United States Region 6 EPA 906/9-81-003
Environmental Protection 1201 Elm Street . September 1981
Agency Oallas TX 75270
Water
&EPA Environmental Supplemental
Impact Statement Draft
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities-Sludge
Management System
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-------
This report is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
12O1 ELM STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 7527O
September 25, 1981
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, OFFICIALS, PUBLIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the awarding of additional grants under Section 201
of the Clean Water Act for the design and construction of a sludge
management system for the city of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New
Mexico. This document has been prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing regulations.
EPA and the city of Albuquerque will hold a public hearing on the Draft
Supplemental EIS and facilities plan amendment at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday,
November 18, 1981 in the Council Chambers, First Floor, City Hall, 400
Marquette N.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico. I request that individuals and
representatives of groups wishing to make a statement at the hearing
submit a written copy of their proposed statement at the time of the
hearing, if possible. Witnesses should limit their testimony to a five
minute summary of their written statement.
Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS will be considered in the prepa-
ration of the Final Supplemental EIS. If the required changes are
minor, EPA's Final Supplemental EIS will incorporate the Draft Supple-
mental by reference and include only: (1) a revised summary, (2) revi-
sions necessary as a result of public comment and (3) EPA's response to
comments made on the Draft Supplemental EIS. Therefore, the Draft
Supplemental EIS should be retained for possible use in conjunction
with the Final publication.
In cases where persons requested only a copy of the summary of the Draft
Supplemental EIS, this transmittal letter accompanies that summary.
EPA's Final EIS for Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Facilities dated
August 1977, which is supplemented by the enclosed, and the city of
Albuquerque's facilities plan amendment may be reviewed at the following
locations:
1. Albuquerque Public Library
Main Branch
501 Cooper N.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
2. Prospect Park Branch Library
8205 Apache N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
4. Esperanza Branch Public Library
5600 Esperanza N.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
5. Los Griegos Branch Public Library
1000 Griegos N.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-------
3. Zimmerman Library 6. Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment
University of New Mexico Plant No. 2
Government Publication Department North Street S.W.
Albuquerque, New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico
Written comments or inquiries regarding this EIS should be addressed to
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator, at the above address by
the date stamped on the cover sheet following this letter.
Sincerely,
Frances E. Phillips
Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Responsible Agency; US Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (EPA)
Cooperating Agencies; USDA Soil Conservation Service; US Department of Energy
Administrative Action: Awarding of Step II and Step III Construction Grants to
the City of Albuquerque for the detailed design and construction of a sludge
management system.
Contact for Further Information;
Clinton B. Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator
US Environmental Protection Agency (6ASAF)
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
(214) 767-2716 or FTS 729-2716
Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS Due; - ..-y «QQ«
Abstract; The City of Albuquerque proposes a sludge management system con-
sisting of sludge thickening and stabilization units at Treatment Plant No. 2,
followed by transfer of sludge via pipeline to Montesa Park where the sludge
will be mechanically dewatered, dried in a solar greenhouse, disinfected by
irradiation with Cesium-137, and disposed by landspreading on public lands.
EPA has evaluated the City's proposal and 13 additional alternatives. Major
concerns affecting EPA's decision whether to approve and fund a sludge manage-
ment system are impacts of alternatives on environmental health and the over-
all costs.
Responsible Official
Frances E. Phillips *
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
CHAPTER 1.0
SUMMARY
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) stipulates that each
Federal agency shall "... include in every recommendation or report on
proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the
responsible official on the environmental impact of the proposed action;
any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented; and alternatives to the proposed action . . ."
This legislation is the basic framework for the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
One of the major EPA programs involving actions that may require an
EIS is the Construction Grants Program, as authorized by Title II
"Grants for Construction of Treatment Wprks," Section 201 (g) (1), of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), Public Law
92-500. This law authorizes the Administrator of USEPA, "... to make
grants to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency
for construction of publicly-owned treatment works ..." Major pro-
visional changes were made to the FWPCA in the Clean Water Act of 1977
(CWA), Public Law 95-217. Many of the changes are directed toward emerging
public, philosophies, and address concerns about chemical pollution,
resource conservation, resource recovery and recycling, and environmentally
compatible treatment systems. Key provisions of the CWA that directly
affect the construction grants program include:
Municipalities are required to consider alternative or innovative
systems that provide for reclaiming, reuse, or recycling of
wastewater; elimination of discharges; and recovery of energy.
As an incentive for increased utilization of these systems, EPA
will provide 85% of the funds for alternative or innovative
systems, as opposed to 75% for conventional systems, and will pay
100% of the cost of rebuilding or modifying an alternative or
innovative system that fails to meet its permit conditions or
shows higher operation and management (O&M) costs.
EPA will provide a 15% "cost effective bonus" for alternative or
innovative systems when compared in a cost-effectiveness analysis
for conventional technologies.
1-1
-------
Applicants for grant funds must analyze methods, processes, and
techniques to reduce total energy consumption and to increase the
open space and public recreation potential of lands, waters, and
rights-of-way that are parts of a proposed project.
The objectives of the CWA for sewage sludge management are to
ensure protection of public health and the environment by promul-
gation of minimum Federal standards for sludge disposal and
utilization and to maximize beneficial uses of sludges that
conform to Federal standards.
The principal technical planning document for wastewater collection
and treatment in the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and several outlying
areas is the Final Albuquerque Areawide Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities Plan, which was prepared by the City of Albuquerque under the
requirements of the CWA, and funded by EPA as Grant No. C-35-1020-01 under
the construction grants program. Since the awarding of additional grants
for design and construction of any wastewater treatment facilities had the
potential for significant impact(s) to the natural and human environment,
EPA determined that preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS)
was necessary. This EIS was prepared simultaneously with the preparation
of the areawide facilities plan. Draft and Final EISs were published
during June and August 1977, respectively.
On 27 September 1978, EPA published in the Federal Register the final
regulations concerning Federal grants for the construction of treatment
works. These final regulations implemented the previously mentioned signi-
ficant changes in the FWPCA, as caused by the CWA. Due to the increased
significance and new funding incentives placed upon systems involving
innovative and alternative technology, energy conservation, resource recov-
ery, new Federal regulations governing the land application of wastewater
sludges, increased public concern regarding odors, and desire to provide
more in-depth analyses of some of the facilities plan proposals and alter-
native processes, the City of Albuquerque entered into a program of revis-
ing and upgrading its areawide facilities plan. An additional study en-
titled "City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Southside Wastewater Reclamation
Plant No. 2 - Phase II Expansion Report" was published during January 1980.
The final version of this report was completed during January 1981 and was
received by EPA as an official facilities plan amendment on 27 January
1981.
1-2
-------
Prior to the receipt of the City's final facilities plan amendment,
EPA determined that the awarding of funds to implement the City's proposed
changes was a major action with potentially significant impacts on the
human environment, and on 22 August 1980 issued a Notice of Intent to
prepare a Supplemental EIS on the project.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Albuquerque recognized a need for a modified sludge manage-
ment program to supplement its wastewater treatment facilities because of
the evolution of several situations:
Increased quantities of sludge will be generated as a result of
expansion of the City of Albuquerque wastewater collection system,
expansion and modification of treatment Plant No. 2, and popula-
tion growth in the Albuquerque area. Existing sludge drying beds
are adequate to handle approximately 35% of the 10,740 tons per
year of dry solids projected for 1990. Compounding the problem,
state-owned land currently being, used for dedicated land disposal
of excess sludge currently produced will be unavailable to the
City after 1982.
The public has expressed strong disapproval of sludge drying beds
currently used at Plant No. 2 because of aesthetic and odor
considerations.
New Federal regulations (40 CFR, Part 257.3-6) governing applica-
tion of sludge on land prohibit the continued practice of spread-
ing sludge on parks or golf courses without prior disinfection.
Numerous operation and maintenance problems have been encountered
since the City's initial facilities plan was completed in 1977.
Because of these situations, the City's facilities plan amendment proposes
design and construction of a new sludge management system. The City's
proposed sludge facilities include the following components (i.e., treat-
ment units):
Sludge thickening will be accomplished by expanded dissolved air
flotation units at Plant No. 2.
Stabilization will be accomplished by new, additional anaerobic
digesters at Plant No. 2.
1-3
-------
Transportation of sludge to Montesa Park will be accomplished by
pumping sludge through an 8" PVC pipeline approximately five
miles long. Two lift stations will be required, one at Plant
No. 2 and one approximately half way to Montesa Park.
Conditioning of sludge prior to dewatering will be accomplished
by adding organic polymer(s).
* Dewatering from 3% to 25% solids will be accomplished by using
belt presses constructed inside an enclosed structure.
Drying from 25% to 35% solids will be accomplished using large,
solar-heated greenhouses. Drying from 35% to 40% solids will be
conducted by using approximately 3 acres of open-air drying
stockpiles.
Disinfection of the 40% solid sludge will be accomplished by
exposing the sludge to Cesium-137, a nuclear waste product. This
process will be conducted within a massive underground reinforced
concrete irradiator. Following disinfection, the sludge will be
stockpiled for several months at Montesa Park, where it will dry
from 40% to approximately 75%-90% solids.
Disposal of the 90% solid, stockpiled sludge will be accomplished
by the City Parks Department hauling sludge (up to 7000 tons per
year) to city parks and golf courses for ultimate disposal by
landspreading. An additional 3740 tons of sludge per year will
be disposed on other public lands, or by selling to consumers
either in bulk or in bags.
Federal financing for the proposed sludge management facilities has
been requested by the City of Albuquerque under the statutory authority of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). The City's consultants
have estimated the total construction cost of the proposed sludge manage-
ment facilities to be approximately $17 million at December 1980 price
levels (CDM 1980b). Revised estimates indicate that the proposed system
will cost slightly over $20 million at December 1980 price levels. Under
current EPA funding guidelines, the proposed project is eligible for a 75%
grant with exception of the Cesium-137 irradiator which potentially can be
eligible for an 85% grant. In addition, the proposed project potentially
is eligible for a 12.5% grant from the New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division (NMEID). If EPA decides not to fund the proposed project or any
alternative, funding of an undetermined amount still could be granted by
the NMEID.
1-4
-------
1.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
One alternative to the proposed action is no action. Implementation
of no action by the City would result in 60 mgd of wastewater in 1990
flowing into a treatment facility designed to treat 47 mgd, and with a
sludge management system that is only able to handle the sludge produced by
treating 30 to 33 mgd of wastewater. Sludge produced by treating 30 to 33
mgd of wastewater would be dewatered on existing sand drying beds, and then
stockpiled at Montesa Park. Sludge produced by treating the remaining 27
to 30 mgd of wastewater potentially would be stored in sludge lagoons north
of treatment Plant No. 2. The no action alternative is not a feasible
alternative.
The City of Albuquerque evaluated 7 action alternatives in their
facilities plan (6 alternatives plus the proposed project). The City's
alternatives primarily included evaluations of various transportation
options (pumping sludge through pipelines, or hauling it by truck); various
disinfection options (Cesium-137, electron beam, and composting); and
various ultimate disposal options (landspreading, landfilling, and dedi-
cated land disposal). EPA evaluated 14 action alternatives plus the no
action alternative; however, the main options of transportation, disinfec-
tion, and disposal evaluated by EPA were basically identical to those
identified by the City. Table 1-1 lists the 14 action alternatives evalu-
ated by EPA. The 14 action alternatives were grouped according to ultimate
disposal method as follows: Group 1 alternatives (1A-1H) involve disposal
by landspreading on public lands; Group 2 alternatives (2A-2B) involve
disposal in a municipal landfill north of the City; and Group 3 alterna-
tives (3A-3D) involve dedicated land disposal on one of two 3580 ac sites
to the west of the City.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted which indicated the City's
proposed sludge management system may not be the most cost-effective system
available. When a comparison was made of the total present worth (or total
annual equivalent) cost of the alternatives, then the most cost-effective
system appeared to be Alternative 2B, which utilizes the landfill concept.
1-5
-------
Table 1-1. Action alternatives evaluated for the Albuquerque sludge management system.
Group 1 - Landsprcad Concept
NO.
ALTERNATIVE TJIICKKN1NG
Dissolved Air
1A Flotation
Dissolved Air
13 Flotation
Dissolved Air
1C Flotation
Dissolved Air
ID Flotation
Dissolved Air
IE Flotation
Dissolved Air
IF Flotation
Dissolved Air
1C Flotation
Dissolved Air
1H Flotation
STABILIZATION
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
TRANSPORTATION
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipeline to
Montessa Park
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipe to
Montessa Park
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipeline to
Montessa Park
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipe to
Montessa Park
CONDITIONING
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Orynnic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
DEWATERING
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 20%
Belt Press
to 20%
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 25%
DRYING
Solar Greenhouse
to 40%
Solar Greenhouse
to 40%
Open Air
Drying to 402
Open Air
Drying to 40%
Open Air
Drying to 40%
Open Air
Drying to 40%
DISINFECTION
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Composting
Composting
Electron Beam
Irradiation
Electron Beam
Irradiation
DISPOSAL
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks nnd
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
-------
Table 1-1. Action alternatives evaluated for the Albuquerque sludge management system(concluded)
Group 2 - Landfill Concept
NO.
10
11
12
13
14
ALTERNATIVE THICKENING STABILIZATION CONDITIONING DEWATEfiING DRYING
Dissolved Air
2A Flotation
Dissolved Air
2B Flotation
Group 3 - Dedicated Land Disposal
Dissolved Air
3A Flotation
Dissolved Air
3B Flotation
Dissolved Air
3C Flotation
Dissolved Air
3D Flotation
Anaerobic Polymer Belt Press
Digestion to 20%
Anaerobic Lime/Ferric Pressure
Digestion Chloride Filters to 35%
Concept
Anaerobic
Digestion ~~~~
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
X
Anaerobic
Digestion ~~~~
DISINFECTION TRANSPORTATION
Truck to
Landfill
Truck to
Landfill
Truck to
Pajarito
Pipeline to
Pajarito
Pipeline to
Rio Puerco
Truck to
Rio Puerco
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Landfill
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Not Applicable
-------
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Implementation of the no action alternative will possibly result in
the following: toxic materials build-up in soils at Plant No. 2 and at
Montesa Park; degradation of surface water quality in the Rio Grande and in
Tijeras Arroyo; contamination of groundwater in the south valley near Plant
No. 2; extreme odors at Plant No. 2 and Montesa Park, and fugitive dust at
Montesa Park; stagnation of growth in the City with a subsequent drop in
the economy; potential environmental health problems in the south valley;
and aesthetically displeasing conditions both near Plant No. 2 and Montesa
Park.
Construction and operation of any of the action alternatives will
result in both adverse and beneficial effects in many topic categories
(i.e., disciplines). It is noted that alternatives in one group (e.g.,
Group 1) tend to have similar effects with respect to individual disci-
plines. The presence of major adverse effects of the 14 action alterna-
tives are listed by discipline in Table 1-2.
Alternatives available to EPA basically include: (1) issuance of a
grant for the design and construction of sludge management facilities, and
(2) denial of a grant. Other agencies that have grant issuance and/or
permit issuance authority also have the alternatives of grant/permit issu-
ance or denial. Denial of a grant and/or permit by EPA or other agencies
will most likely result in the City taking no action, and thus the effects
potentially will be similar to the effects of the no action alternative
described above. Issuance of grants and permits will result in construc-
tion of one of the action alternatives, with associated effects present for
various disciplines as listed in Table 1-2.
The grant applicant (i.e. City of Albuquerque) and EPA currently are
evaluating mitigation measures that are available for implementation in
order to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental consequences associated
with the alternative sludge management systems.
1-8
-------
Table 1-2. Alternatives which cause major adverse effects (by discipline).
Alternative
1A
IB*
1C
ID
1 17
IE
IF
i /"*
1G
1H
2A
2B
*3 A
3A
3B
3C
3D
co
03 3 C «
}-i ptj W (1) O O i-HCU
cu o) PS co IH cd <;
4-1 >-l CJ CU 4J 4-> *»
cdcu^iHpdcSco CC
5* 4J 3 CO O 4^ O O
ed O O r-l -rl M E-H
CU & 03 *r^ CO ^^ O C ^"^
o *o cu bo ^ rt o* ^> o rt
^ i *2 ^^ 1 * d £J ^4 *^ V^
3 V^ *rH *FH 3 O V^ CJ C CO
.
.
Total Number of
Disciplines Affected
7
7
8
6
8
7
9
7
3
3
9
7
8
8
*City of Albuquerque proposed project.
1-9
-------
1.5 COORDINATION
EPA Region 6 has made a concerted effort to involve other Federal,
state, and local agencies and the general public in the development of this
document. A public scoping meeting was held on 7 October 1980 in Albuquer-
que. Two Federal agencies (USDA/SCS and USDOE) agreed to be cooperating
agencies. A public meeting was held on 8 July 1981 to discuss the screen-
ing of alternatives and the progress of the EIS. Many Citizens Advisory
Committee meetings were held. Additionally, public information depositories
were established and are being maintained in 6 convenient public buildings
located throughout Albuquerque for the duration of the project. A public
hearing to receive comments on the draft Supplemental EIS and facility plan
amendment is scheduled to be held in Albuquerque in early November 1981.
1-10
-------
CHAPTER 2.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 1-1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 1-3
1.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-5
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 1-8
1.5 COORDINATION 1-10
2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2-1
LIST OF TABLES 2-6
LIST OF FIGURES 2-9
3.0 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND ON GRANT APPLICANT AND PREVIOUS
GRANT APPLICATION S) 3-1
3.2 EPA LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3-1
3.3 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS .... 3-3
4.0 NEED AND PURPOSE 4-1
4.1 NEED FOR THE PROJECT 4-1
4.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIS 4-1
4.3 KEY ISSUES 4-2
5.0 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES AND
CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1.1 Existing Sludge Quantities and
Characteristics 5-1
5.1.2 Projected Sludge Quantities and
Characteristics 5-2
5.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5-2
5.3 SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY SLUDGE TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL COMPONENTS AND COMPONENT OPTIONS 5-8
2-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL OPTIONS DEVELOPED
AND EXAMINED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW 5-13
5.5 DESCRIPTION OF OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
AND COMPONENT OPTIONS 5-23
5.5.1 Thickening and Stabilization 5-23
5.5.2 Conditioning 5-24
5.5.3 Transportation 5-25
5.5.4 Dewatering 5-28
5.5.5 Secondary Drying 5-28
5.5.6 Disinfection 5-29
5.5.7 Disposal 5-32
5.6 DESCRIPTION OF OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVES 5-34
5.7 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 5-42
5.8 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA 5-44
5.9 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES 5-44
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 6-1
6.1 EARTH RESOURCES 6-2
6.1.1 Existing Conditions 6-2
6.1.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-14
6.1.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-14
6.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 6-20
6.2.1 Existing Conditions 6-20
6.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-23
6.2.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-23
2-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
6.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 6-28
6.3.1 Existing Conditions 6-28
6.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-29
6.3.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-29
6.4 AIR AND SOUND QUALITY 6-33
6.4.1 Existing Conditions . 6-33
6.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-40
6.4.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-41
6.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' 6-53
6.5.1 Existing Conditions 6-53
6.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-59
6.5.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-59
6.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6-62
6.6.1 Existing Conditions 6-62
6.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-64
6.6.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-64
6.7 POPULATION 6-69
6.7.1 Existing Conditions 6-69
6.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-70
6.7.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-71
2-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
6.8 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 6-71
6.8.1 Existing Conditions 6-71
6.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-74
6.8.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-74
6.9 ECONOMICS 6-77
6.9.1 Existing Conditions 6-77
6.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-79
6.9.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-80
6.10 ENERGY RESOURCES 6-83
6.10.1 Existing Conditions 6-83
6.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-84
6.10.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives ..... 6-87
6.11 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 6-87
6.11.1 Existing Conditions 6-87
6.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-89
6.11.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-92
6.12 RECREATION AND AESTHETICS . 6-98
6.12.1 Existing Conditions 6-98
6.12.2 Environmental Consequences of the
No Action Alternative 6-100
6.12.3 Environmental Consequences of the
Action Alternatives 6-101
2-4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
Page
6.13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
AVAILABLE TO EPA 6-102
6.14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
AVAILABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES 6-103
6.15 MITIGATIVE MEASURES 6-104
7.0 COORDINATION 7-1
7.1 SCOPING MEETING 7-1
7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES 7-1
7.3 COOPERATING AGENCIES 7-5
7.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND LIST OF PREPARERS 7-5
7.5 MAILING LIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7-6
,'
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 8-1
9.0 INDEX 9-1
10.0 APPENDIXES 10-1
2-5
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Action alternatives evaluated for the Albuquerque
sludge management system 1-6
1-2 Alternatives which cause major adverse effects
(by discipline) 1-9
3-1 Pertinent Federal, state and local environmental
legislation and regulations affecting sludge management
alternatives applicable to the City of Albuquerque sludge
management system 3-5
5-1 Characteristics of drying bed facilities at the City's
wastewater treatment Plant No. 2 5-3
5-2 Heavy metals concentrations contained in samples of digested
sludge produced at Plant No. 2 5-4
5-3 Typical solubility, soil mobility, and toxicity
characteristics of heavy metals similar to those found in
sludge at Plant No. 2 5-5
5-4 Quantities and characteristics of solids (sludge) anticipated
to be produced at Plant No. 2 in design year 1990 5-6
5-5 Evaluation criteria utilized for screening preliminary
alternative component options applicable to the Albuquerque
sludge management program 5-10
5-6 Major components and options evaluated for applicability to
the Albuquerque sludge management system 5-11
5-7 Initial screening matrix for base sludge
disposal options 5-12
5-8 Treatment components (treatment steps) that must be used
prior to ultimate disposal of sludge 5-14
5-9 Screening of preliminary sludge treatment options
applicable to the Albuquerque sludge management program . . . 5-15
5-10 Identification of optimal alternatives selected for detailed
evaluation during conduct of the EIS process 5-18
5-11 Potential environmental concerns associated with each
optimal component option evaluated for the Albuquerque sludge
management program 5-35
5-12 Sludge management alternatives 5-37
2-6
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
5-13 Cost-effective analysis of optimal alternatives,
without a credit given for utilization of sludge
on public lands 5-44
5-14 Cost-effective analysis of optimal alternatives,
with a credit given for utilization of sludge
on public land 5-45
5-15 Local share of component cost based on 75/85%
EPA funding and 12.5% state funding 5-46
5-16 Cost per month per connection with 50% EPA
funding and 12.5% state funding 5-47
5-17 Cost per month per connection with no EPA
funding and 12.5% state funding 5-48
6-1 Properties of soil mapping units of alternative project
sites 6-9
6-2 Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of Albuquerque
sludge management program on earth resources 6-19
6-3 Potential effects of options upon water quality or
quantity 6-25
6-4 Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of
Albuquerque sludge management program on water
resources 6-26
6-5 Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of Albuquerque
sludge management program on groundwater resources 6-55
6-6 State and Federal ambient air quality standards 6-36
6-7 Potential air effects associated with sludge
management options 6-42
6-8 Potential noise effects associated with sludge
management options 6-46
6-9 Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of Albuquerque
sludge management program on air resources 6-47
6-10 Locations in wastewater systems where odors
may develop 6-48
6-11 Existing biological resources in the Middle Rio
Grande Valley near Albuquerque, New Mexico 6-56
2-7
-------
LIST OF TABLES (concluded)
Table Page
6-12 Potential biological effects of various options 6-60
6-13 Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of
Albuquerque sludge management program on biological
resources 6-63
6-14 Potential adverse effects of the optimal
alternatives on cultural resources 6-65
6-15 Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of
Albuquerque sludge management program on cultural
resources 6-66
6-16 Effects of action alternatives on transportation
and land use 6-76
6-17 Equivalent monthly average increase per connection
for each alternative system based on different
funding arrangements 6-82
6-18 Electric usage and costs for Albuquerque
wastewater treatment plant No. 2 during 1979 and 1980 .... 6-85
6-19 Annual energy requirements for alternatives . . 6-86
6-21 Effects of alternatives on environmental health 6-99
7-1 Information located at the public information
depositories 7-3
7-2 Members of the City of Albuquerque sludge management
system Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) 7-4
2-8
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-1 Project site for the City of Albuquerque
proposed sludge management system 3-2
5-1 Treatment and disposal sites, and truck route
to area of possible future landfill sites 5-26
5-2 Pipeline and truck routes to dedicated land
disposal sites 5-27
5-3 Site map of Montesa Park - Solar greenhouse/
open air drying alternative 5-30
5-4 Site map of Montesa Park - open air drying
alternative 5-31
5-5 Site map of Montesa Park - composting alternatives 5-33
5-6 Alternative group number one 5-39
5-7 Alternative group number two 5-40
5-8 Alternative group number three 5-41
6-1 Block diagram of the project area 6-4
6-2 Soil map unit of the project site 6-7
6-3 Wind direction in Albuquerque 6-35
6-4 Nonattainment areas for part of Bernalillo
County 6-37
6-5 Profile of the land cover of the Middle
Rio Grande River Valley 6-54
2-9
-------
CHAPTER 3.0
INTRODUCTION
-------
3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 BACKGROUND ON GRANT APPLICANT AND PREVIOUS GRANT APPLICATION(S)
On 29 June 1974, EPA awarded a Step 1 Grant (C-35-1029-01) pursuant to
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the City of Albuquerque, New
Mexico, for preparation of a wastewater collection and treatment facilities
plan. Based on the facilities plan submitted by the City, EPA prepared and
issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in June 1977 and a
Final EIS in August 1977. On 18 September 1978, EPA approved the City's
facilities plan. In June 1980, the City submitted a letter to EPA stating
that the City desired to make several changes to the sludge management
portion of its facilities plan. Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regu-
lations, EPA Region 6 determined that the requested amendments (i.e.,
changes) in the sludge management section of the facilities plan were major
and necessitated a supplement to the Final EIS prepared in August 1977. On
22 August 1980, EPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a supplemental EIS
evaluating various sludge management system alternatives, including the one
proposed by the City. The City's proposed sludge management system (Figure
3-1) consists of thickening (dissolved air flotation) and stabilization
(two-stage anaerobic digestion) at Treatment Plant No. 2, followed by
transfer of the digested sludge through a pipeline to Montesa Park where it
will be mechanically dewatered (belt press), disinfected with Cesium-137,
dried in a greenhouse using solar energy, and ultimately disposed by land-
spreading on public lands such as City owned parks and golf courses.
3.2 EPA LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires a Federal
agency to prepare an EIS on ". . . major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment ..." In addition, the
Council on Environmental Quality published regulations (40 CFR Parts
1500-1508) to guide Federal agencies in the preparation of EIS's and imple-
mentation of the Act. EPA also has developed regulations (40 CRF Part 6)
for implementation of the EIS process.
3-1
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided under
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). This Act
provides 75% Federal funding (i.e., grants) for eligible planning, design,
and construction costs; the grant applicant pays the remaining 25% plus all
operation and maintenance expenses. Portions of projects that are defined
as innovative or alternative are eligible for 85% funding under the Clean
Water Act. Funding of an additional 12.5% of eligible costs also is avail-
able under the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (NMEID) Con-
struction Grants program. A three-step grant process is provided by the
Clean Water Act's Construction Grants program. Step 1 involves facilities
planning; Step 2 involves development of detailed engineering plans and
specifications; and Step 3 involves construction of the pollution control
facilities. The City of Albuquerque's sludge management project currently
is in Step 1, with the facilities plan amendment developed for design year
1990.
The Clean Water Act requires that EPA identify and select for funding
an alternative that is cost-effective, environmentally sound, and public-
ally acceptable. EPA defines a cost-effective alternative as one that has
minimum total resource costs over the life of the project and meets Fed-
eral, state, and local requirements. It is not necessarily the least-cost
alternative. The choice of the most cost-effective alternative is based on
both capital (construction) costs and operation and maintenance costs for a
twenty-year period, although only capital costs are grant eligible.
3.3 OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Sludge management is subject to a number of legislative and institu-
tional requirements; however, sludge usually has not been singled out for
separate legislative treatment at the state or Federal level. Instead, it
has been included within the statutory scope of regulations concerning
substances generally considered to be pollutants that are discharged into
water or disposed on land. Under these regulations, disposal of raw or
treated sludge into water is subject to restrictions relating to biochemi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD), coliform organisms, suspended or settleable sol-
ids, and toxic materials. The net effect has been to inhibit disposal of
3-3
-------
sludge directly into receiving waters. Disposal on land has been legally
and successfully practiced provided that the procedures used met require-
ments applicable in general to solid wastes, and did not conflict with
general nuisance laws or restrictions on use of the land in question. Air
quality requirements have not been phrased specifically with respect to
sludge disposal. Legislators currently are becoming aware of problems
associated with sludge treatment and disposal, but these problems are still
considered mainly as subordinate elements of solid or liquid waste manage-
ment. Table 3-1 lists pertinent Federal, state, and local environmental
legislation and regulations affecting sludge management alternatives that
are applicable to the City of Albuquerque sludge management system.
3-4
-------
Table 3-1. Pertinent Federal, state, and local environmental legislation
and regulations affecting sludge management alternatives
applicable to the City of Albuquerque sludge management system.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments
of 1972
Safe Drinking Water Act
Clean Air Amendments
of 1970
National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969
Solid Waste Disposal Act
as amended by the
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Clean Water Act
Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended
APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATIONS
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES),
40 CFR Part 125
Hazardous Waste Regulations
40 CFR Parts 260-265
Criteria for the Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices (40 CFR Part 257)
PCB Regulations (40 CFR Part 761)
Criteria for the Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices (40 CFR Part 257)
Federal Construction Grants
Regulations (40 CFR Part 35)
Standards for Protection Against
Radiation (10 CFR Part 20)
Domestic Licensing of Production
and Utilization Facilities
(10 CFR Part 50)
Packaging of Radioactive Material
for Transport and Transportation
of Radioactive Material Under
Certain Conditions (10 CFR
Part 71)
3-5
-------
Table 3-1. Pertinent Federal, state, and local environmental legislation
and regulations affecting sludge management alternatives
applicable to the City of Albuquerque sludge management system
(concluded).
STATE LEGISLATION
STATE REGULATIONS
New Mexico Air Control Act
Public Nuisance Provision,
New Mexico Statutes
New Mexico Water Quality
Act as amended
Water Quality Control Commission
Regulations for Surface Water
and Groundwater
LOCAL MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY REGULATIONS
Air Pollution Control Regulation of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air
Control Board
Zoning Ordinances of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department
Section 6-22 of City Code - Noise Control
1973 Lawsuit and Stipulation (Mt. View et al. vs. Fri et al.)» control of
odor and use of "Best Practical Control Technology".
1980 Lawsuit and Stipulation (State of New Mexico vs. City of Albuquerque),
requiring the City to (1) not vent odorous gases, (2) discontinue the use
of sludge drying beds at Plant No. 1, (3) remove sludge on a daily basis
from Plant No. 1, and (4) renovate the sludge digesters.
3-6
-------
CHAPTER 4.0
NEED AND PURPOSE
-------
4.0 NEED AND PURPOSE
4.1 NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The City of Albuquerque needs a modified sludge management system to
supplement its wastewater treatment facilities because of the evolution of
several situations:
Increased quantities of sludge will be generated as a result of
the expansion of the City of Albuquerque wastewater collection
system, the expansion and modification of the treatment facility,
and population growth in the Albuquerque area. Existing sludge
drying beds are only adequate to handle approximately 35% of the
10,740 tons per year (chart to convert units from English to
metric is included in Appendix) of dry solids (i.e., sludge)
projected for 1990. Compounding the problem, state-owned land
currently being used for dedicated land disposal of part of the
sludge will be unavailable to the City after 1982.
The public has expressed strong disapproval of the sludge drying
beds currently utilized at treatment plant No. 2 because of
aesthetic and odor considerations.
New Federal regulations (40 CFR, Part 257.3-6) governing the
application of sludge on land prohibit the continued practice of
spreading sludge on parks or golf courses without disinfection.
Numerous operation and maintenance problems have been encountered
since the City's initial facilities plan was completed in 1977.
Dramatic increases in energy costs since the Facilities Plan was
prepared warrant greater emphasis on energy conservation and in-
corporation of efficient internal energy utilization concepts at
plant No. 2.
4.2 PURPOSE OF THE EIS
On 22 August 1980, EPA Region 6 issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to fulfill requirements of
40 CFR 1502.9 of the NEPA regulations. Specifically, the portion of the
City's facility plan amendment that describes the proposed system for the
treatment, transport, and disposal of sludge was determined to be a major
4-1
-------
change requiring preparation of a supplemental EIS. The major amendments
to the City's 1977 facilities plan that involve sludge management are:
a 5 mile pipeline to pump sludge east from Plant No. 2 to Montesa
Park,
sludge dewatering at Montesa Park using belt presses and solar
greenhouses,
irradiation of dewatered sludge with Cesium-137, a nuclear waste,
to reduce pathogens,
stockpiling of sludge at Montesa Park,
ultimate use of irradiated sludge as a fertilizer/soil condition-
er on public lands such as City parks and golf courses.
The purpose of this supplemental EIS is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness
and environmental consequences of the City's recently proposed sludge
management plan as well as other sludge treatment alternatives.
4.3 KEY ISSUES
This supplemental EIS concentrates on many issues identified by EPA
and the affected public during conduct of the EIS public participation
program, including:
Odors from treatment plants and portions of the sewer network
have provoked many public complaints. Hence, effects of odors
(if any) associated with sludge management facilities on indi-
viduals who work at the facilities and people residing nearby are
a major concern.
The potential for toxic materials, pathogens, and radiation to
contaminate soil, water, air, vegetation, and animal life, and
ultimately to be hazardous to humans due to land application of
sludge is a major concern.
Since the proposed sludge irradiation process incorporates a
radioactive source (Cesium-137), possible effects of radioactive
emissions in air, water, and surrounding soil during transpor-
tation, installation, utilization, removal, and ultimate disposal
of the source also are major concerns.
4-2
-------
CHAPTER 5.0
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
5.0 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
5.1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS
The volume and composition of sludge largely determine the alterna-
tives available for its disposal and the impacts of sludge on the environ-
ment. Sludge characteristics are, naturally, dependent upon inputs and
treatment processes. The following sections describe processes currently
used by the City of Albuquerque for the treatment and disposal of sludge,
and present information concerning the quantities and characteristics of
sludge anticipated to be generated during the planning period (1984-1990).
5.1.1 Existing Sludge Quantities and Characteristics
Currently, Albuquerque wastewater is treated in two treatment plants.
Plant No. 1, constructed in 1939, and the original Plant No. 2, constructed
in two phases in 1960 and 1967, are both trickling filter facilities. Both
are currently operating; however, Plant No. 1 is used only for primary
treatment of sewage followed by transfer of the effluent to Plant No. 2.
An activated sludge plant was constructed on the Plant No. 2 site in 1975
and is used to polish the trickling filter effluents from both Plant No. 1
and No. 2 prior to discharge. In 1980, the activated sludge plant was
expanded to process 47 mgd from the original 36 mgd capacity. The construc-
tion was carried out under the City's Phase I-A expansion program. The
facilities plan amendment is designed under the Phase II expansion program
(59 mgd capacity by 1983); a Phase HI expansion program will allow the
activated sludge plant to treat 76 mgd by about 1990. Upon completion of
Phase II improvements, Plant No. 1 will be abandoned in accordance with the
City's original facilities plan. Therefore, for the purposes of planning
the City's sludge management program for design year 1990, it is assumed
that all sludge will be produced at Plant No. 2.
Sludge produced at Plant No. 2 currently is anaerobically digested,
air dried on open sand beds, ground using a mobile belt-type shredder, and
used as a soil conditioner on parks in the area. Truck hauling of liquid
sludge to temporary lagoons off the site also has been utilized in the past
5-1
-------
as an emergency measure and to permit better odor control (CDM 1980b).
Recently, excess sludge produced at Plant No. 2 (i.e., sludge in volumes
that exceed the capacity of the sand drying beds at Plant No. 2) has been
disposed in the City landfill, or by using dedicated land disposal techni-
ques on University of New Mexico land just south of Montesa Park, or by
surface land disposal (i.e., surface spraying) on agricultural lands adja-
cent to the Plant No. 2 site.
In 1978, an average of approximately 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) of
wet sludge were hauled from Plant No. 2. According to operating records, a
total of 238 beds of liquid sludge were poured in 1978, and approximately
6,280 cu yd of sludge cake were removed from these beds (CDM 1980b).
Improvements recently constructed at Plant No. 2 included 30 new
drying beds. These beds increased the net bed area at the plant by 55%.
Pertinent information concerning the drying beds at treatment plant No. 2
is summarized in Table 5.1. The bulk density of sludge cake currently
removed from the drying beds is on the order of 1,700 Ib/cu yd, and the
solid content varies between 35-55%. Table 5.2 lists information concern-
ing the heavy metals content of sludge produced at Plant No. 2 (CDM 1980b).
Table 5.3 denotes solubility, soil mobility, and toxiclty characteristics
of these heavy metals.
5.1.2 Projected Sludge Quantities and Characteristics
Estimates of the raw solids production anticipated to occur in design
year 1990 (i.e., Phase II) are described in the City's facilities plan
amendment. Total raw sludge production is expected to be approximately
108,500 dry Ib/day (54 tons/day) at an average solids concentration of 4.8%
(Table 5.4). Approximately 58,855 Ib/day (about 30 tons/day) of digested
sludge will need to be handled by the City's sludge management system.
5.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
One alternative always available to the grant applicant (i.e., the
City) is the "no action" alternative. For the purposes of this EIS, "no
5-2
-------
,ie 5-1. Characteristics of drying bed facilities at the City's waste-
water treatment Plant No. 2.
Characteristic
Year Built
Number of Beds
Bed Size (ft)
Piped Underdrain
System
Filtrate
Disposition
Bed Lining
Area - Sq ft per bed
- Total sq ft
2
Capacity (in tons
dry solids per yr)
System
North Beds
1962
40
40x100
Yes
To plant
effluent
upstream of
chlorination
None
4,000
160,000
South Beds
1967
42
40x100
Yes
To aeration
tank
influent
None
4,000
168,000
Phase 1-A
19801
30
40x150
Yes
To aeration
tank
influent
Plastic
membrane
6,000
180,000
Total
112
1,200
1,260
1,350
508,000
3,810
Completed in 1981.
At 15 Ib dry solids per sq ft per yr.
Source: Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and William Matotan & Associates, Inc.
1980b. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico southside wastewater treatmen
plant phase II expansion program engineering report. Albuquerque
NM, variously paged.
5-3
-------
Table 5-2. Heavy metals concentrations contained in samples of digested sludge produced at Plant No.
(in mg/kg of dried materials).
One Sample Per Month
Feb-Sep 1976
Metals
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bo
Cd
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Ag
Se
Te
Tl
V
Zn
Aluminum.
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel.
A
Silver
Selenium
Tellurium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Low
1120
40
10
50
2
20
15
260
10
780
13000
630
190
6
5
110
260
5
10
10
50
220
High
17000
50
200
1000
10
70
40
440
10
2000
18300
1000
270
40
10
200
210
10
50
30
100
2100
Average
11000
-
40
450
22
40
22
340
10
1690
15000
750
220
19
10
170
160
10
30
-
80
1390
Oct-Nov 1979 Samples'
Low
498
ND(1)
10
356
0.63
7
12
227
10
693
8660
476
162
2
4.5
87
38
1
0.5
39
1370
High
17425
9
20
628
14
71.4
25.6
440
28
1185
18440
1278
314
5
107
140
314
3
45
65
3900
Average
10960
-
14
482
3.5
25
19
281
19
1013
13410
901
225
3.2
35
128
178
2.4
18
53
1860
_ND « none detected. Number in parentheses indicates detection limits of method employed.
^From Environmental Impact Statement, Table A4 (USEPA 1977b).
Five samples. Averages are not statistically significant because of small number of samples and the fact
.that many values are less than detection limits. Blanks (-) indicate no data.
Three samples in 1979.
Source: Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and William Matotan & Associates, Inc. 1980b. City of Albuquerque,
New Mexico southside wastewater treatment plant phase II expansion program engineering report.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
-------
Table 5-3. Typical solubility, soil mobility, and toxicity characteristics of heavy metals similar to those
found in sludge at Plant No. 2.
Common Water Soluble Forms
Ln
Metals
Al
Sb
As
Ba
Be
B
Cd
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Ag
Se
Te
Tl
V
Zn
Borates
Nitrates
Sulfides Oxides Carbonates
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
Vanadates
Arsenates
Sulfates Phosphates
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Comments
Insoluble in normal soils
No problem if clay present
in soils
Not toxic
Directly affects humans
Immobile in soil
Soluble in low pH only,
affects livestock
Soluble in very low pH
only
No problem if clay present
in soils
Affects livestock
Not toxic in levels in
sludge
Directly affects humans
and livestock
Not toxic
-------
Table 5-4. Quantities and characteristics of solids (sludge) anticipated to
be produced at Plant No. 2 in design year 1990.
