FINAL REPORT
/•
ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
'ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGING WASTE WATER*
BY
RALPH STONE AND H. A. SMALL WOOD
CONTRACT NO. 68-01 -242
PROJECT OFFICER
TRUMAN PRICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
PREPARED FOR
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
MAY 1975
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was completed under EPA Contract No. 68-01-2429; the assistance of
Mr. Truman Price, EPA's Project Officer, Is gratefully acknowledged.
The study and report for this project were completed by Ralph Stone and Company.
Mr. Ralph Stone served as Project Director and Mr. Herbert Small wood served as
Project Coordinator. Other Ralph Stone and Company personnel making significant
contributions to the project were Albert Herson, John Pastor, Michael Klinger, Harry
Bowen, Shirley Lopilato, John East, Thuy-Tuan Huynh, Yung-Sheng Llao, Brooke
Stiling, and James Osborn. Valuable secretarial assistance was provided by Mrs.
Martha Lieberman, Miss Greta Wai I in, and Mrs. Ruth Michaels.
We gratefully acknowledge the anonymous evaluations of over 50 state, regional/ and
local officials, including planners, pollution control officials, and sanitary ^engineers
who were kind enough to provide their comments on and evaluations of the Corps of
Engineers' reports.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report- presents the results of an analysis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
reports considering alternatives for managing wastewater for four geographic regions:
Chicago-South End of Lake Michigan; Cleveland—Akron and Three Rivers Watershed;
Southeastern Michigan (including Detroit); and Codorus Creek (Pa.). The reports each
presented several regional wastewater management alternatives designed to meet the
"no discharge of critical pollutants" requirements of PL 92-500. Each report was ana-
lyzed for technical competence; assessment of economic, social, and environmental
impacts; and assessment of institutional and financial feasibility. The usefulness of
the reports was assessed for the facilities, areawide, and state continuing planning
programs required by PL 92-500.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS D
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ;;
ABSTRACT Mi
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS x
FOREWORD ' xi
CHAPTERS
I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 14
III INTRODUCTION . 16
IV METHODS USED TO EVALUATE THE CORPS OF s 27
ENGINEERS' REPORTS
V EVALUATION OF THE CHICAGO-SOUTH END OF 58
LAKE MICHIGAN REPORT
VI EVALUATION OF THE CLEVELAND-AKRON STUDY 102
VII EVALUATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN REPORT 142
VIII EVALUATION OF THE CODORUS CREEK REPORT 178
IX SUMMARY OF EVALUATIONS 209
X ULTIMATE USES OF THE REPORTS 224
XI REFERENCES 247
XII APPENDIX 253
Iv
-------
Pace
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
R@pr@t@ntatlv§ Advanced Biological Treatment Schematic 20
Representative Physical-Chemical Treatment Schematic 2]
Representative Land Application Treatment Schematic 2?
IV-1 Graph Used for Unit Cost Comparisons , 30
IV-2 . Relationship Between Total, Operating, and Capital Costs 54
V-1 C-SELM Study Area 59
V-2 Physical-Chemical Treatment System: C-SELM 62
V-3 Advanced Biological Treatment System: C-SELM 63
V-4 Land Treatment System: C-SELM 64
V-5 Comparison of Past, Present, and Predicted Populations: C-SELM 65
V-6 Comparison of Population Projections for C-SELM 66
V-7 Comparison of Unit Process Construction Cost Estimates 69
for C-SELM
V-8 Comparison of Unit Process Operation and Maintenance 70
Cost Estimates for C-SELM
V-9 Institutional Framework: C-SELM 93
VI-1 Cleveland-Akron Study Area 103
VI-2 Physical-Chemical Treatment System: Cleveland-Akron 105
VI-3 Advanced Biological Treatment System: Cleveland-Akron 106
VI-4 Land Treatment System: Cleveland-Akron / 107
VI-5 Comparison of Past, Present, and Predicted Populations: 109
Cleveland-Akron
VI-6 Comparison of Population Projections for Cleveland-Akron 110
VI-7 Comparison of Unit Process Construction Cost Estimates 112
for Cleveland-Akron
VI-8 Comparison of Unit Process Operation and Maintenance 113
Cost Estimates for Cleveland-Akron
VI-9 Institutional Framework: Cleveland-Akron 135
Vll-l Southeastern Michigan Study Area 143
VII-2 Land Treatment System: Southeastern Michigan 144
VII-3 Physical-Chemical Treatment System: Southeastern Michigan 145
VII-4 Advanced Biological Treatment System: Southeastern Michigan 146
VII-5 Comparison of Population Predictions for Southeastern Michigan 149
VII-6 Comparison of Past, Present, and Predicted Populations: '150
Southeastern Michigan .
VII-7 Comparison of Unit Process Construction Cost Estimates 151
for Southeastern Michigan
VII-8 Comparison of Unit Process Operation and Maintenance 152
Cost Estimates for Southeastern Michigan
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES (Cont.)
Figure
VII-9 Institutional Framework: Southeastern Michigan
Vlll-l Codorus Creek Study Area
VI11-2 Water-Based Treatment: Codorus Creek
VIII-3 Land Treatment System: Codorus Cre,ek
VIII-4 Comparison of Population Projections for Codorus Creek
VIII-5 Comparison of Unit Process Construction, Operation, and
Maintenance Cost Estimates for Codorus Creek
VIII-6 Institutional Framework: Codorus Creek 205
Xll-l Questionnaire Responses to Meaningful ness of Alternatives 264
XII-2 Questionnaire Responses to Nationwide Application 265
of Methodology
XII-3 Questionnaire Responses to Nationwide Application of Data 266
XII-4 Questionnaire Response to Differential Nationwide 267
Usefulness of Data Types
XII-5 Questionnaire Responses to Areawide Application 268
of General Methodology
XII-6 Questionnaire Response to Areawide Application of Data 269
XII-7 Questionnaire Responses to Differential Areawide 270
Usefulness of Data
XII-8 Questionnaire Responses to Scope of Studies 271
XII-9 Questionnaire Responses to Usefulness of Reports 272
to Different Agencies
XII-10 Questionnaire Responses to Coordination of Plans 273
with Different Agencies
Table
Elements of Cost Specified by EPA Planning Guidelines 33
Economic Impact Evaluation Matrix 34
Evaluation Criteria for Economic Impact Analyses 36
Evaluation Criteria for Socio-Environmental Impact Analyses 42
Socio-Environmental Evaluation Matrix 47
Methods of Local Adaptation to Areawide Wastewater 52
Management Needs
V-l Summary of Alternative Plans: C-SELM. 60
V-2 Flow Data for C-SELM 67
V-3 Total Costs of Alternatives Per MG 68
V-4 Comparison of Resources Required and Residual Wastes 73
for Wostewater Treatment Methods; C-SELM
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES (Cont.)
Page
Comparison of Resources Required and Residual Wastes for 76
Alternative Plans: C-SELM
V-6 Costs of Alternative Plans: C-SELM 77
V-7 Land Requirements of Alternative Plans: C-SELM 79
V-8 Comparison of Costs for Wastewater Treatment: C-SELM 79
V-9 Economic Impact Evaluation Matrix: C-SELM 81
V-10 Comparison of Selected Economic Impacts of Alternative Plans: 82
C-SELM
V-ll Average Annual Cost of Alternatives: C-SELM 84
V-12 Socio-Environmental Evaluation Matrix: C-SELM 85
V-13 1971 Borrowing Margin: Illinois 97
V-14 1971 Borrowing Margin: Indiana 99
V-15 Illinois: Water Pollution Control Referenda 100
V-16 Indiana: Water Pollution Control Referenda 101
VI-1 Summary of Alternatives: Cleveland-Akron 104
VI-2 Comparison of Wastewater Flow Data from Report Sources 107
VI-3 Comparison of Resources Required and Residual Wastes 117
for Alternative Plans: Cleveland-Akron
VI-4 Costs of Alternative Plans: Cleveland-Akron 118
VI-5 Land Requirements of Alternative Plans: Cleveland-Akron 120
VI-6 Comparison of Costs for Alternative Plans Using Three 121
Computation Methods: Cleveland-Akron
VI-7 Economic Impact Evaluation Matrix: Cleveland-Akron 123
VI-8 Comparison of Selected Economic Impacts of Alternative Plans: 124
Cleveland-Akron
VI-9 Annual Per Capita Costs: Cleveland-Akron 126
VI-10 Estimated Potential County Tax Revenue Loss Associated with 127
Land Treatment of Wastewater
Vl-ll Socio-Environmental Evaluation Matrix: Cleveland-Akron 129
VI-12 Ohio: Water Pollution Control Referenda 140
VI-13 1971 Borrowing Margin: Ohio 141
Vll-l Summary of Alternatives: Southeastern Michigan 147
VII-2 Comparison of Resources Required and Residual Wastes 155
for Alternative Plans: Southeastern Michigan
VII-3 Costs of Alternative Plans: Southeastern Michigan 157
VII-4 Land Requirements of Alternative Plans: Southeastern Michigan 158
VII-5 Comparisons of Costs for Wastewater Treatment for the . 160
Southeastern Michigan Study Area
VII-6 Economic Rating Criteria of Alternatives: Southeastern Michigan 161
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES (Cont.)
Table
Economic Impact Evaluation Matrix: Southeastern Michigan
Socio-Environmental Evaluation Matrjx: Southeastern Michigan
Michigan Water Pollution Control Referenda
VIII-1 Summary of Alternative Plans: Codorus Creek 180
VIII-2 Comparison of Changes in Wastewater Flow and Population 185
Growth: Codorus Creek
VI11-3 Comparison of Resources Required and Residual Wastes 189
for Alternative Plans: Codorus Creek
VIII-4 Costs of Alternative Plans: Codorus Creek 190
VIII-5 Cost Estimate - Reuse Option: Codorus Creek 192
VIII-6 Land Requirements of Alternative Plans,: Codorus Creek 193
VIII-7 Comparison of Costs for Alternative Plans Using Three 194
Computation Methods: Codorus Creek
VIII-8 Economic Impact Evaluation Matrix: Codorus Creek 196
VII1-9 Comparison of Employment Requirements in Construction: 198
Codorus Creek
VIII-10 Socio-Environmental Evaluation Matrix: Codorus Creek 200
Vlll-ll Pennsylvania Water Pollution Control Referenda 208
IX-1 Summary Technical Evaluations 210
IX-2 Comparison of NDCP-Plan Per Capita Costs, Resource 211
Requirements, and Residual Wastes Among the Four Studies
IX-3 Summary Evaluations: Economic Impacts of Alternatives 215
IX-4 Summary Evaluations: Socio-Environmental Impacts of 217
Wastewater Treatment Components of Alternatives
IX-5 Summary Evaluations: Socio-Envf ronmenral Impacts 218
of Sludge Disposal Components of Alternatives
X-l Waste Management Alternatives Listed by EPA Planning Guide- .226
lines
X-2 Environmental Evaluation Requirements of EPA Facilities 229
Planning Guidelines
X-3 Uncertainty in Report Data as it Affects Areawide 236
Decision-Making
X-4 Summary of Questionnaire Results 243
Xll-l Confidential Evaluation Questionnaire -U.S. Army Corps 254
of Engineers' Alternatives for Managing Wastewater Reports;
General Applicability and Usefulness
XII-2 Comments on Alternatives that Should Have Been Considered '257
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES (Cont.)
Table Page
XII-3 Comments on Feasibility of Applying Reports' General 258
Methodology Nationally
XII-4 Comments on Feasibility of Applying Reports'General 259
Methodology to Specific Study Area
XII-5 General Comments on Reports 260
XII-6 Legend for Figures XI1-1 Through XII-10 263
IX
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AWT
BOD5
COD
C-SELM
FWPCA
GPCD
IPCT
MBAS
mg
MG
MGD
NDCP
O&M
PL
STORET
advanced wastewater treatment
five-day biochemical oxygen demand
chemical oxygen demand
Chicago - South End of Lake Michigan
i
Federql Water Pollution Control Administration
gallons per capita-day
independent physical-chemical treatment
methyjene blue active substance
milligrams
million gallons
million gallons per day
no discharge of critical pollutants
operation and maintenance
public law
Systems for Technical Data
(from SJOrage and RETrleval)
-------
FOREWORD
Before presenting the evaluation of the Corps of Engineers' wastewater management
plans for the four study areas included in this report, we wish to emphasize the extreme
complexity of an undertaking such as the Corps of Engineers'. It is quite a difficult task
to construct areawide plans which include consideration of all technical, social, econom-
ic, and environmental consequences which are acceptable to the central business
district, suburban arid nurcil res?dents,and which provide for domestic and industrial needs.
To our knowledge these wastewater management plans are the first of their kind to be
formulated on such a scale. And being first, they most likely will be received with
more criticism than acclaim by the variety of interest groups affected by them. In our
evaluation, we have attempted to be neither overly laudatory, nor overly critical.
We have attempted to make all evaluations impartially and objectively,
although some conclusions must necessarily be of a subjective nature.
Among the subjective observations, perhaps the two most evident relate to report
organization and the clarity of supporting data. These two considerations have a direct
bearing on the efforts the study area must make to evaluate intelligently the proposed
alternatives. In making our evaluation, we often found it difficult to locate data in the
various appendices to support the Summary Report presentations. Sometimes the support-
ing data conflicted with those appearing in the Summary Report, and very occasionally
it appeared in contradictory form in more than one place. The total effect is to leave
the evaluator with doubts: supporting data may be included, it may not be included
but may have been considered, or it just may not have been considered. Our evalua-
tions are, therefore, at all times qualified by our ability (or lack of it) to find data
within the reports.
Also, considerable emphasis has been placed on the impacts and feasibility of implement-
ing land treatment of wastewater on a regional level, perhaps more so than for water-
based treatment. Although this is only one of the treatment alternatives offered by the
Corps of Engineers in their studies, the emphasis on land treatment was felt necessary
due to both the relative newness of the concept as applied on a regional scale within
the United States and to the documented opposition of the residents of system-required
land sites.
Lastly, we have attempted at all times to state criteria and standards explicitly for
judgments made during the course of reviewing the wastewnter management studies.
Chapter IV of this report ("Evaluation Methods") describes in detail how and why specific
evaluations were made. In this way, readers of this evaluation can be made
aware of the process by which judgments were made and conclusions reached.
xf
-------
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following Findings are organized according to the six objectives addressed in the
present study.
Objective 1; Identification of critical assumptions and uncertainties appearing in the
reports and the effect of these on the validity of the reports.
C-SELM. The population projections presented in the C-SELM report were somewhat
high in the early years when compared with projections made using recommended fertility
rates. The figures were mid-range estimates compared to fertility rate projections for
the year 2020. Since the lower limit of these projections approximates present growth
rates, the mid-range value may still be excessive.
Wastewater flow rates were geared to the reports' estimates of population and industrial
growth changes. However, both the predicted reduction in industrial discharges and
the predicted constancy of storm water runoff with increasing urbanization between the
present and 1990 are questionable.
The geology and soils presentation did not present enough specific information either to
assure the plans could be executed without unforeseen problems or to evaluate the ones
that can be foreseen. Much more work will be required here to complete the plans. If
sufficient land area is difficult to obtain for treatment of wastewater effluent, the use
of spreading basins in lieu of irrigation should be considered.
Selection of systems and processes was not fully explained, and the case for regional
collection, treatment, and disposal systems in the C-SELM area was not proven. The
costs of transmission lines for collection and disposal of effluent often comprise the
majority of the cost of a total system. More consideration should be given to upstream
reclamation treatment in a regional plan as a means for reducing the transportation costs,
or at least reasons presented for not doing so. The treatment processes did not seem
capable of achieving the anticipated reduction in total dissolved solids; also, the physi-
cal aspect of the treatment processes required more complete description.
For the plans to meet the no discharge of critical pollutants (NDCP) objective, per capi-
ta resource requirements were calculated as 1.36 - 1.58 Ib per capita-day, and per
capita residual waste to be 0.99 - 1.68 Ib per capita-day. Per capita resource require-
ments were much higher for C-SELM NDCP plans than plans for other study areas.
Cleveland-Akron. Population projections presented in the report were somewhat higher
than those obtained by methods using recommended fertility rate estimates.
Anticipated wastewater flow rates appeared contradictory in several places and were,
therefore, difficult to establish. An unusual balance between municipal and industrial
-------
flow quantities also left the impression that further verification of flow rates may be
needed. As in the C-SELM report, regional management seemed to have been con-
sidered equivalent to regional treatment, and adequate consideration apparently was
not given to upstream treatment and reuse as a means of reducing transportation costs.
It was not indicated whether this alternative was consciously eliminated during the
evaluation process.
The soils and geology presentation was generally good, but incomplete. Differences
between data in the Summary Report and in supporting appendices need reconciling .
Further investigation will also be required to assure that report objectives can be '
achieved. Consideration should be give^n to the use of spreading basins for land treat-
ment of effluents to reduce the land requirements.
It was not evident from the report whether or not the selection process for management
plans had considered all relevant alternatives with respect to plant siting and sizef
collection system requirements, and disposition of the treated effluent. Minor rearrange-
ments of unit processes might improve plant operation, but the necessary elements were
not included.
Per capita residual wastes, 0.56 - 0.69 Ib per capita-day, were about half those for the
Chicago - Detroit areas, while the per capita resource requirements, 0.67 - 0.75
Ib per capita-day, were slightly less than1 for the Detroit area but half as large as
Chicago's.
Southeastern Michigan. Population projections presented In the report were essentially
the same as the highest predictions made by using fertility rate projections. The pre-
dicted population in 2020 was 47 percent Higher than that which would be achieved at
present growth rates. •
Wastewater flow rate predictions were generally adequate; however, estimated flows of
stormwater runoff did not reflect the increasing urbanization implied by the population
projections.
The supporting data for the soils and geology investigation were good, but it is not clear
if this information was fully considered in formulating the proposed plans. This may be a
matter of presentation and the fact that the plan formulation requires additional, specific
information prior to implementation. Use of' spreading basins for land treatment should be
considered,as should upstream treatment (in a regional plan) to reduce transportation costs.
Description of the collection, treatment, ana1 distribution systems needs further clarifica-
tion. It is difficult to determine which plants are included In each plan/ what the per-
tinent data are, and therefore what the anticipated Impacts of each plan are. Again,
algae and weed problems can be anticipated with the proposed system for treatment prior
to the proposed land application.
Residual wastes per capita, 1.37 Ib per capita day, were approximately the same as for
the Chicago area, but nearly twice those for the Cleveland area. Resources requirements
-------
were approximately twice those of the Chicago area, but nearly the same as for
Cleveland.
Codorus Creek. Population figures were higher than normally expected by projecting
from current trends, although there is the opportunity to adjust the physical facilities to
suit the area's needs within a controlled range of population sizes.
Although estimated flow rates differed markedly from rates which the given population
figures would usually produce, they may have been accurate. The evaluation discussed
several influences on flow rate other than populotion,but the discrepancy remained
large enough to warrant further investigation.
The soils and geology presentation had omissions relating to the needs for and suitability
of land treatment for Codorus Creek. The physical processes are conventional and proven
when used either separately or combined. In the proposed combinations they raise the
same questions as the selected processes for the other study areas. In general, the geo-
logical and biological impacts of all treatment methods need further Investigation. Ex-
pected algae blooms from land treatment, sludge dewatering for land application, and
spreading basins for effluent treatment need further consideration.
Estimates for per capita resource requirements and residual waste are both substantially
lower than for the other study areas. Although these areas are not directly comparable,
comparisons can be used as a partial basis for the detection of errors or omissions.
Assumptions Common to the Four Studies. Many assumptions are common to the
four reports and are often implicit or unstated. Changing political, social, and economic
conditions between the time of report preparation and the time when wastewater manage-
ment decisions must be made may result in different sets of assumptions being adopted.
For this reason, assumptions and uncertainties which are generally common to all the reports,
and which are of questionable validity, are summarized below.
Technical
• Population will increase at a higher rate than would be predicted
from current fertility rates.
• There will be minor increases in per capita flows in spite of encourage-
ment to employ water-saving devices.
• Significant (in some cases) reductions will occur in industrial wastewater
flows due to increasing industrial reuse.
• Regional wastewater management requires regional systems,
-------
Economic
There will be no significant change In interest rates Tn the future.
Economic life can be established for an entire treatment system Without
weighting the components; a 50-year economic life for an entire system
is realistic.
Total system costs rather than changes in present costs will form the basis
for decision-making.
Revenues produced from wastewqter treatment will be negligible.
Economies of scale are Inherent with regionalized wastewater treatment,
which Is a generally desirable objective.
Land application of effluent will result In increased agricultural productivity.
Wastewater management practices will not affect long-term economic
growth and Industrial siting decisions.
The costs of resources will Increpse at the same rate as other system costs.
Environmental and Social
Environmental impacts are more important from wastewater treatment
technologies than from sludge disposal alternatives or siting and size
of collection and conveyance lines.
A large market will exist in the future for reclaimed wastewater.
Structural measures are the only feasible method for controlling non-point
sources of water pollution.
Lands designated as open space due to land application of effluent and
sludge are being put to a desirable use.
Potential recreational land creqted by alternatives will in fact be deve-
loped for recreational use.
Education of rural residents and improved public relations strategies will
lessen local opposition to land application of effluent.
Feasibility
NDCP alternatives are Institutionally and financially feasible. (Alten
natively, institutional and financing changes suggested Tn the reports
for implementing NDCP alternative? are feasible,)
-------
• Leasing arrangements with rural residents for land application of
effluent are feasible.
• Agreements with owners of strip-mined lands for sludge disposal
are feasible.
• Local governments will sacrifice local goals for regional objectives.
• Institutions operate to the limits of their statutory authority rather than
through the political process.
• Regional wastewater management is inseparable from regionalized waste-
water treatment.
Objective 2; Analysis of the methods used to estimate costs and the reliability of these
estimates.
C-SELM. The cost estimates for the C-SELM report used an annual interest rate of 5.5
percent, ?n contrast to the EPA-recommended 7 percent. All system components were
assumed to have a service life of 50 years, which appears high. Costs were not included
for modification of existing facilities, abandoning existing plants, interest foregone dur-
ing construction, and salvage value of proposed facilities. Alternatives II, IV, and V
Involved the leasing of large tracts of land, the former for disposal of physical-chemical
sludge and the latter two for land treatment; leasing arrangements of this magnitude may
be difficult to Implement due to opposition of rural residents and difficulty In management
of facilities. Annual per capita costs of the NDCP plans were between$63 and $82.*
Report estimates of unit process costs were as much as 30 percent higher than estimates
from independent sources for construction costs and from 20 to 40 percent lower for
operating and maintenance costs. Costs per million gallons of wastewater treated
differed between the Summary Report and Appendix D, but those from the former seem
to be in the range of values one might expect. However, the financial Impact on the
individual would be more comprehensible to the public if these values were expressed
as cost per capita-year and compared with present costs.
Cleveland-Akron. The Cleveland-Akron report generally followed EPA facilities plan-
ning guidelines for interest rates (7 percent) and service lives of system components.
Interest foregone during construction was excluded from the cost estimates, as was po-
tential revenue from any of the alternatives. The reports noted that land cost estimates
were probably unreliable. Land for effluent and sludge application was assumed to be
purchased rather than leased (even though the latter method was preferred by the Corps
of Engineers) to arrive at a conservative cost estimate. The assumption of purchased
land would, In fact, result in a conservative estimate of capital costs, but a low estimate
of annual operating costs. Payments to local governments In lieu of taxes were not in-
cluded In the estimate of costs for purchased land. Annual per capita costs of the NDCP
* Per capita costs in this evaluation were calculated assuming 100 percent financing by
local residents. The reasons for this assumption are discussed in Chapters V-VIII.
5
-------
plans were between $76 and $82.
Unit process costs seemed reasonable when compared with estimates made from other
sources, but the treatment costs per mil I* op gallons were unusually high. Since costs
expressed Tn dollars per capita-year were not excessive/ the Impression that flow rates
may be In error Is -strengthened.
Southeastern Michigan. The Southeastern Michigan cost estimates used a 5.5 percept
interest rate (except for unit treatment processes, which used 7 percent) and a uniform
service life of 50 years. These estimates are lower and higher, respectively, than those
recommended in EPA facilities planning guidelines. Excluded from the cost estimates
were land costs for treatment plants locatecj at Detroit, Wyandotte, and Monroe; revenue
produced by facility operation (which was assumed equal to cost of production); and
interest foregone during construction. Land costs were difficult to find In the report,
and it was difficult to determine if local governments were to be compensated for lost
property taxes upon purchase of system-required land. Annual per capita cost of the
plans was between $60 and $63, with a narrower range and lower absolute value
than per capita cost for the C-SELM and Cf eve land-Akron NDCP plans.
Costs for unit processes appeared reasonable, but treatment costs per million gallons
appeared high. This may have been due to error in flow rate estimates.
Codorus Creek. The cost estimates for the Codorus Creek study employed a 6 percept
interest rate and uniform 50-year service life for facility components; these estimates
are lower and higher, respectively, than figures recommended by EPA facilities planning
guidelines. Costs were not included for interest foregone during construction and
revenues produced from facility operations. Costs for land to be purchased for land
treatment of effluent did not seem to Include payments to local governments in lieu of
taxes. Per capita annual costs, ranging from $19 - $22 for the NDCP plan, were only a
third of the values for NDCP plan In other areas;thls appears to be a significant dis-
crepancy. '
Cost figures for unit processes seemed to average out, with capital cost being lower
and operating and maintenance cost higher than those estimated on the basis of other
information. However, If population and fjow rate estimates are high, the unit costs
will then be estimated at a lower value and per capita costs much lower than those
actually incurred. Estimated unit costs (per million gallons and per capita) were con-
siderably lower than for the other study areas and for comparable, presently operating
systems, which makes their accuracy questipnable.
Objective 3; Determination of the adequacy of the social and en^Ironmentoj Impact
analyses appearing In the reports.
C-SELM. The matrix methods used to evaluate social and environmental Impacts were
the most sophisticated and comprehensive of the four studies. Of the environmental Impacts,
impacts on surface and groundwater, water reuse, land reclamation, resource consump-
tion, and air quality were generally evaluated adequately. Key assumptions made in
-------
the environmental impact analysis were that 4.5 inches of effluent per week could be
applied to agricultural land, that a readily available market (e.g., power generation)
exists for directly-reclaimed effluent, and that conveyance of effluent through unlined
deep tunnels would have no substantial effect on groundwater and geology. In addition
to the verification of these assumptions, further analysis is needed of impacts on specific
populations of terrestrial and aquatic life, on short and long-term impacts on land use
in the C-SELM area other than direct effects on system-required lands, and
on total environmental impact of proposed collection and conveyance systems.
Analysis of social impacts was the best of the four reports, partly due to the translation
of (primary) environmental impacts to (secondary) human impacts via a matrix transforma-
tion. This analysis appeared in an evaluation appendix, but much of the information
was omitted from the Summary Report. Impacts on community cohesion, special interest
groups, recreation, and aesthetics were all evaluated adequately in Appendix E. Key
assumptions that may not be valid were that implementation of land treatment will result in
increases in recreational opportunities and that advanced-biological and physical-chemical
treatment technologies will eliminate adverse effects of toxic substances and pathogens
contained in wastewater. In addition to investigating these assumptions, further work is
needed to establish the recreational demand in the C-SELM area and to locate proposed
recreational facilities where this demand is high.
Of the economic impacts, resource consumption and financial effects were adequately
evaluated. Questionable assumptions made in the economic impact analyses were that
application of sludge and effluent will increase productivity of agricultural land and
that displaced rural residents may be employed as treatment plant operators. Further
analysis is also needed of possible negative impacts on land values and positive impacts
on industrial development.
Cleveland-Akron. The methods used to assess environmental impacts of alternative plans
for Cleveland-Akron generally avoided quantification of impacts; when scores were
assigned to particular impacts, the scaling system failed to differentiate negative impacts
(of varying magnitudes) from neutral impacts. In general, impacts on surface and ground-
water, aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna, water reuse, land reclamation, and resource
consumption were evaluated adequately in either the Summary Report or the evaluation
appendices. Key assumptions made were that implementation of NDCP alternatives in
the Cleveland-Akron area alone will lead to an improvement in the quality of Lake Erie,
that no adverse changes in soil chemistry will occur due to land application of effluent
and sludge, and that water and wastewater policy will have little effect on the distri-
bution of population and industry within the study area. Aside from investigation of
these assumptions, additional topics needing further work are the impact of sludge appli-
cation to land on aquatic flora and fauna, impacts of land application of effluent on
terrestrial flora and fauna, and determination of the short and long-term land use impacts
of alternative plans.
-------
Of the social impacts Tn the Cleveland-Akron report,Impacts on community cohesion,
specfal interest groups, and recreation were generally covered well. . Key assumptions
made were that construction of wastewater management facilities would have no adverse
visual effects and that heavy metals in wastewater would not be an environmental problem
following advanced biological or physical-chemical treatment. In addition to invest!^
gating these assumptions, further work Is needed to Investigate the Impacts of alterna-
tive plan components and to assess the potential pathogen hazard posed by land appli-
cation of sludge.
Of the economic impacts, impacts on resourcp consumption, financial impacts, and i
pacts on industrial productivity were evaluated adequately in either the Summary or
evaluation appendices. Questionable assumptions made in the economic impact analysis
were that application of effluent and sludge will result in Increased agricultural acti-
vity or reduced costs to farmers, and that payments to local governments In lieu of taxes
would not be necessary for purchased lands. In addition to investigation of these assump-
tions, areas needing further analysis are Impacts on land values and impacts of construc-
tion activities on employment.
Southeastern Michigan. The usefulness and usability of the report's social and envlron-
mental evaluation was limited because the vqrious analyses were scattered through
several appendices; also, many of the analyses were of interim rather than final plans.
In general, there was little detailed analysis of the environmental Impacts of sludge
disposal, either to agricultural land or landffllfng. Environmental Impacts of collec-
tion and conveyance lines required more consideration. Aside from the Impacts of
sludge disposal and collection and conveyance lines, environmental Impacts on surface
and groundwater, aquatic and terrestrial flora, and fauna, land use, and resource con-
sumption were evaluated adequately In either the Summary Report or appendices. A
key assumption was that creation of an unpoljuted water supply would have little effecf
on future economic growth. Topics needing further Investigation are the geological
problems associated with tunnel construction, the feasibility of using sewage sludge to
reclaim strip -mined and unproductive lands, fhe long-term land use Impacts of alternative
plans, quantification of air pollutant emissions from advanced biological and physical-
chemical plants, and detailed environmental assessments of sludge disposal alternatives
and construction of collection and conveyance lines.
The technique used for quantifying social Impacts was questionable and should be recoq-
sidered. Of the social Impacts, visual and olfactory aesthetics and pathogenic hazards,
were adequately evaluated In the Summary Report or evaluation appendices. Areas
needing further work are the Impacts of sludge disposal on community cohesion and rec*
reatlon, the Impacts of all components of alternatives on special Interest groups, and
the hazards from toxic substances following Icpd application of effluent and sludge.
In general, the economic impact analysis In the Southeastern Michigan report was conr
prehenslve and of high quality, although Its usefulness was hindered somewhat by the
-------
lack of Integration of information Tn various appendices. Impacts on agricultural pro-
ductivity, employment, resource consumption, land values, study area finances, and
industrial development were generally evaluated adequately in either the Summary Report
or evaluation appendices. A key assumption was that application of effluent to land will
result in increased agricultural productivity. Further investigation is needed to determine
whether labor demands can be met within the study area and whether the estimated impact
of construction activities on employment was too low.
Codorus Creek. The analysis of soc?o-environmental impacts of alternatives for Codorus
Creek was primarily descriptive. In general, Impacts of sludge disposal methods (land
application or incineration) needed more complete discussion. Aside from the environ-
mental impacts of sludge disposal, impacts on aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna,
water reuse, geology and soils, and long-term land use impacts were analyzed adequate-
ly. Key assumptions made and requiring further investigation were that runoff from land
application sites would not pose water quality problems, and that implementation of ad-
vanced biological and physical-chemical treatment would have little impact on land use
within the study area. More work is needed to determine the impact of collection and
conveyance lines on groundwater quality, the feasibility of employing sludge for reclama-
tion of strip-mined or other non-productive lands, the short and long-term impacts of the
location and size of sewers on land use, the air pollutant emissions generated by advanced
biological and physical-chemical treatment, and the resource implications of alternative
plans.
Of the social impacts, only the effects of alternative plan components on visual aes-
thetics were analyzed fully. A key assumption in the Summary was that land application
of effluent is not Inherently a positive or negative impact on community cohesion. In
addition to investigating (and probably revising) the latter assumption, further analysis
is needed of the effects of sludge disposal on community cohesion, the impacts of alter-
natives on special interest groups in the Basin, the impacts of sludge disposal on recrea-
tion, the impacts of water-based treatment and sludge disposal on olfactory aesthetics,
the impact of the alternatives on hazards due to toxic substances, and the influences
of sludge disposal practices on pathogen hazards.
Of the economic impacts, impacts on agricultural productivity, manpower and employ-
ment, and industrial production were evaluated adequately in the appendices to the
Codorus Creek report. Key assumptions were that application of effluent to land will
increase agricultural productivity and that no payments to local governments in lieu
of taxes from system-required land would be necessary. In addition to verifying these
assumptions, further analysis is needed of the impact of resources required by alterna-
tive plans on existing resource quantities and prices, and impacts of sludge disposal
on land values.
-------
Impact Analyses; General Observations. It is difficult to conqlude that the reports'
analyses of environmental, social and economic impacts of alternative plans were either
adequate or inadequate. One factor preventing this type of conclusion is that baseline
data for areas the size of those examined in the reports is often difficult or impossible to
obtain. A second such factor is the lack of historical precedent for implementing
centralized areawide wastewater treatment: much of the areawide impact analysis
appearing in the report has been performed for the first time.
Data limitations and the novelty of the proposals, however, dq not rule out the obser-
vation that within these limitations Improvements in the impact analyses can be made.
Foremost among these—in addition to suggested improvements in individual reports--
is the need for comprehehsive impact assessment. It may not hje necessary to include
rigorous matrix analyses, such as those included in the C-SELM Report,for these purposes,
but it is suggested that the first step in impact analysis should be a screening of all possible
environmental, social, and economic impacts of each plan's various components; after
review of the affected groups and the probability and reversibility of potential Impacts,
perhaps those judged particularly important could be selected for more detailed analysis.
Such a comprehensive assessment, which was attempted (with limited success) only in the
C-SELM report,can assure that no important impacts are omitted from the analysis and
can provide a more complete view of the complex trade-off decisions involved with each
plan. Trade-off decisions would be further aided by an explicit weighting of impacts
by plan evaluatbrs; weightings were sporadically assigned in the Corps of Engineers'
impact assessments.
A last general observation on the impact analyses is that the discussion of impacts often
changed between the time consultants reported their conclusions (in evaluation appendices)
and the time of writing of the Summary Report. Mostly, the Changes Involved omitting
findings of consultants (rather than modifying them) and the omissions sometimes caused
the NDCP plans to be seen in a more favorable light. A more complete and accurate
review of independent assessments of Impacts of alternative plans fn the Summary Report
would seem to be called for.
Objective 4; Assessment of the feasibility of Implementing p;roposed plans.
C-SELM. Of the C-SELM alternatives, it appears that Alternatives IV and V (involving
land treatment) would be the most difficult to implement, followed by Alternatives II,
III, and I. The substantial regionalization and centralization required to implement
all NDCP alternatives would meet strong institutional impediments. The high capital
costs of the NDCP alternatives may exceed the financial resources of area Institutions,
and the financial feasibility of implementing these alternatives Is questionable unless
a change in area financial priorities occurs,
Cleveland-Akron. Alternative C would be the most difficult to Implement due to sub-
stantial Institutional problems that would be encountered wljh the large-scale land'
application of effluent called for In this plan. Plans A-l and A-ll would probably
encounter less difficulty In that fewer Impacts on Institutions would occur. The financial
feasibility of Implementing the.NDCP alternatives Is questionable due to the high capital
costs involved. «
-------
Southeastern Michigan. Implementation of the plans Involving land treatment (Plans 2
and 3) would encounter significantly greater Institutional Impediments than would
Plan 1, especially In light of recently passed state legislation. The high capital
cost of all three NDCP alternatives make the financial feasibility of Implementing
each of them questionable unless a change *n area financial priorities occurs.
Codorus Creek. Of the four reports examined In this study, the Institutional feasibility
of Implementing NDCP alternatives Is perhaps greatest In the Codorus Creek Basin,due
to the relatively small number of political and Institutional entitles Involved. Of the
final plans, It appears that the December Plan would encounter the fewest Institutional
barriers, followed by the Basic and /Vbdlfled All Wafer Plans and the Basic and Modified
A|| Land Plans. The financial feasibility of Implementing alternative plans was not
analyzed In enough detail In the report to allow decisions between plans to be made;
the financial feasibility of Implementing the NDCP plans appears to be questionable
unless a change In areawlde financial priorities occurs.
Feasibility: General Observations. The NDCP alternatives proposed In each of the
reports are characterized by high initial and annual costs, large resource requirements,
certain Institutional drawbacks, and large volumes of residual wastes. It Is difficult
to carrry the financial feasibility analysis further than the conclusion that the NDCP
plans will be quite difficult to Implement unless: 1) areawlde Institutions exhibit more
cooperation than they have In the past; 2) (alternatively) new Institutions are created;
3) a major shift towards increased a I location of local funds to water pollution control
occurs. This, however, does not lead to the conclusion that achieving NDCP
goals will involve changes on this order. Rather, these factors suggest that more em-
phasis In areawlde wastewater management might, be put on controlling pollution at
Its source, I.e., on reducing wastewater volume and Increasing Its quality prior to
discharge.
The reports / extrapolating from present (best available) wastewater treatment technolo-
gy, assumed that the major pathway to achieving NDCP was the conventional one of
constructing large collection and distribution lines, storage facilities, and treatment
facilities. The assumption that regional management means regional collection and
treatment may have been part of the Corps' original charge, but the results indicate
that other alternatives need Increased consideration and analysis. One alternative,
formulating plans for controlling water pollution at its source,presents considerable ob-
stacles: areawide programs of this type have never been tested, and response of area
water quality to such controls is difficult to predict. Given the drawbacks of NDCP
alternatives proposed by the reports, however, perhaps renewed emphasis should be
given to strategies such as procedural options for controlling stormwater runoff, water
conservation measures, water-saving devices, land use controls,and Industrial pretreat-
ment and reuse of wastewater prior to final discharge to municipal systems.
11
-------
Objective 5: Determination of the degree to which objectives of the reports were met.
^.
The following set of general objectives reasonably summarizes those of the reports: to
devise technically-sound areawide wastewater management plans for urban areas capable
of achieving the objectives and requirements of PL 92^500; to evaluate these plans for
economic costs, socio-environmental costs, and implementation feasibility; and to mini-
mize in final plans economic and socio-environmental'costs and maximize implementa-
tion feasibility subject to achieving certain water quality related benefits.
In general, it can be concluded that the plans proposed were technically sound and would
be able to produce effluents of approximately the proposed quality. In addition, the
NDCP plans all proposed systems that would involve regional management of wastewater
(a requirement of Section 208 of PL 92-500); the NDCj> plans, however, further proposed
regional treatment of wastewater treatment in large centralized facilities. There seemed
to be some confusion between the concept of regional wastewater management and
regional wastewater treatment during plan formulation; the former does not necessarily
require the latter. ,
Although the NDCP plans in the reports, taken as a whole, would be generally success-
ful in meeting the PL 92-500 objectives of no discharge of critical pollutants and of
regional wastewater management, it can be concluded that they were only moderately
successful in accounting for economic and socio-envirqnmental costs and unsuccessful
in accounting for institutional and financial feasibility. Evaluation of economic and
socio-environmental costs was hindered by often-inadequate methodology and omissions
or vague discussions of important specific impacts. The, reports did not really meet their
objective of assessing the institutional and financial feasibility of implementing any of
the NDCP plans. Feasibility was not used as a criteriop by which alternative plans
were judged. Instead, the assumption implicit in the reports' institutional evaluations
was that implementation of any of the NDCP plans would be feasible.
The fact that the reports failed to optimize the feasibility of NDCP plan implementation
is a major shortcoming. The emphasis in the reports was on representativeness of plans:
the final plans were generally selected to be representative of the three wastewater
treatment technologies investigated—advanced biological, physical-chemical, and
land treatment. The use of representative plans was an informative procedure for
comparing these three treatment technologies, but ther^ was no visible attempt to
optimize each representative plan (perhaps distorting th^p relative advantages and
disadvantages of the three treatment technologies).
12
-------
Objective 6: Determination of the uses to which the reports might be out.
Two basic uses of the report may be distinguished ~ the implementation of various
plans proposed in the reports and the use of components of reports by interested
agencies. Based primarily on institutional, financial, and social impediments, it is
unlikely that any of the areawide waste water management plans based on the "no
discharge of critical pollutants" requirements of PL 92-500 can be implemented with-
out substantial modification. Institutional factors arguing against implementation of
the NDCP plans are that each study areas currently lacks the institutional capability
to implement the proposed plans and that creation of the necessary new institutions
and enabling legislation will be a difficult and time-consuming process involving the
resolution of local political issues mostly overlooked in the reports. Financial problems
with the areawide plans, simply stated, are that the NDCP plans appear to exceed the
ability and willingness of localities to contribute even 25 percent of the capital costs.
Lastly, social factors arguing against implementation of NDCP alternatives are that
home rule would have to be sacrificed to implement the proposed centralized treatment
schemes and that strong opposition by rural residents has been expressed against plans
involving significant facilities for land treatment of wastewater (these plans constitute
over 50 percent of all plans proposed in the reports).
Although it appears unlikely that any of the NDCP alternatives will be implemented
in any of the study areas without extensive modification, it is nevertheless true that
the reports will be useful for several aspects of ongoing and future wastewater manage-.
ment. Perhaps most importantly, the reports provide an indication of the massive amounts
of funds and resources necessary for the implementation of a fairly literal interpretation
of "no discharge of critical pollutants". It can be concluded that nationwide implementa-
tion of the NDCP goal will require placing water pollution control much higher on the
list of national priorities. Secondly, the report background data, and to a lesser ex-
tend the nature and effects of the proposed areaw'de plans, should prove useful for
areawide planning for metropolitan areas required by Section 208 of PL 92-500. Lastly,
the reports should prove to be valuable references for a variety of specific ongoing
wastewater management activities,partlcularly if their organization is improved. It
appears that technical/engineering data will be most useful to agencies within study
areas for their own activities, followed by environmental quality data; economic and
social data appear to be of limited usefulness.
13
-------
CHAPTER 11
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Corps of Engineers is currently in the preliminary stages of preparing wastewater
management studies for several urban areas other than the four discussed in this report.
It is hoped that the following recommendations will serve as inputs for increasing the
quality and usefulness of these future wastewater management planning efforts. Also,
since the Corps of Engineers' studies are closely related to the areawide planning
required by Section 208 of PL 92-500, it is hoped that the following recommendations!
where relevant to Section 208 planning, can also be useful to areawide wastewater
planning agencies.
Procedural Modifications.
It appears that there should be more centralized control over the content and analytic
methods of specific wastewater management reports. Jhe general guidelines issued by
the Office of the Chief of Engineers (Study Procedure; Wastewater Management Program,
May, 1972) were apparently not sufficiently detailed to assure consistently high quality
data gathering and analysis in the reports. This resulted in contradictions concerning
the feasibility and impacts of alternative wastewater management technologies among
the four studies.
The distinction between draft and final wastewater management reports should be in-
creased and the length of the final reports substantially reduced. The background
and evaluation appendices composing the bulk of the studies often refer to interim
plans and are less than relevant to evaluation of the final plans selected. There is a
general need for the background appendices to be "debugged," in terms of both errors
and omissions occurring in particular appendices and in resolving conflicting informa-
tion appearing in different appendices. In their present form, the usefulness of the
reports is reduced by their lack of organization and clarity and their excessive length.
I
Specific Modifications.
The range of alternatives selected as final plans should be expanded. The plans should
vary to a much greater degree along several dimensions: parameters that should be
varied include degree of centralization of treatment; degree of centralization of
management; sludge disposal alternatives; geographic location of treatment, sludge
disposal, and sewer lines; and greater control of discharges at their source. Attempts
should be made to optimize more systematically the final plans in terms of efficiency,
cost, impacts, and feasibility. Specifically, the following types of final alternatives
would increase the relevance of the reports: plans that involve regional wastewater
management, but not regional treatment; plans that leave open the possibility of large-
scale land treatment following successful demonstration In pilot facilities; plans that
are more closely related to expected population growth and development pressures; and
plans that are keyed to existing study area land use and water quality plans and objec-
tives.
14
-------
The methods of assessing social, environmental, and economic impacts of alternative
plans should be standardized and improved. A suggested methodology Is the use of
impact matrices along with detailed narrative descriptions of expected Impacts* Im-
pacts should be characterized by affected groups, their reversibility, and their proba-
bility of occurrence.
The Corps of Engineers' role in preparing planning studies should be more carefully
explained to the public and concerned local agencies to reduce their sometimes
irrational fears, emphasizing that the reports are feasibility studies of meeting PL
92-500 goals, and not of public works projects to be constructed in the near future
by the Corps of Engineers.
The available evidence indicates that the Corps of Engineers District Offices did not
work as closely with local institutions and local plans as desirable, as indicated, for
example, by the often negative and sometimes acerbic official comments on the
Southeastern Michigan and C-SELM reports by these Institutions. (A possible exception
Is the Cleveland-Akron report, where good cooperation was noted by relevant water
quality and waste water management agencies. Comments on the Codorus Creek study
were not compiled by the Corps of Engineers.) A closer relationship between the
Corps of Engineers and study are agencies appears to be a must If the studies are to be
fully used.
The institutional feasibility of interim alternatives needs to be better defined and to
serve as an important criterion for final plan selection. One of the major problems
with many of the final plans Is that they are not realistically implementable from
either a political or financial standpoint, unless there is a major shift in study area
priorities.
To make cost estimates for alternative plans more realistic, a 7 percent interest rate
and 20-30 year service life for treatment processes should be used. The cost estimates
would be more meaningful to study area decision-makers and residents if they were
expressed on a per capita basis (assuming the study area residents would be paying 100
percent of the capital costs) and then compared with appropriate current per capita
costs.
Before alternatives relying on large-scale applicaton of effluent and sludge to land
can be acceptable to study areas, it must be demonstrated that they are economically
competitive and environmentally sound. It is recommended that existing operations
be more closely monitored and that demonstration projects be Implemented in the near
future so that this determination can be made. These projects should be located in
geographic areas proposed In the reports and at the recommended application rates.
In the formulation of large-scale land application alternatives, the assumption that
large tracts of land can be leased from others appears unrealistic, and such plans
should include provisions for public purchase and operation of the required land and
payments to local governments in lieu of taxes foregone.
Greater emphasis should be placed on nonstructural measures for water pollution control.
This pertains especially to storm runoff, whose structural control by conventional land
or water-based treatment greatly inflates the total costs of alternative plans.
15
-------
CHAPTER III
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY.
This report presents the results of a study evaluating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
"Alternatives for Managing Wastewater" reports for four geographic regions. The
Corps of Engineers' reports, completed in 1973-1974, presented alternative regional
wastewater management plans. The main goal of these alternatives was compliance
with the requirements and objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). The four Corps of Engineers' reports examined in
the present study were for the regions of Detroit-Southeasterp Michigan; Cleveland-
Akron , Ohio; Chicago-South End of Lake Michigan; and Cpdorus Creek, Pennsylvania.
The Corps of Engineers' reports were evaluated from several standpoints: technical-
engineering, economic, socioenvironmentdl impact, institutional-financial, and
social feasibility. The specific objectives of this study were |x>:
1) Identify critical assumptions, uncertainties, and omissions in the reports and their
effects on report validity.
2) Analyze methods of determining capital and operating costs and assess the re-
liability of the cost estimates.
3) Evaluate the adequacy of the social, environmental, and economic impact
analyses appearing in the reports.
4) Assess the institutional, social, and financial feasibility of implementing
alternative plans.
5) Determine if the report objectives were met.
6) Determine the usefulness of the reports to the Environmental Protection Agency
and concerned state, regional, and local wastewater management planning and
regulatory agencies.
NATURE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' STUDIES.
Objectives.
In 1971, the Congressional Appropriations Committee authorized the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers to develop alternative plans for managing wastewater for five metropolitan
areas; San Francisco, Detroit, Boston, Chicago, and Cleveland. Also funded was a
more local study of wastewater management alternatives for Codoru^ Creek, Pennsylvania.
The draft reports, which were scheduled for review in late 1972, wfre issued In
mid-1973 due to delays from late 1971 to mid-1972 in receiving Congressional approval
to proceed with survey scope studies, and also due to adverse public opinion encounter-
ed with plans for land application of wastewater.
16
-------
The primary goal of the studies was to provide technical and planning assistance to
allow states to meet the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). This complex and far-reaching legislative act con-
tains many provisions concerning the control of water pollution; some of the provisions
that are most relevant to the Corps of Engineers' studies are reviewed below.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The goals of this law (PL 92-500) are to achieve by 1983 water clean enough for both
human body contact and the continued existence of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; these
goals further involve the elimination of the discharge of municipal and industrial point
source pollutants into the nation's waterways by July 1985. Pollutants to be controlled
under the Act include, but are not limited to: dredged soil; solid waste; incinerator
residue; sewage and sewage sludge; garbage; munitions; chemical wastes; biological
materials; radioactive materials; heat; wrecked or discarded equipment; rock, sand,
and dirt; and industrial, municipal, and agricultural wastes discharged to water.
Industrial Wastewater. The EPA has or will establish effluent limitations and perform-
ance standards for categories of major stationary industrial pollution sources. The EPA,
in accordance with FWPCA goals, has issued development documents for effluent
limitation guidelines listing the "best practicable" and "best available" technologies
for the control methods for meeting the 1977 and 1983 water quality standards for
industrial discharges to receiving waters. Existing stationary industrial sources dis-
charging pollutants to the nation's waters must use the "best practicable" control
technology by July 1977, and the "best available" by July 1983. New industrial
sources of pollution must use the "best available demonstrated control technology" by
May 1974. Where practicable, new industrial facilities may be discharged to a
municipal treatment plant, pretreatment will be required by July 1974 for new indus-
trial facilities, and by July 1976 for existing industrial facilities.
Municipal Wastewater. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
T972 require that new treatment plants approved before July 1974 must at least provide
secondary treatment to qualify for federal construction grants; after that date, "best
practicable" treatment must be used. By July 1977, all sewage treatment plants in
operation must provide "secondary treatment" and must also comply with any additional
effluent limitation established by either the EPA or the state. By July 1983, all
publicly-owned waste treatment plants in operation must use "best practicable" treat-
ment methods. The EPA will encourage waste management which provides for recycling
of pollutants, confined or contained disposal where not recycled, wastewater reclama-
tion, nonhazardous final sludge disposal, integrated sewage treatment, and industriql
or other municipal waste treatment and recycling facilities.
17
-------
Water Quality Standards. The discharge to navigable waters of any radioactive,
chem!ca|,or biological warfare agent or of any high-level radioactive waste is
prohibited by these amendments. In addition, the EPA is to identify substances which
in any quantity present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
welfare, and prohibit their discharge. Federal standards of performance
for marine sanitation devices will be established by the EPA aqd Coast Guard.
"i
The EPA is to publish criteria relating to the following: chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of water; the protection and propagation of fis,h, shellfish, and wildlife;
recreational use; measurement and classification of water quality; and maximum daily
load requirements. States must adopt internal water quality standards subject to EPA
approyal/ind the EPA will establish such standards in the event a state fails to do so.
If the "best practicable" or "best available" controls are inadequate to meet water quality
standards, the state is required to impose stricter controls. To this end, the state must
establish daily maximum total load standards. The Corps of Engineers may issue permits
for the discharge of dredges or fill material; these permits are subject to EPA denial
if the effects on municipal water supplies, fish, wildlife, or recreational areas would be
unacceptable.
18
-------
OVERVIEW OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS.
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives.
The water quality objectives of PL 92-500 make the use of advanced wastewater treatment
techniques much more important and necessary. Primary treatment by ?tself,even when
combined with conventional secondary treatment,produces effluent which may not meet the
requirements. Consequently, more advanced treatment methods are required, among
which are the broadly-classified advanced biological, physical-chemical, and land
application treatments offered as treatment alternatives by the Corps of Engineers in
their reports.
Advanced Biological Treatment. Advanced biological systems are really a combination
of biological, chemical, and physical treatment processes. A typical plant includes
screening, primary clarification, aeration, secondary clarification, nitrification-
denitrification, lime treatment, adsorption on activated carbon, sand filtration, chlori-
nation, and reaeration. Solids from the clarifiers are sent to sludge digesters for sta-
bilization prior to land application, landf?ll,or incineration.
