will facilitate water con-
servation and industrial pretreatment of wastewater. A user
charge involves the cost that a customer incurs, or is
billed, for using the MMSD's sewers by discharging waste-
water into them. Accordingly, 10 percent reduction in
wastewater flow for all users has been assumed in flow
projections. In addition, a 10 percent reduction in waste
loads from industrial sources has been projected to estimate
the effect of industrial pretreatment. Industrial pre-
treatment is discussed further in the MMSD's WSP.
D. Development of Costs
The development of cost estimates for any alternative includes
the estimation of capital costs, salvage value, and operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs. The total value of an alternative
is developed using present worth analysis. Present worth
takes into account total estimated costs over the life of
the alternative, allowance for interest, and salvage value
(calculated assuming an interest rate of 6 and 7/8% and a
planning period of 20 years). The salvage value is the
estimated worth of structures and equipment remaining after
the 20 year planning period.
Capital costs include construction and non-construction
costs. Construction costs are the costs of building the
alternative, and they were calculated as if construction
would occur in the spring of 1980. The Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) of 3300 was used in
order to bring all costs to the same base level. The ENR
CCI is set at 100 for the year 1913 and is an indicator of
annual construction cost increases. The method used in the
SSFPE in calculating construction costs are:
(1) utilization of pilot scale data
(2) consultation with equipment manufacturers
(3) development of unit prices for specific construction
activities
(4) utilization of percentages on small items
(5) inclusion of difficulty factors for hard to estimate
costs
IV-4 2
-------
Non-construction costs include items such as engineering,
design, mapping and surveying, administration, financial and
legal services. Capital costs are estimated by adding 30% to
the construction costs to cover the non-construction costs.
Operation and maintenance are the costs incurred in the day-
to-day running of the treatment plant. O&M costs include
chemicals, energy, labor, and miscellaneous supplies. Some
of the unit prices used to calculate O&M costs are given
below.
Staff positions - all categories 29,000/yr
Electrical $0.03/kwh
• Fuel oil and diesel oil $0.75/gallon
Natural gas $3.36/106BTU
• Chemicals
- Sulfur Dioxide $200/ton
- Chlorine $120/ton
The effect of inflation to unit prices is not considered
because if costs do rise, the rise would affect all the
alternatives. The ranking of the alternatives with respect
to costs would generally remain the same. Also it is very
difficult to predict changes in energy costs due to the
volatility of oil and gas prices. However electrical costs
are not expected to change drastically due to Wisconsin
Electric Power Company's (WEPCO) large dependence on nuclear
and coal power plants. Chemical prices are related to
general inflation and energy prices since significant energy
is required for their production and transporation to the
WWTP. Staff position salaries were developed by the SSFPE.
The range of accuracy for costs was not stated in SSFPE but
is estimated to be slightly more accurate than the typical
+50% to -30% range of facilities planning reports.
It should be noted that EPA cost curves were used by the EIS
study team to develop costs for the various alternatives.
These costs were in general agreement with the ranking of
those developed in the SSFPE although not nearly as detailed.
E. No Action
The "No Action" alternative is considered for purposes of
comparison" Chapter III: Existing Conditions provides a
basis for development of the "No Action" alternative if
wastewater flows were to be unattenuated during the planning
period (See Table IV-1). The capacity of the South Shore
WWTP would be exceeded by design year flows and loads which
would cause violations of the WPDES effluent limits (See
Table IV-2). In addition, the MMSD would be in violation of
IV- 43
-------
the rulings of the Dane County Court (Case No. 152-342), and
Federal Courts (Case Nos. 72-C-1253 and 77-2246). The
decisions rendered in these cases required the MMSD to meet
certain effluent limits by a court-stipulated timetable.
These cases are discussed further in the MWPAP EIS.
F. Development and Screening of Liquid Treatment Alternatives
In order to develop feasible wastewater treatment alternatives
for the South Shore WWTP, a process of identification and
screening was initiated by the Milwaukee Water Pollution
Abatement Program (MWPAP). The identification and screening
task began with an initial listing of all potential forms of
treatment. This initial list was compiled by the MWPAP
staff including MMSD engineering, WWTP operations staff, and
the EIS study team. The initial list of alternatives were
required to conform to the following list of criteria:
• Reliable compliance with effluent limitations
• Minimization of land requirements
• Reduction of air emissions, including odors
• Suitable for treatment of strong and variable waste
loadings.
• Innovative or alternative technology with potential
advantages in cost, land or energy requirements
• Applied operational experience
• Compatibility with existing facilities
The steps taken to develop alternatives for wastewater
treatment at South Shore and select the best treatment
alternative are listed below.
1. Establish selection criteria to identify feasible
treatment alternatives.
2. Identify potentially feasible alternatives.
3. Perform first level of analysis (Non-monetary Screening).
4. Perform second level of analysis (Monetary Screening).
5. Perform detailed analysis.
6. Select Alternatives.
After the initial list of alternatives was assembled it was
subjected to two levels of analysis to reduce the number of
alternatives. The first level of analysis (Step 3) used the
following non-monetary criteria:
• Energy use - types of energy considered included
electricity, fuel oil, diesel oil, natural gas, and
digester gas.
• Technical feasibility - Feasibility considers the
flexibility, capacity, reliability, space requirements,
ease of operation and sensitivity of the alternative.
IV-44
-------
Land use - Land use deals with additional land re-
quirements and compatability with existing processes.
• Environmental impacts - Environmental impacts considers
potential effects of the alternative on the natural and
human environment.
Using the above criteria the number of process alternatives
were reduced to the following:
Preliminary Treatment
- coarse screens
- bar racks
• Primary Treatment
- Gravity sedimentation
• Secondary Treatment
- Air activated sludge
- High Purity Oxygen (HPO) activated sludge
- SURFACT: Rotating Biological Contractor (RBC)
with air activated sludge
- Zimpro Waste Recycle System (WRS)
Disinfection
- Chlorination/dechlorination
- Ozone
- Chlorine dioxide
The next step in the screening process was to conduct a more
detailed level of analysis based on costs and engineering
factors. The monetary screening included estimations of
capital; operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present
worth. It was concluded that retention of the existing
primary treatment and air activated sludge secondary treat-
ment processes would be the best treatment alternative. A
schematic drawing of the recommended treatment system is
shown in Figure IV-1.
The existing system of primary treatment and air activated
sludge treatment was determined to be the most cost effective,
The facts that led to this determination are listed below:
1. The existing WWTP and process equipment are relatively
new and are in good operating condition. Retaining the
existing treatment system would maximum utilization of
these existing facilities.
2. The primary treatment facilities existing at the WWTP
provide satisfactory performance.
IV-45
-------
3. The existing treatment facilities have proven ability
in compliance with effluent limitations.
4. The existing wastewater treatment system is a well-
known process and plant operators have much operational
experience.
5. An evaluation of technical and environmental concerns
lead to a conclusion that the existing system would be
the best selection. Concerns included in this evaluation
included labor, aesthetics, noise level, air quality,
energy requirements, chemical requirements, and land
use.
As mentioned earlier, an independent EIS screening methodology
was developed to evaluate the selected alternatives. Only
the final alternatives, put together as one complete system
of wastewater treatment, are considered in this appendix.
This approach was taken to allow the EIS study team to
examine in detail the impacts and technical considerations
that are pertinent to the feasible alternatives. A review
of the facilities planning showed the existing treatment
process at South Shore to be the feasible choice for the
planning period.
The independent EIS screening methodology involved development
of costs, energy consumption, resource consumption using EPA
developed information (EPA 1976 and EPA 1978) and an evaluation
of the environmental impacts. The EPA supplied infomation
for costs, energy and resource consumption is not as accurate
as the information developed by the SSFPE. Therefore,
information developed by the SSFPE is used in this EIS
appendix.
Screening criteria to be used in evaluating the environmental
impacts of the various alternatives are discussed in MWPAP-
EIS. The specific screening criteria used for evaluation of
the South Shore alternatives were as follows:
Water Quality
• Aquatic biota
Endangered or threatened species
• Air quality
• Recreation
• Access to businesses, residences, industries, etc.
• Noise
• Odors
« Aesthetics
• Traffic flow
IV-46
-------
Q>0
OS
Q.
U.
CO
CO
OS
o>
aoams
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
cr
a.
UJ
CO
o
UJ
o
cr.
cc
o
-------
Safety
Public Health
• Land use
• Economic stability
• Resources
• Energy
• Engineering feasibility
Cost
These criteria are discussed in the chapters on Affected
Environment (V) and Environmental Consequences (VI).
G. Discussion of Alternatives
The previous discussion has developed the method and reasoning
by which recommended liquid processes were selected. These
processes , forms of preliminary, primary, and secondary (air
activated sludge) treatment, are described further in this
section and in Chapter III: Existing Conditions. Also,
choices available for disinfection and expansion at South
Shore are discussed. Solids handling is discussed in the
Solids Management EIS appendix.
1. Preliminary Treatment
The existing and recommended method of preliminary treatment
is a system of screens and grit removal channels. The
existing facilities of mechanically cleaned bar screens and
grit removal are of adequate size and are able to handle the
design peak flow. However, large debris has on occasion
jammed and damaged the bar screens. To handle large debris,
the installation of heavy duty mechanically cleaned trash
racks upstream of the bar screens is proposed.
2. Primary Treatment
The existing (and recommended) method of primary treatment
at South Shore is the use of primary sedimentation tanks.
Primary sedimentation tanks are large basins that are used
to remove readily settleable solids before further treatment.
Solids that settle to the bottom of tank are removed and
added to the solids handling stream of the treatment plant.
The only proposed improvement to the existing primary
treatment facilities is the addition of two sludge pumps
(See Table IV-3).
3. Secondary Treatment
The recommended secondary treatment process is the air
activated sludge process. Components of this system include
IV-47
-------
TABLE IV-3
EXISTING AND REQUIRED FACILITIES
Unit Process Description
Design
Requirement
Existing
Facilities
Facility
Additions
Preliminary Treatment
Trash Racks
Bar Screens
Grit Channels
Hydraulic Control and Metering
2
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
2
0
0
0
Primary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation Tank
Primary Sludge Pumps
16
6
16
4
0
2
Secondary Treatment
Aeration Tanks 28
Secondary Clarifiers 24
Secondary Return Activated Sludge (RAS) 16
Secondary Waste Activated Sludge (WAS)
Pumps 12
Air Blowers 5
24
16
12
6
4
4
8
4
6
1
Disinfection
Chlorination
Evaporators
Chlorinators
Sulfur Dioxide Dechlorination
Evaporators
Sulfonaters
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
Phosphorus Removal
Pickle Liquor Storace Facilities
Holding Tanks, 10,000 gallons
Storage Tanks, 100,000 gallon
6
3
6
2
0
1
Reference: SSFPE
-------
an aeration system, secondary clarifiers, and sludge pumping
facilities for return and waste activated sludge. The
capacity of the existing secondary treatment facilities must
be increased to meet anticipated peak flows. A summary of
the proposed modifications are contained in Table IV-3.
4. Disinfection
Wastewater disinfection is an attempt to destroy pathogenic
agents such as bacteria and viruses. The effectiveness of
disinfection is measured by the number of coliform bacteria
remaining in the effluent after disinfection has taken
place. These bacteria serve as an indicator of the pathogenic
bacteria remaining.
Alternative methods being considered for disinfection are
chlorination, chlorine dioxide and ozonation. If chlorina-
tion is used, dechlorination also has to be implemented
since the amount of combined chlorine residuals allowable in
the WWTP effluent will have to be reduced in order to meet
the WPDES limits. Chlorine dioxide was not considered to be
feasible by the MMSD due to the lack of operating experience.
a. Chlorination-Dechlorination
Chemically produced, chlorine becomes a poisonous, yellow-
green gas at ambient (normal) temperatures and pressures.
As a liquid it is a clear amber in color and 1.5 times
heavier than water. Presently at the South Shore WWTP, a
liquid solution of chlorine is used for disinfection. Data
from the WWTP indicate that chlorine must be mixed with
effluent at the rate of 4 mg/1 to achieve standards for
fecal coliform (See Table IV-2). This dosage of chlorine
leaves a combined chlorine residue of 1.5 mg/1. The present
chlorination equipment is capable of providing a mixing rate
of 8 mg/1 at the maximum day design rate but is unable to
provide a 30 minute chlorine contact time as required by the
DNR (NR 110) for peak daily design flow.
Dechlorination would be accomplished through the addition of
sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide combines both with free and
combined chlorine on an approximately one to one basis to
form very small amounts of acids (H2SC>4, HCL, NH4HSC>4) . The
formation of these acids do not affect the pH of the effluent
significantly due to its alkalinity. Alkalinity is a measure
of the wastewater's ability to buffer (neutralize) acidity.
The introduction of sulfur dioxide will also deplete the
dissolved oxygen content of the WWTP effluent. Therefore,
after dechlorination the effluent would have to be reaerated.
The chlorination-dechlorination alternative would require
the following major additions:
IV-49
-------
• Reaeration equipment
• New chlorination building and relocation of feed equipment
Sulfur dioxide mixing building and feed lines
• Additional railroad sidings, equipment for removal and
storage of sulfur dioxide
b. Ozonation
Ozone is a toxic, pale-blue gas which must be generated at
the point of use due to its unstable nature. Ozone is
generated by passing a large electrical current through gas
containing oxygen (e.g., air). High purity oxygen (HPO),
which could also be generated onsite, would be used at the
South Shore WWTP. A 15 minute contact basin would be provided,
with unused gas being recycled back to the ozone generation
system. The installation of an ozone disinfection system
would require the addition of the following equipment:
• High Purity Oxygen (HPO) generation and storage facilities
• Ozone generators
• Ozone contact basins
• Required piping and recycling system
An ozone pilot study was conducted at the Jones Island WWTP,
where it was indicated that 25 mg/1 of ozone for disinfection
would be required to meet fecal coliform standards. The
dosage was higher than the 4 mg/1 specified by manufacturers
and was thought to be due to the interference from suspended
solids. Although the study was made at Jones Island, the
results were also used as a data base for the South Shore
effluent by the SSFPE.
Ozonation has the advantage in that neither dechlorination
nor reaeration of the effluent would be required. Also,
ozone residuals are short lived. Ozone is a rapid and
effective disinfectant, independent of pH and temperature.
Ozonation also increases the dissolved oxygen content and
reduces BOD of the effluent. Since ozone will be generated
at the site, railroad sidings and large storage facilities
would not be required. However, ozonation requires a large
amount of equipment and electrical power; therefore it is
usually a more costly method of disinfection.
c. MMSD's Recommended Disinfection Method
Cost comparisons for ozonation and chlorination-dechlorination
are shown in Table IV-4. The MMSD recommends chlorine
disinfection, dechlorination with sulfur dioxide, and re-
aeration to be used for disinfection. Although ozone
disinfection has superior environmental benefits (Roselund,
1975, Arthur 1975 and Asbury and Coler 1980) it may not be
IV-50
-------
TABLE IV-4
DISINFECTION COST COMPARISON
Construction Cost
Total Capital Cost
Annual Operation S
Maintenance Cost - 1985
Present Worth
Chlorination &
Dechlorination
(million $)
3.6
4.7
0.2
6.4
Ozonation
(million $)
25.1
32.6
1.86
51.8
Reference: SSFPE
IV-51
-------
worth $45 million more than chlorine disinfection. The Jones
Island EIS appendix contains a more thorough discussion of
the design criteria used for disinfection.
Ozone and chlorine disinfection did not receive a parallel
comparison in any pilot studies at South Shore WWTP. A
parallel comparison would consist of the two disinfection
systems be tested on the same wastewater under the same
conditions at the same time. This would provide the most
accurate comparison for alternatives.
5. Outfall f]
The existing outfall, in Lake Michigan, for South Shore is
located 1,800 feet (550 m) from the revetment wall (2,500
feet, 760 m from the shoreline) and at this time is con-
sidered adequate. However, a water quality sampling program
is being done for the MMSD. If this program indicates a
need for improvement, any necessary additions could be
incorporated into the design of a new outfall.
6. Expansion Alternatives
The additional facilities at the South Shore WWTP would be
constructed near existing equipment. All of the alternatives
discussed involve the addition of facilities listed in Table
IV-3. To allow for the new facilities, additional land will
be required. New solids handling facilities would be located
on top of the bluff, next to the existing solids equipment.
Four alternative locations developed in the SSFPE for
locating the required facilities are:
a. Alternative 1 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
plant by lakefill. This alternative requires the initial
filling of approximately 12 out of 30 acres (5 out of 12 ha)
of Lake Michigan and the enclosement of all 30 acres (12 ha)
by a revetment wall. The remaining 18 acres (7 ha) would be
filled in over a 10 year period. A variance to this
alternative is to fill all 30 acres (12 ha) at once if
enough spoil material becomes available due to MMSD and
other local construction projects. Four additional aeration
basins are proposed, two each on the east and west sides of
the existing 24 aeration basins (4 batteries, each with 6
aeration basins). This addition would retain the existing
four batteries; however each battery would have seven (7)
aeration basins. Also, eight additional 115 foot diameter
secondary clarifiers are proposed. This would reduce the
surface overflow rates to 600 gpd/ft2 (24.4 m^/m2/day) at
the maximum month flow of 150 MGD (6.6 m3/sec), and 1000
gpd/ft2 (40.7 m3/m2/day) at the maximum day flow of 250 MGD
(11 m-Vsec)• The proposed secondary clarifiers would be
located in a battery, on newly reclaimed land to the north
of the existing clarifiers.
IV-5 2
-------
New chlorine contact and dechlorination facilities would be
required and would also be located to the north of the
existing clarifiers. The chlorination facilities would be
expanded to provide a detention time of 30 minutes at
maximum flow and a chlorine dose of 6 mg/1. Dechlorination
is planned with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 2 mg/1.
Effluent pumping would be provided for maximum day flows of
250 MGD (11 m3/sec)• Alternative 1 includes the cost of the
revetment wall for filling 3Q acres (.12 ha) but developing
only 12 acres C5 ha). This leaves room for future expansion
at the lake level. The layout for Alternative 1 is shown in
Figure IV-2.
This is the MMSD's Recommended Plan.
b. Alternative 2 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
plant on the lake level by excavating the bluff.
This alternative requires excavating approximately 14 acres
(5.7 ha) of the bluff to the northwest of the existing
treatment facilities. As with Alternative 1, four additional
aeration basins are proposed adjacent to the existing aeration
batteries. Under this alternative the eight additional
secondary clarifiers would be constructed in the area of the
bluff to be excavated. The expanded chlorination facilities,
dechlorination facilities, and effluent pump station would
all be located on existing land to the north of the existing
secondary clarifiers. The layout for Alternative 2 is shown
in Figure IV-3.
c. Alternative 3 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
plant on the lake level by excavating the bluff and filling
the lake.
This alternative requires excavating 3 acres (1 ha) of the
bluff to the northwest of the existing plant and filling 6
acres (2.4 ha) of lake to the north of the existing flotation
thickener building. The unit processes described in Alternative
1 will be used for Alternative 3.
The layout for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure IV-4.
d. Alternative 4 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
plant on the bluff.
IV- 53
-------
This alternative requires that treated wastewater be pumped
to the top of the bluff where eight new circular clarifiers
would be constructed. In addition to the unit processes
described for Alternative 1, a high level pump station would
be required to pump a proportionate amount of this waste-
water from the existing and proposed aeration tanks to the
proposed clarifiers on top of the bluff. Additional
chlorination, dechlorination, and effluent pumping facilities
are proposed to the north of the existing secondary clarifiers.
Turbines generating electricity could recover some of the
energy required to pump the wastewater to the top of the
bluff. The layout for Alternative 4 is shown in Figure IV-
5. ••;
e. East, South, West Expansion Alternatives
Three expansion alternatives were developed by the MMSD in
response to proposals made by representatives of the City of
South Milwaukee, at a Citizens' Environmental Assessment
Committee (CEAC) meeting. The three alternatives propose
possible WWTP expansion to the east, south, or west of the
existing facilities. These alternatives are designated the
East, South and West Alternatives (Alternatives 5,6, 7
respectively) . Expansion to' the east or south requires
filling of Lake Michigan, whereas westward expansion re-
quires a bluff cut. The eastward expansion developed here
is unlike the alternative considered by the EIS study team
(see Section f) in that no additional equipment beyond
SSFPE's recommendations was proposed. Figures IV-6, IV-7,
and IV-8 show the layouts, developed by the MMSD for the
East, South, and West alternatives, respectively. Cost
summaries are contained in Table IV-5.