Screenings 8168 Ib/day dry solids
Grit 7787 Ib/day dry solids
Dry Solids
Sludges
Raw
Primary
Total waste
activated
sludge
Ib/day
68,675
39,772
%
63
37
Total/Average 108,447
Digested
58,855
100
Volume
Solids gpd
5.0
4.5
161,000
106,000
% Volatiles
70
82
4.8
3.0
267,000
235,000
74
58
Parameter
1.2
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
Phosphorus as PO^C
Potassium as K^CO,
pH Range
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
%, Dry Solids Basis
2.3
0.1
Negligible
Negligible
1.9
0.2
6.0 to 6.5
Below detection limit of
5 mg/kg dry, 100 mg/1 wet
1 2
* Summary of data extracted from NMSU studies in 1976 and 1977, and from
testing conducted Oct-Nov 1979 for the City's facilities plan amendment.
Source: Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and William Matotan & Associates, Inc.
1980b. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico southwide wastewater treatment
plant phase II expansion program engineering report. Albuquerque NM,
variously paged.
5-6
-------
action" consists of the situation that potentially would occur if the City
chose to deny a grant offer and to not construct either their preferred
sludge management system or any alternative system.
The expansion of the wastewater collection and treatment system to
47 mgd capacity initiated under Phase I-A, is nearing completion. At
present, sludge dried on sludge drying beds at Plant No. 2 is stockpiled at
Montesa Park. In addition, sludge that exceeds the capacity of the drying
beds is disposed of in liquid form (3% solids), using dedicated land dis-
posal techniques on land leased from the state (the non-renewable lease for
the state land terminates in mid-1982), land filling, and surface spreading
techniques. The proposed Phase II expansion of the City's wastewater
treatment facilities consists of the following:
increase plant capacity from 47 to 60 mgd,
abandon Plant No. 1,
landfill grit, and
construct sludge dewatering and disinfection units at Montesa
Park and dispose sludge by landspreading on City lands.
EPA anticipates continued funding of the proposed collection system to
a 60 mgd capacity. However, if the City chose not to construct adequate
sludge management facilities, it is unlikely that EPA would fund further
expansion of the liquid waste treatment units at Plant No. 2 beyond the
current 47 mgd capacity. Therefore, if the City decided to implement the
no action alternative and not construct new sludge management facilities,
the following situation would exist:
collection and conveyance of up to 60 mgd raw wastewater to Plant
No. 2;
overloading of the 47 mgd treatment facility (Plant No. 2) by up
to 13 mgd, with a resulting decrease in effluent quality;
major overloading of the sludge drying beds at Plant No. 2.
Under the above conditions, it is anticipated that BOD would be approxi-
mately 79 mg/1 (39,525 Ib/day) and TSS would be approximately 41 mg/1
(20,400 Ib/day) in the treatment plant .ffluent, and approximately 58,848
5-7
-------
Ib/day of dry solids would be produced. The effluent would violate limita-
tions established in the City's state and federal discharge permits.
The City of Albuquerque would have to implement emergency measures in
order to handle 60 mgd of wastewater and the subsequent volume of sludge
produced. It is anticipated that existing drying beds would continue in
operation at maximum capacity. Sludge not dried on drying beds would be
stored in lagoons located north of the existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties. Sludge cake removed from the drying beds (47% solids) would be
stockpiled at Montesa Park, as at present. It is expected that EPA would
exercise its authority to levy fines against the City of Albuquerque for
violation of discharge permit effluent limitations.
As a result of no action, there potentially would be environmental
degradation to the Rio Grande River from deteriorated effluent quality; to
groundwater from leachate emanated from the sludge lagoons, unlined drying
beds, and stockpiles; and to receiving surface waters from lagoon overflow
and stockpile runoff. Water soluble components of heavy metals currently
found in the sludge that might contaminate the groundwater or surface water
via sludge leachate, are listed in Table 5.3.
The scenario outlined above could only exist on a short-term basis.
Although it is unlikely, the City of Albuquerque could choose to pay fines
levied against it for noncompliance with permit stipulations. However,
because lagoons and stockpiles require large land areas that are aesthetic-
ally displeasing, are unacceptable as long-term sludge disposal methods,
and would be in violation of recent legal stipulations, the City of
Albuquerque eventually would have to take long-term action to address the
needs of their sludge management system.
5.3 SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COMPONENTS AND
COMPONENT OPTIONS
The screening (i.e., evaluation) of preliminary sludge management
alternatives was accomplished based on the following steps:
selection of relevant evaluation criteria,
5-8
-------
identifying preliminary alternative components and options,
screening the list of components and options based upon the
evaluation criteria, and
selecting optimal alternatives for further environmental evalua-
tion.
Criteria that were considered during screening of preliminary alterna-
tives are listed in Table 5.5. Table 5.6 lists major components and options
that were identified for screening with respect to the Albuquerque sludge
management program.
The procedure utilized to narrow (i.e., screen) the list of components
and options consisted of: (1) developing treatment/disposal systems that
are compatible with one another and appear to satisfy local project design
criteria and policy, and (2) choosing the optimal system or systems by
progressive elimination of undesirable candidates.
The method of ultimate solids disposal usually controls the selection
of solids treatment systems, and not vice versa. Thus, the system selec-
tion procedure normally begins when the solid disposal option is specified.
Table 5.7 presents feasible base disposal alternatives and relevant criteria
set up in a matrix. Feasible alternatives are all alternatives that appear
to be potentially suitable for utilization. A base alternative is defined
as a sole wastewater solids management system which, during evaluation of
the feasible alternatives, appears able to provide reliable treatment and
disposal of sludge at all times under all circumstances for the specific
situation being evaluated.
Six utilization/disposal options were considered feasible for the City
of Albuquerque and thus were selected for evaluation. Base disposal alter-
natives were judged to be practical only if they satisfied all relevant
criteria. For example, two ultimate disposal options shown in Table 5.7,
bag-market of sludge and giving sludge to citizens as fertilizer, are
indicated as unacceptable base alternatives because there is no assurance
that the public will accept all of the sludge at all times. Lagooning,
besides being unreliable, is associated with odor and health problems and
5-9
-------
Table 5-5. Evaluation criteria utilized for screening preliminary alternative components and
component options applicable to the Albuquerque sludge management program.
I
*
o
FLEXIBILITY
ABILITY TO RESPOND TO:
-NEW TECHNOLOGY
-CHANCING REGULATIONS
-CHANCING LOADS
EXPAND IN GRADUAL INCREMENTS
COMPATIBILITY
WITH EXISTING LAND DSE PLANS
WITH AREA WIDE WASTEWATER.
SOLID WASTE AND AIR POLLUTION
PROGRAMS
WITH EXISTING TREATMENT
FACILITIES
RELIABILITY
VULNERABILITY TO DISASTERS
PROBABLE FAIL RATE
BACK-UP REQUIREMENTS
REQUIRED OPERATOR ATTENTION
VULNERABILITY TO STRIKES
SITES AVAILABLE
-CRITERIA
DIRECT ENERGY DEMANDS
OPERATION DEMANDS
CONSTRUCTION DEMANDS
OFFSETTING ENERGY RECOVERY
INDIRECT ENERGY DEMANDS
' ENERGY TO PRODUCE CHEMICALS
ENERGY TO TRANSPORT MATERIALS
CREDITS FOR USE OF PRODUCTS
WHICH NEED LESS ENERGY TO
PRODUCE
DIRECT COSTS
PUBLIC HEALTH AMD SAFETY
PATHOGENIC ORGANISMS
TOXIC ORGANICS
HEAVY METALS
EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION ON PUBLIC
EFFECT OF SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION
ON HIGHWAYS
EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY
CROUNDWATER
SURFACE WATER
EFFECTS OH AIR QUALITY
AEROSOLS
ODORS
EFFECTS OH NATURAL RESOURCES
DEPLETION OF RESOURCES
RESTORATION OF RESOURCES
CAPITAL COSTS
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
-------
Table 5-6. Major components and options evaluated for applicability to the
Albuquerque sludge management system.
COMPONENTS
SLUDGE THICKENING
STABILIZATION
CONDITIONING
DEWATERING
DRYING
DISINFECTION
REDUCTION
FINAL SLUDGE OR ASH DISPOSAL
OPTIONS
Gravity
Dissolved Air Flotation
Centrifuge
Anaerobic Digestion
Aerobic Digestion
Lime Treatment
Lime
Ferric Chloride
Organic Polymers
Elutriation
Thermal
Drying Beds
Lagoons
Centrifuge
Vacuum Filters
Belt Press
Filter Press
Flash Dryer
Multiple Hearth
Rotary Kiln
Atomized Spray Tower
Solar-Assisted Beds/Kilns
Pasteurization
Composting
Electron Beam Irradiation
Cesium-137 Irradiation
Cobalt-60 Irradiation
Incineration
Wet Oxidation
Landspreading
Lagooning
Dedicated Land Disposal
Landfilling
5-11
-------
Table 5-7. Initial screening matrix for base sludge disposal options.
Feasible
Utilization/
Disposal
Options
Bag-market as
Fertilizer
Relia-
bility
Relevant Criteria
Environ-
mental
Impacts
Site
Availa-
bility
Cost
Acceptable
for Base
Alternative
Landspreading on
Public Land(s)
Give to Citizens
(horticulture)
Dedicated Land
Disposal
Landfilling
Lagooning
x
x = Unacceptable
- = Acceptable
5-12
-------
thus was not accepted as a base alternative. Alternatives that seemed to
satisfy relevant criteria for base disposal alternatives were: (1) land-
spreading on public lands, (2) landfilling, and (3) dedicated land disposal
(Table 5.7).
Once ultimate disposal methods were selected, treatment components
required to properly process sludge for each disposal method were identi-
fied (Table 5.8). Sludge must be subjected to seven treatment components
(i.e., seven treatment processes) before landspreading can be utilized.
Similarly, five treatment components are required prior to landfilling, and
three treatment components are required prior to disposal by dedicated land
disposal.
To further reduce the list of candidate systems, an analysis was
performed on components and options by evaluating them with the selected
screening criteria. Table 5.9 identifies the results of the preliminary
screening evaluation and identifies options that were eliminated from
further consideration. Options that were not eliminated during the pre-
liminary screening were combined to form optimal alternatives for the
Albuquerque sludge management program. Table 5.10 lists the optimal alter-
natives that were selected for detailed evaluation during the EIS process.
5.4 DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL OPTIONS DEVELOPED AND EXAMINED DURING PUBLIC
REVIEW
Additional options for sludge utilization and/or disposal were evalu-
ated as a result of the City's public participation program. They are:
land reclamation,
mining site reclamation,
mine shaft disposal,
incineration, including pellets and fuel, and
wet air oxidation.
5-13
-------
Table 5-8. Treatment components (treatment steps) that must be used prior to ultimate disposal of sludge,
Ui
I
^XCOMPONENT
ALTERNATIVE'S.
i
2
3
THICKENING
X
X
STABILIZATION
X
CONDITIONING
X
X
DEWATERING
DRYING
X X
X
DISINFECTION
X.
REDUCTION
TRANSPORTATION
X
X
X
ULTIMATE
DISPOSAL
LAND SPREAD
(City Parks)
LANDFILL
DEDICATED
LAND
DISPOSAL
X - indicates a required component
-------
Table 5.9 Screening of preliminary sludge treatment options applicable to the Albuquerque sludge management program.
*J 1-t *J Q)
«H .0 ft e
»-i ..-I tH d)
HO. n) HI 3
we -ri o cr
a) o *-< to U
»-i cj
-------
Tab 11? 5.9 Sen-oil flip, of prellral.ii.iry shid|>t> treatment options applicable to the Albuquerque sludge man.ip.ompiit program (co
Coinponon t
Di'Wittur lnj>
Dry Inj-
Disinfection
+-»' '-*
f- , rt C
4J rtl
-< (U -^
rJ Li *J
-O T-* >, U
fC a) T? ^0 u
^ ^ a fe'« 0)st-RfF.;cUvc
di o. rrt c ui
Capital
X 4 . 00
X X 0.64
X X 0.45
X 1.78
X 2.40
X X N/A
X 7.58
X 4.64
X X 1.36
X 2.31
X 1.72
Fqil 1 v.
Annual
0.38
0,06
0.04
0. 17
0.23
N/A
0. 72
0.44
0.13
0.22
0. 16
noas ($
O&M
0.80
0.56
1.12
0.38
0.64
N/A
0.40
0.58
0.48
0. 19
0.07
x 10 ) Potential Environmental Effects
Total Health Surface Oronnd- Solid Resource
Annual Air Odor Hazard Water water Waste Recovery
1.18 X
0.62 X X
1.16
0.55
0.87 X
N/A X X
1.12
1.02 X
0.61 X X
0.41
0.23
irainated
f i
bl
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table '5.9 Screening of preliminary sludge treatment options applicable to tbe Albuquerque sludge management program (concluded).
f. «
x e
-------
Table 5-10. Identification of optimal alternatives selected for detailed evaluation during conduct of the EIS process.
ALTERNATIVE
GROUP THICKENING STABILIZATION
1 Dissolved Air Anaerobic
Flotation Digestion
CONDITIONING
Organic
Polymer
DEWATERING DRYING DISINFECTION
Belt Press Solar Composting
Open Air Electron Iteara
Cesium-137
DISPOSAL
Landspread
on City Parks
TRANSPORTATION
Truck or
Pipeline to MP
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Anne rubtc
Digestion
Polymer
Lime/Ferric
Chloride
Belt Proas
Filter Press
Landfill
Truck to Landfill
I
(
oo
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Anaerobic
Digestion
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
(Liquid
Injection)
Truck to DU) Site
Pipeline to DLD Site
No Action
MP - Montesa Park
DLD - Dedicated Land Disposal
-------
Various options of sludge application for the rehabilitation of strip-
mined or other low-quality land were examined. In the case of the City of
Albuquerque, the nearest suitable open-pit mine (Anaconda's Jackpile Mine,
near Paguate NM) is more than 50 mi from the plant, which is more than
twice the distance to the landfill. Therefore, based on transportation
costs alone, landfilling would be more cost effective than disposing sludge
in an open-pit mines. Furthermore, land reclamation activities at the
Jackpile Mine are expected to be completed in 1984; thus, the mine will
cease to be a potential disposal site even before most of the Phase II
solids volumes are generated (i.e., prior to 1984-1990). Disposal in
abandoned shaft-type mines was also considered. The nearest such mines are
east of the Sandia mountains, in the Golden area. This approach involves
many practical problems in preventing groundwater contamination; it also
involves high costs of restoring shaft structural integrity, in-mine hauling
equipment, and ventilation systems. In addition, these mines are approxi-
mately 40 miles from the plant, imposing prohibitive transportation costs.
A cement plant located in Tijeras (about 25 mi from Plant No. 2) is also a
potential disposal site with prohibitive transportation costs. Long-
recognized concerns about the high level of nitrates in groundwater in the
vicinity of the Tijeras Arroyo also render large-scale sludge deposition at
Tijeras questionable. The apparent absence of a specific long-term land
reclamation plan at a Tijeras site militates against its further study at
this time.
Sludge pelletization is a disinfection process which, like composting,
converts sludge into a useable product. Liquid sludge is first dewatered
to 20 percent solids, and then is heat-dried to a 95 percent solids pellet
form. The resulting pellets are screened to remove nonbiodegradable mate-
rials, and bagged for marketing or for public use. The final product has a
bulk density of 45-55 pounds per cubic foot, resulting in a five-fold
decrease in volume.
In the sludge pelletization process, mechanically dewatered sludge and
some recycled sludge products are initially blended in a screw-mixing bin
to provide a low moisture feed for the dryer. Hot gases (1200-1400°F) are
then blown into a rotary dryer in a cocurrent flow pattern with the blended
5-19
-------
sludge feed. After the mixture has undergone a satisfactory detention
period (usually 20-60 minutes), the dried sludge (95% solids) is dis-
charged.
The rotary drum usually consists of a cylinderical steel shell revol-
ving at 5-8 rpm. The rotary motion of the drum serves to increase the
efficiency of the drying process and assists in forming the pellets. Some
dryers use a drum with two internal shells which allow the product to
undergo several stages of drying as material proceeds through the internal
drums.
Dried pellets are screened to remove non-biodegradables and conveyed
by rotary screws to storage bins for truck loading and/or subsequent bag-
ging operations. Discharge air and exhaust gases are passed over a heat
exchanger to recover energy, and then directed through an air pollution
control system prior to exhaust discharge.
Several system characteristics influence the potential use of a sludge
palletizing operation at Albuquerque. Of these, the most notable is the
energy requirement of the pelletizing process. Heat for drying is provided
by a furnace buring natural gas. Generally, 2400 BTUs are required to
evaporate one pound of water. Alternately, four pounds of water must be
evaported to produce one pound of sludge pellets. Based upon 65 percent
efficiency, 27,800 cubic feet of natural gas would be required to produce
one ton of dried sludge pellets. Utilizing current natural gas prices,
energy expenditures would be approximately $100 for each ton of sludge
pellets produced. Total operation and maintenance costs (without capital
depreciation) would be approximately $140 per ton of pellets produced.
The five-fold reduction in volume during the rotary drying process
results in large amounts of water vapor, gases, and particulates being
released from the dryer. Without proper air quality control systems,
critical air pollution problems could result. Normally, off gases from the
rotary dryer pass through a cyclone separator which removes particulates.
Further removal of pollutants is generally accomplished through chemical
scrubbing and catalytic incineration. Due to the intricacy of the equip-
5-20
-------
ment, operation and maintenance of these devices is a critical aspect in
the production of acceptable exhaust air. The potency and odorous quality
of the off gases makes equipment breakdown extremely costly in terms of
enforcement fines and public reaction.
The normal process train requires the operation of approximately 60
types of equipment to produce a sludge pellet. Some of these units, most
notably the screw and belt conveyors, are highly vulnerable areas and very
sensitive to break downs. Moreover, the abrasive character of sludge
pellets produce wearing of the pug mill and screw conveyor blades. Poten-
tial for equipment breakdowns due to pellets lodging in motor drives, etc.,
is very real. The significance of the 60 types of equipment is that appro-
ximately 10 items have a long history of breakdowns and could drastically
impede the effectiveness of the solids recovery operation.
The principal advantage of this process is that the recoverable product
is free of pathogens. The 1200°F drying temperature, coupled with the
removal of much of the water, insures almost total pathogen kill. Addi-
tionally, this process has certain advantages over composting in that
material handling volumes are approximately one-fifth of composting.
Based upon an evaluation of the above information, pelletization was
eliminated from consideration as an optimal component option, primarily due
to the Air Pollution Control Regulations of Albuquerque which restrict
incineration. In addition, since off-gases generated by pelletization are
inherently odorous and moderately hot (therefore hard to scrub), and since
the resulting product is extremely abrasive, leading to very short-lived
sludge handling equipment in full-scale installations, it was concluded
that pelletization potentially would not publically acceptable or cost-
effective.
Wet air oxidation, such as the Zimmerman or Zimpro process, consist of
the reduction (burning) of the wet organic matter in sludge under high
temperature and pressure. The process is controlled by four parameters:
temperature, air supply, pressure and feed solids concentration. The
degree of oxidation (burning) achieved is directly dependent upon the
degree of heat and pressure applied.
5-21
-------
In the wet air oxidation process, the thickened sludge (at about 6%
solids) passes through a grinder to reduce the size of feed solids to less
than 1/4 inch, and then the slurry is pressurized. The air quantity sup-
plied is the stoichiometric amount required for complete oxidation of the
combustible sludge solids. The sludge-air mixture is then passed through a
heat exchanger, where it is heated to close to the desired reaction temper-
ature by the reactor effluent stream and introduced into the reactor for
oxidation. Temperature and pressures up to 500°F and 1,000 to 1,800 psig
are used, with a detention time of 40 to 60 minutes. The oxidated slurry
is then cooled in a heat exchanger, gases are removed in a vapor-liquid
separator, and the gases are reduced to atmospheric pressure through a
pressure control valve. The gases are processed to eliminate odors. They
consist mainly of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor.
Nitrogen oxides are formed from the organic nitrogen present in the feed,
but no nitrogen is fixed from the air. Elemental sulfur, hydrogen sulfide,
and organic sulfur compounds are oxidized to sulfate (SO,). Gas clean-up
methods have included wet scrubbing, activated carbon absorption, after-
burning with fossil fuel, and catalytic oxidation. With the last two
methods, energy recovery is possible through use of heat recovery boilers,
gas-liquid heat exchangers, and similar methods.
Slurry from the gas-liquid separator is removed through a liquid-level
control valve and dewatered for final disposal. At high degrees of oxida-
tion, the residual solids resemble ash from thermal incineration and are
easily dewatered to a high solids content by conventional means (settling,
centrifugation, or vacuum filtration). The liquid phase is recycled to the
treatment plant or given separate treatment for reduction of residual
soluble organics.
High pressure/high temperature wet air oxidation processes generate
excess heat when they operate with a high heating value sludge and an
adequate solids content (approximately six percent). Still, a source of
high pressure steam (separate boiler or an existing plant system) must be
provided for start-up.
5-22
-------
Wet air oxidation systems are capital-intensive and have, in the past,
experienced problems with corrosion and safety. These systems seem to be
most applicable for industrial waste treatment (Vesilind P. Aarne, 1980).
Utiliziation of wet air oxidation for municipal sludge management systems
is also possible; however, wet air oxidation was eliminated from considera-
tion as an optimal component option for the Albuquerque EIS process due to
the high capital cost and high energy consumption of the process, and due
to the fact that the City's air pollution control regulations prohibit
incineration in all forms.
5.5 DESCRIPTION OF OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS AND COMPONENT OPTIONS
The City of Albuquerque has a number of optimal alternatives available
for the treatment and disposal of sludge produced by the proposed 60 mgd
wastewater treatment facility. These alternatives can be grouped into
three major categories according to ultimate disposal methods. Group 1
alternatives include sludge disposal by landspreading on public lands such
as city parks and golf courses; Group 2 alternatives include disposal by
landfilling at a new municipal landfill; and Group 3 alternatives include
dedicated land disposal. All three groups are made up of combinations of
the same eight components: thickening, stabilization, conditioning, trans-
portation, dewatering, drying, disinfection, and disposal. Not all alter-
natives require all eight components (as indicated in Table 5.8). The
following paragraphs provide a discussion of optimal component options
adapted to specific site conditions and policies applicable to the Albu-
querque sludge management system. Much of the information presented below,
which describes how various component options (i.e., treatment process)
specifically would be utilized by the City of Albuquerque, is adapted from
the City's facility plan amendment and/or from additional reports and
process descriptions provided by the City of Albuquerque.
5.5.1 Thickening and Stabilization
During preliminary screening, EPA determined that dissolved air flota-
tion (DAF) of waste-activated sludge is the only thickening option worthy
of detailed evaluation, primarily because a dissolved air flotation unit is
5-23
-------
currently in operation at the treatment plant. It was determined that use
of other thickening options such as gravity thickeners or centrifuge units
would require duplicate spare parts inventories and new operator training
that would not be economically feasible. The existing DAF thickener will
be enlarged under Phase II operations.
Five primary anaerobic digesters currently are used to stabilize
sludge at the plant. Each is 75 ft in diameter with a side water depth of
22.5 ft. Paired with the primary digesters are five secondary anaerobic
digesters of the same dimensions. The primary digesters are mixed and
heated, whereas the secondary units are not. Because these digesters
currently are in operation at the plant, only anaerobic digestion was
considered as an optimal stabilization option after preliminary screening.
This is because, similar to the thickening process, it was determined that
aerobic digestion units adjacent to anaerobic units would require dupli-
cative spare parts inventories and operator training, and would produce
stabilized sludges with non-uniform characteristics. When treatment Plant
No. 2 operates at the 60 mgd design rate, it is estimated that 235,000 gpd
of liquid sludge (3% solids) will be produced. The average solids concen-
tration of the sludge entering the digesters is anticipated to be 4.8%.
The anaerobic digestion system will produce enough methane to generate more
electricity than the digestion system itself requries, but will not produce
enough electricity to supply the entire wastewater treatment facility (CDM
1980b).
5.5.2 Conditioning
The existing sludge management system does not include sludge condi-
tioning. Conditioning typically involves addition of chemicals to alter
the physical and chemical characteristics of sludge, primarily so that
subsequent treatment processes (usually dewatering facilities) will operate
more efficiently. Two sludge conditioning options considered for detailed
evaluation are organic polymer addition and lime/ferric chloride addition.
Organic polymers often are used with belt press dewatering units, whereas
lime often is added to condition sludge prior to dewatering using filter
press units. However, sludge cannot be disposed by landspreading when lime
5-24
-------
is used as a conditioner because the sludge will he so alkaline that vege-
tation may not grow following application of the sludge. Conditioning will
take place at Montesa Park for landspreading alternatives, and at the
treatment plant for landfilling alternatives.
5.5.3 Transportation
Currently, sludge is hauled by 6 cu yd dump trucks from the sludge
drying beds at Plant No. 2 to Montesa Park, and by tank truck from Plant
No. 2 to a dedicated land disposal site on state land just south of Montesa
Park. For proposed optimal alternatives in Group 1, sludge will be trans-
ported to Montesa Park for conditioning and additional processing prior to
disposal by landspreading. Transportation to Montesa Park will be by four
5,000 gal capacity tank trucks, or by pipeline. The proposed truck route
is shown in Figure 3-1. The proposed pipeline route includes two pump sta-
tions, also shown in Figure 3-1. For alternatives in Group 2 and Group 3,
all sludge processing will take place at the treatment facility (i.e.,
Plant No. 2). After sludge is dewatered as necessary for landfill dis-
posal, it will be transportated by two 20 cu yd end-dump tractor trailers
along the general route shown in Figure 5-1. Since the actual landfill
site has not yet been determined, the exact truck route cannot be indi-
cated. The shaded area shown in Figure 5-1 is under investigation by the
City of Albuquerque for future landfill sites. If dedicated land disposal
is implemented, digested liquid sludge will be transported without further
processing to the disposal site. Two OLD sites evaluated as optimal sites
within this EIS, are Pajarito and Rio Puerco (Figure 5-2). Transportation
of liquid sludge to these sites can be accomplished either by truck or by
pipeline. If truck transportation is utilized, six 5,000 gal tank trucks
will be required to convey the required volume of sludge to the Pajarito
site within one working day. Seven trucks will be required for disposal at
the Rio Puerco DLD site, due to the additional time required to travel over
a longer haul route. A pipeline to Pajarito will require three pump sta-
tions and a river crossing, whereas, a pipeline to Rio Puerco will require
six pump stations and a river crossing (Figure 5-2).
5-25
-------
POSSIBLE AREA OF
FUTURE LANDFILL SITE(S)
..;:.;>;
m
x'x-Xi'v:'
'.
.
-
*- ' «WM ^
Ft
..«.-
*
....
i
.
-.«_*^* T*
-
A
TRUCK ROUTE TO
LANDFILL SITE(S)
.
.
_r -
f? s
*
A
-^:
.-*--
- - «»ij
i ..
1 tt=:
an:
8£-
*£:
,
\ ... J f 1 '\\ Figure 5-1. Truck route to area of
possible future landfill sites.
j Source: Adapted from Camp Dresser & Me'
Inc. and William Matotan & Associat
Inc. 1980b. City of Albuquerque NM
southside wastewater treatment plant
phase II expansion program engineer
report. Albuquerque NM, variously p
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
5.5.4 Dewatering
Sludge sand beds located on the western portion of the plant No. 2
site are the current sludge dewatering facilities. A total of 112 beds
were constructed between 1962 and the present. The total area of the beds
is 508,000 sq ft. At a loading rate of 15 Ib/sq ft/yr dry solids, the bed
capacity is 3,810 tons of dry solids per year. The 30 newest beds (180,000
sq ft) are lined with plastic membrane, whereas the others are unlined.
The existing sand bed capacity is inadequate for current and projected
sludge production. Odors emanating from the sand beds have been the reason
for citizen complaints and legal court stipulations for several years.
Two optimal options for sludge dewatering that have been considered
for the proposed system are belt pressing and pressure filtering. Belt
presses typically can accomplish dewatering to 20% or 25% solids, depending
on the use of varying amounts of polymer. Sludge to be composted or land-
filled need not be dried beyond 20% solids. Open air drying and solar
greenhouse drying require sludge input to be at 25% solids. Filter press-
ing is expected to produce sludge at 35% solids. Dewatering facilities
used with Group 1 alternatives (i.e., landspreading) would be located at
Montesa Park; dewatering prior to landfilling would be conducted with
facilities located at Plant No. 2.
5.5.5 Secondary Drying
Drying sludge beyond the 20-25% solids content obtained by dewatering
techniques is not necessary prior to composting, landfilling, or dedicated
land disposal, but drying to 40% solids is needed prior to Cesiura-137
irradiation. Two optimal drying options are the use of solar greenhouses or
open air drying. A combination solar greenhouse/open air drying system can
dry 25% solids sludge to 40% solids sludge in approximately 6 days (Wilson
& Co. 1981). Two 40 ft by 120 ft open air drying areas would be located in
each of three greenhouses. Greenhouses would employ direct gain solar
heat, and would not require a heat storage medium. Sludge would be removed
from the greenhouses at approximately 35% solids and stockpiled on four 180
ft by 180 ft paved areas (3.0 acres) that would be surrounded by 8-ft
5-28
-------
walls. After approximately 140 to 150 days, sludge would be removed from
the open air stockpile at approximately 40% solids. Figure 5-3 illustrates
the proposed site layout for solar drying facilities at Montesa Park. The
second drying option is open air drying, consisting of six 50,000 sq ft
drying areas (6.9 acres) similar in design to the drying areas that would
be used after the solar greenhouses. The sludge would be tilled daily
during open air drying. Figure 5-4 illustrates the proposed site layout
for open air drying facilities at Montesa Park. The concept of using
drying facilities at sites other than Montesa Park was not investigated by
the City.
5.5.6 Disinfection
In the past, disinfection was not required prior to the application of
sludge on land. The City of Albuquerque has utilized undisinfected sludge
on parks and golf courses for many years. This practice was stopped with
the promulgation of EPA's current sludge disposal regulations (40 CFR Part
257) requiring disinfection of sludge prior to application on land or
incorporation into the soil. For landfilling and dedicated land disposal,
anaerobic digestion adequately reduces pathogens if certain restrictions
are placed on the use of the site (these restrictions are discussed in more
detail in Section 6.11). However, for landspreading on public lands,
additional disinfection is now required by EPA regulations. Irradiation
using Cesium-137, electron beam irradiation, or composting are the three
disinfection options selected for further study.
The City of Albuquerque and the DOE have agreed that DOE will supply
Cesium-137, deliver it to the Montesa Park site, install Cesium-137 in an
irradiator, and subsequently remove spent Cesium-137 from the site if the
Cesium-137 irradiation option is selected. All handling and transportation
of Cesium-137 would be carried out by DOE in compliance with all applicable
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG) regulations and guidelines, as well as
other Federal regulations (Table 3-1). Irradiation would take place in a
concrete structure below the ground surface. The Cesium-137 would remain
stationary while sludge would be passed through the system. DOE would
replenish the Cesium-137 supply periodically, as necessary.
5-29
-------
-'f WlT OF 100 VEAR
-MON'ESA DARK BOUNDARY
DIGESTED SLUDGE FORCE
MAIN ^ROM PLANT
NO Z
40' DIAMETER
CLARIFER FOR '
WASH WATER
RECLAMATION -_^\
EXISTING SANITARY
-SEWER TO TIJERAS-
INTERCEPTOR
Figure 5-3. Site map of Montesa Park -
Solar greenhouse/open drying alternative
Source: Adapted from William Matotan &
Associates Inc. and Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc. 1980.
-------
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF 100 YEAR
FLOOD HAZARD AREA
MONTESA PARK BOUNDARY
BELT PRESS
-OEWATERING
FACILITY
EXISTING SANITARY /
SEWER TO TIJERAS -
INTERCEPTOR
DIGESTED SLUDGE
FORCE MAIN FROM
PLANT NO. 2
->
' 4O' DIAMETERX £. =
ELECTRON BEAM i
GAMMA SAY
IRRADIATOR FACILITY
, CLARIFER FCH
WASHWATER
RECLAMATION -~E
Figure 5-4. Site map of Montesa Park -
open air drying alternatives.
Sources: Adapted from William Matotan &
Associates Inc., and Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc. 1980.
-------
Electron beam irradiation probably would take place prior to dewater-
ing, although irradiation of sludge at 20% solids is possible. A thin
stream of liquid sludge would pass through an electron beam field generated
by a high energy source. The irradiation process would take place in a
structure above ground. Cesium and electron beam irradiation facilities
are illustrated in Figures 5-3 and 5-4. Utilization of irradiation facil-
ities at sites other than Montesa Park was not evaluated by the City.
The optimal composting option is static pile composting, in which air
is circulated through a sludge pile using a forced draft piping system.
The static composting process requires approximately 8 weeks. Composting
would consist of a 519 cu yd mixing pad where bulking agent is added, a
belt conveyor, a 90 ft long by 10 ft high static pile, a 15,570 cu yd
curing pad, a 66,074 cu yd storage area, a 35,733 cu yd storage area, and a
30,341 cu yd storage area. Figure 5-5 illustrates a site layout for com-
posting facilities at Montesa Park. Alternate sites for using composting
facilities were not evaluated by the City.
5.5.7 Disposal
Landspreading, landfilling, and dedicated land disposal are the three
optimal sludge disposal options evaluated in detail by the EIS process.
Under landspreading, disinfected sludge would be stockpiled at Montesa Park
until the Parks Department could pick it up for use as a fertilizer and
soil conditioner on city parks and golf courses. This EIS does not include
an analysis of the costs or environmental effects associated with sludge
handling or management by the Parks Department.
The exact location of a landfill that would receive sludge if the
landfilling option was selected cannot be specified in this document. This
is because the landfill presently used by the City will reach capacity in
two or three years. Thus, any landfill operations associated with the
City's sludge management program would involve use of a new municipal land-
fill facility to be constructed and operated by the City. It is likely
that the new landfill will be located in the area shown in Figure 5-1. The
new facility could handle all municipal and commercial waste generated in
5-32
-------
- - - .F . ' L
RS E 31
DIGESTED SLUDGE FORCE
MAIN FROM PLANT NO 2
AERATED
STATIC PILE
(TYP)
-:x STING .>,vj VARY -
"VER TO ,jtPAE
. tRCEP'OR
CONC SLAB
COMPOST
ftSPHALT
PAVEMENT
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF
100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD
AREA
GARAGE 8
MAINT BLDG
SLUDGE
HOLDING-
TANK
FOUNDATION
SLAB
GRAVE.
ROADWA1-
(TYP.)
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
BUILDING
Figure 5-5. Site map of Montesa Park -
composting alternatives.
Source: Adapted from William Matotan &
Assoc. Inc. and Camp Dresser & Mckee,
Inc. 1980. City of Albuquerque NM
southside water treatment plant phase
II expansion engineering report.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
-------
the county, as well as municipal treatment sludge from Plant No. 2. It is
not anticipated that the sludge will be classified as hazardous waste
pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), because of
the expected success of recent City ordinances requiring industrial pre-
treatment of liquid wastes. Therefore, the landfill would be designed and
operated in compliance with state and Federal standards for non-hazardous
solid waste disposal facilities. These standards are designed to protect
groundwater, surface water, air, public health, and the aesthetic environ-
ment.
Dedicated land disposal operations at Pajarito or Rio Puerco would
consist of a 3,580 acre (ac) facility. Figure 5-2 illustrates the loca-
tions of the OLD sites and associated transportation routes. Sludge would
be injected into shallow furrows and immediately covered with soil. The
process would progress incrementally across the entire area, and then be
repeated continuously through the 20 yr life of the project. Because state
and Federal regulations concerning the accumulation of cadmium, nitrogen,
and PCBs in the soil would be observed, it would be possible to sell the
land for future use, with possible restrictions on the growth of food-chain
crops.
Table 5-11 lists significant characteristics and categories of poten-
tial environmental effects for each component option. Detailed evaluations
of environmental effects anticipated for each alternative (i.e., combina-
tion of component options) are presented by discipline in Chapter 6.0 of
this EIS.
5.6 DESCRIPTION OF OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVES
Combinations of options for each of the eight components discussed in
Section 5.5 were arranged into a total of 14 optimal alternatives. These
optimal alternatives are arranged in three groups according to the method
of ultimate disposal of sludge. Table 5-12 lists the component options for
each alternative. Currently, alternative IB is the alternative preferred
by the grant applicant (i.e., the City of Albuquerque). Figures 5-6
through 5-8 inclusive are schematic illustrations depicting the process
trains associated with each alternative group.
5-34
-------
Table 5-11. Potential environmental concerns associated with each optimal component option evaluated for the
Albuquerque sludge management program.
COMPONENT
Thickening
OPTION
Dissolved
Air Flotation
SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS
Emissions may contain volatile organics
CATEGORY POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Air
Stabilization Anaerobic
Digestion
Supernatant return may cause treatment
plant upsets
Surface water
Conditioning
Polymer
Lime/Fed,
Toxic in high concentrations
Increases sludge production
Operator safety
(Depends on disposal option)
Ui
i
LO
Ln
Transportation Truck
Pipeline
Increased traffic, noise, and exhaust;
fuel consumption
Traffic disruption, noise, dust during
construction; possible leaks to soil
(or river at crossing); energy re-
quired for lift stations
Public safety, nuisance,
air, energy
Public safety, nuisance,
air, groundwater, surface
water, energy
Dewatering
Belt Press
Filter Press
None significant
None significant
None significant
None significant
Drying
Solar Green-
house
Open Air
Buildings and air drying require
significant land area; may generate
fugitive dust; odor
Same as solar greenhouse but no
building and much more land required
Land, aesthetics, surface
water, groundwater, air,
nuisance
Same as solar greenhouse
-------
Table 5-11. Potential environmental concerns associated with each optimal component option evaluated for the
Albuquerque sludge management program (concluded).
COMPONENT
Disinfection
OPTION
Cesium-137
Composting
Electron Beam
Irradiation
SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS
Gamma ray irradiation
Large land requirement; dust; odor;
possible leachate, possible insect
attraction and, therefore bird
strike hazard
Energy requirement; ionizing effect
on cell molecules
CATEGORY POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Public health
Land, aesthetics, surface
water, groundwater, air,
airplane safety
Energy, operator safety
Disposal
Ln
I
Landspreading
Landfilling
Dedicated Land
Disposal
Soil contamination by high nitrate,
PCBs, and metals; leachate; odor
after rains
Leachate; land use; aestheti-
cally displeasing
Leachate; land use; odor, aestheti-
cally displeasing; soil contami-
nation
Surface water, soil, ground-
water, aesthetics
Groundwater, surface water,
aesthetics
Groundwater, surface water,
aesthetics
-------
Table 5-12. Sludge management alternatives.
Croup 1 - Landapread Concept
NO.
Ln
I
ALTERNATIVE
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
THICKENING
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Dissolved Air
Flotation
STABILIZATIO
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONING
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipeline to
Montessa Park
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipe to
Montessa Park
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipeline to
Montessa Park
Truck to
Montessa Park
Pipe to
Montessa Park
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
Organic
Polymer
DEWATERING
Belt Press
to 252
Belt Press
to 25Z
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 25%
Belt Press
to 20%
Belt Press
to 20Z
DRYING
Solar Greenhouse
to 403
Solar Greenhouse
to 40*
Open Air
Drying to 40%
Open Air
Drying to 40%
DISIMFECTION
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Cesium-137
Irradiation
Composting
Compos ting
Belt Press Open Air Electron Beam
to 25% Drying to 40% Irradiation
Belt Press Open Air Electron Beam
to 25% Drying to 40% Irradiation
DISPOSAL
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Park,s and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
Landspread on
City Parks and
Golf Courses
-------
Table 5-12. Sludge management alternatives (concluded).
Group 2 - Landfill Concept
NO. ALTERNATIVE THICKENING STABILIZATION CONDITIONING DEWATKKING DRYING
Dissolved Air
9 2A Flotation
Dissolved Air
10 2H Flotation
Ui
I
00
Group 3 - Dedicated Land Disposal
Dissolved Air
11 3A Flotation
Dissolved Air
12 3B Flotation
Dissolved Air
13 3C Flotation
Dissolved Air
H 3D Flotation
Anaerobic Polymer Belt Press
Digestion to 20%
Anaerobic Lime/Ferric Pressure
Digestion Chloride Filters to 35%
Concept
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
DISINFECTION TRANSPORTATION
Truck to
Landfill
Truck to
Landfill
Truck to
~ Pajarito
Pipeline to
Pajarito
Pipeline to
Rio Puerco
Truck to
Rio Puerco
DISPOSAL
Landfill
Landfill
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Dedicated
Land
Disposal
Not Applicable
-------
Waste-
.ictivated
Sludge
Anaerobic
Digestion
Truck to
-Montesa Park-
(IA, 1C, IE, 1C)
Pipeline to
Montesa Park-
(18, ID.1F.1H)
r
Organic
Polymer
( ) - Alternative number
L - Stockpile No. I - 201 solids
2 - Stockpile No. 2 - 251 solids
3 - Stockpile So. 3 - 401 solids
* - Dry from 25% to iOt solids on six 1.15 acre beds
** - F)rv from 351 to 40t solids on four 0.74 acre beds
Figure 5-6. Alternate group
number one.