There are many variations on this generalized approach: lime, alum, or polymers can be
added to the clarifiers to increase flocculation; several varieties of aeration tanks are
available; conventional activated sludge may be modified to step aeration, contact
stabilization, complete-mix, or two-stage activated sludge processes. Figure II1-1
illustrates flow diagrams for advanced biological plants that would generally be able to
achieve 1977, 1983, and 1985 water quality requirements of PL 92-500.
Generally speaking, advanced biological treatment processes produce high quality
effluent. BOD removal efficiencies will vary from 88 to 96 percent; systems employing
lime or alum coagulation show phosphate removal efficiencies of 75 to 98 percent;^
activated carbon columns remove nearly all refractory organics (MBAS, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, etc.), color, and odor from the wastewater. Denitrification is similarly
efficient, although the process is difficult to sustain. Adequate chlorination removes
most pathogens, with the exception of viruses; ozonation for disinfection can be very
effective against viruses. The maximum efficiencies for advanced biological processes
in removing pollutants are: suspended solids,99; carbonaceous BOD, 99; COD, 97:
MBAS,95; total phosphate, 95; total nitrogen, 85; and total dissolved solids, 15.25
Physical-Chemical Treatment. Physical-chemical treatment processes, like advanced
biological treatment processes, are subject to numerous variations. A typical system
would provide screening; lime, alum, or polymer coagulation; activated carbon adsorption;
ammonia removal; sand filtration; chlorination; and reaeration. The use of the various
components and their order will vary. Figure 111-2 illustrates flow diagrams for physical-
chemical plants able to meet the water quality requirements of PL 92-500 for 1977,
1983, and 1985.
19
-------
1
S
o»
I
ft
Preliminary
Comminution
Degritting
Preliminary
Comminution
Degritting
Preliminary
Comminution
Degritting
1985- Stage 1
1985- Stage!
-^
-»-
-»-
I
— ••
— »
Primary
Settling
Primary
Settling
Primary &
K Removal
Chemical
Coagulation
& Settlina
-*.
-»•
-»•
Secondary
Aeration
& Settling
Secondary
Aeration
& Settling
Secondary &
K Removal
Chemical
Addition
-Aeration'
& Settlina
)emineralization
Reverse
Osmosis
Reverse
Osmosis
•^
Ion
Exchange
-»-
-*.
-*-
•••
Disinfection
Chlorination
Effluent
Polishing
Sand
Filtration
Nitrification
Aeration
& Settling
Carbon
Adsorption
Carbon
Columns
To Discharge
-»•
Disinfection
Chlorination
To Discharge
Denitrification Filtration
•»•
-»
C
i
—sul
.j;
Mixing &
Methanol
Addition
Sand
"*• Filtration "*1
*
Disinfection Rnal
Chlorination
)rganic Remove
uMsiTitecnon- &
Oxygenation
Ozonation
charge
Ir
To Discharge
FIGURE II 1-1
REPRESENTATIVE ADVANCED BIOLOGIC
Source: 51.
TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
-------
IsJ
rv
£
§3
o*
S
o*
s
a.
~£
a.
E
5
Preliminary
Comminution
Degritting
Preliminary
Comminution
Degritting
Preliminary
Treatment
Comminution
Degritting
1985- Stage 1
1985- Stage!
-»•
1
Primary
Settling
Primary
Settling
Primary &
K Removal
Chemical
Coagulation
& Settling
-»•
•*•
•*•
Secondary
Chemical -
Addition
& Settling
Secondary
Chemical
Addition
& Settlina
Secondary &
K Removal
Chemical
Addition
& Settling
)emineralization
Reverse
Osmosis
Demineralizatio
Reverse
Osmosis
n
Ion
Exchange
-»•
-»•
*
Filtration
Sand Filters
Nitrification
Aeration
& Settling
Nitrification
Aeration
& Settling
-^
•»•
Disinfection
f'UI,-..-!,,^!.;.-,.-,
v_nion nation
Filtration
Sand Filters
To Discharge
Disinfection
.
Denitrification Filtration
Mixing &
Methanol
Addition
Sand
~*" Filtrafion
Carbon
Adsorption Disinfection Final
Carbon
Columns
-
C
C
Effl
F
Chlorination
-*• Aeration
To Dis-
charge
1
To Dis-
charge
>ganic Removal
Jisinfection, &
uent Oxygenation
Ozonation
To Discharge
FIGURE 111-2
REPRESENTATIVE PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL
Source: 51.
TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
-------
In general, removal efficiencies for physical-chemical processes are comparable to
those achieved by advanced biological processes. Effluent BO05 levels of 5 ma/liter are
not unusual, and phosphate removal efficiencies are greater than 90 percent.^
Ammonia removals to 98 percent are possible. Other pollutants are reduced to about
the same extent as provided by advanced biological treatment. Apart from removal
efficiencies, physical-chemical plants have a distinct size advantage (smaller) in
comparison to advanced biological plants.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Processes. Numerous treatment techniques are avail-
able to supplement the above-mentioned basic processes. Such techniques can be used
to polish effluents (removing the last fractions of many pollutants) to obtain an effluent
up to potable quality. These techniques include such processes as ion exchange,
reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, and distillation.
Land Treatment. Formal use of land as a "living filter" for treating wastewater is an
approach employing a long-known natural phenomenon. Soil has long been recognized
as an efficient filtration and ion exchange medium, and these properties are now being
utilized more frequently to remove pollutants from wastewater, Wastewater is typically
screened and aerated to remove a major portion of oxidizable organic compounds prior
to application to the land. Storage lagoons, providing a means for uniform application
rates, also serve as sedimentation basins from which sludge carj be recovered. Effluent
from the lagoons passes through chlorination tanks and is then applied to the land. An
underdrain system may be included to collect the reclaimed effluent, which is then
reaerated and discharged.
Local operations utilizing this technique vary in the amount of pretreatment given and
in the methods of application of the wastewater to the land. Spray irrigation is the
most popular application method and may utilize center pivot sprayers, aluminum pipe
systems, or solid set systems. Other methods include flood irrigation and subsurface
injection. Figure 111-3 illustrates components of land treatmenil systems generally
capable of meeting the water quality requirements of PL 92-500 for 1977 and 1983.
A number of processes take place in soil to provide the wastewater treatment. To begin
with, the soil acts as a physical filter, removing suspended solids and colloids, while
various ions attached to clay particles serve as efficient ion exchange materials. The
compounds in humus matter act as chelating agents in complexing metal ions. Soil
microorganisms oxidize organic matter and utilize nitrogen and phosphorous. Inorganic
salts may react and precipitate in the soil while various ions and compounds can be
adsorbed onto soil particulates.
The rate at which wastewater can be applied to land is predetermined by the physical-
chemical and biological characteristics of the soil. Initial percolation tests may show
misleadingly high rates. This is because, with continuous application of water, clays
present begin to swell with adsorbed water. The swelling fills pore spaces and
effectively clogs the soil. Staggering application schedules and qllowing areas to rest
after a wastewater load is applied is one method of counteracting excessive swelling
22
-------
Secondary
I1
i
Aeration
Lagoon
-»•
Settling
Lagoon
-»-
Storage
Lagoon
Disinfection
itO
Secondary
r
TO Aeration Settling Sto
;°J Lagoon Lagoon Lag
Denitrification
rage ' Packed Col-
|0on * umn, Metha-
nol Addition
-».
Disinfection
Chlorination
-»•
^»
Rapid
Infiltration
Overland
Runoff
Spray
Irrigation
To Ground
Discharge
To Ground
Source: .51.
FIGURE II1-3
REPRESENTATIVE LAND APPLICATION
TREATMENT SCHEMATIC
-------
of clays. The water is allowed to drain and the original soil structure is restored.
r
Ideally, with all these soil mechanisms at work, effluent from land treatment should be
of extremely high quality. Unfortunately, this is not alwqys the case. In almost all
operations, removal of COD, BOD, suspended solids, ancj pathogens is very high.
Initially, removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, refractory orgqhics, and trace metals is
also nearly complete. However, a balance is reached at some point between salts
and other materials in the percolating waste and those in tjie soil. A problem exists
after this point is reached: further application results in a leaching of these materials
from the soil and no reduction in their concentration in thei final effluent. Although
normally not a problem, the leached material can contain heavy metals, enough sodium
or potassium to cause excess and unacceptable salinity, or other unwanted contaminants.
In the same manner, a given volume of soil does not have infinite capacity as a sink for
inorganic and refractory organic compounds; these will also leach out after the balance
has been achieved. Resting may provide the aeration needed to stabilize organic
materials, but the fate of many toxic materials in this situation is unknown.
As the soil approaches saturation with respect to these materjals, it becomes less and
less useful as agricultural land. Excess copper, nickel, borqn, zinc, and nitrogen are
all toxic to plants. Any crops that did grow on such lands, if these materials accumu-
late in sufficient concentration, probably could not be utilized as food or fodder
because of the danger of plant uptake and accumulation of toxic heavy metals. If
these concentrations do occur, the soil would probably not be economically recoverable.
The use of vegetation to remove toxins from the soil has been established in several
studies. The choice of plants in land treatment systems must b^e made on the plant's
ability to withstand periodic saturation and anaerobic conditions in the root zone.
Such plants, which include marsh vegetation, are said to be qble to survive "wet feet"
conditions. Reed canary grass has been shown in recent years to be able to withstand
"wet feet. "59 However, if canary grass i s harvested as fodder, any toxins taken up
by it are introduced further into the food chain. Studies of other flora have shown
that wastewater can be applied to old fields or forests of red pine or pin oak without
destroying the forest, while at the same time effectively removing toxins.^ This
method is attractive because toxins taken up by the plants are not introduced into the
food chain. A limitation to be considered in this treatment method is the somewhat
limited capacity of most crops to absorb irrigation water at raters comparable to
application rates.
Water Quality for Various Uses. The quality of effluents produced by alternative
treatment processes Is important for various potential reusers of wastewater—municipal,
industrial, recreational, and agricultural. The direct reuse of wastewater for purposes
not involving human consumption is a concept that has been endorsed by the EPA and
by recent federal legislation. To answer this question, a brief examination of the water
quality required for alternative uses is made below, the following criteria were
obtained from Water Quality Criteria developed by the FWPCA .**
24
-------
Water for recreational uses should be free of floatable matter such as oil and scum.
Materials producing objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity should also be
absent. Concentrations or combinations of toxic, potentially toxic, or radioactive
materials which could be hazardous to human, fish, plant, and other animal life must
not be present. Col I forms must not exceed 4,000 per 100 ml and preferably 200 per
100 ml for direct contact water. Advanced biological, physical-chemical, and land
treatment effluent should easily meet these requirements.
Water for domestic uses must be odor and turbidity-free with very little color. Co 11 forms
should be less than 100 per 100 ml. Heavy metals should be virtually absent. Total
dissolved solids should be less than 200 mg/liter, although higher concentrations are
common in present sources. Pesticides, cyanide, oil and grease, phenols, and other
organics should be absent.
Neither the proposed advanced biological, physical-chemical, nor land treatments
will fully meet the domestic water quality criteria. The advanced biological and
physical-chemical treatments may pass too many organics, viruses, and heavy metals
to be satisfactory. Land treatment effluent might be more satisfactory, although the
total dissolved solids, which may include toxic materials, may become too high.
It should be noted that the use of various advanced wastewater treatment methods, in
addition to these three treatment alternatives, can and does produce domestically
acceptable water. It is interesting to note that although direct domestic reuse of
reclaimed wastewater Is not recommended by any regulatory agency In the United States,
domestic reuse of indirectly reclaimed wastewater of far lower quality has been a
long-standing practice.^
The many agricultural uses of water preclude the adoption of general criteria. Dairy
farming requires water of potable quality for milk handling. Excess salinity harms
livestock and plants, and must be controlled. Pesticides and hazardous trace elements
must be almost totally absent, while irrigation water must not contain herbicides. In
general, except where potable quality Is required, all of the previously reviewed
treatment alternatives will produce acceptable effluents.
Industrial requirements are often as stringent as domestic requirements. Consequently,
many industries have their own treatment facilities to treat influent process water.
Therefore, effluent from any of the treatment methods discussed should be sufficient,
provided that industries provide further treatment as needed.
Sludge Disposal Alternatives.
The chemical and biological sludges produced by the treatment methods discussed
above are a disposal problem. Sludge is defined here as a liquid containing 1
percent solids composed of the materials removed from the above processes. A
number of methods have been proposed to dispose of these sludges.
25
-------
Since some sludges contain significant quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus/ lime, and
other nutrients, they make good fertilizers. Direct application of these sludges to
agricultural land is one disposal alternative. Valuable fertilizer material is recovered,
and organics are oxidized; odors from adequqtely treated sludges are not generally a
problem. On the negative side, pathogens qnd heavy metals which may be present
could contaminate groundwaters, crops, livestock, or humans. Various methods for
disinfection such as pasteurization, steam heating, and irradiation have been suggested
for elimination of pathogenic organisms. A variation on this disposal alternative is to
spread the sludge and allow it to dry, then package and sell it as fertilizer. The
problem of heavy metals remains, and there has been relatively little demand for this
type of fertilizer. This low demand is partially the result of the easy availability of
low-cost NPK commercial fertilizers. Recent cjnd predicted increases in the cost of
these commercial fertilizers may, to some unknown extent, increase the demand for
waste sludges as fertilizer. Sludges can also be used to reclaim strip-mined or other
barren lands. The sludge replaces missing nutrients and acts as a soil builder. The
problems with this alternative are similar to those, with agricultural disposal, although
pathogenic problems are not as serious.
Incineration, another possibility, converts most o.f the sludge to a gaseous state. How-
ever, there are the problems of the disposal of the ash and the production of harmful
air pollutant emissions, such as mercury or various organic compounds. Recent air
pollution legislation has limited the amounts of trjese pollutants that may be discharged
to the air.
Landfill ing of liquid sludges is currently undergoing extensive examination. Sludge is
mixed with solid waste and landfilled normally. This method has a number of advantages,
but the problems of leaching and groundwater contamination have not been fully explored.
26
-------
CHAPTER IV
METHODS USED TO EVALUATE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REPORTS
INTRODUCTION.
This chapter discusses in detail the methods used in the evaluation of the alternatives
for managing wastewater in each of the four study areas of Chicago-South End of Lake
Michigan, Cleveland-Akron, Southeastern Michigan/ and Codorus Creek. Four types
of evaluations were performed in this study: technical/ economic/ socioenvironmental|,
and feasibility. The technical evaluation is intended to analyze the consideration
given to costs/ resource requirements, efficiencies of various treatments, and
the data-input items of population/ wastewater flow/ and soils and geology. The econ-
omic evaluation is designed to examine in detail the costs and economic impact as-
sessments of alternative plans/ while the socioenvironmental evaluation is included to
assess the social and environmental impact evaluationsx>f the alternatives. Matrix
approaches were used for the evaluation of economic and socioenvironmental impacts.
The fourth evaluation, a feasibility analysis/ had the objective of assessing the con-
sideration given to the institutional and financial impacts and feasibility of alternative
plans.
Some preliminary observations on what this study did or did not evaluate seem appropriate
here. First and foremost/ the present study did not attempt to duplicate or retrace the
steps of either the Corps of Engineers or their technical consultants in the formulation/
screening/ and evaluation of alternative wastewater management plans. Second, the
present study did not attempt to resolve certain issues directly relevant to the plans
over which considerable controversy or uncertainty exists/ such as the definition of
the PL 92-500 goal of no discharge of critical pollutants (NDCP) or the degree to
which 'local objectives should be sacrificed to meet regional objectives.
Instead/ two kinds of questions were asked: to what extent did the Corps of Engineers
justify their recommendations/ based on materials contained solely within the four
reports/ and how and to what extent can the reports be used in the future? In regard
to the first evaluation/ it should be borne in mind that when the present report concludes
that a particular point was not "proven"/ there are two possibilities for this. The first
is that given the time and cost constraints on their studies/ the Corps of Engineers could
not perform extensive original investigation (an example being comprehensive studies
of non-point sources of pollution). The second possibility is that the point could have
been proven given the constraints of the studies/ in which case it is hoped that the
findings in this report will provide suggestions for future wastewater management plan-
ning similar to that evaluated in the present study.
27
-------
TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
Included in the technical evaluation for each study area, in addition to the types and
characterization of treatment processes, were data which are also necessary inputs to
the other evaluations. These include analyses of population projections, anticipated
sewage and stormwater flows, methods of sludge disposal, soils and geology, resource
requirements, quantities of pollutants discharged, physical systems and processes,
costs of construction, and operation and maintenance costs. Although these factors are
determinants of the choice of the treatment method and the sizing of the treatment
facilities, they also are important inputs to the economic, socioenvironmental, and
institutional evaluations made in this report. For this reason, the various factors
considered in the technical evaluation will be discussed only in the narrow context of
their influence on the planning, construction, ante1 operation of the treatment fapilities.
Population.
A comparison was made of the population projections for each study area with projections
based on methods developed by the Statistical Policy Division, Office of Management
and Budget.3° These methods account for fertility and mortality rates, but omit the
effects of migration. '
The projections made for comparison with the report estimates assumed an average
population increase in proportion to that of the nation as a whole. These projections
were made by using four fertility rates (2f8, 2.5, 2.1, and 1.8 children per woman
between the ages of 15 and 44 years) to estimate alternative national population figures
for ten-year increments from 1970 to 2020. The proportionate increase in U. S.
population was then used to estimate increases in study area populations for each of the
four fertility assumptions. A comparison o(f the population estimates in the report wjth
those made as described above are presented in graphical form for each study area to
illustrate (1) the numerical comparison and (2) the possible range of variation.
Flow.
Wastewater flow rates are influenced by the population in a particular area, by the
direct influence of domestic discharge, by an indirect influence of numbers of people,
on commercial activity and the interrelationship of industrial production and populatipn,
and by the changing percentage of runoff wifh increasing urbanization. Attempts
were not made to ascertain actual amounts of wastewater flows; instead, estimated
flows in the reports were compared with present and projected population figures, and
possible variations were indicated.
Costs.
Comparisons of unit process construction and operation and maintenance costs given in
the reports were made with similar costs from other sources*'' **, 23, 24 adjusted to
1972. In some instances, where estimates were made for treatment systems rather than
unit processes, comparable unit process estimates were used to obtain a corresponding
28
-------
system cost comparison. No attempt has been made to determine total capital costs,
as this was not possible within the scope of this project. Insofar as possible, cost
estimates from other sources were adjusted to include features or components similar
to those known to have been included in the report estimates. Where operation and
maintenance costs from other sources were expressed in terms of man-hours, a .labor
rate of six dollars per hour was used.
Since the report estimates were preliminary estimates only, and the comparable estimates
from other sources were averages taken from numbers of facilities, variations of 20
percent should not be considered unusual. However, since costs are presently (1974)
rising very rapidly, when the report estimates appear frequently in the lower ranges of
estimates from other sources, they take on an added significance.
Comparisons of the various unit process cost estimates for each study area were made
graphically for 1, 10/and 100 MGD. This is performed by representing the report
estimates as a centerline and placing the other estimates as a percent variation, either
plus or minus, from the centerline (see Figure IV-1). In this manner, a quick comparison
can be made. Shaded areas balancing around the centerline indicate good agreement;
shaded areas to the left, a conservative estimate; shaded areas to the right, report
estimates which may be low.
Cost information was often summarized in the reports in terms of total treatment cost
per million gallons. Although these units are meaningful to those in sanitary engineering
and related fields , they are probably obscure to the public, and perhaps to many
planners and administrators. For better comprehension, it is suggested that some other
units of comparison be used. One meaningful alternative would be the use of dollars
per capita-year.
Physical Systems and Processes.
In evaluating proposed systems and processes, several factors were taken into account.
In the construction of a new collection and treatment system, one of the poorly under-
stood concepts is "economy of scale." It is true that the construction and operating
cost of a treatment facility will decrease per unit volume for an increase in size, up to
a point. This point is reached when the physical size of the components reaches the
largest practical and further increase in plant capacity then results in parallel construc-
tion of identical units. However, as the plant size increases, the extent of the collec-
tion system also increases, and the cost per gallon of collected wastewater generally
increases. The combination of these two factors implies the existence of an optimal
system size—cost per unit will increase for either a larger or smaller volume of flow.
In instances where the collection system already exists, the optimum size determination
is somewhat altered. Consideration must be given to utilizing the existing collection
system to its capacity (which is governed by population density or its equivalent) by
placing the treatment plants at such locations so as to take advantage of whatever .
economies of scale exist.
29
-------
Unit Processes
Lower Estimates fromjT! } j I !..! LJ.
Other Sources ""^
Corps Estimate
Higher Estimate
from Other Sources
FIGURE IV-1
GRAPH USED FOR UNIT
COST COMPARISONS
30
-------
In other instances, where both collection and treatment systems are substantially
completedand process modifications are needed to improve the quality of the effluent,
consideration should be given to the abandonment of some of the treatment facilities
with modification and enlargement of others. In this manner it may well be that fewer
and larger installations will be less costly than the otherwise numerous modifications.
It should also be noted that since the cost of cravity trunks is usually greater than that
of force mains, the location of the treatment facility with respect to the collection
and disposal areas may greatly influence the total system cost.
Soils and Geology.
Information in the reports concerning soil and geological considerations was reviewed
for its comprehensiveness, the extent to which it was included in the decisions for the
recommended alternatives,and the recognition for the need for specific additional
determinations. No independent effort was undertaken to validate the information
presented in the reports, or to make comparisons with other sources.
Resources Required and Residual Wastes Produced.
A comparison was made of the resources required and residual wastes produced by the
various alternatives for each of the study areas. The wastes examined were those
discharged to either air or land, since discharge to receiving water is examined in the
analysis of wastewater treatment process efficiency. Under this definition, in general,
the higher the degree of treatment,the greater the treatment-related waste discharge,
since pollutants removed from water must be transferred to air or land. This, of course,
does not mean that larger waste amounts disposed to air or land are necessarily less
desirable than smaller amounts, but rather that the problem of controlling these wastes
is different. The problem is basically one of placing environmental pollutants in the form
where they can best be controlled and cause the least adverse impact.
The amount of resources required not only increases the quantity of pollutants discharged,
but reduces the availability of these resources for other uses. Prior consideration
of the best use of resources is necessary before a comparison of resource requirements
between alternative plans can be made, unless, with all other factors equal, a similar
level of treatment can be obtained with smaller resource demands. Resource require-
ments of alternatives were also examined,from other viewpoints, in the economic
and socioenvironmental sections of this report.
31
-------
ECONOMIC AND SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS,
Economic Evaluation.
Two economic aspects of the reports were examined in this study: the cost breakdowns
of alternative plans and the quality of the economic impact analysis presented. These
aspects are discussed separately below.
Cost Estimates. Plan cost estimates were analyzed In detail. Capital and operating and
maintenance costs were analyzed separately. The Environmental Protection Agency's
guidelines for facilities planning were used as a general framework for determining the
completeness and adequacy of the cost estimates. The cost elements specified by the
EPA guidelines are presented in Table IV-1. Of particular Intprest In the present study
were interest rates, estimated service lives of components/ anc- unit treatment process
costs. For new facilities, EPA recommendations were used as a basts for analysis.
The EPA recommends an annual interest rate of seven percent for evaluation purposes
in a 208 plan. Recommended average service lives of wastqwater treatment facility
components are: land and permanent structures—30 to 50 year^, process equipment--
15 to 30 years, and auxiliary equipment—10 to 15 years. '
Economic Impact Evaluation Methods. The basis for evaluating the Corps of Engineers'
economic impact assessments was the matrix presented in Table IV-2. (A similar matrix
was used for the socioenvironmental evaluation.) The rows of the matrix represent
areas of potential economic impact, and the columns represent alternative wastewater
management components. These latter components are wastewater treatment technology
(land application, advanced biological, and physical-chemical), sludge disposal alter-
natives (agricultural land application and strip-mined land reclamation), and collection
and conveyance systems. Storage of wastewater was considered as part of the wastewater
treatment component since mode of storage generally depends on the treatment technology
employed.
The present evaluation did not attempt to present a systematic and independent assessment
of the economic impacts of alternative plans, since this was beyond its scope. It did,
however, present a general overview of the possible impacts produced by alternative
wastewater management components (to be discussed below), and did evaluate the ade-
quacy of the report's assessments based largely on this general overview and on the
assessment methodology employed. Impacts were examined for alternative wastewater
management components rather than for individual plans because: 1) the reports are
easier to compare and contrast; 2) the resulting impact evaluation is more flexible and
thus potentially more useful to readers of this report.
The matrix cells of economic impacts presented in Table IV-2, are coded to indicate im-
pact areas of major, moderate, or relatively minor concern. The bases for this qualita-
tive weighting of impact areas were:l) the magnitude of change likely to occur within each
32
-------
TABLE IV-1
ELEMENTS OF COST SPECIFIED BY EPA PLANNING GUIDELINES _
I Capital Costs
A. Contract construction costs
1 . Col lection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater
2. Modifications of existing facilities
3. Treatment and disposal of residual wastes
4. Storage and recycling of wastewater
5. Integral flow and waste reduction measures
6. Private industrial pretreatment costs
7. Storage and control of domestic wastes and combined sewer overflows
8. Costs of temporary facilities
B. Engineering and design costs
C. Legal and administrative costs
D. Land costs, including purchase, lease, right-of-way, and easement
E . Start-up costs
F. Interest foregone during facilities construction
G. Contingency allowances
II Replacement Costs
III Operation and Maintenance Costs
A. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs
B. Short-term operation and maintenance costs
C. Manpower and training costs
IV Salvage Value
V Revenue Produced
Source:
33
-------
TABLE IV-2
ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
Collection
& Convey-
ance
Wastewater Treatment
Agricultural productivity
0)
Resource consumption
r. .v.V.'s
Land values
CO
Manpower and employment
1^
I"
Financial impacts
e
c
a
O
industrial production
Legend:
; Area of major concern
Presented adequately
Insufficiently supported
•/.V/:";/. Area of moderate concern i t Area of relatively minor concern
A Presented adequately only in appendices
Not adequately considered
-------
cell, and implications of this change; 2) the probability or uncertainty of Impact
occurrence within each cell (e.g., the marketability of the impact); 3) the irreversa-
bility of the impact? 4) the relative degree of concern about the impact area expressed
by study area public meeting participants and commenting agency officials. Areas seen
as of minor concern (the unshaded cells) were not evaluated, in the present study, although
they may have been discussed in the Corps of Engineers' reports.
In the following sections analyzing the individual reports, ChaptersV through VIII,
the matrix tables provide a capsule evaluation of the economic impact analyses.
Different symbols appearing in each cell of major and moderate impact signify the general
adequacy of analysis for that cell. An evaluation of "presented adequately" signifies
that, based on sufficient data input, analysis of the impact cell was complete and
accurate through the report. An evaluation of "presented adequately only in appendices"
will signify that although adequate consideration of an impact cell appeared in the
evaluation appendices, this consideration was substantially modified or omitted from the
summary report; the significance of this evaluation lies in the fact that the public and
many concerned area decision-makers and planners will tend to rely on the summary
report rather than the more detailed and technical appendices for most of their information.
"Insufficiently supported" will signify an analysis based on either insufficient investigation
of technical data or on untested and questionable assumptions. Lastly, "not adequately
considered" signifies that an impact cell was analyzed either much too little ( relative
to its importance), or not at all.
Overview of Economic Impacts. The areas of economic impact of alternative wastewater
management components were classified as price impacts and general impacts. Price
impacts analyzed in this report were agricultural productivity, resource consumption, and
land values. General impacts were manpower and employment, financial impacts, and
time-related impacts. Descriptions of these impacts are given below, and general
criteria used for the evaluation of economic impacts are listed in Table IV-3.
Price Impacts. Major impacts on agricultural productivity can be expected from land
application of sewage sludge and effluent. This is due to expected changes in the types
and quantities of crops produced. Several studies have indicated that feed crops respond
best to effluent application; shifts from food crops to feed crops will have an impact on
the relative prices of the two.
Generally, the direction and magnitude of agricultural productivity changes will be a
function of the existing crops on the land (if any), types of planned crops, and wastewater
or sludge application parameters, the latter including rate of application, wastewater
and sludge constituents prior to application, and climate and soils constraints. A recent
survey of land application of sewage effluent^"* found that application rates of 2 inches
per week were common for agricultural irrigation. A similar survey of land application
of sludge^ recommended the following application-rate upper contraints: for liquid
sjudges, 5000 gal/dqy/qcre (46.8 cy m/day/hq) in relatively non-'perm§ab!e soils, qnd
for solid sludges, 1 0 dry tons/ac re/year (22.4 dry kkg/hq/yeqr).
35
-------
TABLE IV-3
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES
Price Impacts
Agricultural productivity
Data inputs should be types of existing crops on lands for application of .effluent
and sludge, and prices for farm products.
Impacts on prices of food vs. feed crops can be expected.
Negative impacts on agricultural productivity are possible if effluent application
rates are excessive or if effluent water quality is very poor.
Resource consumption
Data inputs should be requirements for construction material, chemicals/and energy.
Potential price rises in resources are possible depending on relative demands of
alternative wastewater management components,
Land values
Probable increased land values of property bordering water bodies whose quality
is improved.
Possible increased land values due to removal of open space lands for wastewater
treatment facilities/ particularly in the case of land application of sludge and
effluent.
Possible increases in land values due to providing new sewers to developing areas.
Possible decreases in land values in the immediate vicinity of wastewater treatment
facilities.
General Impacts
Manpower and employment
Increased employment will probably occur due to construction, operation, and
maintenance of wastewater management components,
Decreased employment in the agricultural sector Is likely for agricultural lands
reverting to public ownership.
36
-------
TABLE IV-3 (Cont.)
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSES
Financial Impacts
Adverse impacts in localities are probable due to large increase in demand
on local revenues and the requirement for banks as a financing method.
Adverse impacts are possible if payments in lieu of taxes are not made for
lands reverting to public ownership.
Industrial Development
Potential increases in industrial development in areas where water quality is
improved.
Potential increases in industrial development where municipal wastewater
treatment capacity is large and user charges are not prohibitive.
37
-------
Another factor that should be taken into account is the relationship between agricultural
productivity and farm income. Because of the inelasticity of demand for certain food
products, increased productivity can lead to increased supply and, if the amount produced
is significant, can lead to lower prices and lower total revenues. This leads to the more
general problem of whether federal funds should be used to ipcreqse agricultural productivity
at the same time that subsidies are being paid to some farmers, so that supplies are kept
limited.
Resource consumption was an area of major concern for wastewater treatment and
collection and conveyance components. Large amounts of raw materials will be consumed
in the construction of treatment facilities for advanced biological and physical-chemical
plants, storage lagoons for land application sites, and collection and conveyance lines.
Operation and maintenance of treatment plants also require chemicals and energy.
There is a major difference in chemical requirements between land and water based
technologies. Land treatment requires comparatively small amounts of chemicals but
generally much greater amounts of power, whereas chemical cpsts may account for more
than 20 percent of total operating and maintenance costs for wpter-based technologies,
but power requirements are generally smaller.
Sewage treatment operations, whether land or water based, will result in increased
demands for electric power. Land application of effluent generally requires 50-100
percent more electricity than water based treatment, resulting In a chemicals-energy
trade-off between the two. This in turn will place additional (pads on already limited
electric power generation capacity. The increased requirements for electricity will also
result in increased air and water pollution, the exact amounts of which will be determined
by the level of control achieved by power plants at the time of plan implementation.
Changes in land values, the third price impact, were seen as of moderate concern for
all wastewater management components; this weighting was giverj primarily because
of the difficulty in estimating such changes and the dependence of land values on
numerous other factors. Improvements in surface and groundwateV quality can be expected
usually to increase property values of bordering land due to aesthetic improvements and the
higher uses to which the improved water may be put.
52
A recent study of the relationship between property values and water quality found
that there is a positive correlation between water pollution control and property values.
Urban property values increased between 8 and 25 percent with improved water quality,
and rural property increased 65 and 100 percent. The study estimated the increase in
property values attributable to improved water quality for the entire nation range between
$0.6 and $3.1 billion. Of this Increase,59 percent Is expected tq occur In towns with
population between 1,000 and 100,000; 31 percent In large metropolitan areas; and the
remaining 10 percent In rural areas.
Public acquisition of large tracts of privately owned land can have, a major Impact on
land values. The withdrawal of a significant amount of land from the market decreases
the supply and may increase the price. Increased land values are also likely In previously
unsewered lands near metropolitan areas for which new sewers are provided,
38
-------
Decreases in land values within study areas are also probable, mostly in the immediate
vicinity of wastewater treatment facility sites (plants, lagoons, reservoirs, or irrigation
sites). Changes in land value due to application of effluent or sludge application to
strip-mined land are more difficult to predict, and highly dependent on the former price
of the land in question. In general, value of the site land can be expected to remain
the same or increase. Increased land values are especially likely in the case of sludge
application to reclaim strip-mined lands.
General Impacts. Impacts on manpower and employment were of moderate concern
tor all wastewater management components, due to the tact that any changes will
generally be small in comparison to total study area labor forces. Important changes in
certain labor groups can be expected, however. For farmers, decreased employment
is probable if they are displaced from agricultural lands which revert to public ownership
for land application of effluent. For construction workers, short-term increased employ-
ment is likely for the building and expansion of wastewater treatment facilities and
collection and conveyance lines. Increased manpower will also be required to operate
and maintain new treatment plants and for operating land application sites where these
lands are in public ownership. Administrative manpower increases are also probable
for all wastewater treatment and sludge disposal alternatives.
Any change in employment within one sector is usually associated with additional changes
in other sectors .(called, a multiplier effect). For example, if additional construction
operating employees migrate to the area, they will be followed by retail stores and
services, both requiring increased personnel. If the employment multiplier is 2, the
total increase in employment will be double the initial increase.
Financial impacts of all wastewater alternatives were of major concern in that adverse
or inequitable effects will have major implications for the feasibility of alternative plan
implementation. Financial impacts of sludge disposal alternatives and collection and
conveyance lines were of moderate concern due to the lesser costs of these components.
Financial impacts consist of the effects of paying for the costs of alternative plans on
the nation taxpayers as a whole and impacts on state, regional, and local taxpayers
and financial arrangements within each study area.
Of particular concern was the question of public ownership of land and its effects on
local tax revenues. For land application plans calling for large-scale public ownership of
land, the purchased.land will be removed from local tax roles unless payments are made
to local governments in lieu of taxes lost. In the United States, the most studied land
application of municipal effluent, the Muskegon Project, demonstrated that public owner-
ship of the irrigated land was the only viable alternative; payments were made to local
governments in lieu of property taxes lost, and borne as an annual operating expense.
The necessity of purchasing land versus leasing land for wastewater will, of course, differ
between localities.
39
-------
The impact of wastewater management plants on industrial production is multi-faceted.
Industry may be attracted to particular areas by higher levels of water quality. Industries
which have a greater than average need for water in processing their products include
Food processing, brewing, soft drinks, and biological and pharmaceutical supplies.
Industries such as steel, chemical, oil refining, and paper manufacturing need a plentiful
supply of water for cooling and might be interested in the availability of recycled
water.
Increased wastewater treatment will increase production costs. A study of 23 industries*'"
indicates that in most of these cases they will be able to recover the costs by increases in
prices. However, the profitability of smaller or older plants may be reduced, and they
may decide to shut down. Also, plants located in heavily urbanized areas, especially
the small older plants, will experience difficulties because they lack the necessary
space to add required and cost-effective treatment processes. Industrial pretreatment
and treatment costs were not evaluated in this report.
Not all costs will be passed on, due to the availability of substitute products and im-
ports. Also, smaller plants in an industry cannot pass on all costs because they may be
constrained by the production of larger firms with lower unit costs. Thus, in the face
of increased requirements for water pollution control, some firms will earn lower profits,
some will curtail production, and some will be forced to shut down.
The impacts of alternative plans on industry will depend in part on the nature of user
charges established by municipalities for wastewater treatment. It can be expected
that low user charges would result in greater industrial discharge to municipal facilities.
This may pose problems in that 1) total wastewater flows will be higher than anticipated
and 2) lack of adequate industrial wastewater pretreatment may result in lower quality
influent than predicted.
-------
Socioenvirenmental Evaluation.
General Methods. Key portions of the reports' analyses are the social and environmental
impacts of alternative wastewater management plans. Social and environmental impact
is an important consideration that must be studied along with cost-effectiveness in the
overall acceptability of the project. Although the wastewater management studies were
undertaken to improve the quality of the environment, negative impacts may be considerable,
As in the economic impact assessment, no independent attempt was made to assess the
social and environmental impacts of the alternatives. Instead, the adequacy of analysis
for impacts of individual wastewater management components, rather than for alternative
plans, was studied. The matrix-type analysis used for the economic impact analysis
previously described was also employed for environmental impact analysis, with identical
wastewater management components (wastewater treatment, sludge disposal, and
collection and conveyance)forming the columns of the matrix.
The rows of the matrix were subcategorized as environmental or social impacts. Areas
of environmental impact were classified as water-related impacts (surface and ground water,
flora and fauna, and water reuse); land-related impacts (geology and soils, flora and
fauna, land reclamation, land use, and time-related impacts); or other environmental
impacts (air quality and resource consumption). Areas of social impact were classified
as social well-being (community disruption, local and special interest opposition, and
recreation); or aesthetics and public health (visualand olfactory aesthetics, toxic
substances, and pathogens).
Table IV-4 summarizes some of the factors considered in evaluating the .socioenvironmental
impact analyses presented in the reports. Table IV-5 is the matrix employed for these
evaluations. The impact areas presented in the matrix are discussed further below.
Environmental Impacts; Water. Surface and groundwater quality and quantity are of
extreme importance to the studies in that improvements in water quality and optimal
allocation of water supplies are prime objectives of both PL 92-500 and the wastewater
management plans. Ideally, the studies should contain a detailed inventory of water
quality of all water bodies in each study area; unfortunately, these data do not always
exist and .generation represents a considerable effort. Other desirable data inputs
are locations and quantities of surface and groundwater supplies.
Surface water quality will be affected primarily by the quality of effluent discharged to
surface receiving waters (which will depend on treatment technology) and the amount of
stormwater runoff captured and treated (which will depend on collection and conveyance
systems). Groundwater quality will be affected mainly by the potential contamination
following land application of effluent or sludge. Experts in land application are not in
agreement concerning the risks of groundwater contamination following application of
effluents or sludge. The potential for contamination will depend on such operating para-
meters as effluent water quality before land treatment, application techniques and rates,
the inclusion and design of underdrains, and local geological and groundwater table
41
-------
TABLE IV-4
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: WATER
Surface and Groundwater Quality and Quantity
Data inputs should preferably be inventory of study area, present water quality,and
locations and quantitive flows of surface and groundwater.
Positive impacts on surface water quality will occur and differ depending on waste-
water treatment technology and amount of stormwqter pollution prevented.
Potential negative impact on groundwater quality with land application of effluent
or sludge.
Potential negative impact on effluent if infiltration and inflow not accounted for.
Flora and Fauna
••••^•••••••••••^•^^••••••••'n
Data inputs should preferably be survey of aquatic life in study area water bodies.
Improvements in surface water quality will probably enhance species diversity and
population and restore some pollution-sensitive species.
Potential negative impact on local small stream aquatic life depending on degree of
disruption of hydrological balance.
Potential negative impact on certain species due tq removal of nutrients.
Potential positive impact on certain species due to increased wildlife habitat provided
by storage lagoons and ponds associated with land application.
Water Reuse
Data inputs should preferably be survey of study area water supply and demand for al-
ternative water uses.
Positive impact produced by those plans calling for the greatest degree of water reuse.
42
-------
TABLE IV-4(Cont.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; LAND
Soils and Geology
Inputs should preferably be description of areas where land application or tunnelling
is planned, in terms of bedrock,5011 types and characteristics, topography, and
drainage.
Potential positive or negative impact on soil constituents and absorption capacity
due to land application of effluent and sludge.
Potential negative impact on quality of water carried in collection and conveyance
lines due to infiltration and inflow, which in turn depend on the geological
characteristics of the site.
Flora and Fauna
Data inputs should preferably be survey of study area terrestrial life.
Potential positive impact due to improvement in surface water quality.
Potential negative impact on local communities due to construction or expansion of
wastewater management structures.
Potential changes in local plant and animal communities due to effluent
or sludge applied to land.
Land Reclamation
Data inputs should preferably be identification of barren lands amenable to reclama-
tion within study area.
Positive impact produced by those plans calling for the greatest degree of land recla-
mation.
Land Use
Data inputs should preferably be detailed land use maps for study area and master
plans prepared by area planning agencies.
Potential positive or negative impacts on optimal allocation of land depending on
siting of wastewater management component? gnd the rtlqtten ef these to existing
use plans.
43
-------
TABLE IV-4(Cont.)
Land Use (Cont.)
Potential negative impact on land use due to unwanted, increased residential develop-
ment when excess wastewater collection and treatment capacity are provided.
Time-Related and Indirect Impacts
Potential positive or negative impacts on optimal allocation of land depending on
sites of wastewater management components, growth trends of study area, and
the relation of these to existing land use and economic development plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: OTHER
Air Quality
Data inputs should preferably be study area air quality inventory or
emissions inventory plus amounts of air pollutants generated by alternatives.
Potential positive impact when sludge incineration is reduced.
Potential positive or negative impact depending on wastewater treatment technology
employed.
Potential negative impact if any part of plan violates area air quality standards.
Resource Consumption
Data inputs should preferably be amounts and types of resources required by alter-
natives.
Potential positive or negative impact depending on amoupt of resources required.
i>
SOCIAL IMPACTS; WELL-BEING
Community Cohesion
Data inputs should be attitudes of study area resldents,at least as observed during
public meetings.
Potential positive impacts due to fulfilling desires for an jmproved environment,
44
-------
TABLE IV-4 (Cent.)
Community Cohesion (Cont.)
Potential negative impact due to construction activities.
Potential negative impact due to relocation.
Special Interest Groups
Data inputs should be issues raised during public hearings and comments received
by special interest groups.
Potential positive or negative impact depending on amount of support or opposition
expressed by special interests, e.g., conservation groups, industrial representatives,
farmers, citizen's groups, good-government groups.
Recreation
Data inputs should preferably be survey of recreational practices and needs of study
area residents.
Potential positive impact produced through increase in water quality and opening-up
of previous flood-plain lands.
Potential negative impact produced by commitment of open space lands for waste water
management systems.
SOCIAL IMPACTS; AESTHETICS AND HEALTH
Visual Aesthetics
Potential positive or negative impacts depending on appearance of components and
present appearance of construction sites.
Positive impact on appearance of streams, lakes, and oceans likely when area water
pollution is decreased.
45
-------
TABLE IV-4 (Cont.)
Olfactory Aesthetics
Potential positive or negative impacts due to increases and decreases in air
pollutant emissions.
Potential positive or negative impact due to aerosols if spray irrigation is
employed for land application of wastev/ater; aerosols would be produced by spray
irrigation, but may be positive net effec.t if this replaces other treatment methods
with more severe olfactory impact.
Toxic Substances
Potential positive impacts due to increased water quality.
Potential negative impact due to leaching to groundwater following land
application of wastewater or effluent sludge.
Pathogens
Potential positive impacts due to increased qrea water quality.
Potential negative impact due to leaching to groundwater following land
application of wastewater.
Potential negative impact due to aerosol generation during spray irrigation of
effluent. (Other treatment processes, such as trickling filters or aeration tanks,
may also produce aerosols but to a much lesser (degree.)
46
-------
TABLE IV-5
SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers' impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
a>
is
TO
-------
characteristics. It has been demonstrated that low application rates are likely to produce
a better quality effluent than higher application rates.^° Potential pollutants likely ., ._
to leach into groundwater are nitrates, dissolved solids, heavy metals, and pathogens. '
Where groundwater eventually flows to surface water through springs, or where excessive
application rates lead to runoff, the potential for contamination of surface water through
land application of effluent or sludge also exists. :
Analysis of impacts on aquatic flora and fauna should include an inventory of existing
aquatic life within the study area. Impacts can be expected to be twofold: positive
impacts on species diversity and population due to improved water quality, and more
local negative impacts due to decreased Flows of smaller streams possible runoff from sites
on which effluent or sludge are applied, and nutrient reduction.
Water reuse was included as an impact area primarily because the emphasis of
PL 92-500 and the objectives of the wastewater management plans place an
emphasis on the reuse and recycling of national water resources. Water reuse was an
area of moderate concern in the socio-environmental evaluation primarily because
water reuse trends will, in part, be determined by factors exogenous to these plans. The
potential for water reuse, of course, will be increased by improved effluent qualities;
also, the use of wastewater for crop irrigation constitutes an important example of water
reuse. Nevertheless, in using any of the three wastewater treatment technologies
proposed in the reports,the amount of effluent reused following treatment will be largely
dependent on demand for the reclaimed wastewater.
Environmental Impacts; Land. Soils and geology impacts were of major concern for land
application of effluent and sludge and for collection and conveyance lines. Data inputs
should preferably be a description of area bedrock, including s,tratigraphic formations
likely to be affected; structure of areas through which tunnels are to be built or over
which effluent or sludge is applied; descriptions of surficial deposits; a description of
area soils, including soil types and all properties relating to drainage for areas of
effluent or sludge application; and a description of area drainage patterns for effluent
land application sites. Land application of effluent or sludge poses a potential negative
impact on soils due to the possibility of long-term accumulation'of pollutants, including
heavy metals, oil and grease, toxic substances, and pesticides,^ Land application
of effluent may also result in soil erosion, depending on application rates employed.
Geological conditions of an area will also influence the effect of land application
of effluent or sludge on groundwater and the probability of infiltration and inflow to
conveyance lines.
As inputs to an analysis of effects on terrestrial flora and fauna/ a description of existing
populations should be included. There are several potential Impacts on terrestrial life.
Improvements in surface water quality will lead to Improvements In the diversity and
number of species surrounding nearby receiving waters. Mare local negative
impacts can be expected due to construction activities. Local changes can also be
expected in lands to which effluent or sludge Is applied, the type of change dictated
largely by existing populations and by the environmental effects of applying effluent or
sludge to land.
48
-------
Land reclamation was included as an^impact area due to the presence of the alter-
narive of applying sludge to barren Idna as part of many of the plans; Provided that
environmental hazards of sludge disposal to these lands are minimized, this practice
will generally restore barren land to more productive uses through providing additional
nutrients. The feasibility of reclaiming land with sludges from physical-chemical
treatment plants is, however, open td question due to the relatively high chemical
and low nitrogen and phosphorus content of these sludges.
Impacts on land use were of major concern in the present evaluation for each waste-
water management component. As input to this analysis,land use maps (both existing
and planned uses) are important. Location of treatment plants, whether land or water
based, is of extreme importance in that subsequent land use decisions are often based
on proximity to these plants. In particular, land treatment of waste water, through
proper choice of sites, can be a significant influence in controlling metropolitan growth
by retaining large tracts of relatively blose-in land as open space. However, increased
development of remaining open space near metropolitan areas is possible, leading
to further demands on public services.*8 Proper plant siting is needed to avoid
destruction of existing unique ecological, cultural, and historic lands.
Sludge disposal impacts on land use will generally be similar to those of land application
of effluent, in terms of retaining close-in land as open space. Collection and conveyance
systems will also have a major impact on land use in that the siting and capacity of
these systems will affect development of previously unserviced areas; provision of excess
or unneeded sewer capacity often leads to unexpected increases in residential and
commercial development. Long-term land use changes were produced by alternative plans.
These were of moderate concern in the evaluation due to their unpredictable nature.
Long-term land use impacts will depend mainly on siting decisions, short-term impacts
of alternatives, and growth patterns of each study area.
Environmental Impacts; Other.
Inputs to an analysis of impacts on ared air quality should preferably be either an air
pollutant inventory or emissions inventory for the entire study area. However, since
the air pollution potential of most plans is not critical, this level of detail is not
essential for an adequate air quality anblysis. Impacts on air quality can be expected
to be major only for physical-chemical treatment technology, due to the large quantities
of chemical sludges that are typically incinerated. Improvements in air quality are
probable if sludge that was previously incinerated is instead disposed to agricultural or
barren land.
Resource consumption is an especially important factorin choosing treatment tech-
nology due to expected future shortages of non-renewable resources; this pertains es-
pecially to energy sources. Amounts of scarce mineral and chemical resources required
by alternative plans are also important. Land application, relative to water-based
treatment, can be expected to have a leaser impact on resources due to relatively
low chemical requirements.
49
-------
Social Impacts; Well-being.
Impacts on community cohesion represent the degree to which goals of the study area
populace as a whole would benefit socially and politically by the wastewater
management alternatives and the degree to which these would disrupt communities.
This will mainly be a function of treatment technology selected. In particular, land
application appears to present the greatest threat tq community cohesion due to re-
location of rural residents.
The existence of special interest groups and their endorsement or opposition to particular
alternatives are important in that these visible groups are able to affect the sentiments
of the study area voters and thus of local decision-makers. In general, public hearings
in all study areas revealed the greatest special interest opposition to two types of alter-
natives: those calling for significantly increased centralization of wastewater management,
thus weakening the home rule basis for providing public services, and those calling for
large-scale land application of effluent and sludge. Farmers whose land was required
for land application purposes were the most visible special interest group at public hear-
ings.
There are several potential impacts on recreation, the most important being improved
surface water quality increasing the number of water bodies available for recreation.
Also, opening up of previously flood plain areas, 'Wshjere this is possible, will generate new
open space capable of recreational use. Some negative impact can be expected from
the use of potential recreational open-space lands for wastewater management, parti-
cularly in the case of land application of sludge or Affluent, which has relatively larger
land requirements. It should be kept in mind that impacts on recreation are only poten-
tial , as is the case for water reuse; whether water bodies and open space lands are con-
verted to recreational use will be determined by numerous factors outside the scope of the
planning studies.
Social Impacts; Aesthetics and Health.
Visual aesthetics was an area of moderate concern fcjr all wastewater management com-
ponents"!Olfactory aesthetics were an area of moderate concern for alI wastewater
management components except land application; land application will have a potentially
greater impact on odors due to the existence of large storage lagoons at land treatment
sites. Public health impacts were defined as risks from toxic substances (plants, pesticides,
detergents, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes) and pathogens (viruses and bacteria).
Associated with pathogenic risks is the chance tfiat storage lagoons for land treatment
sites may become breeding grounds for mosquitos. Toxic substances and pathogens were
seen as areas of moderate concern for all wastewater jreatment and sludge disposal
technologies, and as areas of major concern for land application due both to less assurance
that toxic substances and pathogens will not enter water supplies or food chains and the
fact that public impacts of land application were conperns often expressed at public
meetings. Spray irrigation may also result in the distribution of pathogen-containing
aerosols. Public health risks of land application will depend on factors such as
initial concentration of toxic substances and pathogens, soil retention times, rate
of effluent applications, and types of crops irrigated.
50
-------
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS.
Overview.
The feasibility of implementing any of the wastewater management alternatives was
examined in three steps. First, a description of existing institutional arrangements for
wastewater management within each study area was made. Next, the comparative
requirements of alternative plans were briefly assessed. It was generally assumed that
the greater the institutional impact (i.e., the greater the number of changes required)
the more difficult a plan would be to implement within this framework, it was also
assumed that structural changes (that is, requirements for completely new institutions
or the elimination of old institutions) would be more difficult to implement than non-
structural changes such as transfer of functions. Lastly, financial feasibility was
assessed by determining the portion of plan costs to be borne directly by state and local
sources and the method by which the necessary revenues would be raised.
Institutional Arrangements.
A main feature of this feasibility analysis common to all five study areas was
the fact that all proposed NDCP alternatives call for a moderate-to-great degree of
regionalization of wastewater management and treatment. Regionalization creates
problems in that existing local agencies are generally unwilling to reduce their
responsibilities and autonomy. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
has suggested four main reasons why local governments are not really capable of perform-
ing areawide services: fragmentation and overlapping of governmental units, disparities
befween tax and service boundaries, state restrictions, and overlapping of state lines.
Thl methods of local adaptation to regional needs are several, as shown in Table IV-6.
This table lists a variety of procedural and structural adaptations by which localities
can adapt to areawide wastewater management needs. Of these, it is clear that a
regional wastewater regulatory and management agency would be the most efficient
arrangement. However, in areas where the beginnings of such an agency do not as yet
exist, as is the case for most of the study are'ds, creation of such an agency will be
difficult due to the major governmental reorganization required. In general, the issue
is one of preserving home rule while at the same time achieving efficient areawide
wastewater management.
Non-structural alternatives, as listed in Tab I is IV-6, include informal cooperation,
service contract, parallel action, the conference approach, compact, transfer of
functions, extraterritorial jurisdiction, incorporation, and annexation. Of these, the
first four are generally easy to implement if appropriate agencies see the need for
cooperation. However, these approaches are useful mainly for consolidating planning
and advisory (rather than implementation, regulatory, and management) functions.