After analysis, the MMSD considered these three alternatives
to be less desirable than the original four expansion
alternatives. The basis for the MMSD's this decision is
summarized below.
(1) Alternative 5 - Expansion to the east. This alternative
would be more expensive because of greater lake depth and
revetment wall construction; it would not be as compatible
with existing facilities nor as flexible for future needs as
the preferred north alternative.
(2) Alternative 6 - Expansion to the south. This alternative
is more expensive because of additional conveyance facilities
that must be constructed to connect the new units with
existing facilities. Implementation problems could occur
since the MMSD does not own the property in this area.
-------
JCITY of SOUTH MILWAUKEE
0 400
SCALE IN FEET
•PROPOSED REVETMENT WALL
PROPOSED CHLORINE
CONTACT TANK
PROPOSED SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
PROPOSED EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
.«***, DIFFUSERS
,//'"' OUTFALL
CONVERT TO
DECHLORINATION FACILTIES
PROPOSED AERATION TANKS
NEW FACILITIES — ( ,|
AERATION BASINS
4 EACH - 370' x 30' x 15' SWD
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
8 EACH - 115' DIA x 14' SWD
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
PROPOSED SLUDGE
THICKENER BUILDING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
MECHANICAL DEWATERING FACILTIES
CHLORINE UNLOADING STATION
FIGURE
IV-2
SOURCE
SSFPE
PREPARED BY
HflEcolSciences
-3U ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
IcTfV of SOUTH MILWAUKEE
0 400
SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED CHLORINATION BUILDING
PROPOSED EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
V
»****, DIFFUSERS
^ ^ ""
„//'' OUTFALL
CONVERT TO
DECHLORINATION FACILTIES
PROPOSED AERATION TANKS
NEW FACILITIES {" 1
AERATION BASINS
4 EACH - 370' x 30' x 15' SWD
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
8 EACH - 115' DIA x 14' SWD
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
PROPOSED SLUDGE
THICKENER BUILDING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS - 6 EACH
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
MECHANICAL DEWATERING FACILTIES
CHLORINE UNLOADING STATION
FIGURE
IV-3
DATE
SOURCE SSFPE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
400
SCALE IN FEET
ECONDARY CLARIFIERS
CHLORINE
\NK
1
REVETMENT WALL
HLORINATION BUILDING
YETMENT WALL TO BE REMOVED
LUDGE THICKENER BUILDING
FFLUENT PUMP STATION
§§N
n
^ -
rHOL
V
S'\ DIFFUSERS
,*f
-/'' OUTFALL
-CONVERT TO
DECHLORINATION FACILTIES
-PROPOSED AERATION TANKS
NEW FACILITIES —
AERATION BASINS
4 EACH - 370' x 30' x 15' SWD
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
8 EACH - 115' DIA x 14' SWD
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
PROPOSED SLUDGE
THICKENER BUILDING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
MECHANICAL DEWATERING FACILTIES
CHLORINE UNLOADING STATION
FIGURE
IV- 4
DATE
SOURCE
SSFPE
PREPARED BY
sfflEcolSciences
-=3U ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Y of SOUTH MILWAUKEE
CITY of OAK CREEK
0 400
SCALE IN FEET
HLORINE
/NK
/DSED CHLORINATION
ING **
PROPOSED EFFLUENT
UMP STATION
f'\ DIFFUSERS
.,*'
OUTFALL
CONVERT TO
DECHLORINATION FACILTIES
PROPOSED AERATION TANKS
NEW FACILITIES — \ \
AERATION BASINS
4 EACH - 370' x. 30' x 15' SWD
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
8 EACH - 115' DIA x 14' SWD
CHLORINATION BUILDING
CHLORINE CONTACT BASINS
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
PROPOSED SLUDGE
THICKENER BUILDING
ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS - 6 EACH
DIGESTER GAS STORAGE
MECHANICAL DEWATERING FACILTIES
CHLORINE UNLOADING STATION
FIGURE
SOURCE
IV-5
DATE
PREPARED BY
SSFPE
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
CITY of SOUTH MILWAUKEE
CITY of OAK CREEK
*TION & DECHLORINATION
,'-'-\. DIFFUSERS
- PUST-CHLORINATION BUILDING
-PROPOSED EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
DEWATERING PUMP STATION
— PROPOSED CHLORINATION
& DECHLORINATION
— PROPOSED SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
DEWATEFHNG
PUMP STATION
I
FIGURE
IV-6
DATE
SOURCE SSFPE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
DECHLOFUNATION
V
4.«*\DIFFUSERS
OUTFALL
T-CHLOHCNAIION
DING
ATERING
P STATION
ATERING
f STATION SCM "* FEET
- PROPOSED EFFLUENT
PUMP STATION
-PROPOSED CHLORINATION & DECHLORINATION
FIGURE
IV-7
DATE
^^-^ SOURCE SSFPE
|TP^ S\ PREPAF
V^ESH
ED BY
ITIEcolSciences
ji ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
5M
-------
CITY of SOUTH MILWAUKEE
CITY of OAK CREEK
SOlldS facilities •.Inwin un Hguii'S I & ','
29 Dentation and or environmental problems
utility tunnel from
'achave to be relocated
& DECHLORINATION
PROPOSED EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
•v
,/- -\ DIFFUSERS
,//'" OUTFALL
•POST-CHLORINA rtON
BUILDING
— DEWATERING
PUMP STATION
PROPOSED AERATION BASINS
^-DEWATERING
PUMP STATION
I
FIGURE
IV-8
BATE
/^^ SOURCE SSFPE
| Tfl ^J PREPAF
>^ii©i
1ED BY
iTIEcolSciences
3L ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
SM
-------
3
01 O
4J 4H
C MH
CD 3
6 rH
EH H —
EH
X
03 !-i q in
4J 0) -H CO
O ft 03 en
m o
Cn rH
CN ro
0 0
rH rH
0 0
0^ i — 1
• I
^r in
"V^ ^v.
O O
CN xT
•
EH O S rH
4-1
•H 4J
ft tn
03 O
U U
in
CM
in
ro
o
o
o
o
m
X
o
n
O
o
CM
m
o
co
m
o
CO
o
m
O
m
m
o
co
in
o
r»
o
in
CM
Q
2
Q
2
e e w
tn en
4-1 4J
en 01
o o
E e
co
CO
in
\^
o
o
.
^T
O
vO
^
m
m
\
m
^o
.
*\T
in
O
CM
in
in
~\
^r
^ji
,
^j*
in
CM
.
m
m
Q
2
Q
2
Q
2
Q
2
rH
CD
q
C
o
tn
0)
a
^,
S-i
o
4-1
tn
>r4
4-1
•H
Q.
rH 0
<3 EH
ative 5
xpansion
q H
tn
r~* fQ
< H
ative 6
Expansion
c
CD 4J
4J 3
rH 0
< CO
ative 7
xpansion
C 63
1) 4-1
4-1 tn
rH 0)
rf! S
ative 8
North Landfill2
C 0)
0) O
-P *•£
rH
«C vo
ative 9
I/No Bluffcut
q rH
CD Cu
.p
-H 0
<£ JZJ
o
£>
03
rH
CD
3
O
C
•H
4-1
0
q
03
CD
S
t— 1
ts for Alternative
ts for Alternative
Not determined b'
en tn ••
o o a
CJ O 2
CM ro
IV-55
-------
(3) Alternative 7 - Expansion to the west. This alternative
was found to be less feasible -because it required the
relocation of an entrance road and a utility tunnel. Also a
dewatering building would need to be located close to 5th
Avenue or the abandoned north sludge lagoons and this would
be contrary to the requests of the Cities of Oak Creek and
South Milwaukee to keep solids handling facilities in the
area of existing facilities. In addition, there is concern
about the stability of the bluff after it is excavated.
f. Alternatives Developed by the EIS study team.
(1) Modification of Aeration Basins - Another method of
expanding the South Shore WWTP, not considered by the SSFPE,
was proposed by the EIS study team. The alternatives
previously discussed would increase the existing aeration
capacity of South Shore by adding one aeration basin to each
of four existing batteries of six aeration basins. The four
new aeration basins would require the revision of existing
piping to create batteries of seven basins each. In addition,
secondary clarification capacity would be increased by the
addition of eight 115 foot (35.0 m) diameter clarifiers to
the existing sixteen 112 foot (34.1 m) octagonal clarifiers
arranged in four batteries of six basins.
The EIS study team expansion proposal involved the addition
of a fifth battery of six aeration basins and five clarifiers.
This would increase aeration capacity by 25%, while the
SSFPE determined that only 16% additional capacity was
required. Also one 112 foot (34.1 m) octagonal clarifier
would be added to each of the four existing batteries of
clarifiers. This arrangement would more fully utilize the
existing facilities and improve clarifier overflow rates.
Land expansion alternatives considered for this proposal
were; lakefilling of eleven acres (4.5 ha) east of the
existing plant, placement of additional structures on the
nearby bluff, and a combination of lakefill and cutting of
the bluff. Further investigation lead to the dropping of the
EIS proposals from further consideration due to their higher
costs.
(2) Modification of Expansion Alternatives - Two additional
expansion alternatives were developed by the EIS study team
in response to concerns raised by the EPA, DNR, and Fish and
Wildlife Service with regard to the MMSD's Recommended Plan
for a thirty (30). acre (12 ha) lakefill. These alternatives
involved (1), a six acre C2.4 ha) lakefill (Alternative 8) to
the north of the present lakefill (See Figure IV-9), and
(2) an alternative involving locating all new facilities at
lake level (Alternative 9) without excavating the bluff or
filling the lake. (See Figure IV-10).
IV-56
-------
LAKE
MICH IGAN
Proposed
Sludge Thickener
Building
Proposed
Revetment Wall
Secondary Settling Basins
Primary Settling Basins
i I i
Coarse Screen
Grit Removal
Building
Administration Service
Building
?
\ Approx.
\ Bottom
V Bluff
LEGEND :
Proposed Structures
Proposed Disinfection Bldg.
Proposed Chlorine Contact Tank
Proposed Effluent Pump Station
/OUTFALL
A
N
District Property Line
FIGURE
IV-9
DATE
ALTERNATIVE 8 - Six Acre Lakefill
Scale l"=350'{approx.)
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
PREPARED BY
MlEcolSciences
I^U ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
LAKE
MICHIGAN
LEGEND :
Proposed Structures
Additional Flotation
Thickener Building
2 New Disinfection Facilities
8 Additional Secondary
Settling Basins
• Revetment Wall
-Proposed Dis-infection Building
-Proposed Effluent Pump Station
OUTFALL
\X V
Secondary Settling Basins
Approx \
of C^
Top
Bluff—''
©
Pipes to
Secondary
Settling
Basins
Primary Settling Basins
Grjt Service
Channels Building
Coarse Screen
8 Grit Removal
Building
Administration
Approx.
Bottom of
Bluff
District Property Line
SOURCE M.M.S.D.
ATE
ALTERNATIVE 9 -Expansion at Lake Level
Without Lakefill „ ,
Scale I =350 (approx.)
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
Alternative 8
This alternative uses the same wastewater treatment processes
as the MMSD's Recommended Plan. The key difference between
this alternative and the MMSD's Recommended Plan is the
location of the proposed facilities. It is estimated that
the net present worth would be equivalent to the MMSD's
Recommended Plan (within 15%).
Alternative 8 would retain the basic alignment of treatment
processes by filling 6 acres (2.4 ha) of Lake Michigan to
the north of the existing lakefill (see Figure IV-9).
The differences between Alternative 8 and the MMSD's
Recommended Plan are:
• Moving proposed secondary clarifiers approximately
50 feet to the west.
Modifying pipes to proposed secondary clarifiers.
• Construction of new disinfection building and pump
station to the east of the proposed chlorine contact
basins.
• Modification of chlorine contract basins; from three
3 pass 370 feet by 15 feet by 14 feet SWD to three
4 pass to 280 feet by 15 feet by 14 feet SWD.
• Relocation of the proposed chlorine contact basins,
effluent pump station and disinfection building to
the east of the proposed secondary clarifiers.
• Relocation of road to the sludge thickener buildings.
• Approximately six acres (2.4 ha) of additional land
would be required for this alternative.
• Abrupt angle of revetment wall to the shoreline.
Further study would be required to see if this would
be sound engineering design.
• No land would be provided for future expansion.
Alternative 9
This alternative uses the same wastewater treatment as the
MMSD's Recommended Plan. The key difference between this
and MMSD's Alternative 4 (expansion on the existing site)
is the location of the eight secondary clarifiers at lake
IV-57
-------
level at the south end of the existing lakefill. It is
estimated that the net present worth of this alternative
would be equivalent to Alternative 4 (within 15%. Con-
struction costs and energy consumption would be slightly
higher.
Alternative 9 would eliminate the need for any new lakefill
or bluff cut, but would dislocate some of the facilities
from the original north-south layout. One-third of the
wastewater would be pumped to the south end of the lakefill,
then returned to the north end for further treatment.
The differences between Alternative 9 and Alternative 4 are
(Figure IV-10):
• Moving proposed secondary clarifiers to the south end
of the lakefill.
• Modifying pipes to proposed secondary clarifiers.
• Relocation of road to Administration Building.
• No provisions are made for the future expansion.
H. Evaluation of Alternatives
In addition to the cost estimates, energy consumption, man-
power needs and land requirements, the alternatives were
subjected to a qualitative analysis by the EIS study team.
Although no costs were developed by the MMSD for Alternative
8 and 9, it is estimated that they would be equivalent
(within 15%) to Alternatives 1 and 6 respectively. Alternative
8 would probably have a lower cost than Alternative 1 due to
a smaller lakefill. Alternative 9 would probably have a
lower cost than Alternative 6 since it involves no lakefill.
The alternatives were analyzed using the following engineering
criteria:
• Feasibility: The alternative must be technically
possible and practicable. Well established and proven
past history of processes in the alternative and will
make it readily acceptable (thus practicable) by the
designers, contractors, and operators.
• Compatibility: The individual elements of the al-
ternative must be compatible with overall plant layout,
site conditions and treatment objectives. This will
include maintaining plant integrity and achieving right
degree of treatment.
IV-53
-------
• Flexibility: The alternative should offer capability
to respond to changes in flow and load conditions and
also to plant operations within reasonable amount of
time.
Reliability: The alternative should be dependable in
consistently achieving desired quality effluent under
anticipated varying conditions.
Safety: The potential for creation of hazardous
conditions within the plant or in the surrounding area
or for occurrence of accidents must be minimum for the
alternative.
Capability: The alternative must be able to achieve
desired degree of treatment.
Operations & Maintenance: The alternative should have
minimum impact on existing O&M procedures and practices.
• Interim Status: An alternative which will not require
total or partial shutdown, or will create the least
disruptions in operations of the existing plant during
construction of new facilities will be preferable. A
shorter construction time will have obvious advantages.
Future Expansion: The alternative should allow for
expansion of plant in future if and when necessary.
The analysis is summarized in the following discussion of
criteria.
All of the alternatives are feasible since none present any
severe problems. Expansion of the facilities at lake level
could have an advantage from a construction standpoint.
However, no alternative has a distinct advantage over another.
Expansion at lake level to the north is the most compatible
with the existing layout. The South Shore WWTP was originally
designed for a northern lakefill expansion. Therefore,
Alternatives 1 and 8 have an advantage because they would
follow the original expansion plans.
All of the alternatives would be flexible enough to respond
to changes in wastewater flows and loads. Also, all of the
alternatives would have sufficient reliability to meet WPDES
effluent limits. None of the alternatives would create any
hazardous conditions. All of the alternatives would be
designed to achieve the WPDES effluent limits.
IV-5 9
-------
Alternatives 1 and 8 would have the least effect on exist-
ing O&M practices, since the proposed facilities would b.e
in close proximity to existing processes.
The alternatives which do not involve lakefill or bluff
cut (Alternatives 4 and 9) would probably have a shorter
construction time, since no new land would have to be
created. However, all of the alternatives would cause
disruptions in the operations of the existing plant during
construction.
Alternative 1 would provide additional land for future
expansion. Land on top of the bluff would be available
for future expansion for all alternatives.
I. Energy and Resource Consumption
Resource consumption considers both energy and chemical
requirements. Table IV-6 summarizes annual energy and
chemical requirements for alternatives developed by the
SSFPE. All the alternatives consume the same quantities of
chemicals. Alternative 4 requires the most electrical
energy due to the pumping requirements associated with
expansion on the top of the bluff. Even with the addition
of turbines which produce electrical energy as wastev/ater
flows from the bluff back to the lake level, Alternative 4
requires the most energy. Energy consumption for Alternatives
1 and 8, would be equivalent due to the similarity of the
alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 7 would have equivalent
energy consumption since the location of the additional
facilities are similar. Alternatives 4, 6 and 9 are the
furthest removed from existing facilities and would be the
highest energy consumption (rated from high to low: 6, 9,
4) .
J. MMSD's Recommended Plan
Alternative 1 is the preferred land expansion alternative
due to flexibility for future expansion, smallest consumption
of energy and manpower, and its relative low cost. Table
IV-7 indicates the construction and capital costs, annual
operations and maintenance, and the present worth of the
total recommended South Shore plan. The additions required
to the existing facilities at South Shore plant are given
in Table IV-8. Energy and staff requirements are given in
Tables IV-9 and IV-10 respectively. Figure IV-11 shows the
process schematic of the MMSD's Recommended Plan. Figure
IV-12 shows the layout of the MMSD's Recommended Plan.
The environmental impacts of Alternative 1 are discussed
in Chapter VI: Environmental Consequences.
IV-60
-------
TABLE IV-6
ENERGY AND CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS
Annual
Energy
Requirement
Unit x!03/yr
Alternative 1 :
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Treatment
Aeration
Secondary Clarification
Disinfection
Effluent Pumping
General Plant
TOTAL LIQUID TREATMENT
O&M ALTERNATIVE 1
Other Alternatives
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Alternative 9
kWh
115
545
1,930
815
170
250
5,195
9,020
9,200
9,135
15,320
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Therms
—
3,125
—
—
—
475
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Annual
Chemical
Requirements
tons/yr
—
3,030 (Fe)
—
700 (Cl2)
350 (S02)
—
See Above
Same as Alte:
Same as Alte:
Same as Alte:
Same as Alte:
Same as Alte:
Same as Alte]
Same as Alte]
Same as Altai
Metric Conversion
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU = 1.0551 x 105 kj
1 kWh = 3600 kJ
1 ton/yr = 0.907% metric ton/yr
ND: Not determined by SSFPE
Reference: SSFPE
IV- 61
-------
•CO-
c
rd
in
ro cn m 3
3 in O 0
C
H rd
EH 0
H rl
i-H EH
H
O rl
< CU
fa -P
i
EH CU
l_l I)
cn w
13 fl3
0 S
00
•
ro
rH
•(/>
0
ro
•
VD
O
rH
•to-
m
to
^j*
•
i — |
^3*
4-1
C
CU
0 C 6
ro rd -P
Cn rd tn
14H -rl CU -P
0 £ rl C
O -P CU
-P -rl g
C S rl CU
cu 0 >
e cu 4J o to
ft ,* rd rl C
0 rd 15 ft 0
H hi 0 S -H
CU 4-1 -H 4J
> c in -H
CU -H rd 01 T3
173 ? co -a
tn 0 rd
0 0 ,C O
•P rl 4-1 O T3
•rl O -H SH C
cn rd ? ft rd
4->
c c
cu o
S -H
0 4-1
Cn to
rd -P
C 0
(0 rH
IS 4-i
CO M
^ *H
•H ro
rH
o -a
cn 0
>
0 rH
4-1 0
•H tO
in tn
C -H
o a
U A
•H -P
rQ -H
o s
0 tn
rd c
C 0
(3 *H
4J
•a -H
C -0
rd T3
rd
cn
c c
•H 0
C -rl
0 -P
M tn
O 0
•H cn
.C -H
-P "O
cn
*
["••»
0
r*-.