-------
Waste
Activated
Sludge
Organic
Polymer
Anaerobic
Digestion
Primary
Sludge
I
Lime and
Ferric
Chloride
Belt Press
to 20%
Solids (2A)
Pressure
Filter (2B)
( ) = Alternative number
A = Possible temporary stockpile
Figure 5-7. Alternative group
number two.
-------
Waste-
activated
Sludge
Primary
Sludge
Truck
'(3A, 3D)"
Dedicated Land Disposal
at Pajarito (3A)
Dedicated Land Disposal
at Rio Puerco (3D)
Pipeline
"(3B, 3C)
Dedicated Land Disposal
at Pajarito (3B)
Dedicated Land Disposal
at Rio Puerco (3C)
( ) = Alternative number
Figure 5-8. Alternative group
number three.
-------
5.7 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
The City of Albuquerque developed information concerning the antici-
pated costs of building their preferred alternative or other alternatives
(construction cost); the total project cost including engineering, con-
tingency, and administrative fees which will be incurred (capital cost) ;
the estimated cost of operating and maintaining the facilities (annual
O&M); and the value treatment equipment will have at the end of the 20-year
planning period (salvage value). The City also prepared and submitted to
EPA a tabulation comparing the costs of various sludge management alter-
natives. In addition, the City submitted information to document the value
of the sludge as $70 per ton. This was based upon the fact that materials
costing at least $70/ton would have to be purchased for replacement ferti-
lizers if sludge was not available for use on public lands.
A letter submitted from the City Parks Department to EPA verified that
the Parks Department does value the use of sludge on city parks and golf
courses, and is committed to utilizing a substantial portion (approximately
65%) of the sludge that will be produced during the 1990 design year. The
City's facilities plan amendment also lists other areas (i.e., lands owned
by the University of New Mexico, the State Highway Department, and others)
that potentially are available for utilization of the remaining sludge for
landspreading activities. Documentation that these other entities are
willing to purchase sludge or utilize their lands for landspreading activi-
ties has not been provided to-date.
The fact that sludge is a valuable resource is well documented. The
City of Largo FL at one time sold its sludge at $4.00 per 50 Ib bag (or
$160.00/ton), and currently sells its sludge wholesale to a fertilizer
manufacturer for $76.00/ton. The City of Houston TX sells its sludge in
bulk (railroad cars) for $38.00/ton to a marketing company in Florida. In
addition, the City of Los Angeles CA sells its sludge to a fertilizer manu-
facturer for $5.00/ton. Thus, the value of sludge produced at each of
these cities is determined by its actual market value, and the cost of
operating the sludge management system in each of these cities is partially
offset by the revenues received from the sale of the sludge. However, EPA
5-42
-------
is not convinced that the City of Albuquerque's sludge will be worth
$70/ton, since the City's preferred plan calls for self-utilization of a
majority of the sludge, and not for the open-market sale of sludge to
generate offsetting revenues.
EPA has evaluated and revised the cost information provided by the
City and placed the results in tabular form to present a comparison of the
total present worth and total annual equivalent costs of each of the 14
alternatives evaluated in detail. Table 5-13 lists the total costs asso-
ciated with each alternative, without any credit given for the value of
sludge placed upon public lands. Table 5-14 lists the total costs assoc-
ated with each alternative with a credit of $70/ton allowed for each alter-
native that would involve the utilization of sludge for landspreading on
public lands. Tables 5-15 through 5-17 inclusive present the local cost
that will be incurred by the City of Albuquerque and the equivalent monthly
user cost per connection for the 14 alternatives. The equivalent monthly
cost per connection figure is not intended to represent the amount each
family's monthly water/sewer bill will increase, since monthly water/sewer
rate charges can be determined by the City only after all bond sales and
other financial programs associated with the sludge management program are
finalized. In addition, the salvage value (if any) of the sludge treatment
facilities constructed by the City will not be realized until the end of
the economic planning period (i.e., year 2004) is reached, and thus will
not be available to offset the bonded indebtedness and operational expenses
of the system during the planning period (1984-1990). The equivalent
monthly cost per connection information is provided only to allow for a
meaningful comparison of alternatives. The tables assume the following
funding scenarios:
5-43
-------
Table 5-13. Cost-effectiveness analysis of optimal alternatives, without a credit given for utilization of
Optimal
Altern-
ative
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
Ul
i 1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
13
10
9
5
14
7
11
8
sludge on public
Rank- Capital
ing Cost
$27,565,100
28,373,100
24,208,100
25,016,100
20,399,000
21,207,000
24,153,000
24,931,000
2 17,956,700
1
6
12
3
4
18,117,100
28,922,400
31,281,900
28,665,500
25,421,900
lands.
Annual
0 & M
$1,666,900
1,424,700
1,645,500
1,403,300
2,705,900
1,730,900
1,800,000
1,557,800
1,544,400
1,311,300
1,229,700
1,476,100
936,000
1,328,300
P. W.
0 & M
(10.2921)
$17,155,900
14,663,200
16,935,700
14,442,900
27,849,500
18,145,900
18,525,800
16,033,100
15,895,200
13,496,100
12,656,200
15,192,200
9,633,400
13,671,000
Salvage
Value
$1,547,500
3,609,400
157,100
2,219,000
(3,163,400)
(1,101,500)
82,600
2,144,500
1,345,300
2,005,900
8,879,700
12,507,000
7,488,800
3,297,000
P. W.
Salvage
(.2410)
$ 372,900
869,700
37,800
534,700
(762,200)
(265,400)
19,900
516,700
324,200
483,300
2,139,600
3,013,600
1,804,500
794,400
Total
P. W.
$44,348,100
42,166,600
41,106,000
38,924,300
49,010,700
39,618,300
42,658,900
40,447,400
33,527,700
31,129,900
39,439,000
43,460,500
36,494,400
38,298,500
Total Annual
Equivalent
(.0972)
$4,308,900
4,097,000
3,993,900
3,781,900
4,762,000
3,849,400
4,144,800
3,929,900
3,257,600
3,024,600
3,832,000
4,222,700
3,545,900
3,721,100
-------
Table 5-14. Cost-effectiveness analysis of optimal alternatives, with a credit (10,740 ton/yr at $70/ton) given
for utilization of sludge on public lands.
Ln
Optimal
Altern-
ative
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
Rank- Capital
ing Cost
10
7
5
2
13
3
8
4
6
1
12
14
9
11
$27,565,100
28,373,100
24,208,100
25,016,100
20,399,000
21,207,000
24,153,000
24,931,000
17,956,700
18,117,100
28,922,400
31,281,900
28,665,500
25,421,900
Annual
0 & M
$ 915,100
672,900
893,700
651,500
1,954,100
979,100
1,048,200
806,000
1,544,400
1,311,300
1,229,700
1,476,100
936,000
1,328,300
P. W.
0 & M
(10.2921)
$9,418,300
6,925,600
9,198,100
6,705,300
20,111,800
10,077,000
10,788,200
8,295,500
15,895,200
13,496,100
12,656,200
15,192,200
9,633,400
13,671,000
Salvage
Value
$1,547,500
3,609,400
157,100
2,219,000
(3,163,400)
(1,101,500)
82,600
2,144,500
1,345,300
2,005,900
8,879,700
12,507,000
7,488,800
3,297,000
P. W.
Salvage
(.2410)
$ 372,900
869,700
37,800
534,700
(762,200)
(265,400)
19,900
516,700
324,200
483,300
2,139,600
3,013,600
1,804,500
794,400
Total
P. W.
$36,610,500
34,429,000
33,368,400
31,186,700
41,273,000
31,479,400
34,921,300
32,709,800
33,527,700
31,129,900
39,439,000
43,460,500
36,494,400
38,298,500
Total Annual
Equivalent
(.0972)
$3,557,100
3,345,200
3,242,100
3,030,100
4,010,100
3,058,600
3,393,000
3,178,100
3,257,600
3,024,600
3,832,000
4,222,700
3,545,900
3,721,100
-------
Table 5-15. Local share of component costs based on 75/85% EPA funding and 12.5% State funding.
Alternative
Number
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
Capital
(Local Share)
3,022,454
3,194,154
2,602,829
2,774,529
2,549,877
2,721,587
3,019,127
3,190,827
2,244,714
2,264,639
7,605,993
8,046,743
5,648,627
4,997,239
* For alternatives 1A, IB
connection by $0.02 per
** f
-------
Table 5-16. Cost per month per connection with 50% EPA funding and 12.5% State funding.
Alternative Capital
Number (Local Share)
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
-n 1G
P*
^ 1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
*
**
8,946,329
9,299,829
7,687,454
8,040,954
7,649,627
8,003,127
9,057,377
9,410,877
6,734,139
6,794,539
13,978,402
14,966,652
12,224,877
10,875,714
For alternatives 1A, IB
connection by $0.02 per
r$7n/t-win.74nf /vrWi v
PW OF O&M
17,155,900
14,663,200
16,935,700
14,442,900
27,849,500
18,145,900
18,525,800
16,033,100
15,895,200
13,496,100
12,656,200
15,192,200
9,633,400
13,671,000
, 1C, and ID,
month .
r/12 mo)( !
PW of
Salvage
372,900
869,700
37,800
534,700
(762,200)
(265,400)
19,900
516,700
324,200
483,300
2,139,600
3,013,600
1,804,500
794,400
full funding
Total PW
25,729,329
23,093,329
24,585,354
21,949,154
36,261,327
26,414,427
27,563,277
24,927,277
22,305,139
19,807,339
24,495,002
27,145,252
20,053,777
23,752,314
Total
Annual
(0.0972)
2,499,900
2,244,672
2,388,700
2,133,458
2,551,600
2,567,482
2,678,100
2,422,931
2,167,200
1,924,500
2,380,914
2,638,518
1,949,227
2,308,725
tHU-LVdj-t;
Cost Per
(Sludge = $0/T)
2.08
1.87
1.99
1.78
2.94
2.14
2.23
2.02
1.81
1.60
1.98
2.20
1.62
1.92
11 L. 1-lULlULl.l.jr
Connection*
(Sludge = $70/T
1.45
1.24
1.36
1.15
2.31
1.51
1.60
1.39
1.18
0.97
1.35
1.57
0.99
1.29
of Gamma irradiator by DOE will reduce cost per
\ = <;n f^/mrmt-Vi-rnnnection
credit.
100,000 connections'
Revised 8 Sent-emher 1Q81.
-------
Table 5-17. Cost per month per connection with no EPA funding and 12.5% State funding.
-O
oo
Alternative
Number
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
Capital
(Local Share)
22,921,589
23,638,689
19,984,214
20,701,314
17,849,127
18,566,227
21,133,877
21,850,977
15,712,989
15,852,464
25,933,602
28,018,852
25,377,376
22,512,664
PW of O&K
17,155,900
14,663,200
16,935,700
14,442,900
27,849,500
18,145,900
18,525,800
16,033,100
15,895,200
13,496,100
12,656,200
15,192,200
9,633,400
13,671,000
PW of
Salvage
372,900
869,700
37,800
534,700
(762,200)
(265,400)
19,900
516,700
324,200
483,300
2,139,600
3,013,600
1,804,500
794,400
Total PW
39,704,589
37,432,189
36,882,114
34,609,514
46,460,827
36,977,527
39,639,777
37,367,377
31,283,989
28,865,264
36,450,202
40,197,452
33,206,276
35,389,264
Total
Annual
(0.0972)
3,859,286
3,638,409
3,584,942
3,364,045
4,515,992
3,594,216
3,852,986
3,632,109
3,040,804
2,805,704
3,542,960
3,907,192
3,227,650
3,439,836
""I"
Cost
(Sludge =
3.22
3.03
2.99
2.80
3.76
3.00
3.21
3.03
2.53
2.34
2.95
3.26
2,69
2.87
Per Connection*
$0/T) (Sludge = $70/r
2.59
2.40
2.36
2.17
3.13
2.37
2.58
2.40
1.90
1.71
2.32
2.63
2.06
2.24
* For alternatives 1A, IB, 1C, and ID, full funding of Gamma irradiator by DOE will reduce cost per
connection by $0.02 per month.
** ($70/t)(10,740t/yr)(l yr/12 *o)(100*000 connections) = $0.63/month-ConnectiOn credit.
Revised 8 September 1981
-------
Table No. EPA Funding State Funding
5.15 75% of capital cost 12.5% funding of
of most treatment units treatment units
85% of innovative/
alternative units
5.16 50% funding of 12.5% funding of
treatment units treatment units
no innovative/
alternative funding
5.17 no Federal funding 12.5% funding of
treatment units
A review of the tabulations of equivalent monthly user cost indicates there
potentially is a substantial difference in the equivalent user cost asso-
ciated with various funding scenarios. It has also been stated (but not
documented) that DOE may fund the entire cost of constructing a Cesium-137
irradiator, if one is utilized in the chosen sludge management program. If
this occurs, then the equivalent monthly user cost associated with alter-
natives using the Cesium-137 irradiator will decrease by $0.02 per month.
5.8 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Two basic alternatives are available to EPA: (1) issue a grant to the
City of Albuquerque, and (2) deny a grant. Denial of a grant constitutes
the no action alternative for EPA. A grant can amount to 75% or more of
the total cost of an alternative, or can amount to only a part of the cost
of an alternative. The effects of EPA implementing either alternative are
described in Section 6.13 of this EIS.
5.9 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES
The State of New Mexico and the Department of Energy are two other
agencies cooperating in this proposed project. The State of New Mexico
also has the alternative of providing or denying a grant. The DOE cur-
rently is cooperating by providing technical assistance, which they may
continue or cancel. In addition, DOE may elected to provide or deny a
grant for a Cesium-137 irradiator.
5-49
-------
CHAPTER 6.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
ON AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
-------
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
ON AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter contains information on existing conditions and how the
existing conditions will be changed or affected due to the implementation
of any one of the 14 optimal alternatives sludge management systems de-
scribed in Chapter 5.0.
Potential effects of the 14 alternatives are described and evaluated
with respect to the following 12 disciplines, or topic categories: earth
resources, surface water resources, groundwater resources, air and sound
quality, biological resources, cultural resources, population, land use and
transportation, economics, energy resources, environmental health, and
recreation and aesthetics.
The effects of the Group 1 (landspreading) and Group 3 (dedicated land
disposal) alternatives are described and evaluated in a concise and simple
manner; however, a brief explanation is needed concerning the evaluation of
the effects of the Group 2 (landfill) alternatives. If the City selects an
alternative that utilizes landfilling as the ultimate sludge disposal
method, then sludge will be disposed in a new municipal landfill, assumedly
somewhere north of the City's present landfill. Since the City's present
landfill will reach capacity in 2 to 3 years, the City soon will be build-
ing a new landfill for solid waste disposal, regardless of how the City's
wastewater treatment sludge is disposed. Certain effects or events may
occur when the new landfill is built, such as:
dust may occur due to construction activities;
noise levels may increase due to landfill construction;
the topography, or shape of the ground's surface, may be altered
due to landfill construction and operation;
land values in the immediate vicinity of the landfill may be
altered; and
6-1
-------
traffic patterns on roadways near the new landfill may be altered
due to the presence of garbage trucks going to and from the
landfill.
Although these are only a few of the effects that may occur when a new
landfill is built, the point of the discussion is this: effects such as
these listed above will occur when the new landfill is built regardless of
whether sanitary sludge is placed in the landfill or not. Therefore, when
describing and evaluating the environmental effects that will occur due to
landfilling of sludge, this EIS only describes and evaluates the effects
that are associated with the transportation and placement of sludge in the
landfill, and not the effects of the landfill activities in general.
Chapter 6.0 concludes with descriptions of the environmental conse-
quences of alternatives available to EPA and other agencies, and with a
brief listing of mitigative measures currently being considered by the
grant applicant (i.e., the City of Albuquerque) and/or EPA.
6.1 EARTH RESOURCES
6.1.1 Existing Conditions
Topography
Three distinctive landforms characterize the basic land surface in the
Project Region (Bernalillo County): mountain, mesa, and valley. The
Sandia Mountains in the eastern part of the county follow a north-south
orientation, which parallel the Rio Grande River. The East Mesa is a broad
alluvial expanse at the base of the Sandia Mountains. The West Mesa is
another broad region in the western part of the county. Both of these
areas generally slope downward toward the Inner Rio Grande River Valley
located between them. Elevations range from about 4,930 feet in the valley
to over 10,000 feet in the Sandia Mountains.
The Sandia Mountains have slopes averaging 25% and local relief ex-
ceeding 1,000 feet. The mountains and East Mesa are dissected by large
6-2
-------
canyons and arroyas with generally steep sides. These canyons and arroyas
are naturally formed drainage channels that slope to the west, with larger
ones merging with the southward flowing Rio Grande River. The West Mesa is
relatively flat and has former volcanic areas whose eastward sloping lava
beds often end abruptly in high cliffs. The valley consists of a broad
level flood plain on either side of and adjacent to the Rio Grande River.
Additionally, a transition area of steeper slopes and terraces occurs
between the floodplains and the mesa regions on either side of the river
(USEPA 1977).
The project area includes portions of the East Mesa, West Mesa, and
the Inner Valley. Plant No. 2 is located on the floodplain of the Rio
Grande River Valley. Montesa Park and the proposed sewage treatment facil-
ities (Alternative IB) are located about 5 miles east of Plant No. 2. This
area is located on the East Mesa in an arroyo known as Tijeras Arroyo. The
City's proposed pipeline travels along the base of the Arroyo to the pro-
posed treatment facilities (Figure 3-1). The elevation gradually increases
between the two sites from about 4,930 feet above sea level at Plant No. 2
to 5,150 feet at Montesa Park. The pipeline route is nearly level with an
average uphill slope of about 1%.
Alternative OLD sites are located on the West Mesa. The Rio Puerco
site slopes as much as 9% while the Pajarito site slopes less than 5%.
Possible sites for landfills include Inner Valley areas as well as
West Mesa areas. Slopes on possible landfill sites range from level to 9%.
Geology
The project region is characterized by a diverse structural and deposi-
tional history. The Rio Grande depression (a compound graben) is a struc-
turally subsided area having a general north-south alignment (Bjorklund and
Maxwell 1961). In the project region, the depression is approximately 36
miles across and is bordered on the east and west by upfaulted (i.e.,
uplifted) blocks. The uplifted blocks to the east form the Sandia Mountains
and the block to the west forms the generally level highlands approximately
28 miles west of Albuquerque (Figure 6-1).
6-3
-------
J S*o i«**'
AUuvlta
Hotly unconBolldkted &rav«lt
And, lilt, ftod cUy. Yield*
large quanUtleu of w»t«r to
mill.
c«Lt. in «,, , .
la
Sanui Fe gruup
Ifeetly uncot)*oll(Uted to loo*ely
eonvolldBtrd gravel. MM, *!Lt,
and clay, vl'h *om« lnterb«dd*d
volcknlc rrifh . Ittclu4** b«jadm
depoi»1 t« of Hecent age. Ylsldi
Large quantltle* of water to
Mil*
Sedimentary rock*, undivided
Moi-ly thalr and *&nd*tone.
Yield mall quAntltle*
of water to veil*
as
S«dUaenLary rock*, undivided
Mostly Hjirfttone, o&Mlton4,
nd «!i»le. TleU gaall.
quanlltle* of w.«r to
veil!
CrarUtlc and netaiarrphic pockB, ujidlvld»d
Vlcld mall quitntlUei at
water to wells
Source: Adapted from Bjorklund, Louis J. and Bruce W. Maxwell. 1961.
Availability of groundwater in the Albuquerque area, Bernalillo
and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. Technical report 21. New
Mexico State Engineer. Santa Fe, 117 p.
Figure 6-1. Block diagram of
the project area and vicinity
showing topography, generalized
geology, and the water table in
the alluvium and the Santa Fe
group.
-------
The project area lies within the Rio Grande depression. It is approx-
imately 6 miles west of the fault zone separating the depression from the
uplifted Sandia Mountains. The proposed treatment facilities at Montesa
Park and the pipeline to Montesa Park occur on valley alluvium associated
with depositional processes along Tijeras Arroyo.
Data from wells near the alternative disposal sites indicate the
geology at the lower end of Tijeras Arroyo consists of interbedded sand,
clay, and gravel in the alluvial material. It is approximately 47% sand,
37% coarse material (gravel), and 16% clay and mixed particles. A thick
region of sand occurs between 78 feet and 123 feet below the surface in the
alluvial material. The Santa Fe group below the alluvial material consists
of 60% clay interbedded with 25% sandy material. The remaining 15% is
sandstone and coarse materials.
Geologic data concerning the Montesa Park area show that the Santa Fe
group is dominated by various sands which make up approximately 58% of the
group. The remaining 42% primarily is gravelly in texture occurs in the
upper part of the Santa Fe group. Several feet of finer alluvial material
overlie the gravelly zone.
A well between the DLD sites indicates the geology consists of approxi-
mately 62% small grained material such as clay, shale, caliche, and inter-
mixed layers of these three. Approximately 37% of the well is sand. The
remaining 1% consists of lava rock.
Sand and gravel are dominant (75%) in a well near the landfill zone.
The remaining 25% is clay with some small amount of caliche.
Soils
Three soil associations occur within the Project Area: the Gila-
Vinton-Brazito association; the Bluepoint-Kokan association; and the
Madurez-Wink association.
6-5
-------
The Gila-Vinton-Brazito association is typified by level to nearly
level, well drained loamy soils on the floodplain of the Rio Grande and
along the Tijeras Arroyo Valley. Gila soils have a surface layer of cal-
careous loam, a stratified very fine sandy loam layer underneath the top
layer, and thick sand below these layers. Vinton soils have a sandy loam
surface with underlying layers of loamy sand and very fine sand. Brazito
soils have a silty clay loam surface layer with coarse sand in the subsur-
face. Some soils of this association have a moderate or high shrink-swell
potential. Local areas need protection from flooding.
The Bluepoint-Kokan association is comprised of level to steep exces-
sively drained sandy and gravelly soils on dissected terraces and alluvial
fans, mainly along the sides of Tijeras Arroyo. Bluepoint soils are roll-
ing loamy sand soils on broad alluvial fans. Kokan soils are rolling to
steep gravelly sand soils located on dissected terraces. The hazard of
water erosion is moderate to severe for this association.
The Madurez-Wink association is typically composed of soils that are
level to moderately sloping and well drained. In the Project Area these
are located above and on either side of Tijeras Arroyo. Madurez soils have
a fine sandy loam surface layer and subsoils of sandy clay loam, find sandy
loam, and sandy loam. Madurez soils are located in slightly concave upland
areas. Wink soils have a surface layer of fine sandy loam and sandy loam
underlain by a sandy loam that is high in lime content. Wink soils are
located in slightly convex upland areas.
Soils that will be directly affected by construction and operation of
the proposed sludge handling facilities at Montesa Park and the proposed
pipeline are shown in Figure 6-2. Five soil units that will be affected
are described below according to their occurrence along the proposed pipe-
line route from Plant No. 2 to Montesa Park. Three units are part of the
Gila Series, and two units are part of the Bluepoint Series.
The Gila Series (in general for the units labeled Gd, GF and GA) is
comprised of deep, well drained soils formed in recent floodplain alluvium
of the Rio Grande River. A representative sample shows a loamy surface
6-6
-------
PROPOSE!?
REATMENT
MQNTESA
Source: Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil survey
of Bernalillo County and parts of Sandoval and Valencia
Counties, New Mexico. US Department of Agriculture,
Washington DC, 101 p.
Figure 6-2. Soil mapping units
of the project site. Mapping
units defined in Table 6-1.
SCALE' 1:24,000
1000 2000 3OOO
-------
layer seven inches thick. Below the surface layer is a stratified very
fine sandy loam and sandy loam layer that is approximately 37 inches thick.
Below these two layers is sand to a depth of 60 inches or more. Permea-
bility is moderate and available water capacity is 8 to 11 inches. The
pertinent mapping units of the series are: Gd - Gila loam, moderately
alkali; GF - Gila complex, moderately alkali; and GA - Gila fine sandy
loam. During rainstorms, more water is absorbed than is lost to runoff.
Detailed characteristics of these units are presented in Table 6-1.
The Bluepoint Series (in general for the units labeled BCC and BKD) is
comprised of deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in sandy
alluvial and windblown sediments along the sides of Tijeras Arroyo. A
representative sample depicts a surface layer of loamy fine sand eight
inches thick. Below the surface layer, to a depth of greater than 60
inches or more is a loamy sand. The soil is slightly calcareous and mildly
to moderately alkaline. Permeability is rapid and available water capacity
is 4 to 5.5 inches. The pertinent mapping units of this series are: BCC -
Bluepoint loamy fine sand (1% to 9% slope) and BKD - Bluepoint-Kokan associ-
ation, hilly. During rainstorms a much greater amount of water is absorbed
than is lost to runoff. Detailed characteristics of these units are also
presented in Table 6-1.
The mapping unit at the proposed Rio Puerco DLD sites is the BKD -
Bluepoint-Kokan association which is hilly and a part of the Bluepoint
Series described in the previous section. The mapping unit at the proposed
Pajarito DLD location is MWA - Madurez-Wink association which is gently
sloping. Detailed properties of these soils are presented in Table 6-1.
The MWA mapping unit is part of the Madurez Series which consists of
deep, well drained soils formed on piedmonts in old unconsolidated alluvium
modified by wind. In a representative profile, the surface layer is a fine
sandy loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is sandy clay loam and find
sandy loam about 17 inches thick, sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Additional mapping units listed in Table 6-1 are those likely to be
crossed by proposed pipelines or landfills.
6-8
-------
Table 6-1. Properties of soil mapping units of alternative project sites.
Depth from Permea-2 Water
Soil Series Surface bility Capacity
and Mapping Unit1 (inches) Texture Slope (in/hr) (in/in soil) £H
Bluepoint:
BCC. Bluepoint
loamy fine sand,
1 to 9% slope
0-8 Loamy fine
sand
8-60 Loamy sand
1-9%
6.0-20 0.07-0.09 7.4-8.4
6.0-20 0.07-0,09 7,4-8.4
Shrink- Shallow
swell Excavation
Potential Limits
Low
Low
Severe: Cut-
banks cave
Hazard
Runoff
Soil blowing: Slow
severe
ON
BKD, Bluepoint -
Kokan association,
hilly, and
BcA, Bluepoint
loamy fine sand,
1 to 3% slope
Gila;
GA, Glla fine
sandy loam
(5-15% has
gravel lenses)
50% Loamy fine
sand, 40%
0-60 gravelly sand, 5-40% 6.0-20 0.07-0.09
10% limy
0-7 Loamy
Very fine
7-44 sandy loam
& sandy loam
44-60 Sand
0.6-2.0 0.13-0.18
0-2% 0.6-2.0 0.13-0.18
0.6-2.0 0.05-0.07
7.4-8.4
Low
Severe: Cut-
banks cave
Water erosion:
moderate to Slow
severe
7.9-8.4
7.9-S.4 Low Slight
7 . 9-8 , 4
Water erosion
and soil
blowing:
moderate;
flooding
hazard
Slow
-------
Table 6-1. Properties of soil mapping units of alternative project sites (continued).
Soil Series
and Mapping Unit1
Glendale:
Gk, Glendale
loam
Latene:
LtB, Latene sandy
loam, 1 to 5%
slopes
Vinton;
Va, Vinton loam
_, sandy
O*» '
O VbA, Vinton sandy,
loam, 0 to \%
slopes
VF. Vinton and
Brazito soils,
occasionally
flooded
Pajarito;
PAC, Pajarito loamy
fine sand, 1 to 9%
slopes
Depth from
Surface
(inches)
0-6
6-38
38-60
0-15
15-60
0-10
10-60
0-60
Texture
Clay loam or
loam
Silt loam
Clay loam
Sandy loam
Gravelly sandy
loam
Sandy loam
Loamy sand
Fine sandy
loam and
sandy loam
Permea-
bility
Slope (in/hr)
0-1% 0.2-0.6
0.2-0.6
0.2-0.6
1-5% 0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0-1% 2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
Water
Capacity
(in/in soil)
0.16-0.20
0.19-0.21
0.19-0.21
0.12-0.14
0.09-0.11
0.10-0.12
0.06-0.08
0.09-0.11
Shrink- Shallow
swell Excavation
£A Potential Limits Hazard Runoff
7.4-7.8 Moderate Moderate: too Water erosion: Very slow
clayey slight
7.9-8.4 Moderate
7.4-8.4 Moderate
7.9-8.4 Low Moderate: Water erosion, Medium
small stones soil blowing:
moderate
7.9-8.4 Low
7.9-8.4 Low Severe: Soil blowing: Very slow
cutbanks severe; water to slow
cave erosion: slight
7.9-8.4 Low
7.4-8.4 Low Slight Soil blowing: Slow
severe
-------
Table 6-1. Properties of soil mapping units of alternative project sites (continued).
Depth from
Soil Series ^
and Mapping Unit
Agua;
Af , Agua loam
Anapra ;
An, Anapra silt
loam
Embudo :
Erab , Embudo
gravelly fine
sandy loam, 0 to
5 percent slopes
Etc, Embudo-Tijeras
complex, 0 to 9%
Surface
(Inches)
0-10
10-24
24-60
0-8
8-24
24-60
0-20
20-60
Texture
Loam or silty
clay loam
Loam and very
fine sandy
loam
Fine sand
Silt loam or
silty clay
loam
Clay loam
Sand
Gravelly fine
sandy loam and
gravelly sandy
loam
Gravelly loamy
coarse sand
Permea-
bility
Slope (in/hr)
0-1% 0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
6.0-20
0-1% 0.2-0.6
0.2-0.6
6.0-20
Emb: 0.6-2.0
0-5%
Etc.
0-9%
Greater
than 20
Water
Capacity
(in/in soil)
0.16-0.20
0.13-0.17
0.05-0.07
0.19-0.21
0.19-0.21
0.05-0.07
0.07-0.09
0.04-0.06
£H
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
Sh rink-
swell
Potential
Moderate
Low
Low
Low to
moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Shallow
Excavation
Limits
Severe:
cutbanks
cave
Severe:
cutbanks
cave
Severe: see-
page
Hazard Runoff
Erosion: slight Very slow
Erosion: slight Slow
Water erosion: Medium
moderate
slopes
-------
Table 6-1. Properties of soil mapping units of alternative project sites (continued).
Depth from Perinea- Water
Soil Series . Surface bility Capacity
and Mapping Unit finches) Texture Slope (in/hr) (in/in soil) pH
Gd - Glla loam,
moderately alkali
GF, Gila complex,
moderately alkali
(15% gravelly
throughout)
1
to Brazito;
Br, Brazlto fine
sandy loam
Bs, Brazito silty
clay loam
Bt, Braxito
complex
0-8 Loamy 0-1% 0.6-2.0 0.07-0.12 7.9-9.0
7-44 Very fine sandy 0.6-2.0 0.07-0.12 7.9-9.0
loam and sandy
loam
44-60 Sand 0.6-2.0 0.07-0.12 7.9-9.0
0-7 70% loamy sand 0-2% 0.6-2.0 0.07-0.12 7.9-9.0
or sandy loam
15% sandy clay
loam
7-44 Very fine sandy 0.6-2.0 0.07-0.12 7.9-9.0
loam and sandy
loam
44-60 Sand 0.6-2.0 0.07-0.12 7.9-9.0
0-9 Fine sandy loam 0-1% 0.6-2.0 0.13-0.21 7,9-8.4
to silty clay
9-60 Sand 6.0-20 0.05-0.07 7.9-8.4
Shrink- Shallow
swell Excavation
Potential Limits Hazard Runoff
Low Moderate: Wet Water erosion: Slow
Slight
Low
Crusts easily
Low
Low Moderate: Wet Water erosion: Medium
moderate;
soil blowing:
severe
Low
Low
Low to Severe: Erosion: slight Slow
moderate cutbanks cave
Low
-------
Table 6-1. Properties of soil mapping units of alternative project sites (concluded).
Soil Series ^
and Mapping Unit
Wink:
WaB, Wink fine
sandy loam, 0 to
5% slopes
Depth from
Surface
(inches)
0-35
Texture
Sandy loam
Permea-2
bility
Slope (in/hr)
0-5% 2.0-6.0
Water
Capacity
(in/in soil)
0.09-0.13
7.9-8.4
Shrink- Shallow
swell Excavation
Potential Limits
Low
Slight
Madurez:
MWA, Madurez
Wink association,
gently sloping
MaB, Madurez
loamy fine sand
1 to 5% slopes
35-60
0-21
21-60
0-9
9-21
21-60
Sandy loam
Fine sandy loam 1-7%
and sandy clay
loam
Sandy loam
Loamy fine sand 1-5%
Sandy clay loam
Sandy loam
2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.14-0.16
0.12-0.14
0.09-0.11
0.14-0.16
0.12-0.14
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Hazard Runo
Water erosion; Medium
slight to
moderate; soil
blowing: moderate
Soil blowing: Slow
moderate to
severe
Soil blowing: Slow
severe
Hlain soils at sites: Montesa Park - BCC; Pajarito - MWA; Rio Puerco - BKD; Landfill - Etc; Pipeline to Montesa Park - BCC,
GA, Gd, GF; common to pipelines for Pajarito and Rio Puerco - BCC, BKD, Br, Bs, Bt, Af, An, Gk, LtB, Va, VbA, VF, WaB, MWA,
MaB; additional to Rio Puerco pipeline - PAC.
Permeability: less than 0.6 in/hr: slow; 0.6-2.0 in/hr: moderate; 2.0-6.0 in/hr: moderately rapid; greater than
6.0 in/hr: rapid.
Source: Soil Conservation Service 1977. Soil survey of Bernalillo County and parts of Sandoval and Valencia Counties,
New Mexico. US Department of Agriculture, 101 p.
-------
6.1.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
If the City chooses to take no action, the excess sludge which would
be lagooned north of the present Plant No. 2 could adversely impact the
soils. Stockpiles at Montesa Park would have some effect also, though not
to the extent caused by sludge lagooning at Plant No. 2. Soils will be
affected by chemical alterations, including increases in toxic elements
such as cadmium, copper, and nitrogen. These effects will occur due to
leaching by water infiltration from the surface. However, contaminated
soils are not the prime concern, but rather the more significant affects
caused if leachate'reaches groundwater, (Section 6.3.2) potentially contami-
nating groundwater supplies.
6.1.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
Of the components (thickening, stabilization, conditioning, etc.)
involved in the action alternatives, conditioning, drying, transportation,
and disposal are the components that could effect earth resources. Dif-
ferent options are available under each component.
Negative environmental effects associated with these components can be
minimized if proper management practices are used. Conversely, if proper
management and sludge application monitoring practices are not followed,
contamination of soil is potentially significant. Potentially significant
effects associated with various treatment and disposal options are dis-
cussed below.
Conditioning
Lime/Ferric Chloride (applies to Alternative 10 only).
Use of lime will substantially raise the pH of sludge. This could
limit the use of the landfill for future vegetative growth, if that were
desired once the landfill is abandoned.
6-14
-------
Drying
- Open Air Drying
The option of open air drying involves stockpiling of sludge at
Montesa Park prior to its being disposed of by landspreading. This could
potentially be a source of sludge leachate and/or contaminated surface
runoff which will degrade soil in the area below and near the stockpiles.
However, this should have little significant effect upon humans or other
life since plant growth or other soil uses at present are sparse in the
Montesa Park area.
Disposal
- Landspreading
The landspreading alternative involves the intended use of treated
sludge as a fertilizer. Dried sludge would be periodically spread on city
parks and golf courses in the City of Albuquerque. Effects depend on such
things as rates of application, amount applied each application, constit-
uents incorporated in the sludge, and soil characteristics. Accumulation
of phytotoxic metals such as cadmium, copper, zinc, and nickel is the prime
concern of over-application. To control this problem, safe accumulation
limits within a certain time period should be set and the areas spread with
sludge monitored for accumulative levels. Limits set would depend on safe
uptake of these metals by grasses on the parks. The application rate de-
pends on such things as the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the affected
soil, the soil texture, and the rate of use of elements in the sludge by
the affected grasses.
Benefits of landspreading as a soil conditioner are appropriate to the
Albuquerque area in general. The generally sandy texture of the soil is
improved for vegetative growth by application of sludge. Organic matter
added by the sludge generally improves soil tilth. One study has shown
digested sludge applied to a sandy soil increased field moisture capacity,
non capillary porosity, and cation exchange capacity. Similarly, organic
6-15
-------
matter content, total nitrogen, and soil aggregation increased signifi-
cantly Benefits were found to be greater in sandy soil than in loam.
(National Academy of Sciences 1977).
Concentration of nutrients that increase soil fertility (nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium) are considerably lower in sludge than in commer-
cial fertilizers. Therefore, sludge generally needs to be applied very
heavily in comparison to commercial fertilizers in order to deliver similar
nutrient value. Much of the nitrogen in sludge is organic and is only
slowly available to plants since it must first convert to inorganic forms.
Phosphorus and potassium are considered to be as available in sludges as in
commercial chemical fertilizers (National Academy of Sciences 1977). Thus,
if sludge is applied at somewhat conservative rates as compared to its
"safe" nutrient limits, there is much less likelihood of soil contamination
problems. Similarly, if sludge is applied heavily in order to achieve
nutrient values comparable to commercial fertilizers, toxic metals entering
soil from the sludge may exceed "safe" limits.
Landfilling
The alternatives utilizing landfilling involve the use of a refuse
landfill for the disposal of sludge from treatment Plant No. 2. Proper
construction and management of the landfill in accordance with state and
Federal requirements should effectively limit any environmental problems.
The importance of this is emphasized due to the sandy and gravelly subsur-
face in possible landfill areas, which allows for more extensive leaching
possibilities. Proper installation of a clay liner will prevent toxic
elements from entering the soil or geologic strata outside the landfill
boundaries. Nitrates, gases, pathogens, and toxic metals occurring in a
landfill emphasize further the importance of its proper construction and
the use of a liner. The impact of the disposed sludge is significantly
lessened due to the presence of toxic materials already disposed in typical
municipal solid waste landfills.
Wind and/or water erosion are potential problems associated with
landfill operations. Soil to be used in the landfill operation is likely
6-16
-------
sandy and easily wind-blown in the Albuquerque area. Water erosion could
affect the surrounding area by carrying contaminated surface runoff outside
the boundary of clay linings if the topography of the landfill were to rise
above the surrounding area.
Dedicated Land Disposal at Pajarito and Rio Puerco
An additional alternative for sludge disposal involves setting aside a
particular land area for the sole purpose of sludge disposal. The upper
soil layer is directly affected by the process of plowing and sludge injec-
tion. As with other alternatives, careful management practices should make
this a viable alternative while adverse affects could result from improper
monitoring. The City's description of DLD alternatives do not describe
proposed monitoring programs.
One item of environmental concern to earth resources is the affect
upon soil productivity at a DLD site. Nothing will grow during active DLD
operations, and productivity following its use as a DLD site is question-
able. Careful monitoring of toxic elements, following USDA guidelines,
should allow for food chain crop growth following the site's use as a
disposal area. Copper is the only toxic parameter which, from sludge
sampling, exceeds the USDA guidelines. Toxics will build up so that un-
limited use of an area following DLD operations will be limited over a
period of years (probably between 20 and 30).
Another major environmental concern is water erosion and erosion due
to wind blowing. During dry periods severe dust problems are likely in the
two barren areas proposed for DLD sites because of the constant plowing and
loosening of topsoil.
Lagoons are proposed at the DLD sites to store sludge prior to its
application by injection. Since the lagoons will have a concentration of
toxics directly received from the treatment plant, they deserve more inten-
sive environmental monitoring than the DLD application area.
6-17
-------
A further consideration concerns usefulness of the sludge itself. The
potentially beneficial fertilization and soil conditioning characteristics
from landspreading are lost by use of the DLD disposal method.
Transportation
Pipeline
Pipelines to Montesa Park, Pajarito, and Rio Puerco are likely to en-
counter shallow excavation during construction. The Bluepoint, Kokan, and
Madurez soil series, which are among areas to be crossed by proposed pipe-
line routes are the main soils displaying this limiting characteristic.
Wind and water erosion control measures may be necessary during construc-
tion of the pipeline (and the associated Montesa Park treatment facilities).