The latter four non-structural alternatives are viable for municipalities, counties, and
special districts, and offer an attractive method of increasing regionalization of service
by increasing the geographic area served by dny one entity. The entities remaining,
however, may still be poorly coordinated unless cooperative efforts are made,
in'- •
-------
TABLE PV-6
METHODS OF LOCAL ADAPTATION TO
AREA WIDE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT NEEDS
Method
General Effect
General Type
Informal Cooperation
The Service Contract
Parallel Action
The Conference Approach
The Compact
Transfer of Functions
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Incorporation
Annexation
City-County Separation
Geographical Consolidation
Functional Consolidation
The Special District
The Authority
Metropolitan Government
The Regional Agency
Can be accommodated
without basic
structural change
of local government
May or may not
have an adverse
effect on local
government
Likely to have an
identifiable effect
on the pattern of
local government
P,rimarily
procedural
(manner of
'operation)
adaptations
Primarily
structural
(organizational)
adaptations
Sources: 34, 60.
52
-------
Structural alternatives include city-county separation, geographical or functional con-
solidation, special district authority, areawise metropolitan government, and regional
agency. The first five are generally permitted by state law and feasible if smaller agen-
cies are willing to give up jurisdiction. Formation of an areawide metropolitan govern-
ment or regional authority, while probdbly the most efficient solution to the need for
areawide wastewater management, will face substantial problems in implementation
due to the need for new legislation and the problems involved in preserving home rule
requirements.
A basic assumption concerning institutional feasibility is that the more structural methods
of increasing regionalization towards trie bottom of Table IV-6 are preferable since
they offer a reduced number of conflicting institutions and a more efficient arrangement.
However, in practice the feasibility of implementing methods such as these ultimately
depends on the existing institutional fragmentation within an area.
There are several criteria for judging institutional alternatives for increasing responsive-
ness to areawide needs:
• Broad enough geographic jurisdiction to cope with areawide problems.
• Ability to raise revenues adequately and equitably.
• Enough flexibility to adjust government boundaries.
• Organization as general purpose rather than single purpose units.
• Geographic jurisdiction that dan take advantage of economies of scale.
• Accessible and controllable by the public.
Financial Feasibility.
Apportionment of Costs. Federal legislation^ provides that 75 percent of the capital
costs of water pollution control projects can be financed by federal funds with local
and state taxpayers paying the remaining 25 percent of capital costs and also 100 per-
cent of the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. Thus, if local taxpayers
pay 100 percent of operating costs but only 25 percent of capital costs, they will be in-
terested in minimizing the ratio of operating to capital costs. All other things being
equal, localities will be more favorable tb plans with the lowest operating costs relative
TO capital costs (see Figure IV-2). This is especially relevant to land-treatment alterna-
tives, where a low ratio of operating to capital costs exists. This preference is likely
tb bias the choice of systems and increase the chance of a non-cost-effective alternative
being selected.
Bonds as Financing Methods. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 require that the local share of capital costs be financed through revenue bonds
Which are serviced with user fees or general obligation bonds which are paid from
53
-------
c
0)
O-
~o
Total
Treatment
Cost
Capital
Cost
Design Capacity (MGD)
Source- 9.
FjGURE IV-2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL,
OPERATING; AND CAPITAL COSTS
54
-------
general taxation. In the past, most states have relied on revenue bond financing
because this type of bond, which is repaid through user charges, is general!/ free of
statutory restrictions. Although this factor makes revenue bonds attractive, their relatively
high interest rate increases the cost of the project. General obligation bonds enable
the borrower to raise funds at lower interest rates, but they are constrained by state
legislatures and constitutions, which place a ceiling on indebtedness. In that case,
indebtedness can be increased only with voter approval. Another factor to be considered
is how close the area's current debt is to its maximum ceiling. Recent studies indicate
that state and local governments may run surpluses in their current general accounts over
the next several years, due in part to the advent of revenue sharing . Districts with
little borrowing margin remaining are not able to take an active part in financing unless
the legislature raises the ceiling on indebtedness.
If the local government is required to obtain authorization from the electorate in the form
of a bond referendum, it is very important to attempt to determine the variables which
account for the success of such referenda. Empirical investigation reveals that about 40
percent of all water pollution: projects are subjected to referendum and that, of these,
about 85 percent pass . The variables which accounted for most of the variation in
success were as follows:
1. Positive correlation (an increase in the variable results in an increased probability
of success):
a. Repayment of the bonds by user charge
b. Association of the project with pollution problems
c. Proportion of the population with family income less than $3,000
2. Negative correlation (an increase in the variable results in a decreased
probability of success):
f ;
a. Pressure groups against the issue
b. Proportion of the bonds repaid by increased taxes
c. Dollar amount of proposed bond issue
d. Tax rate
e. Rate of population growth
f. Number of criticisms raised
g. Partisanship of groups
-------
With proper planning, local authorities may be able to increase the chances of a bond
referendum succeeding by increasing the variables which are, positively correlated and
decreasing the variables which are negatively correlated. The opposition of pressure
groups can result in the defeat of a referendum; therefore, communication between
project planners and the electorate is very important. Voters tend to have an aversion
to taxation and to prefer service charges. The total amount of bond indebtedness is also
important; therefore, any reduction of local cost by outside funding will improve the
chances of an issue being approved.
In addition, local governments are subject to the vagaries of the bond market. If the
supply of bonds and, consequently, interest rates are very hiah, it will be difficult
for a local government to float a bond issue, and, even if they are successful, they
will have to pay high interest rates. Local governments must keep in mind the alternative
methods of financing which may be available to them. For example, these might include:
i
a) Increased tax ceiling.
b) Increased tax base by expansion or reassessment.
c) Standardized borrowing codes (model indentures).
d) Bonds backed by the state (states have more flexibility).
e) State bond banks (market control would be minimized).
f) New types of financing (possibly, a combination revenue/general obligation bond).
Repayment of Bonds.
Taxes. Of the various taxes, property taxes account for 85 percent of all local
taxes in the United States;at the state level, taxes consist of personal income, corporate
profit, and general sales taxes. Some taxes are more easily shifted from one sector of
the economy to another than are others. For example, sales taxes are shifted to consumers
while personal income taxes are paid by the income recipient.
User Charges. A 1969 survey indicated that ffgmy localities have been initiating
or increasing user fees to finance sewerage services. Of 1 ,Q40 localities surveyed,
86 percent indicated that they levy such a charge. These charges may vary with
quantity or may be based on a flat charge. The former promotes economic efficiency
and promotes additional revenue. User charges should be set equal to marginal cost. If
the charge does not cover average cost, the deficit should be made up by taxes; if the
charge exceeds marginal cost, social welfare is not optimized. Pricing decisions are
especially important in decreasing cost industries such as wastewater treatment projects
because optimum output may be at the level where the service charge (average revenue)
is less than average cost; this will involve a subsidy. A general procedure of federal
water reclamation projects has been block pricing, which is a step toward efficient
pricing but, because of the diversity of land quality, is not completely satisfactory.
56
-------
Equity vs. Efficiency. Repayment of capital costs and operating expenses will probably
be covered by some combination of fax and user charge. Since users and taxpayers
are no* necessarily the same people, a conflict may arise between equity and efficiency.
Equity'can be interpreted to mean either that persons should pay on the basis of benefit
received (as they do when they buy private goods) or that they should pay according to
their ability. If we interpret it to mean the latter, taxes and service charges are both
inequitable methods of paying for wastewater treatment projects.
Capital costs are usually repaid by Ideal property and sales taxes and these taxes are
relatively easy to shift forward; therefore, this method of repayment tends to be regressive.37
Service charges are also regressive, as are projections of the cost of pollution controls
undertaken by private industry. Financing by service charge instead of taxes allows
the price system rather than the political process to determine output. Use of the price
mechanism facilitates optimal resource use, while the resulting inejquity can be alleviated
by direct income subsidies to lower income families. •
Economic efficiency is also concerned with the appropriate discount rate which should
be applied to public projects. The discount rate should reflect the opportunity cost
of foregone alternatives; i.e., other productive opportunities in either the public
or private sector. A particular project is economically efficient only.if the projected
value of the net benefits exceeds the cost of the lost productive opportunities.
57
-------
CHAPTER V
EVALUATION OF THE CHICAGO-SOUTH ENp OF
LAKE MICHIGAN REPORT
INTRODUCTION.
Study Area Description.
The Chicago-South End of Lake Michigan (C-SELM) study area (a map of which appears
in Figure V-l) includes the Illinois Counties of Lake, DuPage, Cook,and Will,and the
Indiana Counties of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte. The area covers qbout 2,600 square
miles and had a 1970 population of about 7.25 million.
Wastewater Management Alternatives.
Table V-l reviews the major features of each alternative plan presented in the C-SELM
report. Alternative I (the Reference Plan) involved reducing the number of plants
from the present 132 to 64, making up for the reduction by expansion of several exist-
ing facilities. Alternatives II (physical-chemical treatment), III (advanced biologi-
cal treatment), IV (land treatment) and V (advanced biological and land treatment)
became progressively more centralized^ with alternatives IV and Y each requiring only
5 plants. Figures V-2, V-3, and V-4 illustrate the three basic treatment systems pro-
posed. The 5 central plants, however, would be fed by local plants so that the total
number of plants would be somewhat greater than 5. The four alternatives to the Re-
ference Plan differed in projected land requirements and persons displaced, with these
differences assumed to be functions of differing treatment types. Basically, all of the
alternatives besides the Reference Plan were designed to meet the 1985 water quality
goals of PL 92-500 and to anticipate general wastewater management needs of 1990
and 2020.
Population.
Comparisons of the C-SELM report population projections with post Illinois trends
(Figure V-5) and with projections obtained using Census Bureau fertility rates (Figure
V-6) indicate that the report figures were probably too high, at least through 1990.
The report predicted a growth rate during the 1970-90 period higher than that produced
by the highest fertility rates considered probable by the Census Bureau. From 1990
to 2020 the report's predicted growth rate declined to somewhere between that produced
58
-------
iLLINOI
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
AREA TRIBUTARY
TO LAKE MICHIGAN
Source: 1.
FIGURE V-l
C-SELM STUDY AREA
59
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: C-SELM
S
Alternative Treatment Number Storm Amount Storm- Effluent Sludge Land
Type Treatment Storage water Treated Disposal Disposal Required
Plants Capacity (1(P acres)
(MG)
1 Expansion and 64
upgrading of
existing plants
|| Physical- 33
Chemical
III Advanced 17
Biological
IV Land Disposal 5
28,290 No additional Surface Agricul-
water ture use and
reclamation
118,560 First 2.5 in. Surface Agriculture
water use and re-
Ground- clamation
water
recharge
Reuse
118,560 First 2. 5 in. Surface Agriculture
water use and re-
Ground- clamation
water
recharge
Reuse
118,560 First2.5in. Surface Agriculture
water use and re-
Ground- clamation
water
recharge
Reuse
58.5
(1 990)
68.6
(2020)
829.2
(1 990)
918.8
(2020)
234.2
(1990)
462.2
(2020)
542.9
(1 990)
847.2
(2020)
Persons
Displaced
OO3)
3 A
.4
18.8
29.6
20.25
-------
TABLE V-l (Cent.)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: C-SELM
Alternative Treatment Number Storm Amount Storm- Effluent Sludge Land Persons
Type Treatment Storage water Treated Disposal Disposal Required Displaced
Plants Capacity . (103 acres) (103)
(MG)
V Advanced 5 118,560 First 2.5 in. Surface Agriculture 320.3 26.54
Biological & water use and re- (1°9Q)
Land Disposal Ground- clamation 606.4
water re- (£020-)- ,,
charge
Reuse
-------
COMBINED CONVEYANCE
• MUNICIPAL SEIAGE
• INDUSTRIAL IASTES
•STORMIATER
£f*nCCU L'Mt i fikn ( ntn I
SCKttN PRECIPITATES PHOSPHORUS
AND SOLIDS
RECLAIMED IATER
KTURNEO FOR REUSE
CARBON TREATMENT
REMOVE DISSOLVED ORCAN1CS
SPRAY SOIL CONDITIONER
AERATION
CHLORINATION
SAND FILTER
AMMONIA REMOVAL
(NATURAL ZEOLITE)
o •! f
poo o
1
/
I
V
1
\
BURN
AMMONIA
Y
Source: 1.
FIGURE V-2
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM: C-SELM
-------
COMBINED CONVEYANCE
• MUNICIPAL SEIAGE
• INDUSTRIAL HASTES
• S10RHSATER
RECLAIMED IATEB RETURNED
FOR REUSE ^—
Source: 1.
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
SEPARATE SOLIDS
I- 4
AERATOR
OXIDIZE ORGANIC
HATTER
SECONDARY CURIFIER
SEPARATE SOLIDS
NITRIFICATION • DENTRIFICATION
REMOVE NITROGEN COMPOUNDS
DIGESTER
REDUCE ORGANIC
HATTER TO HUMUS
HEAT TO STIMULATE
BACTERIA
SLUDGE APPLICATION
nrenup1
LIME TREATMENT
PRECIPITATES
PHOSPHORUS
AND SOLIDS
INCINERATE
REMOVE IATER
AERATION
CHLOBINATION
SAND FILTER
CARBON TREATMENT
REMOVE DISSOLVED
ORGANICS
CARBON RECOVERY
INCINERATION
. I CURE V-3
ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM: C-SELM
-------
AERATION
COMBINED CONVEYANCE
• MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
• INDUSTRIAL 8ASTES
• STORUVATER
RECUIKEO IATER
RETURNED
FOR REUSE ^e
Source: 1.
OXIDIZES ORGANIC ELEMENTS
SLUDGE APPLICATION TO LAND
. -,: v;T^«««Hi(Biai4l*«Prr7r7,
SPRAY IRRIGATION
AERATION
PUMP
o o
\J
UNOERORAIN COLLECTION SYSTEM
LIVING SOIL FILTER
REMOVES POLLUTANTS
FIGURE V-4
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM
C-SELM
-------
o-
Oi
12
10
v>
O
= 8
o
-2 6
8-
Chicago
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Year
1990 2000 2010
FIGURE V-5
COMPARISON OF PAST, PRESENT,
AND PREDICTED POPULATIONS:
C-SELM
2020
-------
15
14
13
12
11
10
§ 9
if 8
c
I 7
_o
0.
O z
0_ O
5
4
3
2
1
Corps
Series C (2.8)
Series D (2.5) :
Series E (2.1)
Series F( 1.8)
I
1970
1980
Year
2020
FIGURE V-6
COMPARISON OF POPULATION
PROJECTIONS FOR
C-SELM
66
-------
by fertility rates of 2.1 and 2.5. Considering present trends toward lower fertility rotes,
the report's estimates are almost certainly excessive, even for the 1990-2020 period.
Flow.
The flow rates presented in various sections of the C-SELM report were not in good
agreement, as illustrated in Table V-2.
TABLE V-2
FLOW DATA FOR C-SELM
Report Section
Domestic-Commercial
i
F)°w (MGD)
Industrial
Flow (MGD)
Stormwater
Flow (MGD)
Summary Report
Appendix C
Appendix B
Total
Infiltration
Direct Discharges
1990
870
1235
870
,.
2020
1300
1720
1300
1990
1240
1240
695
544
2020
1205
1205
765
440
1990
1540
1155
1529
365
2020
1575
1155
1582
422
If "Direct Discharges" are added tb "Industrial Flow" for Appendix B and "Infiltration"
added to "Stormwater Flow" for Appendix C, the results become similar to the other
sources. There is no apparent explanation for the "Domestic-Commercial Flow" figure
presented in Appendix C. Assumed in the C-SELM report was that Stormwater flow
would decrease over the 1970-1990 period and then remain fairly constant through 2020
(overall, a slight decline between 1970 and 2020). Although the absolute quantity of
rainfall may remain constant, greater runoff would be expected from the increased ur-
banization implied by the report's population projection (63 percent growth from 1970
to 2020).
The basis for the predicted reduction in industrial flow is not clear (from Appendix C,
3450 MGD in 1970 to 1240 MGD in 1990). The C-SELM report attributed the decrease
to greater use of recycled water but did not indicate the incentive for this change
(effluent charges, regulatory control, or other means). Since industrial flow is a major
component of total wastewater flow, failure to achieve the estimated reduction would
result in facilities too small to handle the actual flows.
67
-------
Costs.
Figures V-7 and X'~*jU?rej£ent comparisons of report unit cost estimates with costs from
other sources35'36'07'00^ the methods explained in Chapter IV). The centerline
of each column indicates the report estimate, and the ranges of estimates from outside
sources are indicated as percent variations from the centerline for both construction
and for operation and maintenance. As Figure V-7 illustrates, the unit process construc-
tion costs from the report are decidedly conservative with respect to the other estimates,
averaging approximately 30 percent more than the others throughout the range from 1
to 100 MGD. The average of operating and maintenance costs, however, is consistently
lower than estimates from independent sources. These differences vary from approximately
20 percent less at the lower and higher flows to 40 percept less from the middle ranges.
Conflicting information in the report affected the evaluation of total unit costs. Appendix
D's low cost per million gallons probably resulted from an inadvertent discounting of the
unit costs listed in the present worth portion of Table D-V-A-1 . Despite the discounting,
there is still a considerable difference in the cost per million gallons when compared
with the Summary Report. A comparison of these values is shown in Table V-3.
TABLE V-3
TOTAL COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES PER MG
Alternative Costs in Dollars per Million Gallons
Summary Report, Table X-l Appendix D, Table D-V-A-1
I 207.80 83.20
II 559.10 239.20
III 581.60 246.20
IV 445.00 183.50
V 559.10 243.40
68
-------
Process
Pretreatment
Secondary
Treatment
Lime Clarification
Physical-Chemical
Lime Clarification
Advanced Biological
Nitrification
Dentrifi cation
Mixed Media
Filtration
Carbon Adsorption &
Regei -Adv. -Biolog.
Carbon Adsorption &
Regen. -Phys. -Chem.
Chlorination
Post Aeration
*Bands show percent variation of
other sources from report estimates.
FIGURE V-7
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR
C-SELM *
69
-------
Process
Pret reatment
Secondary Treatment
Lime Clarification
Physical -Chemical
Lime Clarification
Advanced Biological
Nitrification
Dentrifi cation
Mixed-Media
Filtration
Carbon Adsorption &
Regen. -Adv. -Biolo
Carbon Adsorption
Regen. -Phys. -Chem
Chlori nation
Post Aeration
* Bands show percent
variation of other sources
from report estimates.
FIGURE V-8
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
FOR C-SELM*
70
-------
The economic evaluation later in this chapter discusses total annual costs of the
C-SELM alternatives.
Physical Systems and Processes.
The first three alternative plans appear to distribute the treatment plant sites uniform-
ly over the service area. This indicates that transportation distance for the raw influent
probably was minimized, achieving a good balance between the treatment plant and
collection system costs. For alternatives (V and V, however, locations were indicated
only for the land treatment sites but not for other facilities. It was probably assumed
that entire treatment facilities would be located at the land treatment sites. These
treatment locations would be a function of the availability of large parcels of land
and probably would not coincide with the most efficient distribution for service purposes.
Perhaps consideration should have been given to treating the wastewater In convention-
al facilities located near the particular service area and transporting the effluent in
smaller pipelines to the land treatment areas1.
The description of the treatment processes considered is somewhat vague,and it is not
clear where activated sludge and aerated lagoons are to be used. Interpreting the flow
diagrams representative of processes allows some suggestions to be advanced. The
flow diagrams from the Summary Report were shown in Figures V-2, V-3 and V-4.
In the physical-chemical'treatment process,it is unlikely that lime treatment would
remove sufficient solids from the wastewater to permit direct application to an activat-
ed carbon filter without causing rather rapid fouling. It fs suggested that a filtration
unit be placed between the lime treatment and the carbon columns.
A further problem would be encountered in trie storage lagoons of the land treatment
sysfem. Long-term storage of the effluent from aerated lagoons would produce con-
siderable algae growth, the amount being dependent upon the particular time of the year.
Algae growth would definitely affect the amdunt of chlorine required and could result
in undesirable accumulations of algae on the, land. The storage time provided for in
the report seemed to exceed the period of effectiveness normally assumed for chlorina-
tion.
Both the advanced biological treatment and the physical-chemical treatment systems
depend on lime treatment for removal of dissolved solids. The design influent concen-
tration of total dissolved solids was shown to be 600 mg/ liter (Appendix B), while the
anticipated concentration after treatment by either treatment system was 350 ma/liter
(Summary Report). Since lime treatment is not effective for precipitating alkali or
alkaline earth metals, realizing the predicted final concentration of TDS appears
unlikely. Ion exchange, reverse osmosfs,and electrodialysis are the only current
practical methods for reducing TDS.
The Summary Report discussed the value of vdrfous kinds of sludge and some of the
71
-------
difficulties presented by their utilization. However, definite information concerning
the precise location and technology of the intended sludge disposal was not presented,
Although not explicitly stated, it might be inferred that sludge disposal was to occur
at some of the land treatment sites. The description of sludge disposal technology was
particularly vague for physical-chemical and advanced biological process (Alternatives
II and III).
Geology and Soils.
In general, the geological and pedological feasibility of land application of sludge
and effluent, and their influence on collection and conveyance' lines, were insufficient-
ly considered. The report also did not completely discuss the impacts of the alterna-
tives on bedrock and soils.
The proposed unlined conveyance tunnels would allow mixing of tunnel water and
groundwater, but little specific information about their performance in the C-SELM
area was available.
No adequate disposal method was suggested for excavated materials resulting from con-
veyance line construction. Proposals for building a recreational mountain (skiing) or
a chain of islands in Lake Michigan, which the report states are supported by the U.S.
Department of the Interior,'' ignore the geologic properties of natural mountains and
islands. Additionally, the proposed dimensions for the "mountain" and the volume of
natural materials available would result in an 8-degree slope, which might be consid-
ered inappropriate for skiing. The Environmental Impact Evaluation suggested a more
practical use for the excavated material—for fill where needed.
The potential reactions between effluent and tunnel carbonate formations were not dis-
cussed. The effluent might dissolve the formations, thus enlarging cavities and joints.
This could cause surface subsidence if the strength of the cavity roof is insufficient
to support the overburden. Solution of carbonates occurs at a pH of less than 7; there-
fore adjustment of the effluent to pH of greater than 7 would be necessary.
The drainage characteristics of local soils should be considered in design of the pro-
posed land treatment alternatives. Analysis of Houghton soils, identified in Appendix
B (pages IV-D-49 through IV-D-52) as the predominant type in the rural areas which
would receive the effluent, indicates poor drainage. Houghton soils are organic, in-
dicating a pH of less than 7, high moisture retention, and possibly a high water table.
Morley Markham soils were considered suitable for spray irrigation because of their
assumed ability to drain well (Appendix B, p. IV-D-49). At the same time (same
page), the report listed the permeability of these soils to be moderately low~0.2 to
0.6 inches per hour.
The report did not specify what it meant by "well drained." If it was referring to
72
-------
drainage through the soil, then permeability figures contradict the concept of "well
drained." It is possible that the report meant surface drainage, but this would not
be an ideal soil for land application. Another potential confusion is the way per-
meability was measured. IF measured under dry conditions rather than at field capa-
city, a high value could have resulted from the free passage of water through the soil,
or a low value from absorption by clays (in a clayey soil) which would normally be
saturated at field capacity.
The effect of land application on soils developed on carbonate rock would be similar
to the effects caused by dissolving of carbonates when effluent passes through tunnels.
Wastewater could enter carbonate formations stratigraphically or structurally adjacent
to these soils. The structure of the area was not considered in sufficient detail to
make these conclusions, however.
The general weakness in the treatment of geology and soils seemed to be lack of corre-
lation of basic physical and chemical properties.of the land with its intended use. The
table in Appendix B which detailed the properties of the soils selected for land treatment
should clarify whether sludge, stormwater, or wastewater will be applied to each.
Also, the ion exchange capacity of each soil should preferably be determined from
samples collected at.treatment sites.
If further work substantiates the suitability of the soils for land treatment of effluent,
consideration should also be given to the use of spreading basins to reduce the land
requirements.
The report accurately stressed the necessity of a storage system for stormwater runoff
to prevent overloading of the conveyance systems. Methods of storing runoff include
ponding behind dams and in internally draining basins. Both are subject to sediment
filling, however, and it is not clear what treatment the sediment would undergo prior
to final disposal.
Another proposed storage method (primarily for use in rural areas) was groundwater re-
charge through deep wells. The aquifer chosen in this option, a deep sandstone layer,
would be recharged with treated stormwater during wet years and used as a supplemen-
tary water source during times of drought. This appears feasible but further work is
needed on the nature of the deep sandstone; in particular, the structure of the layer
needs to be determined.
Resource Requirements and Residueal Wastes.
The amount of residual wastes resulting from wastewater treatment in this analysis is
set equal to the sum of materials captured in the system plus chemical additives recap-
tured and wastes captured from the production of power for use by the treatment plants.
73
-------
Table V-4 "s a rough materials balance for advanced biological, physical-chemical,
and land treatment processes and illustrates the approximate magnitude of discharged
wastes. Total dissolved solids remaining In the effluent and soluble organics contri-
buting to production of all mass in biological systems were not included in the material
balance.
Table V-5 compares resources required for, and residual wastes produced by, the five
alternative plans. Total projected residual waste for |990 (based on estimated 1990
population) was approximately one-fourth the conventionally accepted figure for total
per-capita solid waste generation. Also note the comparison of per capita resource
consumption in Alternatives M, III, IV, and V; the Alternative IV resource figure
is one and one-half times as large as the waste figures, while the two categories
more or less agree for II, III, and V.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION.
Costs of Alternative Plans.
Facility Costs. Table V-6 presents projected capital, operating'and maintenance, and
average annual costs for the five C-SELM alternatives. The report used a 5.5 percent
interest rate rather than the EPA guidelines^ recommended 7 percent and estimated
annual costs 'jsing a 50-year lifespan for all system components which also deviated from
EPA guidelines.EPA recommended average service lives are:
Land Permanent
Structures 30 to 50 yrs.
Process Equipment ]5 to 30 yrs.
Auxiliary Equipment lOtolSyrs.
Overestlmat'on of service lives thus caused total system annual costs to be understated.
Other omissions from annual cost estimates included costs of modifying existing faciltr
ties and of dismantling and restoring sites of abandoned plants. The rationale behind
not considering the latter costs was that the salvage and land value of existing treatment
facilities would equal or exceed those costs. This assumption was not analyzed quanti-
tatively in the report,and therefore its accuracy cannot be determined.
In the C-SELM report, engineering-administration and contingency costs were assumed
to be respectively 15 and 20 percent of capital costs. Interest foregone was not in-
cluded in the costs because, the report claimed, uncertainties of funding and potential
variation in implementation scheduling made it impractical to estimate these costs.
Replacement and manpower costs were included in operating and maintenance, with
74
-------
TABLE v-4
COMPARISON OF RESOURCES REQUIRED AND
RESIDUAL WASTES FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT METHODS: C-SELM
Item
(tons/day except
where noted)
Electric powera
Resources
Coal
Chemicals
Total
Residual Wastes
Particulates, SOx
SS removed
Chemicals in sludge
Total
Residual Waste
(Physical-Chemical ~
1 .00)
Resources (Physical-
Chemical = 1 .00)
Physical-
Chemical
9,71 3
3,073
3,822
6,895
707
3,009
3,822
7,538
1.00
1.00
Advanced
Biological
11,050
3,494
2,752
6,246
804
3,009
2,752
6,565
0.87
0.91
Land
Treatment
15,235
4,819
51
4,870
1,108
3,024
51
4,183
0.55
0.71
In megawatt hrs/day; not included in totals for alternatives.
75
-------
TABLE V-5
COMPARISON OF RESOURCES REQUIRED
AND RESIDUAL WASTES FOR ALTERNATIVE
PLANS: C-SELM
Item
(tons/day ex-
cept where
noted)
Electric power0
Resources
Coal
Chemicals
Total
Residual
Wastes
Parti culates, SOX
SS removed
Chemicals in sludge
Total
Residual waste (Ib/
cap-day)
Resources (Ib/cap- '
day)
1
3,200
1,024
44
1 ,068
233
3,009
44
3,286
0.70
0.23
II
10,300
3,296
4,160
7,456
749
3,009
4,160
7,918
1.68
1.58
III
11,600
3,712
2,700
6,412
844
3,009
2,700
6,553
1.39
1.36
IV
22,000
7,040
49
7,089
1,601
3,024
49
4,674
0.99
1.50
V
14,700
4,704
1,987
6,691
1 ,069
3,024
1,987
6,080
1.29
1.42
In megawatt hrs/day; not included in totals for alternatives.
76
-------
TABLE V-6
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: C-SELM0
Plan
1
II
III
IV
V
Present Worth
Capital Cost
($ million)
5 .5%
2,677
7,254
7,721b
(7,820)c
6/851b
(6,904)°
7/704b
(7,789)c
/%
2,551
6,897
7,341 b
(7,434)c
6,545b
(6,590)c
7,343b
(7,423)c
Annual Cost (Including O & M)
($ million)
5.5%
201
730
748b
(762 )c
575b
(580)c
720b
(732 )<=
7%
223
776
798b
(812)c
633b
(638)c
774b
(786)c
Annual costs are computed over 50 years
• Costs for agricultural utilization sludge option
Costs for land reclamation sludge option
77
-------
the exception of the costs of additional personnel training required by new facilities
and of attracting and retaining qualified personnel, Also added to O & M costs was
a 20 percent contingency figure. In accord with Ef?A recommendations, sunk costs
(in existing facilities, lands, and outstanding bond Indebtedness) were not included
in report estimates. S.unk costs are not particularly'relevant to costs incurred as a result
of implementing a given plan.
Land Requirements. Table V-7 lists total estimated acreage required for each alternative
for 1990 and 2020. Land costs were not explicitly presented in the C-SELM Report.
Alternatives IV and V (land treatment) should have listed a variety of land costs. The
land used for aeration and storage lagoons would be the only parcels requiring purchase.
Other costs arise in using privately owned land, Including initial and inconvenience pay-
ments (10 percent of present land values) would need to be made to participating land-
owners to defray costs of new equipment or loss of crop revenues. These payments should
also cover costs of deepening and protecting potable water wells where land application
of effluent increases the risk of contamination.
Assuming a unit cost of $500 per acre, since no cost was given In the report, cost es-
timates of purchased land range from $750,000 for Alternative I to $63,000,000 for
Alternative JV. No provisions for relocating the residents of purchased lands were
made, but an allowance for land removed from tax rolls was included.
One major assumption made in the C-SELM Report was that lands for effluent treatment
and sludge disposal could be leased and thus remain |n private ownership. This would
offer the advantages, compared to purchase, of reducing land-associated capital costs
and of reducing negative impact local tax revenues. It is questionable If these large
tracts could be leased, however, due to 1) likely opposition of landowners and 2)
difficulties in coordinating, operating, and maintaining large scale land application
programs where many individual property owners are responsible for system operation.
These factors would be especially apparent if certain landowners (as Is likely) refuse
to lease their acreage.
Cost Sensitivity. The influence of a change in interest rate and service life on costs per
million gallons and per capita-year for C-SELM plans Is shown In Table V-8. The
report apparently Investigated various interest rates but did not comment on their In-
fluences on the alternatives. Table V-8 is intended to show the possible impacts of
such variation rather than the superiority of a 10 percent Interest rate or 25 year
economic life over the values in the report, per se.
The assumption that costs of federal construction grants are borne by the ent're country
was not altogether correct. Eventually the nation as a whole would theoretically con-
tribute to similar systems covering every residence area. Thus it Is not unreasonable
to consider federal costs to be borne by the immediate population. In general, consi-
deration of per capita costs for all alternatives is necessary to convey clearly the true
78
-------
TABLE V-7
LAND REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: C-SELM
Plan
1
II
III
IV
V
Total Acreage Cost
1990 2020 (not given in
report)
58,500 68,600
829,200 918,800
234,200 462,200
542,900 847,200
320,300 606,400
TABLE V-8
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT: C-SELM
Alternative
1
II
III
IV
V
Annual Cost in
Millions of Dollars
Table X-l 10%-25Yrsa
202 338
745 1177
775 1241
593 1004
745 1210
Cost in $/MG Cost in $/Capita Yr.
Table X-l 10%-25 Yrs Table X-l 10%-25 Yrs.
208 348 21.36 35.74
559 883 78.79 124.47
581 931 81.96 131.24
445 753 62.71 106.18
559 908 78.79 127.96
Values in this column were determined by obtaining the present worth, 5£% 50 years
of annual capital costs of Table X-l and determining capital recovery for 10%, 25
years and adding 0, M and R costs of Table X-l.
Based on 1990 population of 9,456,000.
79
-------
financial effect of adoption of any of the proposed plans.
Economic Impacts.
Table V-9 presents a general evaluation of economic impacts in the report. The report
did not sufficiently consider or support the effects of alternatives on agricultural productivity,
land values, and manpower and employment. Table V-10 quantifies the anticipated
changes brought about by each alternative in four areas of economic concern: number
of persons displaced, energy and chemicals required, and employment increase.
Agricultural Productivity. The report assumed that increased irrigation or the applica-
tion of sludge as fertilizer would increase crop yield/ and thus benefit farmers. North-
west Indiana agronomists and farmers have expressed the opinion that the proposed appli-
cation rates are excessive, given the natural precipitation of the C-SELM area (see
C-S ELM Comments Appendix). Another uncertainty is the responsiveness of plants that
thrive in sludge to the climate and rainfall of the area. It should also be noted that the
report emphasized the potential agricultural benefits of sludge application and at the
same time expressed the need for the previously described "initial and inconvenience"
payments to owners of land to which effluent is to be applied, part of which was com-
prised of potential loss in crop revenues.
Resource Consumption. Future trends in the supply and demand of resources required in
treatment facilities need to be evaluated more completely to enable a sound choice
among alternatives. This concern especially applies to Alternative IV (land application)
which requires a Idrge amount of electricity and to Alternative 11 (physical-chemical
treatment) which requires a large amount of chemicals. The report did discuss the re-
lative demands on resources fairly completely.
Land Values. The report stated that implementation of NDCP Alternatives would enhance
property values. Evidence exists supporting a positive correlation between pollution con-
trol and property values/ and it is probable that the value of strip-mined lands should
increase after sludge application. However, the report did not consider the possible de-
crease of land values in areas adjacent to treatment plants and changes in land values of
sites to which effluent or sludge is applied.
Manpower and Employment. The C-SELM Summary Report assumed the number of
workers employed by treatment plants would equal or exceed the number of farmers dis-
placed by these plants. Table V-10 shows anticipated number of persons displaced con-
sistently greater than employment increases for all alternatives. In addition, the assump-
tion that displaced farmers form a natural labor pool for treatment plants is highly ques-
tionable.
The report concluded that, in addition to the increased local employment brought about
by the plans, there would be a desirable multiplier effect resulting in increased demand
for housing and services. However, economic growth and increased population density
80
-------
TABLE V-9
ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX: C-SELM
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
€
|
a>
u
CL.
\ General Impacts
Agricultural productivity
Resource consumption
Land values
Manpower and employment
Financial impacts
Industrie] production.
Wastewater Treatment
Land
t . v -,>
* ' -'
i
' * ,
"-*"''"-1* "•••'.
i:.V«;Aii."«:".!
• » ; «.» 4fe ; «• j •
• •• •••^•* *•* ••
• 1 4 » i *»; •••«»'
«*».«•»-•*».«•»»«'
«*;«* 2 •*»**•*
r • *.V- * %V * *i r* * "-V '
j -*•- -^'' c .
;',•;;« .'•."•
£K!
;Vu-' •• -^ t - *•
:*v»:-v.*»v-:-v*:
*»%**.t" :/»;.«•;
• « » * ^j|^^ * • » •
'**•* **i^^Pa* **•**'
•».*»* ^» •'*•*•
.»*•»»*»•*•-»•»'
t «• J «• t •*•«*•
J * **„ • *_V • *A* • „
Adv. bio
:i|v'v
,„ ,„•• V,— *; .'',
i'.";.";."*'"-:
"•••V«:-!i.:.V«:.V
• *» » «*^L* ; •» •
'..•.•.'.••Tf-'.V:':.
»••••••*«•*«•».
.:.*%'.*%J/%»,",5
• • « «••-.• . •? • - .
S^;.;
:*'?¥*^
-'**•>/ .-."
.*. ».*•. •/.*. * *V» • -V- -
*•»•«»••»• 4» *•
V*'.V^j^V;%V<
;'.V:-.^r:'..':'.
:.*:'.V:'.V:'.V:'.Vj
« •— • •**/ • •. / • *.r • • *.
Ph,-ch.
'*5.^"'',r --'%•.-.
£;:*;' £•<
<» s «» •** r** • *•
.«*• «*»,«•»-«••_•
'••:•:•:'•"•'•"''.
':.:".i&.".'S\
'.':.s;:7?:.*f:J;
i» £ •» . «» :••£«»
* V-' * Vl* * *'f ' '" ' "
• '~ '-A> - --
:<3*;t
*f -,-:.'- ' ^vs
^'M';->;;
.,' «*-^*,s 'vtr'.
r.vV'»V'.v?.vV
S::5**«:v:sS
? «» * «^T*» t •» ;
• •»»•»•••••»•'
«• £••£•'•••••»
k •*..* •*. V • . ' • '.V •"
Sludge
Aaric.
. ^--^"""V^V
^ i 2ta.---- S
^•cF,";.r"»
•.•Vi^:.^.11
V .',",' ,",'.",','
»:•»*•»:•»£«»
•.V;'.Vdt:V.v.
/:-.V:',1f>..'.'.V]
-«"».«-T».«» ».«*»*•
•"•.v".v"v".V
v.':'..*:*;.*:'.'.':*.'
••**•*»•«••«»,
••:'V«:-'«i".:.V'
.V.J.V"*«:-V«:''
• . «» Z 4 » t •» * 4*
«*•.«*».«•»-«*•.•
."L?J*.:."-:.-.J.-
'.V.;-V»;-V-;-V-V
»*•»" 4* '«»'«»,
:*""'j*.Vift::'«.*:*.
V:'.V:T»*.V:'.V;
;•:.•:•:.•:•.;•;•»:••
••**•••••••** i
&*•••&*•»•»
Oth. land
.'.':-'. \:''.\\'.\\i.
«» i *•• ** r **r ••
':"«*:"«4fr«':*.V:'
•.V:V.':TSV'.V:'.':
»v« *»_••» -«•-•»»•
>£«»•«»£«•!«»£
•A* • *. V » « V . * —> • • j
^v^-r^vV^
tf'ji?:*}:--:
•» ; •» j K ? ••> • ••
>.•••.»••.••*.**•.»
'••*•» '•»£«»' 4
»*• •» ••• •-»• »*
«»"•»"•»_•»• «»
Collection
& Convey-
ance
; .. .. ;".»• •..•;•'«•"
•.« .• ».« ».«»»«
•** ••••* ••••
r.v .VA* •:.•;•:.•
.*•••. ••"• *.••••.•
.«•• *..•• «•..«••
:/.v •:«•.•. v:.".
-•"* *•**" •»-«•
••" v-:«*. ••.••'•"
:,'.• '^f .'.\\'',
'•"• *.w. 'Y«:"«
/.V :.v«: •'•V«:'
!.". •'.*.« .«•-!.".
00
Legend:$llllli Area of major concern 'XvlvVvV*' Area of moderate concern i 1 Area of relatively minor concern
• Presented adequately A Presented adequately only in appendices
• Insufficiently supported ^ Not adequately considered
-------
TABLE V-10
COMPARISON OF SELECTED ECONOMIC
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS; C-SELM
Plan
Residents
Displaced
(number)
Power
Electricity
(megawatt hr
per day)
Gas
(millions cu
ft per day)
Chemicals
(tons per day)
Employment
Increase
(number)
1
II
III
IV
V
3,400
18,800
29,600
17,500
25,620
3,600
12,300
13,900
26,000
18,500'
0
169
102
0
65
51
5,030
3,720
28
2,110
3,040
10,670
12,510
2,110
8,810
82
-------
may not be the preferred goals of the people presently living in the C-SELM area. The
soc'oenvironmental evaluations in Appendix E weighted immigration and population
density lowest "n importance of the nineteen potential impacts of the alternatives eva-
luated, but it is debatable whether this represents a weighting that would be approved
by C-SELM residents.
i
Financial Impact. With the exception of the previously discussed low interest rate used
in predicting annual costs, the C-SELM report treated financial impacts fairly thoroughly.
the lower 5-1/2 percent interest rate caused Alternative IV to appear more attractive than
otherwise because O and M costs became low relative to capital costs. Seven percent,
the rate recommended by the EPA, made Alternatives II, III, and Vseem more cost -
effective.
Part of the financial impact of implementing any alternative would be transmitted through
the affected area's loan rate structure. The increase in bond supply because of heavy
capital financing needs of a pollution control project would raise the cost of money to
other borrowers "n the area.
Financial impact also would depend on the amount of land taken off tax rolls without
adequate compensation to local governments. The report estimated compensation to
local governments would involve $1.1 million for plan IV and $0.3 million for plan V,
but any loss in tax revenues exceeding the reimbursement would have to be considered
a negative financial impact.
Table V-ll summarizes the average annual costs to local taxpayers and industries which
were listed in the Summary Report. The report assumed that" federal taxpayers would pay
75 percent of the capital costs and study area taxpayers would pay the remaining 25 per-
cent plus all operating costs. * Though Alternative IV would minimize the cost of meeting
1985 water quality standards for local taxpayers, the annual operating costs of all alter-
natives exceed existing treatment costs and are not offset by income gains. Therefore,
dny plan would cause disposable income of the area to drop.
industrial Production. Table V-ll also shows that cost to industries for Alternatives
11,111, IV and V remains constant, while cost to taxpayers varies. It is reasonable
to assume that cost to industry for wastewdter treatment would change with each alter-
native because of differing external c&sts and benefits. A detailed analysis of the
specific impacts of each alternative on industries would be necessary to bring 6ut cost
differences.
SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION,
Table V-12 represents the type of consideration given by the C-SELM report to specific
socioenvironmental effects of different treatment and disposal technologies. This section
discusses how the report evaluated these impacts and then analyzes the evaluations.
* As mentioned, assuming that local taxpayers are not affected by federal financing
is questionable. If nothing else, the C-SELM residents, representing approximately
3.7 percent of the nation's population, would pay an additional 2.0 percent of total costs.
83
-------
TABLE V-l 1
AVERAGE ANNUAL COST' OF ALTERNATIVES:
($ million)
Alternative Total Average Annual Cost to
Local Taxpayers
1 84
II 417
III 422
IV 281
V 393
C-SELM0
Total Average Annual
Cost to Industries
1972 1990
62
50
50
50
50
142
103
103
103
103
Costs computed at 5.5% over 50 years
84
-------
TABLE V-12
SOCIO ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX: C-SELM
(Symbols denote evaluation, of, Carp&.of-.Englneers1 impact analyses-foreach celt)"
Area of Impact
Wastewater Treatment
Land Adv. bio. Ph.-ch
Sludge
Agric. Oth. land
Collection
& Convey-
ance
mpac
Surface & groundwater
Flora and fauna
Water reuse
;. *'
Geology and soils
Flora and fauna
Land reclamation
Land use
Time related impacts
^-^•^YitfiW^lK'XvSft'o
00
Ol
(U
_c
6
Air quality
Resource consumption
«
« • ; « » V « •
* *
H**
El
Communit cohesion
o
o
to
Special interest groups
Recreation
Aesthetics
& Health
Visual aesthetics
Olfactory aesthetics
Toxic substances
Pathogens
Legend: Area of major concern '.V/.V/.* Area of moderate concern f i Area of relatively minor concern
• Presented adequately A Presented adequately only in appendices
• Insufficiently supported -4>> Not adequately considered
-------
General Methodology.
A T4-member interdisciplinary team evaluated the socip environmental impacts presented
*n the C-SELM report by using qualified primary impact (A) and human activity (B)
matrices. The rows of each matrix consisted of alternative plans and their components,
and the columns listed impact categories. The evaluators first rated (on a scale of + 3
to - 3) primary social and environmental impacts of plan components on the A matrix
and then translated these primary impacts to dimensions of human activity of the B matrix.
The C matrix showed the resulting impacts of plan components on human activities, which
were subjectively weighted.
In theory this matrix evaluation should provide an accurate assessment of the socio en-
vironmental impacts of the report, and C-SELM was the only report to include such an
advanced and comprehensive impact evaluation technique. The e valuators themselves
pointed out the inherent difficulties of the method. A problem in weighting impacts
was the assumption that all impacts would be independent. .Impacts on air
resources, for example, may actually also be impacts on public health and aesthetics.
Converting primary environmental impacts to human impacts (social well-being, public
service, etc.) and then weighting them magnified the overlap problem.
Another basic problem with the matrix approach was the classification of impacts as
positive or negative with respect to the direction of change. An increase in the rate
of immigration to an area would be considered a positive impact whether beneficial
or adverse.for the area. (Impacts probably should have been classified as beneficial
or adverse).
Some other assessment problems with the C-SELM evaluation included the fact that
evaluations were contingent on the validity of derived data supplied to them. The
evaluation team, then, could not address such issues as the reasonableness of the estimates
of resource consumption, amounts of people displaced, the cost of alternative plans, or
the water quality achieved by alternative treatment processes. Also, it would have been
more informative for the impact analysis to be divided, separating geographic groups
likely to be affected,and also separating impact analyses of specific components of each
alternative plan. The latter problem was particularly apparent when power plant syner-
g'sm was included with evaluation of land-based treatment, substantially increasing
the environmental benefits of this alternative.
The evaluators mentioned several times that the five alternatives presented to them for
evaluation did not necessarily represent the most environmentally sound areawide plans.
It was noted in Appendix E that no detailed evaluation was made of Alternative I, the
non-NDCP reference plan, even though some evaluators thought it "one of the best"
in a realistic sense. More generally, the evaluators preferred a lesser degree of region-
alization of wastewater treatment than was present in any of the NDCP alternatives
(II through V).
86
-------
The evaluation team concluded Alternative 111 (17advanced biological treatment
plants) and Alternative V (5 advanced biological plants plus 6 land treatment sites),
the latter including power plants at the (and sites, produced the most positive impacts.
The alternatives producing the fewest positive impacts were Alternative 11 (33 phy'sical-
chemical treatment plants) and Alternative I (the reference plan).
Environmental Impacts.
Table V-12 presents a summary evaluation of the environmental impact assessment appear-
ing in Appendices E and F and in the Summary Report. These evaluations are discussed
below.
Surface and Groundwater. The additional treatment provided by any of the alter-
natives would enhance surface water quality. An important factor also mentioned in
the environmental impact assessment, but not explicitly, was the effect of treatment
plant size on water quality. Regardless 6f its cost-effectiveness, a larger plant would
be expected to affect receiving water quality more than a smaller plant.
The report assumed that 134inches of water per year could be successfully applied to
the land over 8 months at 4.5 inches and sometimes 6 inches per week. Some investi-
gators " however, recommended a maximum rate of 2 inches per week for irrigation
and advised instituting an experimental program with application rates of one-fourth
to one-half the 134-inch rate.
The eight-month irrigation period accounted for reduced percolation and involved storages
to prevent overland flow to surface waters while the ground is frozen. Appendices B
and D,but not E or the Summary Report, considered this possible runoff.
All treatment methods would increase ground water supply, but, as noted in Appendix
E (not one Summary Report), the possibility of a negative impact on groundwater quality
was associated with application of effluent and sludge. The effects of contaminants in
the form of N, TDS, SS, heavy metals> and viruses were not detailed. Ground-
water quality received adequate consideration wtth reference to advanced biological
and physical-chemical treatment.
Aquatic Flora and Fauna. Aquatic flora and fauna would experience an overall positive impact
with all NDCP alternatives due to increased water quality; this was not readily apparent
in the Summary Report or Appendix E, as aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna were
considered together as "biotit communities'." Importantly, the report failed to provide a
list of aquatic species present, population sizes, and sensitivity to pollutants. Such an
ecological survey is usually considered a necessary prerequisite for an adequate environ-
mental Tmpact assessment. The overall impact of land application of effluent or sludge
oh aquatic flora and fauna was reasonably represented as positive.
87
-------
An unusual problem would be presented in centralizing advanced biological and physical-
chemical treatment plants/since smaller plants presently discharge to smaller streams and
maintain year-around flow in such streams. A decrease In upstream flow caused by cen-
tralization would affect an artificially maintained system, so that completely evaluating
impacts would involve further analysis than that appearing on report.
Water Reuse. The report assumed that a market for the reclaimed effluent produced by
all treatment technologies would exist. Furtherqssessmeht was somewhat beyond the scope
of the technical study.
Geology and Soils. As discussed in the Technical Evaluation, the impacts of alternatives
on geology and soils and vice versa were not considered in sufficient detail. Generally,
the interactions possible between effluent and carbonate formations and effluent and
groundwater needed further discussion.
The plans which would have the greatest effect on soils are Alternatives IV and V
(land treatment). Application rates and effluent quality not appropriate for fine-tex-
tured soils could cause soil structure to break down, resulting in failure of the site to
treat effluent adequately. Even if soil structure is unaffected, it has not been demon-
strated that land treatment would be able to produce the results anticipated by the
report.
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna. A list of species (other than crops) likely to be affected
by the treatment alternatives was not included in the report. Appendix E noted the
alteration and destruction of local habitats inherent in construction activities/but also
indicated that increased food supply for terrestrial animals feeding on aquatic organisms
living in affected waters would be a positive impact.
Mentioned in Appendix E, but not in the Summary,was the impact that land application
underdrains will have on shallow-tooted plants. The proposed drawdown of six to eight
inches might affect areas adjacent to the land treatment areas by a general lowering of
the water table below the shallow root systems.
Judgment of the desirability of impacts on terrestrial community structure was not part
of the report, and perhaps understandably so. Deciding, for example, whether game
waterfowl, which could inhabit the altered areas, would be more "desirable" than in-
digenous deer and pheasant, which would be displaced, would be a difficult task in-
volving considerable subjectivity.
The Summary Report did not really'consider the present uses pf many of the sites proposed
for land app licat'on. Today, much of this land is producing top soybean and corn crops
*n Illinois, according to the Iroquols Valley Association • There is .a good possibility
that applying wastewater to the more fertile land-application sites at the proposed rates
will decrease crop yields due to the presence of excess salt and metals and due to
-------
over-saturation of the so? I.
The report basically ignored specific negative impacts on both terrestrial and aquatic
flora and fauna that are unavoidable with all treatment and sludge disposal techno-
logies. The failure to consider these adverse impacts was especially apparent in the
Impact tables presented at the end of the Summary Report.
Land Reclamation. Land reclamation was well considered In both appendices and in
the Summary Report. Disposal of sludge to barren, strip-mined land was judged by
the evaluators to be among the best uses to which the land could be put. There would
be a problem in obtaining the cooperation of the land owners and in transporting sludge
for disposal sites, factors mentioned by the environmental impact evaluators but not
really discussed "n the Summary Report.
Land Use. Land-use Issues were analyzed sparingly throughout the report. There was
no evaluation in Appendix E regarding the degree to which the alternatives were
compatible with existing and planned land uses. Throughout the report, the main land-
use impacts described were the potential of alternatives to preserve open space and
create new recreational areas. There was little analysis of possible negative impacts
of removing large tracts of open-space land from development on development patterns
within remaining open-space land wifhin the study area and impacts on land prices.
Importantly, no mention was made of the likely growth-Inducing impact of construc-
ting high-capacity interceptor sewers to supply previously unserviced land with sewage
treatment. This issue has been raised by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commis-
sion. Noting the likely changes in growth patterns produced by construction of
interceptor sewers, this agency suggested that increased growth would conflict with
its own goals and objectives for land use in- the C-SELM area.
In general, the report dealt mostly wfth changes In land use on those lands directly
affected by alternative plan implementation. The report failed to consider the likely
overall changes in land use that would occur throughout the study area over a period
of time.
Time-Related Impacts. The long-term land-use Impacts of the Corps of Engineers'
plans were not sufficiently detailed by the impact evaluators In the report. This
problem can be attributed In large part to incomplete consideration of the short-term
impacts of alternative plans. No attempt was made to Integrate probable long-term
changes with the long-term goals of planning agencies within the C-SELM study area.
Mention was made of emigration and immigration caused by alternative plans and of
their impacts on development, but the' nature of these changes, which were quantified
in the impact matrices In Appendix E, were not specifically identified by geographic
area.
89
-------
Air Quality. All alternatives would emft some pollutants to the atmosphere. Land
application, as noted throughout the report, would emft the fewest pollutants. Both
the Summary and Appendix E adequately evaluated air pollutant impacts of the water-
based treatment technologies; physical-chemical treatment was expected to emit more
air pollutants in the form of sulfur oxides and nitrous oxides than was advanced bio-
logical treatment. These emissions presented one of the major adverse Impacts of
Alternative II (33 physical-chemical treatment plants) that resulted In Its overall low
rating by the evaluation team. The effect of emissions from increased power consump-
tion was omitted.