•
PO.
00
r**-
CO
•
CM
o
00
•
cn
rp
o
ro
•
00
ro
^
0
4->
rH
•rH
IM Cn
c
4-1 -rH
rH rH
$3
rd
0 0
C T3
cn
•
in
•c/>
0
o
•
^*
cn
rH
•CO-
CN
H
•
CO
to-
o
P*.
e
ro
0
rH
•co-
in
F*«
•
cn
r-
to-
to
0
•rl
4-1
•rH
rH
•rl
u
rd
fa
0
4-1
•H
tn
c
o
1
H
-p
0
EH
c
o
T3 -rl
C |J
ftJ (TJ
o
W 0 -rl
a cn IH
H rd CU
EH rl ft
H 0 rd
J 4-1
H CO H
O rd
< £, VH
fa 4-1 3
C 4-1
H OH
EH e 3
H O
cn 0 -H
fa C rl
fa -H cn
O S rd
[X.
•
CN
to-
in
"3*
•
ro
«rJ1
•co-
in
r-fc
g
i-H
t/>
m
oo
•
ro
CN
t/>
in
ro
•
oo
rH
to-
t)
c
(0
CT>
c
•rH
•o
0 en
r) C
ft -rl
tn o
tn
>1 -rl
A t)
V^)
t
co
t/>
LT1
^*
•
r*-
ro
OJ
•C*0-
r*-
00
•
cn
0
4J
rt5
0
•rH
4-1
tn
pa
6
4J
in
co
r-H
rd
4-1
H
>4H
o
0
tn
3
rd
o
A
01
0
rd
•rl
4-1
tn
0
c
0
•H
4J
rd
3
rH
rd
J>
0
•o
0
rH
•H
rd
• 4-1
-p 0
tn fo
o
0 0
t"i
S -P
o s
'O r4
0 MH
-p
O rl
ft rd
0 >
c
0 rd
£ rH
-p ft
C TJ
-rl 0
T3
•d c
0 0
-a 1
3 1
H 0
o o
C 0
•H SH
CU 0
V4 «-C
rd -P
W MH
4-1 0
tn
o tn
U -P
tn
>i 0
cn o
rl
0 0
C rC
W EH
H CN
•
0
o
ro
ro
o
^
0
•o
H
4-1
in
o
•u
c
o
•H
4J
o
3
-p
• tn
tn c
0 O
-P O
rd
g OH
•rl Z
-P Kl
to
0 T3
c
tn ro
4-1
to tn
O M
U rd
rH
IJH i — 1
0 0
T3
-p
C 0
0 oo
S cn
0 H
c
•rH U-l
MH 0
0
SH tn
C 0
rfl 4J
•P C
C -H
0
£ T3
ft 0
O in
rH Ul
0 0
> *H
0 ft
T) X
0
rH
rd 0
d rl
O rd
•rH
4-1 tO
•H 4-1
T) tn
TlJ O
rd CJ
ro
TT"]
Pi
fa
cn
I*
0
u
c
0
rl
0
0
K
IV- 62
-------
TABLE IV-8
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
Unit Process Description
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Preliminary Treatment
Trash Racks - at Influent Structure
Bar Screens - Mechanically Cleaned
Grit Channels - Mechanically Cleaned
Flow Meters
Primary Treatment
Primary Sedimentation Tanks
Primary Sludge Pumps
Design
Requirement
Existing
Facilities
Facility
Additions
2
4
4
4
16
6
0
4
4
4
16
4
2
0
0
0
0
2
Secondary Treatment
Aeration Tanks 28
Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Pumps 16
Blowers 5
Blower Engines - Dual-Fueled 5
Secondary Clarifiers - Octagonal with
sides tangent to-a 112' diameter
circle 16
New Secondary Clarifiers - 115' diameter 8
Return Activated Sludge (RAS) Transfer
Pumps 6
Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) Pumps 12
Clarifier Control Buildings 6
24
12
4
4
16
0
0
6
4
4
4
1
1
0
8
6
6
2
Disinfection
Chlorination/Dechlorination Building
Chlor ina tion
Existing Chlorination Building
Evaporators
Chlorinators
Chlorine Contact Tanks
3 passes per tank
Mechanical Mixers
Chlorine Storage Building
0
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
IV- 63
-------
TABLE IV-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
FACILITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
Unit Process Description
Sulfur Dioxide Dechlorination
Evaporators
Sulfonators
Mechanical Mixers
Sulfur Dioxide Storage Building
Evaporators
Sulfonators
Mechanical Mixers
Sulfur Dioxide Storage Building
Design
Requirement
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
Existing
Facilities
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Facility
Additions
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
Postaeration
Postaeration System
Phosphorus Removal
Pickle Liquor Storage Facilities:
Holding Tanks, 10,000 gal. capacity
Storage Tanks, 100,000 gal. capacity
6
3
6
2
0
1
Effluent Pump Station
Pump Building
Effluent Pumps - 60 MGD, 10' TDK
1
6
0
0
1
6
ONSITE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening of WAS
Thickeners 12
Building 2
Thickened Sludge Pumps 8
6
1
4
6
1
4
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening of WAS
Settled Sludge Pumps 12
DAF Polymer Feed System
Liquid Polymer 6
Dry Polymer 6
6
0
0
6
IV-64
-------
TABLE iv-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
Design Existing Facility
Unit Process Description Requirement Facilities Additions
Anaerobic Digestion
Primary Digesters - (convert the two
secondary digesters to primary
digesters) 8 8 0
Primary Digesters 6 06
Digested Solids Dewatering
Belt Filter Presses 9 09
Belt Filter Building 1 01
Polymer Feed System 12 0 12
Sludge Storage Lagoons Convert to 4 0
(Existing dewatering lagoons) Standby
Qnsite Solids Storage
3-Day Storage Building 1 01
Front-End Loaders - 4h cu yd capacity 3 03
Weigh Scale 1 01
Incineration
Building 1 10
Screenings and Grit Incineration
Multiple Hearth Incineration 1 10
Scum Incineration
Water - Grate Incinerator 1 10
Gas Utilization
Gas Storage (one million standard
cubic feet capacity)
OFFSITE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Transport from Plant to storage Facilities
Trucks 14 0 14
Trailers - 26 cu yd capacity 18 0 18
IV- 65
-------
TABLE VI-8 (continued)
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
Design Existing
Unit Process Description Requirement Facilities
Solids Storage Facilities
Storage Buildings - 640' x 240' 5 0
Maintenance Building 1 0
Leachate Storage Tank -
1 0
Front-End Loaders
4^ cu yd capacity 6 0
\\ cu yd capacity 1 0
Transport from Storage to Application Site
Trucks 13 0
Trailers - 26 cu yd capacity 13 0
Agricultural Application
Sludge Spreaders - 12.6 cu yd capacity 14 0
Front-End Loaders - 4^ cu yd capacity 3 0
Disking Tractors 3 0
Disks for Sludge Incorporation 3 0
Flatbed Trailers 2 0
Facility
Additions
5
1
6
1
13
13
14
3
3
3
2
Truck Transport of Grit, Scum and Screenings
Truck 1
Trailer 1
0
0
1
1
Reference: SSFPE
IV-66
-------
TABLE IV-9
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MMSD'S RECOMMENDED PLAN
Electrical Other Digester Gas Equivalent
Energy User 10 kwhrs/yr As Noted 10 Therms/yr Cost ($)
Wastewater Treatment 8.90 °-475 2'80 $1,387,000
25.0
Onsite Solids Management 9.17 30.66 2.35 $1,087,000
Offsite Solids Management
Gross Energy Required 18.71 0.475 5.51 $2,740,000
385
Digester Gas Energy Benefit
and Production 5.00 — 5.51 $1,880,000
Net Energy Required By
Commercial Purchase 13.71 0.475 0 $ 860,000
3852
1 4
Natural gas in 10 therms for plant space heating and startup of engines using
digester gas.
? 3
Fuel for vehicles in 10 gallons.
Electrical energy produced from digester gas utilization generators.
4
Total digester gas produced.
Energy Cost Data - Natural Gas 50.336/Therm
Electricity 50.03/kw hr
Vehicle Fuel 50.75/gallon
6
Metric Conversions
1 Therm = 100,000 BTU = 1.0551 x 10 kJ
1 kWhr = 3.6 x 10 kJ
Reference: SSFPE
IV-67
-------
TABLE IV-10
STAFF PROJECTIONS
FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
1985
Personnel
2005
Personnel
ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AND SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Plant Administration
Facilities Operation
Facilities Maintenance
Laboratory Services
Total Onsite Facilities Staff
8
49
41
10
108
11
55
46
12
124
OFFSITE SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
Facilities Operation
Facilities Maintenance
Total Offsite Solids Management Staff
26
5
31
31
7
38
Reference:
SSFPE
IV- 68
-------
UJ
a.
u.
co
o
a:
O
w
•1
i
o
in
DC
2
LLI
1C
O
UJ
o
0)
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
01
Q-
a.
o
UJ
UJ
o
o
UJ
a:
(O
"Q
co
!l
UJ
oc
<
a
-------
SCALE IN FEET
0 150 300
WMS»f*R0PiRTY LINi
*<.
FIGURE
DATE
IV-12
SSFPE
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the project area
and the environmental elements, both natural and human,
which may be affected through the implementation of any of
the alternatives. This discussion is necessary to provide
knowledge of the current situation, and thereby allow the
possible environmental consequences to be assessed.
The elements that might be affected by the operation, up-
grading and/or expansion of the South Shore WWTP are water
quality, aquatic biota, terrestrial habitats, threatened or
endangered species, air quality, public health, odors,
noise, safety, land use, economics, transportation and
access, energy, and resources. These considerations are
described below as they pertain to the South Shore WWTP
site.
B. Water Quality
Treated wastewater from South Shore WWTP is discharged into
Lake Michigan 1800 feet (549 meters) northeast of the plant.
Water quality in the vicinity of the outfall is typical for
near-shore Lake Michigan. Although somewhat enriched when
compared to Central Lake Michigan waters, it is still quite
clean (EPA 1978). Average concentrations for several water
quality constituents are presented in Table V-l. All of
these constituents, with the exception of cadmium, are
within the water quality criteria set by the U.S. and Canada
for Great Lakes water (U.S. Department of State 1978) and
the DNR standards (NR 102 and NR 103 Wisconsin Administrative
Code).
Fecal coliform bacteria, which are indicators of pathogens
in freshwater, are present in Lake Michigan. Densities vary
due to the bacteria's affiliation with clumps of organic
matter. Water samples taken near the South Shore WWTP
outfall had coliform counts greater than 100 cells/ 100 mis
in 10 of 76 samples (MWPAP 1976). This is the same frequency
of coliform-bacteria that could be expected at Milwaukee
bathing beaches (Milwaukee Health Department 1976), and
probably other near-shore areas.
Lake Michigan is gradually accumulating phosphorus, result-
ing in increased algal growth. This process is called
eutrophication. In small lakes, with large phosphorus
inputs per unit lake area, the process can take a few years.
But in Lake Michigan, with its relatively low phosphorus
load per unit lake area, the process may take much longer.
V-69
-------
TABLE V-l
WATER QUALITY AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR
LAKE MICHIGAN NEAR THE SOUTH SHORE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Temperature
Average
Cone entra t ion
(mg/1)
Applicable Water
Quality Standards
(mg/1)
7
175
0.007
0.1
0.1
0.0006
0.008
0.004
9-14
8.2
0°-15°C
-
500/750
—
0.02a
0.0002
0.05
0.025
5 . 0 minimum
6.0-9.0
31°C
As unionized ammonia
Sources: Torrey (1976); Wisconsin Administrative Code - NR 102,
NR 103; International Joint Commission Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, 1978.
°F = 9/5°C + 32
V- 70
-------
The present phosphorus load, most from nonpoint sources, is
about 30% higher than the target load set by the International
Joint Commission.(IJC, 1978)
Nitrogen is also added in various forms, one of the most
important being the ammonia form. When ammonia becomes
un-ionized, it is toxic to organisms. The degree to which
ammonia becomes un-ionized depends largely on the pH and the
temperature of the water. It could be expected that the
percent of un-ionized ammonia present under the average
conditions of a pH of 8.2 and a temperature between 0 and
15 degrees centigrade would vary between approximately 1.9
and 4.1 (Trussell, 1972). These values would indicate that
violations of the un-ionized ammonia standard would not
occur outside of a limited mixing zone.
Sewage effluent is mixed with lake water by lake currents
which are determined by wind speed and direction. Near-
shore currents are predominently northerly or southerly.
Further offshore, the currents form a circular pattern
(FWPCA 1967) .
C. Aquatic Biota
Information on the near-shore aquatic community at South
Shore is not available, but it most likely resembles that of
the control area north of the Wisconsin Electric Power
Company's Oak Creek plant (WEPCO 1974), which is one mile
south of the South Shore plant. The area has a gravelly to
rocky bottom, sometimes covered with a layer of fine sand or
silt. A list of bottom organisms found in this area is
given in Table V-2. The predominant species are aquatic
worms (Oligochaetae), midge larvae (Chironomidae), amphipods,
isopods, caddis fly larvae (Trichoptera), mayfly larvae
(Ephemeroptera), leeches (Hirudinea), flatworms (Turbellaria),
and mollusks (Pelecypoda and Gastropoda). There are also
attached and floating algae in the diatom, green, and blue-
green phyla. Fish that inhabit the area include alewife,
brown trout, chub, perch, stickleback, slimy sculpin, smelt,
and white sucker (US Fish & Wildlife Service, unpublished
data). Coho salmon, yellow perch, and Chinook salmon may
occasionally be found in the area. In addition, the MMSD
survey of the area reported the following additional fish;
longnose sucker, deepwater sculpin, carp, blacknose shiners,
spottail shiner, longnose dace, burbot, and rainbow trout.
V-71
-------
TABLE V-2
BOTTOM - DWELLING ORGANISMS FOUND IN THE REFERENCE AREA
NEAR THE LAKESIDE POWER PLANT
Flatworms (Class Turbellaria)
Aquatic Worm (Class Oligochaeta)
Tubificids - 11 species
Naiids - 11 species
Lumbriculids - 1 species
Leeches (Class Hirudinea) - 5 species
Snails (Class Gc?.stropoda) - 3 species
Clams (Class Pelecypoda)- 1 species
Isopods (Class Isopoda)- 1 species
Amphipods (Order Amphipoda)- 3 species
Crayfish (Order Decapoda) - 1 species
Insects (Class Insecta)
Mayfly Larvae (Order Epheineroptora) - 2 species
Caddis - fly Larvae (Order Trichoptra) - 2 species
Midge larvae (Order Diptera, Family Chironomidae)
- 18 species
Biting Midge Larvae (family Ceratopogonidae).
- 1 species.
Source: WEPCO 1974
V-72
-------
D. Threatened or Endangered Species
Lake Michigan has one known endangered species of fish, the
long jaw cisco (.Coregonus alpenae) , which has not been reported
in the lake since 1963. This fish normally requires well
oxygenated cold water and rarely ventures into near-shore
areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that
this project would not affect the longjaw cisco. (EIS Water
Quality appendix.)
Migrating birds fly past the South Shore WWTP. Endangered
bird species such as the bald eagle (Haliaectus leucocephalus),
and the Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) have been sighted
near Milwaukee, but are not known to roost in the South
Shore area.
E. Terrestrial Habitats
The bluffs of Lake Michigan, including the bluff at the
South Shore WWTP site, are sensitive environmental areas.
Composed of unconsolidated glacial till, these bluffs are
held in place by a community of grasses, shrubs, and small
trees that grow on top, as well as on the faces of the
bluffs. The protective vegetation stabilizes the soil that
would otherwise be quickly eroded by wind, rain, and wave
action.
The vegetated bluffs provide a habitat for a variety of
small mammals, birds, and other small animals which may live
in close proximity to urban residential and industrial
areas. Migrating birds characteristically fly along water-
ways, and many birds roost in the bluff vegetation on their
way to wintering and summering grounds. The nearshore areas
of Lake Michigan are also wintering areas for a number of
species of waterfowl.
F. Air Quality
The South Shore plant is located in an area which is within
EPA air quality standards for particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur oxides. The area
does not attain the standards for ozone, which is the case
for all of southeastern Wisconsin. Existing air quality, as
measured near South Shore (or computer simulated air quality
based on available air quality data) is shown on Table V-3,
and can be compared to EPA standards. The only sources of
air pollutant emissions resulting from liquids handling at
South Shore would be the seven digester gas fueled stationary
engines. In 1978-79, the total emissions from these engines
were as follows:
V- 73
-------
TABLE V-3
NATIONAL PRIMARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND EXISTING AIR QUALITY AT SOUTH SHORE WWTP
EPA Standard
South Shore (Primary)
Particulate Matter
Annual Geometric
Mean in ug/m 46.7 75
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic
3^ C 3
Mean in ug/m 30 80
Carbon Monoxide
8 Hour Average
ppm 1 9
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Arithmetic
Mean in ug/m 50 100
Photochemical
Measured As 0
ug/m3 235° 235a
Concentration in weight per cubic meter (corrected at 25 C
and 760 mm of Hg).
Measured at 1001 15th Avenue, South Milwaukee.
c
SEWRPC Computer Simulation
"""Source: SEWRPC, 1979
2
Source: 40 CFR 50
V-74
-------
SOUTH SHORE POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS1
Tons/Yr Metric Tons/Yr
Carbon monoxide 46 42
Nitrogen dioxide 95 86
Sulfur dioxide 134 122
Hydrocarbons 138 125
For comparison, 1977 emissions for all of Milwaukee County are given:
1977 MILWAUKEE COUNTY POINT SOURCE EMISSIONS2
Tons/Yr Metric Tons/Yr
Carbon monoxide 6,839 6,208
Nitrogen dioxide 38,884 35,299
Sulfur dioxide 157,850 143,296
Hydrocarbons 22,200 20,153
1980
2SEWRPC 1980
G. Odors
Malodorous substances can be generated at any location in
the wastewater treatment plant where anaerobic wastewater or
solids can become deposited as scum or sludge. Most odors
are emitted from sludge treatment and storage at the South
Shore WWTP.
The emission of odors has resulted in complaints from nearby
residents, which live north and west of the WWTP. Two
industries in the area, Peter Cooper Corporation, and
Hynite Corporation, are also potential sources of odors. To
date, no attempt has been made to quantify or identify
sources of odors in the South Shore area. In September of
1979, the MMSD took odor abatement action by emptying the
two sludge storage/dewatering lagoons located nearest to
the residents. The remaining plant odor sources are located
much further away from residents.
The impact of an odor depends not only on the concentration
of a substance and intensity, but who smells it. The
general public is affected more by odors than WWTP personnel.
Any type of odor that bothers the public is considered to be
undesirable.
V-75
-------
H. Public Health
There are disease-causing microorganisms in wastewater, and
most are removed or destroyed during treatment. However,
the effluent of the South Shore WWTP contains a substantial
number of fecal coliform bacteria, which are indicators of
the potential presence of harmful microorganisms.
Aerosols, which are microscopic solid or liquid particles
dispersed in the atmosphere, may be produced during waste-
water treatment. Aerosols emitted from wastewater may
contain viable microorganisms, including pathogens. The
presence of viable microorganisms would suggest that there
may be health impacts associated with wastewater aerosols.
Potential effects may include bacterial and viral respira-
tory and intestinal diseases, as well as allergenic responses.
However, recent EPA studies concluded that there is no
definitive indication of direct or indirect health effects
resulting from wastewater treatment plant aerosols. (EPA
1978, EPA 1979.)
I. Noise
No site specific data exists for ambient noise levels near
the South Shore WWTP. The WWTP is bordered by residential
land to the north and the west, industry to the South, and
Lake Michigan to the east. The most constant source of
noise is Lake Michigan waves breaking when the winds are
coming from the east. Typical sound levels are 40 to 65
decibels. The treatment plant has buffer zones on every
side, and the plant generated noise is not known to be a
nuisance.