Another prime concern of pipeline transport is the effect upon soils
in the event of pipeline leakage or breakage. Soil contamination would
likely occur in and near a break. This could adversely affect soil pro-
ductivity due to overloading of nutrients and toxic elements, depending on
the extent of the leakage and the location of the accident. Problems
should be short-term, improving naturally once the pipeline damage is
repaired.
Trucking
Trucking is a transportation option for delivery of sludge to Montesa
Park, Pajarito, Rio Puerco, and the landfill. This method of transport
should pose little enviornmental difficulty. In case of an accident in-
volving spillage of sludge during transport, some local contamination of
soil along the transport route could occur. This should only cause short-
term problems involving leaching. The extent of the problem of any spill-
age would depend on the current use of the soil at the location of the
spill.
An evaluation of each action alternative was made with the potential
effects discussed in the previous paragraphs in mind. Table 6-2 indicates
6-18
-------
Table 6-2. Effects of Optimal Alternatives for the City of Albuquerque Sludge Management Program on Earth Resources.
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a\ 6.
i
5 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
>» K.
. ^ Jj ^ ij
rA rt «rH O «i-^ C
E£fects 1 g 1 g aS S SS ~ 3 K || BS || ||
sil ZS1 Is U sS pi I IS |S
Ulm.ti,. ^sa ^a ^s M ss ^fis * r< ^ ^ 5"
1A oooo o o
IB oooo o o
1C o
ID o
IE oooo o o
IF oooo o o
16 °
1H °
2A o o o
2B o o o
3A o o
3B o o o
3C o o o
3D o o
C P
O <1J
C -H 4J
O CD 00 4J nj
4J S Q) -H i-H
0) H O ^H 3 O
f> fi « 0) g -H
So «w > 3 x
on M
-------
both major and minor effects on earth resources that will occur due to
construction and implementation of each action alternative.
6.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
6.2.1 Existing Conditions
Hydrology
The Study Area (Bernalillo County) is located in the Middle Rio Grande
River Basin of central New Mexico. The basin has an area of approximately
11,880 sq mi and a total length of approximately 228 mi. Drainage area
upstream of the City of Albuquerque measures approximately 14,500 sq mi and
produces an average annual discharge of 779,600 ac ft or approximately 1.01
inches runoff per year. The main direction of flow through the basin is
south southwest. Major tributaries of the Rio Grande in Bernalillo County
include Arroyo de las Calabacillas, Arroyo de Domingo Baca, Arroyo del
Pino, Arroyo del Embudo, Tijeras Arroyo, and Bear Arroyo.
Flows in the Rio Grande River measured at Albuquerque vary substan-
tially. During the period of 1974 to 1979 the average discharge was 1,076
cubic feet per second (cfs) (USGS 1980). Historically, the flow has been
as high as 25,000 cfs and as low as 0 cfs. Ninety percent of the time, the
flow is equal to or greater than 37 cfs at Albuquerque. Currently, the
Rio Grande near Albuquerque is classified as water quality limited and
designated water uses include irrigation, limited warmwater fishery, live-
stock and wildlife watering, and secondary contact recreation (NM WQCC
1980).
Spring flows (April-June) which result from snow-melt and precipita-
tion are characterized by gradual stage rises, moderate discharge levels,
large volumes of flow, and long durations. Summer and flash flood flows
(May-October) generally peak quickly at high discharge levels and contain
smaller volumes of runoff. Due to the construction of levees, dikes, and
jetties and increased channelization to decrease the potential for flood-
ing, the main channel of the Rio Grande has been so extensively modified
6-20
-------
within the Middle Rio Grande Basin that in several locations, the entire
flow of the river is carried in conveyance channels rather than the main
channel proper (NM WQCC 1976).
The Tijeras Arroyo, much like the Rio Grande, carries a widely fluctu-
ating flow. After rainfall, flow in the arroyo can become very high (up to
approximately 2,500 cfs); however, there are also extended periods of no
flow. The Tijeras Arroyo has a drainage area of 133 sq mi.
Basically, the surface water hydrology characteristics of the Middle
Rio Grande Basin remain essentially unchanged from those described in the
1977 EIS.
Surface Water Quality
Data to evaluate surface water quality of the Rio Grande and tribu-
taries near Bernalillo County are inadequate to form all but the most
general conclusions. Most available data from recent sources (USGS, NMEID,
City of Albuquerque, and Patterson 1970) have been tabulated and presented
in the 1977 EIS. Additionally, the 1977 EIS document contains a detailed
discussion of surface water quality in the basin, extensive references to
the literature, evaluation of all major physical, chemical and biological
parameters and the effects of wastewater management in Albuquerque.
Among the most severe surface water quality problems in the Study Area
are high levels of suspended solids, dissolved solids, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Additionally, manganese and iron are present at high, undesira-
ble concentrations and there is concern that lead, cadmium, chromium,
copper, mercury, molybdenum and zinc may be present in elevated amounts
(Table 5-2).
Nutrients in the Rio Grande River immediately below the City of
Albuquerque and its sewage treatment plants increase substantially from
upstream levels. Ammonia nitrogen, Kjeldahl-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen,
ortho-phosphate, and total phosphorus exhibit a tripling in concentrations
6-21
-------
(flow weighted) between Bridge Avenue in Albuquerque and Isleta Dam, approx-
imately 12 miles downstream. Further downstream, however, all nutrients
except nitrate-nitrogen show decreased concentrations.
Chemical surface water quality data from any tributary of the Rio
Grande near Bernalillo County is scarce. One monitoring station on Tijeras
Arroyo near Albuquerque operated by USGS does collect chemical data but its
short period of record (August 1979 to present) and extended periods of no
flow have produced little definitive data.
In general, surface water in the Study Area tends to be warm, have
high pH, moderately hard and alkaline, and the quality has changed little
since the 1977 EIS.
Floodplains
Areas of potential flooding are present throughout the Study Area Most
flooding results from overflowing of the Rio Grande during either spring or
early summer, or from flash floods from local arroyos in response to in-
tense, localized summer thunderstorms (EPA 1977).
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has prepared flood hazard
boundary maps (FHBM) for the entirety of Bernalillo County. These maps
indicate that areas most prone to flooding are located mainly along low
lying areas near the Rio Grande, Tijeras Arroyo, conveyance channels,
canals, drains, and other large arroyos. The FHBM illustrate that the
construction area inside Montesa Park contains no flood prone areas; how-
ever, the northern and western portions of the proposed Rio Puerco dedi-
cated land disposal site and the extreme southern portion of the proposed
Pajarito site do contain areas prone to flooding.
Currently, floodplain information is being revised throughout the
Study Area. The NFIP is performing a study (Type 15) to delineate all 100
and 500 year floodplains in Bernalillo County. This program is on-going
and should be completed by autumn or early winter 1981 (Stier 1981).
6-22
-------
Water Rights
The ground and surface waters of New Mexico are public property and
are subject to appropriation by State law. The legal rights to these
waters are determined by regulations of the New Mexico State Engineer,
whose policies are designed to protect and stabilize flows in the Rio
Grande. A complete discussion of New Mexico's water rights administration
is available in Reynolds et al. (1976).
6.2.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
The effects of the City taking no-action will result in degradation of
surface water quality in the Rio Grande River at and below Albuquerque.
Current estimates are that Plant No. 2 potentially will be required to
operate at 13 mgd beyond design characteristics. This overload will raise
not only discharge, but total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) of the effluent. Due to the addition of the inadequately
treated surface runoff from open sludge lagoons into the river, it is
probable that dissolved oxygen concentrations will be lowered while turbi-
dity, nutrients, toxic elements, and pathogenic bacteria will increase in
concentration.
An additional adverse effect on water quality will result from long-
term continued sludge stockpiling at Montesa Park. Stormwater runoff from
the stockpile potentially may contain considerable amounts of BOD, TSS, and
soluble toxic elements that eventually could flow into the Tijeras Arroyo
and Rio Grande River.
6.2.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
The following sections will describe the effects upon hydrology, water
quality, flood plains, and water rights for all proposed action alterna-
tives. These alternatives are composed of various sludge treatment and
disposal methods (discussed in Chapter 5) and have the common goal of
successfully and permanently removing organic and inorganic solids (sludge)
from the sewage and discharging an effluent of acceptable quality.
6-23
-------
Potential environmental consequences due to implementation of the
various treatment options and/or components are presented in Table 6-3. An
evaluation was made of the 14 action alternatives with respect to the
components Involved and the cumulative effects of components in each alter-
native. Table 6-4 lists the major and minor effects that will occur re-
garding surface water quality within the study area. These effects are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Hydrology
All action alternatives will have a similar effect on surface water
hydrology. Sewage effluent discharged from Plant No. 2 will increase from
a current average of 34.3 mgd (Bruce 1981) to approximately 60 mgd. This
increase will be taken mainly from groundwater reserves rather than from
upstream surface water sources. The result will be that the base flow of
the Rio Grande River will increase approximately 39.8 cfs (28,785 ac ft/yr)
below the outfall of Plant No. 2. Additionally, runoff control (if imple-
mented) from the dedicated land disposal sites would remove runoff from
approximately 3580 ac from the drainage area of the Middle Rio Grande Basin
resulting in a net decrease in yield of approximately 300 ac ft/yr.
Surface Water Quality
As presented in Table 6-4, potential effects to surface water quality
will vary in type and magnitude depending upon which action alternative is
chosen. Degradation of surface water quality due to the project should be
minimal as long as surface water runoff is controlled at each sludge pro-
cessing or disposal site.
Potential decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrations may occur in
area waters receiving runoff from landspread areas in city parks, golf
courses, or dedicated land disposal sites. Alternatives which have this
potential are alternatives 1A through 1H, and Alternatives 3A through 3D.
6-24
-------
Table 6-3. Potential effects of options upon water quality or quantity.
Option
Dissolved Air Flotation
Anaerobic Digestion
Organic Polymer
Lime/Ferric Chloride
Truck Transportation
of Sludge
Pipeline Trans-
portation of Sludge
Belt Press
Filter Press
Solar Greenhouse
Sludge Drying
Open Air Sludge Drying
Cesium-137 Sludge
Irradiation
Electron Beam Sludge
Irradiation
Composting of Sludge
Landfilling of Sludge
Landspreading Sludge
on City Parks and
Golf Courses
Dedicated Land
Disposal of Sludge
Effect
no effect if properly maintained
no effect if properly maintained
no effect
no effect
if new roads are constructed, increased sediment
load and turbidity can result from land disturbance.
Runoff can increase if impervious surfaces are
required.
During construction increased sediment load and
turbidity can result from land disturbance.
Potential overflows of sludge wetwells can increase
nutrients in surface runoff.
no effect if properly maintained
no effect if properly maintained
no effect
no effect
no effect
no effect
Potential increases in nutrients, sediment loading,
toxic elements, and pathogens in surface runoff to
area rivers, and streams
Effects easily mitigated by controlling runoff
no effect
increased nutrients and toxic elements in
surface runoff, area rivers and streams.
same as for composting, except potential for large
scale pollution is very high if surface runoff is
not controlled
6-25
-------
Table 6-4. Effects of Optimal Alternatives for the City of Albuquerque Sludge Management Program on Water Resources.
Effects
Decrease in Increase in
Potential Potential
Increased Potential Potential Increased Increased Alterations to
(NH3)
Increased Increased Toxic Water Drainage Area
Pathogens Elements Quantity Characteristics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
I 8-
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
00 0
0 0 O 0
00 0
o o o o
00 0
o o o o
O 0 O
o o o o
o
0
o o o o o
O 0 0 O 0
o o o o o
o o o o o
Use - o minor effect
major effect
-------
Short-term increases in turbidity will result from pipeline construc-
tion. This will result mainly from precipitation falling on unvegetated
disturbed areas created during pipeline emplacement. Relatively short
pipelines (Alternatives IB, ID, IF and 1H) will have fewer potential adverse
effects than longer pipelines to dedicated land disposal sites (Alterna-
tives 3B and 3C). Additionally, pipelines have the potential to break
causing further localized effects.
All alternatives using land-spreading or dedicated land disposal of
sludge have the potential for increasing concentrations of nutrients and
toxic elements in area waters. These increases will result mainly from
precipitation runoff and can be easily mitigated by runoff control.
Action alternatives using dedicated land disposal of non-disinfected
sludge (Alternatives 3A through 3D) have the potential of polluting area
waters with pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites. As before, these
organisms would be contained in runoff from the dedicated land disposal
sites and could be easily mitigated by runoff control.
Floodplains
Potential effects to floodplains resulting from any action alternative
are few. All alternatives will increase the baseflow of the Rio Grande
below Albuquerque and will result in very small changes in flood frequen-
cies and flood prone area boundaries. These changes and the effects
produced will be extremely small and very localized.
Alternatives 2A and 2B propose landfilling as a method of sludge
disposal. When a site for the landfill has been selected, efforts should
be taken to ensure that the landfill is not located in a flood prone area;
or, if it is, that adequate protection against flooding is provided.
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D propose dedicated land disposal sites
that are partially within flood prone areas. Sufficient raising or diking
of these areas should be performed before these lands are used for sludge
disposal. All other alternatives or options have negligible effects on
floodplains or flood prone areas.
6-27
-------
Water Rights
New Mexico's water rights allocations near Albuquerque will be in-
directly affected by all action alternatives. Each alternative assumes
increased population, industrialization, water demand, and water use.
These increases are dependent on current appropriations and if increases
are sufficient, acquisition of new or abandoned allocations will be
necessary.
Currently, the City receives credit for 50% of all groundwater pumped
(assumed to be return flow). As demand and discharge increase this credit
will increase also.
6.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
6.3.1 Existing Conditions
All of the alternative sites share some common groundwater character-
istics as well as some differences. A major similarity of all sites is
that they have the same general means of recharge discussed previously for
the Project Area. All sites have a southwesterly flow, except for the Rio
Puerco and Pajarito sites, which are located on the west side of the
"trough," and thus have a southeasterly flow. Differences occur in depth
to the water table, hydraulic gradient, quality, and uses of water as
discussed below.
Approximate depths to water at each site are as follows: Plant No. 2,
less than 10 feet; Montesa Park, 210 feet; Pajarito, 470 feet; and
Rio Puerco, 800 feet. Possible landfill sites vary in their depth to
water, though the general region being considered has an average depth of
approximately 100 feet. The gradient is steepest underneath the Rio Puerco
site, though it is less than 1%. It is much less than 1% at all other
sites.
6-28
-------
Though available information concerning quality is somewhat dated,
indications are that quality is good for use as potable water except for a
high nitrate area near the Mountainview community at the lower end of
Tijeras Arroyo, just south of Plant No. 2. This area has many wells which
produce water that exceeds 10 mg/1 in nitrates.
Very little groundwater is used at or near the Rio Puerco and Pajarito
OLD sites, due to lack of population and comparatively excessive depth to
water. Similarly, there is little use of groundwater near Montesa Park or
several miles south. Industrial uses dominate around Plant No. 2, while
industrial and irrigation uses occur in the potential landfill locations.
The major municipal public supply wells are in the central Albuquerque
area, several miles south of the potential landfill locations.
6.3.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
If no action is taken to construct and operate any of the optimal
action alternatives, some groundwater contamination, especially in the area
around Plant No. 2, is very likely. The main environmental concern re-
garding groundwater is potential contamination by leachate from sludge
lagoons and stockpiles. The concern is greatest in shallow water level
areas since these are areas where leachate has very little vertical travel
to filter contaminants out through the soil. Therefore, the water level
depth is directly related to the potential for groundwater contamination by
leachate. The most vulnerable area is the inner valley where the water
table normally lies within 20 feet of the surface and often times within
five feet (USEPA 1977). The drying beds and lagoonal areas at Plant No. 2
would lie within this vulnerable region and thus potentially would create
pollution problems if this alternative was implemented.
6.3.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
Of the components (thickening, stabilization, conditioning, etc.) in-
volved in the alternative sludge treatment and disposal processes, drying,
transportation, and disposal are the components that potentially could
effect groundwater. Different options available under each component will
have varying effects.
6-29
-------
If proper construction and operational procedures pertaining to each
alternative are followed, adverse effects to groundwater should he minimal.
Conversely, poor monitoring of operational procedures could have adverse
effects upon groundwater quality. The potentially significant effects of
each option are discussed below.
Drying
Open Air Drying
The option of open air drying involves sludge accumulations placed
upon paved areas; however, runoff and leachates may come in contact with
the surface of the earth. The groundwater level underneath Montesa Park is
considered to be deep enough to purify leachate prior to its reaching the
water table. However, if there are no controlling structures, surface
runoff may proceed down Tijeras Arroyo into areas where groundwater is
shallow enough to be potentially contaminated by vertical seepage of
leachate. This potentially could add to the already present problem of
high nitrate levels in groundwater at the lower end of the canyon, thereby
limiting use of groundwater in the Mountainview Community and surrounding
areas.
Transportation
Pipeline
The proposed pipelines from Plant No. 2 to Montesa Park, Pajarito, or
Rio Puerco deserve attention due to the potential for a pipeline rupture
resulting in leakage of sludge. This could cause serious nitrate problems
in shallow water table locations for users with nearby groundwater wells or
wells within several miles of the spill area. Since the flow gradient is
in a generally southwesterly direction, wells near and to the south and
southwest of a pipeline spill would be the most vulnerable to nitrates and
possibly toxic metal contamination. This expecially applies to pipeline
locations in the inner valley where groundwater is shallowest.
6-30
-------
Truck
No problem is anticipated from trucking of sludge to Montesa Park, the
landfill, or either OLD site except in the case of a spillage accident.
This could cause some local groundwater contamination in shallow ground-
water areas, though such small volumes of sludge as could be spilled from a
haul truck would result in only minor, short-term impacts.
Disposal
- Landspreading
Landspreading of sludge treated at Montesa Park would be applied to
City parks and golf courses within the City of Albuquerque to act as a
fertilizer and soil conditioner. If spreading application rates are close-
ly regulated, groundwater in most cases should not be affected. However,
any parks located in inner valley areas where the water table is within a
few feet of the surface should be considered potentially vulnerable to
local groundwater contamination, especially if safe application procedures
are not carefully followed. Contaminated leachate from sludge spread onto
parks will percolate vertically through the generally porous soil and
strata in the area. This will then be intercepted by groundwater in loca-
tions where the vertical distance is not enough to filter out toxic
elements.
A positive condition in the area is the relatively high cation ex-
change capacity (CEC) of the soils in the project area. Soils of the area
are effective in incorporating toxic metals from leachate into their
molecular structure. This aids greatly in reducing toxic contents of
leachate as it percolates vertically.
A major concern in the Albuquerque area is the occurrence of nitrates
in groundwater in some areas. This demands the utmost care in assuring
that nitrate causing nitrogen is not overloaded in any landspreading pro-
cedure, as there is little to prevent nitrate formation in areas with a
shallow water table.
6-31
-------
Landfill
Groundwater would not be substantially adversely affected by sludge
disposal in a properly constructed landfill with adequate clay lining.
Heavy metals are strongly attenuated by a clay lining (National Academy of
Sciences 1977). Pathogens and water soluble organics are little attenuated
by clay. However, since the water level below the proposed landfill zone
is close to 100 feet below the surface, leachate (if any) from the landfill
should be filtered free of contamination by the time it reaches ground-
water.
The presence of a clay lining (if utilized) will impede normal ground-
water recharge in the particular area covered by the landfill. This is an
effect of the landfill construction and will occur regardless of the sludge
disposal. The effect will be very minimal considering the relatively small
area the landfill covers in comparison to the extensive and porous land
area in the project area receiving groundwater recharge from the surface.
Dedicated Land Disposal at Pajarito and Rio Puerco
The alternatives of using land set aside solely for sludge disposal is
feasible from a groundwater perspective provided proper sludge application
procedures are followed. The operating technique is to balance sludge
loadings such that net soil evaporation equals the total moisture applied
in the sludge, therefore theoretically there will be no movement of the
sludge constituents from the surface soil horizon (CDM 1980b).
A difficulty in Albuquerque is the predominantly porous nature of
soils and sediments. However, since both proposed DLD sites are in areas
where the water table is several hundred feet below the surface the
Pajarito site probably having water over 300 feet deep and the Rio Puerco
site over 600 feet deep, the risk of groundwater contamination is lessened
in the short-term. However, over a period of years, sludge constituents
will accumulate, with leachate carrying contaminants further below the
surface as the CEC of the soil is used to full capacity. Therefore, use of
either of the two sites may be limited to a certain number of years. It is
6-32
-------
hard to determine the exact life expectany of a DLD site due to numerous
variables and lack of applicable data, but, roughly, a minimum of 20 to 30
years of sludge disposal use is estimated.
Table 6-5 summarizes the major and minor effects upon groundwater that
potentially will occur due to the action alternatives.
6.4 AIR AND SOUND QUALITY
6.4.1 Existing Conditions
Climate
The basic climatic information for Albuquerque is as follows: average
temperature is 55.8° F; average annual rainfall is 7.8 inches; average
annual relative humidity varies from 31% at 5:00 p.m. to 64% at 5:00 a.m.;
and average wind speed is 9 miles per hour. Wind direction in Albuquerque
is illustrated in Figure 6-3. A predominate feature of the climate of
Albuquerque is the large number of clear days and the high percentage of
sunshine.
Ambient Air Quality
Albuquerque is part of Federal Air Quality Control Region 152 and part
of New Mexico's Air Quality Control Region 2. Modifications to wastewater
treatment Plant No. 2 and remote sludge management facilities must be
compatible with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and New
Mexico's Ambient Air Quality Standards. Table 6-6 presents the NAAQS and
the New Mexico Ambient Air Quality standards.
An area that does not meet the NAAQS for a particular pollutant is
classified as nonattainment for that pollutant. All of Bernalillo County
is nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and parts of Albuquerque are non-
attainment for total suspended particulates (TSP) and photochemical oxi-
dants. Nonattainraent areas of the City are shown in Figure 6-4. Automo-
6-33
-------
Table 6-5. Effects of Optimal Alternatives for the City of Albuquerque Sludge Management Program on Groundwater
Resources.
Effects
Potential
Contamination
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
use
9 ""*
o -
X -
Nitrate
Alternatives Increase
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
significant
minor
beneficial
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
potential
General Toxic
Increase
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Recharge
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
o
0
Use Long-Term by
Limitations Contamination Accident
0 O
0 0
00
o o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o
Pathogenic
Con t amina t ion
0
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
o
-------
JULY
PERCENT OF TIME WIND WAS CALM.
WIND ROSES SHOW PERCENTAGE
OF TIME WIND BLEW FROM 16
COMPASS POINTS OR WAS CALM
ANNUAL
Figure 6-3. Wind direction in
Albuquerque NM.
Source: Baldwin, John L. 1973. Climates
of the US. US Department of Commerce.
Washington DC, 113 p.
-------
Table 6-6. State and Federal ambient air quality standards.
Pollutant
Total Suspended
Particulate (TSP)
1. 24-Hour Average
2. Annual Geometric Mean
New Mexico
Standard
150 ug/nf
5
60 ug/nf
Federal
Primary
Standard
260 ug/nf
75 ut/m3
Federal
Secondary
Standard
150 ug/nf
60 ut/m"
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
1. 24-Hour Average
2. Annual Arithmetic Mean
3. 3-Hour Average
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1. 8-Hour Average
2. 1-Hour Average
Photochemical Oxidants (Ozone)
1. 1-Hour Average
(previous std.)
1-Hour Average
(promulgated 1979)
Nitrogen Dioxide
1. 24-Hour Average
2. Annual Arithmetic Mean
O.LO ppm
0.02 ppm
0.06 ppm
0.10 ppm
0.05 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.08 ppm
0.12 ppm
0.50 ppm
8.7 ppm
13.1 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
0.08 ppm
.12 ppm
0.05 ppm
0.05 ppm
6-36
-------
NONATTAINMENT
FOR OZONE
NONATTAINMENT
FOR PARTICIPATE
MATTER
ALL OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
IS NONATTAINMENT FOR
CAR BON MONOXIDE
V
RIO PUERCO
Figure 6-4. Nonattainment areas for part
of Bernalillo County.
Source: Duran, Dave. 1981. Letter, Dawn
Davenport-Johnson, WAPORA, Inc., 13
May 1981, 3 p.
-------
bile emissions are the major contributing factor in the area being classi-
fied as nonattainment for CO and photochemical oxidants, while unpaved
roads and parking lots are the major contributing source for the TSP
designation (Duran 1981).
Regulations
A Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit would
not be required for modifications to the Albuquerque sludge management
facilities since the plant is not considered a major stationary source.
The Air Pollution Control Division of the Albuquerque Environmental Health
Group has enforcement authority in Bernalillo County for the state regula-
tions or their own regulations where applicable. One City regulation which
has a direct impact on the sludge management alternatives is the City's
prohibition of incinerators (Section 4, Air Pollution Control Regulations).
The Environmental Health Group requires that reasonable effective pre-
cautions must be taken to prevent fugitive dust (i.e., from sludge stock-
piles) from being emitted into the atmosphere. If soil is disturbed or
removed from an area larger than 3/4 ac in size (i.e., the dedicated land
disposal site) a permit must be obtained from the Environmental Health
Group and the plant must take all reasonable precautions within a reason-
able time to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Neither
the Federal, State, nor City government has specific regulations to control
malodorous emissions. Odor complaints are handled under the public
nuisance provision of the New Mexico Statutes (Section 30-8-1). The City
enforces a noise ordinance (21-1975) which limits the increase in ambient
noise (L90) to 10 dBA above background or 50 dBA total, whichever is
greater.
Odor
Odors are one of the most serious environmental concerns in the
project area. The majority of air pollution complaints received from the
public concern odors (by phone, James Lareau, Albuquerque Environmental
Health Group, 13 May 1981). The Albuquerque Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2
has been beset by lawsuits and complaints since 1964 when fourteen South
6-38
-------
Valley residents brought suit against the City to obtain compensation for
odor damages from Plant No. 2. In 1966, it was ruled that compensation was
proper, and the "odor rights" of the individuals were purchased by the
City. In 1973 odor was a major cause for the lawsuit and stipulation
(Mt. View et al. vs. Fri et al.) which set forth as the basic goal of odor
control the use of "Best Practicable Control Technology". In 1976, the
plant suffered a severe odorous upset, resulting in a petition of protest
signed by more than 120 persons. In 1980 there was another stipulation
which in part required the City to institute the following conditions at
Plant No. 1: (1) not vent odorous gases, (2) discontinue the use of sludge
drying beds, (3) remove sludge on a daily basis, and (4) renovate the
sludge digesters.
Regional odor problems are concentrated along the valley especially
the South Valley and result from two major sources: wastewater treat-
ment plants and animal confinement/meat processing facilities. Although
some observers can distinguish between the two sources, the odors are
somewhat similar and often occur together. Thus, it is difficult to eval-
uate the separate significance of the two sources. However, it is certain
that treatment plant odors have had a significant long-term impact on
immediate neighborhoods and areas downwind (USEPA 1977a). It was deter-
mined in the 1977 EIS for the Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Facilities
that the most serious problems occur from May to August, especially in June
and July. Winds vary during this period, exposing persons in all direc-
tions to odors. The Mountainview community is especially impacted because
of the year-round occurrence of winds from the north-northwest. However,
impacts over an area of many square miles have been reported. The odors
tend to be worse, or reportedly most noticed, in the evening (USEPA 1977a).
Noise
Ambient noise levels were tested for Montesa Park and Plant No. 2 in
July of 1981 by the Albuquerque Health Department. The primary noise at
Montesa Park was generated by jet and propeller aircraft. The Albuquerque
6-39
-------
police pistol range is located at Montesa Park but did not have a signifi-
cant effect on the ambient noise level. The ambient L90 noise level is 35
dBA. For comparison, the typical residential area within the city is
between 48 to 52 dBA.
Plant No. 2 is situated in a rural-residential area. Ambient L90
noise levels are 51 dBA at the eastern edge of the plant near the entrance,
57 dBA at the western boundary, and 58 dBA in the center of the plant
(Orton 1981).
The Rio Puerco dedicated land disposal site is located on the West
Mesa and is influenced by background city noise and a flight pathway for
the Albuquerque National Airport. When not influenced by airplanes the
ambient L90 noise level is approixmately 35 dBA. Airplanes raise the
ambient noise level to approximately 65 dBA (by phone, Miles Orton,
Albuquerque Department of Health, 9 July 1981).
The Pajarito dedicated land disposal site is located on the western
slope of the West Mesa and therefore is not influenced by background city
noise. The ambient L90 noise level (when wind is less than 12 mph) is
approximately 35 dBA (by phone, Miles Orton, Albuquerque Department of
Health, 9 July 1981).
6.4.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
With the no action alternative, the treatment Plant No. 2 would be
overloaded by 13 MGD and the existing drying beds would be utilized to
capacity which would cause substantial odor, fugitive dust, and a potential
for pathogenic aerosols. Sludge from the drying beds would be stockpiled
indefinitely at Montesa Park. A stockpile of this potential size would be
a major source of odors and would also produce fugitive dust emissions
unless it was protected from wind. Any excess sludge would be lagooned
north of the plant, resulting in substantial increases in odors and the
potential for pathogenic aerosols in areas near Plant No. 2.
6-40
-------
6.4.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives^
Effects from major sludge treatment and disposal options (i.e., an-
aerobic digesters, stockpiles, etc.) which potentially will occur are
presented in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8. Criteria pollutants such as sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide^ and nitrogen dioxide are not emitted in substan-
tial quantities. Major effects from the sludge management alternatives on
air and noise resources are odor, pathogenic aerosols, and the potential
for radiation exposure. These effects will be discussed further.
An evaluation was made of the 14 action alternatives using the infor-
mation in Table 6-7. Effects that will occur due to implementation of the
action alternatives are listed in Table 6-9. Implementation of any action
alternative will result in secondary impacts to air quality caused by
induced growth. Increasing the capacity of the sewage treatment facility
allows further growth in the Albuquerque area. With this growth comes some
degradation of air quality caused by increased vehicular emissions, in-
crease particulate matter from burning of wood in residential fireplaces,
and increased emissions from new industry.
Odor
If sludge is properly digested, the odors associated with sludge
management alternatives would be considered minor. The following options
are potential sources of significant odor, if sludge is not properly di-
gested: solar greenhouse, open air drying, certain stages of composting,
dedicated land disposal (OLD), and sludge stockpiles. For more detailed
information on these options see Table 6-7. There also are other signifi-
cant sources of odors at Plant No. 2 that do not involve the sludge manage-
ment system (i.e., headworks, primary clarifiers, etc.). Locations in
wastewater systems where odors may develop are presented in Table 6-10.
Malodorous emissions tend to be worse in warmer weather and in sludge with
a higher moisture content.
6-41
-------
Table 6-7. Potential air effects associated with sludge management
options.
DAF
minor odor associated with exhaust gas unless treated
Anaerobic Digestion
minor odor potential if digesters are functioning properly
reduces pathogens in the sludge
Organic Polymer Conditioning
Could increase bacterial production of odorous substances
Lime/Ferric Chloride Conditioning
lime produces better stabilized sludge having less odor
reduces pathogens in the sludge highly effective at pH 11.5
Belt Press
minor odor potential; more of an odor problem than filter press
because sludge is exposed to the atmosphere longer
Filter Press
minor odor potential; less of an odor problem than belt press due
to the short time that sludge would be exposed to the atmosphere
Greenhouse
significant odor associated with exhaust gas if sludge is not pro-
perly digested unless an odor control device (e.g., scrubber) is
used
potential for dust and pathogenic aerosols
Open Air Drying
significant odor, if sludge is not properly digested
potential for dust and pathogenic aerosols; this potential will be
reduced by the proposed walls surrounding the drying area
6-42
-------
Table 6-7. Potential air effects associated with sludge management
options (continued).
Cesium-137 Irradiator
small potential for overexposure to radiation of occupational
personnel and the public due to abnormal events (accidents); for
more information see Appendix 10.2
during normal operation, the irradiator will be designed so that
there will be no discernible radiation exposure outside the facility
during normal operation of the pilot irradiation facility at Sandia
Laboratories there has been no dose rate over 0.05 rems per year to
workers inside the irradiator facility
since irradiated sludge has a higher content of biodegradable
organic matter than composted sludge, it would be more likely to
produce an odor problem. However, since Albuquerque has been land
applying sand-bed-dried, anaerobically-digested sludge for years,
this probably is not a problem (Kowal 1981)
Electron Beam Irradiator
extremely small potential for radiation exposure of occupational
personnel and the public since interlocking safety system would
shut the system off in case of accidents; when the system is off
there is no production of radiation; for more information see
Appendix 10.3
the facility will be designed so that there will be no discernible
radiation exposure outside the facility
. during normal operation of a pilot irradiator there has been no
measurable radiation exposure to the workers inside the facility
Composting
significant odor could be generated from the sludge before it is
covered with an insulating layer if the sludge is not properly
digested; minor odor present after insulating layer is applied;
odor associated with the air drawn through the pile is greatly
reduced by being released into a small pile of screened compost
which absorbs the malodorous gases
pathogenic aerosols could be released during the stacking of the
sludge before the insulation layer is placed on the pile
high concentration of Aspergillus fumigatus (fungi that pose a
pathogenic threat to man); generally restricted to the immediate
composting area and should not pose a significant health threat to
surrounding area
6-43
-------
Table 6-7. Potential air effects associated with sludge management
options (continued).
Landspread on Public Lands
minor odor from the sludge - dependent on: (1) whether it has been
thoroughly digested; (2) time of year (summer is worse); and (3)
moisture content (odor is worse if precipitation follows applica-
tion) - the Parks and Recreation Department has had very few
complaints (by phone, Al Boberg, Parks and Recreation Department,
29 June 1981)
very little dust associated with the sludge application due primar-
ily to the method of application (scoop shovels) which keep the
sludge close to the ground
Landfill
odor problems exist at landfills regardless of whether sludge is
present; sludge will make up a very small percentage of the
material disposed of in the landfill
dust is a problem at landfills regardless of whether sludge is
present
potentially explosive gases are present at a landfill site regard-
less of whether sludge is present
Dedicated Land Disposal
significant odor from sludge if it has not been thoroughly digested
potential for substantial dust as the sludge dries, and due to
on-site removal of vegetation
potential for pathogenic aerosols
Truck Transportation
minimal increased emissions along route - the impact will be
greatest when these routes traverse residential areas
odor is associated with transportation of wet sludge by truck;
these odors will impact areas along the route
significant increased dust could occur where routes follow dirt
roads (i.e., the proposed truck route to the Rio Puerco DLD site)
if there is no dust control
6-44
-------
Table 6-7. Potential air effects associated with sludge management
options (concluded).
Pipeline Transportation
increased dust during construction - short-term
Stockpiling of Sludge
there is a maximum of three stockpiles and a minimum of zero stock-
piles associated with the alternatives
significant odor is associated with all stockpiles if the sludge is
not properly digested regardless of the percent solid, although the
odor lessens as the sludge dries (i.e., the 20% solid stockpile
will have a greater odor than the 40-90% stockpile)
the size of the 20% and 40% sludge stockpiles (for group 1 alterna-
tives) will be considerably smaller than the 40-90% final stockpile
dust associated with sludge as it dries to approximately 40% solid;
a wall around the stockpile will greatly reduce the dust; it is
proposed that only one smaller stockpile will have a wall surround-
ing it
when sludge is stockpiled before it is disinfected there is a
potential for dust and pathogenic aerosols
6-45
-------
Table 6-8. Potential noise effects associated with sludge management
options.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
generates a substantial amount of noise unless shielded
the ambient noise level 25 feet from a building containing a DAF
unit would be approximately 65 dBA
Dedicated Land Disposal
increase noise in area of land disposal due to dump trucks, tank
trucks, and tractors
this noise would be continuous throughout the year
Landspread on Public Lands
noise associated with the landspreading of sludge due to the trucks
used to transport the sludge and the spreading equipment
this noise would not be continuous throughout the year
there is noise associated with the spreading of any fertilizer
Landfill
noise is associated with the landfilling of sludge, but the land-
fill site will exist with or without being used for sludge
disposal; therefore there will be an increase in noise in the
surrounding area even if the sludge is not disposed of in the
landfill
Truck Transportation of Sludge
when the truck routes follow high volume roads the existing noise
level would be increased by less than 2 dBA and is therefore insig-
nificant (USDOT 1973)
the increase in noise levels would be greater on roads with less
traffic
Pipeline Transportation of Sludge
short-term noise impact during construction - the effect will be
greatest when the pipeline traverses residential areas or is built
close to other noise sensitive receptors (i.e., schools)
6-46
-------
Table 6-9. Effects of Optimal Alternatives for the City of Albuquerque Sludge Management Program on Air Resources.
Short-Term
Effects Potential
Overexposure
No. Alternatives Odor to Radiation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
- major
o - minor
1A o
IB o
1C o
ID o
IE
IF
1C
1H
2A o
2B o
3A
3B
3C
3D
Aerosols Increase in Dust & Noise
Containing Fugitive Dust Vehicle from Pipeline
Pathogens Emissions Emissions Construction
o o o
o o
0 0
o
0 O
o
o o o
o o
o
o
o o
o
0
0 0
-------
Table 6-10. Locations in wastewater systems where odors may develop.
4>
00
Gravity sewers
Force mains
Pumping stations:
Wet wells
Dry wells
Stilling wells
Grit chamber
Screens
Grease, screenings and
grit handling
Equalization tank
Primary settling basin:
Sludge transfer
Scum transfer
Chemical addition
Aeration tanks
Trickling filters
Ponds
Biodisks
Final settling basins
Granular media filters
Sludge pumping
Sludge thickening
Sludge storage
Sludge conditioning
Sludge dewatering
Sludge digestion
Heat treatment
Process sidnstream handling
Septage handling
Land irrigation
Effluent structure
Ventilation system
Sumps for drainage
Channels for drainage
Flow distribution
structures
Chemical contact tanks
Carbon columns
Sludge incineration
Sludge composting
Sludge spreading
Waste-
water Grit
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Screen- Waste
ings Scum Sludge Air
X
X
X
X
X X
X
XXX
XXX
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
XXX
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
x x
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Slime
on
Walls
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Organic
Dirt on
Surfaces
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sludge
Deposits
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dark or Short-
Porous Chemical Circuited
Walls Spills Areas
x x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Source: Task force on Odor Control. 1979. Odor control for wastewater facilities, manual of practice
No. 22. Lancaster Press, Inc., Lancaster PA, 80 p.
-------
With Group 1 alternatives (1A-1H) the major sources of malodorous
emissions associated with sludge management will be located at Montesa
Park. Sludge will not be transported to Montesa Park in the second (2A and
2B) and third (3A-3D) groups of alternatives; therefore, the odors associa-
ted with these alternatives will be located at Plant No. 2 and the disposal
sites.
The Group 1 alternatives involving disposal by landspreading on city
parks include, with the exception of IE and IF, either solar greenhouse or
open air drying which are both potentially significant sources of odorous
emissions. Stockpiles, another cause of odors, would also be a part of the
first group of alternatives. Alternatives 1A, IB, 1C, ID, 1G and 1H will
have three stockpiles. One stockpile will be at 20% solid, one at 40%
solid, and one at 40% solid that will eventually dry to approximately 90%
solid. The 40-90% stockpile would be the largest due to the longer reten-
tion time. Alternative IE and IF will have two stockpiles: one at 20%
solid, and one at approximately 70% drying to 90% solid.
There will be no drying component (greenhouse or open air drying)
included in Group 2 or Group 3 alternatives. There will be one stockpile/
storage area with a short retention time included in the Group 2 alterna-
tives. The Group 3 alternatives will have no stockpiles. The dedicated
land disposal option which will be included in the third group of alterna-
tives is a significant source of odor. Odors associated with dedicated
land disposal will originate from the Rio Puerco or Pajarito site.
Malodorous pollutants related to the sludge handling facilities will
either be emitted from a point source (i.e., exhaust gases from the DAF,
greenhouse, etc.) or from open sources (i.e., stockpiles, DLD, etc.).
These odorants will be transported and diluted by the wind and are greatly
influenced by local topography. For instance, the wind and therefore the
pollutants are channeled in pronounced valleys such as the Tijeras Arroyo.
It should be understood that the intensity of these odors is highly depen-
dent on the proper functioning of the sludge management facility and the
atmosphere dispersion that would occur before the odors reached the
Mountainview Community.
6-49
-------
Atmospheric inversions decrease turbulence and therefore increase surface
concentrations of odors (Cheremisinoff 1975, Turk 1974). The time that
Albuquerque will experience odors concentrated by inversions will vary from
30% in summer to 48% in winter (Hosier, 1961).
Pathogenic Aerosols
Small droplets of wastewater which could contain pathogens (bacterium
or virus) are emitted into the air at wastewater treatment plants. These
droplets evaporate very rapidly to yield small droplet nuclei known as
aerosols (Rahren 1980). The generation of aerosols is usually associated
with such wastewater treatment processes as activated sludge, trickling
filtration, and land application by spray irrigation. Although these
treatment processes are not a part of any sludge management alternative
being evaluated, there also is a small potential for the emission of aero-
sols when non-disinfected sludge comes into contact with air (i.e., stock-
piles, greenhouse, etc.). Lime conditioning and anaerobic digestion reduce
the quantity of pathogens that are present in the sludge (Pahren 1980).