Resource Consumption. Resource consumption is important for all wastewater treatment
technologies, and was given sufficient emphasis throughout the report. As noted in
the report, land application required the smallest amount of chemicals for operation
(only chlorine In large amounts), while the water-based treatment technologies re-
quired larger amounts of a variety of chemicals. Of the two water-based technolo-
gies, physical-chemical treatment, as noted In Appendix E/would require the greatest
chemical input due to Its reliance on chemical addition rather than biological oxi-
dation. Construction of collection and conveyance lines Is also expected to consume
mineral resources.
A major impact of all technologies would be increased consumption of natural gas and
electricity. The report notes that land application required only electrical energy
for operation, whereas waster-based treatment technologies, relied more heavily on
natural gas.
Social Impacts.
Community Cohesion. Appendix E adequately evaluated effects of alternatives on
community structure. The Summary Report, however, did not reflect the analysis
of the socioenvironmental evaluation and deleted considerations of community social
and political structure. The evaluation rated physical-chemical and land treatment
with agricultural sludge disposal as having negative impacts on community cohesion.
The only basis for this judgment seemed to be the statement in Appendix E that land
application of effluent encountered a largely negative reaction In C-SELM public
meetings.
Special Interest Groups. With all plans, the Summary Reports tended to downplay
social impacts of relocating thousands of rural residents. In general, the socioenvfron-
mental impact appendix discussed this Issue adequately, presenting the number of
people displaced (Table E-V-5) by each alternative and ascribing a negative impact
on "community social structure" to the land-based plans cjue to Increased relocation
of residents. Evaluators noted that application of sludge to strip-mined lands was
preferred over agricultural application because fewer people would be displaced,
but the Summary Report largely omitted this topic, which was widely discussed In
90
-------
public meetings. The Summary Impact tables focused on other, less drastic effects
on interest groups such as "owners of system-required land," who might experience
anxiety from leasing or Interest acquisition procedures. Public meetings brought
out anger and opposition from affected land owners, realtors, fertilizer companies
and other concerned interests. The public reaction should have been described
factually in the Summary Report. Appendix G noted (page G-V-11) that a final
necessary impact assessment prior to plan selection would be; "the rural commuhfties'
willingness to work with the urban communities and forego certain values, social and
economic, explicit with thefr long-range plans . " The extent of this willingness/ or
rather Its lack,had already clearly been expressed at public meetings and in formal
comments.
Recreation. Discussion of recreational benefits was generally good throughout the re-
port. The increased potential of all wastewater management components was detailed
in both the Summary and Appendix E. The report tended to overstate the recreational
potential of certain components, in particular, land application of effluent. However,
it should also be kept in mind that allocation of lanJ ana water resources for recreational
uses depend on numerous other factors outside the scope of these studies.
Several other points might also be raised. There was little effort to determine
the recreational needs of C-SELM residents. This factor would be important for
final selection of land and water resources to be used for recreation. Also, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, In the Comments Appendix (Appendix I) noted several
important facts pertaining to recreation: 1) hew'open-space areas created through re-
duction of flooding will only be converted to recreational use, as opposed to other
uses, through a committed effort; 2) recreational areas should be located on lands
that are not suitable for high-quality agricultural use (such as some of the open-space
land located nearby land application sites); 3) regional parks should be located re-
ar! vely close to the Chicago Metropolitan area; 4) public health and aesthetic con-
siderations argue against using srormwater Impondments and storage lagoons for
sport fishing and also against the location of regional parks near land application
sites. The environmental impact evaluators in Appendix E further note that access
to land-cpplication-site buffer zones should probably be restricted, preventing the
recreational use of these open-space areas.
Visual and Olfactory Aesthetics. Appendix E analyzed visual aesthetics sufficiently,
but the Summary Report did not discuss the topic except for mentioning the improved
appearance of reclaimed strip-mined lands. This omission Is important since the eva-
luators (Appendix E) ranked aesthetics (Table E-A-2) the highest among human factors.
Again, only Appendix E dealt sufficiently with olfactory aesthetics, describing im-
provements brought about by cleaner rivers and streams and problems with aerosols
escaping from spray Irrigation sites.
91
-------
Tox'c Substances. Toxic materials are a potential problem for each of the treat-
ment technologies. Appendix E, but not the Summary, discussed the problem of
toxic substances only with reference to effluent and sludge qpplfcatTon to land;
the evaluators noted potential problems with heavy metals being absorbed by plants
and subsequently entering the food chain. This potential public health impact was
the source of the proposal that only secondary quality effluent be applied to the
land with no application occurring during the last 20 days pf'or to harvesting.
The possibility of toxic substances still existing in the effluents of water-based
treatment technologies was only briefly considered in the C-SELM report. It is
doubtful that the unit processes proposed would be able to achieve complete removal
of these substances. In general, the report was vague as to the origin, biological
effects, and monitoring of toxic substances in wastewater following treatment.
Pathogens. Pathogens were considered to a similar degree as toxic substances in
the C-SELM report. The possibility of viruses persisting in the effluents exists with
each treatment technology and disinfection by chlorination is not necessarily a
complete protection. The socioenvironmental impact evaluation did mention that
viruses may persist in soils following effluent and sludge application to land, but
this problem was not mentioned in the Summary nor given further consideration.
FEASIBILITY ANA LYSIS.
Existing Institutional Framework.
C-SELM is unique among the five study areas in that it includes portions of two
states (Illinois and Indiana). Areaw'de wastewater management coordination can
be expected to suffer from the existence of separate state laws and agencies. One
particularly relevant Indiana law specifies that no Indiana political entities may
participate fn interstate transfer of wastewater effluents or sludges without prior
State approval. An overview of existing institutions and their delegated authori-
ties pertaining to environmental protection is presented in Figure V-9.
International and Interstate. The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the United
States and Canada, intended to discourage pollution of boundary waters, established
the International Joint Commission (IJC). The IJC was empowered to grant approval
for uses, obstructions, and diversions of international boundary waters of the Great
Lakes Basin. The application of this treaty by the IJC has not been an effective
antipollution enforcement mechanism. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1972 requires that State water pollution abatement programs be developed to con-
trol municipal, industrial, agricultural, forestry, and other land use activities, and
that appropriate State agencies adopt stringent standards for sludge disposal sites,
as well as regulations on site selection and disposal of nutrients and other potential
pollutants. Phosphorous removal is required from all wastewater discharged to
92
-------
a
•*
O
O
a
(Q
o
O
a
-a:
Q
3
o
a.
o
gr
<5'
o
Fminpnt Domain
9
©
e
e
9
9
©
e
a
3
a.
r
i
»
9
0
9
©
9
0
O
9
9
Wnfer Supply Contracts
•
O
0
9
9
Q
— i
(D
£
D
n
3
|
9
9
9
9
9
9
G
9
~
I
$
D
(A
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
•u
|
<
^*
n
n
3
3
9
)
D
Q.
™
A
si
3^
3°
O
9
ppfii M ATORY POWERS
1
0
3_
9
9
9
9
9
>
•o
tn
70
D'
e
9
9
9
9
Q
O
0
3
3
1
a
9
©
Permit Enforcement
e
9
Permit Issuance
O
9
9
>
•^
n>
T
O
2
•w*
?
CO
a1
9
9
9
SPECIFIC ROLES
co
L
51
f
T>
9
0
9
9
9
e
9
9
9
9
Tl
§_
-o
Q<
3*
9
9
O
|
5
^
9
9
•
9
9
o
i
3
Q.
~
n
-o
2
«/l
9
9
9
>
«•
?
T>
a
3
v>
^f
>•
if
^
3-
8
T3
r
3
Areawide WastewaterPI.
9
State Wastewater Plan
9
9
*
I
TO
D
5"
3
9
aFMFRAI ROI ES
Air Resources
9
9
Land Resources
9
e
9
9
9
9
Water Resources
9
-D
C
r-
C
IT
-e
3
c/
J7
tHSERNATI ONAL/INTERSTATE
Great Lakes Commission
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes-Basin Commission
STATE
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Illinois EPA
State A-95 Clearinghouse
Indiana Stream Pollution Control
Board
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Indiana Environmental Management Board
Indiana State Budget Agency
"""REGIONAL
Northern
Illinois Plannina Commission
Lake-Porter Co,, Regional Trans,
CQU^TY/SPECIAL DJSTRjcx^
Metropolitan Sanitary District ol
N
B
and Planning Comm
UNiCIPV
'Greater Chicago
orth Shore Sanitary District
oom Township Sanitary District
City of C
Lake aid
Municipa
Valparfso
licago
Dypage County Dejpts .
of Public Works
Sanitary Districts0
Sanitary and Sewer Department
City of Portaae Sanitary Board
City of Chesterton Sewer Utility
Department
Z
LO
no
l/»i 70
m >• m
S
70
-------
international boundary waters. In addition, the IJC Is authorized to establish the
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, consisting of representatives from potential re-
gional wastewater management agencies, and the Research Advisory Board to assist
those public agencies engaged in water quality control.
The Regional Transportation Planning Board (RTPB) and the Interstate Planning Com-
mission also have some voice in C-SELM area interstate wastewater management, but
both currently serve in advisory capacities only.
State. Major Illinois state agencies are the IPCB and lEPA. The Illinois Pollution
Control Board (IPCB) has authority to prepare the State Wastewater Management Plan,
establish state water quality standards, and approve local applications for clean
water grants. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (|EPA) establishes and
enforces waste discharge permits and compliance schedules. Local applications
for federal aid are received by the state's A-95 clearinghouse. Both the Clearing-
house and |EPA make separate recommendations on local funding proposals to the
IPCB, the agency responsible for grant approval.
In Indiana, the Stream Pollution Control Board (ISPCB) is authorized to promulgate
state water quality standards, as well as implement Indiana's waste discharge permit.
The ISPCB is staffed and funded by Indiana's State Boqrd of Health, and has authori-
ty only *n water quality control. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) is responsible for water supply problems. Less specifically related to water,
the Division of Planning (Department of Commerce) in Indiana has authority to make
projections on population and economic growth and the Indiana Environmental
Management Board (|EMB) Is authorized to prepare a comprehensive statewide plan
for pollution control and environmental protection. The State Budget Agency (SBA)
serves as Indiana's A-95 clearinghouse for local clean'water grant applications, and
relies heavily on ISPCB recommendations for funding approval.
Regional.Two regional planning agencies currently have jurisdiction in the C-SELM
study area. The Northern Illinois Planning Commission, (NIPC), a council of local
governments in the six counties of northern Illinois, has been concerned primarily
with the preparation of a Regional Open Space Plan and a Regional Wastewater
Plan, both of which recommend policies on regional land use, urban growth, and
projected management of land and water resources. NIPC has no regulatory autho-
rity, but does serve as a regional A-95 review agency! The Lake Porter County
Regional Transportation and Planning Commission (LPCRTPC) is Indiana's NPIC coun-
terpart.
Local. Local governmental entities maintain control of local affairs in both Indiana
and Illinois. Three major sanitary districts exist ?n the Chicago Area: (1) The Metropoli-
tan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSOGC), (2) the North Shore Sanitary District
94
-------
(NSSD), and (3) the Bloom Township Sanitary District (BTSD). The MSDGC is by
far the most influential single entity in the area. The MSDGC, NSSD, and BTSD
do not supply water (though the latter two districts have authority to do so); instead,
cities and counties are responsible for water supply in Illinois. The major advantage
of these special districts in Illinois is that they are much more flexible in terms of
their capability to expand their geographic jurisdiction than are city and county
governments. A district's jurisdiction is restricted to municipal corporations and by
the mechanism used for district expansion; it must be approved by either the state
legislature, public referendum or the district's Board of Trustees. While the dis-
trict's power of eminent domain is limited :to its geographic boundaries, it has extra-
territorial authority to either purchase or lease real and personal property.
the NSSD serves eastern Lake County in Illinois, and the BTSD has power of eminent
domain within six miles of the Incorporated areas that it serves. BTSD, like NSSD,
has authority to provide water and to prevent pollution or contamination of water
supplies used by municipalities within fifteen miles of an intake of water supply.
Authority to plan, construct,and operate wastewater treatment facilities in Illinois
has been delegated to local government, both cities and counties, as well as to
special sanitation districts. Smaller municipalities in the C-SELM area typically
contract with a larger city, county,or sanitation district for wastewater treatment,
solid waste disposal,and, in some cases, water supply.
In the Indiana portion of C-SELM municipalities provide their own water even the
special districts also have the authority to do so. Wastewater management is the
responsibility both of cities and sanitary districts created to take care of areas oui
*•? JA M A-MA-MlA I* •wfldt
I /
side corporate limits
Institutional Feasibility of Alternatives.
Appendix F revealed the basic institutional problems associated with implementing
any of the NDCP alternatives,but stopped short of recommending specific institutional
changes. In general, the evaluators noted that special districts were more amenable
to regional?zation than counties and municipalities due to their greater independence
and flexibility. This interpretation reflected a questionable equating of regional
management with regional treatment. Increasing reglonal'zation of treatment systems
affects the number of treatment plants abandoned/and requires greater coordination
to distribute effluent from many sources tb distant land application sites. Implementing
land application (IV and V) would encounter substantial institutional opposition,
relocating residents and acquiring and managing irrigation sites.
The Institutional Appendix delineated thYee approaches to achieving areawide waste-
water management: local, intermediate, and areaw«de. Both local and intermediate
approaches would require regional planning agencies to have power to enforce regional
95
-------
plans. The Intermediate approach would, In addition, require expansion and con-
solidation of services by local entities. The areawlde approach suggested requires
still further expansion and consolidation of services, but faces the constraints of
significant infringement on home rule (and thus probable public opposition), such as
Indiana legislation restricting interstate transfer of sludge and effluent.
The Institutional Appendix did not identify specific arrangements for implementing
alternative plans based on the existing institutional framework of the C-SELM area.
To institute the areawide planning outlined by' Section 208 of PL 92-500, both the
NIPC and the LPCRTPC would require considerably more authority over wastewater
management, or a new area planning agency would need to be created. Existing
local special districts have the necessary regulatory authority but would need to be
consolidated to fit the scale of the alternatives. In the Comments Appendix, the
NIPC noted (page I-III-I8) that the "centralized systems envisioned by the Corps
of Engineers' alternatives would involve monumental and insurmountable institutional
obstacles."
Financial Feasibility.
Federal financing was expected for 75 percent of the capital costs of all alternatives.
Local and state revenues would be required to finance the remaining 25 percent of capital
costs and all of the operating and maintenance costs. Localities can thus be expected
to minimize their costs by choosing the alternative with the lowest ratio of operating
to capital costs, in this case, land treatment alternatives.
Illinois is much less restricted by legal constraints related to wastewater program
financing than is Indiana. The State of Indiana cannot Issue general obligation bonds,
thereby shifting the financing to state-created but locally-administered special dis-
tricts andltf municipal corporations. In turn, these Institutions operate under a variety
of constraints relating to permissible Indebtedness, debt service, taxation powers,
user charges, and special assessments. The maximum debt celling for any institution
is 2 percent of assessed property valuation.
An important factor to be considered is how clos§ the area's current debt Is to its
maximum ceiling. Districts with little borrowing margin remaining are not able to
take an active role In financing unless the legislature raises the celling on Indebted-
ness. The State of Illinois is able to take an active role In financing at the state
level. Currently it has outstanding a sizeable general obligation bond issue ( a
1970 $750 million Anti-Poilution'Bond Act) to assist'locaVgovernments In waste-'
water financing. Local institutions In Illinois operate under similar constraints but
are less restricted than local entities In Indiana. However, the maximum debt
celling permissible for any institution is 5 percent of assessed property value. As
shown In Tab le V~12t total current debt for the Illinois districts and counties In
the study area is $547,710/)12, leaving a borrowing margin of $1,750,518,038.
96
-------
TABLE V-13
1971 BORROWING MARGIN: ILLINOIS'
Entity
Districts
MSDGC
Island Lake
Roger Lake
North Shore
Round Lake
Downers Grove
Salt Creek
Wheaton
Counties
Cook
DuPage
Lake
Will
Total
Assessed
Valuation
22,500.00
3.5
13.6
818.5
28.5
154.2
86.6
163.2
21,017.8
2,015.9
1,598.4
997.9
Maximum
Ceiling
1,125.00
1.8
0.7
40.9
1.4
7.7
4.3
8.2
1,020.00
50.00
40.00
20.00
i, 298.2
Current
Debt
282.00
NA
0.4
8.9
0.8
1.3
0.02
2.4
251.9
No debt
No debt
NA
547.7
Borrowing
Margin
843.00
NA
0.2
32.0
0.7
6.5
4.3
5.6
768.1
50.00
40.00
NA
1,750.5
Units are $ million
Not applicable
Source: If.
97
-------
As shown in Table V-14,total current debt for the Indiana districts and counties
in the study area is $80,218,000, leaving a borrowipg margin of only $43,133,280.
As shown in Tables V-15 and V-16, counties and tnunfcfpaHtfes 5n Indiana can issue both
general obligation and revenue bonds without referenda; special districts and muni-
cipalities in Illinois, however, require a 15 percenf electorate petition for bond refer-
enda . There is no interest rate specified by statute in either state.
The capital costs of the alternative plans are so high that existing institutions may
not be able to accommodate such a high financial burden without radically affecting
the tax structure and reallocating resources from otf>er public services. In addition,
operating and maintenance costs must be paid for by a system of user fees (Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). An attempt should be made to
determine the relative effects of taxes and user charges on equity and economic ef-
ficiency.
98
-------
TABLE V-14
1971 BORROWING MARGIN: INDIANA0
Eritiry
District
Gciry, S.D.
Hahnmond, S
E. Chicago,
County
Lake
Porter
La Porte
Total
Units are $
Assessed
Valuation
388.0
.D. 216.0
S.D. 275.0
1J72.2
347.1
253.3
million
Maximum
Ceiling
38 ;8
21,6
27 *5
23.4
6-9
5,1
123.3
Current
Debt
18.0
19.0
23.2
16.4
3.6
No debt
80.2
Borrowing
Margin
20.8
2.6
4.2
7.0
3.4
5.1
43.1
Source: If.
-------
TABLE V-15
ILLINOIS: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REFERENDA (1970)a'b
Special District's
General obligation
Revenue
Referenda requirement
15% electorate petition
required
Statutory provisions
Bond interest (%)
None specified
Municipalities
General obligation
Revenue
15% electorate petition.
required
None specified
The Illinois State Constitution has no requirements for bond referenda
Between January 1966 and June 1973, 36 water pollution control referenda were submitted to the electorate
Source: 10.
-------
TABLE V-16-
MMDIANA: WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REFERENDA (I970)a'b
Counties;
General obligation
Revenue
Municipalities
General obligation
Revenue
Referenda requirement
Not required
Not required
Not required
Not required
Statutory provisions
Bond interest
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
The Indiana State Constitution has no requirements for bond referenda.
No water pollution control referenda were submitted to the electorate between 1966 and June 1970.
Source: 10
-------
CHAPTER VI
EVALUATION OF THE CLEVELANDrAKRON STUDY
INTRODUCTION.
Study Area Description.
The Cleveland-Akron study area (shown in Figure V|-l) coincides with the Three
Rivers Watershed area . Included are all of Cuyahoga County and parts of Medina,
Summit, Portage, Geauga, and Lake Counties. The area covers about 1,500 square
miles and in 1970 had a population of 2.4 million.
Wastewater Management Alternatives.
v
Plan A, Level |. This plan, designed to meet current Ohio state water quality
standards but not those of PL 92-500, involved three physical-chemical and twenty-
four advanced biological plants, all of which would be adapted from existing facili-
ties through upgrading or expansion.
All alternatives (see Table VI-1) would use discharge to surface waters and direct
reuse for effluent disposal. Alternatives A and B would dispose of sludge through in-
cineration, agricultural utilization, and land reclamation. None of the plans pro-
vided estimates of persons displaced.
Plan A, Level II. Plan A, Level II fs similar to Level I except for several changes
needed to meet the 1985 water quality standards of PL 92-500. To reach this goal,
plants would be expanded and upgraded more rapidly than planned for level I and
more land would be acquired for disposal purposes.
Plans B and C. The chief difference between Plan A and Plans B and C was the
greater regionalization proposed in the latter two plans. Plan B (like Plan A) would
use 3 physical-chemical plants but only 6 advanced biological plants; Plan B also
incorporated a land treatment plant. Plan C, the most centralized system, would
manage the Cleveland-Akron area's wastewater with one advanced biological and
land treatment plant. The land application planned for these two alternatives
boosted 2020 land requirements to about 38,000 acres for Plan B and 210,000 for
Plan C. Plan A, which included no land treatment, required a maximum of 22,500
acres. Figures VI-2, VI-3, and VI-4 present schematics of a physfcal-chemical
treatment system, an advanced biological system, and a land treatment system pro-
posed for the Cleveland-Akron area.
102
-------
CHAGRIN
RIVER BASIN
miles
Source: 2.
103
FIGURE Vl-l
CLEVELAND AKRON
STUDY AREA
-------
TABLE Vl-l
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES: CLEVELAND-AKRON
Alternative
A Level 1
A Level II
B
C
Treatment Number Storm Amount Storm- Effluent Sludge Land Persons
Type Treatment Storage water Treated Disposal Disposal Required Displaced
Plants Capacity (TO3 acres) (TO3)
(MG)
Physical- 3
Chemical
Advanced
Biological 24
Physical- 3
Chemical
Advanced
Biological 24
Physical- 3
Chemical
Advanced 6
Biological
Land Application 1
Advanced 1
Biological
Land Application 1
5175 50,150 Surface
water
Reuse
5582 71 ,257
5175 50,150 Surface
water
Reuse
5582 71,257
5745 50,150 -Surface,
water
Reuse
6601 71,257
5762 50,150 Surface
water
6589 71,257 Reuse
Incinera-
tion
Agricul-
tural use
Land re-
clamation
Incineration
Agricultural
use
Land recla-
mation
. Incineration
Agricultural
use
Land recla-
mfltl/^n
IIIU1 1 wl 1
Agricultural
use
11.5
0990)
15.8
(2020)
12.8
0990)
17.6
(2020)
22.5
(1990)
38.0
(2020)
151.3
(1990)
209.8
(2020)
-------
PRIMARY and SECONDARY-
ADVANCED
SCREENING
RAW
WASTEWATE
SOLID
SETTLING
NEUTRALIZATION
BASIN*
REMAINING
SOLIDS
SETTLING
CARBON
CHLORINE
o
en
REMOVE
FINE
PARTICLE
I AMMONIA
I u.Mt REMOVAL
RETURN LIME TO MIX TANK
INCINERATE
FOR LIME
RECLAMATION
CARBON
COLUMN
CARBON •••-
REGENERATION
-ABSORB
REMAINING
PARTICLES
TRUCK ASH
TO LANDFILL
ASH
OZONE
DISINFECTION
WATER FOR
CITIES,
INDUSTRIES,
AND
RECREATION
LAKE ERIE
TRIBUTARIES
Source: 2.
FIGURE VI-2
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM: CLEVELAND-AKRON
-------
PRIMARY-
SECONDARY-
-». ADVANCED
METHANOL.
ALUM
SCREENING
RAW
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
STORAGE AND
CONDITIONING
--.._
SOLID
SETTLING
BACTERIA
DIGEST
ORGANIC
-BACTERIA
CONVERT
AMMONIA
JO
BACTERIA
..
NITRATES \SETTLING
GAS
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
ALTERNATES
j A A i I
HEAT
SLUDGE
STORAGE
CONVERT
NITRATES
TO M2
las*.
REMAINING
IETTLE
OUT RLTER
CARBON
CHLORINE
DISINFECTION
AND
ING
H '
h
REMOVE
FINE
SOLIDS-
ABSORB
REMAINING
PARTICLES
RENOVATE STRIP-MINED LANDS
CARBON
REGENERATION
. WATER FOR
^CITIES,
INDUSTRIES,
AND
RECREATION
APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL
LANDS
LAKE ERIE
TRIBUTARIES
SLUDGE DEWATERING
Source: 2.
FIGURE VI-3
ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
SYSTEM: CLEVELAND-AKRON
-------
PRIMARY and SECONDARY
ADVANCED
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
SCREENING
RAW
WASTE WATER
POWER
PLANT
COOLING
WATER
-CHLORINE DISINFECTION
IRRIGATED
FIELDS
CHLORINE
DISINFECTION
AEROBIC
LAGOON
* A R "
WAT C H
RETURN
V UNDER DRAlFLSYS
APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS
ALTERNATE
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE
LAKE ERIE -
TRIBUTARIES
"LIVING FILTER"
PROVIDES
BIOLOGICAL
ACTION,
FILTRATION,
AND
MINERALIZATION
WATER FOR
CITIES.
INDUSTRIES.
AND
RECREATI ON
AUGMENTS
LOW STREAM
FLOW
Source: 2.
FIGURE VM
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM:
CLEVELAND-AKRON
-------
TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
Population.
Comparisons of the population projections in the Cleveland-Akron report with past
trends for the area (Figure VI-5) and wtth projections obtained using four Census
Bureau fertility rate estimates (Figure VI-6) indicate that the report figures were
probably too high. Even though present national trends indicate the lowest figure
to be the most likely, the report estimates exceeded it by 30 percent and exceeded
the highest (the 2.8 rate) by 6 percent for 2020.
Flow.
Flow data from the report conflicted (Table V|-2)/maktng Tt difficult to be certain
which specific flows were anticipated by facility designs.
TABLE VI-2
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER FLOW DATA FROM REPORT SOURCES
(Flows Expressed in MOD)
_____________
Summary Appendix Summary Appendix Summary Appendix
Wastewater Source Report III Report III Report 111
Municipal-Industrial 414(1972) 581 793
Municipal 313 463 628
Industrial 113 140
Total 414 313 581 576 793 768
108
-------
1950
1960
1970
1980 1990
Year
2000
2010
2020
FIGURE VI-5
COMPARISON OF PAST, PRESENT,
AND PREDICTED POPULATIONS:
CLEVELAND-AKRON STUDY AREA
-------
o
.5 3
c
o
0.
£
Corps
Series C (2.8)
Series D (2.5)
Series E (2.1)
Series F (1.8)
1970
1990
Year
2000
FIGURE YL-6
COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR
CLEVELAND-AKRON
110
-------
The magnitude of differences between the Summary Report and Appendix III was
not critical. However, finding that the Appendix was the supporting source for
the Summary, that no current figures for industrial flow appeared, and that earliest
municipal figures corresponded to different years, (eaves the impression that an ac-
cumulation of minor errors may have led to erroneous conclusions. Analyses of per
capita flow present similar problems. Per capita municipal and industrial
flows estimates were 63 percent greater and 72 less than corresponding C-SELM
flows. The Summary Report (page 52) stated 1970 industrial flows as 682 MGD
in the Three Rivers Watershed and predicted 925 MGD for 2020. If 75 percent of these
flows was coolfng water (as the report stated), the actual industrial flows would be
the remaining 25 percent, 171 and 231 MGD. Appendix III listed no figure for
1972 (the earliest year considered) and 140 MGD for 2020. Table 14 of the Summary
Report listed other differences in flow rates.
Despite unaccountable fluctuations in the Individual components of per capita flow,
the total estimate seemed acceptable.
Cost. Figures VI-7 and VI-8 compare report cost figures for unit processes to es-
timate from independent sources. For all the processes except phosphate removal,
nitrification, denitrifTcation and break-point chlorinafion , the report estimates
of construction costs (Figure VI-7, centerline) averaged. 14 percent lower at 1 MGD,
8 percent lower at 10 MGD, and 1 percent lower at 1QO MGD.
Estimating costs for nitriffcation-den'trification is d'ffipult because the costs of
proposed modifications of existing facilities are unknown. The report adequately
considered capital costs for chemical feed equipment apd associated housing, but
left out chemical storage and conveyance equipment, jhe low estimates for con-
struction costs for phosphate removal and breakpoint chl.prinatlon were unexplain-
able.
The average deviations of report figures from other estimates for operating and
maintenance costs ranged from 1 percent higher at 1 MGD to 13percent higher at
10 MGD and 30 percent higher at 100MGD.
Physical Systems and Processes.
The concept of regional wastewater planning does not necessarily imply regional
treatment, but the report did not consider the difference. There Is no way to tell
whether the combinations of physical systems and processe? making up the alterna-
tives were selected from a larger group for their optimal features. The report did
not consider the tradeoff between plant size and collection system size or between
required trunk lines and size and length of effluent lines, cpnsiderations necessary
in selecting an optimum system.
Ill
-------
Activated S!ud;:;^
vv/PrFmiir
Coagulation a
Phosphate
Removal
Mixed Media
Filtration
Microsiraining
Carcon
Absorption
C'nlorinction
Systems (Comp.)
NitriHcanon
Sludge
Diaestion
Sludge
Incineration
Vacuum
Filtration
Break Point
Chlorination
Actlv.
Sludge Plant Sec.Trecv
* Bands show percent variation
of other sources from report
estimates.
FIGURE VI-7
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR
CLEVELAND-AKRON*
112
-------
Process
Activated Sludge
w/Primary
Preliminary
Treatment
Coagulation &
Sedimentation
Phosphate
Removal
Mixed Media
Filtration
Microstraining
Carbon
Absorption
Chlorination
Systems
Nitrification
Sludge
Digestion
Sludge
Incineration
Vacuum
Filtration
Break Point
Chlorination
Conventional Activ.
Sludge Plant Sec.Treat
* Bands show percent variation of
other sources from report estimates.
113
FIGURE VI-8
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CQST ESTIMATES FOR
CLEVELAND-AKRON*
-------
Figures V|-2, VI-3, and VI-4 from the previous section (originally from the
Summary Report) will assist "n interpreting necessary comments.
Biological Treatment. The addition of alum following aeration in a conventional
act'vTated sludge process would assist settling of suspended solids (Figure VI-3).
This step, however, would be unnecessary when secondary clarification is followed
by further aeration after lime addition. It Is assumed that the second aeration w,as
intended to complete nitrification wh?Je maintaining normal load factors for the con-
ventional activated sludge phase of the treatment. Aeration after the addition pf
methanol would defeat the denitrlflcatlon process, and a fourth clarification step
would also not be required, since filtering before the carbon column should remove
remaining solids. The report did not sufficiently discuss sludge dewatering after
thickening and prior to land application.
Physical-Chemical Treatment. The first clarification step in this process is followed
by what appears to be a single stage recarbonation. This process is not usually fol-
lowed by either clarification or sludge removal as shown in the flow diagram, since
the floe is very light and easily removed by mixed-media filtration. As seemed to
be the case for biological treatment, fhe indicated purpose of the carbon column
in the flow diagram (Figure VI-2) is the removal of solids rather than the adsorp-
tion of organTcs. Apparently breakpoint chlorination would be used for ammonia
removal and a carbon column for dechjorinatlon. Disinfection with ozone after
this treatment seemed superfluous.
Appendix III described the process differently from the flow diagram. It was not in-
dicated how second stage clarification could achieve its intended purposed phos-
phorus removal and additional reduction of BOD). It can only be assumed that an
alum addition is intended and that a fjocculator is included with the clariffer. There
Is some question whether the first stage coagulation would be sufficient. The des-
cription in Appendix III also states that the ozonatfon Is for reduction of refractory
organics and the postaeration facilities would be modified. The need for further
reduction of refractory organics. following two stage activated carbon treatment Is
doubtful, and the Inclusion of postaerptlon facilities is not indicated on the flow
diagram.
Land Treatment. The effectiveness of chlorine addition after a facultative lagoon
step Is questionable unless the application rate Is very great. Normal lagoon reten-
tion time should be sufficient to destrpy pathogens. Flow from the facultative
lagoon to a storage lagoon for long-term retention should further eliminate the need
for chlorination to disinfect effluent. Storage lagoon retention, however, would
provide the time and proper moisture, food, light, and temperature for algae growths.
114
-------
Geology and Soils.
Because of a thick soil mantle which Insulates bedrock from surface conditions,
the geology of the Cleveland~Akron area seams generally suitable for (and treat-
ment plans. Since most of the bedrock lies beneath the groundwater layer or far
below the water table, there Is little danger of reaction between effluent and bed-
rock. Also, the depth of the so? I should allow proper drainage. Appendix V pre-
sented a good stratigraphlc and structural description of the area.
As In the C-SELM report, and as Appendix V pointed out, not enough Information
was presented about the geology of proposed tunnel routes. Joint systems In the
formations, the strength of various Uthologles, and |he expected groundwater flows
should be determined precisely. The tunnels would pass through carbonate formations;
the solubility problems associated with these formations are discussed elsewhere In
this evaluation ( C-SELM,Codorus Creek). Lining t^e tunnels with concrete should
eliminate problems of bedrock and groundwater Interacting with effluent but there
could still be a problem with the effluent reacting wjth the lining. It was not dis-
cussed In the report, but rock removed by tunneling could be used as strip mine fill.
The Information regarding sludge and wastewater application rates was detailed but
appeared fairly selective In order to support land application. Besides gaps In In-
formation, the contents of Appendix V conflicted with later evaluation In Appen-
dices VI and IX. •
Effects of land application on soil chemistry were we, 11 accounted for In Appendix
V using nutrient uptake by reed canarygrass (a proposed cover crop, Its harvest
being a mechanism for removing excessive nutrients from the soil). It has been sug-
gested that high nitrogen concentrations In the soil, as would result from land ap-
plication, Increase heavy metal uptake by reed canqrygrass.
Though the structure of the area makes land application feasible, the proposed ap-
plication rates in Appendix V (60 to 150 Inches per year) were considered too high
by Appendices VI and IX. Neither Appendix V nor the Summary Report (nor else-
where In the report) demonstrated how the given effluent rates would achieve de-
sired results. The high application could: 1) cause syrface silting and decrease the
natural infiltration rate and 2) allowshrtnk-swell clays to swell and clog soil pores
(Appendix IX,page 18). Appendix V suggested deep plowing to maintain soil po-
rosity by bringing calcareous material to the surface 'and raising wastewater pH to a
neutral value. Deep plowing would theoretically bring more permeable material
to the surface, but effluent would still encounter a less permeable zone once It
infiltrated the upper layer. Permeability depends on the physical arrangement of
soil partlc les pnd plowing would change ffi|s. A burled sand layer may hot have
the same permeability when brought to the surface. In addition, burying surface
clay layers may decrease soil permeability below the top few Inches. The effect
of deep plowing on soil structure was only superficially and optimistically considered.
115
-------
Ratslng pH was intended to Inhibit the swelling tendency of sodium-based clays
and prevent pore clogging. The calcareous material brought to the surface is
fractured bedrock, whTch has far less surface area to react with the effluent
than powdered If me, decreasing the effectiveness of the technique.. Man* of these
possibilities was noted In Appendix V or In the Summary Report.
Another proposed application technique allowed surface, runoff through forested
land. This proposal was attractive because plants would remove and sto,re excfss
nutrients and block further distribution along the food chain. Each step of this,
plan has been demonstrated feasible, but evidence of the effectiveness df the fptal
process would be necessary prior to Implementation.
Plan C Included a large land treatment site located on suitable soils (soil map,
Summary Report page 95).
Sludge application to reclaim strip-mined areas was given adequate consideration
throughout the report. Currently sc-1Is In such areas are worthless due to acid mine
dra'nage, and their rehabilitation would be a valuable by-product of land treatment.
Ill^u^Jfe^!!^ Wastes.
As In the C-SELM evaluation, the alternatives were compared on the basis of re-
source requirements and residual wastes generated. Residual waste discharged as
a result of wastewater treatment is assumed to be the sum of those enWrfng, those
added In the process, and those generated in supplying power to the treatment pro-
e«si, No effort has been made ta evaluate the change InDissolved solids or the cell
mass produced from the eonverslorf of dissolved organic?,
Table Vl"3 compares four plans, |n calculating the pollutants discharged as a re-
sult of power generation,!t was assumed that 0,64 pounds of coal are rtqu!red per
kilowatt hour and that 97 poundsqf •• articulates and 48.5 pounds of sulfur dioxide
ar*> generated per megawatt hour, Ppwer requirements were taken from the report.
ECONOMIC EVAIUATION,
Costs of AI ternatl ve PJans,
Facility Costs. Table VI-4 lists tfie posts of Cleveland-Akron alternative plans.
The figures were based on the EPA-repommended 7 percent Interest rate. Cap! fa I
costs included a 30 percent contlngepcy, 5 percent of which represented engineer-
ing and design, 5 percent supervlslqp and adm!nlstraWon,and the remaining 2C| per-
cent for variation In land cost estimates. The report used an economic life of |K) years
for land, 35 years for structures, ancj 4 to 39 years for equipment, which somewhat
overlapped with EPA recommendatfoi|is to consider land permanent, structure life
30 ro 50 years, process equipment |*j to30 years, and auxiliary equipment 10 to 15
116
-------
TABLE VI-3
COMPARISON OF RESOURCES REQUIRED AND RESIDUAL WASTES FOR
ALTERNATIVE PLANS: CLEVELAND-AKRON
Item
(tons/day except
where noted)
Electric powera 1
Resources
Coal
Chemicals
Total
Wastes
Particulates,SOx
SS removed
Chemicals in sludge
Total
Residual waste (Ib/cap-
day)
Resources (Ib/cap-day)
A-l
,548
496
259
755
113
461
259
833
0.55
0.49
• A-ll
1,835
587
444
1,031
133
468
444
1,045
0.69
0.67
M
B
2,187
700
348
1,048
159
468
348
975
Or64
Of68
• • • / c
. 3,156
1 ,01 0
146
1,156
230
468
146
844
0.56
0.75
a
In megawatt hrs/day; not included in totals for alternatives.
117
-------
TABLE VI-4
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS:
CLEVELAND-AKRON??
Plan
A-l
A-ll
B
C
Annual Capital Cost
($ million)
93.5
110.2
105.4
106.9
Annual Cost (Including O & M)
($ million)
192.9
251 .4
243.6
233.9
Annual cosh are computed at 7 percent over 50 years.
118
-------
years. Salvage value was assumed zero.
Also Included in capital costs was the cost of modifying existing facilities; however,
interest foregone during construction, related to capital costs, was not mentioned.
The report did not consider costs of training programs In operation and maintenance
cost estimates. Also left out were provisions for revenue from salable goods produced
by wastewater treatment, particularly sludge.
Land Requirements. Land requirements and costs for the four plans appear In Table
VI.-5. Land costs also fncluded any preparation needed before construction could be-
gin and relocating displaced persons. Acquisitjoncosts were based on $16,000 per
unit for farm buildings, $5,000 per family for relocation, and $600 per acre. In-
cluding the contingency provision for 20 percept variation, average aqulsition cost
was $780 per acre.
The reliability of these figures is questionable. Appendix I (page G-75,76) stated,
"The estimate listed herein Is not based upon appraisals; therefore the prices are
estimates only. In addition, the cost for farm buildings to be acquired can vary
greatly, depending upon the areas selected, and until a firm plan Is available, no
definite amounts can be given."
In order to provide a conservative estimate of costs, the report assumed all land would
be purchased. However, °t recommended that Irrigated lands be left under the con-
trol of individual farmers. A separate estimate of cost of private control would have
Improved the reliability of the estimate. However, leaving land in private ownership
and using It for land treatment may be conflicting goals. Residents probably would
oppose such use of their land. Even if such oppostfon could be overcome, leasing, and
then monitoring . and controlling hundreds of thousands of acres (In the case of
Plan C) may not be feasible. Any estimate of leasing costs would need to Include
an Initial Inconvenience payment to lessors.
Land cost estimates were not really conservative when It was assumed all land would
be bought,slnce provisions would need to be made to local governments In lieu of taxes.
These payments would almost certainly be necessary to obtain local government coo-
peration to implement any alternative.
Cost Sensitivity. Table VI-6 shows the influence of varying Interest rates and eco-
nomic life (report figures) on annual and per capita costs and provides a basis for
comparison with other flow and cost data. As an example, the per capita costs,
when compared with the Chicago-South End Lake Michigan costs were nearly the
same, while the costs per million gallons were approximately twice as much. A
number of factors enter In this contrast. Since annual capital costs nearly equaled
the operating and maintenance costs, the sum of the two for Chicago compared well
with estimates from outside sources. Cleveland-Akron figures combined to produce
119
-------
TABLE VI-5,
LAND REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: CLEVELAND-AKRON
Plan Total Acreage Costa
2020 ($ mil lion)
A-l 15,800
A-ll 17,600 11.53
B 38,000 14.32
C 209,100 41,47
a
Computed at 7% of present worth over 50 years.
12C
-------
TABLE VI-6
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE PLANS USING THREE
COMPUTATION METHODSt CLEVELAND-AKRON
Plan
A-1
A-ll
B
C
Annual Cost
($ million)
Report
10%, 25 years
Report
10%, 2 5 years
Report
10%,25 years
Report
10%, 25 years
192.9
241.1
251.4
347.2
243.6
336.5
233.9
327.7
f
$
PerMG
918
1,148
1,196
1 ,651
1,159
1 ,601
1,113
1,559
$
Per Cgplta-Year0
62.67
78.43
81 .68
112.80
79.14
109.32
75.99
106.47
Based on 1990 population of 3.08 million p«nom.
121
-------
somewhat higher costs. When considering C-SELM's lower cost estimates and nearly
double per capita flow rate, the bails for the high Cleveland figures becomes
questionable. The translation of unit process treatment costs Into costs of total
systems also may have added to the discrepancy. Tht conclusion here does not
Imply the data erroneous, but It recommends Inclusion of an explanation or further
investigation to account for the cost differences.
Economic Impacts.
Table VI-7 analyzes the adequacy of the Cleveland-Akron report's economic Impact
evaluation. The plans' effects on resource consumption received best coverage.
Table VI-8 shows the estimated effects on 5 specific areas of economic concern an-
ticipated for each plan.
Agricultural Productivity. Both Plans B and C Included land application of effluent
and all plans Involved some agricultural application of sludge. The report assumed
farm Income would rise from Increased productivity of these land application sites
and from reduced costs (less fertilizer, etc.,required). No adequate case was made
In the report to back up the Increased productivity claim. In addition, agricultural
experts have questioned the advisability of proposed (52 Inches per year) effluent
application rates as the. benefits from sludge and effluent based conditioners and
nutrients. The Huron County Department of Health noted (Comments Appendix)
that 8 extra Inches of rainfall decreased productivity In |972.
Resource Consumption. Each alternative varied In potential resource consumption.
Table VI-8 shows Plan A, Level I! required the greatest chemical Input—600 tons
per day—compared with 180 tons per day for Plan C. The latter, however, needed
the greatest amount of power. The Evaluation Appendix presented a detailed dis-
cuss? on of chemical and energy requirements of various alternatives, Including po-
tential effects of Increased demand due to an Increase In wastewater treatment needs.
The absolute supply of required resources should be considered with respect to rela-
tive supply, demand, and subsequent prices. As the report suggested, relative price
trends may be more evident by I960.
Land Values. As the C-SELM report mentioned, studies have shown that wafer
quality improvements can lead to quantifiable Increases In property values . De-
crease in land supply, as potentially effected by Plans B and C, could result In price
Increases for remaining parcels. The report mentioned that revegetatfon and general
restoration of strip-mined land (Plan B) would Increase local property values through
increased productivity and aesthetics. However, other than this last consideration,
the report generally overlooked effects of alternatives on land values and did not
consider that land values could be depressed In areas adjacent to treatment facilities.
122
-------
TABLE VI-7
ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX: CLEVELAND-AKRON
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers impact1 analyses for each eel
Area of Impact
o
o
o_
j=
Q)
U
al
j General Impacts
Agricultural productivity
Resource consumption
Land values
Manpower and employment
Financial impacts
Industrial production
Wastewater Treatment
Land
" * :
- *
«» j *» j *» j *» ^ •
"•-"••"-"-"i-'.-X"— •"''•."-•?--."• •"
v^-'is- :'«!•"•: "^"v-V~^-"^t- =
•n
Adv. bio
' 9-'
lp§si?^f©33
v"A.v"'**v\V'*'.v*
1* • •//• \V • %V • *«V •
••"•••'-••"'•••.V«*J
Ph,-ch.
/»--
'•\V**«V**«V **«V*'
"vy»\v™*-v"*.v"
Sludge
Agric.
"•
*• * •» J »» J *» ^ *
"•***•* **«*******l
»••»••»**»*•»
* • ^S^«* **
.**•** ••*••*•"
•»"•••* •».."*,
»*«»*•»**»««»,
'S-'J/**';**^**/'.
Oth. land
' • 4* • *• » **'» ••• •
•*•-«*».«*» «*• •*!
• ••*»••»**•• *•
*Z£zL*** VV* *»*"•**«
• ** * *» * •» j •» * •
«^r*^^**«» i*«^s*«^
Collection
& Convey-
ance
•/% \*~f\ ."' ":.
''.'/. /A'V. •".'• V«
« " » " • *" •" » "•
I * * * I * » 4 » 4»
* •* • *• *»' *
-«*• * .« * **» *l
•fc**. * *»** .**. ."•.
CO
i Area of major concern
Presented adequately
Insufficiently supported
, Area of moderate concern i i Area of relatively minor concern
Presented adequately only in appendices
^ Not adequately considered
-------
TABLE VI-8
COMPARISON OF SELECTED ECQNOMIC IMPACTS
OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: CLEVELAND-AKRON
Plan Cost to Local Power Land Chemicals Employment
Taxpayers (megawatt hrs (1000 (tons per day) Increase
($ million) per day) actjes) (number)
A-l 69.5 2000 15,. 8 270 2,700
A-ll 95.2 2480 17.6 600 2,700
B 91.1 3030 38.0 470 2,200
C 80.2 6470 209.8 180 1,670
124
-------
Manpower and Employment. The report estimated ($ee Table VI-8) future man-
power needs to range from 1670persons (Plan C) to 2700 (Plan A). No figure was
given for necessary construction workers. Since the report did not predict the
number of residents displaced by the various alternatives, It fs difficult to discuss
the numerical possibilities of meeting employment needs with local manpower, In-
dependent of the feasibility of converting long-time farmers to wastewater treat-
ment plant employees. A slight Increase !rj employment could result from restored
agricultural and recreational activities. In general, the report did not subject
the effects of the alternatives on manpower and employment to adequate analysis.
Financial Impacts. Table VI-9 presents report estimates of per capita costs of Plans
B and C. The Initial Increases can be explained by construction costs anticipated
between 1972 and 1990. The changes In per capita cost between 1990 and 2020 for
Plan B and stormwater Plan C were slight because anticipated Increases In total
costs due to increased flow balanced with anticipated population increases. For
total Plan C, essentially no Increase In capital costs was anticipated between 1990
and 2020, allowing per capita costs to vary Inversely with population size. The per
capita cost figures show the significance of using population predictions which are
too great. If facilities are constructed to accomodate population increases which
never materialize, per capita costs would increase, Instead of level off or decrease
as predicted.
The report assumed (as with C-SELM) that area taxpayers would be responsible for
25 percent of the capital costs and all operating and maintenance costs. Federal
taxpayers would pay 75 percent of capital costs and industries all Industrial pre-
treatment costs. It should be kept In mind that the costs to area taxpayers would
not be restricted to the 25 percent, rather, as federal taxpayers, they would be
paying both for their system and others throughout the country. The report did base
cost estimates on the EPA-recommended 7 perpent Interest rate.
The cost of money to other area borrowers could rise with an Increase in the supply
of bonds for the heavy capital financing needf of the alternatives. The change
In borrowing costs would be similar for all plans, since each had similar capital re-
quirements.
Land requirements varied among the alternatives, with Plan C requiring most
(209,800 acres). Taking such a quantity of land off local tax rolls (when purchased
to become public land) would decrease area revenues. Table VI-IO shows potential
tax losses associated with land treatment of effluent. By county, losses rqnadd
from one-fifth of a percent to over 14 percent of present total tax revenue .
The Evaluation Appendix discussed financial Impacts sufficiently, but the Summary
Report did not.
Industrial Production. Estimated industrial prefreatment costs for Plans A-ll, B,
125
-------
TABLE VI-9
ANNUAL PER CAPITA C£>STS: CLEVELAND-AKRON
Year
1972
1990
2020
Municipal -Industrial
Plan B
1 !
5-3/8% i 7% | 10%
.11.26 11.26 11.26
26.54 28.97 33.97
27.50 30.14 35.57
Stormwater Plan C
! !
5-3/8% i 7%
j 1
—
18.24 21.46
16.33 19.16
i Total Plan C ;
1 i
10% 1 5-3/8%
i
— 11.22
28.13 50.25
25.03 39.98
7%
11.22
57.75
45.98
1
10% ;
1 1 .22
73.25
58.40
Source: 2 f, p. 418.
-------
TABLE VI-10
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL COUNTY TAX
REVENUE LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH
LAND TREATMENT OF WASTE WATER
Area
Maximum Lois
($ million)
Estimated Lou
($ million)
Total Property
Tax Revenue
($ million)
In-basin counties 4.5
Out of basin counties 3.5
Total 8.0
0.5
1.1
1.6
677.1
83.0
760.1
Source: 2 f, p. f - 2.
127
-------
and C were almost 50 percent Klgheit'fiahfhose for AfJ, which, if a plan other
than A-l were selected, could, dffe6|iprfd Industrtal q^fvity*. Th« report listed
a projected area manufacturing growH rate of 3 percent par year, with metal and
transportation equipment Tndustrle^expected to decline. Eyfn though Industrial
flows were predicted by the report to Increase, high pretreatment costs and less,
rapid growth mfghtierye to decreas*>flow, in which case, costs to Individual Tnr
dustries would be greater than anticipated which could also affect production.
Generally, the Evaluation Apfjendfx |VI) was the only section to discussi the effects
of the alternatives on regional industrial development. f -
SOCIOENVfRONMENTAL EVALUATjjpN. > '
T"
Table Vl-ll shows the adequacy of the, Cleveland-Akron report's discussion of
socioenvironmental impacts of different wastewater treatment and disposal tech*
oologies. No single area of Impact received consistently adequate or Inadequate
consideration. The inconsistencies are, discussed individually In succeeding sections.
General Methodology.
The evaluation of social and environmental impacts produced by alternative plar|S
was relatively unsystematic in the Cleyeland-Akron report. The consultants stated
(Appendix VI, p 17) tnat "where quantification [of impacts] is not obvious, it ha?
been used sparingly with recognition of its subjectiveftiature;" Use of a matrix
format was rejected because of its "fal^e precision." Although these considerations
are valid, following them strictly produced an unsynthesized view of particular plans.
After reviewing the possibilities, the eyaluators chose ecological alteration public
health, and social well-being as the, necessary criteria by which to judge effecrs. of
alternatives. ^
A scaling system from 0 to 3 quantified magnitude of Impacts was used witti 0 signifying
alternatives with least desirable effects and those conif I baring least to conreetinq
existing problems. Thus, all degrees of negative and all neutral impacts were
scored equally. With this system a plan with significant positive and negative
Impacts on a particular soc'oenvironmental area appears more desirable than one
with perhaps less significant positive impacts but markedly l«ss serious negative
effects; this clearly misrepresents the basis for trade-off decisions which must be
made to select an alternative; positive impacts weigh more heavily than negative.
• . ' £ ' ' ' '
The Summary Report listed key crtteifia for choosing arrtong plans designed t6 meet
PL 92-500 water quality as cost-efffet(veh«ss, chemical consumption,, recydling/,.
and multiple use of lands selected for treatment, along with potential fen- reclaiming
strip-mined lands. From the standpoint of these criteria, Plan C (all land) appealed
most attractive, yet the Ohio EPA has rejected this plan partially due t<> the opjapsition of
potentially affected residents. A clearer statement of'the envlronmental,*oc|«l,
128
-------
TABLE VI-H
SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX: CLEVELAND-AKRON
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers' impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
Wastewater Treatment
Land Adv. bio. Ph.-ch
Sludge
Agric. Oth. land
Collection
& Convey-
ance
42
o
o
Q.
4)
C
a>
I
Surface & groundwater
Flora and fauna
Water reuse
ffi^S
I*
'««»>r»L «»•:
Z
Geology and soils
Flora and fauna
Land reclamation
Land use
Time related impacts
.»*«••«.•'
S^K^iJlp^v
mm&msi&i
Zmmim* .V: "a£Y«:'
K'j^^iS'&'xft&rJ ".*•«• ^T» .»•* *
•I
i^.v.v^V,-.-.-.^/;-,^;
*te?4
(S3
Air quality
Resource consumption
u
|
^o
*0
3
Community cohesion
o
^Special Interest groups
Recreation
; •/••*••" •
•• ».••'.•.•*.••,'"
.»•«•»•«.•'
• «.«
• «.••«»«
«>;^* «>
*^.a**.»*«.»