J. Safety
The South Shore WWTP has safety problems similar to those at
other publicly owned treatment works (POTW). However,
injury frequency rates are higher for POTWs than other in-
dustrial facilities. Workers can be exposed to safety
hazards near all process equipment; e.g. pumps, pickle
liquor unloading facilities, in the generator and blower
building, near the sludge lagoons and other operating areas
of the WWTP.
Potential hazards to workers include (1) insufficient light-
ing, (2) poor ventilation, (3) fires due to improper handling
of explosive or combustible material, (4) electric shock due
to lack of proper precautions when working on motors, etc.,
(5) poor preventative maintenance in work areas, (6) lack of
personal hygiene, and (7) worker carelessness, such as falls
from ladders (second largest cause of injury).
V- 75
-------
The transportation of chlorine gas Ca highly noxious sub-
stance) and waste pickle liquor (_a highly corrosive liquid)
involves the greatest potential hazard to public safety.
K. Land Use
The South Shore WWTP is located in the southeastern corner
of Milwaukee County, in the City of Oak Creek. The treat-
ment plant facilities are located on approximately 148 acres
of shoreland owned by the MMSD. (See Figure V-l)Of this 148
acres, 108 were originally purchased and 40 were lakefilled.
The lakefilled area is at the bottom of the shoreline bluff.
In addition to the originally purchased land at the top of
the bluff, a 30 acre site immediately west, across 5th
Avenue, was acquired in 1971. Currently, there are no treat-
ment plant facilities on this 30 acre site.
The treatment plant is bordered on the north by South
Milwaukee residential development, on the south by unused
land and Oak Creek industrial development, and on the west
by Oak Creek residential development. See Figure V-l.
Residential development is of medium density to the north of
the plant in South Milwaukee, and of low density to the west
of the plant in Oak Creek. Commercial development in the
area is primarily located along 5th Avenue, which runs
north-south along the western border of the plant. Existing
commercial activity is minimal with only a sparse selection
of retail and service establishments. Directly south of the
plant is an area of industrial development (Peter Cooper
Co., Hynite Chemical Co.) and unused land. These industries,
along with the treatment plant, occupy the majority of the
area's lakefront property. Although agricultural land makes
up a large portion of the surrounding (Oak Creek) area, the
only agricultural land in the neighborhood of the plant is
to the southwest.
Residential development is forecast (SEWRPC 1975) to increase
substantially in the area during the planning period. The
majority of this development is forecast for Oak Creek,
since the South Milwaukee part of the area is already
developed. Commercial development is, also, forecast to
increase, to serve the increased residential development.
Agricultural and unused land is forecast to decrease due to
the increased urban development.
V-77
-------
L. Economics
Residential property (market) values in the areas adjacent
(primarily north) to the South Shore Wastewater Treatment
Plant may be affected by the presence and operation of the
plant. However, a study by the South Milwaukee Tax Assessors
Office in 1978 found no evidence that the market values of
the homes in that area were any different than those of
comparable housing elsewhere in the city of South Milwaukee.
If the treatment plant is affecting market values, it may
only be keeping them 'from being relatively higher than that
of comparable housing elsewhere. Whether this is, in fact,
the case, cannot be determined.
M. Transportation and Access
There are three east-west roads which provide access to the
South Shore treatment plant area from State Highway Route
32. These are: Forest Hill Avenue, Puetz Road, and Ryan
Road. Two major north-south roads are Highway 32 and 5th
Avenue, which runs along the western border of the plant.
The traffic on all of these roads is currently beneath
capacity, except for occasional spot congestion on 5th
Avenue.
The MMSD owns all of the land upon which the South Shore
treatment plant is located, and there are no non-treatment
plant facilities or structures on the land. There are also
no community facilities or major urban facilities located
near enough to the plant to have their accessibility disrupted
by plant operations.
N. Resources
Chemical consumption at South Shore WWTP, based on 1977
data, is as follows:
tons/year (metric tons/year)
chlorine 456 ( 414)
iron (in pickle liquor 1530 (1389)
polymers 1268 (1151)
0. Energy
The 1978 energy consumption at South Shore WWTP was as
follows:
V-78
-------
LU
(O
o
z
CO
X
UJ
<
o
-------
Billion BTUs
Production from digester gas 20.8
Natural gas 39
Purchased electricity (3,50,0,000 kwh). 37
Net Consumption 76
Energy required to operate WWTP 284
This is less than 0.1% of the total energy consumed in
Milwaukee County. See Table V-4.
V- 79
-------
TABLE V-4
1977 FUEL CONSUMPTION
FOR
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
Coal (tons)
Res.
Comm.
Ind.
Util
12,623
113,343
25,010
3,625,571
TOTAL 3,776,547
LPG (103gal.)
Res. 3,975
Coirvm.)
Ind. ] 27
TOTAL 4,002
Wood (tons)
Res. 885
Natural Gas (Kefs)
Res. 38,081,063
Comm. 23,965,699
Ind. 31,757,275
Util 973,930
Other 170,971
TOTAL 94,948,938
Fuel Oil (103 gal.)
Res. 102,132
Comm.?
Ind. 140,836
TOTAL
243,018
Motor Gasoline (10 gal)
Transportation: 445,738
Conversion Factors
Coal
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Wood
Gasoline
LPG (liquified petroleum gas)
24.0 x 10 BTU/ton
1000 BTU/ft3
130,000 BTU/gal
12.0 x 106 BTU/ton
125,000 BTU/gal
91,500 BTU/gal
Reference: Wisconsin Office of State Planning and Energy
V-80
-------
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Introduction
This chapter addresses the environmental effects of No
Action, the nine site expansion alternatives, and the dis-
infection alternatives for the South Shore WWTP. The
alternatives as discussed in Chapter IV include:
• No Action - no expansion, no upgrading and no improve-
ments are made at the existing WWTP. However waste-
water flows and loads would increase due to implementation
of MMSD's Wastewater System Plan (WSP).
• Alternative 1 - Expansion and upgrading the existing
WWTP by lakefill to the north
a) filling in 12 acres (5 ha) but enclosing 30 acres
(13 ha)
b) filling in and enclosing 12 acres (15 ha)
• Alternative 2 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
WWTP by excavating 14 acres (.6 ha) of bluff.
• Alternative 3 - Expansion and upgrading of the existing
WWTP by excavating 3 acres (1 ha) of bluff and filling
9 acres (4 ha) of Lake Michigan.
Alternative 4 - Expansion and upgrading the present
WWTP by locating additional facilities on top of the
bluff.
• Alternative 5 - East alternative, proposed by local
residents, involves filling 9 acres <4 ha) of Lake
Michigan to the east of the existing lakefill.
• Alternative 6 - South alternative, proposed by local
residents, involves filling 6 acres (2 ha) of Lake
Michigan to the south of the existing lakefill.
Alternative 7 - West alternative, proposed by local
residents, involves excavating 9 acres (4 ha) of the
bluff to the west of the existing lakefill.
• Alternative 8-6 acre (.2 ha) lakefill, proposed by the
EIS study team, involves the expansion and upgrading at
the existing WWTP (as do Alternative 1-7), but expand-
ing to north filling only 6 acres (2 ha) of Lake Michigan.
Alternative 9 - Expansion at the lake level without lake-
fill and without excavating the bluff, but still making
necessary improvements to expand and upgrade treatment
capacity.
VI- 81
-------
The liquid wastewater treatment processes remain the same
for each of the site expansion alternatives, therefore,
differing environmental consequences resulting from liquid
treatment are not expected. The options for disinfection are
chlorination-dechlorination by either chlorine gas or sodium
hypochlorite followed by sulfur dioxide addition, and
ozonation by ozone gas.
Consequences of No Action, site expansion, and disinfection
are discussed in terms of the environmental concerns described
in Chapter V, Affected Environment (water quality, aquatic
biota, threatened and endangered species, terrestrial habitats,
air quality, odors, public health, noise, safety, land use,
economics, transportation and access, energy, and resources).
Certain environmental impacts are common for all nine al-
ternatives, while other vary with respect to each alternative.
Finally, the consequences of MMSD's Recommended Plan are
discussed at the end of the chapter. The Environmental
Consequences are summarized in Table VI-2.
B. Impacts of the Alternatives
1. Water Quality
With No Action, pollutant loads from the South Shore WWTP
would increase. The flow of wastewater is expected to
increase during the planning period, which would not only
increase the quantity of effluent, but would also overload
the secondary clarifiers and increase the concentrations of
suspended solids and other pollutants in the effluent. This
increased flow would enlarge the area of Lake Michigan
affected by the plume of effluent.
All expansion alternatives would also increase the loads of
pollutants to Lake Michigan. Since, the plant is presently
within its WPDES limits for suspended solids, BOD, and
phosphorus (see Table III-ll); it could increase the concen-
trations of these in the future and still meet the effluent
limits. Predictions of future loads are shown in Table VI-
1, from the EIS Water Quality Appendix.
Despite the increased pollutant loads, the water quality of
Lake Michigan would still be affected only locally by the
South Shore effluent. The effluent, being warmer than lake
water, would rise to the surface and spread out in a plume.
The plume is nearly undetectable 1000 feet (305 m) from the
outfall (MMSD 1979). Currents disperse the pollutants and
distribute them throughout the lake.
VI-8 2
-------
TABLE VI-1
Annual Pollutant Loads from the South Shore WWTP
Present
Effluent
Bypasses
30,000 million gal/yr 300 million gal/yr
7.5 million Ibs/yr 370,000 Ibs/yr
230 million Ibs/yr
7.5 million Ibs/yr
250,000 Ibs/yr
6 million Ibs/yr
4.5 million Ibs/yr
17,00 Ibs/yr
190,000 Ibs/yr
Volume
*Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
*BOD
*Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Cadmium
Chronium
Lead
*Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
1 Ib = 0.45 Kilogram
1 gal =3.78 liters
* Assumes maximum WPDES concentrations. Actual values may be lower.
Reference: EIS Water Quality Appendix
15,000 Ibs/yr
0.2 x 1015/yr
2.3 million Ibs/yr
150,000 Ibs/yr
13,000 Ibs/yr
95,000 Ibs/yr
38,000 Ibs/yr
75 Ibs/yr
460 Ibs/yr
320 Ibs/yr
0.007 x 1015/yr
Future
42,000 million gal
10 million Ibs/yr
320 million Ibs/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
350,000 Ibs/yr
10 million Ibs/yr
6 million Ibs/yr
2500 Ibs/yr
280,000 Ibs/yr.
21,000 Ibs/yr
0.3 x 1015/yr
VI-83
-------
en
w
o
z
H
cn
u
CM r<
I EH
a z
CQ B!
rtj H
EH >
Z
D
W
Air Quality
in
•P
rd
4-1
•rl
43
id
X
,_4
fd
•l-l
SH
1 1
tn
01
SH
SH
V
d
ecies
G W-i
ra w
•O "O
0) O)
c SH
Ol 01
4-1 0i
rd C
Ol fd
43 "c
EH W
id
-P
0
ffl
u
•H
4J
id
3
tT
^i
4-1
•H
rH
fd
S
SH
01
4->
s
01
••H
4-1
C
OJ
4-1
i-H
<
•P
O
id
1
0
z
4-1
o
rd
ft
g
•H
0
z
4-1
U
ft
•3
0
z
A rH
4-1 id
3 4-1
o o
SH 4J
'd
rH 0)
Jjt rd ft
rH 01 •—
id SH
O tn
T! C 3
0) -H SH
tn 0
id O 43
0! 4J ft
SH tn
O 0) 0
C 3 43
H T) ft
(1)
tn o
Id 13 4-1 C
0) C O
SH fd g --H in
u SH 4-1 C
C - O U 0
•H ft MH 3 0> -H
•H -O C 4-1
g » rH 01 -H Id
SH co o A SH SH
Ol W U O -P
4-1 EH H C
1 H . 43 Oi
cn » fd 01 o o
(3 Q O X C
0 O 0) rd C O
rJ CQ PL, rH -H U
c
0
•H
4-1
id (d
o
g CN in 0
rd in o
0) rH 3 0) rH
SH H SH Oi Oi
O T3 H O > 0!
C C O Oi 0) SH
H rd ft Q rH MH
VI- 84
i-H
in
4-1
c
• tf r^
tn -P ^
Short-term (3 year)
construction impact
Total tons of pollu
Particulate-101
Sulfur Dioxide-14
Carbon Monoxide-33
Hydrocarbons-38
Nitrogen Dioxide-16
c
0
tn
4J 01
fd SH
•P U
•H id
43
(Q ^tf1
43 H
MH 1
0
MH
in MH
tn 3
0 rH
4J
o
fd
ft
e
•H
0
z
4-1
u
rd
ft
g
•rH
0
z
tn
3
0 0)
H MH C
MH O • C -H
W -n SH
T3 tn 4-1 MH O
Ol T! C 01 0 i-H
tn ra rd in 43
rd 0 4-> rd W O
01 rH 3 01 rH
SH H SH 0> 0)
O T3 rH O > 0)
C C O Oi 0> SH
H rd ft Q H MH
CM
in
•p
c
CQ4-1
Short-term (3 year)
construction impact
Total tons of pollu
en
•P Ol
id SH
•P U
•H rd
43
id m
43 1
MH
MH MH
0 3
rH
in 43
in
O C
iJ O
4J
u
id
ft
g
•rl
0
z
-p
id
•rl
43
rd
43
MH
0
tn
rH 0)
id SH
B? O
D rrj
g
0) CTi
Pi 1
tn
3
O
rH 4H
MH 0
T3 tn
0) T)
tn ra
rd O
<3J rH
JH
O T3
C C
H rd
P**
Particulate-35
Sulfur Dioxide-12
Carbon Monoxide-28
Hydrocarbons-34
Nitrogen Dioxide-13
•
0)
c
• G -H
tn -H SH
•P MH O
C 01 0 rH
id tn 43
4J rrj in u
3 01 rH
H SH Q) 0>
rH U > 01
O 0) 0) SH
ft Q H MH
«
-------
en
z
H
D
Oi
H
co
§
O
H Z
>H
H Z
CQ Cf4
3 H
EH >
Z
W
D
co
>!
4J
*r-
i—i
rc
C
^
•H
<
CQ
4-1
rd
4-1
•H
p
(d
K
H
IB
•H
P
4J
(0
01
P
Oi
EH
CO
01
•H
O
c a
id co
T3 rO
Oi 0)
01 0)
4-1 Cn
id c
0> rd
£ G
EH W
id
4-1
0
•H
CQ
O
•H
4-1
id
Q"*
<
1 1
•H
r-l
rd
3
CN
0)
JL)
, g p. i 01 ^ -a p
.5 01 -a <*i -H o
PI 14., CTifa-H 1 Xp
"""§o a> x o c -H o)
g.HW-UOCQQc .
Q) (J O HQS SH C>,4-1
4J34J3 rrj 01 4-1 G
l£ U P C O iTi-H 01
p "co "ia 4-1 MH £! SH SH-H-H
,§§0 rd 3 rd >i -P o o)
w OEH & co u K z <; p
G
0
4-1
fQ
4-1
•H MH
rQ MH
id 3
A 3
O IP
0
CO
CO ft
0 0
r-3 -P
•P
O
id
ft
E
-H
0
z
4-1
o
1
•H
O
z
CO
5 •
0 CD
-H IP C
MH 0 • G -H
CO -H SH
13 CO 4J MH 0
0) t3 C 01 0 H
co rd id co f
rfl 0 4J rfl co O
01 H 3 0) H
SH H S-| 0) CU
O -O H U > 01
G G O (U 0) SH
H fl3 ft Q H MH
H
C 01
0 >
•rH -H
4-1 4-1
(tj fQ
•O G
id P
SH Oi
CU rH
go
4J
Oi
-P r*4
i id
4J rH
P -H
o B
fG 'ri
CO Ul
o
ft
c
•H
0
z
4-1
0
id
ft
C
•H
0
rS
-P
fO
4J
•H
rQ
ftf
_-gJ
M-t
o
CO
r-H 0)
id P
> o
0 ro
§ en
OJ 1
5 •
0 CU
H IP C
MH O • C -H
CO -H P
T3 Ul 4J 4H O
0) T3 C 0) O H
01 Id id Ul £
id 0 4J id ui o
01 rH 3 01 H
p H SH 01 a)
O H3 r-H O > 0)
C C 0 0) 0) P
H id ft Q H M-i
VI- 85
LD
r-H
C O)
0 >
•rH -rH
1 1 1 1
fO rd
•0 G
m P
P 01
Cn 4-1
0) rH
•a <
e o
P 4J
0)
ij tj
i id
P -H
o s
x! -a
CO Ul
4-1
O
a
•H
0
z
4-1
o
ft
e
-P
0
z
4-1
id
4-1
*r-t
a
id
MH
0
CO
rH O
O rd
§ yD
OJ 1
Ul
5 •
O 01
H M-J C
MH O • C -P
Ul -H p
T3 Ul 4-1 MH 0
Oi -O C Oi 0 H
m ra id ui ,c
(d 0 4-1 IT) CO O
0) H 3 0) r-H
P H p 01 01
o 01
C G 0 01 0) P
H rd ft Q rH MH
(N
C 0)
0 >
•H -P
4-1 4-1
id rd
r^J G
id p
P o>
Cn 4-1
01 H
•a <
e o
P 4-1
01
4-1 P
1 rd
4-1 rH
P -H
0 E
x; -P
en co
*
c
4-1 0
ra -H
4-1 MH 4-1
•H O Id
43 4-1
rd C 0)
£ 0 en
•P 01
MH 4-> >
0 ft
3 MH
U! P MH
Ul CO 3
0 -P rH
I-H Q ,Q
•
4-1
O
rd
ft
E
•P
0
z
-P
o
id
ft
•P
o
CO
o
rH MH
MH O • C
en -P
T3 ui 4J MH
01 T) C 0) O
ui rd rd co
rd 0 4J rd CO
0) rH 3 0) rH
SH rH p 0)
O ro rH O >
G C 0 Oi 0)
H rd ft Q r-H
t
O!
c
0
H
O
0)
0)
-
-------
rJ
CN «C
I EH
•H
rH
OJ
SH
•rH
<
CO
4.)
10
•H
X!
id
SC
r-H
18
•rH
SH
4J
cn
cu
^
in
cu
EH
cn
0
u
•O cu
c a
id co
•a -a
•rH -H
4-> 4->
id id
T3 C
id 5-i
£ cu
cn -P
CU rH
•o <
§4?
0
0 id
CU ^D
Oi 1
tn
^ •
0 01
H MH C
MH 0 • C -H
cn -H s-j
73 tn 4-1 MH O
cu -a c cu o H
tn id id cn js
id O 4-1 id tn u
CU H 3 CU rH
U H M CU CU
Q T) H O > CU
fi C O CU CU SH
H (d a Q rH M-l
CO
-" 1
0 >
•H -rH
L.I 1 1
id id
•c c
id M
SH cu
CU rH
T3 r<3
g 0
(U
^J ll
i id
4-1 rH
M -H
O g
x: -H
w cn
cu
C
0
MH
0
cn MH
cn MH
0 3
H H
Xl
0)
rH MH
XI 0
•H
cn cu
cn SH
O u
o< id
4-1
o
id
^
•H
0
S
4-1
U
id
a
•H
O
2
cn
U
0
rH MH
MH O
fQ cn
cu >O
tn id
id 0
01 rH
j^
U -O
e c
H id
»
cu
c
• C -rl
cn -H SH
4-1 MH O
C CU 0 H
id cn A
4-1 id tn u
3 cu H
H JH cu cu
rH O > CU
O
-------
w
u
2
W
D
Oi
H
W
§
U
H 2
> g
H 2
03 Pi
3 H
H
fc
O
cu
cn
£3
T)
C
i-^
£*i
4-1
CU
IH
id
w
cu
to
•H
O
A
4-1
H
(d
CU
ffi
o
•H
rH
42
3
CO
ft
O
S
CU
•H
4J
id
c
ft
cu
4-1
rH
4J
O
id
ft
g
•H
0
.Jj
U
id
a
£
•H
0
2
4J
u
id
g
•*
0
2
£
4J CU
ft 3 42
0 0
M-I CO Ti
W TI 3
CU C O
A; id u
id
4-J M CU •
C CU CU TJ
•H CU A! CU
S-l 3 TJ
ft O id id
cu S ft
4-1 M rH cn
id id -H cu
S 0 2 T!