After emission, pathogenic aerosols are further reduced by aerosol impacts
(initial die-off factors such as relative humidity, temperature, and sun-
light) and biological decay. All of the alternatives evaluated have some
minor potential for generating pathogenic aerosols.
Radiation Exposure
Cesium-137 Irradiator
A sewage sludge irradiator is designed to utilize gamma rays from
cesium chloride (Cs-137) to disinfect sludge. The irradiator for the
Albuquerque sludge management program has not been designed yet, but cer-
tain design criteria are known. If this option is chosen for the
Albuquerque facility, it will incorporate safety features at least as
stringent as those present at the Sandia Irradiator for Dried Sewage Solids
(SIDSS) pilot facility located at Sandia National Laboratories. Any im-
provements that have been learned from work at the SIDSS also will be
incorporated (Khera 1981).
6-50
-------
The highest penetrating dose rate to personnel working at the irradia-
tion facility is expected to be 0.05 rem per year for a maximum of seven to
eight individuals (McMullen 1981). The Federal standard for radiation
workers is the equivalent of 5 rem per year (10 CFR part 20.101). For
comparison, the natural external radiation background in the Albuquerque
area has been measured to be approximately 150 to 200 millirem (0.15 to 0.2
rem) per year per person (ERDA 1977). The dose rate expected outside the
facility during operation and decommissioning is expected to be essentially
zero. The primary shielding of the cesium chloride gamma ray source will
be the massive steel reinforced concrete structure of the facility
(McMullen 1981).
The quantity of Cesium-137 contained within the irradiator will be
approximately 15 million curies. When dealing with large quantities of
radioactive material, there is always the potential of overexposure and/or
the release of radioactive material resulting from abnormal events. Most
of these abnormal events, usually referred to as accidents, would not
result in overexposure to the occupational personnel or the general public
from radiation. The most realistic accidents which could be expected are:
pool cover drop, transportation cask drop, shielding water release, pool
cover removed without water in the pool, problems with the shutter, source
pin leak, fire, explosion, security problems, and accidents caused by
natural events. A detailed description of these accidents as well as the
safety features incorporated in the irradiator to prevent these accidents
is presented in Appendix 10.2. This appendix also includes a discussion of
the safety record for some of the existing irradiators throughout the US.
Although these irradiators are smaller than the proposed Albuquerque irra-
diator and they usually use Cobalt-60 as the source of gamma rays, the
technology is similar to Albuquerque's proposed irradiator and therefore a
discussion of their safety record is appropriate.
- Electron Beam Irradiator
The basic concept behind this technology is to use electricity to
excite a tungsten filament which emits electrons. The electrons move at 94
percent of the speed of light and are swept back and forth by the electron
beam scanner. The electrons lose energy in collisions with atoms and
6-51
-------
molecules and produce ionization which causes powerful disinfecting and
detoxifying effects. The high energy electrons bombarding surfaces produces
x-rays which contribute little to the disinfection process but do require
shielding. When electricity is not being fed into the machine there is no
radiation being produced; therefore, once the machine is off regular main-
tenance can take place without any special precautions to protect against
radiation exposure. There is no radioactive material present (Priede-
Segewick 1981). More information is available on the electron beam
irradiator in Appendix 10.3.
At an electron beam pilot facility in Boston and at various industrial
irradiators, there has been no measurable radiation exposure to the workers.
There also has been no radiation exposure rate discernible above background
levels outside the facility (by phone, Bob Fernald, High Voltage
Engineering, 28 July 1981).
In an accident scenario, electricity would be shut off and therefore
irradiation would stop, thus greatly reducing the possibility for over-
exposure. There is no radioactive material that could be released.
Throughout over 15 years of experience in industrial facilities there has
been only one case of overexposure. This accident occurred over 15 years
ago when a worker was taken through an irradiator on a conveyor belt.
Irradiators have been corrected so as to avoid this type of accident (by
phone, Bob Fernald, High Voltage Engineering, 28 July 1981).
Noise
Noise increase at Plant No. 2 from construction and operation of
additional anaerobic digesters and dissolved air flotation units will be
negligible. Doubling of these noise sources will increase the ambient
noise level by approximately 3 dBA (USDOT 1973). Noise increases of 5 dBA
or less are negligible (EPA 1978).
6-52
-------
Montesa Park is zoned SU-1 (special use zoning), and there are no
sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, etc.) currently
located near the park that could be effected by an increase in the ambient
noise levels at the park.
Both dedicated land disposal sites are zoned rural/agricultural.
There are no sensitive receptors near these sites that would be affected by
the increase in noise levels from the use of these areas as dedicated land
disposal sites.
The landfill will exist whether or not it is used for sludge disposal.
Sludge will be a very small percentage of the material disposed of at the
landfill; therefore, the increase in noise caused by sludge disposal will
be negligible.
Truck transportation associated with the various options is the major
source for potential impacts from increases in ambient noise levels, since
there are sensitive receptors along the truck routes. However, the antici-
pated increases in noise levels for roads associated with the various
routes are less than 2 dBA. Increases of less than 5 dBA are negligible;
therefore, noise impacts are considered insignificant.
6.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
6.5.1 Existing Conditions
Due to a large variation in elevation, land form, and soil in the
Middle Rio Grande Valley, there is a large diversity in biological re-
sources. In addition, moisture plays an important role and is perhaps the
most important ecological variable. In the Albuquerque area the more
productive communities occur near the Rio Grande River.
A gradual change in land cover occurs as elevation decreases from the
mountainous terrain to the Rio Grande River Basin (Figure 6-5). Land at
elevations between 9,000 and 6,100 ft is covered by pinyon-juniper or
6-53
-------
AGRICULTURAL
AGRICULTURAL/URBAN
PONDEROSA PINE
PINON-JUNIPER
GRASSLAND
COTTONWOOD a
RUSSIAN OLIVE
Source: USEPA. No date. Technical reference document for
Albuquerque wastewater treatment faciltiies. Albuquerque,
New Mexico, variously paged.
Figure 6-5. Profile of the land cover
of the Middle Rio Grande River
Valley near Albuquerque, New Mexico.
-------
ponderosa pine forest. Common animals include the muledeer, desert cotton-
tail rabbit, Pinyon Jay, Pigmy Nuthatch, and tree lizard. Grasslands are
the predominant land cover between 6,400 and 5,100 ft, and common animal
species include blackballed jackrabbit, coyote, pronghorn antelope,
Mourning Dove, and Mockingbird. Land at elevations between 5,100 to 4,900
ft are used for urban and/or agricultural purposes. Riparian woodlands
border the Rio Grande River and adjacent aquatic habitats. Urban/agri-
cultural land hosts few native species, but the productive riparian habitat
supports species such as willow, Rio Grande cottonwood, salt cedar, and
Russian olive. Important animal species are the beaver, raccoon, gray fox,
coyote, as well as a number of waterfowl species. The fishery resource is
not significant in the Rio Grande River and associated marsh, drains and
canals. Some fish species (e.g., catfish, carp, sunfish) occur naturally,
while rainbow trout and brown trout are present due to winter stocking
efforts. A more detailed list of biological resources including land
cover, physical characteristics, and animals is presented in Table 6-11.
Regarding endangered species, the US Fish and Wildlife Service was
contacted in August 1980 for information about species listed or proposed
to be listed that might occur in the project area (i.e., Bernalillo County).
Their response (see Appendix 10.1) stated that no listed or proposed
species would be affected by Albuquerque proposed sludge management system.
The two sites evaluated as dedicated land disposal sites (Rio Puerco
and Pajarito) are classified as grassland types (MRGCOG 1978). Dominant
plant species include black grama, blue grama, galleta, side-oats grama,
dropseeds, and salt-brush. Animal species in this habitat include the
coyote, blacktailed jackrabbit, striped skunk, American Kestrel, Western
Meadow Lark, Scaled Quail, and Loggerhead Shrike. Typical reptile species
include the western diamondback rattlesnake, western box turtle, and
western spadefoot toad.
A field investigation of Montesa Park and the Tijeras Arroyo site on
12-13 February 1981 revealed the typical vegetation species on this shrub-
land site to include sagebush, creosote bush, tumbleweed, and various xeric
grass species. Most areas along the route were bare or sparcely covered by
6-55
-------
Table 6-11. Existing biological resources in the middle Rio Grande Valley near Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Land Cover
Forest
(includes
pinon-junlper
woodland &
ponderosa
pine forest)
Location and
Physical Characteristics
Sandia Mts. & foot
hills. Slope general-
ly steep but also rol-
ling hills. Soils
shallow to deep, fine
sandy loam to very
stony loam surface
layer. Granite out-
crops common. Elev.
6100 to 9000 ft.
Undisturbed Vegetation
Pinon pine, one-seed
juniper, ponderosa
pine, gambel oak,
sideoats grama,
dropseeds, prickly
pear, mountain
mahogany, Apache
plume, woods rose,
scarlet penstemmon.
Mammals
Western pipis-
trelle, desert
cottontail, mule
deer.
Birds
Prairie Falcon, Per-
egrine Falcon, Band-
tailed Pigeon,
Hairy Woodpecker,
Cassen's Kingbird,
Scrub Jay, Pinon
Jay, Stellar Jay,
Pigmy Nuthatch,
White-crowned
Sparrow.
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Shorthorned lizard,
tree lizard,
plateau whlptail,
smooth-green snake,
gopher snake, black-
tailed rattlesnake,
western spadefoot
toad.
Invertebrates
and/or fish
Similar to above.
Also bark beetles,
cicada, aphids,
deerflies, leaf
hoppers, tent
caterpillar, sow
bugs, earthworms.
Grasslands
(includes
arroyos &
valley-side
grassland)
5100 to 6400 ft. elev.
Greatest portion of
the study area above
the floodplain of the
Rio Grande and below
the foothills of the
Sandia Mountains
Varied topography,
slopes usually less
than 10%, but greater
near arroyos. Soils
variable, fine sand
and sandy-loam, to
sand and gravel.
Black gamma or Indian
rice, grass usually
dominant, also galleta,
dropseeds, blue grama,
side-oats grama, four-
winged salt-brush,
broom snakeweed,
rubber rabbitbrush,
walkingstick cholla,
dagger cholla, prickly
pear, yucca, Apache
plume, loco weed,
stickleaf, mallow,
horse nettle, doveweed.
Blacktailed jack-
rfabbit, spotted
ground squirrel,
prairie dog,
silky pocket
mouse, western
harvest mouse,
white-footed
mouse, kit fox,
coyote, pronghorn.
Kestrel, Furruginous
Hawk, Burrowing Owl
Scaled Quail, Road-
runner, Mourning
Dove, Mocking Bird,
Western Meadow Lark,
Loggerhead Shrike,
Horned Lark.
Western box turtle,
lesser earless
lizard, side-blotch-
ed lizard, horned
lizards, coach whip,
gopher snake, west-
ern diamondback
rattlesnake, Western
spadefoot toad.
Grasshoppers, carrion
beetles, tenebrioned
beetles, ants, robber
flies, walking stick,
praying mantis, spid-
ers, moths, butter-
flies.
Rock
Outcrops
Cinder cones and
volcano cliffs on
West Mesa. Slope
gentle to nearly
vertical. Soils
shallow, rocky,
derived from basalt
parent material
Galleta and black
grama usually dominant,
also dropseeds, Indian
rice-grass, threeawn,
blue grama, sideoats
grama, four-winged
saltbrush, winterfat,
wolfberry, prickly
pear, broom snake-
weed .
Desert cottontail,
rock squirrel,
striped skunk,
gray fox, ring-
tail, coyote.
Same as above. Also
Rock Wren, Prairie
Falcon.
Same as above. Also Similar to above.
eastern fence lizard.
-------
Table 6-11. Existing biological resources in the Middle Rio Grande Valley near Albuquerque,
New Mexico (continued).
Land Cover
Valley Urban
and Agricul-
tural Lands
Valley
Riparian
I Woodland
Location and
Physical Characteristics
4900 to 5100 ft. In
the Rio Grande River
inner valley (flood-
plain). Little or
no slope.
4900 to 5100 ft. in
and adjacent to the
floodway of the Rio
Grande River. Little
or no slope.
Undisturbed Vegetation
Rio Grande cottonwood,
willows, Russian
olive, salt cedar,
curly dock, yerba
mansa, Virginia
creeper, alkali saca-
ton, sand dropseed.
Mammals
House rat, Norway
rat, striped
skunk.
cotton rat, Norway
rat, white-footed
mouse, desert cot-
tontail, beaver,
raccoon, gray fox,
coyote.
Birds
Reptiles and
Amphibians
House Sparrow, House Woodhouse's toad,
Finch, Starling, Rock garter snake.
Dove, Common Crow.
Common Flicker,
Steller Jay, Scrub
Jay, Common Crow,
Great Blue Heron,
Black-crowned Night
Heron, Gambel Quail,
Ringneck Pheasant,
Mourning Dove,.Amer-
ican Robin, White-
crowned Sparrow,
Blue Grosbeak, Black-
headed Grosbeak,
Marsh Hawk, Cooper
Hawk, Roadrunner,
Starling, House
Sparrow.
Woodhouse's toad,
Western spadefoot
toad, tiger sala-
mander, bullfrog,
whiptail lizard,
eastern fence
lizard, gopher
snake, garter
snake.
Invertebrates
and/or Fish
Household and
agricultural
insects, soil
invertebrates, etc.
Beetles, grasshoppers,
moths, ants, butter-
flies, spiders,
earthworms, aquatic
insects, mosquitoes.
River
Rio Grande River low
flow channel. Flowing
stream with inter-
spersed mudflats.
Flow rate: slow, 3-8
mph.
Turbidity: high
TemperatureL 13° C
Bottom: silt & sand
deposit
Depth: 0-10 ft.
Algae, cattails,
sedges, reeds, rushes
Beaver, muskrat,
raccoon.
Great Blue Heron, Garter snake, bull-
Black-crowned Night frog, leopard frog.
Heron, Mallard, Teals,
Pintail, Northern
Shoveler, Killdeer,
Common Snipe, Spot-
ted Sandpiper.
Tubifex worms,
crayfish, snails,
Carp, catfish
(high turbidity
during most of the
year is limiting
factor).
-------
Table 6-11. Existing biological resources in the Middle Rio Grande Valley near Albuquerque, New Mexico (concluded).
Location and
Land Cover Physical Characteristics
Drains & Both sides of Rio Grande
Canals and throughout inner
valley.
Man made channel 10-30
ft. wide.
Flow rate: slow to
moderate, 5-10 raph.
Turbidity: Low to
moderate.
Temperature: 15" C
Undisturbed Vegetation Mammals
Algae, cattail, rushes, Muskrat, Norway
sedges, hornwort, stone- rat, striped
wort, milfoil (margin skunk.
plants are removed by
periodic dredging).
Birds
Occasional ducks,
Common Snipe, Belted
Kingfisher, Great
Blue Heron, Black-
crowned Night Heron
Reptiles and
Amphibians
Garter snake, bull
frog, leopard frog,
spiny softshell
turtle.
Invertebrates
and/or Fish
Tubifex worms,
snails, cray-
fish, Rainbow
& brown trout
(stocked in
winter) cat-
fish, carp,
chub, bluegill,
largemouth bass,
dace, mosquito
fish.
ui Cattail Marsh
oo
37-acre marsh at
outfall of Corrales
drain N.E. of U of
Albuquerque; scattered
& intermittent small
remnants along river
6 drains.
Algae, cattail, reed,
rushes, sedges, spike
rushes, duckweed, mil-
foil, stonewort, horn-
wort.
Beaver, raccoon,
muskrat, cotton
rat, western
Jumping mouse,
striped skunk.
Great Blue Heron,
Black-crowned Night
Heron, Snowy Egret,
ducks, Common Snipe,
Spotted Sandpiper,
Killdeer, Virginia
Rail, American Coot,
Redwing Blackbird,
Common Yellow-throat,
Rough-winged Swallow.
Garter snake,
spiny softshell
turtle, painted
turtle, tiger
salamander, bullfrog,
leopard frog.
Tubifex worms,
snails, cray-
fish, dragon-
flies. Rainbow
& brown trout
(from drains)
catfish, carp,
chub, bluegill,
largemouth bass,
dace, mosquito
fish.
Swift Stream
Tijeras Creek.
Narrow, shallow
mountain stream.
Algae, watercress,
sedges, rushes,
willows.
Raccoon, strip-
ed skunk.
Garter snake, western
spadefoot toad, red
spotted toad, canyon
tree frog.
Stoneflies,
caddisflies,
water penny,
Uncertain; might
support cold
water species
such as trout,
dusky dace,
mountain suck-
ers, etc.
-------
vegetation. Animals observed included the blacktailed jackrabbit, coyote,
Redtailed Hawk, and American Kestrel. There was considerable evidence of
small game hunting.
Pipeline and road right-of-ways were not surveyed outside of the
Montesa Park area. Plant and animal species will vary for each alterna-
tive, but will be primarily a mixture of grass, shrub, and agricultural
species. Plant and animal species inhabiting the landfill site can not be
determined until site selection is finalized.
6.5.2 Environmental Consequences of the No-Action Alternative
Effects to terrestrial biota from the no-action alternative will be
minimal. Primary adverse consequences from this alternative will result
from a decrease in surface water quality due to contaminated runoff from
stockpiled sludge and an inadequately treated wastewater discharge. Ter-
restrial species using (drinking, resting, foraging, etc.) the affected
waters will be exposed to increased levels of toxic elements and potential
pathogens.
Aquatic biota will be more adversely affected by the decline in water
quality. Inadequately treated sewage and the warm, shallow, slow flowing
nature of the Rio Grande River during much of the year will provide condi-
tions conducive to low concentrations of dissolved oxygen. This potential-
ly will result in a reduction in distribution of species present in the
river, a reduction in abundance of certain other species (stone flies,
caddis flies, etc.), and an increase in abundance of more tolerant orga-
nisms such as dipterans and tubificid worms. Additional adverse effect to
the aquatic community will result from increases in suspended solids
causing a reduction in numbers and types of benthic species.
6.5.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
Table 6-12 describes potential effects that could occur due to con-
struction and/or operation of various sludge treatment options. An evalua-
tion was conducted to determine the effects that may occur due to implemen-
tation of each alternative, based upon the options involved and using the
6-59
-------
Table 6-12. Potential biological effects of various options.
Option
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Potential Effects
no effect
Anaerobic
Digestion
no effect
Organic Polymer no effect
Lime/FeCl
no effect
Truck Trans-
portation of
Sludge
increased road kills
increased dust from trucks
contamination from spilled sludge and refractory
hydrocarbons
increased stream sedimentation, dust, and vegetation
removal from construction
increased human intrusion
Pipeline Trans-
portation of
Sludge
increased sedimentation, vegetative loss, habitat
loss from clearing and pipeline construction
Belt Press
no effect
Filter Press
no effect
Solar Greenhouse
Drying
no effect
Open Air Drying
increased flies, gnats and other nuisance/vector
species
6-60
-------
Table 6-12. Potential biological effects of various options (concluded)
Option
Cesium
Irradiation
Potential Effects
no effect
Electron
Irradiation
no effect
Composting
no effect
Landfilling of
Sludge
no effect
Dedicated Land
Disposal
increased sediment, nutrients, toxic elements,
and pathogens from surface runoff (if no runoff
control is implemented)
increased dust
loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat
6-61
-------
information in Table 6-12. The results of the evaluation are presented in
Table 6-13, and can be summarized as follows: The dedicated land disposal
options have the greatest potential for environmental impact because vegeta-
tion and wildlife habitat will be lost on approximately 3580 acres. Addi-
tionally, these DLD sites offer the greatest potential for impacting fish
and wildlife if no runoff control is implemented. Other impacts are
considered minor.
6.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
6.6.1 Existing Conditions
Bernalillo County contains a wealth of cultural resources (prehistoric,
historic and architectural). The county is within the Albuquerque District
of the Middle Rio Grande Archaeological Unit (Cordell 1979) and shares a
common heritage with areas further north and south along the Rio Grande
Valley. The cultural resources span some 15,000 years of human prehistory
and history and evidence has been found in various parts of the county for
Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Anasazi/Mogollon, and Historic occupations. The
cultural resources of Bernalillo County were concisely summarized in
Section G-l of the 1977 EIS (EPA 1977b). Other reports pertaining to the
cultural resources of Bernalillo County include Cordell (1979, 1980),
Tainter and Gillio (1980), Rodgers (1980, 1981), Judge (1973), Reinhardt
(1967a, b and 1968), Fisher (1931), Cambell and Ellis (1952), Wetherington
(1968), and Beck and Haase (1969). This list is not exhaustive; rather,
these are the studies used in the preparation of this section.
Currently, Bernalillo County has 23 sites (including 1 district)
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and another site that
is considered eligible. None of these are in any of the areas considered
for the optimal alternatives as sludge treatment or disposal sites. The
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Bureau has files on another 99 sites
(New Mexico State Historic Preservation Bureau, Property Inventory by
County, Revised August 1980). In addition, Section G-l of the 1977 EIS
(EPA 1977b) documented 56 sites on file with the Laboratory of Antropology,
Museum of New Mexico; and 34 sites with the Survey Records, Department of
Anthropology, University of New Mexico.
6-62
-------
Table 6.13. Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of Albuquerque sludge managmenet program on biological
resources.
cu 1-1
M-l i-4
H T-l
t-l T3
rl CO
Effect S <§
M-l
O *O
CO
01 CQ
O CO
C CO
Cfl t-l
pQ O
M C
3 t-l
cn ^3
H C
No. Alternative Q *
c
o
r4
4J 0)
cfl 00
C -O
H 3
a .-i
cfl CO
4J
0 Cl)
i i
CU T-l
M-l Q*
H CO
TD 6
i I O
r-l l-l
C
0
H
4-1 4-1
Cfl CO
w 5
rl Q
l-l
i-i cu
M r-4
O
73 T-l
CO tC
co cu
tfl >
cu
u o
C M
r-l En
C 00
0 C
H -H
4-1 l-l
CO Cfl
4J CU
CU r-l
OOO
CU
a
M-4 Cfl
O rJ
co E
co O
O r4
C
O
l-l
4-1
CO
4-1
CU
00
CU
M-l
O
CO
CO
O
CU
U
C
-o c
C CO
Cfl 4-1
C -H
O cfl
,
CO 4-1
CO -r4
T3
-O .r(
CO XI
CO V4
CO 3
CO H
M
O T3
C C
M CO
CO
e
i-4
CO
00
£
u
H
4-1
Cfl
3
S
CO
4J
C
cu
H
4J
3
Z
-0
cu
CO
Cfl
CU
o
c
CO
CJ i 1
H CO
M §
CO T-l
s
60 C
C cfl
r-l
4J CO
O 4-1
CO C
M-l Cfl
M-l r-4
<(J PM
O
C
ta
CO
z
C
>H
CO
CO
cfl
CO
l-l
0
C
M
CO
rH
Cfl
§
C
CO
M
4-1
p5
0)
r-4
C
0
4-1 T-l
C 4-1
O> cfl
e i-i
5 3
r-4 e
W 3
O
O O
H Cfl
X O
O -H
H tfl
O
l-l
4J
CO
CU C
M-l T-l
f 1 Cfl
T3 4-*
rH C
H O
-S U
*'O C*
C CU
Cfl 00
o
J2 £
CO 4-1
H Cfl
fn PM
U)
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
o
0 0
o
0 0
o
0 0
o
0 0
0 0
o o
o
o
0 O
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
0 0
o
o
0 O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o Potentially minor effect
Potentially serious effect
-------
In the 1977 EIS (EPA 1977b), seven different topographic-environmental
zones were identified in Bernalillo County. These zones included Upland
Mountains, Lowland Mountains, Volcanic Mesas, Alluvial Fans Mesa, Sand
Plains Mesa, Valley Sides and Terraces, and Valley Flood Plains. Section
G-l of the 1977 EIS documented the presence of archeological sites in all
zones except for the Upland Mountajjis and^the Alluvial Fans Mesa. However,
as pointed out in Section G-l, the lack of recorded sites does not mean
that sites are not present; it simply means that there have not been suf-
ficient archaeological investigations in those areas to document the pre-
sence of sites. Investigations in similar zones elsewhere in New Mexico
(Cordell 1979, Tainter and Gillio 1980) and in Bernalillo County (Rodgers
1981) subsequent to the 1977 EIS indicate that sites potentially may be
present in the Upland Mountains and the Alluvial Fans Mesa.
Section G-l of the 1977 EIS (EPA 1977b) was a general overview of the
cultural resources of Bernalillo County. However, certain aspects of the
optimal action alternatives being considered in the present document will
directly affect cultural resources in the areas under study. Those aspects
that will affect cultural resources include the method of transport and the
method of disposal. Because specific disposal sites are being considered,
the effects on cultural resources in these sites will have to be addressed.
6.6.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
If the city should take no action, then impacts to cultural resources
from a sludge management system will not occur.
6.6.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
Potential effects on cultural resources will depend on the method of
transportation used (trucking or piping) and the method of disposal (the
site selected). Potential effects from the different options for trans-
portation and disposal are listed in Table 6-14. The effects that may
occur for each alternative are listed in Table 6-15. Although specific
transportation routes and disposal sites have been selected (except for the
municipal landfill site), only the pipeline route and sludge treatment site
6-64
-------
Table 6-14. Potential adverse effects of the optimal alternatives on
cultural resources.
A. Transportation
1. Trucking
Construction of new routes or modification of
pre-existing routes may affect sites in the right-of-way.
Road construction may ease access and possibly subject
sites to looting.
Travel over non-paved roads may increase erosion which, in
turn, may affect sites in the vicinity of eroded area.
2. Pipeline
The construction of the pipeline may impact surface and
buried sites in the right-of-way.
Sites adjacent to the right-of-way may be subjected to
looting during construction.
B. Disposal
1. Landfill
The excavation of a landfill site may impact all sites in
the project boundary.
Sites adjacent to the project may be subject to looting.
2. Dedicated Land Disposal
Driving trucks over the project site and the injection of
liquid sludge may impact all sites within the project
boundary.
Sites adjacent to the project may be subject to looting.
6-65
-------
Table 6-15. Effects of optimal alternatives for the City of Albuquerque sludge management program on
cultural resources.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Transportation
Affecting Affecting
Surface Buried
Sites in the Sites in the
Alternatives Right-of-Way Right-of-Way
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A o
2B o
3A o
36
3C o
3D
Effects
Application
Affecting Affecting
Surface Subsurface
Sites Landfill Sites Landfill Looting Erosion
o
o
o
o
o o o
o o o
00
o
00
0
o Not significant
Significant
-------
(Montesa Park) related to the Group 1 alternatives have been surveyed for
cultural resources (Banks 1981). No investigations have been conducted in
conjunction with the other pipeline routes, DLD sites, or landfill sites.
Method of Transportation
Two different methods of transport have been proposed: truck and
pipeline. Either may potentially have a negative impact on cultural re-
sources if new construction is involved (Table 6-14) as such construction
could result in the destruction of any sites along the right-of-way.
Truck Transportation
Trucking will not result in a negative effect if the haul routes
follow preestablished paved roadways. However, if these routes need to be
modified, if new routes are to be constructed, or if unpaved routes are
modified, expanded or paved, cultural resources in the right-of-way may be
negatively effected by construction activities. Further, the accelerated
activity will increase access to the area selected for disposal and pos-
sibly subject sites in the vicinity to looting. Increased activity along
dirt roads may also accelerate erosion thus indirectly subjecting sites in
the vicinity to threats of erosion. It is assumed that existing roadways
would be utilized for trucking purposes.
- Pipeline Transportation
Pipeline construction could affect sites in the right-of-way, whether
they are on the surface or buried (Table 6-14). Further, construction may
subject adjacent sites to looting. Only one pipeline route, the Tijera
Arroyo Interceptor, has been surveyed and cleared through archaeological
investigations. Although no surface indications of cultural resources were
found along this route, the potential for buried sites was noted. This
survey report (Banks 1981) was reviewed by the SHPO who concurred with the
findings (Appendix 10.1). Other pipeline routes have not been surveyed.
However, they will cross the West Mesa where there is a potential for
encountering sites.
6-67
-------
Method of Disposal
Cultural resources may be affected by the method of disposal (Table
6-14). The disposal alternatives evaluated include landspreading on city
parks, landfill, and dedicated land disposal.
Landspreading on City Parks
These alternatives should not adversely effect any cultural resources
unless they involve undeveloped parks. However, these alternatives also
involve the construction of sludge treatment facilities at Montesa Park.
The proposed Montesa Park site was surveyed in February 1981 (Banks 1981).
No surficial evidence of cultural resources were observed and it was found
that the construction of sludge treatment facilities would not impact any
cultural resources, except possibly those buried. The SHPO has concurred
with these findings (Appendix 10.1).
Landfilling
Since a new municipal landfill site has not been selected no reliable
assessment of potential impacts can be made. The new landfill likely will
be somewhere north of Albuquerque, on the Bernalillo-Sandoval County line,
probably either in the Middle Rio Grande Valley or on the Llano de
Albuquerque between the Rio Grande and the Rio Puerco. A disposal site in
either of these areas will likely impact cultural resources. Surveys done
in this general vicinity (Rodgers 1980, Reinhardt 1967a, b, 1980, Judge
1973, Fisher 1931, Cordell 1979, Tainter and Gillio 1980) indicate the
potential of encountering sites.
- Dedicated Land Disposal
Two possible sites have been selected for land disposal; the Rio
Puerco and the Pajarito sites. Both are on the Llano de Albuquerque,
between the Rio Grande and the Rio Puerco, on the Sand Plains and adjacent
to the Valley Sides and Terraces. Although neither site has had any inten-
sive assessment made of cultural resources, Section G-l of the 1977 EIS
6-68
-------
(EPA 1977b) identified a number of sites in the general vicinity. Other
investigations in adjacent areas (Campbell and Ellis 1952, Fisher 1931,
Reinhardt 1967a, 1967b, 1968, Judge 1973, Rodgers 1980, Cordell 1979,
Tainter and Gillio 1980) further substantiate the potential of cultural
resources that may be affected if either of these sites is utilized.
As previously stated only the Montesa Park and Tijera Arroyo Inter-
ceptor have been surveyed. No surficial evidence of cultural resources was
found in either of these areas; however, the possibility of encountering
buried sites during construction was noted. With regard to the dedicated
land disposal and landfill sites, as well as the pipeline routes for land
disposal sites, survey work has not yet been performed. In order to protect
cultural resources; EPA will condition any Step 2 or Step 3 grants awarded
to require that survey work be performed (if not already complete) to the
satisfaction of EPA and the SHPO. If cultural resources are identified
that are potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
the SHPO will be notified and the ACHP offered an opportunity to comment in
accordance with 36 CFR 800. Further, if significant resources are encoun-
tered during construction, work potentially will be stopped and the SHPO
and the ACHP consulted for an assessment of significance.
6.7 POPULATION
6.7.1 Existing Conditions
City of Albuquerque
The City of Albuquerque experienced a dramatic change in population
between 1940 and 1960 when the number of people increased from approxi-
mately 35,000 to over 201,000. In 1980 the City of Albuquerque had a
population of 331,767 (USDOC 1981), an increase of 35.7% from 1970. During
this same time period the State experienced a population increase of 27.8%.
A population of between 393,201 and 427,618 is projected for the City in
1985 (EPA 1977). Increases of this magnitude would mean the City would
have a population increase of 18.5% to 28.9% between 1980 and 1985.
6-69
-------
The median age for the City of Albuquerque in 1980 was estimated to be
28.7 (Sales and Marketing Management 1980). Bernalillo County had a median
age of 28.0, while the State of New Mexico had a mediam age of 27.5. An
area with a median age under thirty is young and dynamic, and has the
potential to stimulate population increase.
Specific Treatment and Disposal Sites
The Albuquerque Area is divided into 411 Data Analysis Sub-Zones
(DASZ) for population analysis and projections. Montesa Park, located in
DASZ 8601, had zero population in 1975 and is expected to remain at zero in
1985. Treatment Plant No. 2 is in DASZ 5402 which had an estimated popu-
lation of 631 in 1975. This zone is projected to have a population of 800
in 1985. DASZ 5411 is immediately east of Treatment Plant No. 2 between
2nd Street and Broadway. This zone had an estimated population of 785 in
1975, and is projected to have a population of 1,100 in 1985. The Pajarito
site is in DASZ 5504, which had zero population in 1975 and is expected to
remain at zero in 1985. The Rio Puerco site is outside the DASZ classifi-
cation, areas, but no residences are in the area. Residential areas are
scattered throughout the northern part of the City where a landfill site
might be located.
6.7.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
The City's no action alternative would cause the sludge management
system to be overloaded by 13 mgd. The inadequacy of the existing waste-
water treatment facilities would cause industries possibly to relocate away
from Albuquerque, which subsequently would cause population to stagnate or
decrease. In addition, the lack of adequate treatment capabilities may
cause limitations to be placed on residential construction. An imposition
such as this also would cause population growth to be stymied and would
cause adverse effects on the economy.
6-70
-------
6.7.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
The development of any of the 14 action alternatives will not cause an
influx in population that substantially differs from the influx anticipated
by population projections contained in the 1977 EIS (USEPA 1977a).
Adverse population impacts caused by displacement will be minimal
under each of the 14 alternatives. Utilization of any of the disposal
sites will not result in a relocation of people. Displacement caused by
costly user charges (i.e., annual user charges exceeding 5% of annual
income) is expected to be minimal.
6.8 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
6.8.1 Existing Conditions
City of Albuquerque
Urban development has been increasing in the project area which has
caused a decrease in the amount of agricultural, rural and vacant land.
The type of development that has occurred has caused much of the area to
become a sprawling urban/suburban complex. The cropland that remains is
mixed with urban/rural development in parts of the north and south valleys.
Several large parcels of vacant grazing land occur on the mesas; however,
most of these are being held for eventual subdivision or commercial develop-
ment (USEPA 1977). Much of the other rural or open land is publically
owned.
Single family residences are the predominant land use in the metro-
politan area. Multi-family dwellings and retail outlets occur along the
major streets, while most of the manufacturing and wholesaling activities
are found near the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad or near one of
the major interstate highways/freeways. Offices are concentrated in the
central business district and along both freeways.
6-71
-------
Interstate 40 and Interstate 25 divide the city into four quadrants
and provide access to arterial streets. The highest traffic volumes (over
80,000 vehicles per day) are at the intersection of the two interstate
highways. The highest traffic volumes on main arterials also are at the
intersections with the interstates. A major goal of the Comprehensive Plan
is to produce a compact urban form that would place more reliance on mass
transit than the individual automobile. Currently, only a modest bus
service exists.
Four major airlines use the Albuquerque International Airport to
provide air travel. The Chicago-Los Angeles mainline furnishes both pas-
senger and freight rail service. A major new airport to serve primarily
private aviation is planned to be built on the far west mesa (west of the
volcanoes).
In 1975 the City and County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan to pro-
mote orderly development. The Comprehensive Plan contains a set of land
use, environmental, and economic policies and goals which are intended to
produce an attractive, diverse and efficient metroplex. Conformance to the
principals contained in the Comprehensive Plan is one of the prime objec-
tives of the wastewater management process.
Since development is more likely to occur where municipal services are
available than where they are absent, the provision of city utilities can
play a role in accomplishing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However,
the lack of municipal services does not by itself prevent growth from
occurring in areas where it is not desired. Municipal services used in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning subdivision regulations and
other measures produce orderly development.
Specific Sludge Treatment and Disposal Sites
Montesa Park is a 575 acre City-owned parcel about 5 miles east of
Treatment Plant No. 2. Activities at this site consist of a gun club
firing range, office and shop of the Vector Control Division of the muni-
cipal Department of Environmental Health, and an apprentice training cen-
ter. The U.S. Forest Service has built a tree nursery on 222 acres at the
6-72
-------
eastern end of the property. The Tijeras Arroyo traverses Montesa Park
from east to west and drains into the Rio Grande River. Kirtland Air Force
Base is located north of Montesa Park, the Sandia Military Reservation is
to the east and the University of New Mexico owns a large track of land to
the south. Montesa Park currently is remote from residential areas and is
expected to remain as such (CDM 1980a). However, a 1,350 unit mobile home
park is being proposed south of the Tijeras Arroyo. The proposed facil-
ities at Montesa Park are slightly over a mile from the eastern boundary of
the mobile home park.
Montesa Park and the area to the north is within municipal jurisdic-
tion, and is zoned M-2, heavy industrial (Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
Planning Department 1977). The area to the south of Montesa Park is zoned
A-l, rural and agricultural by the Bernalillo County Planning Commission
(Vanervan, J. 1981).
A part of Montesa Park is in the 100 year floodplain; however, none of
the proposed construction activities are located in the floodplain. In
addition, none of the land is considered to be prime or unique farmland (US
Department of Agriculture 1980). Access to Montesa Park is provided by Los
Picaros Road.
The area north of the City where a landfill site might be chosen
contains a mixture of rural residential and agricultural land. The land-
fill site will be outside the jurisdiction of the City and would be under
the land use control of the Bernalillo County Planning Commission. Trans-
portation of the sludge would occur along Interstate 25. New industries in
the northern part of the City are anticipated to cause major traffic jams
on the frontage roads along Interstate 25.
Land use surrounding both the Rio Puerco and Pajarito sites is un-
developed grassland and shrubland (Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments
of New Mexico 1979). There are no residences near the site. Access to the
Pajarito site would be provided by Padillas Road, while access to Rio
Puerco would be provided by a lightly used rural road. Both of these sites
are under the land use jurisdiction of the Bernalillo County Planning
Commission and are zoned A-l, rural and agricultural.
6-73
-------
6.8.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
The continued use of the existing facilities without a sludge manage-
ment program would cause the treatment plant to be overloaded by 13 mgd.
In addition, other less efficient forms of sewage treatment, such as septic
tanks or lagoons, might occur in response to try and relieve the overload.
This form of sewage treatment could cause inefficient, low density urban
sprawl to occur, a type of development that is not in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Inadequate sewage treatment facilities can deter
growth, but they will not keep it from occurring. Therefore, the City of
Albuquerque might continue to grow without improvements to sewage treatment
facilities, but it would not be a healthy form of development. Inadequate
sewage treatment facilities could also cause the population to decrease,
which would cause land values to also decrease.
6.8.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
The development of any of the optional alternatives will allow the
City to properly accommodate future sewerage treatment needs. The develop-
ment of the alternatives could, however, produce some adverse effects on
transportation and land use. Possible adverse effects caused by various
treatment and disposal options include:
A pipeline to either Pajarito or Rio Puerco will intersect water
and sewer lines at Coors Boulevard and Gun Club Road. If breakage should
occur to one of these lines service would be disrupted for residents south
of Gun Club Road.
If trucks use Prosperity between 2nd Street and Broadway Boulevard
they will pass through a residential area. The impact could be minimized
if trucks would take1-2nd Street to Rio Bravo Boulevard to Broadway Boulevard.
Trucks, as well as the pipeline, will disrupt the residential area
along Lakeview Road and Gun Club Road on the way to Pajarito. This impact
would be lessened if trucks would take Rio Bravo Boulevard to Coors Boule-
vard. In addition, traffic will be increased along Isleta Boulevard by
Harrison Junior High School if the Pajarito site is used.
6-74
-------
A pipeline to Rio Puerco will disturb the residential area along
Lakeview Road and Gun Club road. In addition, construction of a pipeline
to Rio Puerco or Pajarito will pass by Harrison Junior High School, which
may cause disruptions during construction. In addition, the possibility of
someone falling into an open trench is greater.
A total of 47 round trips by truck per day will be needed to haul
liquid sludge between Plant No. 2 and Montesa Park, Pajarito, or Rio Puerco.
The trip to Rio Puerco will require trucks to pass through one of the
highest traffic volume areas in Albuquerque, thereby increasing the possi-
bility of accident. Disposal at a landfill site will require trucks to
pass through the same high traffic area. However, only 5 to 9 round trips
per day will be needed.
Trucks might have to use a highly congested frontage road along
Interstate 25 for disposals at the landfill site. Five to 9 trucks will
use the landfill site per day; 200 to 300 trucks per day use the present
landfill site (by phone, V. Brown 1981). Therefore, the addition of 5 to 9
trucks will have a minimal impact.
If the open air or composting methods attract birds, these uses
would be incompatible at Montesa Park with the adjacent airport. Current
information regarding bird strike hazards near composting operations indi-
cates this should not be a problem.
Both Pajarito and Rio Puerco are zoned rural and agricultural.
This zoning will have to be changed to allow for the disposal of sludge.
The change will not cause a conflict with adjacent land uses.
The effects of each of the 14 action alternatives on transportation
and land use are designated in Table 6-16.