M
U
Visual aesthetics
Olfactory aesthetics
•ft X
Toxic substances
Pathogens
Legend:
of major concern .\V*.V
Presented adequately A
Insufficiently supported ^
•V Area of moderate concern i i Area of relatively minor concern
Presented adequately only in appendices
Not adequately considered
-------
economic, and institutional trade-offs to be made in the choice of alternatives would
be desirable.
Environmental Impacts.
Surface and Groundwater. The Summary Report generally described existing conditions
without detailing impacts of alternatives on arep water quality and quantity, while the
appendices discussed expected impacts on the Cleveland-Akron area.
Appendix VI (page 457) concluded that Plan B would significantly improve Lake Erie
water quality, including algal reduction. The ecological evaluation for Southeastern
Michigan/^f however, stated that coordinated reduction of nutrient from all sources
discharging to the lake would be necessary before significant improvements would be
possible. The Three Rivers Watershed District qlso noted that report's statement that
"Lake Erie will be significantly enhanced" was probably not accurate.
Append? x IX, the only section to consider ?n cjetail the effects of land application (Plop C)
?n north-central Ohio, predicted a hydrologi? disruption as a result of transporting
wastewater to that region .^i Plans B and C wpre expected to increase surface water
quality by treating wastewater more completely prior to discharge. The Summary Report
allowed for a water discharge temperature increase of 5F, but seemed to overestimate
maximum temperatures—as high as 90F from Jupe to September for all waters except the
Ohio River. Sludge application would seem to have a small impact on surface water
unless there is runoff or leaching of nitrates caused by excessive application.
!
Land application of effluent (Plans B and C) raised questions about coordinating applica.-
tlon rates with normal area rainfall. Appendix IX recommended against Plan C because
It increased probability of flooding due to neqrly saturated soil, and would result in
increased bank erosion and sediment transport!. Appendix IX advised pilot projects to
experiment with effluent application rates and monitor resulting changes in receiving
water quantity and quality.
A small percentage of Cleveland-Akron area population depends on groundwater for
potable supply. Proposed effluent application rates of 2 to 3 inches petv/eek combined
with an average 0.7 inches of rainfall per weipk would seem excessive, and imply
leaching into groundwater or runoff. Appencjix IX indicated the possibility of nitrate
contamination of groundwater in north-centrql Ohio, even when calculations assumed]
ideal conditions. If treated effluent were used to replenish groundwater, quality could
be improved,since area groundwater is considered fair to poor (hard). Generally, effects
of effluent and sludge application on groundwater received minimal treatment in
the Summary Report, and many more questions exist than were discussed.
]30
-------
Aquatic Flora and Fauna. Discussion of aquatic life mainly stressed the benefits
of improved water quality. The Summary Report did mention that increased
flow in selected streams (Plan C transport) could disrupt benlhlc communities be-
cause of increased sediment loads, the hydro logic imbalance predicted as a
result of Plan C (too much water in north-central Ohio, as much as 60* percent flow
reduction below Akron) would a|so generally decrease survival in areas of reduced
flow. Appendix VI anticipated general improvements In effluent quality would
"improve" ecosystems.
Sludge application's effects on aquatic flora and fauna received little consideration
anywhere In the report, but it can be assumed that effects on water quality would
be transferred to inhabitants.
Water Reuse. The Summary Report and Appendices adequately considered the need
for water reuse In the Cleveland-Akron area. Fpllowing treatment, effluent would
flow or be pumped into streams flowing into Lake Erie. Identification of potential
markets for reuse (power plants) would have improved general reuse considerations
In the report.
Geology and Soils. Geological and pedological considerations were covered
in the Technical Evaluation. Summarizing, a cqmplete discussion of bedrock geology
was presented in the Cleveland-Akron report. Ppposed tunnels, if unlined, could
cause problems with effluent reacting with walls/, although a lining should eliminate
any Interaction. High effluent application could break down soil structure and alter
soil chemistry, particularly with respect to clays^ The report, however, tended to
stress favorable effects of land treatment on soils and geology.
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna. The report noted mqny positive effects on terrestrial
flora and fauna, especially as a result of Improved water quality. Creation of
new wetlands would have an impact on the type^ of wildlife Inhabiting the
areas, since they would probably attract migratory water fowl while displacing
present residents to drier land. Additional waterfowl game species may have a
positive impact on hunting but cause problems for farmers. A more complete wTId-
life Inventory and evaluation would be required to determine the reactions of orga-
nisms to the alternatives, especially Plan C.
Reed canarygrass (mentioned ?n Technical Evaluation) was proposed as a plant cover
for land treatment sites to be harvested,then used as fodder as a method to remove
excess nutrients from the soil. This operation potentially introduces absorbed sub-
stances Into the food chain, so generally more information is necessary to determine
how plants take up heavy metals and other toxic substances possibly present in
effluent from the soil before widespread planting is undertaken.
Land Reclamation. The report adequately considered methods and effects of
131
-------
reclamation of previously strip-mined lands. Bringing vegetation back to dead
areas was an attractive option, but the report did not consider the small, but never-
theless present, possibility of nutrient-laden runoff from application areas causing
eutrophfcation of receiving waters.
Land Use, The land use analysis in Append** VI contained a comprehensive presen-
tation of existing land uses and planning objectives within each county in the study
area and fn those counties affected by Plan C/but presented little substantial analysis
of the effects of implementation of alternative plans. Effects of improved water
quality, such as potential Increased recreational and open space land/ and impacts
on land us© following application of sludge Jo strip-mined areas were discussed in
both the Summary Report and Evaluation Appendix.
The effects of withdrawing large tracts of agricultural lands on the demand for re-
maining open space lands were omitted, as was a consideration of Increased develop-1
ment ?n areas provided with new sewer servjce. Land use changes must be classified
as potential, however, since many more factors than the wastewater management
alternatives enter land use decisions. Appendix VI dfd note that Plan C would in-
volve applying wastewater to the Willard Swamp archeological deposit but did not
describe th@ ar©a»
Time-Related Impacts. Appendix VI assumed that national water policy has little
effect on distribution of people and Industry due to overriding importance of loca-
tion, access, and existing economic activity. On the basis of this assumption,
predicting long-term land use changes in the Cleveland-Akron or any area would
be unnecessary, and, accordingly, the report made no systematic predictions.
The assumption is not necessarily valid since water supply and waste treatment fa-
cilities must be considered by future develppers. Holding all other considerations
constant, sections of the study area provided with sewers and having lowest user
fees would be attractive for development. Similarly, costs associated with the
selected alternative plan would affect long-term development In the area.
Timbre lated Impacts are important con si df rations of applying effluent or sludge
to lando Future uses of reclaimed strip-mined land and agricultural land to which
effluent and sludge have been applied neesd consideration. The Summary Report
Indicated that the increased development permitted by reclaimed strip-mined land
would be a negative effect on the Cleveland-Akron area. More specific effects
needed to be discussed, however. Appendix VI noted the questioned ability of
agricultural soils to act as a "living filterf indefinitely. Possible future use of
this land for recreation or open space was discussed without really considering its
feasibility.
Ajr Quality. Until the year 2000 all plans suggest sludge incineration; after that time
land application under Plan C would reduce emissions to one-fifth the 2000 amounts .
The Summary Report and Appendices failed to Identify and quantify the air
-------
pollutants discharged from particular treatment processes.
Resource Consumption. According to th§ Summary Report, Plan C required half
the chemicals and twice the electrical energy of either Plans A or B. The Evalua-
tion Appendix adequately discussed resoqrce requirements of alternative treatment
technologies, but specific requirements appeared in an attachment to the Appendix,
fairly inaccessible to the reader.
Social Impacts.
Community Cohesion. The Summary Report and Appendices covered the basic im-r
pacts on communities expected from implementation of physical-chemical, advanced
biological, and land treatment of wastewqter in the Cleveland-Akron area. Appendix
VIII (public hearings) discussed the effects, of sludge application on communities.
All plans would involve, at least somewhaf, positive effects resulting from cleaner
water, potential recreational areas, and open space. The greatest negative impact
of any alternative on community cohesion would be the disruptiveness of relocation.
Appendix IX basically remained objective jn settling the trade-offs involved ?n land
application of effluent between cost-effectiveness and recycling potential versus
community disruption. The discussion in Appendix IX would serve as a good model
for future evaluations of large scale water resources projects requiring relocation
of large numbers of people.
The Summary Report presented the belief thqt continuing eduction of the public would
result in increased acceptance of wastewater land treatment. However, the public
relations campaign preceding the report did qot prevent public rejection of Plan C.
The less-than-realistfc trade-off offered either the status quo or the opportunity to
increase farm income, attract industry with Winter storage lagoons for water supply,
and control urban development. These three consequences of Plan C are question-
able, and the basic issues remains untouched: economic and environmental gain for
the urban Ohio residents at the cost of disrupfing rural residents.
Special Interest Groups. The Summary Report noted the effects of wastewater treat-
ment components on special interest groups without discussing sludge application.
It questionably indicated the goals of conservation groups would be satisfied to some
degree by all alternatives—reactions appeared to be mixed. Again the plans cal-
ling for greatest relocation would be most strongly resisted, since affected residents
certainly represent a significant special interest group.
Recreation. A good review of recreational supply and demands of the Cleveland-
Akron area appeared in Appendix VI; the discussion should prove useful for future
water quality planning as prescribed by PL 92-500. Potential recreational oppor-
tunity increases were noted throughout the report as a result of improved surface
waters and reclaimed strip-mined land, but no detailed plans were presented^
133
-------
Visual and Olfactory Aesthetics. The Summary Report reviewed the positive effects
on the appearance of the study area as a result of all treatment alternatives, in
terms of more attractive waterways, reduced, algal blooms and improvements in
strip-mined and farmlands. The latter impapt, a proposed consequence of Plans B
and C, required no supporting evidence. Tunneling was described as moie attractive
for landscape preservation than overland pipes for conveying effluent. Negative
impacts of completed facilities, especially fhose constructed on previously open
space lands, were not analyzed. Possible Ipgoon odors (Plans B and C) were men-
tioned several times in the report, but olfactory impacts of other wastewater manage^
ment components were not explicitly discussed.
Toxic Substances. The appendices considered possible concentrations of toxic
substances resulting from land application, but such buildups were not expected
from physical-chemical and advanced biological treatment. Heavy metal concentra-
tions in plants should be monitored In application areas to prevent introduction into
human food sources. ''
Pathogens. From Appendix VI, water-base^ processes of Plans A and B would re-
sult in little public hazard,alihough viruses could present problems. Sludge and ef-
fluent application would be agreater source of pathogens. Appendix VI also assumed
aerosols would not be a problem because of po recorded problems to date. However,
periodic winds in the area could allow somei pathogen transport by aerosols. The
appendices concluded that pathogens d?e when exposed to soils, but other sources
claim sofl survival of several months, depending on local conditions. ' Appendix
IX maintained that methods of insect and disease control are "presently inadequate"
for soils under constant irrigation. For wastewater management components with
pathogens as a major concern, the Summary Report did not adequately consider
hazards.
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS.
Existing Institutional Framework.
Figure VI-9 shows existing institutions and their roles In Cleveland-Akron area
wastewater management.
International and Interstate. The internatiopal arrangements governing water
quality in the Great Lakes have been discussed previously and will not be further
reviewed here. The Ohio River Valley Watfr Sanitation Commission (ORVWSC),
representing Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, N-ew York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia, has jurisdiction over water pollution control in the Ohio River
Basin. The Commission carries out only planning and advisory tasks,and must rely
134
-------
0
a
f
u
S
•*
O
te
J
c
U
._ > .s .z *- ,s .5
6isSS8S8
R
z?
PSE
u
R
S
Cou
^
u
u.
i
u
U
L ICY EMPHASIS
*
ater Resources
Land Resources
Ajr jtesources
GFNFRAL RQIFS
State Water Res. Plan
State Wastewater PI.
Areawide W.W. Plan
Watershed Plan
Facility Plans
Land Use Plans
Wafer Suppl y
Water Quality Control
Ityj
Ma
FFood Plain Mot.
Sludae/$.W. Mat.
SPECIFIC ROLES
'afar Qua(ity Stth.
f
ermit Issuance
Permit Enforcement
Grants AoDroval
A-95 Review
Land Use Zoning
Property Assessment
V
J«*r Fees/Taxes
reatment Contracts
Water Supply Contr.
k>nd Issuance
•minent Domain
135 FIGURE VI-9
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK:
CLEVELAND-AKRON
-------
heavily on each state individually to manage Its own wastewater and water quality
permit programs. r
State . The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) ft the pr?ntfpal water
quality regulatory agency. OEPA has rtpponifbt Ifty for establishing State wattr
quality standards and effluent limitations, Issuing wait* discharge permits and
schedules for compliance, preparing water basin plant/ and approving (on the bails of
OEPA established priorities) local wastewater facility plans and applications for
federal financial assistance. The Three Rivers Watershed District, under OEPA
jurisdiction, is authorized to set construction standards for wastewater treatment
works, prepare a comprehensive regional water resources development plan, and
administer a regional waste discharge permit program (subject to OEPA review).
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has wide authority In the f|e|<|
of resource conservation and development (including forests, parks and recreation,
flood control and flood plain management, water-resources, and fish and wildlife).
The ODNR plays a major role in water resources planning and policy formation,
wirh program Implementation and enforcement primarily the responsibility of the
OEPA. The ODNR's Northeast District Office has been authorized to prepare a
water development plan for Northeast Ohio.
Ohio Planning and Development Clearinghouse (OPDC), the State A-95
(•'••view Agency, principally federally funded , fs relatively autonomous from other
•,\n\<- agencies In its evaluation of locql applications for waste treatment works
'.on-.tructlon grants.
Regional A-95 review for the Three Rivers Watershed 1$ the responsibility of the
Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA). This agency and the
Mjbregional review agencies for the area (the Cuyahoga County Regional Planning
Commission and the Trt-County Regional Planning Commission) screen projects to
b<» passed on to the OPDC for final review.
The Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA) may loan money to private Indus-
try for construction waste treatment fpc* titles, subject to A-95 review and approval.
OWDA ?s also authorized to establish boundaries between wastewater management
service districts. Urban service districts cannot be established, however, unless
requested either by a local jurisdlctipn or the OWDA. The OWDA fs empowered
to make such a request in cases where a local sanitary jurisdiction has failed to
comply with an OEPA pollution abatement order. The OWDA serves as a lalipn
to federal agencies engaged in funding various types of water resource, wastewater,
and solid waste management projects.
Regional. Created In 1969, the Northeast Ohio Areawlde Coordinating Council
(NOACA) is a multi-purpose, regional planning entity wtth (HUD-dfcftned) jurisdic-
tion over Loral n, Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga, Medina, Summit, and Portage
136
-------
Counties. NOACA's planning functions are related to wastewater management,
land use, and housing; it also serves as a "Metropolitan Regional Council" for
HUD, and a regional A-95 clearinghouse for OPDC. NOACA is also involved
in transportation planning for the Federal Highway Administration. Local partici-
pation in NOACA is voluntary, but most counties, townships, cities, and villages
are represented.
The Three Rivers Watershed Districts (TRWD) has water quality management and water
resources development responsibilities within the Cuyahoga, Chagrin and Rocky River
Basins and several smaller tributaries of Lake Erie. The District's involvement in es-
tablishing water quality standards includes preparation of a comprehensive water re-
sources development plan. The plan is designed to provide methods for insuring
adequate water supply, water-oriented recreation, flood protection, and water
quality in the district. The Watershed District includes parts of Cuyahoga, Geauga,
Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Stark, and Summit Counties.
The Cleveland Regional Sewer District (CRSD) provides wastewater management
services throughout Cuyahoga County, though CRSD facilities are owned and operated
by the Qty of Cleveland. The district is composed of two sub-districts: the City
of Cleveland and the rest of the county, and local entities. Construction of local
treatment facilities must be financed by the local political subdivision through direct
Tssue of bonds or loans received from CRSD. The district, in turn, is authorized to
levy ad valorem taxes, special assessments, and user charges.
The Cuyahoga County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) is involved in county-
level comprehensive planning related to land use, water supply, and wastewater and
solid waste management. It also serves as a subregional A-95 clearinghouse under
NOACA.
The Tr?-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) has broad planning authority
related to land use and wastewater management, although each countyhandles
water supply separately. Counties having a population greater than 100,000 are
permitted by state law to establish their own Sqnitary Engineering Department.
Summit County qualifies (Akron is in Summit Cpunty) and has created a department
which owns and operates 30 wastewater treatment plants (none of these are in muni-
cipalities which already received treatment services from the City of Akron or
from the Twlnsburg Water and Sewage Authority). The department provides water
supply to unincorporated areas and by contract to municipalities desiring the service.
The TCRPC performs generally the same functions as the CCRPC. Since both lack
regulatory authority over plan implementation, they must rely on local entities
capable of project financing.
137
-------
Local major municipalities In the area include Cleveland, Lakewood, Akron,
Cuyahoga Falls, and Chagrin Falls. Cleveland provides water to Lakewood, while
Lakewood's Service Department provides wqstewater treatment within portions of
both Lakewood and Cleveland, although part of Lakewood is within the CRSD.
Cleveland's City Service Department coorcj
County Sanitary Engineering Department,
nates its activities with the Cuyahoga
s does the CRSD. Cleveland's City
Planning Department has general planning authority for land use, water resources,
and wastewater management.
The City of Akron provides Its own water supply and waste treatment facilities,
and also handles wastewater from adjacent preas of Summit County.
Ohio law provided that a municipality may contract with another municipality or
county for wastewater management services. Cuyahoga Falls (a city in the Tri-
County area) contracts for wastewater treatment from Akron, but operates its own
water supply system, and is engaged In flood plain management and a restoration
program for the Cuyahoga River. The village of Chagrin Falls, like many other
smaller communities, operates Its own water supply and wastewater management
systems. Under contract, it also serves portions of adjacent townships and several
industries in Geauga County. Facility expansion is subject to OEPA approval.
Institutional Feasibility of Alternatives.
Appendix VII of the CI eve I and-Akron report evaluated Ifkely institutional impacts
of alternative plans and the institutional capabilities required to Institute each planr
As in all of the study areas, the main requirements for implementation of each NDCp
alternative were increased regionalization'and centralization of wastewater management.
Appendix VII noted that Alternatives B and C, which each called for the abandqn-
ment of approximately 100 existing sewage treatment plants, would meet substantial
obstacles in the form of outstanding bond ipdebtedness and potential dissolution of
local wastewater management agencies.
Of the final plans, Alternative A (Level | or II) would seem to be the easiest to irrn
plement from an institutional point of view. The land application called for in
Alternatives B and C, besides involving increased regibnalization/would meet dif-
ficulties with relocation of residents acquisition and management of spray irrigation
sites. The Summary Report assumed that an existing entity such as the Three Rivers
Watershed District could adequately manaqe all alternatives but Plan C through
transfer of authority and responsibility; this was not really supported by the
analysis in Appendix VII. !
Financial Feasibility. The Financial Impapts section of the Economic Evaluation
discussed the 25 percent local versus 75 percent federal support of capital costs,
total local support of all operating and mqintenance costs, and total industrial
support of pretreatment costs. Local governments would, as a result, be Interested
138
-------
in minimizing the ratio of O & M capital costs, so that Plans B and C (land
treatment) would appear most attractive. |f Industries were required to pay their
share of total capital and operating costs, they would instead favor the lowesf-
total-cost alternative. The Cleveland-Akron financial evaluation demonstrated
that each of the higher water quality plarjs would require a capital outlay likely
to exceed the financing capabilities of the study area. Wastewater facility expen-
ditures in the entire state of Ohio were approximately $90 million In 1969and the
estimated annual capital expenditure for t|ie least costly 'higher water quality al-
ternative (Plan B) was $85 ml I Hon.29 Th^s latter figure for total expenditures
federal plus state) does not match the Summary Report estimate of $26.4 million
for Plan B. Even this lower figure, If financed through general obligation bonds,
would make the financial feasibility of Implementing the NDCP plans low, since
the debt celling would need to be raised.
The local share of capital costs might be financed through revenue bonds serviced
wfth user fees or through general obligation bonds; paid off by taxatlpn. In the past,
Ohio and most other states have relied upon revenue bond financing because this
type of bond Is generally free of statutory restriction. However, these bonds have
relatively high interest rates. General obligation bonds have lower Interest rates
botare usually constrained by state legislatures and constitutions which set statutory
indebtedness ceilings only increased by voter approval. However, as shown In
Table V1-.12, referenda are not required ?n Ohio.
Another factor to be considered is how close the area's current debt Ts to Its maximum
celling. Table VI-I3 shows the borrowing margins of counties within the Cleveland-
Akron study area. Districts with little borrowing margin remaining are not able to
take an active part in financing unless the legislature raises the ceiling on Indebted-
ness. An overview of current tax revenues !rj the study area indicates that over 80
percent of total tax revenue comes from property taxes. However, Income and sales
taxes are relatively low and It may be possible to Increase them In order to generate
additional revenue. Other possible methods of financing the repayment of waste-
water treatment projects include corporate Income taxes and pollution charges on
Industries and other sources of pollution. In addition, Industry Is required to pay
back to the federal sector that portion of federally financed capital cost that is
attributable to treating Industrial waste. Locql governments could also require in-
dustries to pay their share of locally financed capital costs.
Operating and maintenance costs of federally financed projects must be paid for
by a system of user fees (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972).
According to the report, annual operating and maintenance costs did not vary much
among the cited alternatives. They range frorq $53.5 million (Plan C) to $67.7
million (Plan A-II). An attempt should be maa> to determined the relative effects
of taxes and user charges on equity and economic efficiency.
139
-------
TABLE VI-12
OHIO : WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REFERENDA (1970)°'b
Counties and Special Districts
General obligation
Revenue
Statutory provisions
Referenda requirement
Not required
Not required
Bond interest (%)
None specified
None specified
Municipalities
General obligation
Revenue
Not required
Not required
None specified
None specified
vl
The Ohio State Constitution has no requirements for bond referenda.
Between January 1966 and June 1970, 52 water pollution control referenda were submitted to the electorate.
Source: 10.
-------
TABLE VI-13
1971 BORROWING MARGINj OHIO0
Entity
Counties
Cuyahoga
Summit
Geauga
Medina
Municipalities
Akron
Bedford
Berea
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Falls
Lakewood
Medina
Shaker Heights
Willoughby
Assessed
Valuation
7, 272.0
2,090.0
205.6
263.0
991.0
73.0
72.0
2,885.0
135.0
197.0
52.0
176.0
77.0
Maximum
Ceiling
180.3
50.8
4.5
5.5
104.1
7.7
7.6
302.9
14.2
20.7
5.5
18.5
8.1
Current
Debt
33.9
9.6
3.0
0.6
>
42.0
0.6
1.3
NA
1.7
6.5
3.8
9.8
4.2
Borrowing
Margin
146.4
41.2
1.5
4.9
62.1
7.0
6.3
NA
12.5
14.2
1.6
8.7
3.9
Units are $ millions.
Source: 2 g, pp. 74,78,,
141
-------
CHAPTER VII
EVALUATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
REPORT
INTRODUCTION.
Study Area Description.
Figure VII-1 shows a map of the Southeaster^ Michigan study area. Counties en-
tirely within the study area are Washtenaw, Wayne, Macomb, and St. Clair;
parts of Oakland, Lenawee, Monroe, and Livingston Counties are also Involved
in the study. The study area covers approximately 4,900 square miles, with a
1970 population of 4.5 million.3
Wastewater Management Alternatives.
The report discussed four alternative plans far the Southeastern Michigan study area.
The alternatives proposed one or a combination of methods to achieve water quality
standards; the three general methods, land, physical-chemical, and advanced
biological treatment, are outlined In Figures VII-2, VII-3, and Vll-4, respectively.
The four plans are summarized In Table VIM and described in more detail below.
Interim Plan. The Interim Plan was the reference plan in the report; it was designed
to meet existing Michigan water quality standards, but not the 1985 goals of PL 92-
500. The Interim Plan proposed qccompllshlpg water quality goals through 46 reglona
and local treatment plants, including existing plants and those to be constructed.
The plants would be expandable to meet higher water quality standards; however,
only stormwater from combined sewer overflows would be treated under the Interim
Plan and the effluent then would be discharged to surface water. Resulting treat-
ment plant sludges would be Incinerated In all but two plants, where they would be
landfllled. Neither the Interim Plan nor any of the others discussed numbers of
people to be displaced.
Representative Plan I. Plan I was formulated to achieve 1985 water quality goals
of PL 92-500 through 7 Independent physical-chemical and 3 advanced biological
treatment plants. Four physical-chemical plants of the 7 incorporated in P Ian I,
as well as four of the total In P lans II and I1J, would treat 2186 MOD stormwater
per year. A total of 51 storage reservoirs with a capacity of 73,165 MG would also
be provided. . • '
Representative Plans II and 111. Plan II reflected the increasing centralization,
through Intensive land application proposed by the Southeastern Michigan study
(and other studies) and rep laced 2 physical-chemical plants with 2 land appli-
cation sites. Thus, land requirements were double those of Plan I. Plan Ill's
design was similar to Plan II except It allowed for lower application rates, which
142
-------
AREAS NOT PART OF
SUBJECT STUDY
Source: 3•
143
FIGURE Vll-l
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
STUDY AREA
-------
DISINFECT
WITH
CHLORINE
SPRAY-IRRIGATE CROPS
I AX. I/
•V •:.-:* :':-\ :-V.I :V.:.Y.: :".:'.'.
SOIL
FILTER
RAW SEWAGE
AGITATE
LAGOONS TO
INTRODUCE
AIR
GRAVITY SETTLES
OUT SOLIDS, BARGE
SCOOPS UP SLUDGE
POROUS DRAINAGE
SLUDGE IS SPREAD ON LAND
Source: 3.
FIGURE VI.I-2
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM:
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
-------
CHLORINE
SCREENING
FINAL
FILTRATION-
ADSORPTION
CHEMICAL
CLARIFICATION
ACTIVATED
BON
PTION
ATER
SLUDGE
CARBON
REGENERATION
THICKEN
SLUDGE
INCINERATE a
RECLAIM LIME
TRUCK ASH TO
LANDFILL
Source: 3.
FIGURE VII-3
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM:
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
-------
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
CHLORiNE
MULTI-MEDIA
FILTRATION
NITRIFICATION-CLARIFICATION
CLARIFICATION
ACTIVATED
CARBON ADSORPTION!
THICKEN
SLUDGE
DEWATER
SLUDGE
INCINERATE
& RECLAIM
LIME
Source:
CARBON
REGENERATION
TRUCK ASH
TO LANDFILL
FIGURE VI1-4
ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
-------
TABLE VIM
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES: SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
Alternative
Interim
(reference
plan)
1
II
*
III
Treatment Number Storm Amount Storm- Effluent Sludge Land Persons
Type Treatment Storage water Treated Disposal Disposal Required Displaced
Plants Capacity MGY (1 Quaeres) (10§)
(MG) V '
At least
secondary
treatment
Physical-
chemical
Advanced
biological
Physical-
chemical
Advanced
biological
-^banchappli-
cation
Physical-
chemical
Advanced
biological
46 —
7 (in- 73,165 788,400
eluding
stormwater)
5 (in- 73,165 788,400
eluding storm-
water)
2
5 (in- 73,165 788,400
eluding storm-
water
3
Surface
water
Surface
water
Ground -
water
reuse
Surface
water
Ground-
water
reuse
Surface
water
Ground
water
reuse
Incinera- 0.781
tion(44) ? a
Landfill (2)
Incinera- 28.29 ?
tibn
Landfill
Incineration 56.78 ?
Landfill
Agricultural
use
Incineration 72.52 ?
Landfill
Agricultural
use
Land application 2
No estimates given.
-------
made land requirements about 3 times those of Plan I. The rationale behind less
Intensive application was to keep lands privately owned and in agriculture.
Population.
Figure VI1-5 shows a comparison of the repqrt population projection with past
trends for Michigan and the Detroit area. The report predicted a slightly increas-
ing growth rate through 2020, although Mlqhigan growth has been slowing and the
Detroit area's population has actually been declining. Figure VII-6 shows that the
report estimate closely corresponded with th,e results of a 2.8 fertility rate through
2020» The current national average growth) rate is only slightly less than that pro-
duced by a 1.8 fertility rate, therefore the report's 2020 projection was 47 percent
higher than would be produced by present national growth trends.
Flow.
The report predicted 1970, 1990, and 2020 domestic and commercial sewage flow
rates. Using these figures and report population projections/ per capita flow rates
would be (gallons per day) 91 for 1970, 100 for 1990, and 112 for 2020. These
numbers Ife within a reasonable range, but no explanation was offered for the |n-
creas@0 Increased Industrial water reuse arfd reclamation were attributed to either
institution of effluent charges or regulation of effluent quality. No data were pre-
sented to support the predicted magnitude of reuse.
Stormwafrer runoff data predicted a constant 622 MGD from 1970 to 2020. Although
the system would incorporate considerable storage capacity (both surface and mined),
the anticipated population doubling would likely affect stormwater flow. Increased'
runoff Implied by Increased development wpuld require additional facilities not in-
dicated by the report.
The 2020 flow rate could be reduced by over 300 MGD if actual population growth
varied from the report projection, as seems, likely. System modification In 1990
could adjust for the flow over-estimate, wjfien the report prediction and the 1.8
fertility rate prediction differed by only 12 percent.
Cost.
Figures VII-7 and VBI-8 compare report unjt process costs with those from other
sources for flow rates of 1, 10, and 100 MOJD. The range of other estimates Is
represented as percent variation from the centerllne.
For both construction and operation and maintenance, report figures generally
matched other sources for 1 MGD, were sjlghtly lower for 10 MGD, and seemed
substantially lower for 100 MGD. Since tfie majority of the proposed treatment
-------
VI
O
-- 5
c
jj
8-
°- 4
Corps
Series C (2.8)
Series D (2.5)
r
Series E (2.1)
Series F (1.8)
1970
1990
Year
2020
FIGURE VII-5
COMPARISON OF POPULATION
PROJECTIONS FOR
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN
149
-------
-------
Process
Preliminary
Treatment
Primary
Clarification
Primary CTarific.
with Fe 0(3
Two Stage Lime
Clarification
Secondary
Clarification
Aeration
Tanks
Diffused Air
Systems
Mixed Media
Filtration
Mixed Media
Fi It. - Denitri fi cation
Carbon
Absorption
Chlorine
Contact Tanks
Chlorination
Feed Systems
Sludge
Digestion
Sludge
Incineration
Vacuum
Filtration
Nitrification
Tanks
* Bands show percent
variation of other sources
from report estimates.
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS CONSTRUCTION
COST ESTIMATES FOR SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN*-'
151
-------
Process
Preliminary
Treatment
Primary
Clarification
Primary
Clar. w/Fe CU
Two Stage
Lime Clarification
Secondary
Clarification
Diffused Air
Systems
Mixed Media
Filtration
Mixed Media
Fi It.-Denitrifi cation
Carbon
Absorption
Chlorine
Contact Tanks
Chlori nation
Feed Systems
Sludge
Digestion
Sludge
Incineration
Vacuum
Filtration
Nitrification
Tanks (None)
* Bands show percent variation of
other sources from report estimates.
! FIGURE Vll-8
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COST ESTIMATES FOR
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN*
152
-------
plants would be ?n the lower capacity ranges, the renort estlmates were reasonable.
Reconsideration of cost estimates would be worthwhile for a few of the larger Tn-
stallatfons when cost estimates are updated.
Physical Systems and Processes.
The Interim Plan was the only one to designate how many existing facilities would be
utilized, although some consideration Wai apparently given to the locations or re-
tained facilities for the other alternatives. The report stated that regional plant
locations were determined by proximity to receiving waters or other controlling
factors, but more specific consideration of locations (Including alternate sites)
and size should have been Included. Where collection systems presently exist/ ac-
ceptable locations were restricted, but alternate regional facility locations should
be considered where trunks must be constructed.
Treatment processes presented In the report (see Rgyres VIH2, VII-3, and VIM)
were representative of secondary and AWT processes, except that the secondary
processes were not necessarily biological as shown.
The Independent physical-chemical treatment (IPCH flow diagram showed chemical
clarification followed by activated carbon adsorpttqn. The second stage was said
to provide filtration of suspended solids carried over from preceding processes as
well as adsorption and dechlor!nation, which tacltl;
clarification Is not Itself sufficient to remove a hfgf
some were expected to pass the first stage carbon adsorption as well. This situation
would seem to contribute to an early fouling of the
acknowledges that the chemical
percentage of these solids, since
Irst stage carbon adsorption,*
therefore the Insertion of a filtration process, probably mixed media, between
the clarification and the first stage activated carbon would be well advised.
In the land treatment process ft should be noted thaf solids produced In aerated lagoons
would not be efficiently removed by gravity settling. Of all the biological processes,
aerated lagoons probably p reduce the most solids In the effluent, but they are light
and dispersed and generally do not settle well. Probably a coagulation or filtration
process, or both, should be used here In place of gravity settling.
Geology and Soils.
The Appendices presented very thorough discussion of SE Michigan geology and
pedology; coverage of all points was more than adequate and recommendations were
carefully qualified and based entirely on the Information available. However, It
Is not clear how much these studies were taken Into account In the preparation of
the Summary and Plan Formulation Reports/ possibly due to the lack of Information
on specific geologic requirements of the four plan*. With the exception of proposed
Plan II application rates, other details which could have been discussed were
153
-------
essentially omitted.
The area bedrock geology would both affect qnd be affected by proposed tunnel and
conveyance systems, but no specific information on tunnel routes, depths, or methods
of construction was presented for Plans I, II, and III . The Appendices discussed
common problems associated with tunneling t lough hard bedrock (all of which have
engineering solutions): 1) excessive grounds ter Infiltration, 2) unexpected Intersec-
tion with a buried bedrock valley, and 3) flammable gates such ai methane or hydro-
gen sulfide from Antrim shale formations.
The decision to exclude tunnel linings shoulc
groundwater seepage into the tunnels, creatl
/) enlargement of solution cavities In carbonpte
in active karst topography; and 3) physical a
wall resulting in higher amounts of suspendec
tunnel.
have accounted for the following: 1)
g a load greater than design capacity;
units by acidic wastewater resulting
id chemical "weathering" of the tunnel
solids In the effluent passing through the
The soils of the area were adequately described, and carefully qualified usei were pro-
pose-' I lor thoni. With the exception of effluent application site selection and rates/
Pl.im II and III seemed to have been based op these supporting data, Plan Ill's less
ih!'!ir.iv«.' application made site parameters If is Important.
i ..:noA/r«s
I In. replication raros proposed for Plan II we/e very high, 77 Inches per year for the
r«s %itc qnd 99 jnehes per year for the gf, 'Clg.fr i|te,s Ths mexIfflMrh f§c,p,rn mended
W.T
-------
pi
Ol
TABLE VI1-2
COMPARISON OF RESOURCES REQUIRED AND RESIDUAL WASTES
FOR ALTERNATIVE PLANS: SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
Item
(tons/day except where noted)
Electric power*3
Resources
Coal
Chemicals
Total
Residual
Wastes
Particulates, SOX
SS Removed
Chemicals in sludge
Total
Residual wastes (Ib/capita-day)
Resources (Ib/capita-day)
1
AWT
3,850
1,232
865
2,097
280
987
865
2,132
IPCT
3,031
970
967
1,937
221
2,666
967
3,854
1.37
0.92
AWT
3,850
1,232
865
2,097
280
987
865
2,132
II
IPCT LAND
2,486 827
796 265
951 —
1,747 265
181 60
2,551 —
951 ~
3,683 60
1.37
0.93
AWT
3,850
1,232
865
2,097
280
280
865
1,425
III
IPCT
2
1
2
3
1
0
,486
796
951
,747
181
,551
951
,683
.37
.93
LAND
827
265
—
265
60
—
—
60
In megawatt hrs/day; not included in totals for alternatives.
-------
Not included were total dissolved solids and dissolved organTcs contributing to
cell mass production in biological systems.
Calculations for Table VII-2 were based on 250 mg/l Influent suspended solids,
0.64 pounds of coal per kilowatt-hour, and 97 pounds of partlculates and 48.5
pounds of sulfur dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour. These figures came from
Tables 19, 21, and 23 of the Summary Report and Tables 25 and 26 of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Appendix. Unfortunately there was no single section summari-
zing the specific requirements and impacts of the three plans. Data comparable
to that used in the above computations were pot included for the Interim Water
Quality Plan.
There appeared to be conflicts In treatment plant design quantities; some plants
with data specified for them were not identified in the alternative plans.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION.
Costs of Alternative Plans.
Table VII-3 lists total and annual capital costs for Southeastern Michigan Plans
I, II, and III.
Facility Costs. A few basic problems made report facility cost estimates and
capital costs in general questionable. A 5.5 percent interest rate and a 50 year
service life were used; these are lower and higher, respectively, than recommended
by EPA. Costs reflected January 1972 prices; with ho adjustment for future inflation,
A 30 percent contingency to cover engineering, legal, and administrative costs
and land costs was included in the capital costs. However, land costs for the three
plans were never explicitly stated. Interest foregone during construction was not
considered in the costs.
Operating and maintenance costs included replacement and labor but no training.
Salvage value was assumed zero, since any resulting revenue was assumed to
equal production costs.
Plan III provided privately owned irrigation lands; however,the financial arrange-
ments between farmers and the operating agency were not clarified.
Land Requirements. Plans I, II, and III required Increasingly more land due to
changing land treatment needs. Costs for thqse amounts are estimated In Table
VI1-4, although ft should be emphasized that these were taken from scattered lo-
cations throughout the report and appendices. Land for IPCT facilities was priced
at $5,000 per acre,3* but whether or not this included relocation Is unclear.
Land costs for Irrigation and fill were also estimated separately.^ Land costs
156
-------
TABLE VI1-3
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS: SOUTHEASTERN
MICHIGAN
Plan Capital Cost
($ million)
Interim Water Qualtty 2,270
1 4,183.5
II 4,222.8
III 4,393.6
Annual Cost (Including
($ million)
152.8
370.6
373.1
390.4
O&M)°
Annual costs are computed at 5.5 percent over 5,0 years.
157
-------
TABLE VII-4
LAND REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS:
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
Plan
Interim Water Quality Plan
1
II
III
i*
Total Acreage
781
28,293
56,780
106,800°
Cost
($ million)
—
125.0
147.9
129.5
Acreage includes 62,520 acres of private farmland to be leased, but cost not included,
158
-------
associated with advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) were not given In the report
for plants Tn Detroit, Wyandotte, and Monroe, and total costs of Plans I, II, and
III reflected these omfsstons. Land for stormwater collection, storage and transmission
was priced at $5,000 per acre, not Including right-of-way.
Acquisition costs were listed by county and Included relocation plus the 30 percent
contingency. Land In St. ClaTr and Lenawee counties, the two most offeeted by
Plans I, II, and III, was priced at $751 and $1,148 per acre, respectively. It was
not clear whether the report Included compensation to local authorities for land
removed from tax rolls.
Previously mentioned problems with overcoming opposition of landowners to having
their property leased for wastewater treatment and problems associated with manag-
ing leased lands would apply to Plans II and 111. Land cost estimates should Include
Initial Inconvenience compensation.
Cost Sensitivity. Table VI1-5 shows how varying service ||fe and Interest rate from
the report figures would affect total annual cost, cost per MG, and annual per
capita cost for the 4 alternatives. Figuring per capita costs for 100 percent rather
than for 25 percent was previously explained by the theory that Instituting similar
treatment systems nationwide would eventually level tax costs to the point where
each area essentially bears the expense of Its own system.
Economic Impacts.
The report criteria used In assessing the economic effects of the plans are outlined
In Table VI1-6. Table VII-7 presents a summary matrix evaluation of the economic
impacts on Southeastern Michigan. The report's system provided detailed data
for analysis; however, the non-quantifiable effects of the wastewater management
alternatives should have been considered. Several considerations applied to all
alternatives:
(1) Increased value of shoreline property due to decrease
In the discharge of critical pollutants.
(2) Lower manufacturing costs due to Improved water quality
and modifying or eliminating further In-plant treatment before use.
(3) .Reuse of renovatecl water from treatment plants by Industry.
Agricultural Productivity. The report presented an analysis of the effect of changes
In agricultural production methods on auantltles, prices, employment, and area
population. . Using changes In average yield ranging between + 25 percent,
It was predicted that small responses In output, employment, and population would
occur with wastewater application. While systematic, the agricultural productivity
159
-------
TABLE VII-5
COMPARISONS OF COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FOR THE SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN STUDY AREA
Alternative
Plan
Interim Plan
Plan 1
Plan II
Plan III
Annual Cost
('$ millions)
^5.5% 10%
50 yrs. c 25 yrs.
153 285.4
370.5 691 .1
373.0 695.8
389.0 725.6
5.5%
5,p yrs
?03
4,92
4^5
516
Cost0
$/MG)
10%
25 yrs.
379
917
923
963
Annual Cost
($/capita)
5.5% 10%
50 yrs. 25 yrs.
24.96 46.56
60.44 112.74
60.85 113.51
63.46 118.37
Based on projected 1990 flows
Based on 1990 projected population
Basis for Summary Report figures.
160
-------
TABLE VI1-6
ECONOMIC RATING CRITERIA pF ALTERNATIVES:
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
Construction Costs:
Land Costs:
Annual Operation Costs
(including replacements and debt retirement):
Acres Taken Off Tax Rolls:
Construction Employment Payroll:
Manpower to Operate:
Increased Crop Values:
Impact of Facilities on Adjoining Land:
Total Score:
Lowest to highest
Lowest to highest
Lowest to highest
Least to most
Highest to lowest
Most to least number
Highest to lowest
Least to most acres in facilities
Most economic benefits to least,
with lowest number signifying
greatest benefits
Source: 3h.
161
-------
TABLE VI1-7
ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX: SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
ti
o
a.
•*
.. •, "* - '-' • ,
'*g£!$$^$j$*ij$:
m!:^%&^$
**«V • *«V**«V **«V * '
Adv. bio
.V»- 4 vcV'"5 * - ^-v "*
^Ov^V^
**••*•*»*•••******!
• *.* *"*\V • *A*-\V • *J
Ph,-ch.
S^5i;
•V/"* V/- \V**V/* "
• »Y» * //« * » /« * »v* * •
^"^V^^^^^^-S
PldSfti
• » I*»t**l**l4*
'•••••••**»•*«'
!*•.•**-•**-»**.•*'
*» J «• J «» • ** » **
Sludge
Agric.
";""-*•' '
,«**•""*•***••'»•*'
«» , •» , *^ *
-------
study was based on field experiments in Pennsylvania, where conditions differ. In
addition, land areas were not held constant when productivity was determined. Final-
ly, the discussion of the land treatment alterpative did not consider whether wastewater
application rates would exceed the capacity pf vegetation to absorb contaminants.
Resource Consumption. The Interim Plan would consume much smaller amounts of re-
sources than Plans 1,11, and III, as the Southeastern Michigan report pointed out.
Since, as was mentioned for the other study areas, resource supplies have become a
critical problem, future trends in supply, demand/ and subsequent prices,should have
been examined.
Land Values. The impact of any one of the wastewater treatment alternatives on land
values would depend on whether or not 1985 water quality goals are to be met and
whether land treatment is included. Generally, the changes in land values would in^
crease with the amount of land required from the point of view of demand for remaining
land. Objection to treatment plants might decrease value of adjacent lands, but studies
have shown this not to be the case. Possibly, shoreline property values would increase
with improved water quality.
Since estimates of land requirements were based on projected wastewater volumes, the
ultimate effects of a project on land values would depend on future flow. The evalua-
tion appendices and Summary Report discussed these considerations adequately but did
not consider the effects of siting collection and conveyance systems on land values.
Manpower and Employment. The alternatives estimated that between 15,000 and
32,000 construction workers would be requjred over a 5 to 10 year period, exceeding
local supply and requiring labor from outside the area. The report did not estimate
construction needs of final plans, which should have been included; the estimates
given appeared to have been calculated before the details of the alternatives were
finalized.
Compared with the other study areas, construction manpower estimates for Southeastern
Michigan seemed low. Operating manpower ranged from 1600 to 3744, a reasonable
estimate. The report predicted that instituting training programs far enough in advapce
could meet the need for trained personnel.
Financial Impact. Table VII-4 showed thpt the capital costs for Plans I, II, and III
were not significantly different. The report based annual costs on a discount factor
of 5.5 percent over 50 years, although amortized capital costs of unit treatment pro-
cesses are based on 7 percent over 20 years. The financial impact of the representa-
tive plan would be transmitted through the, area's prime loan rate. If the supply of
bonds is increased because of the heavy capital financing needs of a pollution control
project, the cost of money to other borrowers in the area may rise.
163
-------
The extent of the financial Impact would also depend on the amount of land removed
from local tax rolls If local governments were not adequately compensated, which
In turn, would depend on the plan chosen. The land requirements for Representative
Plan III were higher than any other plan and subsequently would have the greatest
Impact on the local tax base. EXc«pt for discussion of the financial effects of aban-
doning existing facilities, the Summary Report failed to analyze Impacts of alterna-
tives on study area finances, although a brief discussion appeared In the Institutional
Arrangements Appendix . m.
Industrial Production. In 1967, 180,500 people, or more than one-fourth of total manufac-
turing employment In the Southeastern Michigan area^were engaged In types of
manufacturing that utilized large amounts of water. The report projection showed
that by 1990 employment In these 20 large water-using Industries would total 227,000.
However, there has been an overall trend *n the area (as well as the nation) toward
a proportional decline In manufacturing as a party of total employment as well as an
accelerating shift toward service Industries. Effects on Industrial development of
alternative plans were not discussed In the Summary Report.
SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Table VII-8 presents a summary matrix evaluation of the analysis of sodoenviron-
mental Impacts discussed In the Southeastern Michigan report.
General Methodology.
In the Southeastern Michigan report, a large number of evaluation appendices con-
cerning social and environmental Impacts touched on the same or similar topics but
used different methodolgles and sometimes qrrlved at different conclusions. To
make matters more complex, many of the evaluations were performed on the pre-
liminary, rather than the final, alternatives for Southeastern Michigan. Thus certain
social and environmental Impacts were not specifically analyzed for the final plans
by Independent consultants. It Ts, therefore, felt that the organization, usability,
and effectiveness of this portion of the report could be Improved.
3f
"Ecological Assessment for Wistewater Management In Southeastern Michigan, " OT
"Hygienic Assessments of Alternative Systems," 3? "Social Assessment, " 3n
"Aesthetic Evaluation, " s and "Evaluation Appendix" 3t were the primary
appendices analyzing social and environmental Impacts. Through this type of organf-5
zatfon different aspects of environmental quality and social well-being were analy-
zed Independently, and no attempt was made to combine Impacts and arrive at
overall consequences and trade-offs Involved In alternative plans. Variations of
matrix methodologies were used to compare Impacts In the Ecological Assessment
(using symbols), the Hygienic Assessment (using rankings), the Social Assessment
164
-------
TABLE VI1-8
Ol
SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX: SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers' impact analyses for each cell)
Wastewater Treatment
Area of Impact
Land Adv. bio. Ph.-ch
Agric. Oth. land
Surface & groundwater
Geology and soils
Land reclamation
Tir,;3 related impacfs
A?r=quality
Resource consumption
Community cohesion
'•- «*aP;« ••1.vJ|kV.v%
£&•£&£ V«.W>.y.
Special interest groups
--
«» • <» A.** • •*
i ':&£*££& ¥
Olfactory aesthetics
Toxic substances
Legend: Area of major concern
• Presented adequately
£ Insufficiently supported
'." Area of moderate concern 1~ 1 Area af 5-a!c?'ve!y minor concern
Presented cid5\;«jate!y only in appendices
Not adequately considered
-------
(using rankings), and the Evaluation Appendix (using descriptive comments in
cells, a technique carried over In the Summary Report). Unfortunately, there is
no way to combine these methods to arrive at a comprehensive socioenvironmental
evaluation of alternative plans.
The technique used in the Social Assessment was to 1) identify impact areas, 2) rank
each alternative plan for the expected magnitude of each impact, 3) add the rank-
ings across each plan to arrive at a total social impact score. The problems with
this approach are twofold. First, the rankings appearing as Impact scores were
ordinal numbers, and adding these together (according to measurement theory) Is
meaningless. Such an addition is valid only when an increment of one unit means
the same for all scores. A second problem ?s that the Impact areas were not weight-
ed prior to arriving at an overall score. Although this practice might seem the most
objective in that no decision regarding the relative importance of Impacts was re-
quired , assigning each Impact area an implicit weight of 1 was Itself a weighting
system. As an example of the Incongruities associated with not weighting the im-
pacts in the social assessment, clearly important impacts such as capital costs and
land requirements were mathematically glve^ the same amount of consideration
as probably less important itams such as construction employment and plant site
development.
Environmental Impacts.
Surface and Groundwater. Both the Summary Report and appendices considered
surface water base conditions comprehensively, and the resulting information should
prove useful to further planning efforts. Anticipated Impacts were also discussed
In the Summary Report and appendices but apparently the expected quantitative im-
provements in surface water quality were not listed. The report indicated all plans
would Improve surface water quality.
In Plan III, the low application rate of 17 to 34 inches per year for land treatment
appears to be designed to prevent excessive runoff. Appendices specified 34 inches
per year as the maximum rate of effluent application possible without causing runoff.
Plan II however, dictated application rates ranging from 77 to 99 Inches per year,
and conceivably runoff from these lands could contaminate surface waters, a pos-
sibility hot mentioned In the Summary Reporf1. Neither the Summary Report nor the
Appendices considered the impact of land sludge disposal on surface water quality,
and potential Impacts of Infiltration and inflow Into collection and conveyance systems
were also overlooked. Unlike the Cleveland-Akron Report, the Southeastern Michigan
Summary Report and Ecological Assessment djd not predict Improvement In Lake Erie
wafer quality and, because of the ECO logic q| Assessment, the report called for an
Interstate and International effort to clean up the lake.
The Summary and appendices presented Incomplete Information on existing groundwater
166
-------
quality, although the Background Appendix mentioned a 600-MGD consumption
rate in the Southeastern Michigan area. This groundwater consumption rate em-
phasizes the need to maintain quality; the Evaluation Appendix mentioned concern
about groundwater contamination from sludge disposal, noting possible heavy metal
contamination due to low organic matter concentrations In the soil. The possibility
of nitrogen contamination resulting from excess sludge application was also brought
out. The Cleveland-Akron study indicated the danger of groundwater contamination
with application rates greater than 10 tons per acre per year, while the Evaluation
Appendix occasionally considered annual figures as high as 25 tons per acre. The
Evaluation Appendix predicted a rise In the water table from increased flow w|thouf
specifying possible resulting quality. The Ecological Assessment warned of possible
groundwater contamination from conveying raw sewage through unlined tunnels, an
impact overlooked by the Summary Report. Though not mentioned in the report, ad-
vanced biological and physical-chemical treatment should minimally affect ground-
water unless recharge 7s planned.
Aquatic Flora and Fauna. The Ecological Assessment adequately dealt with impacj-s
on aquatic life, depicting Lake Erie as dying but not dead. Plankton as well as new
fish species are replacing original lake Inhabitants, and sedimentation is smothering
fish eggs. Southeastern Michigan flows, though higher quality than Lake Erie, have
contributed to the lake's problems.
The Ecological Assessment and Summary Report were not as specific about Impacts
on particular species as would be des?rab|e. Positive effects on aquatic flora and
fauna were stressed as the result of improved water quality, but negative effects
caused by streamflow changes and sludge disposal were overlooked.
Water Reuse. The overall feasibility of reusing wastewater In general was the sub-
ject of a good review In the Summary Report (pp 39-45). Direct municipal reuse
was not examined "n the Southeastern Michigan Study due to public objections, but
agriculture reuse was seen as acceptable, The desirability of industrial recycling
and reuse was discussed, a I though methods for Tnai*asfng these practices were not
presented. Designation of specific markets for reclaimed water Is needed.
Geology and Soils. The Technical Evaluation In this chapter previously covered
impacts of wastewater management plans on Southeastern Michigan geology and
soils. Summarizing briefly, a careful, detailed discussion appeared in the appen-
dices but was not always taken Into account in the Summary Report. Tunnel con-
struction problems were^ot thoroughly considered. Possible physical and chemical
changes in the soil brought about by effluent land application were discussed but
only Plan III would not substantially alter soil structure and chemistry. Sludge apt-
plication was not considered.
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna. The Ecological Assessment adequately described Im-
pacts of the different treatment technologies on the area's terrestrial flora and fauna
with the exception of sludge application to land. The Summary Report failed to
167
-------
use all the available information and did not mention possible local adverse effects
of construction and operation of the different types of treatment plants and of collec-
tion and conveyance lines.