H CO
0 g C
•8 to 8
M-I Cn
g i cu c
ft 4-> 4J 0
g 0) id -H
•H M-i -H 4-1
id O O
g to 0 3
ft to ft
CU g W 4J
4-1 ft Id CO
i cu c
Cn 4-1 CO 0
C 1 TJ U
O 4J ft
rH H id JS
0 N 4J
O .C Id -H
2 CO £ S
C C
•H O
cy -H
CU 4-1 4-1 O
tn -H o 2
id to 3
CU M 4J
ft C 4J «o
u o to cu id
c c to a
-H CO 0 -H g
rH O O -H
go; c
> g g
CU 0) 0 >i ft
4-1 rH ft 4-> 0
I 4_| .,-4 .p
4-1 CU > 1
ft tn >i -H cn
O -H rH 4-1 C
.C O G O 0
0
4-1
C
•H
4J
3
U
to
cu
ft •
o IH
id M-I
3
^J1 ^1
rH X!
.
U TJ •
id >i cu c
ft 4J 4-1 0
g cu id -H
•S IH -H 4-i
id u o
g to O 3
ft CO V4
0) g CO 4-1
4-1 ft Id CO
1 CU C
Cn 4-1 cn o
C 1 T) 0
0 4J ft
H to id £
O N 4J
0 rC Id -H
cu
- tn M
rH Id CU
CU ft
cu ft id 0
> U CU 4-1
•H C C
4-1 -H CU
id tn 3
C g rH TJ
ft ft CU
cu cu > tn c
4J 4-1 CU 4-1 O
H 1 rH C -H
•
id >i cu c
ft 4-1 4J O
g CU id -H
•H M-I -H 4-1
id u u
g to 0 3
ft to s-i
cu g tn 4-i
4J ft id tn
1 (U C
cn 4-1 cn o
C 1 TI O
O 4-1 ft
H S-l Id ff.
O N 4->
o A id -H
2 W -C S
rH
cu
£»
•H
4J
id
c
0)
rH
in
id
cu
g
id
COCOidrH CO 42 -H 4-> O CO
•
4J
O
id
ft
•H
0
4J
U T! •
id >i CU C
ft 4J 4-> 0
g CU id -H
•H M-I -H 4-1
id U O
g to 0 3
0) g CO 4-1
4-1 ft id CO
1 0) C
cn 4J tn o
C 1 TJ U
O 4-1 ft
rH to Id £
0 N 4-1
0 £ Id -H
2 W .C S
CU
» to ft
rH Id CU
cu ft
cu ft id o
> U CU 4J
•H C C
4-1 -H CU
id to 3
C g H T!
ft ft CU •
cu cu > tn c
4-1 4-1 CU 4-1 O
H 1 rH C -H
SC 4-1 CU 4-1
ft CU T) U
CO 0 to -H 3
id X -H CO to
CO O CU 4J
CU C ft to
E -p c
id 3 C 0 O
W
cu •
s-i cu
U ^y
id id
rH
cn
M-4
4-1 0
3
O to
J2 CU
id ft
0
M-I id
o
cn
rH
rH M-I
•H 0
M-I
0) 10
A: to
Id 0
hJ J
4-1
0 TJ •
id >i CU C
ft 4J 4-1 0
g cu id -H
•H M-I -H 4-1
id o o
g tn o 3
CU g to 4-1
4-1 ft Id tO
1 CU C
Cn 4J to O
C 1 TJ O
O 4-1 ft
0 N 4-1
0 .C Id -H
2 CO £ 5
iH
CU
>
•H
4-1
Id
C
CU
rH
ft
W
cu
m
CO 42 -H 4-) U CO
4-1 "^
tn -H to
ft 0 TJ •> rH CU
ft 4-1 ft pa; id u
HTS-CCO idft3-H
M-I >i 3 i 3 id CU ft C C
O 4-1 0 10 O O 4-1 CU O1 Id C ft CU
•H 5 -H 42 H id > C 4-> -H CU ft
4-1 rH to 4-1 ^ rH O PH CO 4-1 a
C Id CO rH4-lCUrH C^Cldld
O
c ididU4-iid idrHTJ"^ "to
IdCUCftrHrH ^ to -H ^
4-i(d4-i
-------
0)
in
D
13
C
^S|
4J
0)
i cu c
ft 4-1 -P 0
§0) Id -H
IH -H 4-1
id y o
gin 0 3
in M
cu g in 4-1
4-> >H (d cn
1 0) C
Cn -P w 0
C 1 -O O
0 4-1 H
rH M (d .C
O N 4-1
0 £ Id -rl
s co x; 3
rH
0)
•H
4-1
in (C
(d c
^1
CU 0)
(d rH
w <;
.J
3
u
IH
IH
3
,Q
cn
CD
•H
3
0*
0)
Oi
J
U T) •
id ^i cu c
ft -P 4-1 O
g 0) (d -H
•H IH -H 4-1 ';
id y o
g in O 3
H tn M
a) S tn 4-1
4-1 H id cn
1 0) C
Cn 4J in 0
C i 13 U
O 4-1 M
H M (d X!
O tsl 4-1
0 JS (d -H
3 w x; 3
rH
0)
•H
in its
id c
M
CU (D
g 4->
(d i-H
W ft
in
0)
o
id
x
•H
in
IH
0
H
rH
•H
IH
cu
3
.
O 13 •
(d >t cu c
ft -P -P 0
g CU id -H
• rl IH -rl 4-1
id o o
g in 0 3
M cn s*4
cu g in 4-1
4-> fi id in
1 0) C
cn 4-1 in 0
C 1 13 U
O -P H
I-H w (d x;
O N 4-1
O X! (d -H
3 W X! 3
rH
CU
•H
4-1
in (0
i cu c
ft 4-1 4-1 0
g cu id -H
•3 IH -ri 4-1
(duo
gen 0 3
cn M
d) s tn 4-i
•P S id cn
1 CU C
cn 4-1 cn o
c i -a u
O 4-1 M
H M id x;
O N 4J
0 f, Id -rl
72 C/} ^C 3
(U
•rH
4-1
in id
IT! C
0) CU
C i \
(Tj rH
CO <
4-1 "^
in -H in
<; o T3 •• rH cu
Oi 4-i M < i 3 .X 3 id CU M C C
o 4-) O in O 0 4-> a) cn 3 i-H O -i-H CO 4-lft
Cidcn rH4->o)rH c — ' c O
C ffl (0 O -M (fl (Tj r~H rrt "'H ^ CO
•rH V-l 'C OJ *H 3 13* W C) O-i 0 0^ »Q ^^
(dOJCWHrH 3JH -H >-0
4-14-1 IdOXlrH^jOU CD wO) t^ 13
cn
3 0
in o cn
M 13 id
O 4-> H
0 x: cu
tn cn
cu 0 3
0 4-1 rH
3 tn
13 cu
cu 3 IH
« -a o
VI- 3 8
r~
cn
C
i 8
in o cn
M 13 id
0 4J H
•a 3
o x: cu
tn cn
•a 13
cu o .3
U 4-1 rH
3 W
13
-------
cn
H
a
z
a
D
Oi
H
W
§
o
> W
S
W 2
rH O
m os
3 H
EH >
2
H
S
>!
SH
O)
c
w
01
0)
o
SH
3
O
01
Oi
Pi
C
0
•H
4->
rd 01
4-1 tn
SH 01
0 0
ft O
w <;
c
rd *O
SH C
EH rd
01
0
•H
O
O
H
0)
-3
_|J
id
c
SH
O)
rH
<
SH
01
\ 0)
D 01
EH 3
CQ
c tn
0 SH
•H 0)
H G
H O)
•H
S -P
C
CN 0)
(N 01
CT) OJ
- SH
ro ft
rH -*
ro
CL)
c
•H
H
0
"td
rC
O
H
fTj
UJ
•*v
f-t
S
o
o
^*
^"1
rH
•H
rd
•0
O
o
rH 01
ft
13 -rH
01 H
3 4-1
-H A-
4J O
C 3
0 SH
O 4J
4J
D
ft
•H
0
3
C
0
•H
4J
U
i-H
,Q rH
0
rO 01
01
to 01
0) 3
SH H
Q U
c c
•H -H
c
C
p—
£
rc
f
01
C
£
rH
01
SH
0
MH
>
CT
0
C
O)
C
0
•H
4J
U
3
4J
01
C
o
u
0)
4->
1
4J
SH
O
_t"!
W
*
rH
rH
•H
MH
ro r
rrj
^1
O
0
o
«
0
ro
i
ro 4-1
•H
MH U
0 -H
ti li
0) 4-1 >!
tn o \
rd 0) A
01 rH S
30)^
rH
01
^
rd rH
O) SH 0)
4-1 rji at
01 X 4->
SH 0) tn
u C
C 0 KH
0 4-1 O
O 01
'SI
o ro q
13 13 0
^i £*i 4-1
O O O
O O C
O O ifl
* * *
ro \Q ^rj
ro ro
MH
0
C
•H
U C
3 -H
SH
4-1 • 0)
rH 01
o) id (d
£ -H 0)
4-1 in SH
01 U
g 4-1 0>
0 rd 13
SH g
MH g
•H p
U rH 0)
•H -H 4-1
MH MH 1
4H 73 tn
rd C C
in rd O
4-1 H |-3
Oi
1 A
S *
U O
4-1
tn
G 0)
•H g
SH 0
3 U
13 C
•H
4J •
G C 13
Oi 0 0)
g -H 03
>i 4-1 rd
0 O 0)
•H 3 SH
ft SH O
g -P G
0) 01 H
MH rrj
0 0)
SH
0 -H
tn 3
rd t^
01 a)
3 SH
C D
0 EH
•H pa
4-1
rd C
SH 0
0) -H
8*3
•H
g g
0) in
4J O
i co
tn »
CH ^*
0 i-O
rJ t-
01
c
•H SH
SH 3
0 MH
rH H
A 3
O 01
SH SH
"s^ ss^
C C
0 0
4-1 4-1
o o
o in
r> ro
^
U
3
SH
4J
tn
C
•H
rH
3 •
rd >i
A id
rrj
0) \
tn to
T3 ft
3 -H
rH SH
01 4-)
• rH
tn H
C -H
•H S
13
C 03
3 4J
MH 01
0
g 0
0
SH 4->
MH O
0)
rd -r-1
01 0
SH SH
id ft
ft
EH
|2
C
3
SH
0
4-1
ro
"0
0)
ffl O
•H O
^ 0
o ••
•HO
13 rH
m
E
s
SH
MH
13
0!
01
•H
0)
*
^
4J
SH
0)
ft
0
SH
ft •
01
0) 0)
01 4-1
rd rrj
01 SH
SH
U X
C ftJ
•H 4-1
VI -39
i-H
0
4-1
ro
4-1 0
G rH
0)
rH X
a
> o
•H 0
3 CN
& *
a (n
" rH
G
O rjj >i
•r, > 4-1
4J -H -H
U 4J 0
SH q SH SH
4J in -P >i
01 (D O \
C 4-1 V A
0 rH H S
o <; H ^
tn
C
•H 0
A 4J
4-1
>i 4-1
SH q .
01 0) rH
> rH
H rd 0)
> >
•H -H
• 3 -P
H"f £j"* f^J
nH QJ c
-H SH
MH 0) d)
tn jj
O rH rH
Z
!H -H g -H S SH
U SH O 13 01
C 3 U C 01 ft
•H rg q 3 4-1 0
•H MH tn SH
g 4-1 • 0 ft •
JH C G T3 g U en
01 Ol O 0) O 0) 01
4-lg-H01SH4-IO!4-l
1 >, 4J id MH O rd rd
4-1 0 U 0) 01 01 SH
SH H 3 SH rd -n SH
OftSHUOiQOX
,Gg4->CSHSHGrd
WOI01H(dft'H4J
OJ
4J ro
£
01
•H
rd
•H
3
tJ1 •
H rH
0>
G -H
O 4-1
•H rd
-P G
o in
3 0)
as
o) <;
C
O 0
O 4-1
4-1
c
01
rH
fd
• -H
H g
^H 0^
•H (1)
MH
0)
MH oi
0 rH
01
ro
13 tn
>i G
oS
0 4-1
O >,
- JH
O O)
*^ ^
rH H
.
rH
01
-H
4J
rd
SH
Q)
4-1
rH
01
id
01
rB
O5
C 1
•H C
0
0) O
01
rd tn
0) C
SH -H
U SH
n 3
•H -O
S -M
SH C
0) 0)
4J g
1 >,
4-> 0
SH H
O ft
A e
W 0)
O
rH
X
in
ro
H
0*i
• •
>i
4-1
•H
U
•H
SH M
4J S
U X
01 A
rH S
W .^f
•
, 1
0)
>
•H
rd
G
SH
0)
rH
ft
0
4-1
0)
f"1
4-1
O
4-1 • rH
tn
-------
CN
I
H
9
en
H
O
2
W
D
Oi
H
to
2
0
O
E-i
2
os
hH
>
2
H
fa
O
^H
pcj
i
CT1
^1
CD
C
W
tn
CD
o
rj
0
tn
CD
OS
c
0
•H
4J
(d tfl
4-1 tfl
S4 CD
O O
ft O
!fl <
C
id -a
M C
EH (d
t/5
O
•H
g
c
0
u
H
CD
•rH
4-1
id
C
CD
4J
<
4J PI
C 0
CU rH
fd x
•H 0
3 CM
C71 CO
H rH
in
(D i-l
** ^
C -H
0 -P >i
•rH rd 4-1
4J fi -H
0 M O
3 CD -H
Sn 4-1 S-l Sn
4-> rH 4J >i
tn < u \
c a> x:
O O rH 5
U 4J H *
t
CM
CD
s
•rH
4-1
rd
C
M
0)
4->
rH
^
tn
id
CD
g
w
rH
CD
^
•H
4-1
tn id
id c
CD CD
rt i)
Id i-j
(D
fi I -G
•rH fi 4-1
0
0)0 0
Ifl 4-1 • rH
(d tjl T1 rH ^1
CD C 0) C -H 4-1
S4 -H g -H |5 S-l
O M O T3 CD
C 3 O C tn ft
•H T3 C 3 4-1 O
•H 4-1 tn M
g 4-1 • O ft •
fi c fi 13 g o tn
CD CD 0 (D 0 CD (D
4-lg-Htn,H4-)tn4-)
i >i 4-> id n-i o id id
4J O O CD i
•H cd 4-1
4J fi -H
O M 0
3 i C C
•rH CD
0 ,C rH
o -P fd
0 >, >
•• >4 -rH
CM 0) 3
VD t* tT* •
n H CD rH
rH
CD
^
•H
.jj
tn rtj
fd fi
rH >i
a; c CD c -H 4->
C 3 0 C 01 ft
•H Ti C 3 4-1 O
•H 14-1 tn ^
g 4-1 • 0 ft •
M C C TI g 0 tfl
CD CD 0 g'HtnM4-itn4-i
i >, 4-1 id MH o rd (d
4-1 O O 0) 0) (D M
^ rH 3 S-l ffl T-l S-l
OftS-lOCDOOX
x:g4-iCMHCfd
WCD 05H i
•H 4-1
4-1 -H
o o
3 -H
4J 4-1
tn o
0 rH
u w
> '^
•rH '
4-1
id
c
rH M
rH CD
•H 4-1
M-l rH
CD P3S
y-i tn
0 H 0
CD 4-1
n
•O &> -P
>i C C
•rH (1)
O ,C H
O 4-1 rd
0 >, >
r- cu 3
fi > rj1 •
H H CD rH
rH
CD
[>
•rH
4-1
tfl id
id fi
^
CD CD
g -P
(C fH
w <
CD
G £
•rH 4-1
ID 0
Cfl 4->
rd GI
CD C CD
C 3 • O
•H T3 C C
0 -H
g4J -H
fi 4-1 T3
CD 01 O CD
4-1 g 3 01
i > i-i fd
4-> O 4-> CU
S-t rH tfl S4
0 ft C O
X g O fi
W CD O H
VD
a
• rH
&> rH >l
C -H 4-1
T! CD
C tfl ft
34-10
MH tfl S4
O ft •
SO 01
CD 0)
!-l 4-1 01 4-1
CD CD S-(
id -r-i S-l
CD 0 O X
S-l S-l fi (d
id ft -H 4-1
-------
w
o
z
w
D
CX
H
w
5
u
CN
EH
H S
> M
W S
H O
§(V
H
EH >
D
co
^
d
c
c/
C
^
g
tn
d)
Pi
o
•H
4-1
id tn
4-) tn
SH d)
0 0
a o
tn <
rd -d
SH C
E-i (d
tn
U
•H
O
C
0
o
H
d)
•rl
4J
G
rH
0 C
4-1 0 d)
4J rH
4-1 Id
C -P >
0) C -H
H 0) 3
rd rH tf
> rd H
•H >
3 -rH
w er1 c
C •• rd -H
O d) >i d) SH 4-1
•H > 4J > d) rd
4-1 -rH -rH -H ft C
O 4-> O 4-1 O SH
3 id -H (d d)
SH C SH C rH 4-1
4-1 SH 4-i SH rd H
tn d) U d) 3 «!
C 4J d) -P C
0 H r-H r-H C O
O rt H < rt 4-1
4J
CD
•
rd
n >
'd *r(
o •
>£ d) d) -H
r- SH 4-i
o CP rd
* rH -rH SH
H -rt £ d)
H O 4-1 4-1
•H ft >1 r-H
MH tn SH <
d)
0 MH > 0
S 0 H 4-1
H
K
**
•H
4-1
^
d)
4J
rH
ft.
tn
rd
0)
H
co
d)
G A
•H 4-1
d) 0
tn 4-1 • i-H
rd en Cn rH >•*
d) C d) G -H 4-1
SH -H g -H S SH
O SH O 'O D
G 3 • U C tn ft
•H T3 C C 3 4-1 0
0 -H MH W M
g 4-1 -H o a •
SH c 4J -a g o tn
d) d) U dJ 0 d) d)
1 >< SH id MH o rd rd
4-i O 4-i d) d) d) SH
SH rH tn SH rd -m SH
OftcodJoox
wiuHnJp!.H-P
4-1
O C
4-1 O 0)
4-1 rH
4-1 (d
G 4J >
d) C -H
H 0 3
rd H C71
> cd W
•H >
3 -rt
C* 3
W B1 C H
W O
•H d)
•• H H 4-1 >
C •• i d) SH 4-1
•H > 4-1 > d) rd
4-1 -rl -H -H ft C
U 4-1 D 4-1 O rl
3 rd -rl rd d)
SH C M G rH 4-1
4-1 SH 4-1 SH id H
tn d) o d) 3 rt
C 4J d) 4J C
O H rH H CO
O rt W < < 4J
4J
C
0)
rH
Id
^
•H
• 3
H d) •
•H H
MH d)
W C)
MH rH >
0 d) -H
4-1
ro en rd
T3 C C
>i-H SH
rC 0)
O 4-1 4-1
O >1 rH
v*i SH rt
• d)
c*] ^ o
•f W 4J
rH
d)
•H
i)
rd
F
d)
4J
rH
tn
rd
g
S
CO
0)
C .C
•H 4-1
d) 0
tn 4-) • H
id Cn en rH >i
d) G d) G -H 4-1
SH -H g -H S SH
U M O t) d)
C 3 • o C in ft
•H -d C C 3 4-1 0
O -H MH tn SH
g -P -H O ft •
H G 4-) ti g o tn
d) d) O d) O d) d)
1 >i SH rd MH U rd rd
4J 0 4-1 d) d) d) !H
M H tn SH rd T~I s-i
OftGOdJOUX
wloHrdS-Sij
VI- 91
co
4-1
0 G
-P q d)
4-1 rH
4-1 id
C 4-> >
d) C -H
H d) 3
rd rH cr1
> (d H
••H >
3 -H
H er1 c CN
W O
•rl d)
• • CN CN 4-1 >
C •• rd -H
O d) >i d) SH 4-i
•H > 4J > d) rd
4-1 -H -H -rH a C
O 4J O 4J O SH
3 rd -rl rd d)
SH C SH C rH 4->
4J SH -P SH id H
U3 d) O d) 3 rt
C 4-1 d) 4-1 C
O -H rH rH £ O
O rt W rt rt 4J
d) d)
tn >
H -rl
0) 4-1
(d
en c
•rH 01
& 4-1
4-> H
E^ rt
SH
4H -H
3
0 D1 •
S d) H
d)
>
-H
4J
i
d) C 0) C -H 4J
SH -H g -H 3 SH
U SH 0 T) d)
C 3 • o C tn a
-H T3 G G 3 4-1 0
0 -ri MH tn SH
g 4-1 -H O a •
SH G 4-J T3 g O tn
d) d) O d) O d)
I >i SH id MH u
-------
The plume would have high levels of ammonia, cadmium, chromium,
and lead, which are toxic and exceed the recommended EPA
criteria values. Un-ionized ammonia would be 7 times more
concentrated than the EPA criteria value. Fish would probably
avoid the plume under these circumstances.