6-75
-------
Table 6-16. Effects of the action alternatives on transportation and land use,
Transportation
Land Use
Alternative
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
Disrupt
Services
cu
4->
TO
k-»
M
CU
S
CU
co
CO
4-1
cu
cu
i-l
4-1
CO
Penetrate
Sensitive
Urban
Areas
CO
a
0
o
J_l
o
,0
a
H
O
CO
r-(
O
O
o
CO
I-l
TO
4-1
H
ft
CO
O
PC
CO
$_i
TO
Streets
Increased
o
H
M-l
TO
J_j
H
cu
CO
p
J_l
CU
pu
o
P,
£2
M
0)
CO
TO
0)
CO
TO
a1
o
0)
o
4-> ai
H CO
4J C
H TO
-H
TO C
4J -H
TO 4J
ft CO
6 -H
O !<
O W
c
M
60
C
H
C
O
Nl
60
C
H
4J
10
H
X
w
4-1
-H
4-1
O
H
iH
U-l
o
O
13
C
TO
T I
e
TO
CU
5
P i
4-1
U
cu
M-l
o o
o o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
- Major Effect
o - Minor Effect
6-76
-------
6.9 ECONOMICS
6.9.1 Existing Conditions
General Economic Activities and Trends
The Albuquerque area economy has weakened during 1980. Total employ-
ment between November 1979 and October 1980 declined for both the area and
the State, although there were more people available for work. The unem-
ployment rate reached a high of 8.4% in the Albuquerque area which was
above the State high of 7.8% and well above the unadjusted national average
of 7.1% in November 1980. Unemployment increased significantly between
1979 and 1980.
The construction industry began declining since fall 1979 and has
continued with this trend. Building permits in all three segments of the
industry began to decline in 1979 reversing the positive trend experienced
between 1976 and 1979.
During the first half of 1980, residential building declined approxi-
mately 64% over the same period in 1979. However, several large commercial
projects are underway and several more are planned. These will be provid-
ing added employment opportunities for the construction industry in the
months to follow.
The Albuquerque area population demonstrated a continual but slow
growth pattern; however the economy has slowed considerably since 1979.
Incomes have risen annually, but the increases have not kept pace with
inflation in all years. In general, New Mexico ranked 38th in the nation
for average personal income in 1979, an improvement from 43rd the previous
year. The numbers of households within the lower disposable income catego-
ries are decreasing while those in the higher disposable income categories
are increasing.
6-77
-------
City-Finances
The FY81 budget of Mayor David Rusk does not propose any new program
responsibilities for the City government. The total operating budget
recommended for FY81 is $180.2 million. The recommended general fund
budget is $89.5 million and anticipated general fund revenues are $90.2
million. This budget represents an increase of nearly 9% over the FY80
budget. This is substantially below the inflation rate in New Mexico and
in the nation as a whole.
The current administration has a new capital projects policy which is
in response to tremendous increases in the operating budget over the last
two years. New policies are aimed at assuring that program and service
operations are financially self-sufficient wherever practicable.
The City of Albuquerque does not depend on local property taxes to any
meaningful extent. This is in contrast to many other metropolitan areas in
the US which tend to rely heavily on local property taxes. The city budget
indicates changes in the composition of revenues, including the growing
importance of gross receipts, taxes, and charges for services rendered.
The 1980 overall tax rates for ad valorem taxes in the City of Albu-
querque ranged from 32.574 to 69.803 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The
variation occurs due to differential tax rates for school districts. The
average ad valorem tax rate in the Albuquerque area for 1980 was 45.594 per
$1,000 of assessed valuation.
Water and Sewer Operating Fund
The joint water and sewer operating fund is separate from the general
fund. More than 90% of total revenues come from fees and user charges
levied on customers utilizing water and sewer services. Capital transfer
from the general fund represents less than 1% of total water and sewer
revenues. Liquid waste operations represent 18% of total appropriations.
-------
Water and sewer requirements accounted for 60% of total revenue bond
issues and 7% of general obligation bond issues as of 1 July 1980. Total
outstanding debt amounted to $149,765,000, and the water and sewer portion
amounted to $20,475,000, or 49% of the total outstanding debt. In the
City's 1979 bond election, a total of $118,284,018 in bonds were floated,
with 60% of these revenues appropriated for water resources.
Approximately 2 to 8 million dollars of revenue bonds will be floated
to cover the local share of an action alternative. This is based on EPA
construction grant participation of 75% to 85%, and State grant funds of
12.5%. The anticipated debt retirement schedule cannot be determined until
the actual floating of bonds. At that time the cash flow schedule will be
determined and goals developed. There will not be any transfers from the
general fund and/or other funds to the Joint Water and Sewer Operating
Fund.
The average monthly water and sewer bill for a residential user is
$14.70. The portion of the bill allocated due to water services is $9.63
(65%), and the portion of the bill allocated to sewer services is $5.08
(35%) on the average. A new City ordinance (Council Bill No. 0-129. Enact-
ment No. 19-1981) has been adopted to include provisions for water credits
for low income households, effective 3 March 1981. Qualified households
will have a credit of $2.00 per month applied to their billing. The billing
will be calculated using the fixed monthly charge and the commodity charge
only.
6.9.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
If the wastewater treatment system and sludge management system does
not expand from 47 mgd to 60 mgd, additional growth in the Albuquerque
service area would not be able to occur. A limited population growth would
prevent growth of the economy and expansion of the industrial base. In
turn, the tax base would not expand, and thus the existing tax base would
have to provide all revenues required by the City to operate community and
social services. A reduction in the quantity and quality of community and
social services provided by the City potentially would occur as a result of
implementing the no action alternative.
6-79
-------
6.9.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
The overall socioeconomic effect of the implementation of any of the
14 action alternatives is that the City can continue to grow and expand.
The collection and treatment systems will be adequate to accommodate popu-
lation increases and economic diversification and expansion. The impacts
on the social fabric of the community and the economy are a result of an
alternative being implemented in its entirety, as opposed to effects re-
sulting from each separate process within a particular alternative. As a
result, impacts described in this Section are discussed under general
economic and social indicators, as either direct or secondary effects which
are beneficial or adverse to the Albuquerque community.
Direct Impacts
Capital costs which will be incurred by the City of Albuquerque will
include the cost of designing, purchasing, and constructing equipment for
treatment processes, buildings and sitework for treatment and disposal
processes, equipment for transportation of sludge (including trucks or a
pipeline), and land acquired for pipeline construction or for additional
landfill or dedicated land disposal facilities. Operation and maintenance
costs which will be incurred by the City will include the the cost of
fuel, labor, chemicals, and repair involved with treatment processes,
transportation of sludge, and disposal processes. The total capital costs
for a sludge management system will vary from 18 to 31 million dollars.
The sludge system is part of a larger Phase II expansion plan that also
includes collection systems and treatment facilities which will cost an
estimated $70-80 million. The City of Albuquerque was able to float suffi-
cient bonds in 1977 to fund the total Phase II expansion package. The City
does not anticipate having any difficulty floating bonds for an additional
$2-8 million for a sludge management system (by telephone, Art Bluraenfeld,
Director of Finance and Management, City of Albuquerque, August 1981).
Federal government expenditures will involve a maximum of $23.5 mil-
lion dollars (75% grant for capital costs of Alternative 3B). If inno-
vative technology is utilized then 85% of that technology will be funded,
6-80
-------
and 75% of the remaining capital costs will be funded (totalling a maximum
of $21.7 million for alternative IB). State government expenditures will
involve 12%% of the capital costs to a maximum of $3.9 million.
Cost of sewage service will increase for all residential, commercial
and industrial users. The equivalent monthly cost per connection of the 14
action alternatives will range between approximately $0.50 - $4.00 de-
pending on the market value of the sludge (if any) and upon what Federal
and state funding is received (see Table 6-17). This cost range does not
represent a significant economic burden and is well within EPA guidelines
(as promulgated in Program Requirements Memorandum #79-8, Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials, Washington DC).
Additional short-term effects that will be incurred by the City in-
clude: short-term increases in employment in the local construction indus-
try will be realized; increased receipts for local industries supplying
materials and equipment for construction, treatment, transportation and
disposal processes will occur; and the City of Albuquerque will be better
able to absorb increased growth in population and employment.
Secondary Impacts
- Land Values
The value of land is determined by the supply and demand for land and
the type of use for which it is zoned. Values are also affected by the use
of adjacent lands; for example, tracts used for dedicated land disposal,
landfill sites and treatment sites may, in turn, decrease the value of
adjacent properties which are perceived as less desirable locations during
the operation of the treatment or disposal activities. Potential effects
of the action alternatives on land values include: the value of lands
adjacent to the landfill disposal site(s) and the dedicated land disposal
sites potentially will decrease during disposal operations; and all three
groups of alternatives will permit growth to occur, thereby generally
increasing the value of residential, commercial and industrial properties.
6-81
-------
Table 6-17. Equivalent monthly average increase per connection for each
alternative system, based on different funding arrangements.
No EPA funding,
12.5% state funding.
75/85%** EPA funding, 50% EPA funding,
12.5% state funding. 12.5% state funding.
Alternative
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
Sludge=$0 per ton*
$3.22
3.03
2.99
2.80
3.76
3.00
3.21
3.03
2.53
2.34
2.95
3.26
2.69
2.87
Sludge=$0 per ton*
$1.60
1.38
1.58
1.35
2.52
1.71
1.74
1.52
1.44
1.24
1.47
1.64
1.92
1.45
Sludge=$0 per ton*
$2.08
1.87
1.99
1.78
2.94
2.14
2.23
2.02
1.81
1.60
1.98
2.20
1.62
1.92
*if sludge is sold for $70 per ton, each household bill will be $0.63 cheaper.
**75% funding for all capital costs except innovative technology which is
funded at 85% of cost.
6-82
-------
Tax Base
Effects upon the local tax base will include: increased land values
will generate additional taxes thereby expanding the local tax base and
increasing the amount of revenues raised; additional growth will require
extension of community and public services thereby increasing local expen-
ditures for the City; imbalances between City revenues and expenditures
potentially will be adjusted by changing either the tax rate or the propor-
tion of assessed valuation. This may result in an effective tax rate that
is either higher or lower than the current rate depending upon the rela-
tionship between the size of the tax base and total expenditures; and
increased population will result in additional monies from Federal revenue
sharing programs (assuming the formula for computing Federal revenue
sharing remains the same).
- Employment
Effects on employment will include: alternatives in Group 1 requiring
the solar greenhouse would indirectly induce increased employment and
earnings in the solar energy industry; if any alternative in Group 1 is
selected, employment in the local fertilizer industry potentially will
stagnate or decrease due to the City providing its own fertilizer for land
spreading on City parks; all alternatives will induce employment in the
Albuquerque area economy by permitting general growth; and economic growth
and concommitant population growth will result in an increased demand for
social services and community amenities such as education, housing, police;
fire department, ambulance service, and health care delivery.
6.10 ENERGY RESOURCES
"fc.10.1 Existing Conditions
Under the existing sludge management system, energy is consumed by
equipment pouring wet sludge on drying beds and removing solids from the
drying beds. Fuel is consumed in transportation of dried cake to Montesa
Park and in stockpiling. Fuel is also consumed transporting excess sludge
6-83
-------
from the treatment plant to the dedicated land disposal site presently in
use, and by equipment at the disposal site. Energy consumption data are
not available for the existing sludge management operations described
above. Digester gas is collected and used for electric generation at
wastewater treatment Plant No. 2. Approximately 450,000 cu ft/day is
produced, or the equivalent of 860 kw. The remaining electrical demand by
the treatment plant is satisfied by electricity purchased from the Public
Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). Table 6-18 lists the electricity
purchased from PNM in 1979 and 1980 for the treatment plant. For the
twelve months between June of 1980 and May of 1981, monthly electrical
demand of the treatment facility averaged 1,344 kw, ranging between 1,248
kw and 1,536 kw (by telephone, Alex Gonzalez, Public Service Co. of New
Mexico, 16 July 1981). During the first eight months of 1979, 11,407,000
cu ft of natural gas was purchased for use at the plant. Approximately 60
gallons of diesel per day is currently consumed for sludge haulage from the
treatment plant (by telephone, Chava Trucking, 20 July 1981).
6.10.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
If no action is taken, energy consumption will be similar to that
described for existing conditions. Sludge will not be transported to a
dedicated land disposal site due to termination of the lease, thus excess
liquid sludge will be transported to nearby lagoons. This transportation
will require energy; but, based on the relatively short distance from the
digester and thickener to the lagoons, and the lack of sludge injection
equipment involved, energy requirements assumedly will be less than under
existing conditions.
6.10.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
Table 6-19 includes the anticipated electrical and fuel energy demands
associated with each sludge management alternative. Power generated by
digester gas is not included in the calculation. Table 6-19 does not
include energy requirements for the wastewater treatment system. Energy
requirements are not available for chemical feed pumps (polymer or
6-84
-------
Table 6-18. Electric usage and costs for Albuquerque wastewater treatment
plant No. 2 during 1979 and 1980.
1979
1980
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
KWH
259,200
796,800
744,000
763,200
830,400
912,000
830,400
753,600
873,600
768,000
806,400
681,600
Cost($)
11,854.44
44,769.23
30,231.95
35,799.46
44,260.32
44,754.58
45,031.76
40,053.84
43,031.79
40,533.50
41,070.76
37,833.57
KWH
777,600
772,800
787,200
720,000
792,000
614,400
676,800
772,800
801,600
744,000
710,400
897,600
Cost($)
43,099.26
42,983.14
40,209.39
37,310.40
45,893.23
32,123.29
38,242.58
42,036.46
40,142.94
37,200.00
35,520.00
44,880.00
Source: City of Albuquerque and Gonzales, Alex. 1981. Telephone conversa-
tion, Alex Gonzales, Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 16 July 1981,
6-85
-------
Table 6-19. Annual energy requirements for alternatives (not including
wastewater treatment system requirements or power production
using digester gas).
Alternative
No.
1A
IB
1C
ID
IE
IF
1G
1H
2A
2B
3A
3B
3C
3D
Million
KWH
1.83
2.24
0.86
1.27
0.88
1.29
3.14
3.55
0.78
0.78
0.77
1.38
2.00
0.77
Gallons
Diesel
40,700**
0
69,700**
29,000**
101,200**
60,500**
69,700**
29,000**
36,500***
24,300***
107,200
13,800
13,800
119,800
Gallons
Propane
0
41,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Cost*
$170,145
183,392
132,095
117,445
166,540
151,890
288,275
273,625
91,755
78,945
165,305
109,020
151,490
178,535
* Cost based on $0.0685 per KWH, $1.05 per gallon of diesel, and $0.72
per gallon of propane.
** Does not include fuel for final stockpile equipment or landspreading.
*** Does not include fuel for landfill equipment.
6-86
-------
lime/FeCl_), stockpiling equipment, or equipment required during land-
spreading or landfilling. All sludge management components will require
energy. Significant amounts of energy will be utilized by the final dispo-
sal options (landspreading, landfilling and dedicated land disposal), and
transportation options. Less energy apparently will be required by the
Group II alternative as compared to other alternatives.
The Public Service Company of New Mexico is currently capable of
generating 20% above peak demand. Peak demand is approximately 937 MW.
Therefore, the utility maintains a reserve at peak of approximately 187 MW.
As shown on Table 6-19, the maximum electric consumption for sludge manage-
ment associated with Alternative 1H is 3.55 million KWH per year. This
demand represents approximately 0.2% of available reserve above peak (by
telephone, Alex Gonzales, Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 16 July 1981),
and thus will not affect electrical energy supplies in the project region.
The consumption of diesel fuel and/or propane required by the various
alternatives also will not affect available fuel supplies in the project
region.
6.11 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
6.11.1 Existing Conditions
The current sludge disposal system serving the Albuquerque area is
inadequate for the amount of sewage generated by the current population.
The present sludge management system is overloaded, inadequate, and may be
presenting public health problems. It is emphasized that establishing a
cause and effect relationship between deficiencies in the present system
and existing public health problems (if any) in Albuquerque would be purely
speculative and open to question.
Currently, there are no major epidemic-type health problems in
Albuquerque. There is, however, a substantial amount of infectious hepa-
titus currently in the population of Bernalillo County. In 1977 there was
a significant increase in hepatitus throughout the U.S.: however, the
6-87
-------
Albuquerque area experienced a greater share of the problem than the rest
of the U.S. (by telephone, Dr. N. Pressman, District Health Officer,
Bernalillo County, 22 July 1981).
Various health effects associated with typical sludge treatment and
disposal systems are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
Sludge Treatment System
Stabilization: Anaerobic Digestion
The present sludge handling system does not include a specific disin-
fection process to remove pathogenic organisms; however, the stabilization
process (anaerobic digestion) does remove moderate amounts of these patho-
gens. The stabilized sludge contains some or all of the following orga-
nisms and chemical constituents in amounts that may or may not be harmful
to public health:
Bacteria: Fecal coliform, Streptococal coliform,
Salmonella sp., and Shigella sp.
Viruses: Hepatitus.
Parasites: Entamoeba histolytiea; Ascaris lumbricoides.
Chemical constituents: cadmium, arsenic, chromium,
barium, zinc, lead, manganese, and iron.
Drying Beds
Following the stabilization process, sludge is placed on drying beds
adjacent to the plant. Drying beds generate odors and dust containing
pathogenic organisms, and attract vectors and mosquitoes. Groundwater
leaching is prevented by liners in some beds
- Temporary Storage Stockpiles
6-88
-------
Sludge is piled up in temporary storage stockpiles adjacent to the
drying beds before it is finally disposed. The stockpiles present similar
problems to those of the drying beds; however, there can be an increase in
the generation of dust as the sludge now contains less liquid.
Sludge Disposal Systems
Disposal of nondisinfected sludge creates opportunities for contamina-
tion of the environment which may, in turn, adversely affect the health of
the surrounding community. Potential effects from disposal options are:
Storage Piles at Montesa Park
A portion of the total amount of sludge currently disposed is trucked
to Montesa Park where it is stockpiled. These stockpiles represent a
potential effect to environmental health: odor and significant amounts of
dust containing pathogenic organisms are potentially generated; and the
stockpiles can attract vectors (i.e., mosquitoes and flies) which can
further spread disease. Lack of protective cover from rain may allow conta-
minated runoff to form, which in turn may contaminate surface water, if
proper runoff collection and treatment systems are not utilized.
Landfill and Dedicated Land Disposal
The remaining sludge currently generated at Plant No. 2 is permanently
disposed either at the City's landfill or through dedicated land disposal
methods on tracts of land leased from the State of New Mexico. The land-
fill and OLD methods of disposal of non-disinfected sludge currently used
meet EPA regulations governing sludge disposal and are considered
acceptable.
6.11.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
A decision not to expand the wastewater treatment system and sludge
management system from 47 mgd to 60 mgd would have some definite effects on
environmental health. The wastewater treatment system removes moderate to
6-89
-------
significant amounts of bacteria, viruses, protozoans and helminths. Treat-
ment of the remaining sludge removes additional amounts of pathogenic
organisms through anaerobic digestion. However, there is no disinfection
process in the current system, and pathogens remaining in the sludge can
survive for several days or months on soils (Table 6-20).
No action means sludge would continue to be placed on sludge drying
beds where it potentially could cause odors, attract vectors, and generate
dust containing pathogenic organisms. Thence, dried sludge would be stock-
piled at Montesa Park. A worst case scenario assumes there would be no
drainage control, no concrete slab beneath the stockpile and no cover for
protection from rain. Under these assumptions the following effects could
occur:
- Runoff potentially could contaminate surface water with
toxic elements, including: cadmium, arsenic, chromium,
barium, zinc, lead, manganese and iron. These might or
might not exist in quantities that would exceed the stan-
dards for safe drinking water quality.
- Bacteria (fecal coliform, streptococcal, and others),
viruses (hepatitus) and parasites could be present in and
near Montesa Park; however, quantities may or may not be
harmful to human health
- There should not be any contaminated leachate entering
groundwater because pollutants are filtered out in the soil
before reaching the groundwater (300 feet below the surface
at Montesa Park).
Odor, dust, vectors and pathogenic aerosols may be problems
associated with the stockpiles potentially could cause
adverse health effects.
6-90
-------
Table 6-20. Survival of selected pathogens on soils.
Organism
Salmonella
Salmonella typhis
Tubercle Bacilli
Entamoeba histolytica cysts
Enteroviruses
Ascaris sp. ova.
Hookworm larva
Range of Survival Time
15-280 days+
1-120 days
More than 180 days
6-8 days
8 days
Up to 7 years
42 days
Source: Parsons, et al. 1975.
6-91
-------
Excess sludge not stockpiled at Montesa Park would be placed in la-
goons probably north of and adjacent to the existing treatment plant. The
lagoons would have to be lined to prevent leaching into the groundwater
which is only five feet below the surface. Leachate containing significant
amounts of nitrates could contaminate the drinking water supply of house-
holds in the area using wells. Additional effects potentially could
include:
- aerosols containing pathogens
odor causing nausea and headaches
- unsightly aesthetic quality
mosquitoes and flies which could spread disease.
No action would result in sludge that is not disinfected nor disposed
of in a manner which minimizes health effects. Many opportunities would
exist for pathogenic organisms to contaminate the surrounding environment
and possibly result in adverse health effects.
6.11.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
There are 11 options (i.e., treatment processes) in the action alter-
natives that potentially could have some impact on environmental health.
These include: anaerobic digestion, transportation, solar greenhouse
drying, open air drying, Cesium-137 irradiation, electron-beam irradiation,
composting, stockpiling, landspreading on parks, landfilling, and dedicated
land disposal. Potential environmental health effects from each of these
processes are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion further removes moderate amounts of pathogenic
organisms. It is speculated that anaerobic digestion causes nitrates to
form ammonia, thereby reducing the concentration of nitrosamines
(Rounbehler 1981). Therefore, this process has a beneficial effect due to
the reduction or elimination of harmful organisms.
6-92
-------
Transportation
Fugitive dust and noise impacts from pipeline construction or truck
transportation are anticipated. However, these impacts are not significant
and are of short-term duration.
Open Air Drying
Alternatives utilizing open air drying at Montesa Park will contain
sludge that has not been disinfected. Significant odor problems and minor
effects relating to vectors and dust containing pathogenic aerosols are
expected. The open air drying area has a concrete base and concrete walls;
therefore, there is no concern with groundwater contamination due to leach-
ing. Surface runoff will be controlled, thus surface water contamination
should not occur.
* Solar Greenhouse Drying
Since sludge will not be disinfected before drying, major odors from
the exhaust air blown out at the back of the structure are anticipated, and
also some dust containing pathogenic aerosols may be generated. It has
been speculated that heat generated by the greenhouse process may also kill
some of the pathogenic organisms, thereby rendering them harmless. Since
the solar drying technology is relatively new, it has not yet been determined
to what extent pathogenic organisms will be destroyed, if at all.
Cesium-137 Irradiation
Cesium-137 is a radioactive nuclear by product which produces radi-
ation. During normal operation it is expected that the workers at the
plant (approximately 7 to 8 individuals) will be exposed to whole body
gamma radiation of 0.05 rem/year. Although there is controversy surround-
ing the health impacts from low levels of radiation exposure, EPA supports
the hypothesis that there are quantifiable health effects associated with
low levels of radiation exposure. The major impact of radiation exposure
less than 5 reins per year is radiogenic cancer. The risk of premature
6-93
-------
death from radiogenic cancer has been estimated using the absolute model
and the relative risk model, the most conservative being the relative risk
model. Using the relative risk model, the average lifetime risk of pre-
mature death for persons exposed occupationally to the same dose every year
throughout their life between the ages of 18 to 65 was found to be approxi-
mately 0.01 per rem per year and proportional to dose over the range of 0
to 5 rem per year. The risk calculation using this figure would be con-
servative since it is unlikely that any worker would be exposed in each of
his occupational years. At the proposed Albuquerque irradiator the workers
are expected to be exposed to 0.05 rem per year; therefore, their lifetime
risk of premature death from radiogenic cancer from these exposures would
be:
0.01 x O'05 rem = 0.0005 = 0.05% or less.
1 rem
In addition to this risk there is an approximately equal risk of developing
a non-fatal radiogenic cancer (May 1981). A dose of 0.05 rem/year is 1% of
the federal radiation occupational dose standard (10 CRF part 20.101) and
the normal background radiation in Albuquerque is 0.15 to 0.2 rem/year for
each person (ERDA 1977).
The Cesium-137 irradiator will be designed so that during normal
operation the radiation exposure outside of the facility will not be detec-
table above background radiation within 3 to 10 feet of the facility. In
the accident scenarios evaluated (Appendix 10.2) it is highly improbable
that there would be a release of radioactive material. It is difficult to
determine the exact impacts that would occur if radioactive material was
released to the environment because the effects are dependent on the quan-
tity released, pathway of exposure, dispersion potential and population
distribution. However, if sufficient quantities of radioactive material
were released to the environment the consequences would be severe. At this
time there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of irradiation
on nitrosamines, which are known carcinogens. There is evidence that
radiation will destroy those nitrosamines which remain after anaerobic
6-94
-------
digestion; however, if precursors of nitrosaraines are available in the
sludge, radiation may produce nitrosamines (by phone, David Rounbehler, New
England Institute of Life Sciences, 14 July 1981).
Overexposure to personnel at the irradiator is a more likely occur-
rence of the accident scenarios, although the probability is still ex-
tremely low. In the event of overexposure, impacts to the personnel in-
volved would be severe and in extreme cases would result in death. Un-
shielded exposure for a few seconds within 10 feet of the source plaque
would result in almost instantaneous death (by phone, Neil Hartwigson,
Sandia National Laboratory, 22 July 1981).
Electron Beam Irradiation
Electron beam irradiation affords almost complete pathogen kill.
Substantial pathogen reductions and viral destruction of have been achieved
in liquid sludge with doses under 400 kilorads. Colifortn levels under 10
coliforms per millillter o£ sludge have been achieved with this process.
Parasites, as well as their eggs, are totally destroyed by the electron
beam radiation as they present relatively large targets. Electron beam
irradiation is the only process evaluated that is able to destroy toxic
organic substances present in sludge. The energy radiated by the beam
produces hydroxyl compounds and sufficient activation energy to breakdown
these compounds. Near total destruction of PCB's has been achieved in
research to date.
High energy electrons bombarding surfaces do produce X-rays which
require special shielding of the region within which deceleration of ener-
gized electrons takes place. The Albuquerque unit would require a 6 foot
reinforced concrete wall around the central vault to contain the X-rays,
and thereby protect workers from exposure. In order to prevent accidental
exposure of workers to X-rays, a special interlocked door and electron beam
arming system would be built into the design of the vault. Several types
of safety systems provide redundancy in the system and thereby substan-
tially eliminate chance of accidents.
6-95
-------
Composting
Composting is a disinfection process which results in extremely high
temperatures that insure pathogen kill. Lethal temperatures occur at the
core layers of compost pile, therefore it is important to turn the pile so
that all layers of compost are exposed to this lethal range of temperatures.
An important consideration of the composting process is the Aspergillus
fumigatus fungus which is usually found in decomposing organic materials.
This fungus is one of a few species of fungi that pose a pathogenic threat
to man. Humans can effectively resist direct infection as Aspergillus
fumigatus usually occurs as a secondary infection after the body tissue has
been severely weakened by primary illness. Symptoms such as skin irrita-
tion, sneezing, congestion and difficult breathing are usually temporary
and subside after the individual has been removed from the source of irri-
tation. High concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus can be anticipated
around the sludge composting site; however, high spore levels are generally
restricted to the immediate composting area and should not pose a threat to
surrounding developments.
Any buffer zone provided around the composting site for odor control
would aid in confining Aspergillus fumigatus aerosols to the compost pro-
cessing areas. Concentrations of colonies of Aspergillus fumigatus in
composted sludge have been shown to decrease to insignificant levels when
the material is stockpiled for six months or more.
Groundwater pollution is not considered a potential problem because
static compost piles at Montesa Park will rest on a 50 ft x 90 ft asphalt
pad. However, leachate from composted sludge can contain heavy metals
which are no^ removed by the composting process. High levels of cadmium,
chromium and lead could render sludge unfit for use on food producing crops
or pasture land. Potential effects of composting on the concentration of
nitrosamines in sludge is presently undetermined (Rounbehler 1981).
Stockpiles of Disinfected Sludge to be Used as Fertilizer
Stockpiles will contain disinfected sludge which may contain heavy
metals. Therefore, leachate to groundwater is a potential problem since
6-96
-------
stockpiles typically are placed only on a bed of compacted earth. The
groundwater is approximately 300 ft below the surface at Montesa Park, thus
toxic elements will be filtered out in the soil before the groundwater is
reached. However, this condition may not exist at each stockpile location
selected in the City, thus stockpile operations should be conducted with
caution. Stockpiles in all locations can be expected to release minor
odors and dust, and potentially to attract mosquitoes and flies.
Landspreading on City Parks and Golf Courses
Application of disinfected sludge as fertilizer will have very minor
effects on the surrounding environment. There will be mild odors and dust
generated for a. few days after application. If the sludge system is man-
aged properly there should not be any problems with groundwater leaching.
However, if there is an oversupply of sludge applied in excessive quan-
tities then there may be some potential for groundwater contamination
(toxic elements), especially where the groundwater level is shallow (10' or
less below the surface).
Landfilling
Under proper management a landfill will not pose any significant
threat to environmental or public health. A correctly designed landfill
will have liners underneath the landfill, thereby preventing leaching into
the groundwater. Each day after solid waste is placed in a landfill, it is
covered with a layer of soil so as to prevent odors and insects. If runon
(i.e., rainwater flowing across the ground toward the landfill) is diverted
around the landfill, there should be no contamination of surface water.
For public safety reasons access to the landfill should be restricted.
Under improper operation, the landfill site could have the following
effects: significant odor, vectors, dust containing pathogenic aerosols,
noise, contaminated groundwater from leachate, contaminated runoff to
surface waters, and potential for explosions due to the buildup of methane
gas. Each of these effects can occur due to improper landfill operation,
even if sludge is not disposed at the landfill.
6-97
-------
Dedicated Land Disposal
Dedicated land disposal of liquid sludge that has not been disinfected
potentially will have the following effects on environmental health:
- odor may be quite significant;
- mild noise confined to site vicinity;
- mosquitoes and flies attracted to site;
- liquid sludge containing pathogenic organisms can produce
pathogenic aerosols;
- contaminated runoff containing toxic elements, organic
compounds, and pathogens (both virus and bacterial) may
contaminate surface waters if not properly collected and
treated;
- potential for leaching into groundwater is very remote as
the proposed sites at Pajarito and Rio Puerco are high above
the groundwater level.
Sludge disposal through OLD can only occur until certain concentra-
tions of nitrates, cadmium and PCB's are reached in the soil. EPA has
established regulations (40 CFR 257) governing the concentration of cadmium
and PCBs in the soil. There should not be any human contact with the
sludge during operation of the DLD, and access to the site needs to be
restricted. Should the site be sold at a later date, with the new owner
desiring to grow crops, then the deed for sale needs to stipulate whether
the concentration of cadmium and PCB's is within regulated standards.
Table 6-21 lists the effects that potentially will occur due to the
construction and operation of each of the 14 action alternatives.
6.12 RECREATION AND AESTHETICS
6.12.1 Existing Conditions
There are no municipal, county, or state parks in the immediate vici-
nity of the treatment plant. The Albuquerque Raceway is located approxi-
mately 0.75 miles southeast of the plant. Several parks and a country club
are located on the banks of the Rio Grande River in the general vicinity of
6-98
-------
Table 6-21. Effects of alternatives for the Albuquerque sludge management system on environmental health.
lid
Wasteuater Treatment Lagoons o
ii.-.|«'ruilon romposttiiK Elcvlmn l :'''rt '"' l..in,ll i I I
f S1"dSe S"1"1: ^ Jl. Veam" Stockpiles
Cn-MK- Cesium '
ReinovaTof: Sludge n 4)r j^ -- ,vy-
Tr.Mtn.em shlni. 5^i « li7
Removal of : ^
t c
£ £ "> "3
h 1* i ! P
Ii !H ! *f
.0 0 0> "= « c
Sc « S ^ 3 2-S
( V) .oo ot w
is si ; ill ! ! 1
*, 8 S « « °°-g^a a §
o »< 27; T^^SS- ». o
» ^ mS S o -H o o M
1 S |g £ SK S S J
1 -^ §i! I 111 1 i i
«" S-? «;-S ^°Si £ £ S
^11! III !il tsm ^ a s
in ,lit ;u.-,| l,nid dl
1- t-
Qj ftj
r; m
T) O T3 V-
CO) t-
U
1T> fl
t £
w «)
2 S
ui B *-!
C f". O
« > c
O (03
X, 4J t-
«^ fc CPCJOC »u>OCJ>V.
No Action o o o o o .-..
U o o oo o ooooo oooo
, _ _ _rt . OOOOO OOOO
IB oo o »o
1C o oo.... ooooo oooo
mooooo oooo
ID 0 0 o...« *
ooooo oooo
IE o o oo . . . o
ooooo oooo
IF o o .0 . . . o
00000 OOOO
1G 00 OOOO » u
ooooo oooo
1H 00 .000 .0
OV9 t OOtt.OOOO
2A o o o o
U0» OO..OOOO
2B o o o o
3A o o oo
3B o o .0
3C o o o
30 o o oo
- Major Effect
o - Minor Effect
O 3 u *J
>. o n a
o c*. u. i-
H P. 3 C
w 3 C Ul -H
Q CA *->
C & W
H t-i QJ 4J CX
K zw*.
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
ooooo
-------
downtown Albuquerque, upstream of the plant. The Rio Grande River water
quality is not suitable for contact recreation but is acceptable for non-
contact recreation such as boating.
Montesa Park is not used as a recreation facility except for a gun
club firing range. However, the surrounding area supports recreation in
the form of hunting, shooting, and off-road vehicles. A soap box derby
raceway is located just north of the area but appears to be abandoned or
used infrequently. The New Mexico Timing Association Drag Strip is located
just south of the area. A University of New Mexico Golf Course is located
approximately one mile northwest of Montesa Park.
Both Rio Puerco and Pajarito are undeveloped areas. There are no
people routinely in these areas nor are these areas known to support any
recreation.
Prominent recreational facilities downstream of Albuquerque on the Rio
Grande River are wildlife refuges, Elephant Butte Reservoir, and Caballo
Reservoir. The wildlife refuges support wildlife observation and occasion-
ally hunting. Both reservoirs support fishing, and water skiing is common
on Elephant Butte Reservoir.
Aesthetics, in the form of visual appearance, is an environmental
consideration in Albuquerque. Visual aesthetics and odor nuissance are
project characteristics prominent in the public's mind, and likely to
generate public concern in cases of noticeable degradation. However,
visual degradation is only a concern when people are routinely in sight of
the source or when the offense is located in an area particularly recog-
nized for its visual aesthetic significance. Odor and noise are evaluated
in Section 6.4 of this document.
6.12.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
Primary effects of the no action alternative on recreation will deve-
lop from the overloaded wastewater treatment plant and resulting decreased
effluent quality. Effects of the discharge could be felt on the Rio Grande
6-100
-------
River and may decrease water quality sufficiently to further reduce accept-
able recreational uses of the river. Elephant Butte Reservoir and Caballo
Reservoir could be affected similarly.
Other effects of no action are associated with aesthetic degradation
by sludge lagoons north of the existing treatment plant facilities and
potentially large sludge stockpiles at Montesa Park. The treatment plant
is visible from the residential area just east of the facility. Depending
on their exact location and design, the lagoons may generate opposition
from residents based at least in part on visual appearance. Depending on
their location, sludge stockpiles may be visible from Kirtland Air Force
Base, Sandia Military Reservation, or the Albuquerque Police Department
Prison and Farm.
6.12.3 Environmental Consequences of the Action Alternatives
Some people may feel that the presence of structures such as dewater-
ing facilities, a solar greenhouse, open air drying beds, composting beds,
or irradiation facilities at Montesa Park are aesthetically displeasing,
especially if consideration is not given to appearance during the design
and landscaping of the buildings. The greenhouse, for example, will be 60
ft tall. Open air drying beds will be shielded from view by 8-ft walls,
but the walls themselves could be unattractive if visual aesthetics are not
considered during design. The final stockpile at Montesa Park will be
enclosed by a ten foot tall chain link fence which will not shield sludge
from view. Small equalization piles, utilized before and after belt pres-
sing will be open to view unless provisions are made for small storage
piles in the dewatering building. Unless shielded, compost piles could be
unattractive. Careful building design, layout, and landscaping at Montesa
Park (possibly including wooded buffer zones) would significantly reduce
aesthetic degradation of the area. Because Montesa Park is not a recrea-
tion facility, sludge management activities at that site would not hamper
recreation.
Under the Group 1 alternatives, sludge will be applied to parks and
golf courses one or two times per year. Access will not be restricted to
the areas of application, thus odor may make their use undesirable for a
6-101
-------
short time if the sludge becomes wet. This condition, should it occur, is
not likely to persist longer than 24 hours. Transportation of sludge to
and from Montesa Park should not affect recreation or aesthetics other than
the visual effect of trucks in the area.
If dewatering takes place at the treatment plant, as proposed for
Group 2 alternatives, the addition of a belt press or filter press at Plant
No. 2 will not significantly affect the overall appearance of the facility,
and aesthetics will not be effected significantly. The landfill, while
inherently displeasing aesthetically during operation, will not be altered
significantly by the addition of sludge to the solid waste.
Dedicated land disposal sites are characterized by a large flat tract
of land completely void of vegetation. Heavy equipment operates at the
disposal site continuously. If the sites were visible from residences,
businesses, recreation areas, or streets, they would be unattractive and
aesthetically displeasing. However, Rio Puerco and Pajarito are remote
from populated areas. Trucks to Rio Puerco do pass near residential areas,
however. Recreation should not be affected by dedicated land disposal
operations because little or no recreation takes place at or near either
site.
6.13 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Issuing a grant for the proposed sludge management system or an alter-
native system will result in the City of Albuquerque meeting all applicable
Federal regulations governing the disposal of wastewater sludges, potential
elimination of increasing public concern regarding odors, and a reduction
in numerous operation and maintenance problems presently encountered with
the sludge management process equipment. Substantial economic, material,
manpower, and energy resources will be assigned to the project, represent-
ing an irreversible commitment of resources to a sludge management system
for the Albuquerque area. Short-term economic benefit will consist of
construction employment opportunities and secondary economic stimulation;
however, some of the economic benefit may be realized outside the
Albuquerque area. Adverse short-terra effects include noise, dust, and
6-102
-------
traffic disruption because of construction, but these will be controlled
within tolerable limits.
Denial of a grant will constitute EPA taking the "no action" alter-
native. EPA should decide not to fund any sludge management system, the
overall advisability of expanding the Albuquerque wastewaste collection
system and the liquid treatment units at Plant No. 2 would have to be
reevaluated. The exact situation that would exist if EPA chose the no
action alternative would depend on: (1) what portions (if any) of the
proposed treatment units at Plant No. 2 (other than sludge management) EPA
would continue to fund, and (2) what action the City of Albuquerque would
take in response to an EPA decision to not provide grant funds for any
sludge management program.
If the City chose to construct one of the 14 action alternatives
previously described using only City and State funds, then the effects of
that action would be as described in Chapter 6.0 of this EIS for the parti-
cular action alternative chosen. If the City chose to take no action as a
result of EPA's denial of the grant, then the resulting effects would be as
described in Section 5.2 of this document.
6.14 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHER AGENCIES
If another agency denies a permit or certification necessary for the
operation of the system, and the City of Albuquerque is unable to comply
with restrictions placed on the system by that agency, the project will not
be implemented, resulting in effects similar to those under no action. If
all necessary permits and approvals are issued, effects will be similar to
those associated with the approved project alternative, as discussed pre-
viously for each discipline (Sections 6.1 through 6.12).
6-103
-------
6.15 MITIGATIVE MEASURES
The following principal mitigative measures potentially can reduce or
eliminate any potential impacts that could occur from implementation of any
of the 14 alternatives previously discussed in Chapter 6.0. Most of the
mitigative measures listed below are presently being considered for imple-
mentation by the grant applicant (City of Albuquerque) and/or EPA.
Minimization of Construction Impacts
Construction activities could cause significant impacts. These im-
pacts would be associated primarily with the construction of the new pipe-
line and the construction of the sludge processing facilities. Adverse
impacts, however, can be controlled, and most should be of short duration.
Fugitive dust at' the construction sites (pipeline routes and Montesa
Park) can be reduced by the use of several techniques. Construction sites,
spoil piles, and unpaved access roads can be wetted periodically to mini-
mize dust. Spoil piles also can be covered with matting, mulch, and other
materials to reduce susceptibility to wind erosion. Street sweeping at
access sites would control loose dirt that could be "tracked" onto roadways
by construction equipment. Trucks that haul spoil from excavation and
trenching sites should have covers on their loads to eliminate the escape
of dust while in transit to the disposal sites.