Land Reclamation; The feasibility, peed, and methods of land reclamation with
sludge application were not presented in sufficient detail In the Southeastern
Michigan report. The alternatives considered in the final plans were basically
landfilling with or without prior incineration„ The alternative of applying sludge
to barren, unproductive lends,such as former strip mines, was not analyzed.
Land Use. The Summary Report and several of the appendices presented existing
and planned land uses In the Southeastern Michigan, and the Impact tables In the
Summary Report noted that Implementation of Plans I, II, and 111 would alter these
uses. The specific issues involved, however, were dealt with sketchlly In the
Summary Report; It was stated that Plans I, II, and HI would, "for the most part"
(p. 122) have similar impacts on land use, which Is probably not the case. The
land treatment alternatives would change crop types (to mostly forage crops) and
would also Induce a greater demand and different type of development for remaining
open space in the study area. The Evaluation Appendix did state that the land
treatment alternatives would cause the ||nost Impact on land use and physical che-
mical treatment the least; it was also Indicated that advanced biological facilities
require more land than physlcal-chemlcpl facilities, an important factor *n the ex-
pansions planned In Detroit and Wyandqtte. The land use Impacts of sludge appli-
cation and of providing sewers for previously unserviced areas were not explored
In the Southeastern Michigan Report„
The Summary R^poirt,In the preference-sSt table, noted that the land treatment al-
ternatives present the opportunity of preserving open space lands by controlling their
use; however, It Is not clear that using these lands for wastewater treatment is the
preferable way to preserve thefr open-space characteristics since these areas then
have little value as open space per se.
Time-Related Impacts. The long-term impacts of wastewater management components
on land use In Southeastern Michigan were not considered In the report. Long term
consequences of the Implementation of th,e land treatment alternatives can be expect-
ed to be considerable; removal of open space land for wastewater treatment would
result in Increased development of remaining open space areas, and following the
end of the usefulness of the treatment lands, new uses must be found. Similar con-
siderations apply to lands selected for sludge disposal.
The Summary Report in Its impact tables assumed that the creation of an unpolluted
water supply would have little effect on existing or future economic activities.
This assumption is open to question when It Is realized that the creation of the un-
polluted water supply is accomplished ?n part by industrial or municipal
168
-------
of industrial wastes. Thus where effluent charges or municipal facility use charges
are high, Industries would have an Incentive to locate elsewhere unless these
charges are uniform nationally.
4%
The Social Assessment n noted that land use plans have been drawn up by numerous
local and area wide agencies in the Southeastern Michigan area, but failed In an
attempt to demonstrate that the wastewater management alternatives were compatible
with these goals. It was stated (page 32) that localities and counties having land
use plans governing the future growth of their regions should adjust and revise their
plans to take into account the "overall goals and objectives oLthe region" (i.e.,
areawlde wastewater management). The Aesthetic Evaluation documented several
of these conflicts. In attempting to show that the wastewater management alterna-
tives of the report were compatible with Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
(SEMCOG) objectives, the Social Assessment cited only those SEMCOG goals for
areawlde wastewater management. This selectivity ignored other equally important
goals of SEMCOG such as future open space, recreation land uses, social well-being,
national resource consideration, etc., with which the various alternatives may not
always be in agreement.
Ajr Quality. Effects of water-based treatment technologies on air quality were
mentioned but not discussed In detail; for land treatment and application, the Summary
Report and appendices evaluated the possibility of aerosol release. Oxides of sulfur
and nitrogen were considered possible emissions resulting from advanced biological
and physical-chemical treatment, but no necessary quantitative predictions were
made. The Evaluation Appendices, but not the Summary Repor^ listed air pollutants
generated by sludge incineration, including oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, carbon
monoxide, heavy metals, and phosphorus.
Resource Consumption. The summary and Evaluation Appendix carefully considered
resource consumption for each treatment alternative. The Summary Report detailed
the chemicals and energy requirements for each alternative, and then converted these
tio. equivalent electric power demand units (megawatts); the result was land dis-
posal required 1100 to3300megawatts, advanced biological treatment required
400to530 megawatts, and physical-chemical treatment required 350to420 megawatts.
No time units were presented with these figures, but they serve as valid relative
indices. Neither the Summary nor •appendices considered the resource consump-
tion due to construction of collection and conveyance systems.
Social Impacts.
Community Cohesion. Impacts of the Implementation of alternative plans were not
discussed fully and objectively in the Summary Report of the Southeastern Michigan
study. The impact tables simply noted, under the socioeconomic entry, that resi-
dents of lands Incorporated into the selected plan would be required to relocate.
The number of residents required to relocate for each alternative was not estimated,
169
-------
a serious omTssTon in the study. Based on the other reports, however, it Is reasonable
to assume that Plans II and III would displace significantly more people than the Interim
Water Quality Plan or Plan I. The Summary Report (pp 124-125) also noted that the over-
all Impact of relocation of residents could be either positive or negative depending on
how the displacement program 7s managed. This conclusion was not supported in any way
and it is doubtful, based On comments in the public meetings and on the report's social
evaluation (see below),that the impact of relocation could be positive (improving the
community's well-being).
o
The Social Assessment, while suffering from the methodological difficulties previously
mentioned, nevertheless made a valid presentation of impacts of the alternatives on com-
munity cohesion. It more realistically viewed displacement of residents as a clearly ne-
gative consequence of alternative plans. Other factors considered in the Social Assess-
ment relevant to community cohesion were loss of local automony and changes In commu-
nity life, a broad category for impacts on community organizations. Of the three treat-
ment technologies, the Social Assessment concluded that independent physical-chemical
treatment was superior to advanced biological treatment, both of which were superior
to land application from a social point of view. This conclusion, while based on rela-
tively unsystematic quantitative grounds, nevertheless seemed valid based on the support-
ing discussions. No separate discussion of the community impacts of sludge disposal to
land or of the siting of collection and conveyance lines appeared in the Southeastern
Michigan report.
Special Interest Groups. The impact on and support or oppfisition of specta! interest groups
were not discussed in any detail in the Southeastern Michigan report. The views of
these groups/which should be obtainable in the Public Participation Appendix, were
almost completely absent. This appendix contained very little in the way of complete
statements at public hearings or dialogue between the Corps of Engineers and those making
comments that can serve as a useful indicator of the reaction of various special interest
groups. Based.o_n the well-publicized opposition of local residents to land application
of wastewater, however, it can be expected that special interest opposition to this
alternative would be strong.
Recreation. Background data on recreation were not complete; excluded was an estimate
of present and future demand for recreation in the study area. Major parks and water-
based recreation areas were Identified In the Background Appendix. Positive impacts
on recreation due to the improvement Jn surface water quality and the preservation of
open space were noted in the Summary Report and several appendices. It should be kept
In mind that other determinants of land use will decide the final 'uses of improved waters
and open-space land due to plan implementation. The Social Assessment * noted that
positive impacts on recreational opportunities were greatest for land application as op-
posed to water-based treatment technologies; however, specific recreational impacts
of disposing sludge to land were not described separately In the Southeastern Michigan
report.
170
-------
Visual and Olfactory Aesthetics. One of the stronger points of the social aid envlron-
mentql Impact evaluation of the alternatives for Southeastern Michigan was the Aesthe-
tic Evaluation. s From this appendix and the Social Assessment, n a complete and
Informative analysis of the visual and olfactory Impacts of wastewater management com-
ponents could be obtained. The Illustrations and supporting text dealing with the visual
appearance of treatment facilities and sludge disposal sites were particularly useful for
public Information. Improved visual and olfactory aesthetics due to Improved surface
water quality were noted In the Summary Report, but It failed to examine the visual
changes due to facility construction, the adverse aesthetic Impacts during construc-
tion/ and the olfactoryconsequences of land application and jagopning*
With regard to the latter. Inconvenience during construction and operation, In the form
of noise, dust, odor, etc., was rated greatest for land application and least for physical-
chemical treatment In the Social Assessment.
Toxic Substances. While the appendices dealt with toxic substances, the Summary
mentioned only the health threat of mercury In Lake St. Clalr. The Evaluation Appen-
dix concluded that toxic substances would have the greatest negative Impact with land-
based as compared with water-based treatment. The Evaluation Appendix noted that
aquatic plants would absorb these heavy metals, Increasingly proportionate with their
appearance In the environment. N either the Summary nor the appendices considered.
the fate or quantity of toxic materials discharged to the soil by sludge disposal to land.
Pathogens. The appendices considered pathogens adequately, whereas the Summary
Report did not In all cases. Aerosols were noted as potential pathogen carriers; the
Hygienic Assessment ' stated they could carry respiratory but hot enteric bacteria.,
Treatment plant employees would be exposed to aerosols and to vectors.In large
tanks and ponds; advanced biological and physical-chemical treatment do not remove
all waste water-dwelling viruses prior to discharge. The Hygienic Assessment con-
cluded that health hazard Increased with the following order of treatment types: ad-
vanced biological, physical-chemical, and land disposal. The only advantage of land
treatment was that fewer people would be exposed to .pathogens. In a separate "assess-
ment of health risks due to spray Irrigation ,3P the evaluators concluded that 1) health
hazards may exist, and 2) health hazards Increase when land remains privately owned
by a large number of farmers. No comparisons were made with existing facilities to
provide'ffrvalid means for comparison.
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Existing Institutional Framework.
International and Interstate. Figure VI1-9 summarizes the existing Institutions having
a role In wastewater management In the Southeastern Michigan study area and the
statutory authority of each. The International arrangements between the United States
and Canada which led to the Great Lakes Commission and the International Joint
171
-------
Water Resources
oint
es
U^
c
•••
M
eg
s
^
^
G
is
I
O
i
u
£ **-
8 °
M
J
f
lc
Land Use Plans
Water Supply
Water Quality Control
ity 10
Mgf7
Flood Plain
Sludge/Solid Waste Mgt.
1 J HI ill 41 I'll 1
Water Qu
Permit Iss
uallty Standards
Jssu
ITIfJ
ance
Permit Enforcement
GrggfaADpi
A-95 Re vie
roval
evew
Advisory Only
and Use Zoning
Property Assessment
User Fees/Taxes
Treatment Contracts
Water Supply Contracts
Bond Issuance
minent Domain
172
FIGURE VI1-9
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK:
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN
-------
Commlssion^and the roles of the two Commissions In wastewater management, were
discussed Tn Chapter V and Will not be further discussed. The two interstate agencies,
the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) and Great Lakes Basin Commission (GLBC) have
only advisory functions. The GLC conducts water pollution control research for the
eight member Great Lake states. The study area is one of the fifteen planning sub-
areas of the GLBC. Generally, the GLBC Is the principal coordinating agency for
federal, state, local and private entities having planning responsibilities in the field
of land and water resources management for the Great Lakes Basin.
State. The Water Resources Commission (or WRC, a part of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources) Is responsible for drainage and wastewater system engineering.
Its primary responsibility is Implementing federal water quality standards for navigable
waters and groundwater. The Water Quality Control Division of the WRC is charged
with establishing and enforcing waste discharge permits and schedules for compliance.
The Division also prepares state and regional water quality control plans, reviews local
wastewater treatment facility plans, and determines statewide priorities for funding
waste treatment works construction. The Water Development Services Division of the
WRC authorizes planning and implementation of programs and policies concerning con-
servation and water supply development. The Bureau of Water Management (BWM)
coordinates policies on water supply and water quality.
The Office of Planning Coordination (OPC), within the Bureau of Programs and Budget,
serves as the State A~95 clearinghouse. The OPC reviews local facility plans and local
applications for Federal financial assistance. The Water Development Services Division
must approve local applications for wastewater management grants. The local A-95
review agency within the study area Is the Southeastern Michigan Council of Govern-
ments (SEMCOG).
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has primary responsibility for
drainage and flood control, and solid waste management. Where these functions per-
tain to wastewater management, jurisdictlonal authority rests with the Water Quality
Control Division, which may promulgate standards for stormwater runoff In agricultu-
ral and metropolitan areas, and, where appropriate, encourage the design of waste-
water facilities for combined stormwater-sewage treatment.
Regional. SEMCOG, the only major Institution In the study area, Is essentially a
coalition of local governments. It ts authorized to prepare a comprehensive, regional
plan for 1990, oriented predominantly toward land use, for the purpose of coordinating
local planning efforts. SEMCOG has no regulatory power for regional plan Implemen-
tation and, consequently, serves In an advisory capacity only. It has also prepared
a regional wastewater management plan for Southeastern Michigan.
As an A-95 review agency, SEMCOG sanctions local planning policies and reviews
local applications for project funding to assure consistency among state, regional, and
local plans, and also recommends revision of project proposals which either duplicate
173
-------
or conflict. SEMCOG encompasses seven of the nine counties In the study area:
Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb (Detroit and suburbs); St. Clafr (Port Huron); Wash-
tenaw (Ann Arbor); Monroe; and Livingston Counties. The coastal counties of San*lac
and Lanawee are not SEMCOG members.
There are five different river basins in the study area: (1) The Black-Plne-Belle River
Basin, draining to Lake St. Clair; (2) the Clinton River Basin, also draining Into
Lake St. Clalr; (3) the River Rouge Basin, which flows into the Detroit River; (4)
the Huron River Basin, draining Into Lake Erie; and (5) the Raisin River BasTn, which
also drains Into Lake Erie.
Local. Michigan's Department of Agriculture permits the establishment of drainage
districts, subsequent to local Initiative and a corresponding adjustment In tax assess-
ment for the area. Drainage districts often overlap county boundaries, thereby requir-
ing Intercounty representation on a district's drainage board. In urban areas, these
jurisdictions are Involved In flood prevention, drainage, and sewage disposal.
Each of the seven counties participating In SEMCOG may Issue bonds for local waste-
water management projects Initiated by petition from local governments. The appropri-
ate county agency Is authorized to levy user fees and special assessments for sewer
connections and sewage treatment.
Cities, counties, townships, and villages may enter Into contracts with other govern-
ment entitles (either Inside or outside state jurisdiction) for wastewater treatment,
and may also Incorporate for the purpose of Issuing bonds for waste treatment works
construction. Although municipalities usually provide their own water supply, they
may purchase both water supply and wastewater management systems from a metropol-
itan district. Ownership transfer of waste treatment facilities to another Incorporated
city requires a three-fifths vote of the electorate. Wayne County has delegated au-
thority over flood control, drainage, and sewage disposal to the Board of County Road
Commissioners. This was done because road construction has a major Impact on drainage
patterns.
The Detroit Metropolitan Water District (DMWD) Is the largest and most Influential
water authority In the Detroit area. It provides sewage treatment by contract for 79
communities, has prepared a wastewater management planning program for Southeastern
Michigan, and provides water supply to some 92 communities not having their own
facilities. The Summary Report for Southeastern Michigan counted 59 treatment
plants In the study area, of which 49 have less than 5 MGD capacity. All but two
of the 59 treatment facilities serve primarily single municipalities. This Indicates a
highly decentralized water management system, with the exception of those services
provided by DMWD and Wayne County.
174
-------
Institutional Feasibility of Alternatives.
3'rti
The Institutional Arrangements Appendix of the report for Southeastern Michigan
examined Institutional aspects of the wastewater tiKmagement alternatives. The evaluation
presented an especially strong and useful consideration of alternative Institutional
arrangements to Implement regionalized wastewater treatment. The comparison of
the Institutional feasibility of alternative plans showed that land treatment Plans
II and III would encounter significantly greater Implementation problems than would ad-
vanced biological and physical-chemical treatment (Plan I) at the regional (South-
eastern Michigan) and local levels. These problems involve the relocation of residents
and acquisition and management of lands for spray irrigation soils.
Further institutional barriers not considered by the report exist for land application
of wastewater. The Michigan State Senate has recently approved two bills (SB 945 and
1245) that require legislative approval for Implementation of the proposed extensive
land application. These bills in response to public disapproval of land applica-
tion In Michigan will severely limit the implementation of Plans II and III.
Financial Feasibility.
The report for Southeastern Michigan stated that construction/ operational/ and debt
funding costs of each wastewater facility would be met by local/ county/ regional/
state, and federal governments/ but It Is not possible to determine just how each level
can finance Its share of the total system until the costs of constructing and operating
a system are allocated on a regional basis. Currently, local county and regional
agencies depend on federal and state grants-'n-aid to help finance their wastewater
operations. Current federal legislation provides that 75 percent of the capital costs
of water pollution control projects be financed by federal funds with local and state
taxpayers paying the remaining 25 percent of capital costs and TOO percent of the
operating/ maintenance, and replacement costs. If local governments pay 100 percent
of operating and maintenance costs but only a portion of capital costs, they wl II prefer
a plan with low operating costs relative to capital costs. However, capital and operat-
ing costs do not vary much among representative plans.
At the local level (county, city, village/ and township) In Michigan/ current methods
of financing public works are: (l) general obligation bonds, (2) revenue bonds/ and
(3) special assessment procedures. Various units of government may issue revenue
bonds to finance a wastewater project. Preceding the issuance of these bonds there
are a number of governmental responsibilities: an ordinance/ a published notice of
intent, and, if petitioned for within 30 days after publication/ a referendum. Table
VI1-9 shows that county general obligation and revenue bonds require a referendum If
voters petition; municipalities and special district general obligation bonds require
referenda; and revenue bonds do not. Statutory provisions require that interest be
6 percent; a compulsory interest rate of 6 percent will greatly decrease their marketa-
bility in today's bond market. Revenue bonds are retired by user charges. Full faith
175
-------
TABLE VI1-9
MICHIGAN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REFERENDA (1970)°'b
Counties
General obligation
Revenue
Municipalities and Special Districts
General obligation
Revenue
Referenda requirement
Required if voters petition
Required if voters petition
Required
Not required
Statutory provisions
Bond interest (%)
6
6
6
6
a The Michigan State Constitution has no requirements for bond referenda.
Between 1966 and June 1970, 43 water pollution control referenda were submitted to the electorate.
-------
and credit or levied tax is necessary to back a bond sale unless 25 percent or more of
the wastewater project costs are financed by the federal government. The legislative
or governing body of the particular governmental unit which issues the bond controls
the wastewater management system. Another factor to be considered Is how close the
area's current debt is to its maximum ceiling. Districts with little borrowing margin
remaining are not able to take an active part in financing unless the legislature raises
the ceiling on indebtedness.
Currently, the State of Michigan's "Clean Water" bonding program has about run its
course; the $200 million fund is nearly exhausted. A renewal of this fund requires
a favorable vote of the citizens of the state. Operating and maintenance costs of
federally financed projects would be paid for by a system of user fees. An attempt
should be made to determine the relative effects of taxes and user charges on equity
and economic efficiency.
177
-------
CHAPTER VI11
EVALUATION OF THE CODORUS CREEK REPORT
INTRODUCTION.
Study Area Description.
The Codorus Creek study area (a map of which is presented in Figure Vlll-l) Is
significantly smaller in area and population than are the previous three areas dis-
cussed in this report. The study area is delimited by the boundaries of the Codorus
Creek watershed, all of which Is contained within York County / Pennsylvania. The
area covers 280 square miles and in 1970 had a population of 193,000.
Wastewater Management Alternatives.
The four alternative plans are summarized in Table V|ll-l and described in more
detail below. Figures VIII-2 and VIII-3 are schematics of water and land-based
treatment systems proposed in the Codorus Creek study.
Plan to Meet Current Standards. This plan, intended to meet existing Pennsylvania
standards rather than the PL 92-500 goals, involved expanding the ten existing area
plants to provide biological secondary treatment. Neither this nor the other plans
proposed treating any additional storm runoff.
All Water Plan. This plan was designed to achieve PL 92-500 water quality goals
with further treatment of the effluent of 8 secondary treatment plants by 3 central-
ized, advanced biological plants. One large industrial water-user (Glatfelter
Paper Mill) was given the option of advanced biological treatment or land treatment
for its wastewater in this plan and the December plan. The /Modified Al Water
Plan (appearing in the 1973 analysis of conclusions ) proposed additional carbon
adsorption, resulting In a higher cost estimate.
All Land Plan. This alternative provided land treatment to achieve PL 92-500
goals, using eight existing secondary treatment plants which would discharge eff-
luent into four land treatment sites. Four sites would also provide treatment in
aerated lagoons, followed by effluent land application. The Modified All'Land
Plan retained all existing plants and involved more residential land acquisition,
resulting in a higher cost estimate,
December Plan. The December Plan combined the previous two, with & secondary
treatment plants feeding to either advanced biological or land treatment. Four
sites would treat wastewater with land application following aerated lagoon storage.
178
-------
•,-•"- ...- iyi;:-.-.:. r
^-^ififc;;
a Mi las
Source: 4.
FIGURE Vlll-l
CODORUS CREEK STUDY AREA
179
-------
TABLE VI11-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES PLANS: CODORUS CREEK
Alternative
Current
Standards
All Water
Plan
All Land
Plan
December
Plan
Treatment Number Storm
Type Treatment Storage
Plants Capacity
(MG)
Expansion, &
upgrading of
existing plants
Advanced
biological
Land disposal
Advanced
biological
Land disposal
•
10 NA°
3 NA
(8 existing NA
secondary) ,
1 landorABb
1 NA
7
(8 existing
secondary)
Amount Storm- Effluent Sludge ' Land
water Treated Disposal Disposal Required
(103 acres)
No additional Surface
water
Reuse
No additional Surface
water
Reuse
No additional Surface
water
Reuse
No additional Surface
water
Reuse
Agricul- 0
rural use
Agricultural 0.087
use
Agricul- 16.9
tural use
Agricultural 4.0
use
Persons
Displaced
0
0
330 Residences
200 Farms
60 Residences
40 Farms
Not required.
b Advanced biological.
-------
BASIC (Primary-secondary)
Raw -
Waste
Water
Screen
Grit
Chamber
Sedimentation
Tank
i
Land
Application
Gravity
Thickener
I
Vacuum
Treatment
ADVANCED (Tertiary Physical-chemical)
Incineration
Nitrificatipn-
Denitrifi cation
Activated
Sludge
Inert
-Sterile
Ash
Filtration
Ion
Exchange
Chlorinator
Clean
Water
Source: 4.
FIGURE VIII-2
WATER-BASED TREATMENT:
CODORUS CREEK
-------
BASIC (Lagoon system)
Raw*"
Waste
Water
Screen
Grit
Chamber
CD
N>
.DVANCED.
and application)
Irrigation
Overland
Flow
Spray
Irrigation
Infiltration
-^
Surface
Trough
Collection
Undergrounc
Systems
i
Clean
Water
Source: 4.
FIGURE VIII-3
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM:
CODORUS CREEK
-------
TECHNICAL EVALUATION.
Population.
A comparison of the report population predictions with those made by using four
different likely fertility rates is shown in Figure VIII-4. The report predictions were
18 percent higher for the year 2000 than the projections of the highest fertility rate
curve. If the lowest fertility rate curve is used, the report predictions were 43 per-
cent higher. Comparisons for the year 2020 indicate the report predictions were 21
percent higher than the highest fertility rate curve and 79 percent higher than the
lowest. Although the methods used for comparison are based on national averages
and are not necessarily accurate for individual localities, these comparisons do in-
dicate that the report figures were ample if the goal is to provide sufficient capacity.
However, if estimates of population turn out high, then actual per capita costs would
exceed those predicted, and excess capacity would be provided.
Flow.
The report considered all relevant influences on flow rates: population, industrializa-
tion, percentage of total wastewater treated, extent of sewers, and per capita in-
crease in water consumption. The accuracy of the analysis cannot be fully determined
without duplicating the apparently extensive supporting studies, which is beyond the
scope of this evaluation. Table VIII-2 shows the percentage change in municipal and
industrial flows compared with projected percentage changes in population. Since in-
creases in sewered area would cause wastewater flow changes disproportionate to popu-
lation increase, the difference in the percentages for 1970 through 1980 can be easily
accounted for, at least on the basis of report projections. However, since a signifi-
cant difference extended through the year 2000, it would seem either that other in-
fluences were at work or that the compounding of conservative estimates had produced
an exaggeration of the predicted flow quantities. For example, the assumption that
per capita water use would continue to increase at 8 GPCD per decade produced an
increase in estimated water use by the year 2020. It is believed that this is contrary
to the need for the reduction in per capita water consumption and to present trends
in that direction.
Cost.
Figure VIII-5 shows comparisons of costs of five treatment types (Appendix A, Col. Ill,
pp. 38-39) with estimates from other sources for 10 MGD. Capital cost estimates
from the report were generally lower than those from other sources, with the difference
decreasing for higher treatment levels. O & M costs were generally in the upper
ranges of the other estimates.
Physical Systems and Processes.
The advantages and disadvantages of centralized treatment facilities should have
183
-------
500
400
O
in
O
C300
JO
Jo
§•
200
100
Series C (2.8)
Series D (2.5)
Series E (2.1) — •
Series F (1.8)
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
FIGURE VI11-4
COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FOR CODORUS CREEK
184
-------
TABLE VII1-2
COMPARISON OF CHANGES
IN WASTEWATER FLOW AND POPULATION GROWTH:
CODORUS CREEK
Item
1970-1980
1980-2000
2000-2020
Population (% increase)
Report projections
2.8 fertility rate
1.8 fertility rate
Municipal flow (% increase)
Industrial flow (% increase)
Total flow (% increase)
24
13
8
85
31
47
38
30
13
79
28
46
34
30
6
52
16
32
185
-------
FIGURE VIII-5
COMPARISON OF UNIT PROCESS CONSTRUCTION AND
* Bands show percent OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
variation of other sources COST ESTIMATES FOR CODORUS CREEK *
from report estimates.
186
-------
been discussed. Such systems would obviously require more extensive collection
and conveyance systems and greater capital expenditures, but the offsetting advan-
tages were not made clear. Alternative locations for discharging the treated
effluent were not thoroughly considered for the Godorus Creek area. Transporting
discharges to the Seven Valleys area or reuse by the paper company were the only
options discussed.
Except for probable nutrient content, very little specific attention was given to the
characteristics of the waste water to be treated. The report did not even Include a
typical analysis of the character! sties assumed In the design of the selected treat-
ment processes. These processes (see Figures VIII-2 and VIII-3) selected for use In
the alternative wastewater management plans were essentially convent? al, and should
provide adequate treatment, but without wastewater characteristics, process require-
ments are only guesswork.
As In other land treatment alternatives, where long-term storage Is necessary, some
problems are anticipated from algal growths. Again, chlorlnatfon prior to land ap-
plication and subsequent to long-term storage Is of questionable value and may be
Ineffective In the presence of algae, unless massive doses are used. The need for
expensive sludge dewaterlng prior to land disposal, as proposed In the report, should
be more thoroughly Investigated to demonstrate its advantages.
Geology and Soils.
of Codorus Creek geology and soils was incomplete, particularly with
respect to bedrock. Bedrock geology defines an area's topography and groundwater
conditions; It Is more Important In consideration of proposed Codorus Creek area plans
than for the other study areas. Soils are thin, especially on the sides and tops of
ridges, so that groundwater often flows through fractured bedrock. Determination
of the structure and location of formations was therefore essential to an understand-
ing of groundwater conditions. The report presented an adequate summary of the
general geology and soil mantle, although Chlckles quartzlte ana'Antietam slate were
frequently referred to as Chic kles slate and Antietam quartzlte, leaving a question as
to whether the confusion was In the rock or Its adjective.
Area carbonate formations present previously discussed problems with land applica-
tion: potentially acid effluent solution of underlying bedrock could cause surface
subsidence If It persisted long enough.
The relationships between jointing, folding, and faulting and groundwater flow were
not completely discussed. Appendix A contained a map showing faults and
but no discussion of their potential as groundwater channels or description of joint-
Ing patterns was Included. Apparently, a seismic survey was conducted In the area
and could have been used to define bedrock structure, but the report did not Include
Tts results.
187
-------
The included so*Is data were complete; borehole and well logs were detailed with
regard to soil thickness, water table level, drawdown, elevation of coring, and
water yield. However, soil and groundwater chemistry were not presented, In spite
of a good discussion In Chapter IV, Appendix A, which detailed how various con-
stituents of effluent are affected by soil chemistry.
Generally, the discussion, determination, and Interpretation of physical properties
of the sells were sound with the exception of a contradiction regarding measurement
of soil permeability (p. 111-45). The Investigators cautioned that "soil permea-
bility determinations based on short-term Infiltration tests might not be representa-
tive of permeability rates that prevail under wastewater application operating conditions
Involving spray application." However, Appendix A stated Its short-term permea-
bility tests Indicated soils could accomodate high effluent land application rates.
In spite of apparent omissions and contradictions, the Summary Report probably selected
the most suitable soils for land treatment sites. . .
Resource Requirements and Residual Wastes.
Table VIII-3 presents resource requirements and residues generated by alternatives.
The report used unit costs from Appendix A (Vol. IV) to convert total costs to quan-
tities to calculate residual wastes of energy and chemicals. It was assumed that
.064 Ib coal provides 1 kilowatt hour and that 0.97lb particulates and 48.5 Ib sulfur
are generated per megawatt hour.
Overall, both resource and residual waste figures were significantly lower than those
for other study areas, Indicating the need for further examination of basic Informa-
tion relating to wastewater quality, power needs, chemicals required, and their re-
spective costs.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION. ,
Costs of Alternative Plans.
Facility Costs. Costs of the alternatives for wastewater management In the Codorus
Creek study area are presented In Table VIII-4. Average annual costs presented
In the report were calculated using a discount rate of 6% with an estimated life of
50 years. As previously discussed (see this section under Chapter V), using a lower
Interest rate and longer service Itfe tend to underestimate costs.
Capital costs Included construction costs; land costs (under construction costs) covered
relocation engineering design;and administrative costs were computed as 15 percent
on capital costs. Operation and maintenance costs Included reolacement, salvage
value (not quantified), and manpower, but no provisions for training. The report did not
mention Interest foregone during construction and possible revenue from operations
188
-------
00
•o
TABLE VI11-3
COMPARISON OF RESOURCES REQUIRED AND RESIDUAL WASTES FOR
ALTERNATIVE PLANS: CODORUS CREEK
ltem To Meet
(Tons/day except Current Standards
where noted)
Electric powera
Resources
Coal
Chemicals
Total
Residual Wastes
Particulates, SO
SS removal
Chemicals in sludge
Total
Resources (Ib/cap-day)
Retidual wastes (Ib/cap-day)
47
15
28
43
3
60.7
28
91.7
0.55
0.26
Basic All
Water
128
41
28
69
9
59.8
28
96.8
0.59
0.41
Basic All
Land
125
40
6
46
9
60.6
6
75.6
0.45
0.28
December
125
40
24
64
9
IS-6
93.6
0.56
0.58
In megawatt hrs/day; not included in totals for alternatives.
-------
TABLE VI11-4
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS:
CODORUS CREEK
Plan
P Ian to Meet C urrent Standards
All Water Plan
Modified A II Water Plan
All Land Plan
Modi Red All Land Plan
December Plan
Capital Cost
($ mi II ton)
30.54
75.68
99.33
87.83
105.97
78.17
Annual Cost (Including O & M) a
($ million)
4.70
8.96
11.64
8.04
9.68
8.57
a
Annual costs are computed at 6 percent over 50 years,
190
-------
Tn its cost considerations.
The reuse option would decrease both construction and average annual costs,
according to the report. The cost reductions predicted by Table V111-5 were at-
tributable to minor modifications of each alternative. Since the P.H. Glatfelter
Company was reported accountable for 59 percent of the area's industrial waste-
water, success of a reuse program would depend on that company. A cost-sharing
agreement, among other institutional arrangements, would be necessary before im-
plementation of reuse.
Leasing rather than purchasing land would involve a complex payment structure,
and planning future costs would be difficult due to uncertainty in predicting of rent
levels. Compared with purchase, leasing would incur lower capital but higher
annual costs.
Land Requirements. Table VIII-6 shows the varying land requirements for the alter-
natives and associated costs for a 1972 through 1980 acquisition period. Costs in-
cluded purchase of residences as well as relocation, but total land costs would ul-
timately depend on the land use, since different treatment types require different
sites. The figures in Table VIII-6 were based on public ownership of irrigated lands,
so costs would vary in the event of leasing them from private owners, as proposed
in the All Land and December Plans. As mentioned before, leasing could involve
landowners' hostility toward land treatment; even if an agreement were made, manag-
ing thousands of acres of private property still may not be feasible.
Cost Sensitivity. Estimated costs for the various plans were summarized in Tables
8,9, and 10of the Summary Report. It Is not clear how these figures were derived,
but apparently annualized capital costs plus operating and maintenance exceeded
the estimated annual costs. The Imbalance Implies that present worth values of
operating and maintenance.costs were probably annudized to obtain the average
values. This procedure appears inappropriate, however, since present worth discounts
future eventualities, whereas the operating and maintenance costs definitely would be
Incurred and would probably be larger than estimated (an assumption based on con-
stantly increasing costs over time). Present worth is useful in making a choice of al-
ternatives when known future costs are not decisive or when Investments can be made
to provide the necessary return to offset the discount.
Table VIII-7 lists wastewater treatment costs for the three plans meeting 1985 goals based
on annualized capital costs plus operating and maintenance costs. Both the capital
costs and operating and maintenance costs are taken from the Summary Report, but
the latter costs are added directly to the annualized costs to become annual cost.
Of the three computation methods, the per capita-year representation of cost is
believed to be most meaningful to the public. Annual and per capita costs from
Table VIII-7 are only one-fourth to one-third the values from other areas. Possibly
a very conservative Integration of the unit costs was used to arrive at the system
191
-------
TABLE VI11-5
a,b
COST ESTIMATE - REUSE OPTION:
CODORUS CREEK
Construction Cost Average Annual Cost
Alt. W/Reuse. W/O Reuse W/fceuse W/O Reuse
Plan to
Current 4*/436 52,625 8,318 8,663
Standards
Basic All 91,573 89,832 12,580 11,887
Water Plan
Basic AII Land 103,726 95,757 11,644 10,312
Plan
December 94,059 92,319 12,186 11,493
Plan
0 Units are $1,000
All costs include P.M. Glatfeltercosts totaling $15,893.00 for wastewater manage-
ment and water supply pre-treatment.
192
-------
TABLE VI11-6
LAND REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS:
CODORUS CREEK
Plan
Plan to Meet Current Standards
All Water Plan
Modi fled All Water Plan
All Land Plan
Modified All Land Plan
December Plan
Total Acreage
—
87
87
16,897
16,897
4,000
Co$ta
($ million)
—
0.94
0.94
25.03
33.10
7.89
Includes relocation and 20% contingency
193
-------
TABLE VI11-7
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE PLANS USING THREE
COMPUTATION METHODS: CODORUS CREEK0
Plan
All Water Plan
1 . Report
2 . 1 0% over 25 years
3. Recomputed annual
for year 2000
All Land Plan
1 . Report
2. 10% over 25 years
3 . Recomputed annual
for year 2000
December Plan
1 . Report
2. 10% over 25 years
3. Recomputed annual
for year 2000
Annual Cost
($ million)
8.96
13.55
10.02
8.04
12.59
8.49
8.57
13.39
9.74
$
PerMG
211
318
235
189
296
199
201
315
229
$
Per Capita-Year
20.04
30.31
22.40
17.99
28.17
18.99
19.16
29.95
21.79
a
Annual costs taken directly from Summary Report; other figures derived from predicted
flows and population sizes presented elsewhere in the report.
194
-------
costs, or some substantial consideration was omitted.
Economic Impacts.
Table VIII-8 describes the adequacy of report coverage of two types of economic
Impact caused by different treatment and disposal systems. Consideration of re-
source consumption anticipated for Codorus Creek alternatives was weakest. Appen-
dix B (Impact studies) discussed economic impacts using a three-dimensional matrix
composed of the following elements: Codorus Basin subareas, technical alternatives
and their component unit processes, and impact categories. Each matrix element
was assigned either a positive, negative,or neutral impact value. The certainty of eco-
nomic predictions would significantly depend on future behavior of the P.H. Glatfelter
Company. Specific comments on the Codorus Creek economic Impact evaluation
appear below.
Agricultural Productivity. Wastewater management projects can affect agricultural
productivity if the wastewater Is used for irrigation or fertilizer. However, these
applications of wastewater may be feasible only when there is large-scale farming,
which Is not the case in the study area. The report stated that more than 59 percent
of area farms had annual sales volumes less than $5,000 per year and that less than
2 percent of total area employment involved agriculture. Increasing urbanization
indicates farming should decline; Independent of this, crops grown in the Codorus
Creek area are not suitable for irrigation. Appendix B considered these Issues,
but the Summary Report (Table 8) concluded that the Basic All Land Plan "would
either increase agricultural productivity or decrease the cost of maintaining current
productivity."
Resource Consumption. The report stated that treatment plant construction would
place heavy demands on construction material but did not discuss the Impact on
prices of resources (chemicals, energy) needed for operation. Recent concern about
resource supplies as well as price structure fluctuations make cost projections neces-
sary for adequate consideration of economic impacts.
Land Values. Table VIII-6 showed different land requirements of the alternatives;
the report estimated that between 60 and 80 percent of the $33.1 million cost of
theAII Land Plan (including housing acquisition and resident relocation) would be
returned to the local economy.
Net impact on land values depends on current and future land use (plant, lagoon,
irrigatfon, etc.). Plant construction may not have much effect, but lagoons and
effluent Irrigation could tend to depress surrounding land values. The All Land
Plan, In addition to affecting land values, would influence the demand for housing,.
since it would displace 150 to ISOfamlUes; in 1970 the area had fewer than 300
vacancies.
195
-------
TABLE VI11-8
ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION MATRIX: CODORUS CREEK
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
r
0
0
o
aZ
| General Impacts
Agricultural productivity
Resource consumption
Land values
Manpower and employment
Financial impacts
Industrial production .
Wastewater Treatment
Land
•V'-'-V"":""'":'*.'/;
^^*^^*^^t*»* ^*»*
* «• * «^^^» * «»
I" *I* »**«•!*/* *»* *I*I*
p^^SBg*;^
SJi:S;iS-:ft*••" «» ™ «» " •»
.-»*•-•*•-»*• -»*•.!
* ** * ** • «* I *» i
r **••*•»• *•-•*•-• *4
,«• *«»'«»;«» * «»
Sludge
Agric.
=v-X- -
* *~ 5 •* 5 * * * * * • •
» ^ *» j «• £ «» 5 «*
• j • • j^SI^^ • j * •
*•"•* • V** * V»* • V** * *«
• «•»*•»?«»*•»
«•-••-»»_**» «
.".s."'.J.<*.5.«'.:.-
** • •* I •* • •* • *
•«»*•**••••• *j
*::V:«^:':«y:«
*«»*j*«»^i*«» i •» t**
*•»•»••••••*•*
• * «« * ••. • •• * •»
Oth. land
• *• • ** • ***• *" •
•*».«'».«** «•» «*i
•* » ** 5 •• « •• * * ••
* ** • ** C ** • ** •
i ** • «• ^ •» ^ «» ^ i
*•**» '•V*^L*» *»V- *•
«»!••• ^^^ «* I •»
•«••»• *•*•••••»
•«»"«»••».«» 1 <
'**-••»••»* ••• •
•»*••*•»"«» i ••
Collection
& Convey-
ance
-
v. •" ''.'&••
\ "\ .* . •/•*•/•*
.* *•* ^*» **•***•*
'•*\ * *j*^»j**
\
Legend:^^^^S An
i Area of major concern
Presented adequately
Insufficiently supported
£•£•£. Area of moderate concern i t Area of relatively minor concern
A Presented adequately only in appendices
Not adequately considered
-------
Appendix B mentioned most of these considerations, but not ths Summary Report.
There was little discussion of the Impacts of land application of sludge or siting
and construction of collection and conveyance lines on land values.
Manpower and Employment. The report estimated that each $1,000,000of construc-
tion would employ 30 to 50 workers. According to this estimate, the Modified All
Land Plan (see Table VHi-9) would require the most construction workers. Some of
these employment needs could be met In the Codorus Creek area (the report cited
present unemployment), but the assumption that displaced farmers would form a
natural construction labor pool was probably not valid. Remaining employment de-
mands would have to be satisfied from sources outside the area. Appendix B pre-
sented a quantified analysis of the effects of the alternatives on Codorus Creek area
manpower and employment; the Summary Report verbally described the predicted
situation.
In addition to these basic considerations, any Increase In employment could lead to
a further economic impact through an employment multiplier. As employment In-
creases and people move Into the area, employment opportunities In service Indus-
tries and retail stores serving the area expand and total employment in the area In-
creases by a multiple of the Inltla! Increase. The report estimated the multiplier to
be 2, hence the total Increase |n employment may eventually be double the Initial
increase.
Financial Impact.
The Impact of the project on Interest rates was discussed In the Summary Report,
which stated that total average annual costs would rise faster than Interest rates.
However, this relationship would not hold If average annual cost Is calculated ac-
cording to the guidelines set forth by the EPA for facilities plans. According
to this source, costs should be expressed In terms of present worth values of annual
value equivalents. When average annual costs are calculated by either of these
methods, Increasing amortized costs are offset by decreasing present worth values,
and average annual costs rise less than proportionately with rising interest rates.
A comparison of the costs of afternatlve plans was shown In Table VIII-4. The
Basic All Land Plan was the least expensive plan designed to achieve the PL92-500
water quality objectives. In addition, If any plan were modified to Include Indus-
trial wastewater reuse, cost advantages would result. The report estimated land costs
at $750 per acre but made no provisions for compensating local governments for a
loss In tax revenues resulting from the transfer of tracts of land to public ownership.
A land treatment alternative would probably be opposed locally until such a repay-
ment were arranged.
Industrial Production. Any of the projects should benefit Industrial development.
The report stated that as people and firms become more aware of environmental
197
-------
TABLE VI11-9
COMPARISON OF EMPLOYMENT
REQUIREMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION i CODORUS CREEK0
Plan to Meet Current
Standards
Basic A|| Water Plan
Modi Red All Water Plan
Basic All Land Plan
Modified All Land Plan
December Plan
Construction Costs
($1,000)
30,543
75,680
99,334
87,833
105,968
78,166
Employment
300-500
750-1 ,250
1 ,000-1 ,650
880-1 ,450
1,060-1,750
780-1 ,300
Assumes 3-year construction period.
198
-------
quality, regions with higher water quality will become more attractive to industries,
and those industries to workers. The area industries expecting faster than average
growth were listed: furniture and fixtures, paper and related products, printing and
publishing, rubber and plastics, machinery and electrical equipment, and transpor-
tation equipment. Assuming a particular alternative is selected and constructed,
these firms may realize the advantages of connecting to an existing wastewater sys-
tem with predictable costs rather than installing their own or taking a chance on
future project costs in other areas. The reuse option would be particularly appeal-
ing to industries because it would reduce wastewater treatment costs and alleviate
shortages.
Generally, these considerations were well analyzed in Appendix B. A small area
(relative to other study study areas) such as Codorus Creek lends itself to predictions
of industrial response much better than a larger one. The dominance of a single in-
dustry In the area also reduced the complexity of presenting a sufficient analysis.
SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Table VI11-10 presents a matrix summary of the socioenvironmental analyses in the
Codorus Creek report. Social and environmental impacts of alternative plans were
analyzed in the most detail in the Impact Studies (Appendix B). Some problems
associated with this analysis were that plans evaluated were not those presented for
final selection in the Summary Report (the All-Land Plan was not includerf)and that
there was no quantitative comparison of impacts of the alternative plans.
General Methodology.
The impact studies included separate discussions of effects on socioeconomics,
visual aesthetics, aquatic and terrestrial life, and public health. An impact matrix
characterized each entry as positive, negative, neutral, or impact undetermined.
The latter classification was given to public health risks associated with land appli-
cation; the evaluators concluded that such impacts were largely unknown. The
various impacts received no weighting, which limits trade-off evaluations.
Environmental Impacts.
Surface and Groundwater. The surface quality of most of the Codorus Creek water-
shea" has deteriorated to a point low enough to prohibit swimming and to exclude
the presence of pollution-sensitive aquatic species, as indicated by measurements
appearing in the Summary Report. The Summary Report concluded that as much as
75 percent of main stream flow in the Codorus Creek area is wastewater," therefore,
institution of any of the alternative plans should automatically improve surface water
quality and use.
Possibly runoff caused by excess land appli cation of effluent and sludge would
199
-------
TABLE VI11-10
SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX: CODORUS CREEK
(Symbols denote evaluation of Corps of Engineers' impact analyses for each cell)
Area of Impact
Wastewater Treatment
Sludge
Land Adv. bio. Ph.-ch
Agric. Oth. land
Collection
& Convey-
ance
Surface & groundwater
a^^i&Sg&J;
I
Flora and fauna
O
O
Q.
0)
c
Water reuse
Geology and soils
T3
0
Flora and fauna
Land reclamation
Land use
fe?£*£*
£
Time related impacts
Air quality
Resource consumption
MMS2
SSi^g
••SiSfe-rt
g^gSii-gj';
«ps
Community cohesion
to
ti
I
Special interest groups
Olfactory aesthetics
Legend:
of major concern
Presented adequately
Insufficiently supported
*.V/.* Area of moderate concern I 1 Area of relatively minor concern
A Presented adequately only in appendices
Not adequately considered
-------
create problems, since the proposed applfcotton rate fs 2 Inches per week, while
rainfall usually contributes 0.9 Inches per week. Given excess runoff, the general
slope of the area would subject the soil to significant erosion, particularly during
the late summer and early fall storm season. Neither the Summary Report nor Appendices
discussed the impacts of runoff from land application of effluent and sludge.
Possible contamination from seeping effluent and sludge after land application
would be the apparent main Impact on groundwater. The Impact study did consider
possible mlcroblal contamination, and recommended adequately Installed under-
drains to prevent leaching from effluent application. The Summary Report suggested
a sludge application rate of 25 tons per day, a figure which Is high when compared
with the Cleveland-Akron study.
Aquatic Flora and Fauna. The Summary Report discussed Impacts on aquatic flora
and fauna Incompletely, basically stating that no pollution-sensitive species are
present In most Codorus Creek tributaries and concluding that any alternative would
Improve the situation. An overall species Inventory, lists of species benefiting
from Individual alternatives, and an analysis of the effects of changes In aquatic.
flora and fauna were Included In the Impact studies but not the Summary Report. e
Water Reuse. The feasibility and effects reusing wastewater were considered in de-
tall throughout the report, with reference to the Glatfelter Company. Again, one
advantage of examining a smaller study area such as Codorus Creek Is that analysis
of the effects of reuse can be made much more specific since-ithe number of dis-
chargers is not as great.
Geology and Soils. York County problems are different from those of the other
study areas; topography Is rolling to steep, and bedrock Is metamorphlc, In contrast
to the flat terrain and sedimentary bedrock found In the Cleveland, Detroit, and
Chicago areas. As mentioned In the Technical Evaluation, particular flow problems
arise with the structural characteristics of area bedrock which could have been dis-
cussed more thorouqhly had the report Included Its seismic survey results. The soil
type (thin, rocky) plus the presence of steep slopes would appear to present problems
for implementation and performance of land treatment system factors not adequately
considered In the Codorus Creek report. Physical properties of the soils were ana-
lyzed adequately, but soil chemistry evaluations needed more work. Land treatment
sites chosen appeared to be the most suitable choice In the area, given the soils
Information available.
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna. Because of the varied topography, many different habi-
tats are present In the Codorus Creek area, Including meadows, bottomland, hardwood
forests of various types, and unused cropland. The Intermediate communities, namely
upland brush and scrub associations, are already scarce and would be the most
affected by land treatment. The report stressed positive Impacts on agriculture and
no impacts on mature forests resulting from land application of sludge, while ?t
201
-------
fended to downplay recognized elimination of intermediate communities caused
by covering habitat with storage lagoons. These Intermediate areas are currently
valuable as game habitats. The appendices presented a good discussion of the
various Impacts of alternative treatment technologies, which were briefly mentioned
Tn the Summary Report. .
Land Reclamation. The alternatives presented for sludge disposal In the Codorus
Creek study were agricultural utilization and Incineration. However, a market for
sludge as a land reclamation agent would appear to exist In western Pennsylvania,
where coal has long been strip-mined. A possible explanation for Iti omission
may have been the relatively long distances to these sites and the fact that only
truck transportation would be feasible, considering the area's topography.
Land Use. The land-use Implications of alternative plans were not fully presented
In the Codorus Creek report; baseline and future land use data were presented In
the Impact Studies Appendix. The Summary Report noted that land application would
retain agriculture, but Its wider implications were discussed only In the Impact
Studies, which concluded that water-based technologies would not Influence land
use. This conclusion, however, is debatable, In that the expansion and construc-
tion of treatment facilities might be expected to have a significant Impact, partly
due to expected changes In property values noted In the Impact Studies. Land use
impacts of agricultural utilization of sludge and of the siting and capacity of collec-
tion and conveyance lines were not specifically analyzed.
Time-Related Impacts. While the Summary Incompletely described changes In land
use over time, the Impact Studies Appendix did present such an analysis. Of the
four studies examined in the present report, the Codorus Creek study presented the
most comprehensive analysis of the changes resulting from implementation of alter-
native plans. Effects were designated as either short-term, transitional, or long-term,
Analysis of the specific impacts of agricultural utilization of sludge and of collec-
tion and conveyance lines, however, was not made.
Ajr Quality. Neither the Summary Report nor the Appendices adequately considered
air quality Implications of the treatment processes. The Impact Studies did discuss
aerosols from land application but failed to estimate relative emissions from the three
treatment technologies.
Resource Consumption. The report did not detail the resource consumption of the
alternatives. For example, It was not mentioned that effluent land application would
require a smaller quantity of chemicals but more electricity than advanced biolo-
gical or physical-chemical treatment. Materials required for construction of collec-
tion and conveyance lines were also not considered.
202
-------
Social Impacts.
Community Cohesion. One problem with the presentation of community impacts of
the alternative plans was that the Summary Report assumed that social impacts were
not inherently positive or negative, the choice of values being left to the reader.
This assumption was not appropriate for the apparently negative social impacts of land
application noted in the other studies. The fact that the problems associated with
relocation would be exacerbated by the Codorus Creek area housing shortage was
examined in the Impact Studies but not fully brought out in the Summary. Community
impacts of water-based treatment technologies were adequately discussed, but no
specific analyses of the impacts of sludge disposal.
Special Interest Groups. Evaluation of impacts of alternatives on special interest
groups was hindered by the absence of a Comments Appendix. From the Summary
Report and available appendices, it appeared that only opposition by residents to
land application of effluent was taken into account. The effect of this opposition and
overall feasibility of implementing land-oriented plans was not explicitly discussed.
Recreation. Both the Summary Report and Impact Studies discussed effects of treat-
ment technologies on recreation. The Impact Studies Appendix presented a good
review of the recreational needs of the Codorus Creek area, noting that existing
recreational opportunities were of low quality. It was further suggested in the Impact
Studies that recreational impacts be considered "transitional," rather than short or
long term, and the point that uncertainty exists in predicting such impacts was well
taken. No explicit analysis of the recreational impacts of sludge disposal was presented.
Visual and Olfactory Aesthetics. The analysis of visual aesthetics was one of the
stronger points of the Impact Studies Appendix. A brief visual survey of York County
was made and comprehensive visual impacts of wastewater management components
analyzed. It was concluded that construction of all facilities would have a negative
effect on the present appearance of the Codorus Creek Basin, but that improved
water quality would result in desirable indirect visual improvements. These consider-
ations were not mentioned in the Summary Report. Analysis of olfactory aesthetics was
limited to land application of effluent where the possibility of adverse impacts surround-
ing application sites was noted. While this analysis was complete, no corresponding
consideration of olfactory aesthetics appeared in the report for either water based
treatment of sludge application.
Toxic Substances. The Third Technical Appendix briefly mentioned that heavy
metals can be leached from acidic soil but did not detail specific metals. Neither
the Summary nor appendices dealt with effects of metals on bio-communities.
Pathogens. In most cases, the appendices adequately considered possible effects of
pathogens, but the Summary did not, concluding that public-health risks of land
application were minimal, though precautions against insects, odor, and groundwater
203
-------
contamination were mentioned. The Third Technical Appendix stated that viruses
affecting humans would quickly die If captured In the soil. The Impact Studies
mentioned that public health effects of effluent application were unknown, a con-
clusion which can be extrapolated to sludge application, not explicitly analyzed
In the report.
FEASIBILITY ANA LYSIS.
Existing Institutional Framework.
Figure VIH-6 shows Institutions either directly or Indirectly associated with waste-
water management In the Codorus Creek Basin. The size and location of the area
center this discussion about local institutions.
interstate and State. Appendix C analyzed current Institutional arrangements with-
out discussing the relevance of existing Interstate and state agencies and laws. The
Susquehanna River Basin Commission has only an advisory role In areas of water supply,
water quality, and flood plain management. The Sanitary Water Board (SWB, a division
of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources) has regulatory power
over water pollution control and Is responsible for water quality planning and regu-
lation. The SWB reviews the sewage treatment plans which each local wastewater
management entity Is required to submit. The Pennsylvania Department of Health has
Issued a wastewater management plan that, If Implemented, would require each
community to provide tertiary treatment; at present, nearly all communities In the
Basin provide secondary (biological) treatment. Other Important state agencies
are the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER, responsible for
quality of land, air, and water) and the Pennsylvania Department of Mines and
Mineral Resources. The DER can require joint consideration by local entitles In
the planning of wastewater management facilities, thereby promoting reglonalfza-
tlon of wastewater management systems.