Disinfection alternatives include chlorination-dechlorination
and ozonation. Although both are effective at reducing the
numbers of microorganisms in the effluent, chlorination has
several side effects on water quality. Residual chlorine is
toxic to fish; it would be reduced to, at most, 0.5 mg/1 by
dechlorination. Other toxic substances are also formed.
Chlorine reacts with ammonia to form chloramines, which may
be diminished in concentration by dechlorination, and with
hydrocarbons to form chloroform, chlorophenol, and other
chlorohydrocarbons that may not be removed by dechlorination.
Sulfur dioxide, which is used for dechlorination, would exert
an oxygen demand, thereby lowering dissolved oxygen (DO) in
the receiving waters.
Ozone does not produce toxic by-products, but is taken up
rapidly by oxidizable organic matter. Ozone also oxygenates
the effluent. In addition, ozone would oxidize some of the
ammonia in the effluent. Ozone residuals could'be considered
to be toxic (as discussed in Chapter IV).
Construction of a lakefill could cause increased turbidity
of the nearby waters. A layer of silt would cover the
lake bottom in the vicinity of the fill. Expansion on
existing land could affect water quality due to erosion.
This erosion could also cause a layer silt to cover the lake
bottom in the vicinity of the WWTP.
2. Aquatic Biota
The No Action alternative may have several effects on the
aquatic biota. The increase in total phosphorus may promote
increased algal growth; high ammonia and chlorine levels in
the outfall plume would cause fish to avoid the area around
the outfall; and the increase in total suspended solids may
decrease light penetration enough to restrict the depth of
growth of aquatic plants.
All of the alternatives (Nos. 1 through 9) could cause
sediment to enter the water via runoff from construction.
The resulting turbidity could restrict the growth of
phytoplankton and aquatic plants. In addition, the sediment
could cover eggs and clog the gills of fish. In Alternatives
1, 3, 5, 6, and 8, lakefilling would result in the removal
of the aquatic habitat and the elimination or displacement
of those aquatic organisms which are present.
VI- 92
-------
The WWTP would continue to produce an effluent plume of
water enriched in phosphorus, suspended and dissolved
solids, ammonia, organic matter, and heavy metals. This
could continue to cause fish displacement and an enriched
sediment near the outfall. Bottom animals feeding on these
sediments may bring heavy metals into the food chain.
The aquatic biota would also be affected differently by the
various disinfection alternatives. Free chlorine, a residual
of disinfection by chlorination is a known toxicant to fish.
In addition, the products of chlorine's reactions with
organic substances, such as chloramine, chloroform, and
other chlorinated hydrocarbons, are also considered to be
toxic to fish. Since sulfur dioxide would be used in the
dechlorination process, sulfuric and hydrochloric acids
would be formed and would lower the pH of the effluent by
0.2 units. The effluent could lower the pH of the receiving
waters, however, the receiving waters would have sufficient
alkalinity to buffer the addition of these acids.
<
The ozonation process would result in a well-oxygenated
effluent which could improve water conditions for oxygen-
utilizing organisms if no residual remains.
3. Threatened or Endangered Species
No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit
either the terrestrial or the aquatic habitats surrounding
South Shore WWTP.
4. Terrestrial Habitats
The No Action alternative requires no construction or changes
in operation at South Shore WWTP. As a result, the vege-
tated bluff at South Shore would remain intact, and bluff
flora and fauna would continue to live and make use of that
habitat.
Bluff-cut alternatives (2, 3, and 7) would expose the bluff
to erosion from wind and rain until the bluff could be
reseeded and vegetation could be re-established. Erosion
would destroy the present wildlife habitats as well as
diminish the bluff's ability to support new vegetation. In
addition to increasing soil deposits at the base of the
bluff, erosion would destabilize the unconsolidated rock and
soil material within the bluff. Immediate replanting of the
bluff vegetation would decrease the effects of erosional
forces.
VI-93
-------
The combination of lakefill with a small bluff cut in
Alternative 3 would have consequences similar to, but less
severe than, the larger bluf, Cand possibly in Alternatives
8 and 9).
Expansion on top of the bluff would not affect the bluff
unless a pipe were laid in the bluff to connect the lake-
level and bluff-level facilities. The area disturbed by
such a trench would be very small and would be replanted to
minimize erosion.
The disinfection alternatives would have no effect on the
bluff habitats.
5. Air Quality
If no action is taken to increase sewage treatment capacity
at South Shore WWTP, there would be little change in air
quality. Emissions from the stationary engines would continue
to increase and decrease proportionally to engine use based
on the amount of liquids processed Since wastewater flows
are projected to increase during the planning period, emissions
could be expected to increase proportionately.
With respect to each of the expansion alternatives, short
term air quality degradation would occur from construction
and transportation of construction materials. Dust would
be stirred up by vehicles which also emit exhaust fumes.
Mitigating measures to reduce particulate emissions would
include dust suppression by water sprinkling or chemical
stabilization, and the reduction of construction equipment
speeds. Continued operation of the digester gas fueled
stationary engines would cause a slight increase in emissions
as operation time is increased.
6. Odors
The No Action alternative would have no short-term effects.
In the long run however, increased odors could be expected.
If the capacity of the digesters is not increased, gas
production would be reduced, and the volume of solids would
increase. Inability to efficiently handle solids could
increase odor emissions. Collectively, these events would
increase the probability of odor problems. Furthermore, the
malodorous sludge lagoon storage system would remain in use
and would contribute to odors produced by the WWTP.
VI- 94
-------
Each of the expansion alternatives involves the abandonment
of the (four remaining) sludge lagoons; however, these
lagoons would be retained as backup to proposed solids
handling facilities. Future problems with odors would be
effectively eliminated. None of the liquid treatment
processes are expected to generate any additional odors.
Odors from sludge should be eliminated by enclosing the
solids handling equipment in buildings. Some leakage of gas
from the anaerobic digesters is possible, but would probably
not affect local residents. No new odors should develop due
to construction. The most common odors at the plant site
would be from ammonia (sharp and pungent), hydrogen sulfide
(rotten eggs), and chlorine (pungent, irritating). If ozone
(slightly pungent, irritating) were used for disinfection,
ozone vapors could be emitted. It is not expected that any
of these malodorous vapors would be emitted in sufficient
quantities to affect local residents. A number of odor
prevention and control methods exist, some of which the MMSD
plans to implement, that could be utilized to ensure the
safety and comfort of the South Shore WWTP personnel, and
the nearby community.
Possible odor prevention measures are (EPA, 1976):
• disinfection by oxidizing or alkalinizing agents
• maintenance of aerobic conditions in wastewater
• prevention of sludge aging and deposits
Possible methods of odor control are (EPA, 1976) :
• enclosure and venting of buildings and facilities
• chemical addition to malodorous wastewater
treating vented gas before discharge
• pretreating effluent
7. Public Health
No Action at South Shore would result in the continued risk
of exceeding the WWTP's capacity to treat wastewater.
Without expansion to accomodate increased wastewater flows
and loads to South Shore WWTP, excessive daily loads of
wastewater could not be completely treated biologically.
Therefore, WPDES effluent limits could not be consistently
met. This degraded effluent could pose a health hazard if
it enters the nearby water intakes for the cities of Oak
Creek and South Milwaukee. These water intakes are shown in
Figure VI-1.
VI- 95
-------
Any of the expansion alternatives would increase the capacity
of the WWTP providing complete treatment, thereby meeting
EPA and DNR effluent standards, (as specified in the WPDES
permit). The potential for infection from pathogens in
sewage effluent and in aerosols generated at the plant would
continue, unchanged. However, proper treatment of the
wastewater minimizes the risk to public health.
8. Noise
No alternative, including No Action, would have any increase
in noise level from the WWTP's operation. High noise levels
caused by construction would occur in the short term only.
Most construction equipment operates at noise levels above
recommended noise exposure levels. Equipment that operates
at lower levels is available but is usually more expensive.
It is doubtful that construction contractors would invest in
more expensive equipment unless instructed to do so by the
MMSD.
Noise levels could be controlled during operation of the
WWTP by:
(1) Machinery noise source control.
(2) Architectural noise control
(3) Buffer zones (which already exist at South Shore WWTP).
9. Safety
The No Action alternative should cause no change on the
safety of personnel (and nearby residents) at South Shore
WWTP.
Safety would continue to be a concern of the plant personnel
during the planning period; but since the wastewater
treatment processes will not change, no new problems would
develop. Construction under all of the alternatives would
cause short-term safety problems due to construction equip-
ment interfering with normal WWTP operation. This could be
minimized by proper construction practices and coordination
between construction and operation personnel.
Disinfection alternatives, chlorine and ozone, also present
safety problems. Chlorine, being a noxious gas, presents a
safety hazard during transportation and consumption. Chlorine
is transported to the WWTP in 55 ton (50 metric ton) rail
cars. A train derailment could cause the release of chlorine
VI-96
-------
I
050 I
CUDAHY
WATER UTILITY 2)^ CTv^b'J^
Cudahy
SCONSIN ELECTRIC
(PROCESS, WATER ONLY)
SOUTH SHORE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
}
PETER COOPER CORP
'i-OAK CREEK WATER XUTILITY
Oak
LEGEND
WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
0 WATER INTAKE
A WATER FILTRATION PLANT
£ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
| ELECTRIC POWER PLANT (FOSSIL)
£jp SUMMIT (TOPOGRAPHIC HIGH)
£P DEPRESSION (TOPOGRAPHIC LOW)
— WATER RESOURCES STUDY AREA
5 FT CONTOUR LINES
10 FT CONTOUR LINES
50 FT CONTOUR LINES
100 FT CONTOUR LINES
150 FT CONTOUR LINES
1) Process water
2) Potable water supply
PCOCONIC PROJECTION SCALE
KILOMETERS
231
MILES
2
Depth contour intervals 5 and 10 feet
/ /
FIGURE
Vl-l
DATE
NEARSHORE BATHYMETRIC STUDY AREA
SOURCE Ratko J. Ristic
PREPARED BY
EcolSciences
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
-------
gas which could endanger nearby residents. Also, plant
personnel who work in close contact with disinfection
facilites could be affected by chlorine gas leaks. The same
considerations that apply to chlorine also apply if sulfur
dioxide is used for dechlorination. Because chlorine is more
commonly used than sulfur dioxide most emergency personnel
would be more familiar with accidents involving chlorine
than those involving sulfur dioxide. Emergency personnel,
however, should be familiar with governmental or industrial
agencies who are knowlegeable about handling accidents
involving'hazardous materials.
10. Land Use
The No Action alternative for the South Shore WWTP would
cause no changes in land use since no further plant ex-
pansion would occur.
Of the nine expansion alternatives for the South Shore WWTP
expansion five will require additional land. These five
(Alternatives 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8) involve lakefilling in
various locations adjacent to the existing lakefill.
Alternative 1 is a lakefill north of the existing lakefill
site. There are two size options to Alternative 1: a 30
acre (12 ha) lakefill (the MMSD recommended alternative)
which would allow for future expansion; or a 12 acre (5 ha)
lakefill which would be sufficient for the present expansion.
Alternative 3 requires only 6 acres (2.5 ha) of lakefill to
the north, and 3 acres (1 ha) from cutting back the bluff.
Alternative 5 includes a 9 acre (4 ha) lakefill east of the
existing lakefill, extending 370 feet (113 m) further out
into Lake Michigan. Alternative 6 requires filling ap-
proximately 6 acres (2.5 ha) of the lake immediately south
of the existing lakefill and would involve acquisition of
property rights from the Peter Cooper Company which owns the
shoreline property immediately south of the South Shore
WWTP.
The other 4 alternatives would utilize existing land at the
South Shore WWTP. Alternative 2 will require cutting back
14 acres (6 ha) of the northern bluff, while Alternative
7 would require a smaller bluff cut slightly south of
proposed Alternative 2. Alternative 4 involves expansion on
top of the bluff, on the present site of the abandoned north
sludge lagoons. Alternative 9 involves no bluff excavation
and no lakefill.
VI-9 7
-------
All of the land for expansion (except for the lake) is owned
by the MMSD and therefore does not present any land use
problems. However, the lakefills would require necessary
permitting, and Alternative 6 would require the acquisition
of certain property rights from the Peter Cooper Company.
In order to fill in any amount of Lake Michigan, the
Wisconsin State Legislature would have to give a Lake Bed
Grant to allow the MMSD to fill the lake. The MMSD could
receive the grant directly or indirectly through a muni-
cipality. Filling Lake Michigan at South Shore WWTP would
require the MMSD to meet the requirements of the following
agencies:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers due to Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act.
• EPA due to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act amend-
ments.
DNR due to their review of the MMSD facility plan.
Offsite land requirements for solids application to agricultural
land would be about 35,000 acres (14,165 ha). This is
discussed in further detail in the Solids Management
Environmental Impact Statement, the Site Specific Analysis,
and the Environmental Impact Statement on the Site Specific
Analysis.
11. Economics
The No Action alternative would not cause any significant
economic impacts since there would be no plant expansion to
provide employment and no construction costs to be passed on
to the local taxpayer.
The construction involved in the South Shore WWTP expansion
alternatives could be a stimulus to the regional economy.
This would, in part, result from increases in employment
generated by construction, as well as increased sales in
construction materials and equipment. The degree to which
this construction could benefit the local economy (Oak
Creek, South Milwaukee) is dependent upon the extent to
which labor, materials and equipment would be supplied
locally. However, it is likely that the construction re-
lated beneficial impacts could be entirely offset by the
locally financed portion of project costs. For more in-
formation on the financing of the project, see the MWPAP-EIS
Chapter 5.
Vi-98
-------
The total present worth costs of South Shore wastewater
treatment expansion alternatives range from $100.35 million
for Alternative 3, to $110.50 million for Alternative 5.
Cost estimates for the solids handling alternatives are
discussed in the Solids Management EIS Appendix. Since
the total costs of the alternatives do not significantly
differ, the economic impacts of the alternatives have not
been separately analyzed.
The net economic impacts of the South Shore WWTP expansion
are contained within the economic analysis for the system
level alternatives of the MMSD Wastewater System Plan.
See the MWPAP-EIS Chapter 5. With the expansion alternatives
the following improvements are planned. These include:
• the abandonment of existing sludge lagoons
• the enclosing of solids handling facilities
• the northern border of the plant will have screening
• the northern portion of the plant may be available
for recreational purposes
For these reasons, plant expansion should cause no worsening
of the relative value of properties neighboring the plant.
12. Transportation and Access
With the No Action alternative South Shore transportation
and access would remain in the same condition as currently
exists. Since there would be no plant expansion, there
would be no disruption of traffic or access as a result of
construction. Additional truck trips would be required to
haul additional sludge to landfills or land application
site.
The impacts of the South Shore WWTP expansion alternatives
on transportation are primarily related to construction.
Truck traffic generated by plant expansion is likely to
travel south on 5th Avenue and then west on either Puetz,
Road or Ryan Road to 1-94. This route is preferred because
routing the trucks north on 5th Avenue would create traffic
problems in a residentially developed area. There is still
a possibility that Rawson Avenue and 5th Avenue will be
adversely affected, especially during rush hours. Therefore,
another measure is to schedule the transportation of materials
during non-rush hours. This, however, may increase noise
during non-rush hours. The trucking of sludge to the remote
sites will also have to be routed and scheduled in order to
minimize disruption of traffic.
VI-99
-------
The only disruption of access to community facilities, urban
facilities, or residences would be attributed to traffic
during the construction period. Traffic problems are estimated
to be less during operation of the proposed facilities.
13. Resources
If there is no expansion (No Action) at South Shore WWTP and
wastewater flows increase, then chemical consumption will
increase. The 1977 average base flow was 67 MGD (254 m3/day)
and the 2005 average base flow is projected to be 100 MGD
(378 m3/day) which is a 50% increase in flow. Chemical
consumption would therefore increase by 50% for the No
Action alternatives as shown below (2005).
1977 2005
tons metric tons tons metric tons
chlorine 456 414 684 621
iron (in pickle liquor) 1530 1020 2295 2084
polymers 1268 845 1902 1727
As discussed in the Alternatives chapter, the consumption of
chemicals will be the same for all of the expansion alternatives
(See Table IV-7) or No Action, since it is related to waste-
water flow only.
Chlorine disinfection would require up to 700 tons/yr (635
metric tons/yr) of chlorine gas and 350 tons/yr (320
tons/yr) of sulfur dioxide gas. If ozone disinfection were
used at the design dosage of 25 mg/1, then 4100 tons/yr
(3722 metric tons/yr) of ozone would be required.
The various alternatives would require equivalent amounts of
building materials, e.g. timber concrete, stone and gravel;
but fill material would vary with the average required.
Approximate amounts of lake fill would be as follows (JIFPE):
Lakefill
Alternative . Acreage Fill (x!03yd3)
1 30 510
2 12 85
3 6 15
4 - 140
5 9 362
6 6 137
7 - -
8 6 425
9 -
1 acre = 0.4047 ha
1 yd3 = 0.9144 m3
(Reference: MWPAP)
VI-100
-------
14. Energy
Under the No Action alternative wastewater flows would
increase by approximately 50%. Energy consumption would
increase by a porportionate amount. The SSFPE determined
energy consumption to be as follows:
Electricity1 13.7 x 106 kwh 1.44 x 1011 BTU
Natural Gas 4.75 x 101Q BTU
Digester Gas (.gas produced) (~)5.15 x 1011 BTU
Diesel Fuel2 3.85 x 105 gal 5.01 x 1010 BTU
Net Consumption (excludes digester gas) 2.41 x lO^A BTU
Energy Balance (subtracts digester gas) -2.73 x 10 BTU
Energy required to operate WWTP 7.56 x 1011 BTU
(adds digester gas)
ielectricity 10,500 BTU/kwh
2diesel fuel 130,000 BTU/gal
1 BTU = 1.0548 kj
Table 111-13 shows the present South Shore WWTP energy con-
sumption, and Table IV-7 shows consumption for the various
alternatives. Electricity requirements are expected to
increase by approximately 15% for Alternatives 1, 2 or 3,
and 95% for alternative 4. Alternatives 5, 6, 7, and 8 and
9 are equivalent (within 15%) in energy consumption to
Alternatives 1, 2, 3. Presently 2.0 million therms (1 therm
equals 100,000 BTU, or 105,480 kj) of digester gas are
produced. Nearly all the digester gas is used to run the
aeration blowers or for general plant electrical require-
ments. South Shore WWTP is presently an energy efficient
facility and will remain so in the future. The increase in
electrical demand is not expected to have a noticeable
effect on Wisconsin Electric Power Company's (WEPCO) elec-
trical capacity during the planning period.