Proper maintenance of construction equipment would minimize emissions
of hydrocarbons and other fumes. Air pollution control devices also could
be used on stationary internal combustion engines.
Where land would be disturbed and soils exposed, measures must be
taken to minimize erosion. In Program Requirements Memorandum 78-1, EPA
established requirements for the control of erosion and runoff from con-
struction activities. Adherence to these requirements would minimize the
potential for problems. The requirements include:
- The project plan and layout should be designed to fit the
local topography and soil conditions;
6-104
-------
- When appropriate, land grading and excavating should be
kept at a minimum to reduce the possibility of creating
runoff and erosion problems that would require the appli-
cation of extensive control measures;
- Whenever possible, topsoil should be removed and stock-
piled before grading begins;
- Soil exposure should be minimized in terms of area and
time;
Exposed areas subject to erosion should be covered as
quickly as possible by means of mulching or vegetation;
- Natural vegetation should be retained whenever feasible;
- Appropriate structural or agricultural practices to con-
trol runoff and sedimentation should be provided during
and after construction;
- A stabilized drainage system (temporary and permanent
systems) should be completed as early as possible to
reduce the potential for erosion;
- Access roadways should be paved or otherwise stabilized as
soon as feasible;
- Clearing and grading should not be started until a firm
construction schedule is known and can be coordinated
effectively with the grading and clearing activity.
Appropriate planning could control construction-related disruption in
the community. Announcements should be published in newspapers and broad-
cast through other news media to alert drivers of temporary closings of
primary traffic routes during construction of the sludge management system
force mains. Traffic control may be needed at points where certain con-
struction equipment would enter into public streets from access areas.
Special care should be taken to minimize disruption of access to commercial
establishments and to frequently visited areas. Planning of routes for
heavy construction equipment should include consideration of surface load
restrictions to prevent damage to streets and roadways.
Runoff Control
There are two sources of runoff. One is the liquid in the sludge and
the other is precipitation falling on a sludge application site. Runoff
6-105
-------
control consists of containment and/or treatment of liquid from the site to
prevent degradation of nearby surface streams. Runoff from adjacent prop-
erties should be diverted around the application site. On-site containment
of liquid from sludges or precipitation is normally provided by small
impoundments placed at needed locations on the site. The contained liquids
can be recycled for further treatment, can be reduced through evaporation,
or can be discharged after sufficient detention time.
Storage
Storage is critical for time periods when application operations are
not possible. These time periods may be several weeks due to severe cold
weather conditions or they may be several days due to excessive precipi-
tation. Storage is usually provided by lagoons for liquid sludge or stock-
piles for solid sludge. Storage systems must be adequately sized and
designed to minimize the possibility of nuisance conditions. The storage
requirements will vary somewhat depending on application method.
Drainage or Leachate Control
Storage lagoons should be lined in areas where groundwater supplies
are threatened, if the dedicated land disposal method is utilized. More
positive control can be provided by drainage ditches placed on the outside
of berms around the lagoons. If lining is inadequate, and groundwater
levels are high, the leachate may be captured by ditches for appropriate
treatment.
Odor Control
Odor control is best achieved by adequate stabilization before stor-
age. Odor control of partially stabilized sludge is extremely difficult.
High dosages of chlorine or lime may help temporarily but may not be al-
lowed by regulatory authorities. The best control method is backup stabili-
zation processes and proper operation of stabilization systems. Additional
control equipment such as scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators could
be utilized on exhaust gas vents to remove odors and excessive particulates
Odor masking systems often are not effective or publically acceptable.
6-106
-------
CHAPTER 7.0
COORDINATION
-------
7.0 COORDINATION
7.1 SCOPING MEETING
Early in the EIS process, EPA held a public scoping meeting at the
City Hall in Albuquerque, New Mexico (7:30 pm on 7 October 1980). The
purpose of this meeting was to receive input from the public as to what
issues should be included within the scope of the supplemental Environ-
mental Impact Statement to be prepared in conjunction with the City of
Albuquerque's wastewater treatment facilities plan amendment. Major con-
cerns raised at the meeting included the following: reviewing agencies for
the Supplemental EIS, mailing list, land use, effect on land values, wilder-
ness area, water quality, water resources, 100-year flood plain, drainage
patterns, endangered species, odor, air quality sampling, need for expan-
sion of waste treatment facilities, use of sludge to grow energy crops,
alternatives to irradiation, transportation of radioactive material, poten-
tial health effects from the irradiator, legal stipulations, archeology,
and reconsidering the 1977 EIS. EPA's responses to these issues are listed
in a responsiveness summary located at public information depositories in
the City of Albuquerque (see Section 7.2).
7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
Public participation activities were an integral component of the
preparation of the Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Facilities Supplemental
EIS, and consisted of three basic elements: (1) public meetings, (2) Citi-
zen Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings and activities, and (3) EIS infor-
mation releases.
In addition to the scoping meeting held by EPA on 7 October 1980,
another public meeting was held by the City of Albuquerque on 8 July 1981
to inform the public of progress on the supplemental EIS and to discuss
preliminary and optimal alternatives. Major concerns expressed at this
7-1
-------
meeting included odor, disinfection alternatives, irradiator safety, poten-
tial effects of heavy metals in the sludge, EPA funding, closing of plant
No. 1, the appointment of persons to the CAC, methane gas production,
current use of sludge, quality of effluent from wastewater treatment plant
No. 2, and optimal recommendations. Responses to these comments/questions
also are included in a responsiveness summary located at the public informa-
tion depositories. A Public Hearing is scheduled to be held on 11 November
1981 to discuss this Draft Supplemental EIS.
Public information depositories also were established for the purpose
of maintaining public awareness of ongoing EIS activities. These deposi-
tories were established at the following six (6) locations: Albuquerque
Public Library-Main Branch, Prospect Park Branch Library, Zimmerman
Library, Esperanza Branch Public Library, Los Griegos Branch Public Lib-
rary, and Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2. Table 7-1 lists the material
that currently is, or will be located at these depositories.
A Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established to provide input to
the City of Albuquerque concerning sludge management alternatives. The
committee is composed of 15 members with equal representation in the fol-
lowing four categories: private citizens, public interest groups, public
officials, and persons with substantial economic interests. The CAC mem-
bers appointed by the City for the Albuquerque public participation program
and their respective classification are listed in Table 7-2.
CAC meetings were open to the public and time was provided at each
meeting for the public to ask questions and express ideas. Minutes pre-
pared for each meeting are available at the public information deposi-
tories.
The CAC selected independent consultants to review reports and present
expert testimony concerning certain subjects where the CAC desired more
specific information. J. C. Robertson, a nuclear engineering professor at
the University of New Mexico discussed the irradiation disinfection alter-
natives. Mr. Robertson concluded that the City could operate a Cesium-137
gamma irradiation facility, but made several recommendations including hav-
ing DOE responsible for decontamination activities in case of an accident.
7-2
-------
Table 7-1. Information located at the public information depositories.
Final Environmental Impact Statement 1977
Albuquerque Areawide Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities Plan - October 1978
Preliminary Value Engineering Report by Arthur Beard - February
1980
Summary Value Engineering Report by Camp Dresser & McKee - May
1980
Final Phase II Expansion Report by Camp Dresser & McKee -
December 1980
Activated Sludge Operational Analysis by AWARE - July 1978
Public Participation Regulations (40 CFR Parts 25, 35)
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works, Construction Grants
Program - 27 September 1978
CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations (10 CFR Parts 2, 20,
30, and 71)
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices (40 CFR Part 257)
"A Guide to Regulations and Guidance for the Utilization and
Disposal of Municipal Sludge" (430/9-80-015)
"A Primer on Wastewater Treatment" - Office of Public Affairs
(A-107)
Responsiveness Summaries to Public Meetings
EPA Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
Public Participation Workplan
EPA Directive of Work to WAPORA
WAPORA's Final Scope of Work
Transcript of Public Scoping Meeting
Minutes of CAC Meetings (when available)
Draft Supplemental EIS (when available)
Transcript of Public Hearing (when available)
Final Supplemental EIS (when available)
Record of Decision (when available)
7-3
-------
Table 7-2. Members of the City of Albuquerque sludge management system
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC).
MEMBER
Kay Grotbeck
Gene Martinez
Stan Read
Freddie Ward
Fred Seebinger
Jay Sorenson
Wiley Smith
Rosa Grado
Evelyn Oden
Douglas Smith
Stephen Verchinski
Herb Denish
Ivan Rose
Walter Webster
Jim Wiegmann
CATEGORY
Public Interest
Public Interest
Public Interest
Public Interest
Public Official
Public Official
Public Official
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Economic Interest
Economic Interest
Economic Interest
Economic Interest
7-4
-------
Dr. Norman E. Kowal, Ph.D., M.D. discussed health effects of land appli-
cation of disinfected sludge. He compared gamma irradiation and composting
for pathogen kill, salmonella regrowth, odor, and other areas specific to
each process. He concluded that gamma irradiation would be the soundest
choice for sludge disinfection.
During the review period of this Draft Supplemental EIS the CAC will
formulate recommendations on the sludge management alternatives. The CAC
recommendations will be presented to the City, and potentially will be made
known to the public at the Public Hearing scheduled for November 1981.
7.3 COOPERATING AGENCIES
EPA contacted two Federal agencies, the Department of Energy and the
Soil Conservation Service, requesting that they participate in the prepa-
ration of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
sludge management system for the City of Albuquerque. Both agencies agreed
to participate and provide technical assistance to EPA.
7.4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND LIST OF PREPARERS
Much of the information for this environmental impact statement was
obtained from the City of Albuquerque Water Resources Department and its
consultants, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., and Wilson and Company. Sandia
National Laboratories and DOE provided valuable information concerning the
utilization of Cesium-137 as a radiation source to disinfect sludge.
Appreciation is expressed to these groups for information provided.
This environmental impact statement was prepared by WAPORA, Inc., for
the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, under the guidance of the
EPA Project Officer, Mr. Clinton Spotts; the Project Monitor, Mr. Norman
7-5
-------
Thomas; and EIS preparation section staff member, Ms. Darlene Owsley. Key
input was also provided by Mr. Larry Brnicky, EPA Construction Grants
Project Engineer, and by Ms. Rosemary Henderson, EPA Public Participation
Specialist. Key personnel for WAPORA included:
Kimball M. Banks, M.A.
Rebecca E. Barnes, B.A.
John E. Gofer, M.A.
David M. Conner, M.S.
Dawn Davenport-Johnson, M.S.
Nowzar Dinyarian, M.S.
Risa W. Fisher, B.E.
William E. French, Ph.D.
Rhoda Granat
Roy E. Greer, M.S.
Richard W. Hess, B.S.
Madelaine Laurello, M.A.
Brent D. Murphy, MRCP
Larry Olinger, P.E.
Mary Lou Motl, M.S.
James C. Varnell, P.E.
D. Keith Whitenight, M.F.
Priede Sedgewick, Inc.
Associate Archaeologist
Production Specialist
Associate Environmental Scientist
Air Quality Engineer
Environmental Scientist/Public
Participation Coordinator
Assistant Project Manager/
Environmental Engineer
Associate Environmental Engineer
Senior Geologist/Limnologist
Research Librarian
Senior Ecologist
Assistant Geologist
Associate Socioeconomist
Associate Environmental Planner
Quality Control
Editor
Project Manager
Project Administrator
Subcontractor/Consultants
7.5 MAILING LIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Listed on the following page(s) are governmental agencies and public
interest groups which will receive a copy of the Supplemental EIS. In
additional, about 300 other groups and individuals were notified in August
1981 of the Supplemental EIS's upcoming publication. Many of these indivi-
duals also will receive a copy of the Supplemental EIS.
7-6
-------
MAILING LIST FOR THE SEIS ON THE PROPOSED CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Kirtland AFB
Representative Manuel Lujan
Senator Harrison J. Schmitt
Senator Pete Dominica
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
USDA Farmer's Home Administration
USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest
USDA Soil Conservation Service
US Department of Commerce (USDOC)
USDOC Economic Development Administration
US Department of Energy
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Interior (USDOI)
USDOI Bureau of Indian Affairs
USDOI Bureau of Land Management
USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service
USDOI National Park Service
USDOI US Geological Survey
US Public Health Service
US Department of Transportation (USDOT)
USDOT Federal Aviation Administration
USDOT Federal Highway Administration
Water Resources Council
State Agencies
Department of Agriculture
Department of Game and Fish
Environmental Improvement Division
Parks and Recreation Commission
State Engineers Office
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Land Office
State Planning Office
7-7
-------
MAILING LIST FOR THE SEIS ON THE PROPOSED CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (concluded)
Public Interest Groups
Audubon Society
Citizen Against Nuclear Threat
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping
Conservation Action League
Izaak Walton League
Keep New Mexico Beautiful
League of Women Voters
New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and Water
New Mexico Conservation Coordinating Council
New Mexico Lung Association
New Mexico Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club
Southwest Research and Information Center
Southwest Valley Area Council
The Nature Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
7-8
-------
CHAPTER 8.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Procedures for the protection
of historic and cultural properties. 36 CFR Part 800.
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department. 1977. City of
Albuquerque zone atlas. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department. 1978. Population
forecasts by data analysis sub-zones. Albuquerque NM, 26 p.
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department. 1979. Population
forecasts by data analysis sub-zones. Albuquerque NM, 29 p.
Albuquerque Environmental Health Group, Air Pollution Control Division.
1973. Air pollution control regulations. Albuquerque NM, 56 p.
Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc. 1980. Southside Wastewater Reclamation Plant
No. 2, The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, preliminary value engi-
neering report study A. Phoenix AZ, variously paged.
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. 1978a. Activated
sludge operational analysis engineering report. Prepared for City of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Houston TX, variously paged.
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. 1978b. Activated
sludge operational analysis executive summary. Prepared for City of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Houston TX, variously paged.
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. 1978c. Activated
sludge operational analysis appendix. Prepared for City of
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Houston TX, variously paged.
Ayanaba, A., and M. Alexander. 1973. Microbial formation of nltrosaraines
in vitro. Applied Microbiology, variously paged.
Ayanaba, A., and M. Alexander. 1974. Transformation of methylamines and
formation of a hazardous product, demethylinitrosamines in samples of
treated sludge and lake water. Journal of Environmental Quality.
Variously paged.
Baldwin, J.L. 1973. Climates of the US. US Department of Commerce.
Washington DC, 113 p.
Bank of New Mexico, and University of New Mexico, Bureau of Business and
Economic Research. 1980. 18th annual summary study. The economy of
the State of New Mexico and the Albuquerque SMSA. Albuquerque NM,
50 p.
Banks, K.M. 1981. Cultural resource inventory of the proposed Montesa
Park sludge treatment and storage facility, and the Tijeras Arroyo
Pipeline, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Report submitted by WAPORA, Inc.
to US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Dallas TX, variously
paged.
8-1
-------
Beck, W.A., and Y.D. Haase. 1969. Historical atlas of New Mexico.
University of Oklahoma. Norman OK, variously paged.
Bernalillo County Environmental Health Personnel. 1980. Nitrate as
nitrogen, groundwater quality report of the Mountainville community.
Albuquerque NM, 25 p.
Bjorklund, L.J., and B.W. Maxwell. 1961. Availability of groundwater in
the Albuquerque area, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico.
Technical Report 21. New Mexico State Engineer. Santa Fe NM, 117 p.
Brannen, J.P., D.M. Garst, and S. Langley. 1975. Inactivation of
Ascaris lumbricoides eggs by heat, radiation, and thermoradiation.
Sandia Laboratories. Albuquerque NM, 26 p.
Brown, V. 1981. Phone, Vinson Brown, City of Albuquerque, 13 July 1981.
Bruce, S. 1981. Phone, Sherlie Bruce, US Environmental Protection Agency,
Dallas TX, 5 June 1981.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. 1977. Sludge handling, noise reduction and
odor control part I study and report. Prepared for City of
Albuquerque, New Mexico Water Resources Department. Denver CO,
variously paged.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1977. Plant operations and maintenance, sludge
handling and odor control management and staff part II study and
report. Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Water Resources
Department. Denver CO, variously paged.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and William Matotan & Associates, Inc. 1980a.
Advance copy of draft final (extract) southside wastewater treatment
plant phase II expansion program engineering report. Prepared for
City of Albuquerque (New Mexico) Water Resources Department, Engineer-
ing Division. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and William Matotan & Associates, Inc. 1980b.
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico southside wastewater treatment plant
phase II expansion program engineering report. Prepared for City of
Albuquerque, New Mexico Water Resources Department. Albuquerque NM,
variously paged.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and William Matotan & Associates, Inc. 1980c.
Southside wastewater reclamation plant no. 2 phase II expansion
program summary value engineering report study A (report stage).
Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Water Resources Depart-
ment. Albuquerque NM, 40 p.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., and Wilson and Company Engineers and Archi-
tects. 1981. Notes on updated costs for City of Albuquerque in
wastewater treatment facilities solids management system alternatives.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
8-2
-------
Campbell, J.M., and F.H. Ellis. 1952. The Atrisco Sites: Cochise mani-
festation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. American Antiquity 17
Carpenter, P.L. 1977. Microbiology. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia
PA, 512 p.
CH_M Hill. 1980a. Generic environmental assessment of sludge irradiation.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
CH?M Hill. 1980b. Irradiation of sewage sludge using Cesium-137: a
comparative assessment. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Chamber of Commerce. 1979. Large employers in the Albuquerque area.
Albuquerque NM, 18 p.
Chamber of Commerce, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1980a. Population estimates
and projections. Albuquerque SMSA fact sheet 1980. Albuquerque NM,
variously paged.
Chamber of Commerce, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1980b. Fact sheets income
employment, population, labor, and economy. Albuquerque NM, variously
paged.
Cheremisinof f , P.N., and R.A. Young (Eds.). 1975. Industrial odor tech-
nology assessment. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. Ann Arbor MI,
509 p.
City of Albuquerque. No date. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County comprehensive
plan a summary report. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
City of Albuquerque. 1979a. Budget of the mayor. FY 1979/80.
Albuquerque NM, 239 p.
City of Albuquerque. 1979b. Capital improvements program 1979-1981.
Albuquerque NM, 22 p.
City of Albuquerque. 1980a. Budget of the major. FY 1980/81.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
City of Albuquerque. 1980b. Capital implementation program. Capital
status report as of September 30, 1980. Albuquerque NM, 25 p.
Cordell, L.S. 1979. A cultural resource overview of the Middle Rio Grande
Valley, New Mexico. US Government Printing Office. Washington DC,
variously paged.
Cordell, L.S. (Ed.). 1980. Tijeras Canyon: analyses of the past.
Maxwell Museum of Antropology and the University of New Mexico Press.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Cornell University, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
1976. Land application of wastes: an educational program. New York
NY, variously paged.
8-3
-------
Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Final regulations for implementa-
tion of the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act. 40 CFR Chapter V, Parts 1500-1508.
Crites, S. 1979. An approach for comparing health risks of wastewater
treatment alternatives. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water Program Operations, 66 p.
Duran, Dave. 1981. Letter, Dave Duran, NM-EID, to Dawn Davenport-Johnson,
WAPORA, Inc., 13 May 1981, 3 p.
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). 1977. Environ-
mental impact assessment: Sandia Laboratories. EIA/MA 77-1.
Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Ehlers, V., and E. Steel. 1965. Municipal and rural sanitation. McGraw-
Hill Book Company. New York NY, 663 p.
Fisher, R. G. 1931. Second report of the archaeological survey of the
Pueblo Plateau: Santa Fe sub-quadrangle A. The University of New
Mexico Bulletin Survey Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, variously paged.
Free, Bob. 1981. Letter, Bob Free, Texas Department of Health, to Dawn
Davenport-Johnson, WAPORA, Inc., 6 July 1981.
Hibben, F.C. 1951. Sites of the Paleo-Indians in the Middle Rio
Grande Valley. American Antiquity 17(l):41-46.
Holzworth, G.C. 1972. Mixing heights, wind speeds and potential for
urban air pollution throughout the contiguous US. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC, 117 p.
Hosier, C.R. 1961. Low level inversions. Monthly Weather Review
89:319-339.
Illinois University. 1981. Helminth and heavy metals transmission from
anaerobically digested sewage sludge. Prepared for US Environmental
Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory.
Cincinnati OH, 56 p.
Industrial Development Service, Inc. 1980. Digest of major new industries
located in Albuquerque. Fact Sheet. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Jenkins, T.F., S.T. .Quarry, I.K. Iskanoar, A.D. Edwards, and H.E. Hare.
1979. Use of N to study nitrogen transformations in land treat-
ment. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Hanover NH, 26 p.
Judge, W.J. 1973. Paleoindian occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley
in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press Albuquerque NM, vari-
ously paged.
Khera, A.K. 1981. Letter, Ashok Khera, Water Resource Department, to
James C. Varnell, WAPORA, Inc., City of Albuquerque, 20 July 1981.
8-4
-------
Kowal, N.E. 1981. Letter, Norman E. Kowal, Research Medical Officer/
USEPA, to Paul D. Noland, City of Albuquerque/Water Resources Depart-
ment, 24 July 1981.
McMullen, W.H. 1981. Letter, William McMullen, Department of Energy,
to Darlene Owsley, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
7 July 1981.
Mason, B. and L.G. Berry. 1958. Elements of mineralogy. San Francisco
CA, 550 p.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1980. Estimated capital and oper-
ating costs for sludge disinfection process system. Cambridge MA,
3 p.
May, H.D. 1981. Letter, Hank May, US Environmental Protection Agency, -
Region 6 Radiation Representative, to Dawn Davenport-Johnson, WAPORA,
Inc., 24 July 1981.
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments of New Mexico. 1979a. Areawide
comprehensive planning guide for land use decisions. Albuquerque NM,
71 p.
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments of New Mexico. 1979b. Greater
Albuquerque area 1995 socioeconomic forecasts. Small area allocations
(1979 reevaluation). Albuquerque NM, 16 p.
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments of New Mexico. 1979c. 1979
Traffic flow for the greater Albuquerque area. Albuquerque NM,
1 sheet.
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments of New Mexico. 1980. Socio-
economic indicators 1977 estimates. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments of New Mexico. 1981. Long range
major street plan, Albuquerque urban area. Albuquerque NM, 1 sheet.
Molzen Corbin & Associates. 1978. Design criteria for dry sludge irradia-
tion demonstration plant (DISIDP). Prepared for Sandia Laboratories.
Albuquerque NM, 83 p.
Morris, M.E., J.S. Sivinski, J.R. Brandon, K.S. Newhauser and R.L. Ward.
1979. A summary of recent development in the sludge irradiation
program at Sandia Laboratories. Sandia Laboratories. Albuquerque
NM, 57 p.
Morris, M.E. 1980. Sandia irradiator for dried sewage solids final safety
analysis report. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque NM,
132 p.
National Academy of Sciences. 1977. Analytical studies for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, volume IX, multimedium management of
municipal sludge. National Research Council. Washington DC, 201 p.
8-5
-------
New Mexico Employment Security Department. 1980. New Mexico labor market
review. Volume 9. Numbers 11 and 12, variously paged.
New Mexico Health and Social Services Department. 1976. Assessment of the
impacts of Albuquerque wastewater on the trophic status of Elephant
Butte Reservoir. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
New Mexico State University. Reports on the effectiveness and safety of
irradiated sludge as a soil conditioner/fertilizer and animal feed
supplement.
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1976. Middle Rio Grande
Basin plan. Santa Fe NM, 107 p.
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1979a. New Mexico statewide
water quality management plan. Santa Fe NM, 107 p.
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1979b. New Mexico statewide
water quality management planappendix. Santa Fe NM, variously
paged.
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1980. State of New Mexico
water quality status summary. Santa Fe NM, 69 p.
Pahren, H., and W. Jakubouiski (Eds.). 1980. Wastewater aerosols and
disease: proceedings of a symposium. US Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-600/9-80-028. Cincinnati OH, 367 p.
Pahren, H., et al. 1979. Health risks associated with land application of
municipal sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 51(11):
2588-2599.
Patterson, C.C. 1970. An analysis of the impact of the wasterwater ef-
fluent on the City of Albuquerque on the water quality of the Rio
Grande, New Mexico, 17 December.
PEER Consultants, Inc. 1980. Production of non-food-chain crops with
sewage sludge. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Muni-
cipal Environmental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati OH, 95 p.
Perkins, H.C. 1974. Air pollution. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York
NY, 407 p.
Priede-Sedgwick, Inc. 1981. Letter, Stephen R. Sedgwick, Priede-Sedgwick,
Inc., to James C. Varnell, WAPORA, Inc., 2 July 1981.
Priede-Sedgwick, Inc. 1981. Letter, Stephen R. Sedgwick, Priede-Sedgwick,
Inc., to James C. Varnell, WAPORA, Inc., 7 July 1981.
Reeder, H.O., L.J. Bjorklund, and G.A. Dinwiddie. 1967. Quantitative
analysis of water resources in the Albuquerque area, New Mexico.
Technical Report 33. New Mexico State Engineer. Santa Fe NM, 34 p.
8-6
-------
Reinhart, T.R. 1967a. The Alaraeda Phase: an early basketmaker III culture
in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Southwestern Lore
33(l):24-32.
Reinhart, T.R. 1967b. The Rio Rancho Phase: a preliminary report on
early basketmaker culture in the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico.
American Antiquity 32(4):458-470.
Reinhart, T.R. 1968. Late Archaic cultures of the Middle Rio Grande
Valley, New Mexico: a study of the process of cultural change. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of New Mexico. Albuquerque NM, variously
paged.
Reynold, S.E., J.C. Yates, and P.D. Akin, 1976. Coordinated administration
of surface and ground water under the doctrine of prior application,
Washington DC. May 23-31.
Rogers, J.B. 1980. West Mesa Airport archaeological survey report.
Report submitted by the Center for Anthropological Studies to
Chambers, Campbell, Isaacson, Chaplin, Inc. Variously paged.
Rogers, J.B. 1981. An archaeological synthesis of the Tijeras Arroyo
portion of Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Report submitted by the
Center for Anthropological Studies to WAPORA, Inc.
Sales and Marketing Management. 1980. Survey of buying power, part 1.
New York NY, variously paged.
Sandia Laboratories. 1979. Progress report beneficial uses program period
ending March 31, 1979. Albuquerque NM, 58 p.
Sandia Laboratories. 1979. Progress report beneficial uses program period
ending June 30, 1979. Albuquerque NM, 51 p.
Sandia Laboratories. 1979. Sandia irradiator for dried sewage solids
seminar proceedings and dedication October 18-19, 1978 Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Albuquerque NM, 192 p.
Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. National symposium on the use of
Cesium-137 to process sludge for further reduction of pathogens report,
SAND 80-2744. Denver CO.
Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. National symposium on the use of
Cesium-137 to process sludge for further reduction of pathogens,
September 3-4, 1980, Denver, Colorado. Albuquerque NM, 361 p.
Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. Progress report beneficial uses
program period ending September 30, 1979. Albuquerque NM, 71 p.
Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. Progress report beneficial uses
program period ending December 31, 1979. Albuquerque NM, 66 p.
8-7
-------
Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil survey of Bernalillo County and
parts of Sandoval and Valencia Counties, New Mexico. US Department of
Agriculture. Washington DC, 101 p.
Stier, P. 1981. Phone, Pat Stier, Bohannan & Huston, Inc., Albuquerque
NM, 19 July.
Stone, R. and J. Rowlands. 1980. Long-term effects of land application of
domestic wastewater, Mesa, Arizona: irrigation site. US Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Labora-
tory. Ada OK, 247 p.
Summer, W. 1971. Odor pollution of air: causes and control. CRC Press,
Cleveland OH, 310 p.
Tainter, J.A. and D.A. Gillio. 1980. Cultural resource overview: Mt.
Taylor area, New Mexico. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southwest Region, and Bureau of Land Management, New
Mexico State Office. Variously paged.
Task Force on Odor Control. 1979. Odor control for wastewater facilities,
Manual of Practice No. 22, Lancaster Press, Inc., Lancaster PA, 80 p.
Thomas, R.E. and T.W. Bendixen. 1969. Degradation of wastewater organics
in soil. Journal Wwater Pollution Control Federation 41(5), Part I,
variously paged.
Turk, A., S.W. Johnston and D.G. Moulton (Eds.). 1974. Human responses
to environmental odors. Academic Press. New York NY, 345 p.
US Department of Agriculture. 1980. Important farmlands, Bernalillo
County, New Mexico. Soil Conservation Service, Albuquerque NM,
1 sheet.
US Department of Commerce. 1960. Protection against radiations from
sealed gamma sources: handbook 73. National Bureau of Standards.
Washington DC, 70 p.
US Department of Commerce. 1978. Local climatological data/Dallas-Fort
Worth, Texas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Asheville NC, 4 p.
US Department of Commerce. 1981a. 1980 census of population and housing,
advance reportsNew Mexicofinal population and housing unit counts.
Bureau of Census. Washington DC, 10 p.
US Department of Commerce. 1981b. 1980 census of population and housing,
preliminary reports. Bureau of Census. Washington DC, 6 p.
US Department of Energy - Sandia LaboratoriesResearch reports on pilot
sludge irradiation facilities.
8-8
-------
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service.
1980. Health hazard evaluation determination report. HE 79-28-674.
Variously paged.
US Department of Transportation, 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of
Highway Traffic Noise. Federal Highway Administration. Washington
DC, variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1973a. Health and annoyance impact
of odor pollution. EPA-650/1-75-001. Washington DC, variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1973b. Odors emitted from raw and
digested sewage sludge. EPA-670/2-73-098. Washington DC, variously
paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Final regulations for navigable
waters: selections of disposal sites and conditioning of discharges
of dredged or fill material. 40 FR 41293, 5 September 1975.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality criteria for water.
Washington DC, 256 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977a. Final environmental impact
statement for Albuquerque wastewater treatment facilities. Dallas TX,
282 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977b. Final environmental impact
statement for Albuquerque wastewater treatment facilities, project no.
C-35-1020-01, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Dallas TX, 290 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1977c. Technical reference document
for Albuquerque wastewater treatment facilities. Dallas TX, variously
paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978a. Condensed version of EPA
levels document. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. EPA 550/
9-79-100. Washington DC, 25 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1978b. Criteria for classification
of solid waste disposal facilities. 40 CFR 257, 43 FR 25, 6 February
1978.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Final regulations regarding
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 40 CFR Parts
121, 122, 124, 125.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979b. Floodplain management and
wetlands protection. Federal Register, 5 January 1979.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979c. Gamma radiation treatment of
waters from lignite mines. EPA-600/7-79-064. Cincinnati OH, 91 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979d. Health effects association
with wastewater treatment and disposal systems: state-of-the-art
review. Volume 1, pp. 423-439.
8-9
-------
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979e. Implementation of procedures
on the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 CFR Part 6; 44 FR 216:
64174-64192, 6 November 1979.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979f. Requirements for preparation,
adoption, and submittal of implementation plans: prevention of signi-
cant deterioration of air quality. 40 CFR 51.24, 44 FR 8237,
8 February 1979.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1979g. Working guidelines for the
preparation of environmental impact statements. Memo from C. B.
Spotts, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 to EIS preparers
dated August 1979. Dallas TX.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980a. A guide to regulations and
guidance for the utilization and disposal of municipal sludge.
Washington DC, 48 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. A survey of pathogen survival
during municipal solid waste and manure treatment processes.
Cincinnati OH, 105 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980c. Final environmental impact
statement for water, sewer and access facilities, South University
Industrial Park. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980d. Hazardous wastes and consoli-
dated permit regulations. 40 CFR 260-265, 45 FR 98, 19 May 1980.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980e. Potential health effects from
persistant organics in wastewater and sludges used for land applica-
tion. Health Effects Research Laboratory, 51 p.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1980f. Regulatory options for the
control of odors. EPA-450/5-80-003. Research Triangle Park NC,
variously paged.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Endangered species of Arizona and New
Mexico. USFWS Region 2. Albuquerque NM, 63 p.
US Geological Survey. 1952a. Albuquerque east quadrangle, New Mexico,
7.5 minute series (topographic). Department of the Interior,
Washington DC, 1 sheet.
US Geological Survey. 1952b. Albuquerque west quadrangle, New Mexico,
7.5 minute series (topographic). Department of the Interior,
Washington DC, 1 sheet.
US Geological Survey. 1952c. Hubbell Spring quadrangle, New Mexico,
7.5 minute series (topographic). Department of the Interior,
Washington DC, 1 sheet.
US Geological Survey. 1952d. Isleta quadrangle, New Mexico, 7.5 minute
series (topographic). Department of the Interior. Washington DC,
1 sheet.
8-10
-------
US Geological Survey. 1978. Water resources data for New Mexico. Water
year 1978. US Department of the Interior. Washington DC, 677 p.
US Geological Survey. 1980. Water resources data for New Mexico. Water
year 1979. US Department of the Interior. Albuquerque NM, 747 p.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1980. Regulatory guide 10.9/guide for
preparation of applications for licenses for the use of gamma irradia-
tors. Office of Standards Development. Washington DC, 15 p.
Vanervan, J. 1981. Phone, John Vanervan, Bernalillo County Planning
Commission, 26 June 1981.
Vesiland, P.A. 1980. Treatment and disposal of wastewater sludges. Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor MI, 323 p.
Ward, R.L. 1978. Mechanism of poliovirus inactivation by ammonia.
Journal of Virology 26(2):299-305
Ward, R.L. 1980. Mechanism of poliovirus inactivation by the direct and
indirect effects of ionizing radiation. Radiation Research
83:330-344
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1977a. Discovery of an agent in wastewater
sludge that reduces the heat to inactivate reovirus. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 34(6):681-688.
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1977b. Inactivation of enteric viruses in
wastewater sludge through dewatering by evaporation. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 34(5):564-570.
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1978a. Heat inactivation of enteric viruses
in dewatered wastewater sludge. Applied and Environmental Micro-
biology 36(6):898-905.
Ward, R.L., and C.S Ashley. 1978b. Identification of detergents as com-
ponents of wastewater sludge that modify the thermal stability of
reovirus and enteroviruses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology
36(6):889-897.
Ward, R.L., and C.S Ashley. 1978c. Methods to inactivate enteric viruses
in wastewater sludge. Prepared by Sandia Laboratories for the US
Department of Energy. Albuquerque NM, 23 p.
Ward, R.L., and C.S Ashley. 1978d. Notes: comparative effects of ammonia
and related compounds on poliovirus. Applied and Environmental Micro-
biology 36(1):198-200.
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1979a. Mode of initiation of cell infection
with sludge-associated poliovirus. Applied and Environmental Micro-
biology 38(2):329-331.
8-11
-------
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1979b. pH modification of the effects of
detergents on the stability of enteric viruses. Applied and Environ-
mental Microbiology 38(2):314-322.
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1980a. Comparative study on the mechanisms
of rotavirus inactivation by sodium dodecyl sulfate and ethylenedia-
mine tetraacetate. Applied and Environmental Microbiology (39)6:
1148-1153.
Ward, R.L., and C.S. Ashley. 1980b. Effects of wastewater sludge and its
detergents on the stability of rotavirus. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 39(6):1154-1158.
Ware, S.A. 1980. A survey of pathogen survival during municipal solid
waste and manure treatment processes. EPA-600/8-80-034. Ebon Re-
search Systems. Cincinnati OH, 105 p.
William Matotan & Associates, and Molzen-Corbin & Associates. 1978a.
Final Albuquerque areawide wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties plan. Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Albuquerque
NM, Volume 1, variously paged.
William Matotan & Associates, and Molzen-Corbin & Associates. 1978b.
Final Albuquerque areawide wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties plan. Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Albuquerque
NM, Volume 2, variously paged.
William Matotan & Associates, and Molzen-Corbin & Associates. 1978c.
Final Albuquerque areawide wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties plan. Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Albuquerque
NM, Volume 3, variously paged.
William Matotan & Associates, and Molzen-Corbin & Associates. 1978d.
Final Albuquerque areawide wastewater collection and treatment facili-
ties plan. Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Albuquerque
NM, Volume 4, variously paged.
Wilson & Company Engineers & Architects. I980a. Interim sludge disposal
facilities engineering report. Prepared for City of Albuquerque,
New Mexico Water Resources Department. Albuquerque NM, variously
paged.
Wilson & Company Engineers & Architects. 1980b. Preliminary technical
and economic analysis of solar sludge drying facility. Prepared for
City of Albuquerque. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
Wilson & Company Engineers & Architects. 1981. Interim technical and
economic analysis of solar sludge drying facility engineering report.
Prepared for City of Albuquerque, New Mexico Water Resources Depart-
ment. Albuquerque NM, variously paged.
8-12
-------
Wooldridge & Stednick. 1980. Effects of sludge irrigation on three
Pacific Northwest forest soils. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati OH, 170 p.
Yeager, J.G. 1980. Risk to animal health from pathogens in municipal
sludge. Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque NM, 40 p.