LpcaL There are five levels of local government In the area: York County, the
chartered City of York, Incorporated municipalities (boroughs), first class town-
ships (population density greater than 300 per square mile), and second class town-
ships (density less than 300). Problems of governmental coordination at the local
level are complicated by state statutes which allow local entltfes acting singly or
jointly to form special districts(authorlties) to finance public service projects with-
out being restricted by municipal debt limitations. Of the fourteen wastewater
management authorities created since 1950, nine have constructed yewage Treat-
ment facilities and leased them to the Involved municipalities. No other public
Institution has financed similar facilities In the Basin, although any of the 39 muni-
cipalities In the Basin could do so. Boundaries of the 14 authorities do not conform
to local political boundarles,slnce they were designed to meet service needs.
204
-------
POLICY E
tfPHAS'lS
Water Resources
Land Resources
Air Resources
GENERAL
ROLES
State Water Res. Plan
State Wastewater Plan
Areawide Wastewater PI .
Watershed
Plan
Facilitv Plans
Land Use Plans
Water Supply
Water Quality Control
Flood Plain Mat.
Sludae/Solid Waste Mat.
SPECIFIC ROLES
Water Oualitv Stds.
Permit Issuance
Permit Enforcement
Grants Approval
A-95 Review
Advisory Onlv
REGULATORY POWERS
Land Use Zonin.q
Property Assessment
1 U*>r Fees Aaxes
Treatment
Contracts
Water Supply Contracts
Bond Issuance
Eminent Domain
'INTERSTATE
Susquehana River Basin Commission (Pa., N.Y., Md.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
LLJ
<
S)
JC.
"5
a.'
X
lo
•
"S
V
•z
L.
0)
1
>
s
J
^0
'c
~>
u
C
a
a.
•
•
•
•
•
Pennsylvania Dept. of Health
•
•
•
i/i
a
t
0
Z
C£
•
u
'>
LU
u-
O
1
"5
0)
o
.5
*E
o
~>
c
<0
a.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Penn. Deot. of Mines & Mineral Industries
•
•
<
a.
y
Z
D
X
V
I
u
-*
1
*©
1
0
u
o
•
•
•
•
•
•£
£
*s
>
u
•
•
•
•
•
•
.2
V
•
•
•
•
•
-I
D
8
&
•
•
•
•
•
>
c
1
^
4>
t
to
C
Q
I/I
_D
"o
O
X
O
1
<
«i
1
'o
^
O3
I
•
>
0
<
to
4)
«/>
_Q
IE
1
aJ
s
o
>
o
-C
1
1_
a>
»
a>
to
^
I
0)
O
•
_c
<
0
IE
in
|
-£
o
_c
a
i
<£
«
o
o
X
•
O
£
• ••
O
1
1
fcT
^C
Ic
u
^
L
4
C
C
9
i
c
1
_c
a
J
E
a>
Z
•
i
t«—
0
<
1
|
|
^.
o
1
1
o
u
-if
Io
>-
a
• Mi,
to
O
C
a>
a.
•
>
4-
]
<
]
*.
4-
|
<
t.
%.
V
«/>;
.2
M
0
1
£
!
1
•
4-
• ^
L.
4-
<
!
on
• M
L
y
^
•
X
4-
o
<
I
0)
1/1
E
o
%
I
,0
IE
>f.
H-
y
h.
0
p>-
205
FIGURE VI11-6
VIII-28 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK:
CODORUS CREEK
-------
Cities, boroughs/ and townships may join with other municipalities to construct
and operate sewers and treatment facilities, and any municipality may connect
with an existing adjacent wastewater system provided that such connections will
not Impair the usefulness of the existing sewer and treatment facilities.
Since York County lacks eminent domain for wastewater management services, it
would have to form an authority If It wished to provide such services. Authorities
and local entities, except counties, have the power of eminent domain for waste
treatment works construction and for acquisition of private or public sewer systems
within their jurisdiction.
The City of York has formed authorities with boroughs and townships. It Is prohibited
from constructing treatment facilities In areas already served, however, since law
prohibits state authorities (countrywide baslnwlde, or other),from duplicating efforts
of, or competing with, existing service jurisdictions (this provision does not apply
to sanitary waste disposal). The formation of authorities Is voluntary; It Is currently
unclear whether wastewater management authorities can be forced by court order
to consolidate for compliance with PL 92-500 requirements.
Institutional Feasibility of Alternatives.
The Summary Report of the Codorus Creek study noted that all alternatives except
the Plan to Meet Current Standards would encounter some Institutional obstacles
If they were to be implemented. Neither the Summary, the Institutional appendix
(Appendix C),nor the Analysis of Conclusions, however, differentiated Institutional
problems likely to be encountered with each plan. Judging by the amount of reglona-
I?ration of wastewater treatment Involved In each plan, It $eems the December Plan
would be the most Institutionally feasible,due primarily to the decentralization of
land treatment sites. The Baste and Modified All Land and Water Plans would en-
counter more substantial Institutional problems due to the necessary Increased re-
glonallzatlon. It appears that of the four studies examined In this evaluation, the
NDCP alternatives, for Codorus Creek are most likely Implemented from an
institutional point of view, due to the relatively small boundaries of the study area.
The Institutional alternatives presented In Appendix C did not address themselves to
the Implementation of specific alternatives. The four approaches suggested In this
appendix were 1) rely on Individual municipality action, 2) rely on joint municipal
agreements, 3) form municipal authorities below the county level, or 4) form an
areawlde county authority. Formation of a countywlde authority would have such
powers under 53 PS 302-303 of the Pennsylvania Statutes.
Financial Feasibility.
When the Codorus Creek report was prepared, federal programs provided for a
maximum of 55 percent of wastewater treatment facl lltles with matching state
206
-------
grants of 25 percent. Current federal legislation provides that 75 percent of the
capital costs of water pollution projects be financed by Federal funds With local and
state taxpayers paying the remaining 25 percent of capital costs and 100 percent of
the operating, maintenance and replacement costs, local governments would be
biased, therefore, toward the All Land Plan because it has a low ratio of operat-
ing to capital costs (see Table VIII-4).
There are no specific local programs for financial assistance, local municipalities
have the authority to Incur debt up to 15 percent of assessed value; present borrow-
ing does not approach this limit. They also have the authority to issue revenue and
general obligation bonds. As shown in Table Vlll-11 referenda are not required In
Pennsylvania for county or municipal revenue or general obligation bonds, and there
is no specified Interest rate (at the time of the report, local bond rates were 6 percent).
In addition, industry Is required to pay back to the federal sector that portion capital
cost contributed to treating Industrial waste. Local governments could also require
Industries to pay their share of locally financed capital costs.
Operating and maintenance costs of federally financed projects must be paid for by
a system of use fees. An attempt should be made to determine the relative effects
of taxes and user charges on equity and economic efficiency. The report statedthat the
most attractive Institutional arrangement for wastewater management in the Codbrus
Basin study area Is a County Wastewater Authority. This structure would appear to
provide central direction and control, assure representation to municipalities served,
facilitate financial operations, and establish a regional solution to the wastewater
problems of the study area.
Analysis of the financial feasibility of ImplementIrig alternate plans was lacking
in the Codorus Creek study. However, judging by the relatively large difference
between the capital costs of the plan to meet current standards and the NDCP al-
ternatives, the financial feasibility of Implementing the latter is questionable.
207
-------
TABLE VHI-11
PENNSYLVANIA : WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REFERENDA (1970)a'b
Statutory provisions
ro
o
ao
Counties:
General obligation
Revenue
Municipalities
General obligation
Revenue
Referenda requirement
Not required
Not required
Not required
Not required
Bond interest
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
°The Pennsylvania State Constitution has no requirements for bond referenda
''Between January 1966 and June 1970, 4 water pollution control referenda were submitted to the electorate
Source: 10/.
-------
CHAPTER IX
SUMMARY OF EVALUATIONS
COMPARISON OF THE FOUR STUDIES.
Technical Evaluation.
Table IX-1 summarizes the technical evaluations made for each of the four study areas.
C-SELM. The population projections presented in the C-SELM report were somewhat high
in the early years when compared with projections made using recommended fertility rates.
The figures were mid-range estimates compared to fertility rate projections for the year
2020. Since the lower limit of these projections approximates present growth rates, the
mid-range value may still be excessive.
Wastewater flow rates were geared to the reports' estimates of population and industrial
growth changes. However, both the predicted reduction in industrial discharges and the
predicted constancy of stormwater runoff with increasing urbanization between the
present and 1990 are questionable.
Report estimates of unit process costs were as much as 30 percent higher than estimates
from independent sources for construction costs /and from 20 to 40 percent lower for
operating and maintenance costs. Costs per million gallons of wastewater treated
differed between the Summary Report and Appendix D, but those from the former seem
to be in the range of values one might expect. However, the financial impact on the
individual would be more comprehensible to the public If these values were expressed as cost
per capita-year and compared with present costs.
The geology and soils presentation did not present enough specific information either to
assure the plans could be executed without unforeseen problems or to evaluate the ones
that can be foreseen. Much more work will be required here to complete the plans. If
sufficient land area is difficult to obtain for treatment of wastewater effluent, the use of
spreading basins in lieu of irrigation should be considered.
Selection of systems and processes was not fully explained, and the case for regional
collection, treatment, and disposal systems in the C-SELM area was not proven. The
costs of transmission lines for collection and disposal of effluent often comprise the
majority of the cost of a total system. More consideration should be given to upstream
reclamation treatment in a regional plan as a means for reducing the transportation costs,
or reasons should be presented for not doing so. The treatment processes did not seem capable
of achieving the anticipated reduction .in total dissolved solids; also, the physical aspects
of the treatment processes required more complete description.
For the NDCP plans,per capita resource requirements were evaluated to be 1.36-1 .58 Ib
per capita day, and per capita residual wastes to be 0.99-1 .68 Ib per capita day. Per
capita resource requirements were much higher for C-SELM NDCP than for plans for other
study areas (see Table IX-2).
209
-------
TABLE IX-1
SUMMARY TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS
1 Item
i
Population*3
Now Rates
Industrial
Municipal
Stormwater
runoff
Unit Process
Costsb
ConstrueKen
Operating &
maintenance
Geology &
Soils
System Se-
lection
C-SELM
High
Low
More data
needed
Low
Cleveland
Akron
High
More data
needed
More data
needed
Low
High (-30%) Mid-range
Low (~20-
40%)
More data
needed
Mid-range
Good but in-
complete c
Range of alter- Range of alter-
natives not natives nor
wide enough wide enough
Southeastern
Michigan
High
More data
needed
More data
needed
Low
Low
High
More data
needed
Range of alter-
natives not
wide enough
Codorus Creek
High
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Mid-range
Mid-range
Adequate support
ing data
Range of alter-
natives not
wide enough
In comparison to estimate based on most likely fertility rates
In comparison to independent estimates
'Use of spreading basins in land treatment should have been considered, for example
Data wfsre not sufficiently considered in plan formulation
210
-------
TABLE IX-2
COMPARISON OF NDCP-PLAN PER CAPITA COSTS, RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS,
AND RESIDUAL WASTES AMONG THE FOUR STUDIES
Cleveland- Southeastern Codorus
Item C-SELM Akron Michigan Creek
Per capita costs (NDCP plans) 63-82 76-82 60-63 19-22
(annual S/capita-year)"
Per capita resource requirements 1.36-1.58 0.67-0.75 0.92-0.93 0.28-0.41
(lb/capita-day)b
Per capita residual waste 0.99-1.68 0.56-0.69 1.37-1.37 0.45-0.59
(Ib/capita-day)
QBased on 100 percent local financing
b Chemicals plus power requirements, the latter converted to pounds of coal for
power generation.
211
-------
Cleveland-Akron. Population projections presented in the report were somewhat
higher than those obtained by methods using recommended fertility rate estimates.
Anticipated wastewater flow rates appeared contradictory In several places and were
therefore difficult to establish. An unusual balance between municipal and industrial
flow quantities also left the impression that further verification of flow rates may be
needed. As in the C-SELM report, regional management seemed to have been consider-
ed equivalent to regional treatment^ and adequate consideration apparently was not
given to upstream treatment and reuse as a means of reducing transportation costs. It
was not indicated whether this alternative was consciously eliminated during the evalua-
tion process.
Unit process costs seemed reasonable when compared with estimates made from other
sources/ but the treatment costs per million gallons were unusually high. Since costs
expressed in dollars per capita-year were not excessive/ the impression that flow rates
may be in error is strengthened.
The soils and geology presentation was generally good, but incomplete. Differences
between data in the Summary Report and in supporting appendices need reconciling.
Further investigation will also be required to assure that report objectives can be
achieved. Consideration should be given to the use of spreading basins for land treat-
ment of effluents to reduce the land requirements.
It was not evident from the report whether or not the selection process for management
plans had considered all relevant alternatives with respect to plant siting and size,
collection system requirements, and disposition of the treated effluent. Minor rearrange-
ments of unit processes might improve plant operation, but the necessary elements were
included. Per-capita residual wastes computed at about half those for the Chicago
and Detroit areas, while the corresponding per capita resource requirements were only
slightly less than for the Detroit area and half those for Chicago (see Table IX-2).
Southeastern Michigan. Population projections presented in the report were essentially
the same as the highest predictions made by using fertility rate projections. The pre-
dicted population in 2020 was 47 percent higher than than which would be achieved at
present growth rates.
Wastewater flow rate predictions were generally adequate; however, estimated flows of
stormwater runoff did not reflect; the increasing urbanization implied by the population
projections.
Unit process cost estimates generally appeared satisfactory in comparison to estimates made
from other sources. Again, the real meaning of treatment costs was obscured by the con-
ventional method of comparison in terms of dollars per million gallons. Costs per capita-
year are more meaningful to the average member of the public.
The supporting data for the soils and geology investigation were good, but it is not clear
if this information was fully considered in formulating the proposed plans. This may be a
matter of presentation and the fact that the plan formulation requires additional, specific
212
-------
y .~ " "^
information prior to implementation. Use of spreading basins for land treatment should
be considered,as should upstream treafment'On d/regipftal* pldirt)^tQ;reduq«:transportation
' ' " ' ' ' """
s»rtete ., ' '-• y /\ *fl',A%'"'™ /• V.f^V* ,i ••=•-••• '/r^~ )
uoarso • • • * ,.t ~, .... /•_ .-:^^.\vvV . .. , sX*-«-, ^
_*. ^ .
Descriptions of the collection, treatment, and distribution systems need further clarifK
cation. It is difficult to determine Which,plants are included ih each plan, what the,,
pertinent data are, and therefore what the anticipated impacts of each plan are. Again,
minor changes and rearrangement of unit treatment processes should be considered, dnd
algae and weed problems can be anticipated with the proposed system for treatment prior
to the proposed land application. . , .
Residual wastes per capita were approximately the same as for the Chicago area, but
nearly twice that for the Cleveland area. Conversely, resources required were approxi-
mately twice the per capita needs of the Chicago area, but nearly the same as for
Cleveland.
Codorus Creek. Population figures were higher than normally expected by projecting
from current trends, although there is opportunity to adjust the physical facilities to
suit the area's needs within a controlled range of population sizes..
Although estimated flow rates differed markedly from rates which the given population
figures would usually produce, they may have been accurate. The evaluation discussed
several other influences on flow rate other than population, but the discrepancy remained
large enough to warrant further investigation.
Cost figures for unit processes seemed to average out, with capital costs being lower and
operating and maintenance cost higher than those estimated on the basis of other informa-
tion. However, if population and flow rate estimates are high, the unit costs will then
be estimated at a lower value and per capita costs much lower than those actually in-
curred. Estimated unit costs (per million gallons and per capita) were considerably
lower than for the other study areas and for comparable, presently operating systems,
which makes their accuracy questionable.
The soils and geology presentation had omissions relating to the needs for and suitability
of land treatment for Codorus Creek. The physical processes are conventional and proven
when used either separately or combined. In the proposed combinations they raise the
same questions as the selected processes for the other study areas. In general, the geo-
logical and biological impacts of all treatment methods need further investigation. Ex-
pected algae blooms from land treatment, sludge dewatering for lend application, and
spreading basins for effluent treatment need further consideration.
The comparison of per capita resource requirements and residual wastes reveals a sub-
stantial difference from the other study areas. Although these areas are not directly
comparable, comparisons can be used as a partial basis for the detection of errors or
omissions when necessary.
213
-------
Economic Evaluation.
Table IX-3 summarizes the economic evaluations made for each of the four study areas.
C-SELM. The cost estimates for the C-SELM report used an annual Interest rate of 5.5
percent, in contrast to the EPA-recommended 7 percent. All system components were
assumed to have a service life of 50 years, which appears high. Costs were not included
for modification of existing facilities, abandonment of existing plants, interest foregone during
construction, and salvage value of proposed facilities. Alternatives II, IV, and V in-
volved the leasing of large tracts of land, the former for disposal of physical-chemical
sludge and the latter two for land treatment; leasing arrangements of this magnitude may
be difficult to implement due to opposition of rural residents and difficulty in management
of facilities.
Resource consumption and financial effects were adequately evaluated. Questionable
assumptions made in the economic impact analyses were that application of sludge and
effluent will increase productivity of agricultural land and that displaced rural residents
may be employed as treatment plant operators. Further analysis is also needed of
possible negative impacts on land values and positive impacts on industrial development.
CI eve I and "Akron. The Cleveland-Akron report generally followed EPA facllltles-plan-
ning guidelines for interest rates (7 percent) and service lives of system components.
Interest foregone during construction was excluded from the cost estimates, as was po-
tential revenue from any of the alternatives. The reports noted that land cost estimates
were probably unreliable. Land for effluent and sludge application was assumed to be
purchased rather than leased (even though the latter method was preferred by the Corps
of Engineers) to arrive at a conservative cost estimate. The assumption of purchased
land would, in fact, result in a conservative estimate of capital costs, but a low estimate
of annual operating costs. Payments to local governments in lieu of taxes were not included
in the estimate of costs for purchased land.
Impacts of the alternatives on resource consumption, financial Impacts, and impacts on
industrial productivity were evaluated adequately in either the Summary or evaluation
appendices. Questionable assumptions made in the economic Impact analysis were that
application of effluent and sludge will result In Increased agricultural activity or reduced
'Costs to farmers, and that payments to local governments in lieu of taxes would not be
necessary for purchased lands. In addition to Investigation of these assumptions, areas
needing further analysis are Impacts on land values and Impacts of construction activities
on employment.
Southeastern Michigan. The Southeastern Michigan cost estimates used a 5.5 percent
interest rate (except for unit treatment processes, which used 7 percent) and a uniform
service life of 50 years. These estimates are lower and higher, respectively, than those
recommended in EPA facilities-planning guidelines. Excluded from the cost estimates
were: I and costs for treatment plants located at Detroit, Wyandotte, and Monroe; revenue
produced by facility operation (which was assumed equal to cost of production); and
214
-------
TABLE IX-3
SUMMARY EVALUATIONS: ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Item
Agricultural
productivity
Resource con-
sumption
Land values
Manpower and
employment
Financial im-
pacts
Industrial
production
C-SELM
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Cleveland-
Akron
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
More analysis
needed
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
More analysis Adequate
needed
Southeastern
Michigan
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Codorus Creek
Adequate
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Note: This table summarizes evaluations appearing in Tables V-9, VI-7, VI1-7, and
VI11-8.
215
-------
interest foregone during construction. Land costs were difficult to find in the report, and it
was difficult to determine if local governments were to be compensated for lost property taxes
upon purchase of system-required land.
In general/ the economic impact analysis in the Southeastern Michigan Report was com-
prehensive and of high quality, although its usefulness was hindered somewhat by the
lack of integration of information in various appendices. Impacts on agricultural product-
ivity, employment, resource consumption, laid values, study area finances, and indus-
trial development were generally evaluated adequately in either the Summary Report
or evaluation appendices. A key assumption was that application of effluent to land will
result in increased agricultural productivity. Further investigation is needed to determine
whether labor demands can be met within the study area and whether the estimated impact of
construction activities on employment was too low.
Codorus Creek. The cost estimates for the Codorus Creek study employed a 6 percent
interest rate and uniform 50-year service life for facility components; these estimates
are lower and higher, respectively, than figures recommended by EPA facilities-planning
guidelines. Costs were not included for interest foregone during construction, and
revenues produced from facility operations. Costs for land to be purchased for land
treatment of effluent did not seem to include payments to local governments in lieu of
taxes.
Impacts on agricultural productivity, manpower and employment, and industrial production
were evaluated adequately in the appendices to the Codorus Creek report. Key assump-
tions were that application of effluent to land will increase agricultural productivity
and that no payments to local governments in lieu of taxes from system-required land
would be necessary. In addition to verifying these assumptions, further analysis is needed
of the impact of resources required by alternative plans on existing resource quantities
and prices,and impacts of sludge disposal on land values.
Socioenvironmental Evaluation.
Tables IX-4 and IX-5 summarize, for wastewater treatment and sludge disposal components
of alternative plans, the socloenvlronmental evaluations made for each of the four study areas.
C-SELM. The matrix methods used to evaluate social and environmental Impacts were
the most sophisticated and comprehensive of the four studies. Of the environmental Impacts,
impacts on surface and groundwater, water reuse, land reclamation, resource consumption,
and air quality were generally evaluated adequately. Key assumptions made In the en-
vironmental impact analysis were that 4.5 inches of effluent per week could be applied
to agricultural land, that a readily available market (e.g., power generation) exists for
directly-reclaimed effluent, and that conveyance of effluent through unllned deep tunnels
would have no substantial effect on groundwater and geology.
216
-------
TABLE IX-4
SUMMARY EVALUATIONS: SOCI©ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Item
Surface and
groundwater
Flora and fauna
(aquatic)
Water reuse
Geology and
soils
Flora and fauna
(terrestrial)
C-SELM
Adequate0
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Questionable
assumptions
Cleveland-
Akron
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate0
Land reclamation Not applicable Not applica-
Land use
Time related
impacts
Air quality
Resource con-
sumption
Community co-
hesion
Special interest
groups
Recreation
Visual aesthetics
Olfactory
aesthetics
Toxic substances
Pathogens
Questionable
assumptions
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate0
Adequate
Adequate
More analysis
needed
Adequate
ble
Questionable
assumptions
Southeastern
Michigan
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate :
Adequate
Adequate
Not applica-
ble
Adequate
More analysis Questionable
needed
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
assumptions
More analysis
needed'3
Adequate
Adequate
More analysis
needed
Adequate
Adequate
More analysis Adequate0
needed
Questionable Adequate0
assumptions
Adequate
Adequate
Codorus Creek
Adequate0
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Adequate
Not applicable
Questionable
assumptions0
Adequate
More analysis
needed0
More analysis
needed
Adequate0
More analysis
needed0
Adequate
Adequate
More analysis
needed
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Land treatment alternative: questionable assumptions
Land treatment alternative : adequate
Note: This table summarizes evaluations appearing in Tables V-12,VI-11,VI1-8, and VI11-10
217
-------
TABLE IX-5
SUMMARY EVALUATIONS: SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SLUDGE
DISPOSAL COMPONENTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Item
Surface & ground-
water
Flora and fauna
(aquatic)
Water reuse
Geology and
soils
Flora and fauna
(terrestrial)
Land reclamation
Land use
Time related im-
pacts
Air quality
C-SELM
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Not applicable
Questionable
assumptions
More analysis
needed
Adequate
Questionable
assumptions
Questionable
assumptions
Not applicable
Resource consump- Not applicable
tion
Community cohe-
sion
Special interest
groups
Recreation
Visual aesthetics
Olfactory aesthe-
tics
Toxic substances
Pathogens
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Cleveland-
Akron
Adequate
More analysis
needed
Southeqstern
MJchlaan
More analysts
needed
More analysis
needed
Not applicable Not applicable
Questionable
assumptions
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate0
Adequate0
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
Not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable Not applicable
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate'3
Questionable
assumptions9
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
Adequate
More analysis Adequate
needed
Questionable
assumptions
Questionable
assumptions
More analysis
needed
Adequate
Codorus Creek
Questionable
assumptions
More analysis
needed
Not applicable
More analysis
needed
More .ana lysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
Not applicable
' Not applicable
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
More analysis
needed
Adequate
More analysis
needed
Questionable
assumptions
More analysis
needed
aAgricultural application: more analysis needed,
"Agricultural application: questionable assumptions
Note: This table summarizes evaluqtlons appearing In Tables V-12,VH1, VII-8, and VII1-10
218
-------
In addition to the verification of these assumptions, further analysis is needed of impacts
on specific populations of terrestrial and aquatic 8ofe,on short and long-term impacts ©n
land use in the C-SELM apea other than direct effects @n system-required laneSs,, end on
total environmental Impact of proposed collection and conveyance systems,,
Analysis of social impacts was the best of the four reports, perhaps du© to the translation
of (primary) environmental impacts to (secondary) human impacts via a matrix transforma-
tion. This analysis appeared in an evaluation appendix, but much of the information
was omitted from the Summary Report, Impacts on community cohesion, special interest
groups, recreation, and aesthetics were all evaluated adequately in Appendix E, Key
assumptions that may not be valid were that implementation of land treatment will result in
increases in recreational opportunities and that advanced-biological and physical-chemical
treatment technologies will eliminate adverse effects of toxic substances and pathogons
contained in wastewater. In addition to investigating these assumptions, further work is
needed to establish the recreational demand in the C-SELM area and to locate proposed
recreational facilities where this demand is high,
CI e ve I and -Akron, The methods used to assess environmental impacts of alternative plans
for Cleveland=Akr6n generally avoided quantification of impacts; when scores were
assigned to particular impacts, the scaling system failed to differentiate negative impacts
(of varying magnitudes) from neutral impacts. In general, impacts on surface and ground-
water, aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna, water reuse, land reclamation, and resource
consumption were evaluated adequately in either the Summary Report or the evaluation
appendices. Key assumptions made were that implementation of NDCP alternatives in the
Cleveland-Akron area alone will lead to an improvement in the quality of Lake Erie, that
no adverse changes in soil chemistry will occur due to land application of effluent and
sludge, and that water and wastewater policy will have little effect on the distribution of
population and industry within the study area. Aside from investigation of these assump-
tions, additional topics needing further work are the impact of sludge application to land
on aquatic flora and fauna, impacts of land application of effluent on terrestrial flora and
fauna, and determination of the short and long-term land use impacts of alternative plans,
In the CI eve I and-Akron report impacts on community cohesion, special interest groups,
and recreation were generally covered well, Key assumptions made were that construction
of wastewater management facilities would have no adverse visual effects and that heavy
metals in wastewater would not be an environmental problem following advanced bio-
logical or physical-chemical treatment. In addition to investigating these assumptiens,
further work is needed to investigate the impacts of alternative plan components and to
assess the potential pathogen hazard posed by land application of sludge,
Southeastern Michigan, The usefulness and usability of the report's social and environmen-
tai evaluation was limited because the various analyses were scattered through several
appendices; also, many of the analyses were of interim rather than final plans. In general,
there was little detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of sludge disposal, either to
agricultural land or landfilling. Environmental impacts of collection and conveyance
lines required more consideration. Aside from the impacts of sludge disposal and collection
219
-------
and conveyance lines, environmental impacts on surface and groundwater, aquatic and
terrestrial flora and fauna, land use, and resource consumption were evaluated adequately
in either the Summary Report or appendices. A key assumption was that creation of an
unpolluted water supply would have little effect on future economic growth. Topics
needing further investigation are the geological problems associated with tunnel con-
struction, the feasibility of using sewage sludge to reclaim strip-mined and unproductive
lands, the long-term land use impacts of alternative plans/ quantification of air pollutant
emissions from advanced biological and physical-chemical plants/ and detailed environ-
mental assessments of sludge disposal alternatives and construction of collection and
conveyance lines.
The technique used for quantifying social impacts was questionable and should be reconsider-
ed. Of the social impacts, visual and olfactory aesthetics and pathogenic hazards
were adequately evaluated in the Summary Report or evaluation appendices. Areas
needing further work are the impact of sludge disposal on community cohesion and
recreation/ the impacts of all components of alternatives on special Interest groups/ and
the hazards from toxic substances following land application of effluent and sludge.
Codorus Creek. The analysis of socloenvlronmental impacts of alternatives for Codorus
Creek was primarily descriptive. In general/ impacts of sludge disposal methods (land
application or incineration) needed more complete discussion. Aside from the environ-
mental Impacts of sludge disposal/ impacts on aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna/
water reuse, geology and soils, and long-term land-use impacts were analyzed adequately.
Key assumptions made and requiring further investigation were that runoff from land appli-
cation sites would not pose water quality problems, and that implementation of advanced
biological and physical-chemical treatment would have little Impact on land use within
the study area. More work is needed to determine the impact of collection and con-
veyance lines on groundwater quality, the feasibility of employing sludge for reclamation
of strip-mined or other non-productive lands, the short and long-term Impacts of the
location and size of sewers on land use, the air pollutant emissions generated by advanced
biological and physical-chemical treatment, and the resource implications of alternative
plans.
Of the social impacts, only (he effects of alternative plan components on visual aesthetics
were analyzed fully. A key assumption in the Summary was that land application of effluent
is not inherently a positive or negative impact on community cohesion. In addition to
investigating (and probably revising) the latter assumption, further analysis is needed
of the effects of sludge disposal on community cohesion, the impacts of alternatives on .
special interest groups in the Basin, the impacts of sludge disposal on recreation, the
impacts of water-based treatment and sludge disposal on olfactory aesthetics, the Impact
of the alternatives on hazards due to toxic substances, and the Influence of sludge disposal
practices on pathogen hazards.
220
-------
Feasibility Analysis.
C-SELM. Of the C-SELM alternatives, it appears that Alternatives IV and V (in-
volving land treatment) would be the most difficult to implement, followed by Alternatives
II, III, and I. The substantial regionalization and centralization required to implement
all NDCP alternatives would meet strong institutional impediments. The high capital
costs of the NDCP alternatives may exceed the financial resources of area institutions,
and the financial feasibility of Implementing these alternatives is questionable.
Cleveland-Akron. Alternative C would be the most difficult to implement due to sub-
stantial institutional problems that would be encountered with the large-scale land
application of effluent called for in this plan. Plans A-l and A-ll would probably
encounter less difficulty in that fewer impacts on institutions would occur. The financial
feasibility of implementing the NDCP alternatives is questionable due to the high capital
costs involved.
Southeastern Michigan. Implementation of the plans involving land treatment (Plans 2
and 3) would encounter significantly greater institutional impediments than would Plan I,
especially in light of recently passed state legislation. The high capital costs of all
three NDCP alternatives make the financial feasibility of implementing each of them
questionable.
Codorus Creek. Of the four reports examined in this study, the institutional feasibility
of implementing NDCP alternatives is perhaps greatest in the Codorus Creek Basin due
to the relatively small number of political and institutional entities involved. Of the
final plans, it appears that the December Plan would encounter the fewest institutional
barriers, followed by the basic and modified all water plans and the basic and modified
all land plans. The financial feasibility of implementing alternative plans was.not
analyzed in enough detail in the report to allow decisions between plans to be made; the
financial feasibility of implementing the NDCP plans is questionable.
ASSUMPTIONS COMMON TO THE FOUR STUDIES.
Many of the assumptions are common to the four reports and are often implicit or unstated.
Changing political, social, and economic conditions between the time of report preparation
and the time when wastewater management decisions must be made may result in different
sets of assumptions being adopted. For this reason, assumptions and uncertainties which
are generally common to all the reports, and which are of questionable validity, are
summarized below.
Technical.
• Population will increase at a higher rate than would be predicted from current
fertility rates.
• There will be minor increases in per capita flows in spite of encouragement to
employ water-saving devices.
221
-------
Significant (in some cases) reductions w) II occur in industrial wastewater flows
due to increasing industrial reuse.
Regional wastewater management requires regional systems.
Economic.
• There will be no significant change In interest rates In the future. x
• Economic life can be established for an entire treatment system without weighting
the components; a 50-year economic life for an entire system Is realistic.
• Total system costs rather than changes in present costs will form the basts for
decision-making.
• Revenues produced from wastewater treatment will be negligible.
• Economies of scale are inherent with regionalized wastewater treatment, which Is
a generally desirable objective.
• Land application of effluent will result In increased agricultural productivity.
• Wastewater management practices will not affect long-term economic growth and
industrial siting decisions.
• The costs of resources will increase at the same rate as other system costs.
Environmental and Social.
• Environmental impacts are more important from wastewater treatment technologies
than from sludge disposal alternatives or siting and size of collection and convey-
ance lines.
• A large market will exist in the future for reclaimed wastewater.
• Structural measures are the only feasible method for controlling non-point sources
of water pollution.
• Lands designated as open space due to land application of effluent and sludge are
being put to a desirable use.
• Potential recreational land created by alternatives will in fact be developed for
recreational use.
222
-------
Environmental and Social (cont.)
• Education of rural residents and improved public relations strategies will lessen
local opposition to land application of effluent.
Feasibility.
• NDCP alternatives are institutionally and financially feasible. (Alternatively,
institutional and financing changes suggested in the reports for implementing
NDCP alternatives are feasible.)
• Leasing arrangements with rural residents for land application of effluent are
feasible.
• Agreements with owners of strip-mined lands for sludge disposal are feasible.
• Local governments will sacrifice local goals for regional objectives.
• Institutions operate to the limits of their statutory authority rather than through
the political process.
• Regional wastewater management is inseparable from regionalized wastewater
treatment.
223
-------
CHAPTER X
ULTIMATE USES OF THE REPORTS
OVERVIEW.
In this chapter the potential uses of the reports are assessed in two ways. The First com-
pares the information and plans contained in the reports with the requirements of PL 92-
500 for wastewater management planning. These requirements include facilities plan-
ning, areawide planning, and state continuing planning, the second analyzes the
results of an in-house (Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.) questionnaire mailed to local,
state, Federal officials involved in planning and management activities that would
be particularly affected by the reports.
USEFULNESS OF REPORTS FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING.
The Corps of Engineers' reports can be used in many ways by relevant water and waste-
water planning and management agencies within each study area. At one extreme, the
reports could serve as references for water resources planning; at the other extreme, one
of the final plans might be implemented without modification. These two extremes can
be termed pure planning versus pure technical assistance, and the actual fate of the
reports will undoubtedly lie somewhere between. One way to examine the reports'
specific usefulness is to determine how the reports can be used for the wastewater
management required by PL 92-500.
PL 92-500 allows for several level of planning. Municipal facilities planning is basically
an interim system for optimizing allocation of wastewater management funds by planning
for and designing cost-effective, environmentally-sound, and feasible treatment facili-
ties. Areawide planning requires comprehensive wastewater management planning for
designated high-density metropolitan areas. The state continuing planning process
requires the identification of critically polluted areas, the formulation of basin plans,
and the establishment of an EPA-approved permit system meeting National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Municipal Facilities Planning.
Objectives and Scope. The EPA has recently released a document detailing steps that
must be taken in planning wastewater management facilities (Guidance for Facilities
Planning^). Facilities plans, required by Section 201 of the FWPCA Amendments of
1972, are subject to review by State A-95 clearinghouses, state water pollution control
agencies, and the EPA. The EPA guidelines list four objectives to be considered In
facilities plans: preservation and enhancement of surface water for a variety of uses;
preservation and enhancement of groundwater supplies through recharge; wator conser-
vation through reuse and recycling; and multiple uses of facilities and land.
224
-------
Data Requirements. Since facilities plans are usually intended for single treatment-
facilities, the planning area is generally smaller and the data requirements more de-
tailed than for the remaining planning efforts required by PL 92-500. Data requirements
include:
• Point sources of water pollution, wastewater characteristics, and water quality
within the planning area
• Assessment of existing waste collection and treatment systems, including flow
and residual waste
• Analysis of flow reduction measures, and effluent and sludge disposal measures,
including performance evaluations of existing wastewater treatment facilities
a Analysis of combined sewer overflows
• Infiltration/inflow analysis
• Inventory of existing environmental conditions, including identification of
plant and animal communities, wildlife habitats, community growth patterns,
and air and water quality.
• Estimates of future waste loads based upon land use plans, growth trends, and
growth constraints
For estimating future waste loads and flows,the required planning period is 20 years
following the date of initial system operation. The EPA planning guidelines recommend
the use of Series E population projections for metropolitan areas. Owing to the uncer-
tainty of projecting future flows, particularly industrial flows, the guidelines recommend
that a range of flow forecasts be developed reflecting different assumptions used in estima-
ting, and that this range be used during preliminary planning.
The Planning Process.
Wastewater Management Alternatives and Plan Evaluation. The guidelines list
wastewater management alternatives that should be examined in facilities plans; these
are presented in Table X-l. The alternatives are classified as waste treatment and
discharge, sewers, wastewater reuse, land application techniques, and sludge disposal.
Each of the alternatives, according to the EPA guidelines, should be examined for cost-
effectiveness.
One central issue in the choice of alternatives is the choice between regional versus
localized facilties. The guidelines point out that regionalization, while producing
the advantage of economies of scale, also tends to intensify development and produce
stream flow diversion. Other factors mentioned by the guidelines as important to facility
siting included minimization of aesthetic impacts by generally avoiding high-density areas;
225
-------
TABLE X-l
WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES LISTED BY EPA
PLANNING GUIDELINES
I. Waste Treatment and Discharge
A. Biological
B. Physical/chemical
C. Combinations of biological and physical/chemical
D. Stormwater control
II. Sewers
A. Separate systems
B. Maximum use of existing system
C. Storage and treatment
D. Dual use
E. Direct treatment of overflows
III. Waste water Reuse
A. Industrial processed
B. Groundwater recharge
C. Surface water supply
D. Recreational lakes
E. Land reclamation
IV. Land Application Techniques
A. Spray irrigation
B. Ridge and furrow irrigation
C. Flooding
D. Overland flow
E. Infiltration/percolation
V. Sludge Disposal
A. Stabilization
1. Digestion
2. Composting
3. Physical methods
4. Chemical methods
B. Final Disposal Alternatives
1. Land application
2. Incineration
3. Landfill disposal
Source: 14.
226
-------
maximization of the contribution of siting towards water quality goals; avoiding outfalls
close to water supply intakes, shellfish beds, and water=contact recreational areas; and
location outside flood plains and wetlands.
The starting point for plan evaluation, according to the guidelines, is examining the
effects of upgrading existing facilities. The implication is that if existing facilities,
when upgraded, can economically achieve water quality goals while producing few
negative impacts, there is little justification for constructing new facilities. Initial
wastewater management plans, state the guidelines, should be screened for costs,
environmental impact, ability to attain goals, and legal-institutional feasibility.
Additionally, evaluation of final plans should involve in-depth analysis of ability
to meet water quality goals; present value or average annual equivalent of capital and
operating costs; and operability, reliability, and flexibility of the plans. The evalua-
tion of implementation arrangements should include comparing existing institutions
and roles to those required to implement the plans. Local financial obligations for each
plan should also be estimated.
Phasing of the Project. Sewer planning is an issue closely related to area pro-
jections of wastewater flows. Planning, the guidelines suggest, should provide for
phased sewer installation to better serve the changing needs of developing areas.
The guidelines require a general cost-effectiveness evaluation of project phasing versus
initial provision of excess capacity. This analysis should include: ease of constructing
additional facilities at a later time, the relative costs of providing initial excess
capacity, the uncertainties involved in long-term wastewater flow projections, the
difficulty of plant operation at low flows, settlement due to low velocity in sewers,
and possible future advances in waste treatment and reduction technology. Phased
facility construction is particularly recommended for areas experiencing rapid growth,
with uncertain projected flows., and in which phasing would facilitate orderly growth.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis. A cost-effectiveness evaluation is required of each
alternative plan. This analysis includes study of seven major components: relationship
between size of the treatment works and area needs; alternative flow and waste reduction
measures; the degree to which existing facilities, if upgraded, could meet water quality
goals; the ability of alternatives to meet applicable effluent limits; application of Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology; analysis of alternatives for effluent and sludge
disposal; and an environmental impact analysis for each plan.
The facilities^planning guidelines for costs (see Table IV- 1 ) have been employed
throughout this report in the evaluation of alternative plans. For cost calculations, the
facilities-planning guidelines recommend 1) estimating future annual costs and calcu-
lating the present worht of these; 2) calculating the present worth of capital costs; and
3) adding these two present worth estimates and annualizing them over the project's
expected life.
227
-------
Environmental Impact Evaluation. The EPA guidelines require that each facility
plan provide the information necessary for preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement. The guidelines also point out that environmental evaluation should be a
continuing effort in the planning process. The environmental impact framework outlined
by the guidelines is presented in Table X-2.
Usefulness of the Reports.
Comparison of Scope. The planning areas examined in the studies are much
larger than planning areas to be examined in facilities plans. Of the four studies
examined in this report, the Codorus Creek study comes closest to the geographic scope
of a facility plan. None of the reports is limited to a single wastewater treatment
facility, but instead are oriented towards regional wastewater management with alterna-
tive plans involving as few as three to as many as 60 treatment facilities.
Usefulness of Data. In general, it can be concluded that the level of data
specificity called for in facilities plans is much beyond that attained by the Corps
of Engineers' studies. This does not constitute a criticism of the studies however, since
their objectives called for a more generalized approach. In general, water quality data
presented In the studies will be of marginal usefulness for facilities plans. Existing water
quality was presented In the most detail for the Cleveland-Akron report. For the level
of specificity and accuracy required by facilities plans, It would probably be more
worthwhile for facility planners to obtain current water quality Information from STORET
rather than rely on second hand out-of-date data.
Wastewater flow projections will be rather uncertain for small portions of the study areas,
even if they are valid for the entire study area as a whole. No analysis of possible
ranges in wastewater flows was presented In any of the reports, as suggested by the
facilities-planning guidelines. Due to these factors and the general lack of data on
individual dischargers, wastewater flow projections In the reports will not be particularly
useful for individual facilities plans.
The reports generally required further discussion of flow reduction measures, the present
and future proportion of unsewered to separate-sewered to combined-sewered population,
and Infiltration/Inflow data to be useful for facilities planning. Inventories of
existing environmental conditions in the Cleveland-Akron and Southeast Michigan studies
were sufficiently detailed to serve as Inputs for environmental Impact assessments required
for facilities plans; usefulness will depend on the particular planning area for which
facilities are to be designed.
Plan Evaluation and the Planning Process.
Wastewater Management Alternatives and Plan Evaluation. The facilities plan-
ning process should examine the waste management alternatives listed In Table X-l . Of
these, probably the most complete examination In the studies was given to alternative
wastewater treatment and discharge techniques; together with the analysis of the generalized
.228
-------
TABLE X-2
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS OF EPA
FACILITIES PLANNING GUIDELINES
I. Environmental Inventory
A. Topography
B. Climate and precipitation
C. Geology
D. Ground and surface water hydrology, quality, and use
E. Plant and animal communities
F. Unique ecological, architectural, historic, scientific, and cultural areas
G. Community growth patterns and land use trends
H. Air quality
I. Aesthetics
II. Primary Effects: Construction
A. Land erosion
B. Stream damage due to erosion and sedimentation
C. Aesthetics, odor, noise, and dust
D. Air pollution
E. Plant and animal life
F. Unique ecological, architectural, historic, scientific, and cultural areas
G. Dislocation of individuals, businesses, or local governmental services
H. Significant employment changes
III. Primary Effects: Operational
A. Groundwater contamination
B. Groundwater depletion and wetland degradation
C. StreamFlow depletion due to hydrological balance disruption
IV. Secondary Effects (Changes in land use and development)
Source: 14.
229
-------
land application alternative, enough technical information was provided in all the
reports to give the decision~maker a fair indication qf K^s technical feasibility of
the alternatives within a given study area. Plans for facilW'es serving high=density
portions of the study areas can use much of the reports'information and analysis concerning
weistewater treatment and discharge alternatives „
The discussion of the rationale and methods for stormwpter treatment was generally not
detailed enough to provide planners with a basis for, dec id ing on the amount of sterm~
water (if any) that should be collected and treated in a particular facility „ This con=
elusion also applies to the choice of wastewater collection alternatives, Ot was
difficult to find estimates of existing combined versus separate sewers in the Cleveland"
Akron and Southeast Michigan reports. A! I the reports considered wastewater reuse r
but in too general terms for use in the preparation of facilities plans-. Reuse for surface
water supply was the most extensively considered, and was included to some extent in ail
NDCP alternatives. An exception is the Codorus Cre,ek report, which investigated in
detail the feasibility of wastewater reuse and recycling for the largest industrial dis=
charger within the basin; much of this examination can be used in future facilities plans
treating discharges from this firm. More generally, phe discussion of industrial reuse
in all the reports failed to consider the new distribution systems that would be required,
i , / i
The examination of land application was a major aspect of each study and, of coiwse,
the subject of considerable controversy. This examination was not detailed enough for use
in individual facilities plans, primarily because the techniques of flooding and spread=
ing basins required additional consideration and because the studies emphasized land
application of wastewater as a source of irrigation wafer rather than as a disposal technique,
As has been pointed out, the case for feasibility an,d utility of this-use needs further
documentation. An analysis that would have been more useful for individual facilities
plans would have been a feasibility analysis of smaller scale land application projects
where the land is used exclusively for wastewater treatment.
The report's presentation of sludge stabilization and disposal alternatives was not sufficients
ly detailed for use in facilities planning,, Consideration of stabilization procedures
included settling and thickening, but very little on digestion. Disposal alternatives
considered were land application, and, to a lessej extent, incineration. The feasibility
of landfill disposal of sludge received little discussion, although it would undoubtedly
be feasible for certain individual facilities.
Physical facility siting decisions appearing in the studies were generally based on carefuS
previous analysis for water=based treatment, but were not always as carefully selected
for land treatment facilities. It was not apparent that the particular land treatment eiireas
selected would maximize water quality obtained nor minimize adverse environmental
impacts. Rather, the decision for land applicatipn sites was based largely on density
considerations and land costs (which are of course important). The only siting information
presented in the studies that would be useful for future facilities plans is that which ana-
lyzes proposed facilities that would be actually selected for implementation.
230
-------
The facilities-planning guidelines recommend an examination of the feasibility of up-
grading existing facilties. In the report, detailed examination of facility upgrading
was generally limited to the reference plans (these involved a continuation of present
trends). The technical and cost analysis presented in the studies for existing facility
upgrading should be applicable to specific facility plans. It was not apparent, however,
that the studies systematically optimized the mix of new and upgraded older plants; the
trend was for almost exclusively upgraded plants in the reference plans and mostly new,
centralized plants in the NDCP plans. Thus facility planners in the study areas would be
required to reanalyze the feasibility of upgrading existing plants in light of area.water
quality goals.
The reports, in general, adequately examined the ability of the proposed treatment facilities
to meet certain water quality objectives, and this information should be of use in
specific facility plans. These objectives were an interpretation of the no discharge
of critical pollutants requirement of PL 92-500, and this interpretation may differ by
study area. As was evident from comments on the studies, the NDCP objectives are
not considered realistic by all water-quality-related agencies.
Analysis of operability, reliability, and flexibility was not sufficiently detailed in the
studies to be used extensively in facilities plans. These problems again seem to be
beyond the power of resolution of the studies. The potential effects from plant shut downs
and the feasibility of providing storage capacity for centralized treatment works should
have been analyzed in greater detail, however. The studies seldom brought out that
degraded water quality and other environmental problems increase in proportion to the
wastewater that is left untreated, and that costs and land requirements of providing
storage capacity also increase proportionally to the size of facilities.
Phasing. Facilities plans must examine in detail the feasibility and costs of
project phasing; this analysis will differ for specific treatment plants, and the Corps'
reports are too general to be of much usefulness. The Chicago and Cleveland-Akron
reports did examine phasing the plans to meet increasingly stringent water quality goals,
but none of the studies discussed in detail phasing to meet future wastewater flows.
Instead, facilities were designed to meet 1990 flows. This was a serious drawback, in
that the flow projections tended to be uncertain and also because unwanted and un-
controlled growth in metropolitan areas may result from providing initial excess capacity.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The cost-effectiveness analysis of proposed plans
will be of limited usefulness to facilities planning due to lack of specificity in analyzing
individual plants. Of the seven major components recommended by facilities planning
guidelines, the reports adequately considered the ability of alternative plans to meet
effluent limits, the application of BPWTT, and alternatives for effluent disposal, but
did not adequately consider the relationship between size of treatment works and area
needs (area needs were defined in terms of no discharge of critical pollutants), the
feasibility of upgrading existing facilities, alternatives for sludge disposal, and environ-
mental impacts for each alternative (see below).
231
-------
The studies generally followed the cost-estimation techniques recommended by the EPA
facilities-planning guidelines/ with the exception of interest rates and service lives.
f
Environmental impact Analysis. The environmental effects of alternative plans
were assessed in all of the reports, but not in sufficient detail to base an Environmental
Impact Statement for the implementation of single facijities. Environmental inventories
in two studies, (Cleveland-Akron and Southeastern Michigan) were comprehensive
enough to be useful for environmental inventories for qertain facility locations within
the study areas. In general, the analysis of primary effects on the environment from
facilities construction was not sufficiently detailed, for use in facilities plans. Primary
effects due to system operation, in terms of groundwater contamination, groundwater de-
pletion, wetland degradation, and streamflow depletion, were analyzed in sufficient
detail to be useful for some facility plans.
Areawide Planning.
Objectives and Scope. Complex, high-density metropolitan areas present special
problems for effective planning and management of water quality. Institutional
conflicts over agency control of water and wastewater treatment planning and manage-
ment are numerous and prevent optimal solutions to water supply and wastewater problems.
Areawide planning, required by Section 208 of PL 92^500, will concentrate on compre-
hensive methods for controlling urban-industrial water pollution in metropolitan regions
that have substantial water quality problems requiring treatment levels beyond secondary
formunicipal wastes/jnd beyond best practicable control technology for industrial wastes.
Areawide planning agencies will bear the responsibility for administering federal grants
for construction of waste treatment plants and for mapaging and collecting funds to
maintain and upgrade existing treatment works. The areawide planning process will
supplement information and data gathered by the states and provide a separate authority
that can act when a state fails to meet its responsibilities. EPA has issued a document
entitled Draft Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management "to aid in area-
wide wastewater management planning.
The governor of each state must identify metropolitpn areas with major water quality
control problems, the boundaries of these areas, an^ select the single, most capable
organization to assume responsibility for preparing the plan. The governor may choose
either an existing agency or establish a new organization. Whether new or existing,
each local governmental unit must have representation on the planning board.
Data Requirements. Relevant data requirements for areawide planning include:
® Anticipated growth of population and economjc activity.
o Present and future use of the waters within the planning area.
232
-------
e Adequacy of the waste collection systems in the planning area with reference to
operation, maintenance, and expansion of such systems.
• Assessment of combination or integration of waste treatment facilities to achieve
efficiency and scale economies.
e Assessment of practicality and feasibility of treating domestic and industrial waste
in a combined waste treatment facility or integrated waste treatment system.
• Assessment of the need for collection and treatment of storm runoff.
• Identification of non-point sources of pollution.
e Identification of agencies capable of constructing, operating, and maintaining
wastewater treatment facilities.
0 Waste discharges presently in, and anticipated for/the planning area.
• Effect of proposed waste treatment facilities on water quality within the planning
area.
The Planning Process. Each areawide planning board will have one year to establish a
scheme for developing an areawide plan, and two years beyond that to complete an.
initial plan, certified by the governor, and approved by the EPA. This areawide
water and wastewater management plan and the yearly revisions must be submitted
and certified by the governor as being consistent with the state basin plan for that area.
Areawide water management plans (encompassing the data aforementioned requirements)
will include:
e Identification of all waterborne wastes generated in the area and all necessary
treatment works to handle municipal and industrial wastes over the following
20 years.
c Analysis of proposed alternative treatment systems, land acquisition needs, and
necessary collection and storm sewer systems and development of a plan for
financing all elements of the treatment system.
• Development of a regulatory program to control the modification and construction
of all treatment works, insuring that any industrial discharges entering the facility
meet pretreatment effluent standards.
e Identification of processes to control non-point sources of pollution, including
urban-agricultural runoff; salt water intrusion; the disposal of all wastes (including
solid wastes into landfills); and the disposal of sewage sludge.
233
-------
Criteria to be used for areawide wastewater management planning include the minimization
of total cost to society of wastewater treatment measures. These costs are defined as social
costs, environmental costs, and the more traditional economic costs. Management
(institutional and financial) provisions of areawide plans must take into account implementa-
tion feasibility and public acceptability. Part of management planning is an analysis of
the capability of the institutional and financial structure of a given area to implement
areawide plans; a second part of management planning is th,e development of alternative
management plans based on legal authority, operational effectiveness, practicability,
coordinative capacity, and public accountability.