It is expected that 302.1 billion BTU would be consumed
in the construction of the South Shore WWTP improvements
(SSFPE). The majority of this consumption would come from
the consumption of gasoline (225,000 gallons) and diesel
fuel (1,290,000 gallons).
Annual energy consumption would be 750 billion BTU (this in-
cluding liquid and solid processes) with the implementation
of the recommended plan in 2005 (SSFPE).
VI-101
-------
Energy consumption for disinfection is discussed more thor-
oughly in the Jones Island EIS appendix. Ozone disinfection
consumes more energy than chlorine disinfection due to the
electricity requirements for producing ozone from oxygen.
C. Environmental Consequences of MMSD's Recommended Plan
The environmental consequences of MMSD's Recommended Plan
are summarized in this section. MMSD's recommended al-
ternative is the expansion and upgrading the existing plant
by lakefill (Alternative 1). The expansion would occur
adjacent to and north of the plant and would require the
filling of approximately 12 out of 30 acres (5 out of 12 ha)
of Lake Michigan. All 30 acres would be enclosed by a
revetment wall. The remaining 18 acres (7 ha) would be
filled over a 10 year period or as acreage is needed for
further expansion. Details of the initial expansion and the
equipment required are discussed in Chapter IV, Alternatives.
Disinfection of the treated effluent would be accomplished
by chlorination with chlorine gas, the method presently used
at South Shore. A new step in the disinfection process,
dechlorination with sulfur dioxide, would be implemented at
South Shore. The purpose of dechlorination after chlorination
is to minimize residual free chlorine that could recombine
to form toxic chemicals and compounds in the receiving
waters. The environmental consequences of these proposed
actions are discussed below.
Expansion of the facilities at the South Shore WWTP would
enable the treatment plant to process and treat effectively
higher volumes of water. In 1977, the average base flow was
67 MGD (254 m3/day), and the projected average base flow for
2005 is 100 MGD (378 m3/day). The higher volumes processed
would produce increased flows of effluent to the lake, which
would in turn increase loads to the lake of effluent con-
stituents. Increased flows and loads could degrade water
quality. Sulfur dioxide, used to dechlorinate the effluent
after treatment with chlorine, will react with water and
chlorine compounds to produce sulfuric and hydrochloric
acids. It is expected that the alkalinity (ability to
buffer acids) of Lake Michigan is sufficient to buffer these
acids, but it is also conceivable that large dosages of
sulfur dioxide in the effluent could ultimately lower the pH
of receiving waters. The EPA reference criteria for ammonia
and some heavy metals would not be met within a small area
surrounding the discharge. If industrial pretreatment
and a form of ammonia removal were utilized these reference
criteria could be met.
VI-102
-------
The lakefill required for constructing the new facility
would eliminate the aquatic and benthic habitats in the
filled area. Migratory organisms may move away from the
area, but stationary species would be destroyed. Table V-2
shows those species that are known in the area and would be
affected. Increased turbidity would be a short-term direct
result of the lakefill and construction and could have some
effect on light-limited biota. Disinfection by chlorination
and the resulting formation of chlorine compounds would be
toxic to some aquatic organisms, especially fish, but
dechlorination with sulfur dioxide should minimize this
toxicity.
Increased treatment capacity at the plant would require a
greater level of operation of the digester gas fueled
stationary engines. An increase in air emissions from these
engines proportional to the additional operational time
would result. There would be some short-term degradation of
air quality during the construction period.
Implementation of Alternative 1 (both liquid and solids
handling processes) would eliminate use of all the sludge
lagoons. However, the four lagoons in use now (the two
northern lagoons were abandoned in September 1979) would be
retained for backup to the proposed solids handling facilities,
It is not expected that odors from any of the other treatment
plant processes would be sufficient to cause distress or
discomfort to local residents. Normal precautions would be
taken at the WWTP to protect plant personnel.
Increased capacity and efficiency at the WWTP would enable
the plant to complete treatment and thus meet EPA effluent
standards. The potential for infection from pathogens in
sewage effluent and in aerosols at the plant, though small,
would continue unchanged.
Alternative 1 would not change the noise levels at the WWTP
during operation. High noise levels caused by construction
would occur only in the short term.
Hazards at the WWTP would increase during construction of
the lakefill and associated facilities but could be minimized
by normal safety precautions at the construction site. The
use of noxious chlorine gas as a disinfectant presents some
risk in transporting the gas, for an unexpected tank leakage,
either in transit or on-site, would endanger persons nearby.
Sulfur dioxide presents a similar risk.
VI- 103
-------
With respect to land use, Alternative 1 would create 12
acres of new land on which to stage additional facilities.
Alternative 1 also presents the option of lake-filling up to
18 more acres if the need for additional expansion occurs.
No new land would need to be acquired by the MMSD, but a
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the lake-
fill would be necessary. A Lake Bed Grant from the Wisconsin
Legislature would also be necessary. If a revetment wall is
placed around 30 acres (12 ha) instead of only the 12 acres
(5 ha) needed immediately, the required permit need only be
granted once. Similarly, the cost of enclosing 30 acres (12
ha) and filling 12 acres (5 ha) today would be less than
enclosing 12 acres (5 ha) now, tearing down the revetment
wall in the future, and re-enclosing the 12 acres (5 ha)
plus the additional 18 acres (7 ha) with a new revetment
wall. Construction of MMSD's recommended alternative would
employ approximately 165 persons during a 3.5 year construction
period (the amount of newly created employment is unknown).
Capital costs are estimated at $54.25 million for the liquid
treatment system (approximately 1/3 should be federally
funded), and O&M costs have been estimated to be $4.20
million in 1985, and $4.90 million in 2005. This brings the
recommended plan's total present worth to $102.95 million.
Table IV-7 gives the cost of the various elements of the
MMSD's Recommended Plan.
Resources consumed would be as follows:
430,000 cubic yards (329,000 m3 of fill for 12 (5 ha)
of the 30 acres (12 ha). This is refined from the
510,000 yd3 (380,000 m3) originally proposed.
33,000 cubic yards (25,000 m3) of concrete
36,000 cubic yards (275,000 m3) of stone and gravel
6,600 tons (6000 metric tons) of steel
• 700 tons (635 metric tons) per year of chlorine
• 350 tons (320 metric tons) per year of sulfur
dioxide
Energy consumed would be as follows:
• 302.1 billion BTUs (316 trillion joules) for construction
754.8 billion BTUs (790 trillion joules) per year for
operation
VI-104
-------
The only disruption of access to community facilities, urban
facilities, or residences would be attributed to traffic,
which would increase during the construction period. After
construction, transportation and access are expected to re-
turn to the present conditions, unchanged.
The effects of increased traffic during construction are
discussed more specifically under transportation and access
in this chapter. No consequences to transportation and
access are considered to be specific to Alternative 1 alone.
Chemical consumption for Alternative 1 would increase as
expansion occurs and as the average base flow through the
WWTP increases. Chemical consumption is projected to be
equivalent among all of the expansion alternatives (Table
IV-7). Chlorine disinfection would require up to 700 tons/year
(635 metric tons/yr) of chlorine gas and 350 tons/year (320
metric tons/year) of sulfur dioxide.
VI-105
-------
GLOSSARY
Abatement - The measures taken to reduce or eliminate
pollution.
Activated Sludge - Sludge floe produced in raw or settled
wastewater by the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other
organisms in the presence of dissolved oxygen and
accumulated in sufficient concentration by returning
floe previously formed.
Activated Sludge Process - A biological wastewater treatment
process in which a mixture of wastewater and activated
sludge is agitated and aerated. The activated sludge
is subsequently separated from the treated wastewater
(mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or returned
to the process as needed.
Aeration - The bringing about of intimate contact between
air and a liquid by one or more of the following methods:
(a) spraying the liquid in the air, (b) bubbling air
through the liquid, (c) agitating the liquid to promote
surface absorption of air.
Algae - General name for the chlorophyll-bearing organisms
in the plant subkingdon Thallobionta.
Algae Bloom - A heavy growth of algae in and on a body of
water as a result of high phosphate concentrations
from farm fertilizers and detergents.
Anaerobic Digestion - The degradation of organic matter
brought about through the action of microorganisms in
the absence of elemental oxygen.
Aquifer - A porous, water-bearing geologic formation. Generally
restricted to materials capable of yielding an appreciable
supply of water.
Average Flow - The average quantity of effluent which enters
the treatment system over a given time period. Usually
expressed as average daily flow.
Archaeologic Site - An area containing material remains of
the cultures of historical and prehistorical people.
-------
Baffles - Deflector vanes, guides, grids, gratings or similar
devices constructed or placed in flowing water, wastewater,
or slurry systems to check or effect a more uniform
distribution of velocities; absorb energy; divert,
guide, or agitate the liquids; and check eddies.
Bar Rack - A screen composed of parallel bars, either
vertical or inclined, placed in a waterway to catch
debris. The screenings may be raked from it. Also
called rack.
Benthos - Bottom-dwelling forms of marine or freshwater
life. Also known as bottom fauna.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand - A standard test used in assessing
wastewater strength. See BOD.
Biodegradation (biodegradability) - The destruction or
mineralization of either natural or synthetic organic
materials by the microorganisms populating soils,
natural bodies of water, or wastewater treatment
systems.
Biological Filter - A bed of sand, gravel, broken stone,
or other medium through which wastewater flows or
trickles that depends on biological action for its
effectiveness.
Biological Filtration - The process of passing a liquid
through the medium of a biological filter, thus
permitting contact with attached zoogleal films
that adsorb and absorb fine suspended, colloidal,
and dissolved solids and release end products of
biochemical action.
Biological Wastewater Treatment - Forms of wastewater
treatment in which bacterial or biochemical action
is intensified to stabilize, oxidize, and nitrify
the unstable organic matter present. Intermittent
sand filters, contact beds, trickling filters, and
activated sludge processes are examples.
Biota - Animal and plant life, or fauna and flora, of a
stream or other water body.
-------
Blinding - (1) Clogging of the filtering medium of a vacuum
filter. (2) The operation of covering drain tile, after
the tile has been installed in the trench, with loose,
mellow topsoil, coarse sand, or gravel, to provide
permeable soil in contact with the tile, to prevent
the tile from being moved out of alignment, and to
prevent breakage during trench backfilling.
BOD - (1) Abbreviation for biochemical oxygen damand. The
quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation
of organic matter in a specified time, at a specified
temperature, and under specified conditions. (2) A
standard test used in assessing wastewater strength.
BOD Load - The BOD content, usually expressed in pounds
per unit of time, of wastewater passing into a waste
treatment system or to a body of water.
Breakwater - A wall built into the sea to protect a shore
area, harbor, anchorage, or basin from the action of
waves.
Bypass - A flow relief device by which sanitary sewers
entering a lift station, pumping station, or sewage
treatment plant can discharge a portion or all of
their flow, by gravity, directly into a receiving
body of surface water to alleviate sewer surcharge;
also a flow relief device by which intercepting or
main sewers can discharge a portion or all of their
flow, by gravity, into a receiving body of surface
water to alleviate surcharging of intercepting or
main sewers.
Cadmium - A chemical element, symbol Cd, atomic number 48,
atomic weight 112.40.
Chlorination - The application of chlorine to water or
wastewater, generally for the purpose of disinfection,
but frequently for accomplishing other biological or
chemical results.
Chlorine - An element ordinarily existing as a greenish-
yellow gas about 2.5 times as heavy as air. At
atmospheric pressure and a temperature of -30.1°F,
the gas becomes an amber liquid about 1.5 times as
heavy as water. The chemical symbol of chlorine is
Cl, its atomic weight is 35.457, and its molecular
weight is 70.914.
Chlorine Contact Chamber - A detention basin provided primarily
to secure the diffusion of chlorine through the liquid.
Also called chlorination chamber.
-------
Chlorine Dioxide - An orange, water-soluble, unstable,
extremely explosive gas, CLO~. Used in water
treatment primarily to remove tastes and odors.
May also be used as a bleaching agent for wood
pulp, fats, oils.
Chromium - (Chemical) A metallic chemical element, symbol
Cr, atomic number 24, atomic weight 51.996. (Metal)
A blue-white, hard, brittle metal used in chrome
plating, in chromizing, and in many alloys.
Clarifer - A unit of which the primary purpose is to
secure clarification. Usually applied to sedimentation
tanks or basins.
Clarification - Any process or combination of processes the
primary purpose of which is to reduce the concentration
of suspended matter in a liquid.
Clear Water - Water entering the sanitary sewer system
through infiltration or inflow (I/I) is called clear
water. Clear water reduces the sewer system capacity
to carry sanitary sewage.
Coarse Rack - A rack with relatively wide spaces between
bars, usually of one inch or more.
Coarse Screen - A mesh or bar screen in which the openings
are greater than one inch in least dimension, except
in the case of racks. See coarse rack.
Coliform-group Bacteria - A group of bacteria predominantly
inhabiting the intestines of man or animal, but also
occasionally found elsewhere. It includes all aerobic
and facultative anaerobic, Gram-negative, non-spore-
forming bacilli that ferment lactose with production
of gas. Also included are all bacteria that produce
a dark, purplish-green colony with metallic sheen
by the membrane-filter technique used for coliform
identification. The two groups are not always identical,
but they are generally of equal sanitary significance.
Combined Available Chlorine - The concentration of chlorine
which is combined with ammonia as chloramine or as
other chloro derivitives, yet is still available to
oxidize organic matter.
Combined Available Residual Chlorine - That portion of the
total residual chlorine remaining in water or wastewater
at the end of a specified contact period which will
react chemically and biologically as chloramines or
organic chloramines.
-------
Combined Residual Chlorination - The application of chlorine
to water or wastewater to produce, with the natural
or added ammonia or with certain organic nitrogen
compounds, a combined chlorine residual.
Combined Sewer - A sewer intended to receive both waste-
water and storm or surface water.
Conditioning of Sludge - A process used to aid in releasing
liquid from sludges. It consists of treating the
sludges with various chemicals, subjecting them to
physical conditioning such as heating or cooling, or
processing them biologically.
Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines - Developed by EPA to aid
grantees in the selection of the waste treatment
management system component which will result in the
minimum total resources cost over a fixed period of
time to meet federal, state and local requirements.
Debt Service - The amount of money necessary annually: (a)
to pay the interest on outstanding debt; (b) to pay the
principal of maturing bonded debt not payable from a
sinking fund; or (c) to provide a fund for the
redemption of bonds payable from a sinking fund.
Dechlorination - The partial or complete reduction of
residual chlorine in a liquid by any chemical or
physical process.
Design Flow - The average quantity of wastewater which a
treatment facility is designed to handle, usually
expressed in millions of gallons per day (MGD).
Design Period - Time span over which wastewater treatment
facilities are expected to be operating; period over
which facility costs are amortized.
Disinfected Wastewater - Wastewater to which chlorine or other
disinfecting agents has been added, during or after
treatment, to destroy pathogenic organisms.
Disinfection - The art of killing the larger portion of micro-
organisms in or on a substance with the probability
that all pathogenic bacteria are killed by the agent
used.
Dissolved Oxygen - The oxygen dissolved in water, wastewater,
or other liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per
liter, parts per million, or percent of saturation.
Abbreviated DO.
-------
Dissolved Solids - Theoretically, the anhydrous residues of
the dissolved constituents in water. Actually, the
term is defined by the method used in determination.
In water and wastewater treatment the Standard Methods
tests are used.
Drawdown - (1) The magnitude of the change in surface
elevation of a body of water as a result of the with-
drawal of water therefrom. (2) The magnitude of the
lowering of the water surface in a well, and of the
water table or piezometric surface adjacent to the
well, resulting from the withdrawal of water from the
well by pumping. (3) In a continuous water surface
with accelerating flow, the difference in elevation
between downstream and upstream points.
Efficiency - The relative results obtained in any operation
in relation to the energy or effort required to achieve
such results. It is the ratio of the total output to
the total input, expressed as a percentage.
Effluent - (1) A liquid which flows out of a containing
space. (2) Wastewater or other liquid, partially or
completely treated, or in its natural state, flowing
out of a reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or industrial
treatment plant, or part thereof. (3) An outflowing
branch of a main stream or lake.
Effluent Limitations - The maximum amount of a pollutant that
a point source may discharge into a water body. They
may allow some or no discharge at all, depending on
the specific pollutant to be controlled and the water
quality standards established for the receiving waters.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A detailed analysis
of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed
project required when the EPA Regional Administrator
determines that a project is highly controversial or
may have significant adverse environmental effects.
Eutrophic Lake - Lake or other contained water body rich
in nutrient. Characterized by a large quantity of
planktonic algae, low water transparency with high
dissolved oxygen in upper layer, zero dissolved oxygen
in deep layers suring summer months, and large
organic deposits colored brown or black. Hydrogen
sulfide often present in water and deposits.
-------
Evaporator - (1) Apparatus in which a solution is converted
to a vapor and a more concentrated solution, with the
relatively pure vapor usually being condensed for reuse.
(2) Device in which saline water is boiled and the
vapors are collected and condensed to form a distilled
product water.
Exfiltration - The quantity of wastewater which leaks to
the surrounding ground through unintentional openings
in a sewer. Also, the process whereby this leaking
occurs.
Facility Plan - Preliminary plan developed during the first
step (Step 1) of the Three Step Construction Program.
The plan, based on an evaluation of various treatment
alternatives, must be both cost-effective and
politically acceptable.
Final sedimentation - The separation of solids from waste-
water in a final settling tank.
Fine Screen - A relative term, usually applied to screens
with openings of less than one inch, but in wastewater
treatment often reserved for openings that may be
1/16 inch.
Free Available Chlorine - The amount of chlorine available
as dissolved gas, hypochlorous acid, or hypochlorite
ion that is not combined with an amine or other organic
compound.
Free Available Residual Chlorine - That portion of the
total residual chlorine remaining in water or waste-
water at the end of a specified contact period which
will react chemically and biologically as hypochlorous
acid or hypochlorite ion.
Grit Chamber - A detention chamber or an enlargement of a
sewer designed to reduce the velocity of flow of the
liquid to permit the separation of mineral from
organic solids by differential sedimentation.
Grit Channel - (1) An enlargement in a sewer providing an
opportunity for the deposition of grit. (2) The
waterway of a grit chamber.
Groundwater - Subsurface water occupying the saturation zone
from which wells and springs are fed. In a strict sense,
the term applies only to water below the water table.
(APHA)
-------
Heavy Metals - A general name given to the ions of metallic
elements such as copper, zinc, iron, chromium and
aluminum. They are normally removed from wastewater
by the formation of an insoluble precipitate (usually
a metallic hydroxide).
Hydrocarbon - Any of the class of compounds consisting
solely of carbon and hydrogen.
Hydrology - The applied science concerned with the waters
of the earth in all their states—their occurrence,
distribution, and circulation through the unending
hydrologic cycle of precipitation, consequent runoff,
streamflow, infiltration, and storage, eventual
evaporation, and reprecipitation. It is concerned with
the physical, chemical, and physiological reactions
of water with the rest of the earth and its relation
to the life of the earth.
Industrial Cost Recovery - A provision in the 1972 FWPCA which
requires industries to pay back to the federal government
the extra capital costs that their discharges impose
on municipal treatment plants. (The 1977 Clean Water
Act established an 18-month moratorium on Industrial
Cost Recovery.)
Industrial Wastes - The liquid wastes from industrial
processes, as distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes.
Industrial Wastewater - Wastewater in which industrial wastes
predominate.
Infiltration - (1) The flow or movement of water through the
interstices or pores of a soil or other porous medium.
(2) The quantity of groundwater that leaks into a pipe
through joints, porous walls, or breaks. (3) The
entrance of water from the ground into a gallery. (4)
The absorption of liquid by the soil, either as it
falls as precipitation or from a stream flowing over
the surface.
Infiltration/Inflow - Total quantity of water entering a
sewer/system. Infiltration means entry through such
sources as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections
or manhole walls. Inflow signifies discharge into
the sewer system through service connections from
such sources as area or foundation drainage, springs
and swamps, storm waters, street wash waters, or sewers.
-------
Influent - Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into
a reservoir, basin, or treatment plant, or any unit
thereof.
Intercepting Sewer - A sewer that receives dry-weather
flow from a number of transverse sewers or outlets
and frequently additional predetermined quantities
of storm water (if from a combined system), and conducts
such waters to a point for treatment or disposal.
Interceptor - In plumbing, a receptacle or trap designed and
constructed to intercept, separate, and prevent the
passage of sand or other objectionable solids into
the drainage system to which it is directly or
indirectly connected. Also intercepting sewer,
regulator.
Lagoon - A pond containing raw or partially treated waste-
water in which aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs,
Lead - A chemical element, symbol Pb, atomic number 82,
atomic weight 207.19. A soft, heavy metal with a
silvery bluish color; used principally in alloys
in pipes, cable sheaths, type metal, and shields
against radioactivity.
Limnology - Scientific study of bodies of fresh water,
as lakes or ponds, with reference to their physical,
geographical, biological, and other features. More
recently extended to include streams.
Metropolitan Interceptor Sewers (MIS) - That portion of
the collection and transportation system which
receives wastewater from collector sewers for
conveyance to the point of treatment and are owned
and maintained by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District. An interceptor sewer is designed to have
a limited number of connections for receiving waste-
water from the collector sewer system.
Microorganism - Minute organism, either plant or animal,
invisible or barely visible to the naked eye.
Milorganite - A fertilizer and soil conditioner produced
by MMSD at their Jones Island WWTP.
Mixed Liquor - A mixture of activated sludge and organic
matter undergoing activated sludge treatment in the
aeration tanks.
-------
Non-Point Source Pollutants - Pollutions which do not enter
the water from any discernable, confined and discrete
conveyance but rather wash off, run off or seep from
broad areas of land.
Odor Control - (1) In water treatment, the elimination or
reduction of odors in a water supply by aeration,
algae elimination, superchlorination, activated
carbon treatment, and other methods. (2) In wastewater
treatment, the prevention or reduction of objectionable
odors by chlorination, aeration, or other processes
by masking with chemical aerosols.
Odor Threshold - The point at which, after successive
dilutions with odorless water, the odor of a water
sample can just be detected. The threshold odor
is expressed quantitatively by the number of times
the sample is diluted with odorless water.
Oligochaeta - A class of the phylum Annelida including
worms that exhibit both external and internal
segmentation, and setae which are not borne on parapodia.
Oligotrophic Lake - Lake or other contained water body poor
in nutrient. Characterized by low quantity of
planktonic algae, high water transparency with high
dissolved oxygen in upper layer, adequate dissolved
oxygen in deep layers, low organic deposits colored
shades of brown, and absence of hydrogen sulfide in
water and deposits
Organic Matter - Chemical substances of animal or vegetable
origin, or more correctly, of basically carbon structure,
comprising compounds consisting of hydrocarbons and
their derivatives.
Organic Nitrogen - Nitrogen combined in organic molecules
such as proteins, amines, and amino acids.
Oxygen Utilization - (1) The oxygen consumed or utilized
to support aerobic biological treatment processes.
(2) The oxygen used to support combustion in the
degradation of sludge by incineration or wet air
oxidation.
Ozone - Oxygen in molecular form with three atoms of oxygen
forming each molecule (0.,).
Outfall - The point or location where sewage or drainage
discharges from a sewer, drain or conduit.
-------
Parts Per Million (ppm) - Parts by weight in sewage analysis;
ppm by weight is equal to milligrams per liter divided
by the specific gravity. It should be noted that in
water analysis, ppm is always understood to imply a
weight/weight ration, even though in practice a volume
may be measured instead of a weight.
Pathogen - A disease-producing agent; usually refers to living
. organisms.
Peak Flow - The maximum volume of effluent expected to enter
a treatment system over a given time period. Treatment
systems are designed based on an estimate of the rate
of peak flow to average flow for different segments of
the system.
pH - The reciprocal of the logarithm of the hydrogen-ion
concentration. The concentration is the weight of
hydrogen ions, in grams, per liter of solution. Neutral
water, for example, has a pH value of 7 and a hydrogen-
ion concentration of 10
Pickle Liquor - Industrial waste product generated from the
pickling of ferrous metals, can be utilized to aid
in phosphorous removal.
Plankton - Passively floating or weakly motile aquatic
plants and animals.
Plume - Fan-like area of dispersion of effluent from treatment
plant outfall.
Point-Source Pollutants - Those that enter the water from
any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance, such
as a sewer pipe, culvert, tunnel or other channel.
Polychlorinated biphenyl - A colorless liquid used as an
insulating fluid in electrical equipment.
Polymer - A chemical compound or mixture of compounds formed
by polymerization and consisting essentially of repeating
structural units.
Primary Settling Tank - The first settling tank for the
removal of settleable soils through which wastewater
is passed in a treatment works.
-------
primary Sludge - Sludge obtained from a primary settling tank.
Primary Treatment - (1) The first major (sometimes the only)
treatment in a wastewater treatment works, usually
sedimentation. (2) The removal of a substantial
amount of suspended matter but little or no colloidal
and dissolved matter.
Putrescibility - (1) The relative tendency of organic matter
to undergo decomposition in the absence of oxygen. (2)
The susceptibility of wastewaters, effluent, or sludge
to putrefaction. (3) In water or wastewater analysis,
the stability of a polluted water or raw or partially
treated wastewater.
Raw Sludge - Settled sludge promptly removed from sedimentation
tanks before decomposition has much advanced. Frequently
referred to as undigested sludge.
Raw Wastewater - Wastewater before it receives any treatment.
Reaeration - The absorption of oxygen into water under
conditions of oxygen deficit.
Receiving Body of Water - A natural watercourse, lake, or
ocean into which treated or untreated wastewater is
discharged.
Sanitary Landfill - The engineered burial of refuse. Refuse
is dumped into trenches and compacted by a bulldozer.
Micro-organisms decompose the organic matter into stable
compounds. Moisture is essential for the biological
degradation. Except for when it fills air voids and
prevents aerobic metabolism, groundwater assists this
process.
Sanitary Sewers - Sewers that carry only domestic or
commercial sewage. Storm water runoff is carried in
a separate system. See sewer.
Sanitary Wastewater - Wastewater entering a collector
sewer and containing contaminants resulting from human
activity, primarily those generated by biological
functions.
Screened Debris - (1) Any material including floating trash,
suspended sediment or bed load, moved by a flowing
stream.
-------
Scum - A residue deposited on a container or channel at
the water surface.
Secondary Settling Tank - A tank through which effluent
from some prior treatment process flows for the purpose
of removing settleable solids.
Secondary Wastewater Treatment - The treatment of wastewater
by biological methods after primary treatment by
sedimentation.
Separate Sewer - A sewer intended to receive only waste-
water and not storm or surface water. Also called
sanitary sewer.
Septic Tank - A settling tank in which settled sludge is
in immediate contact with the wastewater flowing
through the tank and the organic solids are
decomposed by anaerobic bacterial action.
Service Area - The area which will be serviced by a
wastewater treatment system.
Service Life - The period of time between the date when a
physical unit of property was first put into service
new as a part of the property and the date when it
was retired, or is anticipated to be retired, from
service.
Sewage - Sewage refers to the wastewater flow from
residential, commercial, and industrial establishments
which flows through the pipes to a treatment plant.
Sewage Lagoon - A shallow body of water containing partially
treated sewage in which aerobic stabilization occurs.
Sewer - Sewer refers to the pipe, conduit, or other physical
facility used to carry off wastewater.
Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) - A systematic
examination of a sewer system which determines, for
each defined source of infiltration/inflow, a specific
location, quantity, method of rehabilitation and cost of
rehabilitation versus cost of transportation and
treatment. The elements in this program include flow
monitoring, manhole inspection, storm sewer flooding,
cleaning/internal inspection of the sanitary sewer
system and identification of all sources, if infiltration/
inflow.
-------
Sewerage - Sewerage refers to the system of sewers and
physical facilities employed to transport, treat,
and discharge sewage.
Siphons - A closed conduit, a portion of which lies above
the hydraulic grade line resulting in a pressure less
than atmospheric and requiring a vacuum within the
conduit to start flow. A siphon utilizes atmospheric
pressure to effect or increase the flow of water
through the conduit.
Sludge - (1) The accumulated solids separated from liquids,
such as water or wastewater, during processing, or deposits
on bottoms of streams or other bodies of water. (2) The
precipitate resulting from chemical treatment, coagulation,
or sedimentation of water or wastewater.
Sludge Dewatering - The process of removing a part of the
water in sludge by any method such as draining,
evaporation, pressing, vacuum filtration, centrifuging,
exhausting, passing between rollers, acid flotation,
or dissolved-air flotation with or without heat. It
involves reducing from a liquid to a spadable condition
rather than merely changing the density of the liquid
(concentration) on the one hand or drying (as in a kiln)
on the other.
Sludge Digestion - The process by which organic or volatile
matter in sludge is gasified, liquified, mineralized,
or converted into more stable organic matter through
the activities of either anaerobic or aerobic organisms.
Sludge Thickener - A tank or other equipment designed to
concentrate wastewater sludges.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) -
The advisory regional plan commission serving Milwaukee,
Ozaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Washington, Walworth and
Waukesha counties. The commission is made up of 21
commissioners, three from each of the seven counties.
SEWRPC is not a state agency.
Spatial - Of or pertaining to space; occurring in, or
conditioned by, space; relation to space.
Storm Water - The excess water running off from the surface
of a drainage area during and immediately after a
period of rain. It is that portion of the rainfall
and resulting surface flow that is in excess of that
which can be absorbed through the infiltration capacity
of the surface of the basin.
-------
Suspended Solids - (1) Solids that either float on the surface
of, or are in suspension in, water, wastewater, or other
liquids, and which are largely removable by laboratory
filtering. (2) The quantity of material removed
from wastewater in a laboratory test, as prescribed
in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater" and referred to as nonfilterable
residue.
Temporal - Pertaining to or limited by time.
Toxic - Relating to a harmful effect by a poisonous substance
on the human body by physical contact, ingestion, or
inhalation.
Toxin - Any of various poisonous substances, produced by
certain plant and animal cells, including bacterial
toxins, phytotoxins, and zootoxins.
User Charges - Fees levied upon users of a wastewater
treatment system based upon the volume and character-
istics of the waste.
Vacuum Filter - A filter consisting of a cylindrical drum
mounted on a horizontal axis, covered with a filter
cloth, and revolving with a partial submergence in
liquid. A vacuum is maintained under the cloth for
the larger part of a revolution to extract moisture.
The cake is scraped off continuously.
Water Quality Criteria - The levels of pollutants that
affect the suitability of water for a given use.
Generally, water use classification includes: public
water supply; recreation; propagation of fish and
other aquatic life; agricultural use and industrial use.
Zooglea - A jelly-like matrix developed by bacteria. A
major part of activated sludge floe and of trickling
filter slimes.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ADBF Average Daily Base Flow
AFP Advanced Facility Planning
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOD- Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BTU British Thermal Unit
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cl_ Chlorine
Cr Chromium
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CSSA Combined Sewer Service Area
DAF Dissolved Air Flotation
DATCP Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOA Department of Administration
DCD Department of City Development
DNR Department of Natural Resources
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ENR CCI Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index
EPA United States Environmental Protection
Agency
F/M Food to Mass ratio
-------
FNSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Association
HC1 Hydrochloric Acid
Hg Mercury
HPO High Purity Oxygen
H_S04 Sulfuric Acid
I/I Infiltration and Inflow
IJC International Joint Commission
JIFPE Jones Island Facility Plan Element
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MIS Metropolitan Intercepting Sewer
MMSD Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
MWPAP Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program
MWPAP-EIS Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement
for the Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement
Program
N Nitrogen
NAAQS Natural Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969)
NH Ammonia
NH.HSO. Ammonium Sulfate
NO- Nitrite
N03 Nitrate
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NR Natural Resources
-------
02 Oxygen
0., Ozone
0 & M Operation and Maintenance
P Phosphorus
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PR Planning Report
RAS Returned Activated Sludge
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor
SEWRPC Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission
SMSA Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
SS Suspended Solids
SSA Site Specific Analysis
SMFPE Solids Management Facility Plan Element
SSES Sewer System Evaluation and Survey
SSFPE South Shore Facility Plan Element
SURFACT Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) with
air activated sludge system, short for
Surface Active (proprietary name)
SWD Side Wall Depth
TOTP Total Phosphorus
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TPD Tons Per Day
TSM Total Solids Management
-------
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UC/ICR User Charge/Industrial Cost Recovery
WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WEPA Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (of 1972)
WEPCO Wisconsin Electric Power Company
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WPDES Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
WSP Wastewater System Plan
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Zn Zinc
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
Arthur, J.W., et al., "Comparative Toxicity of Sewage Effluent Disinfection
in Freshwater Aquatic Life," EPA 600/3-75-012 (1975).
Asbury, C. and Coler, R, "Toxicity of Dissolved Ozone to Fish Eggs
and Larvae," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 52,
p. 1990, July 1980.
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.
Brannon, et al., "Long-Term Release of Contaminants From Dredged
Material," OMRP Report #D-78-49, August 1978.
Burdick, J. Clement III, "Analysis of Oxygen Demand of Sediments,"
Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Dredging and Its
Environmental Effects, ASCE, January 1976, pp326-333.
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., 1978. Total Solids Management Program.
MMSD. Milwaukee, WI.
Choi, W. and Chen, K., "Associations of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons with
Fine Particles and Humic Substances in Nearshore Surfacial
Sediments, Environmental-Science and Technology, Volume 10,
Number 8, August 1976, pages 782-786.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 6, Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements.
, Part 35, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works - Construction
Grants Program.
, Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
, Part 761, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce and Use Prohibitions.
, Part 1500, Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements.
-------
Envirex, 1976. Lake Michigan Water Quality Surveys Conducted During
Summer and Fall of 1974. Envirex, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967. Lake Currents:
A Technical Report Containing Background Data for a Water
Pollution Control Program, Water Quality Investigations of the
Lake Michigan Basin. FWPCA, Washington, D.C.
, 1968. "Final Report on the Degree of Pollution of Bottom
Sediments in Milwaukee Harbor. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Gambrell, et al., "Physicochemical Parameters that Regulate
Mobilization and Immobilization of Toxic Heavy Metals," ASCE
Proceedings Dredging and Its Environmental Effects, page 415,
January 1976.
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers,
"Recommended Standards for Sewage Works,: 1978.
Hausmann, Paul Scott, 1974. The Benthic Microfauna of Milwaukee Harbor
and Adjacent Lake Michigan. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
M.S. Thesis, August 1974. 63 pp.
International Joint Commission. 1978. Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978. (Canada and the U.S.) IJC, Windsor, Ontario.
, 1978a. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great
Lakes System. Windsor, Ontario. 89 p.
, 1979. Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study. Volume 10:
Effects of Tributary Inputs on Lake Michigan During High Flows.
IJC, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Milwaukee Health Department. 1976. Beach, River and Harbor Pollution
Research. Plaintiff's Exhibit 149, Milwaukee Harbor Department,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. 1979. Harbor water quality
monitoring: unpublished data. MMSD, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program. 1979. Phase I and II:
Historic/Archaeological Inventory of the Jones Island Planning
Area. Report prepared for Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Facilities Plan - Environmental Assessment. Unpublished.
. 1979. Phase I: Inventory of the Jones Island Planning Area-.
Addendum - October 1979. Report prepared for the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Facilities Plan - Environmental
Assessment. Unpublished.
. 1980. Jones Island Facility Plan Element. MMSD, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
-------
. 1980. South Shore Facility Plan Element, MMSD, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
. 1980. Wastewater System Plan, MMSD, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
River and Harbor Act of 1899. 33.U.S.C. 401 et seg.
Roselund, B.D., "Disinfection of Hatchery Influent by Ozonation and
the Effects of Ozonated Water on Rainbow Trout." In "Aquatic
Application of Ozone" W. Blogoslawski and R. Rice (Eds)
International Ozone Institute, Syracuse, New York, 59 (1975) .
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 1974. A
Regional Sanitary Sewerage Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin.
Planning Report No. 16. SEWRPC, Waukesha, Wisconsin.
. 1975. A Regional Land Use Plan and a Regional Transportation
Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin—2000. Planning Report 25,
Volume 2: Alternative and Recommended Plans.
. 1979. A Retional Water Quality Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin—2000. Planning Report No. 30. SEWRPC,
Waukesha, Wisconsin.
. 1980. A Regional Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance
Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin—2000. Planning Report No. 28.
State of Wisconsin Circuit Court, Dane County, Case No. 152-342, The
Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee, Plaintiff, Metropolitan
Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee, Additional Plaintiff,
vs. State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Defendant.
Torrey, M.S., 1976. Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan Region.
Volume 3: Chemistry of Lake Michigan. Argonne National
Laboratory. ANL/ES-40. U.S. ERDA. Argonne, Illinois. 418 p.
Trussell, R.P., 1972. "The Percent Un-Ionized Ammonia in Aqueous
Ammonia Solutions at Different pH Levels and Temperatures."
Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Volume 29, No. 10.
U.S. Congress, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Pub. L. 95-95,
95th Congress.
, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. Pub. L. 95-217, 95th
Congress.
, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Pub. L. 92-500, 92nd Congress.
, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Publ. L. 91-190
as amended by Pub. L. 94-83, 94th Congress.
-------
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 77-2246,
People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, and People
of the State of Michigan, Intervening Plaintiff-Appelee, vs.
City of Milwaukee, The Sewerage Commission of the City of
Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the
County of Milwaukee, Defendant-Appellants.
U.S. Department of State. 1978. Agreement Between the United
States of America and Canada on Great Lakes Water Quality,
1978. U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, Case No. 72-C-1253, People of the State of Illinois,
ex. rel. William J. Scott, Attorney General of the State of
Michigan, vs. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; City of Kenosha,
Wisconsin, City of Racine, Wisconsin; City of South Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee
and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of
Milwaukee, Defendants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. "Areawide Assessment
Procedures Manual," 3 volumes; EPA-600/9-76-014.
, 1976a, Direct Environment/Factors at Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works, EPA Report No. 430/4-76-003.
, 1976b. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
"In Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater," Report No. EPA 625/1-72-008 (COE EMlllO-1-
501). October 1977.
. Region V. October 21, 1977 issuance to All Interested
Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens.
. Region V. March 23, 1978 issuance to All Interested
Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens.
. 1978. Lake Michigan Study: Some Preliminary Findings,
June 1978. Great Lakes National Program. EPA, Chicago,
Illinois.
. 1978a. "Health Implications of Sewage Treatment Facilities"
EPA-600/1-78-032.
. 1978b. "Health Effects of a Wastewater Treatment System"
EPA-600/1-78-062.
-------
. 1979. "Health Effects of Aerosols Emitted from an Activated
Sludge Plant." EPA-600/1-79-019.
. 1979a. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago O'Hare
Water Reclamation Plant, Des Plaines, Illinois, September 1979.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 17 January 1980 Letter to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Veith, G.D. and Lee, G.F, "PCB's in Fish from the Milwaukee Region"
Proceedings 14th Conference Great Lakes Research 1971, International
Association of Great Lakes Research.
Wesner, G.M., et al., "Energy Conservation in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment, EPA 430/9-77-011 (MCD-32) March 1978.
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR 102. Water Quality Standards
for Wisconsin Surface Waters.
, Chapter NR 103. Intrastate Waters - Uses and Designated
Standards.
, Chapter NR 110. Sewerage Systems.
, Chapter NR 150. Environmental Impact Procedures and
Preparation Fees.
, Chapter NR 210. Sewage Treatment Works.
Wisconsin Department of State Planning and Energy. April 1978.
Wisconsin Energy Use by County.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company. 1974. An environmental study
of the ecological effects of the thermal discharges from Point
Beach, Oak Creek, and Lakeside power plants on Lake Michigan.
WEPCO, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act of 1972, 1971 Assembly Bill
875, Chapter 274, April 28, 1972.
Wisconsin Water Pollution Control Laws of 1977, Chapter 147:
Pollution Discharge Elimination.
-------
r
' 5 1
;.c.om 167Q
------- |