39
The areawide wastewater management guidelines emphasize that special attention
should be given to municipal sludge disposal/ since sludge disposal is already a problem
in many areas and "can be expected to become increasingly more acute in large urban/
industrial areas as waste treatment levels increase and development pressures persist"
(p5-2). A second emphasis in the areawide guidelines is identification of non-point
sources of pollution, which will "necessitate monitoring and/ in many cases, field
sampling" (p 6-4). It is suggested in the guidelines that control measures for non-point
sources be matched to local conditions. Specified structural and non-structural measures
for controlling these important sources of water pollution cjre analyzed in the guidelines
for urban stormwater runoff, construction activities, hydro,graphi c modifications, and land
and subsurface disposal of residual waste.
Usefulness of the Corps of Engineers' Studies.
Comparison of Scope. The studies are very similar in scope to areawide planning.
as defined by PL 92-500. The Chicago, Cleveland-Akron, and Detroit metropolitan areas
will no doubt be identified by the governors of their respective states as locations with
major water quality problems. It is unlikely that Codorus Creek will be identified as
such a location, however. The studies as a whole undoubtedly will have the most value
for areawide wastewater management planning, as opposed to other planning efforts, due
to the close similarity in scope. For this reason, summary evaluations of certain aspects of
the studies appear in this section.
Usefulness of Data. Perhaps the studies' most important role will be as sources of
data for areawide wastewater management planning. This likely role was mentioned by
many state and regional agencies in their official comments on the studies. Of the various
types of data, technical data, particularly efficiencies of treatment processes and water
quality obtainable with various processes, should provide substantial assistance to area-
wide planning efforts. Background economic data on th,e study areas should also prove
useful, but cost data less so, unless specific study alterpatives are selected for implementa-
tion. Cost estimation methods in the reports may have jo be revised to be more realistic.
The wealth of collected environmental data is generally one of the stronger points of the
reports, particularly for the Southeastern Michigan an<| Cleveland-Akron reports.
EPA regulations require that areawide plans consider certain specific types of data.
Those pertaining to wastewater/ as previously reviewed,are: anticipated population growth
and economic activity; present and future water uses; assessment of Integration of treatment
234
-------
facilities; assessment of feasibility of treating combined domestic and industrial waste;
assessment of the need for stormwater collection and treatment; present and future waste
discharges; and effect of treatment facilities on water quality. Data on the water<]uality
effects of treatment facilities should prove the most valuable for areawide planning.
Population projections will probably need to be revised downward, and a brief review of
economic growth projections in the studies has indicated that long-term growth projections
(post 1990) might also be too high. Present water uses within the study areas were
generally presented in sufficient detail for use in areawide planning, but future water use
estimates by industry were based on the assumption of greatly increased recycling and
reuse, and may have to be revised upwards. Report data on existing collection facilities
were generally not complete and would be only marginally useful for areawide planning.
Combination and integration of wastewater treatment facilities were examined throughout
the reports, and the proposed centralized treatment alternatives should illustrate the nature
of the areawide plans that will be required, but there is little evidence that the alternatives
are optimal in terms of scale and economic efficiency. Areawide plans will probably
need to make an independent assessment of the need for and feasibility of treating storm-
water, since the studies generally assumed (but did not conclusively demonstrate) that
large volumes of stormwater must be treated to achieve water quality objectives. Exist-
ing wastewater flows will generally be useful for areawide plans, but projections of future
wastewater flows may have to be revised, primarily due to possible overestimates of pop-
ulation, industrial growth, and industrial reuse/recycling.
Plan Evaluation .and the Planning Process. The feasibility of using report data
as inputs to the areawide planning process was considered above, with the conclusion that
much of the data would be valuable for that purpose. However, it is likely that the
EPA and appropriate state and study=area agencies are more interested In the studies of
the feasibility of adopting certain of the alternatives for inclusion within
areawide plans. An assessment of the areawide wastewater management planning
assistance provided by the reports is necessary: to what degree can the proposed alter-
natives and their related assessments be used in the development of wastewater manage-
ment plans required by Section 208 of PL 92-500? This study approached the question by
answering a related question: is enough information provided in the reports to form the
basis for deciding between alternative plans?
Table X-^S provides a: summary evaluation of the usefulness of various data types appearing
in the four reports for decision-makers. This table looks at the evaluations made in previous
chapters in a different light; instead of examining various data classes as they affect the
feasibility of alternative plans, the evaluation attempts to assess the ability of these data
to allow decision-makers to make informed choices between alternative plans.
The evaluations must be qualified at this point,in that they make no distinction between
data which could reasonably be expected to appear in reports having the scope of those
of the Corps of Engineers', versus data which are difficult or even impossible to obtain
given the constraints of the studies. It can be concluded from Table X-3 that accuracy
and quality of_theJbNowing data are generally too uncertain to permit informed choice
among plans: future wastewater characteristies (with the exception of the Cleve» -
I
-------
TABLE X-3
UNCERTAINTY IN REPORT DATA AS IT AFFECT?
AREAWIDE DECISION-MAKING
Type of Data
Wastewater Flow
Future Wastewater Quality
Non-point Pollution Sources
Future Slud.qe Volume/Charac.
Population
Natural Drainage
Topography
Climate
Soils and Geoloay
Groundwater
Treatment Processes
Infiltration/Inflow
Trunk and Discharge Locations
Financial Capability
Existina Institutional Caoabilities
Environmental Baseline
Present Agricultural Income
Industrial Economics
Area Power Capacity
Water Resource Plans
Land Use Plans
M annower Canabilitv
Water Reuse Options
Predicted Treatment Costs
Study Area
C-SELM
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
3
5
4
2 '
2
4
5
2
4
4
2
2
Cleveland"
Akron
2
4
1
1
3
3
1
2
3
4
3
1
2
5
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
5
1
4
Southeastern
Michigan
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
1.
3
2
2
4
4
3
5
2
4
?
1
3
Codorus
Creek
3
1
1
1
3
4
1
2
2
3
4
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
5
5
2
Explanation: 1 = very uncertain; 5 = quite certain.
236
-------
present levels, infiltration and inflow, and water reuse options (with the exception of the
Codorus Creek report).
The present study has found few classes of data in the reports whose interpretation is
relatively unambiguous. However, such major decisions/affecting as they do the lives,
resources, and environment of millions, are seldom made on the basis of full and complete
knowledge of existing conditions. Thus, the generally low evaluations in Table X-3
should not be taken as a criticism of the quality of the reports; rather it is hoped that they
can provide direction for the commitment of limitepl time and funds for data acquisition to
classes for which increased information would most facilitate the preparation and analysis
of areawide wastewater management plans. (A suggested addition to this table is the
weighting of various data classes for their importance to wastewater management decision-
making; this will vary between different study areqs.)
The usefulness of the alternative plans in areawide wastewater management planning is
limited by the general similarity between each NDCP alternative in terms of water
quality achievable, institutional feasibility, and financial feasibility. Thus, decision-
makers with a cost-benefit orientation will find little basis for choosing between the NDCP
alternatives: all will require substantial regionajization of wastewater management and
abandonment of a large number of existing plants,all will require large investments of
federal and local money, and all will probably produce effluents of extremely high
quality approaching the NDCP goal. Choice is further limited by the relatively large
number of NDCP alternatives offering land treatment as a significant or complete portion pf
wastewater treatment. Of the four final alternqtives offered in the C-SELM Report,
two involved land treatment. Each of the remajning reports offered three final alternatives,
two of which involved land treatment. The range of alternatives offered to area decision-?
makers was quite narrow. Due to the social and political opposition lfl
-------
The State Continuing Planning Process.
Objectives and Scope. The purposes of the state continuing planning process,
required by Section 303 of PL 92-500, are to: furnish the states with technical informa-
tion for centralized and coordinated water quality management decjsion-making; provide
strategic guidance for state program submittal development; and encourage water quality
goals (general) and objectives (specific) in consideration of overall state policies and
programs. The total state planning process comprises four separate elements:
0 The annual state strategy, which sets the state's major objectives and priorities
for preparing basin plans and its annual program plan.
• Individual basin plans, which establish specific targets for. controlling pollution
in individual basins.
• The annual program plan, which establishes the results expected and the resources
committed for the state program each year.
c Reports which measure program performance in achieving programmed results.
Each state is responsible for designing and implementing a monitoring program to collect
accurate technical information on water quality. Pollution abatement programs will be
designed for particular stream conditions. Evaluations of effects on water quality will
be made for both point and non-point source discharges. Based on these data, each
segment of water will be classified into one of two general categories:
• Water Quality Limited - The pollution condition of the water is so severe that
achievement of the water quality standard is essentially precluded, even if
all point sources provide treatment levels required under federal guidelines.
e Effluent Limited - The water quality standard is currently being achieved, or
such a standard will be met by application of federal effluent guidelines.
States must prepare comprehensive management plans for maintaining water quality
where a segment is classified as "effluent limited". For any segment categorized as
"water quality limited", restrictive maximum daily pollutant load limits must be assigned
by the state.
Data on water quality will be collected just for individual river basins. The basin
boundaries will generally be those identified as minor basins under the EPA water quality
information system.
Data Requirements. Each basin-wide plan for controlling water pollution must be based
on the following data:
238
-------
« Detailed descriptions of each water body in the basin.
• Identification and analysis of all signifiqpnt point and non-point sources of
waste discharges.
• The average daily volume of discharge produced by each waste discharger.
• Water quality of identified wastewater discharges.
• Description of the treatment type being employed by each discharger.
e Description of the impact of discharges and abatement activities on the water
quality in the basin.
« Identification of previously established effluent limitation requirements for
significant dischargers, and target limits for significant dischargers.
« Assessment of the need for publicly-o,wned treatment works.
The Planning Process. In addition to the major data inputs (discussed above) that must
be encompassed within each basin plan, all such plans must also include:
• A ranking of each segment of water in order of priority for improvement.
« An analysis of measures to be taken to improve or maintain water quality.
e Establishment of timetables for stafe actions.
The state continuing planning process is required to provide for coordination between
individual basin plans and applicable water quality subplans, and other local and
state plans for the basin, including land use and natural resources plans.
Each basin plan will set up controls over the disposition of all residual waste from
wastewater treatment, and will include pompliance schedules or abatement target dates.
The state continuing planning process wjll involve preparation of an inventory of sig-
nificant dischargers and discharger categorization by segment. These inventories and
classifiQationswill be employed in identifying federally assisted projects for construction
of publicly owned wastewater works and for permit issuance. Within each basin, the
plan will assess the needs for publicly pwned waste treatment facilities. In wa|er quality
limited segments, each plan will identjfy, evaluate, and (to the degree practicable) fix
controls over non-point pollutant sources.
The state continuing planning proces^ provides for interstate cooperation. When a plan is
under development in a state for an area affecting or affected by waters of another state,
the planning agency will cooperate with the second state in problem and priority assessment
239
-------
and schedules for plan preparation. The process encourages using interstate agencies for
coordinating water quality management planning.
Usefulness of the Reports.
Comparison of Scope. The scope of the state continuing planning process is
obviously broader than that of the studies; however, the studies do analyze water quality
problems and their solutions within geographic problem areas. The state continuing
planning process is oriented more towards monitoring and enforcement than are the studies,
whose orientation is rather towards technological (versus procedural) solutions to water
quality control.
Usefulness of Data. The reports will be useful in providing inputs for the establish-
ment of priorities in basin plans, in that the areas studied are characterized by major
water pollution problems. The reports, especially the Cleveland-Akron report, contain
water quality information that should be useful for basin planning required in the state
continuing planning process, although STORET data may.be easier to Incorporate Tn basfn
plans. The water quality data in the studies should provide at least a preliminary
indication of which stream segments, within the study areas, are water quality limited
and which are effluent limited.
The level of specificity of the studies is generally too low to provide detailed information
on the treatment types/ flow/and effluent characteristics of individual industrial
dischargers, Usable data is however present in the studies concerning current municipal
dischargers. The studies will serve a valuable function in identifying, in general terms,
what will be required in terms of funding• and resources to achieve no discharge of
critical pollutants. This information should be instrumental for river basin planners in
their evaluation of the need for publicly-owned treatment works, even though the water
quality goals of river basin planning, at least in the short-term, may be set at lower,
more easily achievable, levels.
Plan Evaluation and the Planning Process. The studies will be of limited usefulness
in the assignment of effluent and water quality standards for each segment and for the
setting of compliance schedules or abatement target dates. This is due to the fact that
the studies proceeded along the objective of no dischqrge of critical pollutants, and
did not make an extensive analysis of water quality improvements that would be
achievable by certain dates on a discharger-by-dischgrger basis.
240
-------
RESULTS OF STUDY AREA QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS.
Results.
In order to better determine the perceived) usefulness of the Corps of Engineers' reports to
study-area agency representatives, 210 questionnaires exploring the reports' usefulness were
sent to state water pollution control agencies, state health departments, regional planning
departments, and wastewater treatment superintendents. The survey was performed in-
dependently of EPA at the authors' expense. The states covered by these mailings were
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan. (California was in-
cluded because at the time questionnaires were mailed, there was a possibility that a
wastewater management study prepared by the Corps of Engineers for the Sari Francjsco
area would be evaluated in the present study.) '
Of the210 questionnaires, 55 were returned. Of these, 35 respondents indicated
familiarity with the studies: the responses of these respondents were then compiled.
Table X-4 lists these responses. (A copy of the questionnaire and more detailed analyses
of responses are included in the Appendix to this report.)
As a whole, reactions to the general usefulness and applicability of the reports were
favorable. About 71 percent of the respondents felt that the reports considered all
meaningful wastewater management alternatives for their study areas. The reports'
general methodology and specific data were considered somewhat or very useful to the
various study areas by a clear majority of respondents; 76 percent replied that the reports'
methodology was applicable,and 89 percent replied that specific data were applicable.
Within the study areas, data considered most useful were technical/engineering d^ta (83
percent) followed by environmental quality (37 percent), economic (23 percent),and
social (16 percent) data. Application of methodology and data was considered less
likely on the nationwide level; 53 percent of the respondents felt that the reports'
methodology was applicable nationally and 39 percent that the reports' specific dgta
were applicable nationally.
Concerning the scope of the studies, 45 percent of the respondents felt the scope was too
large, 42 percent that the scope was about right, and 13 percent that the scope was too
small. When asked about the usefulness of the reports for various study area agencies,
the respondents felt that the reports would be most useful for state planning agencjes,
regional/local planning agencies, natural resource/land management-agencies, afid
water pollution control agencies; at least 71 percent felt that the reports would be
somewhat or very useful for these institutions. The reports were seen as less useful for
local wastewater management agencies (58 percent felt the reports were somewhat; or
very useful) and recreation agencies (50 percent felt the reports were somewhat or very
useful). However, the respondents wer§ pessimistic about the degree of coordination that
could be established between the Corps of Engineers' plans and the study-area agency
goals and plans. Approximately 80 percent of the respondents expected minor or major
conflicts with local wastewater management agencies, 69 percent with regional and local
planning agencies, 65 percent with recreation agencies, 57 percent with natural resource/
land management agencies, 56 percent with water pollution control agencies, and 49
241
-------
percent with state planning agencies.
Evaluation.
The respondents generally felt that the most useful aspect of the Corps of Engineers'
reports was specific data to be applied within study areas, particularly technical and
engineering data. Economic and social data presented in the reports did not appear
to the respondents to be particularly useful, even within the study areas for which it was
intended, and improvements in the quality and Interpretation of these data might be
suggested.
The scope of the studies was considered too large by 45 percent of the respondents. The
scope of these plans may be examined from two viewpoints, water quality goals and
geographic area under consideration. It was noted by several agencies reviewing
reports and also by questionnaire respondents (see Chapter XII ) that the "no discharge
of critical pollutants" objective of PL 92-500 is unrealistic; however, as previously
discussed, the objective of the Corps of Engineers' studies was to devise wastewater
management plans capable of meeting these goals, so that the water quality objectives
were set prior to initiation of the studies.
The probable reason for the feeling that the geographic scope of the studies was too large
was that the interests of local segments of the population were obscured by regional
objectives; this was noted in comments by several of tr^e respondents (see Chapter XII )
and also by agencies reviewing the reports. The conflict between home rule and
centralized public services is a persisting problem reducing the feasibility of implementing
any regional wastewater management plan such as those of the Corps of Engineers.
Although the reports were seen as at least somewhat useful, and often very useful, for
involved study area agencies, conflicts between the plans and the goals and objectives
of these agencies were generally expected. Lack of coordination was seen as a problem,
especially for local wastewater management agencies, regional and local planning agencies,
and recreation agencies. The expected conflicts may arise from two sources: either
the Corps of Engineers failed to coordinate their activities during the course of their
studies with appropriate agencies, or the Corps' plans overlap with the planning and
management functions of existing agencies. While the first source of conflict occurred
in particular cases, as evidenced by certain reviewing agency comments, it is more
likely that fear of loss of agency power and jurisdiction, accounts for the expectation of
conflicts. Until the role of the Corps of Engineers in pjanning and implementing regional
wastewater management is better defined, these conflicts will persist.
i
Open-ended comments from respondents are paraphrased, in Chapter Xil . Most of these
comments were negative in nature, and involved criticism of facets of the studies such as
poor public relations, overgenerality, and failure to supply complete data. It is interesting
to note that although these comments were overwhelmingly critical, responses to specific
items on the questionnaire, as reviewed above, can be ponsidered generally favorable.
242
-------
TABLE X-4
SUMMARY OF QUESTJONNAIRE RESULTS
Item
Ib. Did the reports generally consider all meaning-
ful alternatives for managing wastewater?
2a. Is a nationwide application of the reports' general
methodology feasible?
2c. Is a nationwide application of the reports'
specific data feasible?
2d. If answer to "2c" is yes, what data qre most useful?
(response percentage is of those answering yes to 2c.)
3b. Is the reports' generally methodology appropriate
to your particular area?
3d. Are specific data from the reports useful for your
particular area?
3e. If answer to 3d is yes, what data are most useful ?
(response percentage is of those answering yes to 3c)
3f. Was the scope of the reports' plans, in terms of water
quality goals and geographic boundaries:
4a. For which of the following agencies in your area would
the reports be useful:
- State planning agencies?
Response (%)
Yes: 71
No: 29
Yes - mostly: 12
Yes - somewhat: 41
No - probably not: 47
Yes - mostly: 3
Yes - somewhat: 36
No - probably not: 61
Economic: 38
Tech.-Eng.: 92
Social: 0
Env. Qual.: 38
Yes - mostly: 36
Yes - somewhat: 40
No - probably not: 24
Yes - mostly: 24
Yes - somewhat: 6,5
No - probably not: 11
Economic: 23
Tech.-Eng.: 83
Social: 10
Env. Qual.: 37
Too large: 45
Just about right: 42
Too small: 13
Very useful: 25
Somewhat useful: 56
Not really useful; 19
243
-------
TABLE X-4 (Gont.)
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Item
4a. For which of the following agencies in your area would
the reports be useful: (Cont.)
- regional /local planning agencies?
- natural resource/land management agencies?
- recreation agencies?
- water pollution control agencies?
- local wastewater management entities ?
4b. What degree of coordination could be established
between the reports' plans and existing goals apd plans
of the following agencies in your area:
- State planning agencies?
- regional/local planning agencies?
- natural resource/land management agencies?
- recreation agencies:
Response (%)
Very useful: 33
Somewhat useful: 54
Not really useful: 13
Very useful: 19
Somewhat useful: 52
Not really useful: 29
Very useful: 7
Somewhat useful: 43
Not really useful: 50
Very useful: 33
Somewhat useful: 43
Not really useful: 24
Very useful: 34
Somewhat useful: 24
Not really useful: 42
Excellent coord: 3
Good coord: 48
Minor conflicts: 19
Major conflicts: 30
Excellent coord: 8
Good coord: 23
Minor conflicts: 38
Major conflicts: 31
Excellent coord: 4
Good coord: 39
Minor conflicts: 35
Major conflicts: 22
Excellent coord: 9
Good coord: 26
Minor conflicts: 52
Major conflicts: 13
244
-------
TABLE X-4 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS
Item
4b. What degree of coordination could be established
the reports' plans and existing goals and plans of the following
agencies in your area: (Cont.)
- water pollution control agencies?
- local wastewater management entities:
5e. Respondent agency roles
Response
Excellent coord:
Good coord: 36
Minor conflicts:
8
24
Major conflicts: 32
Excellent coord: 0
Good coord: 20
Minor conflicts: 36
Major conflicts: 44
Technical-advisory:
Planning: 26
Pollution control reg:
Public health reg: T5
Wastewater treat: 16
34
245
-------
Political Context of Questionnaires and Interviews.
The questionnaire and interview results should be considered in their political context.
For these phases of the project, there was no particular interest in soliciting totally
objective and impartial evaluations of the reports. (Hopefully, this study has provided
some of these evaluations.) Rather, the comments are from officials directly affected
by the existence of the reports.
The point at which these evaluations cease to be impartial, and begin to be influenced
by threats to local authority and jurisdiction, is difficult to identify. One conclusion
remains clear, however: whether the criticisms concerning public opinion and feasibility
are impartial or somewhat biased, the prevalence of these criticisms reduces to some
degree the usefulness of the reports.
Off-the-Record Comments.
Supplemental information was obtained through informal, ofHhe-record discussions with
several local wastewater treatment and state water quality officials from two of the
study areas. Their comments were generally consistent with official's comments in the
reports and with the questionnaire results. The anonymity of the contacted officials
(and their affiliations) was guaranteed to encourage the most candid response possible.
Favorable comments were mainly that the reports drew together for the first time a wealth
of information about the study areas that previously appeared in a large number of diff-
erent sources. More of the comments in these off-the-record discussions, however, were
negative. Most had to do with adverse public opiniop and the high costs of the plans.
Difficulty in working with local wastewater treatment and water quality plans was cited
several times. Other criticisms made by several of the officials were that the plans lacked
sufficient technical information to assure feasibility, due in part to a lack of work
conducted in the Held. The officials also noted that not enough emphasis was placed
on sludge disposal, and perhaps too much on large-scale (and expensive) regional collection
systems. Almost all the officials interviewed thought that demonstration studies of land
application of effluent were necessary and desirable,
246
-------
CHAPTER XI
REFERENCES
A. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REPORTS
1. Wastewater Management Study for Chicago-South End of Lake Michigan "Summary"
la. Appendix A: "Background Information."
1b. Appendix B: "Data Annex."
Ic. Appendix C: "Plan Formulatiorj."
Id. Appendix D: "Description and Cost."
le. Appendix E: "Social-Environmental Evaluation."
If. Appendix F. "Institutional Considerations."
Ig. Appendix G: "Valuation."
Ih. Appendix H: "Public Involvement Participation."
'li. Appendix I: "Comments."
2. Wastewater Management Study for Cleveland-Akron, Three Rivers Watershed:
"Summary"
'2a. Appendix I: "Plan Formulation."
'2b. Appendix II: "Comments."
;2c. Appendix III: "Municipal Wastewater."
2d. Appendix IV: "Industrial Wastewater."
2e. Appendix V: "Land Treatment."
2f. Appendix VI: "Evaluation."
2g. Appendix VII: "Institutional Evaluation."
2h. Appendix VIII: "Public Involvement."
2i. Appendix IX: "Agricultural Evaluation."
3. Southeastern Michigan Wastewater Management Survey Scope Study:
"Summary Report"
3a. "Irrigation and Collection Facilities"
3b. "Lagoon Treatment and Conveyance Systems"
3c. "Geologic Considerations"
3d. "Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities"
3e. "Alternatives for Stormwater Runoff Control"
3f. "Ecological Assessment"
3g. "Land Disposal of Wastewater: an Assessment of Its Impact on the
Agricultural Economy I"
3h. "Economic Assessment (Area)"
3i. "Hygienic Assessments of Alternative Systems"
3j. "Independent physical-Chemical Treatment Facilities"
3k. "Land Treatment of Wastewater"
31. "Wastewater Irrigation Using Privately Owned Farmland"
247
-------
3m. "Institutional Arrangements Appendix"
3n. "Social Assessment"
3o. "An Analysis of Zones Proposed for Land Treatment of Wastewater"
3p. "Appendix A: Hygienic Assessment of the Total Land Spray Irrigation
Alternative"
3q. "Plan Formulation Appendix"
3r. "Background Appendix"
3s. "Aesthetic Evaluation"
3t. "Evaluation Appendix"
3u. "Public Participation Appendix"
4. Wastewater Management Study for Codorus Crerek: "Summary" and "Analysis"
4a. "Technical Studies/1 Appendix A, Vol. I.
4b. "Technical Studies," Appendix A, Vol. II
4c. "Technical Studies," Appendix A, Vol. III.
4d. "Technical Studies," Appendix A, Vol. IV.
4e. "Impact Studies," Appendix B.
4f. "Analysis of Institutional Arrangements^" Appendix C.
4g. "Implementing a Land-Based System - An Analysts of Approaches."
B. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
5. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter B-Grants
6. Charles F. Luce, et al. Proposed Report of the National Water Commission -
Volume I. National Water Commission, Arlington, Va. NWC 72-061 .
WTF.
7. Population and Economic Activity in the U.S. and Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, Historical and Projected, 1950-2020. Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Washington, D. C. 1972.
8. Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for Muskegon County, Michigan
Wastewater Treatment - Irrigation Study. FWQA Project 1 1010 FMY. 1970.
9. Economic and Institutional Analysis of Wastewater Reclamation Projects.
Leeds, Hill, and Jewett, Inc. OWRR Project C- 1912. 1971.
10. Factors Affecting Pollution Referenda , ABT Associates, Inc. EPA Report
No. WQO 16110 - EXW. 1971. "
11 . "Million Dollar Project Down the Drain?" Detroit News, May 17, 1974,
P8A. *
12. Margolis, J. Welfare Criteria, Pricing and Decentralization of g Public
Service, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 71 (3); 448-463, 1957.
248
-------
13. Howe, C.H., Russell, C.S., Young, R.A., and Vaughn. Future
Water Demands. NWC Report 69-002. 1971. 116 p.
14. Guidance for Facilities Planning. EPA. 1974.
15. Federal Register,^ 174, September 10, 1973, p 24639. Part 35, State
and Local Assistence, Appendix A, Cost-effectiveness Analysis.
16. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application. Volume I. EPA
Report 660/2 - 73 - 006a 1973.
17. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application Volume II. EPA,,
660/2 - 73 - 006b 1973. "
18. Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater. EPA Report
430/0-73-006. 1973.
19. Biology of Water Pollution. U.S. Dept. of Interior. 1967.
20. Reitze, A.W. Environmental Planning: Law of Land and Resources.
North American International. Washington, D.C. 1974.
21. Mishan, E.J. Economics for Social Decisions. Praeger, New York, 1972.
22. Dickert, T.G. Methods for Environmental Impact Assessment: A compari-
son. Dickert, T.G. and Domeny, K.R. (eds.), Environmental Impact
Assessment: Guidelines and Commentary. University of California,
Berkeley. 1974.
23. Krishnan, P. and Mangan, C.M. Process Design Manual for Upgrading
Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C., 1971.
24. Culp, R.L. and Culp, G. L. Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1971.
25. Waste Management and Control. National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council Washington, D.C., 1966.
26. Croke, E.J., Croke, K.J., Kennedy, A.S., and Hoover, L.J. The
Relationship between Land Use and Environmental Protection. NTIS
Microfiche PB-209-642. 1973.
27. Egelard, J.R. Land Disposal f: A Giant Step Backward. JWPCF, 45 (7):
1465 - 1475. 1973. !
249
-------
28. Davis, W.K. Land Disposal III: Land Use Planning. JWPCF, 45 (7);
1485 - 1489. 1973.
29. Ludwig, H.F., and Storrs, P.M. Regional Water Quality Management.
JWPCF, 45 (10): 2065 - 2071.
30. Land Disposal of Waste water. JWPCF, 44; 900. 1972.
31. Social Indicators; 1973. Statistical Policy Division, Office of Management
and Budget. Washington, D.C., 1973.
32. Struyk, R.J. Summary of Present Practices Tn. Evaluation of Water Resource
Projects. University of Washington Working Paper CWR 13, 1967.
33. The Fate of Pesticides Applied to Irrigated Agricultural Land. California
Dept. of Water Resources Bulletin No, 174-1. 1968.
34. McPherson, M.B. Prospects for Metropolitan Water Management. ASCE.
1970.
35. Faro, R. and Nemerow, N.L. Measurement of the Total Dollar Benefit
of Water Pollution Control. Syracuse, University Dept. of CM I Engineering,
Research Report No. 10. 1969.
36. Water Quality Criteria. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Washington, D.C. 1968.
37. Dartman, N.S., etal. Who Bears the Cost of Pollution Control; The Impact
on the Distribution of Income of Finqneing Federarry Required Polfutfon
Control. NTIS Microfiche PB-226-447. 1973.
38. The Economics of Clean Water - 1973. EPA, Washington, D.C. 1973.
39. Draft Guidelines for AreawTde Waste Treatment Management. EPA. 1974.
40. Wastewater Reclamation; Socio-Economic8fTechnology and Public Assistance.
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc. OWRR Project C-4030. 1971.
41. Anderson, M.S. Fertilizing Characteristics of Sewage Sludge, Sewage and
Industrial Waste, 4U6) 678-682, 1959.
42. Wartink, G.Rt and Etzel, J.E, Removal of Metal Ions by Soil. JWPCF,
44 (8); 1561-1574, 1972.
25Q
r
-------
43. Seabrook, B.L. land Application of Wastewater with a Demographic
Evaluation. In: Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
EPA, USDA7 NASULGC, Washington, D.C. 1973. pp 9-24.
44. Postlewait, J.C. and Knudsen, H.J. Some Experiences in Land Acquisition
for a Land Disposal System for Sewage Effluent. In: Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land, EPA, USDA, NASULGC, Washington, D.C.
1973. pp 25-38. '
45. Miller, R.H. Soil Microbiological Aspects of Recycling Sewage Sludges and
Waste Effluents on Land. In: Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on
Land, EPA, USDA, NASULGC, Washington, D.C. 1973. pp 79-90.
i
46. Bouwer, H. Land Treatment of Liquid Waste: The Hydrologic System. In:
Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, EPA, USDA, NASULGC,
Washington, D.C. 1973. pp 103-119.
47. Barbolini, R.R. Institutional Options fqr Recycling Urban Sludges and
Effluents on Land. In: Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
EPA, USDA, NASULGC, Washington, D,.C. 1973. pp 199-205.
48. Manson, R.J. and Merritt, C.A. Land Application of Liquid Municipal
Waste Water Sludges. Paper presented at the 1973 WPCF Conference,
Cleveland, Ohio, October, 1973.
49. Mac, B.N. Sludge Disposal Alternatives - Socio-economic Considerations.
JWPCF, 4I_ (4): 547, 1969.
50. Baker, J.H. Urban Politics in America. New York, Scrfbner's, 1971.
51. Monti, R.P. and Silberman, P.T. Wastewater System Alternates: What Are
They... and What Cost? Water and Wastes Engineering, 11 (3): 32-36, 1974.
52. Dornbusch, D.M., etal. Benefit of Wqter Pollution Control on Property
Values. EPA Report 600/5-73-005. 1973.
53. Ludwfg, D.D. The Land Treatment Alternative in Corps of Engineers Urban
Water Planning. In: McJunken, F.E. qpd Vosilind, P.A., Ultimate
Disposal of Waste waters and Their Residupls. University of North Carolina
Water Resources Institute. 1973.
54. Sopper, W.E. and Kardos, L.T. (eds) Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge through Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State Univ.
Press, University Park, Penn., 1973. '
251
-------
55. Patterson, W.L. and Barker, R.F. Estimating Costs and Manpower Re"
g^uirements for Conventional Wastewater Tregfment FacTlftTes. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Report No. 17090 O^N 10/71, 1971.
)
56. Smith, R. Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Waitewater.
JWPCF, 40(9): 1546-1574, 1968.
57. SmTth, R. Cost of Waste water RenovotTon. fPA Office of Research and
Monitoring, 1971.
58. Meta Systems, Inc. Effluent Charges; Is the Price Right? Draft Report
submTtted to EPA, September, 1973. 1
59. Dean, J. R., et al. Nitrogen Fertilization; of Reed Canary Grass.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 52:3, 325-331, 1972.
60. Martin, R. C. Metropolis in Transition. Washington: U. S, Government
Printing Offlce7 1963; p. 3.
252
-------
CHAPTER XII
APPENDIX
To better determine the perceived usefulness of the Corps of Engineer1 reports to study
area agency representatives, 210 questionnaires exploring the reports' usefulness were
sent to state water pollution control agencies, state health departments, regional plan-
ning departments, and wastewater treatment superintendents. The survey was performed
independently of EPA at the authors' expense. The states covered by these mailings
were Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan. (California was
included because at the time questionnaires were mailed, there was a possibility that a
wastewater management study prepared by the Corps of Engineers for the San Francisco
area would be evaluated in the present study-)
Of the 210 questionnaires, 55 were returned. Of> these, 35 respondents indicated
familiarity with the studies: the responses of these respondents were then compiled.
The tables and figures in this Appendix list in detail the responses received from the
questionnaire (these responses were summarized in, Table X- 4 of the text).
Table Xll-l fsa copy of the actual questionnaire mailed to the respondents. Tables XII-2;
through XII-5 and Figures XIM through XII-10 list responses to each questionnaire item,
classified by study areas, and where appropriate, by type of respondent. These results
are not further analyzed in this report because vqjid conclusions are presented by small
sample sizes and the data are broken down in this manner.
253
-------
TABLE XH-1
CONFIDENTIAL EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGING WASTEWATER REPORTS:
GENERAL APPLICABILITY AND USEFULNESS '
This questionnaire is designed to determine your personal assessment of how the Corps' Reports can be used
constructively both inside and outside your area. Your assessment should not represent any official agency
policy, and confidentiality of either your personal or agency identity will be assured by checking the
appropriate boxes in Item 5. In return for your cooperation we will send you an advance copy of the survey
summary. This questionnaire survey is an independent Company effort undertaken at our own expense.
la. How familiar are you with the Corps of Engineers Alternatives for Managing Wastewater Draft Final
Reports for the following areas: Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, San Francisco, or Codorus Creek (Pa.)?
OFuIly analyzed at OAnalyzed portion of OHave read part or al|
least one at least one of at least one
OHave heard about ONot familiar
Ib. If you have read or analyzed one or more Report(s), do you believe that the Report (s) generally
considered all meaningful (for your area) alternatives for managing wastewater? OYes ONo
Ic. If answer to Ib above is "no", what alternatives should be added ?
2a. Do you believe a Nationwide application (beyond specific study area boundaries) of the Corps' Reports
general methodology is feasible?
OYes: mostly OYes: somewhat ONo: probably not
2b. If answer to 2a above is "no", why not?
2c. Do you believe a Nationwide application (beyond Specific study area boundaries) of the Corps' Reports
specific data is feasible*?
OYes: mostly OYes: somewhat ONo: probably not
2d. If answer to 2c above is "yes", what type (s) of report data do you consider mbst useful?
OEconomic O Engineering-technical C Social OEnvtronmental OOther
Quality
3a. Please name the particular geographic area with which your agency is generally concerned. (River
Basin, Interstate Region, State, Intrastate Region, County, SMSA, or other)
3b. Do you believe the general methodology of the Corps' Reports is appropriate to your particular area?
OYes; mostly OYes: somewhat ONo: probably not
3c. If answer to 3b above is "no", why not?
3d. Do you believe specific data from the Corps' Reports are useful for your particular area?
OYes: mostly QYes; somewhat ONo: probably not
254.
-------
TABLE XI1-1 (Cont'd)
3e. If answer to 3d above is "yes", what type(s) of specific data do you consider most useful?
OEconomic OEngineering-technical OSocial O Environmental O Other
• Quality
3f. If you have read or analyzed the Report for your area, do you believe the scope of the plans, in terms
of both water quality goals and geographic study area boundaries, was
(JJust about right OSomewhat too large O Somewhat too small OMuch too large OMuch too small
4a. How useful do you think the Corps' Reports are for your area:
State Planning Agencies
Regional and Local Planning Agencies
Natural Resource/Land Management
Agencies
Recreation Agencies
Water Pollution Control Agencies
Local Wastewater Management Entities
OVery useful
OVery useful
OVery useful
OVery useful
OVery useful
OVery useful
OSomewhat useful
OSomewhat useful
OSomewhat useful
OSomewhat useful
OSomewhat useful
OSomewhat useful
ONot really useful
ONot really useful
ONot really useful
ONot really useful
ONot really useful
ONot rea|ly useful
'Ib. What degree of coordination do you think could be established between the Corps' alternatives and
existing plans and goals of your area:
State Planning Agencies
Regi ona! and Local Planning
Agencies
Natural Resource Land Management
Agencies
Recreation Agencies
Water Pollution Control Agencies
Local Wastewater Management
Entities
OExcellent
coordination
OExcellent
coordination
OExccllcnt
coordination
OExcellent
coordination
OExcellent
coordination
OExcellent
coordination
OGood
coordination
OGood
coordination
OGood
coordination
OGood
coordination
OGood
coordination
OGood
coordination
OMinor
conflicts
OMinor
conflicts
OMinor
conflicts
OMinor
conflicts
OMinor
conflicts
OMinor
conflicts
OMajor
conflicts
OMajor
conflicts
OMajor
conflicts
OMajor
conflicts
OMajor
conflicts
OMajor
conflicts
255
-------
TABLE Xll-l (Cont'd)
5. Respondent Identification. Please complete the following Items:
a. Name
b. Position
c. Agency
d. Agency role(s): OTechnical Advisory OPlanning OPollutlon Control OPublic Health
Regulatory Regulatory
O Wastewater Treatment OOther
e. Do you wish your personal evaluations to remain confidential? OYes ONo
f. Do you wish your agency identity to remain confidential? OYes ONo
g. Do you wish a summary copy of the survey results? OYes ONo
6. Additional Comments. Please feel free to make additional comments concerning either this
questionnaire or the usefulness of the Corps' Reports in the space provided below/ or on a separate
page if necessary.
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please mall the completed questionnaire, plus any additional
comments you may have/ to:
RALPH STONE AND COMPANY/INC.
10954 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES/ CALIFORNIA 90025
ATTENTION: SURVEY COORDINATOR
256
-------
TABLE XII-2
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED a
Comment Area
1 . 155,000 acres of ponds, etc., not feasible. S.F.
2. Concentrated on land disposal; did not adequately consider effects of S.F.
land disposal on receiving area or ground waters.
3. Disposal rates to match evapo-transpiration needed with minimum leaching. S.F.
4. Land disposal, bay disposal, ocean disposal not considered. S.F.
5. Wastewater management should be considered on smaller scale, rather Det.
than on a regional scale.
6. Inadequate consideration of usefulness of existing facilities to achieve Det.
desired goal.
7. Practical, immediate problem solutions lacking.
8. Corps started with systems too "regionalized" to be practical. Included Ohio
cases that were not "meaningful"..
9. Land treatment is not the answer for wastewater treatment in Lake County. Chi.
Response to Item Ib
257
-------
TABLE Xfl-3
COMMENTS ON FEASIBILITY OF APPLYING REPORTS'
GENERAL METHODOLOGY NATIONALLY a
Comment Area
\
1 . Not practical. S,F.
2. Not practicable; no public acceptance. S.F.
3. Corps' land treatment system based on recovery by underdrains, requir- S.F.
ing buildup of watertable to a level that can be recovered in tile lines;
this would cause severe drainage problems.
4. Plans were feasible but not desirable. S.F.
5. Each area has special problems requiring special expertise. S.F.
6. Very costly for data assembled. Det.
7. Large capital expense for pumping, force nrjains, land acquisition, etc., Det.
make concept infeasible.
8. Report analyzed was for specific area studied. Det.
9. Practical immediate-problem solutions lacking. . Ohio
10. Plans were feasible but not desirable. Industrial work weak. Ohio
11 . Both social and physical acceptability of a given methodology varies Ohio
with location and political tradition.
12. Soil, climate, economic, and social situations different. Chi.
13. The unique combinations of geology, political, social, and economic Chi.
Factors across each area require individual methods.
14. Scope of report based on achieving an economically infeasible goal: too Chi.
expensive.
15. Methods would only apply to certain areas. Chi.
16.Time and cost do not justify the results for most areas. Chi,
17. Corps insensitivity to political implications of what is involved in Illinois; Chi.
has set land application back 20 years.
a Response to Item 2b 258
-------
TABLE XI1-4
COMMENTS ON FEASIBILITY OF APPLYING REPORTS' GENERAL METHODOLOGY
TO SPECIFIC STUDY AREA0
Comment Area
1 . Too much land; adverse effects on receiving area. S.F.
2. Corps'reports uncertain about agriculture. S.F.
3. No open land available in county. S.F.
4. Special problems may require special methodology. S.F.
5. Corps started with conclusions and developed solutions; little regard to Ohio
actual conditions of streams.
6. Methodology for Cleveland plan was a bit different and better accepted Ohio
than for other areas.
7. Unrealistically expensive alternative. Det.
8. Disposal area that was designated in rolling terrain; not flat. Det.
9. Corps' data is not specific enough to be practically used. Chi.
10. Too much pressure on public, public mistrust, and inability to review Chi.
and analyze output.
a Response to Item 3b
259
-------
TABLE XII-5
GENERAL COMMENTS ON REPORTS
Comment Area
1. The Mediterranean climate in the area calls for a different wastewater S.F.
disposal approach than in the East. Uses and problems differ with the
climatic conditions.
2. Public relations almost completely ignored; public wasn't involved until S.F.
late stage of planning process. Citizens in land disposal area not aware of
plans. Corps'study shows poor understanding of agriculture, hydrology, and
economies of special areas. Adverse public reaction could have been pre-
vented by greater citizen involvement in early stages.
3. Army is not an appropriate agency for work,sinee many other agencies S.F.
exist at the state and regional level that can more appropriately undertake
such work.
4. By agreement with State Water Resources Control Board, the Corps' study S.F.
for this basin was limited to consideration of land disposal of wastewater
and residuals. Other alternatives were evaluated in Basin Plan for S.F.
Bay Region.
5. General application of general principles rarely used to evaluate S.F.
specific problems. Corps' efforts are overlapping work by local and regional
agencies.
6. Extreme hostility in rural counties encountered, Reports ignored soil Det.
variations, geology, public health; effort was not prudent investment of
public funds. Reports and programs disruptive to state regulatory programs.
7. Corps'concept progressive and adequate method of pollution control, but Det.
too expensive since it involves regional wastewater pumping to the disposal
area and land acquisition.
8. At least one alternative should have attempted to accommodate local Det.
political as well as cost-effective considerations with some consideration
of equity and past accomplishments in wastewater treatment.
9. In a study of this kind, it is essential to anticipate the local impacts and Det.
work with local leadership to get their inputs. This will not eliminate all
controversy but it will increase public understanding and help ensure that all
alternatives are considered.
Response to Item 6
260
-------
TABLE XII-5 (Cont'd)
GENERAL COMMENTS ON REPORTS (Cont.)
Comment Area
10. Corps'study is duplicative and too general to be applicable to local Det.
problems. Existing plans and facility plans are adequate and required
by PL 92-500.
11 . Some Corps' alternatives based on existing planning are coordinated Ohio
already. Nobody paid much attention to report. Practitioners thought
much of study was "pie in the sky. " Corps' conclusions about desirability
of land treatment, treating storm runoff, and using sludge for land
reclamation were ignored. Corps' capability to plan and deal with
people and to carry out studies that would be implemented by other
agencies is questionable. Feels Congress made a mistake letting Corps
get into politically controversial issues.
12. Don't know what is meant by "Corps methodology" and fear everyone Ohio
will interpret this differently.
13. Disappointed in the quality of technical data available from the Corps. Ohio
14. Corps study was most comprehensive ever done on Creek, but it was Cod.
academic exercise because costs were prohibitive and Corps recommenda-
tions were too controversial (opposition by landowners, bad press,
commissioners' opposition). Suggests Corps improve their public relations
techniques to educate public on plan's benefits. Corps seemed afraid to
stand behind recommendations.
15. Study was very thorough and technically sound, but problem was in Cod.
public acceptance (involved complex set of interests, values, and person-
ality conflicts). Felt Corps study was viewed by state and federal
environmental protection agencies as an unwarranted intrusion into their
functional jurisdiction and that they tried to subvert it.
16. Corps decided from outset that land application was to be selected and Cod.
slanted remainder of study. Corps unresponsive to agency suggestions.
Not all water quality factors were considered in land application, especially
groundwater quality and soil suitability.
17. Major objection to Corps' methodology was that no effort was made to Chi.
use local expertise in early phases of project development.
18. Goals of study too ambitious, while geographic area considerations too Chi.
small; didn't include all counties in SMSA. Implied that major impacts
are expected from massive phasing out of existing plants, construction of
huge interceptor, and disruption of significant areas for land treatment
alternatives.
261
-------
TABLE XII-5 (Cont'd)
GENERAL COMMENTS ON REPORTS
Comment '. Area
19. Strong opposition to land alternative by rural residents. Social con- Chi.
siderations not given proper weight. Land alternative can work from a
technical point of view but quantity of wastewater is a big question.
Suggests a pilot project on 4 or 5 farms for a 5-year period to assess im-
pacts, prior to major facility installation.
20. For C-SELM, Corps' study is sound. Did not irivolve public in plan- Chi.
ning process and strong opposition and bitter feelings resulted. More
research on impact of large scale land treatment needed re public health
and safety.
21. Corps had no supporters or advocates, and study was a political Chi.
fiasco. Long lead time for Corps studies does not tie in well with the
short political cycle.
22. Concerning methodology, release of information indicating major Chi.
impacts on segments of population caused backlash impacting on existing
programs. Major conflicts, of necessity, will occur where planning
must be significantly revised, inter-government cooperation is required,
financing problems occur, and existing facilities are abandoned. Re-
solution of conflicts will cause time delays which may negate positive
aspects and preclude near-future achievement of water quality goals.
262
-------
TABLE XII-6
LEGEND FOR FIGURES xil-1 THROUGH XII-10
Study Areas
Det. = Southeastern Michigan
Ohio = Cleveland-Akron -Three Rivers Watershed
C. C. = Codorus Creek
Chi. = Chicago-South End of Lake Michigan
S. F. = San Francisco
Agency Roles
T. A. = Technical/Advisory
P. C. R.= Pollution Control Regulatory
P. H. R.= Public Health Regulatory
W.T. = Wastewater Treatment
Plan. = Planning
263
-------
TO
25
20
in
C
o 15
<3
Vb.
o
*_
-------
20
N>
£
15
c
o
fi-
ll)
10
0)
Overall
aResponse to Item
Do you believe a nationwide application (beyond specific
study area boundaries) of the Corps' Report's general
methodology is feasible?
H Yes: mostly
Yes: somewhat
No: probably not
Det.
Ohio CX. Chi. S.F.
T.A. P.C.R. P.H.R.W.T. Plan.
Study Area Agency Role
FIGURE XII-2
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO
NATIONWIDE APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY
-------
to
Overall
r\
Do you believe a nationwide application (beyond specific
20
15
1
o
o.
t/i
0>
_Q
Z
5
n
—
•"•
,
-i
fl
study area boundaries) of the Corps' Report1
data if feasible?
n
.
m
| Yes: mostly
y Yes: somewhat
mi
(III No: probably not
•1
f]
pi
,
fll \\
s Specific
\
-
Pet. Ohio C.C. Chi. S.F.
Study Area
T. A. P.C.R. P.H.R W.T. Plan.
Agency Role
FIGURE XII-3
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO
NATIONWIDE APPLICATION OF DATA
-------
f\ I
If you belfeve a nationwide application of the Corps
Report's specific data is feasible, what type(s) of
report data do you consider most useful?
15
Responses
0
u-
O
i_
a>
|
•^»
Z 5
0
-
~
i
11
I Engineering-technical
Environmental quality
Economic
LUJ
M Social
i
11
11
1.1 1 ill
Overa 11 Pet. Ohio C.C. Chi. S.F.
Study Area
T.A. P..C.R. P.H.R. W.T. Plan.
Agency Role
FIGURE XII-4
QUESTIONNAIRE : RESPONSES TO DIFFERENTIAL
NATIONWIDE USEFULNESS OF- DATA TYPES
-------
15
u>
9)
vt
10
o
I >
CO
3b. DO yOU believe the general methodology of the
Corps' Report is appropriate to your particular area?
• Yes: mostly
I Yes: somewhat
I No: probably not
J
II
J
Overa 11 Pet. Ohio C.C. Chi. S.F.
Study Area
T.A. P.C.-R. P.H.K. W.T. Plan.
Agency Role
FIGUREXII-5
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO
AREAWIDE APPLICATION OF GENERAL
METHODOLOGY
-------
25 i-
20-
I
I 15
a-
oc.
-§ 10
D
z
DP you believe specTftc data from the Corps'
Reports are useful for your particular area?
Yes: mostly
Yes: somewhat
No: probably not
1.
Overall
Det. OhTo C.C. Cht .
S.F.
Study Area
T.A. P.C.R.P.H.R,W.T. Plan.
Agency Role
FIGURE XIf-6
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE TO AREAWIDfc
APPLICATION OF DATA
-------
25 r
20
8.
u-
O
e
15
Z 10
I
3c. |f you believe specific data from the Corps' Reports
are useful for your particular area, what type(s) of
specific data do you consider most useful?
11
flt
1
jpigineering-Technfcal
[~|En vT ron mental Quality
:onomic
:Tal
Overall
Pet. Ohfo C.C. Chf. S.F.
Study Area
T.A. P.C.R. P.H.R. W.T. Plan.
Agency Role
FIGURE XII-7
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
AREAWIDE USEFULNESS OF DATA
-------
Do you believe the scope of the plans,
in terms of both water quality goals and
geographic study area boundaries, was
15 -
«/»
| 10
a
«/>
0)
14-
o
* 5
/\
_
_-
1 1
-
Overall Det.
1
PI
1
r-
1 Too large
[1 Just about right
(| Too small
111]
_
11
m
_
.a
i
1
r-
Ohio C.C. Chi. S.F. T.A. P.C.R. P.H.R. W.T. Plan.
Study Area
Agency Role
FIGURE XII-8
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO SCOPE
OF STUDIES
-------
State
Plan-
ning
Agencies
Regional
& Local
Planning
Agencies
Nat. Res./
Land Mgt.
Agencies
Recreation
Agencies
Water Poll-
ution
Control
A •
Agencies
Local
Wastewater
Mgmt.
Entities
Very
Somewhat
Not really
••
• n
Very r-
Somewhat
Not really
Very
Somewhat
Not really
-fi
-
" n
Very r
'"'/
Somewhat
Not really
Very
Somewhat
k. i *. ii
n
-
• n
Not really1
Very
Somewhat
-
" n
Not really __
3
n
n
n
n
fl
n
*.
*p
p
••M
On Oil
n(
fi-f
n '
(If
flf
n
in
n
T
n
t
**
n
n
n
n
n
i
0
n
fi
n
n
fl
fifl
nil
fin
n n
n fl
n n
•ii -e
I
f
lr
i '
nf
n [
[
if
nf
j
s> < s •= r
o
§2
• s
^
J u
- 1
5
t
j*
&
O |
, £
I &
-9
i
t
*
•
• i
1
1
1
1
1
pBk
P
i •=
i z
How Useful the
Corps Reports Are
Study Area
Agency Role
Note: This histogram was calculated on the
scale of "not really" = 0, "Somewhat"
= 1, and "very "="2.
FIGURE XI1-9
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO
USEFULNESS OF REPORTS TO
DIFFERENT AGENCIES
272
-------
Nat. Res/ Exc ./good
Land Mgt. coordin.
Agencies Min. conflict
Major conflict
Exc ./goodr-
Recreation coordin.
Agencies Min.conflict
Major conflict
Water
PoMutton Exc ./good
Control coordin.
AgencT«s Min' conflict
Major conflict
Exc./good
coordin.
Min. conflict
Local
Wastew.
Mgmt.
En. titTes
Major conflict
Fn J
- n J
-n J
.
- n J
" n n n
1 ! *
6 & §
Inn nnn [in
Inn
IL
n
fin
Inn nnnnH
n n n
_ n n
6 |
i 1 "-'
U U vl
n,
n .
4 i
*f *
'. o
.c U
8 _•
^ o
a.
n
n
_c
1
^0
o.
nn
n n
Wostewater Tr.
Planning
Degree of coordination
between Corps alterna-
tives and existing
plans and goals
Study Area
Agency Role
FIGURE Xll-10
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES TO
COORDINATION OF PLANS WITH
DIFFERENT AGENCIES
Note: This histogram was calculated on the scale of "major conflict" = 0, "minor con-
flict" = 1, and "Exc./good coordination" = 2.
273
------- |