8-13
-------
CHAPTER 9.0
INDEX
-------
9.0 INDEX
Aesthetics, 1-3, 1-8, 4-1, 5-34, 6-1, 6-33, 6-38, 6-41, 6-98, 6-100,
6-101, 6-102
Air quality, 3-4, 5-20, 6-41, 7-1
Anaerobic digestion, 1-5, 1-7, 4-1, 5-1, 5-24, 5-29, 6-41, 6-50, 6-88
Annual equilivalent, 1-5, 5-16, 5-43
Belt press, 1-4, 1-7, 3-1, 4-2, 5-24, 5-28, 6-101, 6-102
Biological resources, 6-53, 6-55, 6-59
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), 3-3, 5-7, 6-23
Capital cost, 6-81
Cesium, i, 1-4, 3-1, 4-2, 5-11, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, 5-49, 6-50, 6-51, 7-2, 7-5
Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC), 1-10, 7-1, 7-2, 7-5
City Ordinance, 6-79
Clean Water Act (CWA), 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 3-1, 3-3
Coilform Bacteria, 3-3, 6-21, 6-95
Collection, 1-3, 4-1, 5-7
Composting, 5-16, 5-19, 5-21, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, 6-41, 6-75, 6-92, 6-96,
6-101, 7-5
Conditioning, 1-4, 1-7, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 6-14, 6-29
Construction Cost, 3-3, 5-42
Construction Grants Program, 1-1, 1-2, 3-3, 6-79
Coordination, 1-10, 7-1
Council on Environmental Quality, (CEQ), 3-1
Cultural resources, 6-62, 6-64, 6-68, 6-69
Dedicated Land Disposal (OLD), 1-3, 5-1, 1-7, 4-1, 5-2, 5-7, 5-13, 5-14, 5-23,
5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, 5-34, 6-1, 6-3, 6-5,
6-17,6-18, 6-24, 6-27, 6-29, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33,
6-41, 6-49, 6-53, 6-62, 6-64, 6-68, 6-69, 6-80,
6-81, 6-84, 6-87, 6-89, 6-98, 6-102, 6-106
Dewater, i, 1-4, 1-7, 3-1, 5-7, 5-16, 5-19, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-28, 5-32,
6-101, 6-102
Disinfection, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 3-1, 4-1, 5-7, 5-19, 5-23, 5-29, 6-90, 6-98,
7-2, 7-5
Disposal, i, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 3-3, 3-4, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-7, 5-9, 5-13,
5-17, 5-19, 5-23, 5-25, 5-32, 6-15, 6-17, 6-62, 6-64, 6-68, 6-70,
6-75, 6-81, 6-84, 6-88, 6-89, 6-102
Dissolved air flotation, 1-3, 1-7, 3-1, 5-23, 5-24, 6-14
Drying, i, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 3-6, 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-7, 5-19, 5-20, 5-23,
5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 6-30, 6-101
Dust, 1-8, 6-17, 6-38, 6-40, 6-90, 6-102, 6-104
Earth resources, 6-1, 6-2, 6-14, 6-17
Economics, 6-1, 6-72, 6-77, 6-102, 7-2
Electron beam, 1-5, 5-16, 5-29, 5-32, 6-51, 6-52
Endangered Species, 6-55, 7-1
Energy, 1-1, 1-2, 4-1, 5-16, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 6-1, 6-83, 6-84, 6-95, 7-1
Environmental health, i, 1-8, 6-1, 6-89, 6-98
EPA alternatives, 1-8, 5-49, 6-2, 6-102
9-1
-------
Epidemics, 6-87
Facilities plan, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-10, 3-1, 3-3, 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, 5-23
Fedreal Register, 1-2
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 1-1, 1-2
Groundwater, 1-8, 3-6, 5-16, 5-19, 5-34, 6-14, 6-23, 6-24, 6-28, 6-29, 6-30,
6-31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-88, 6-92, 6-96, 6-97, 6-98, 6-106
Hazardous Waste, 5-34
Heavy metals (toxic elements), 1-8, 4-2, 5-2, 6-14, 6-15, 6-16, 6-17, 6-18,
6-21, 6-23, 6-27, 6-30, 6-31, 6-59, 6-90, 6-97,
6-98, 7-2
Incineration, 5-13, 5-17, 5-20, 6-38
Innovative treatment, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 6-80
Lagoons, 1-5, 5-1, 5-9, 6-17, 6-40, 6-74, 6-84, 6-92, 6-101, 6-106
Land application, 1-2, 4-2, 5-29, 6-31, 6-50, 7-5
Land use, 6-1, 6-55, 6-71, 6-72, 6-73, 6-74, 6-75, 7-1
Landfill, 1-5, 1-7, 5-2, 5-7, 5-13, 5-19, 5-23, 5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, 5-34,
6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-5, 6-8, 6-14, 6-16, 6-18, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 6-31,
6-32, 6-53, 6-64, 6-67, 6-68, 6-69, 6-73, 6-75, 6-87, 6-89, 6-97,
6-102
Landspread, i, 1-4, 1-5, 3-1, 5-7, 5-13, 5-17, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-29, 5-32,
5-42, 5-43, 6-1, 6-15, 6-31, 6-49, 6-68, 6-87, 6-97
Leachate, 5-8, 6-14, 6-15, 6-16, 6-18, 6-29, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32, 6-92, 6-97,
6-98, 6-106
Legal Stipulation, 3-6, 5-28, 7-1
Lift station, 1-4, 5-25
Mailing list, 7-1, 7-6, 7-7, 7-8
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1-1, 3-1, 4-1
New Mexico Air Control Act, 3-6
New Mexico Water Quality Act, 1-4, 3-3
Noise, 3-6, 6-1, 6-39, 6-40, 6-41, 6-52, 6-53, 6-98, 6-100, 6-102
Notice of Intent, 1-3, 3-1
Nuclear engineering, 7-2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRG), 5-29
Odor, 1-2, 1-3, 1-8, 3-6, 4-1, 4-2, 5-2, 5-9, 5-16, 5-21,5-22, 5-28, 6-38,
6-39, 6-412, 6-48, 6-50, 6-90, 6-93, 6-97, 6-98, 6-100, 6-101, 6-102,
6-106, 7-1, 7-2, 7-5
Open air drying, 1-4, 6-15, 6-30, 6-41, 6-49
Operation and maintenance, 1-3, 3-3, 4-1, 5-16, 5-20, 5-21, 5-42, 6-102
Optimal alternative, 5-9, 5-13, 5-23, 5-25, 5-34, 6-1, 6-62, 6-64
Pathogens, 4-2, 5-21, 5-29, 6-59, 6-88, 6-90, 6-91, 6-94, 6-97, 6-98, 7-5
pH, 6-22
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's), 5-34, 6-98
Population, 6-1, 6-69, 6-77, 6-87, 6-102
Preliminary alternatives, 5-8, 5-9, 7-1
Present worth, 1-5, 5-43
Pressure filter (filter press), 5-16, 5-24, 5-28, 1-7
Private citizen, 7-2
Project area, 6-3, 6-5, 6-28, 6-53, 6-71
Project site, 6-28, 6-29
Public health, 1-2, 5-34
Public hearing, 7-2, 7-5
9-2
-------
Public interest group, 7-2
Public meeting, 1-10, 7-1
Public official, 7-2
Public participation, 4-2, 5-13, 7-1, 7-2
Radiation, 4-2, 6-51, 6-93, 6-94, 7-5
Radioactive material, 6-93, 6-94, 7-1
Recreation, 1-1, 1-2, 6-1, 6-98, 6-100, 6-101, 6-102
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 5-34
Sandia Laboratories, 6-50, 7-5
Settleable solids, 3-3, 6-23
Soils, 5-34, 6-5, 6-6, 6-8, 6-14, 6-15, 6-16, 6-18, 6-32, 6-38, 6-98, 6-104,
6-105
Solar greenhouse, i, 1-4, 3-1, 4-2, 5-28, 5-29, 6-41, 6-49, 6-101
Solid waste, 3-4, 5-16, 5-34, 6-102
Stabilization, i, 1-3, 1-7, 3-1, 5-23, 5-24, 6-14, 6-29, 6-88
Stockpiles, 1-4, 1-5, 4-2, 5-7, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, 6-14, 6-15, 6-23, 6-40,
6-41, 6-49, 6-59, 6-87, 6-88, 6-89, 6-96, 6-97, 6-101, 6-106
Surface water, 1-8, 3-6, 5-16, 5-34, 6-1, 6-20, 6-21, 6-22, 6-23, 6-24, 6-59,
6-90, 6-98
Suspended soilids, 3-3, 5-7
Testimony, 7-2
Thickening, i, 1-3, 1-7, 3-1, 5-23, 5-24, 6-14, 6-29
Topography, 6-1, 6-2, 6-12, 6-49, 6-64, 6-104
Transportation, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 4-1, 4-2, 5-17, 5-19, 5-23, 5-29, 6-1, 6-2,
6-14, 6-18, 6-30, 6-31, 6-53, 6-64, 6-71, 6-72, 6-73, 6-74,
6-75, 6-80, 6-84, 6-93, 6-102, 6-105, 7-1
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1-10, 7-5
US Department of Energy (USDOE), 1-10, 5-29, 5-49, 7-2, 7-5
Vegetation, 6-15, 6-62, 6-102, 6-105
Water Quality, 6-1, 6-20, 6-21, 6-23, 6-23, 6-24, 6-29, 6-30, 6-59, 6-101, 7-1
Wildlife, 6-55, 6-100
Wind, 6-33, 6-49
Zoning, 3-6, 6-50
Other Agency Alternatives, 1-8, 5-49, 6-2, 6-103
9-3
-------
CHAPTER 10.0 APPENDIXES
10.1 Significant Correspondence
USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service
New Nexico State Historic Preservation Officer
10.2 Description of Cesium - 137 Irradiator
10.3 Description of Electron Beam
10.4 Public Health Information
10.5 English Unit/Metric Unit Conversion Factors
-------
CHAPTER 10.0
APPENDIXES
-------
10.1 SIGNIFICANT CORRESPONDENCE
-------
BRUCE KING
GOVERNOR
KATHLEEN R. MARR
SECRETARY
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
STATE PLANNING DIVISION
505 DON GASPAR AVENUE
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO B7503
(505! 827-2073
(505) 627-519'!
(505! 627-2108
April 23, 1981
ANITA HISENBERG
DIRECTOR
JOE GUILLEN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
ATTN: Darlene Owsley
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the report on the archaeological
reconnaissance of the City of Albuquerque's proposed Montessa Park
sludge treatment and storage system and associated sludge conveyance
pipeline.
The survey of the sludge treatment and storage site and the proposed
pipeline conducted by WAPORA, Inc. is clearly adequate. We concur
with your determination that the project will have no effect on
any- significant cultural resources.
Mr. Banks' observations on the likelihood of buried archaeological
remains in the Tijeras Arroyo and the Rio Grande floodplain are well
taken. If such buried remains are uncovered, artifacts and features
should be protected in place and this office notified of the find.
We would also like to remind you that any alterations to the project
involving new areas will require further review by this office.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please let us
know.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Merlan
State Historic Preservation Officer
Historic Preservation Bureau
TWM:CJLB:dg
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
POST OFFICE BOX 1306
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87103
Septembe
IN REPLY REFER TO:
SE
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in reply to your letter of August 27, 1980, which requested
information about species which are listed or proposed to be listed as
threatened or endangered as provided by the Endangered Species Act. Your
area of interest is the Albuquerque Sludge Treatment and Disposal System,
Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
The Fish and Wildlife Service provides upon request a list of those
species, both proposed and listed, which may be affected by Federal
construction activities.
Our data indicate no listed or proposed species would be affected by
the proposed action in the area of interest. If I may be of further
assistance, do not hesitate to call the Endangered Species Office
(505-766-3972; FTS 474-3972).
Sincerely yours,
Acting
Regional Director
cc: Area Manager, Phoenix Area Office (SE), Phoenix, Arizona
Field Supervisor, Albuquerque Field Office (ES), Albuquerque, New Mexico
-------
10.2 DESCRIPTION OF CESIUM-137 IRRADIATOR
-------
DESCRIPTION OF CESIUH-137 IRRADIATOR
The irradiator is designed to utilize the gamma rays from cesium
chloride (Cs-137) to disinfect Albuquerque's sewage sludge. The highest
penetrating dose rate to personnel working at the irradiation facility is
expected to be 0.05 rem per year for a total of seven to eight individuals
(McMullen 1981). The federal standard for radiation workers is the equiv-
alent of 5 rera/year (10 CFR part 20.101). For comparison, the natural
external radiation background in the Albuquerque area has been measured to
be approximately 150 to 200 millirera (.15 to .2 rem) per year per person
(ERDA 1977). The dose rate expected outside the facility during operation
and decommissioning is expected to be essentially zero (unable to differen-
tiate from background radiation at 3 to 10 feet from the facility). The
primary shielding of the cesium chloride gamma ray source will be the
massive steel reinforced concrete structure of the facility (McMullen
1981).
The irradiator for Albuquerque has not been designed yet, but will use
as a guide the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) concept for radia-
tion exposure. This concept holds that although exposure can be reduced to
whatever level is desired through use of additional radiation shielding and
operating procedures, in actual practice a trade-off has to be negotiated
to hold facility construction costs within reasonable bounds while limiting
radiation exposure to "reasonable" levels. If the irradiator alternative
is chosen for the Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Plant the irradiator
will incorporate safety features at least as stringent as those present at
the Sandia Irradiator for Dried Sewage Solids (SIDSS) pilot facility lo-
cated at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. Any improvements
that have been learned from work at the SIDSS also will be incorporated
(Khera 1981). The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (BID) is
requesting a full-time position for someone whose primary responsibility
would be to supervise the licensing, construction, and operation of the
Albuquerque irradiator should this option be chosen. This person would
serve as a liason between the EID and the City of Albuquerque, Sandia
National Laboratory, and the Department of Energy and would be involved
with the assessing of risks, environmental assessments, and assuring compli-
ance with the EID regulations (by phone, Benito Garcia, NM-EID, 23 July
1981).
-------
When dealing with large quantities (approximately 5 to 7 MCi) of
radioactive material, there is always the potential of overexposure and/or
the release of radioactive material resulting from abnormal events. It is
highly improbable that any of these abnormal events or accident would
result in overexposure to the occupational personnel or the general public
from radiation. The most realistic accidents which could be expected are:
pool cover drop, transportation cask or source pin drop, shielding water
release, pool cover removed without water in the pool, problems with the
shutter, source pin leak, fire, explosion, security problems, and accidents
caused by natural events. The information for the discussion of these
accidents was taken from the Sandia Irradiator for Dried Sewage Solids
Final Safety Analysis Report (Morris 1980).
Pool Cover Drop
The pool cover will consist of three separate, high density concrete
slabs placed on top of each other over the pool cavity. The covers are
removed individually with a crane and cable sling which attaches at four
lifting points built into each cover. Failure of the crane or cable assem-
bly or a fracture of the lid during movement would cause all or part of the
cover to drop either onto other covers, onto the pool edge, onto the ground,
or into the pool. Possible damage to the facility is minimized by restrict-
ing the lift height of the covers and insuring that all lifting equipment
be designed with safety factors of 400 percent or greater.
In preparation for removing the pool cover, the source plaque is
extended into the cavity between the pool area and the conveyor area to
provide further protection. Any objects falling into the pool could damage
only the cable assembly and drive arms, but not the source plaque.
It is highly improbably that over exposure or release of radioactive
material would be caused by an accident of this type. Depending on the
extent of damage, the radioactive source may have to be removed from the
facility to allow access for repair.
-------
Transportation Cask or Source Pin Dropped
The gamma-source pins are transported in Department of Transportation
approved casks. The cask consists of a base which holds the pins and a
cover that is bolted in place. A double cable sling arrangement is used to
lift the cask and lower it into the water-filled pool. After the pins have
been removed from or installed in the cask, the cask is lifted out of the
pool.
During these operations, it is possible that crane operator misjudge-
ment or mechanical failure of the crane, sling, or cask could result in the
cask being dropped. If the cask were dropped outside the facility, no
damage would occur because the cask is adequately designed to sustain drops
of 30 ft onto an unyielding surface. If the cask were dropped while over
the pool area, the fall would be less than 30 ft. The stainless-steel pool
liner might be damaged slightly, but the 24-in-thick conrete base of the
facility could sustain the impact without major structural damage. In
order to minimize any possibility of damage to the source plaque during the
cask-lifting operations, the arms are disconnected from the source plaque,
the source plaque is pushed into the cavity between the conveyor and pool
areas, and the lead shutter is closed before the cask is lifted. The lead
shutter and the concrete above the cavity provide substantial protection to
the source plaque. There is the possibility that a source pin could fall
from the source plaque during normal operation. The facility has been
designed to reduce this possibility. If a source pin were to fall from the
source plaque, loss of integrity of the source pins would be extremely
improbable since the capsules have been designed to withstand a 30 foot
drop and the source plaque will be not more than 6 feet above the surface
(by phone, Neil Hartwigson, Sandia National Laboratories, 22 July 1981).
It is not expected that either of these accidents would release any
radioactive material or cause overexposure to the occupational personnel.
The facility base and pool liner might be damaged.
-------
Shielding Water Release
The pool must be filled with water for gamma-ray shielding during
gamma-source pin loading or unloading or during repair operations on mech-
anical equipment installed in the pool area. During any operation that
involves removal of the concrete pool covers, automatic water level con-
trollers and water level alarms will be temporarily installed. Accidental
release of this shielding water could result in radiation exposure of
personnel working in the area. Release of the pool water could be caused
by inadvertent operation of the pool-emptying sump pump, a leak in the
water seal installed in the conveyor area, or a massive fracture of the
pool sides.
Accidental release of the shielding water could occur by sump pump
actuation. The facility will not have a gravity or natural drain from the
pool storage area. All water will have to be pumped out. The sump pump
will be a low-volume pump capable of 10 gal/min. At that rate, the pump
would require 23.9 hrs of unnoticed operation to drain the pool. The
accidental use of the sump pump is prevented by the interlock system while
the alarm systems are on.
The other possibility of water leakage is through the water seal
between the conveyor area and pool area. This normally would amount to a
small volume of water leakage. The control system will prevent the removal
of the pool covers without there being an adequate water level in the pool.
If no water were added, the water in the pool side would leak into the
conveyor side and eventually stabilize at a depth of 7 ft 7 in above the
pool floor. Additional water would, however, automatically be added to
provide adequate protection from the source plaque.
In the event of a massive fracture to one of the pool sides, the auto-
matic water-fill system could probably keep the pool full until emergency
action could be taken. If the fill apparatus could not keep up with the
leakage, a high-rate fill hose would be used to keep the pool full until
the covers could be replaced or the source material removed.
-------
In all the above situations, the automatic water level controller
would compensate for minor leaks (less than 1 gal/rain) and the alarms would
sound if the water level changes more than 2 inches below the required
level.
In general, water release does not represent a very significant hazard
because the release would occur at a very slow rate compared to the pool
capacity. This slow leakage rate allows adequate time for corrective
action to be taken.
Pool Cover Removed Without Water in Pool
The pool cover is removed when charging or recharging the facility.
Pool cover removal without shielding water being present would represent a
radiation exposure hazard to personnel. During the procedures to be follow-
ed for pool cover removal, Health Physics personnel will be present with
monitoring equipment. Since the pool cover consists of three separate
covers, readings will be made to assure that the radiation levels stay
within predetermined levels as each cover is removed.
The facility safety design uses both a mechanical and an electrical
interlock system to prevent cover removal without water in the pool. There
are two pool cover locks; one is released if the float switch senses the
proper water level, and the second is released if a mechanical bellows
senses the proper water pressure. Furthermore, the removal of the pool
cover can occur only if the key-controlled function switch is in the LOAD-
UNLOAD mode of operation. If all systems failed, there would not be any
damage to the facility or release of radioactive material, but a potential
would exist for a low-level radiation exposure of personnel while the first
cover was removed.
Shutter Problems
The lead shutter provides the necessary shielding from the retracted
source to allow access into the conveyor area. There are various problems
-------
that could develop with the shutter such as the shutter being open when
personnel are in the conveyor area, the shutter jamming open, and the
shutter closing on the source plaque.
The facility will be designed with back up systems to ensure that the
shutter can not be open while the facility is in the access mode. The
entrance to the conveyor area is made through the access cover which has
two locks. One lock is released by a mechanical bellows and indicates that
the shutter is closed. When the access cover is removed, the mechanical
interlock system and the electrical interlock system separately lock the
shutter drive. In addition, the power to the drive motor is shut off. As
a result, entrance can be made only when both interlock systems provide a
positive indication that the shutter is closed. Once access is gained, the
shutter cannot be operated. Once the access cover has been removed (with a
crane), a qualified health physicist will survey the access area with a
radiation survey meter before other personnel are allowed to enter.
The shutter is moved on an electrical-mechanical system and has a
number of components that may fail resulting in the shutter remaining open.
With the shutter in the open position, the water seal cannot be installed
due to radiation exposure that would be encountered. As a result, any
repair of the drive system elements located within the facility, such as
chain arrangement or the lead screw, would require filling the facility
with water. Since the water seal is not in place, water would fill both
the pool area and the conveyor area, but this represents no serious damage
to the facility. If extensive repairs to the shutter are needed, the
source material might have to be unloaded from the facility and the pool
drained. A more serious problem would be created if the source material is
in the conveyor area and the shutter jams partially open. In this situa-
tion the shutter would have to be fully opened before the source material
could be moved into the pool area and removed. This incident would not
result in release of radioactive material or overexposure. In the worst
case it would present a very time consuming problem to overcome (by phone,
Neil Hartwigson, Sandia National Laboratories, 22 July 1981).
-------
There is a remote possibility of the lead shutter closing on the
source plaque while the source plaque is not completely retracted. This
event is mentioned since the two devices travel paths that cross each other
at right angles. The prevention of this type of accident is covered by a
number of features included in the design of the facility. The source
plaque has both electrical and mechanical sensing devices that indicate
when the shutter is totally retracted. Without both types of sensing
switches indicating retraction, the shutter cannot be operated. The con-
verse also holds; that is, the source plaque drive system cannot be oper-
ated until both sensing systems on the lead shutter indicate the shutter is
open. In addition, radiation sensors are an integral part of the control
system that determines the location of the source plaque and the shutter.
Control panel logic prevents movement of either device unless the other
device is determined to be in the proper position. Assuming both control
panel logic failure and the failure of the dual sensing indicators, the
final safety measure includes the torque limiting clutches of each of the
drive motors. These devices would minimize damage if the two devices were
driven simultaneously.
The result of this type of accident could be damage to either the
shutter or the source plaque or both. Any damage, however, would be minimal
because of torque-limiting clutches on both drives. Repairing damage from
this type of accident would require filling the facility with water and
performing repairs as needed. Depending on the severity of the repairs
needed, the radioactive material may have to be removed by normal unloading
procedures. This type of accident would represent no serious damage to the
facility or harm to personnel.
Source Pin Leak
During normal operation, the source pins are extended into the convey-
or area. If a pin were to develop a leak, radioactive material could be
discharged and either settle in the facility or be carried by the cooling
air system up to the double High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter
discharge-air filtering system. The only ways for a pin to develop a leak
-------
that can be envisioned are defective capsule welds, corrosion from within
or outside the capsule, and mechanical fracture from malfunction of the
conveyor, source plaque drive, or lead shutter.
The welds on the outer capsule are leak-checked by filling the void
between the capsules with helium before welding. After the weld is made,
the capsule is leak-checked with a residual helium analyzer.
Materials compatibility studies have determined that capsules stored
in water and for up to 2 months in air show no degradation of the inner
stainless steel liner upon sectioning. These tests were conducted using
pure Cs-137 instead of the combination of Cs-137, Cs-133, and Cs-135 which
will be the actual combination used at the Albuquerque Facility. Material
compatibility studies are currently being conducted on a source pin con-
taining this combination of Cesium isotopes.
Substantial mechanical protection is provided for the source pins in
the source plaque frame and in the housing that surrounds the source plaque
while it is in the extended position. Torque-limiting clutches are pro-
vided for all mechanical equipment that could exert force on the source
plaque during a malfunction.
In order to detect a leak in the capsules after installation in the
facility, the following tests will be performed periodically: thermo-
luminescent dosimetery, swipe test, and flooding the source plaque (in the
pool area) with water and testing the water for radioactivity. The actual
scheduling and requirements for these tests will be specified in the li-
cense which will be obtained from the Environmental Improvement Division of
the State of New Mexico (by phone, Neil Hartwigson, Sandia National Labora-
tory, 22 July 1981).
Were a leak to develop in a source pin from any of the causes dis-
cussed, the minute traces of radioactive material discharged would most
likely remain on the surface of the capsule where it would be detected by
swipe tests. If enough material were to leak so that it fell from the
capsule, the material would become airborne and either be filtered by the
-------
HEPA filters or settle on the open surfaces in the facility. If any mate-
rial settled onto the buckets, which is extremely improbable, a radiation
sensor would turn off the conveyor before the material reached the outside.
If water dissolved some of the cesium chloride, a radiation sensor would
prevent the sump pum from pumping it to the water holding tank.
If the beta-gamma air monitor, which is located after the second
filter surface, detected radioactive material, the air entering the filter
would be sampled about one foot ahead of the filters through an air sam-
pling port. If the air samples corroborated the presence of radioactive
material, the source plaque would be retracted into the pool area and the
lead shutter closed. Sampling filters placed in line after the beta-gamma
air monitor take a cumulative recording of any radioactive releases from
the facility. The HEPA filters will be check before and after installation
by health physics representatives. If swipe tests did not detect which
capsule was leaking, the pins would have to be loaded for transportation
back to Richland, WA. The shielding water would probably become slightly
contaminated during this loading procedure. The facility would have to be
thoroughly decontaminated after the accident. The water would also have to
be decontaminated before discharge. The ion exchange resin and the ion ex-
change columns used to decontaminate the facility and the shielding water
would have to be disposed of in approved radioactive waste disposal sites.
A leak in a source pin would not result in release of radioactive
material or overexposure unless the safety backup systems did not operate
correctly (i.e., both HEPA filters were to leak, radiation sensors mal-
functioned, etc.).
Fire
The facility structure and internal components of the facility are
classed as non-combustible material, therefore the fire concern is limited
to the sludge passing through the conveyor. Heat detectors in the conveyor
area are used to detect a fire and initiate an extinguishing system. If
the heat detectors sense an abnormal condition, the audible and visible
alarm systems are activated and the hopper feed system shuts down. Another
-------
preventive measure controlled by a heat detector is the actuation of a
solenoid valve that releases carbon dioxide (C0_) into the conveyor area.
If for some reason the C0~ does not work it is still highly unlikely that
the fire would cause damage to the source pins. A. fire could cause opera-
tional difficulties, but the probability of release of radioactive material
or overexposure is very small (by phone, Neil Hartwigson, Sandia National
Laboratories, 22 July 1981).
Explosion
The only potentially explosive material within the facility considered
explosive is the small amount of organic dust from the sludge. This dust
may be explosive when exposed to open flames. No burning occurs as part of
the facility operation, thereby reducing this possibility. If any buildup
of the dust occurs, the conveyor system will be vacuumed on a regular basis
to alleviate the condition. The sludge to be irradiated in this facility
will contain a limited amount of moisture to minimize the generation of
dust. Tests will be conducted to determine the proper amount of moisture
needed to prevent dust generation.
If this event did occur, the explosion would occur within the conveyor
system which is constructed of 1/8 inch steel panels. The conveyor also is
open to the atmosphere at the load and unload points which provide a vent
path that aids in relieving a pressure buildup within the conveyor. Fur-
ther, it is improbable that the pressure generated by a dust explosion
would damage the source pins (by phone, Neil Hartwigson, Sandia National
Laboratory, 22 July 1981).
Security Problems
Cs-137 is not considered a special nuclear material (i.e., material
from which nuclear explosives can be built and therefore safeguards are not
required by the NRG license (US NRC 1980). The facility will be designed
to limit access to the radioactive source by unauthorized people. The
facility will have an industrial level of security which will probably
consist of controlled access through a fence and locked gate. The fence
-------
and gate would keep the general public away from the irradiator but would
do little to deter a terrorist determined to gain entry. If terrorists
were to gain entry, they would need protection from the gamma rays if they
tried to reach the source. Otherwise, they would quickly become disabled.
The massive concrete shielding would offer some protection from the poten-
tial release of radioactive material caused by an explosion (by phone, Neil
Hartwigson, Sandia National Laboratory, 22 July 1981).
Irradiators have operated on a commercial basis for years without
security problems that could endanger the public. Although considered
unlikely, it could be possible for someone determined to cause mass de-
struction to destroy the irradiator and release radioactive material to the
environment.
Natural Events
Earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes are natural events which could
result in damage to the facility.
Seismic activity for the Albuquerque-Belen Basin has a relatively high
occurrence rate, but the magnitudes are low, on the order of Richter magni-
tude 3.5 or less. Earthquakes of higher magnitude have occurred; however,
geological evidence indicates that significant earth movement has not
occurred for several hundred years, and historical evidence indicates that
the largest earthquake expected within a 100-year period is Richter magni-
tude 6.0. The low intensity of the earthquakes coupled with the substan-
tial structure (mostly underground) of the facility should provide adequate
protection.
The irradiator site at Montesa Park is located 20-30 feet above the
100 year flood plain for the Tijeras Arroyo, therefore the probability of
flooding from the Tijeras Arroyo is very low. Localized sheet flooding due
to thunderstorm acitivity does occur occasionally but a slight grade up to
the facility will prevent this minor flooding from affecting the facility.
If flood water entered the facility, the damage to the facility should be
-------
minor and the sump pump would clear it out. The likelihood of the flood
water coming into contact with the radioactive material is extremely low
since an undetected leak in a source pin would have to occur, concurrently.
Albuquerque is classified as a region of low occurrence of tornadoes,
with an annual frequency of 0.1 or less. Because of the low frequency of
tornadoes and the fact that most of the structure of the facility is under-
ground, tornadoes are not a significant design consideration. If a tornado
were to pass directly over the facility, the most severe damage expected
would be damage to the part of the conveyor that extends above the facility.
The technology for using Cs-137 to disinfect sewage sludge is new;
however, irradiation is used routinely to sterilize certain pharmaceutical
equipment. Most of the existing irradiators use cobalt (Co-60) as the
source of gamma rays. Although the Albuquerque irradiator will be larger
than the existing irradiators and uses a different gamma ray source, the
basic technology is similar and therefore it would be useful to present the
safety record of some of the existing irradiators. The Director of the
appropriate Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) must be notified within 24
hours of any incident involving the radioactive material which may have
caused or threatens to cause:
(1) Exposure of the whole body of any individual to 5 rems or
more of radiation; exposure of the skin of the whole body of any
individual to 30 rems or more of radiation; or exposure of the feet,
ankles, hands, or forearms to 75 reras or more of radiation; or
(2) The release of radioactive material in concentrations which,
if averaged over a period of 24 hours, would exceed certain specified
limits; or
(3) A loss of one day or more of the operation of any facilities
affected; or
-------
(4) Damage to property in excess of $2,000 (10 CFR part 20.403).
NCR Region 1 includes the following states: Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Main, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The safety
records for this region is for six irradiators and includes the records
from those states which have been delegated the licensing authority (Agree-
ment states). The most serious incidents involved the radiation exposure
to a worker. In both cases, the worker entered the conveyor area when the
source plaque was exposed. The interlock systems had been by passed for
legitimate reasons but had failed to be reinstated. This type of accident
occured twice in the past seven years and was primarily caused by the
neglect of operational safety procedures. There have been two fires at
irradiator facilities in NRC Region 1 in the last five years. On both
occasions the conveyor became stuck and the process material became over-
heated. These incidences resulted in no overexposure and no release of
radioactive material. Three source pin leaks occurred in the last eight
years. The shielding water became contaminated and therefore required
cleaning. These incidences resulted in no overexposure and no release of
radioactive material (by phone, Frank Costello, NRC Region 1, 16 July
1981).
The incident reports for NRC Region 2 will cover approximately 12
irradiators in Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and federal licensees
in the Agreement states. There have been no accidents in Region 2 for the
last three years (by phone, Bob Brown, NRC Region 2, 16 July 1981).
There have been no (0) incidents in NRC Region 4 out of three irradia-
tors in the last five years. This information does not cover the Agreement
states in this region and is therefore limited to Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming,
Montana, and South Dakota. New Mexico and Texas are two of the Agreement
states in this region. New Mexico has licensed only one very small ir-
radiator, but Texas has licensed five irradiators. The Texas Department of
Health is notified under the same conditions as the NRC with the exception
of the fourth condition where Texas requires notification if damage to
property is in excess of $1,000. Texas has had three incidents reported
-------
since 1974. One incident involved a frayed hoist cable which hindered the
source plaque from moving into the irradiation mode after a shutdown. This
problem was resolved within 3 days without complication. There was no
radiation overexposure or release. The second incident involved a leak in
the pool area and resulted in no radiation exposure. In the third incident
it was determined that through an unlikely series of events, it could be
possible for a person to enter into an area while the source plaque was not
shielded. The safety systems were re-worked to rectify this situation (by
letter, Bob Free, Texas Department of Health, 6 July 1981).
Definitions
curie (Ci) - The basic unit used to describe the intensity of radioactivity
in a sample of material. One curie (Ci) equals 37 billion disin-
tegrations per second.
HEPA - High efficiency particulate air filter. A type of filter designed
to remove 99.9 percent of particles down to 0.3 um in diameter
from a flowing air stream.
rad - Radiation absorbed dose. The basic unit of absorbed does of ionizing
radiation. One rad is equal to the absorption of 100 ergs of
radiation energy per gram of matter.
rem - A dose unit which takes into account the relative biological effec
tiveness (RBE) of the radiation. The rem ("roentgen equivalent
man") is defined as the dose of a particular type of radiation
required to produce the same biological effect as one roentgen of
(0.25 Mev) gamma radiation. A millirem (mrem) is one thousandth
of a rem.
-------
10.3 DESCRIPTION OF ELECTRON BEAM
-------
DESCRIPTION OF ELECTRON BEAM IRRADIATION
INTRODUCTION
Electron beam irradiation is being considered as one of the alter-
natives for sludge disinfection at Albuquerque, New Mexico. Due to its
limited application, Electron Disinfection Process qualifies under the
EPA criteria established for innovative and alternative technology.
Surprisingly industry has employed the system for over 15 years. The
high energy source for irradiating the sludge is beta-rays (i.e., high
energy electrons). High energy electrons are generated from an accel-
erator under an electrical potential of 1.5 million volts.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Initial operations involve feeding dewatered sludge cake (20 per-
cent solids) to a coveyor from a specially designed vibratory hopper.
This conveyor would pass the sludge through a roller containing doctor
blades to insure a sludge layer of approximately 2 mm in thickness. A
high energy electron beam sweeps back and forth across the sludge layer
as the material flows under the beam. Figure A-l portrays a typical
electron beam disinfection facility.
Energized electrons are produced from an accelerator consisting of:
1. D.C. power supply and step up transformer.
2. Accelerator tube and filament system.
3. SF, gas storage and handling system.
The system transforms 480-volt, 3-phase, AC power into 1,500,000
volt DC power within a separate tank of SF6 gas. This voltage leaves
the tank through a short high voltage cable to a insulated acceleration
tube which is mounted in the upper region of a vault. The DC voltage
excites the tungsten filament which emits electrons that are forced by
the electric field towards the positive electrode of the tube. Each
electron now has acquired 1.5 MeV energy. The electrons now move at 94
percent the speed of light and continue into an evacuated chamber where
they are swept back and forth by the electron beam scanner. They pass
-------
FIGURE A-l
LECTRON BEAM DISINFECTION FACILITY
=Q Mg. ff^=
T-.,. TR --
riLr-t^T^
HLc^s^tiiiw.
O**"* iiIJ*
fcn* LJ-S'i*
two
bi!.»«
fr^,-..,
v*i.«
R6ATM5NT BOOU
ft
C/«iiAf
ttuO^B
Tr»»lfcl
Et!:uw.i
ClMty*
\
-------
from the chamber into the atmosphere through a long thin metal window.
The curtain of high energy electrons impinges on the full width of the
moving band of sludge a short distance below.
During the brief exposure to the disinfecting dose, over 10 tril-
lion energized electrons impinge on each square centimeter of the sludge
surface. As these electrons lose energy in collisions with atoms and
molecules, they produce ionization which causes powerful disinfecting
and detoxifying effects. The absorbed energy from this dosage raises
the temperature of the water approximately 1°C.
The direct bombardment of high energy electrons produces ionized
hydroxyl groups and ozone. During its life time, a single electron can
produce 10,000 of these powerful oxidizing and reducing compounds.
Therefore, one quintillion of these oxidizing/reducing compounds impinge
upon a square centimer of sludge cake. Considering that anaerobically
digested sludge harbors 5,000,000 bacteria per ml. There are over one
million of these compounds attacking each bacteria. This results in
almost total pathogen mortality.
PUBLIC HEALTH
The disinfection of sludge with electron beam technology has sev-
eral distinct advantages over the other methods of sludge disinfection.
Unlike composting, electron beam radiation affords almost complete
pathogen kill. Pathogen reductions of almost 2.5-5.6 logs have been
achieved in liquid sludges under a 400 kilorad dose. Coliform levels of
under 10 coliforms per milliliter of sludge are achievable with this
process.
Studies have been performed on viral destruction with electron beam
technology. Data analysis of these viral studies indicate results
similar to pathogen studies. Minimum reduction of 90 percent or more
have been achieved with a 400 rad dose. Further reductions of 2-2.6
logs have been realized through this process. Considering that virus
levels in sludge are approximately 10,000 times lower, a 2-log reduction
in virus populations translates into a limited survival of viruses in a
milliliter of sludge.
-------
In land disposal of sludge, the survival of pathogenic parasites
(e.g., ova of ascaris worms) poses public health problems. These orga-
nisms can survive in the soil for long periods and propagate from graz-
ing animals to the human population or transfer directly from soil or
plant to humans. These parasites and their eggs present relatively
large targets to the electron beam and are totally destroyed.
Electron irradiation may have an additional advantage in that it
destroys toxic organic chemicals resident in some sludges. These toxic
organic chemicals comprise pesticides, PCB's, herbicides, organic sol-
vents, and certain other carcinogenic compounds which are untouched by
most treatment processes, including incineration. Electron beam energy
produces hydroxyl compounds and sufficient activation energy to degrade
these compounds. Research to date has been directed at PCB's and near
total destruction has been documented.
High energy electrons bombarding surfaces produce X-rays. Because
of the low fractional conversion of electron beam power into X-ray power
and the low absorption of this penetrating X-ray power into the sludge,
such X-rays contribute little to the disinfection process. However,
their presence requires special shielding of the entire region within
which deceleration of energized electrons takes place. For the parti-
cular application at Albuquerque, the central vault would require 6 ft.
of high density concrete to contain the X-rays.
In order to prevent accidental exposure of workers to X-rays, a
special interlocked door and electron beam arming system are built into
the design. Should workers need,to enter the central vault, opening the
interlocked door will disarm the unit. For the unit to be re-armed, the
worker must re-arm the control console within a certain time limit or
the unit will become inoperable. Several types of safety systems are
usually included in the design to provide redundancy in the system and
eliminate any chance of accidents.
-------
The electron beam disinfection process has a definite advantage
over composting and gamma radiation since the unit can be shut down
without any major preparations. This aids in maintenance since after
shut down of the unit, all parts of the system are accessible for re-
pairs. Unlike the gamma-radiation disinfection alternative, the problem
with containing the radioactive isotopes during maintenance is not
critical. Unlike composting, problems associated with a backlog of
materials going "stable" do not threaten the continuity of the process.
-------
10.4 PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH. INFORMATION
AN OVERVIEW OF WATERBORNE 0ISEASES
The possibility of transmitting disease is a major part of public
anxiety about sludge handling and disposal operations. An overview of the
types of waterborne diseases and their possible pathway through solid waste
management processes is provided. The reader is asked to note that safety
guidelines for these pathogens have not been established and that the
research conducted on the transraittal of disease has focused on liquid
waste management. Problems associated with sludge treatment and disposal
operations and their separate role in the pathway of disease transmittal is
still considered a subordinate element of solid or liquid waste management,
and therefore have not been singled out for extensive research. The
following section therefore will present an overview of the types of in-
fectious agents which may be found in both wastewater effluent and solid
waste (sludge) and their potential for causing disease due to waterborne
transmission. Infectious agents include various bacteria, viruses and
parasites. Overall, waterborne transmission of disease is low and cases
which have been identified have been traced to: (1) deficiencies in water
treatment, (2) deficiencies in distribution systems, (3) use of untreated
surface water, and (4) use of untreated groundwater. No reported cases
resulted directly from inadequate operation of a municipal wastewater
treatment system (Crites and Seabrook 1979).
The relationship between numbers of specific disease-causing organisms
in water and the potential for transmission of disease remains undetermined
since the number of organisms required to cause disease varies depending
upon the organism, the host, and the manner in which the bacteria and host
interact.
DISEASES CAUSED BY BACTERIA
There are several bacterial diseases associated with sewage wastes
which are commonly found in the U.S. Bacteria of the coliform group are
considered the primary indicators of fecal contamination and are some of
-------
the most frequently applied indicators of water quality. The coliform
group is made up of a number of bacteria including the genera Klebsiella,
Escherichia, Serratia, Erwinia and Enterobacteria. Salmonella bacteria are
responsible for several diseases including typhoid, paratyphoid and sal-
monellosis. These diseases are characterized by diarrhea, abdominal pain
and vomiting, and are transmitted by fecal contamination of food or water.
Gastroenteritis (food poisoning) is caused by Salmonella typhimurium which
is transmitted by ingestion of contaminated food or water. Many animals
are normally infected with salmonella, and may have these organisms in
their nest, eggs or feces. Rodents are among these, and should be con-
trolled at land treatment sites. Although the incidence of typhoid fever
has decreased in the U.S., the incidence of other Salmonella infections has
increased dramatically.
Shigellae is a group of bacteria which cause intestinal disease in
man. It spreads rapidly under improper sanitary conditions and can be
transmitted by flies.
E. coli are involved in waterborne enteric disease which cause mild to
severe cholera-like symptoms in the small intestine, and diarrhea.
DISEASES CAUSED BY VIRUS
More than 100 strains of viruses may be present in the intestines of
man and animals, and thus viruses find their way into wastewater. The
viruses of particular interest to the waste treatment field are the enteric
(digestive system) viruses: poliovirus, coxsackie-virus, echovirus,
reovirus and hepatitus virus. These produce various diseases including
aseptic meningitis, myocarditis, respiratory disease and gastrointestinal
upset. The role of water in the transmission of those agents is not clear
as yet.
Infectious hepatitus is spread through the fecal-oral route. It is a
disease of the liver and recovery is complete in over 85% of cases (Jawetz,
et al. 1974). However, it is a major public health problem worldwide where
sudden epidemics occur as a result of fecal contamination of drinking water
-------
or food. Consumption of shellfish from sewage contaminated waters also
accounts for outbreaks of hepatitus. This virus is quite resistant to
heat, acid and chemical treatment. Proper sewage treatment and handling
are necessary to control the organisms responsible for hepatitus.
DISEASES CAUSED BY PROTOZOANS
The most common pathogenic protozoan of interest to waste management
is Entamoeba histolytica which causes amebic dysentery. This pathogen
cannot exist in its active form outside of its host. However, it is
capable of forming cysts which are excreted. These resistant cysts protect
the protozoan from adverse environmental conditions outside the host.
These cysts may also resist waste treatment processes and are capable of
causing disease when ingested with contaminated food or water.
Giardiasis lamblia is an intestinal disease produced by infection of
the gut. The parasite produces cysts that are spread to other hosts
through fecal contamination. This disease has only recently been recog-
nized in the U.S. and has been associated with drinking water contamina-
tion.
DISEASES CAUSED BY HELMINTHS
Tapeworms, roundworms and flukes are helminths which parasitize humans
and which are associated with improperly handled sewage wastes. In the
U.S., the Diphyllabothrium laturn (a tapeworm) is most common, and prevent-
ing feces from reaching open water is important in controlling this
pathogen. Several roundworras infect man, and the intestinal roundworm
(Ascaris lumbriocoides) and the hookworm (Necator americanus) are both
transmitted by improper treatment of sewage. Young Ascaris are not hardy
and can be destroyed by cold or dessication. Hookworm eggs, however, hatch
after they reach a soil environment and the young may live up to 6 months
in the soil if it is cool and moist. Hookworm is common in the southern
U.S.
-------
It should be noted that the presence of pathogens in sewage or sludge
does not necessarily imply infection. A single unit of most infectious
agents almost never produces infection - substantial probabilities of
infection are associated only with substantial numbers of biologic units.
If infection does occur the likelihood that disease will result depends on
the virulence of the agent and numerous other environmental factors that
all have to combine together to provide an environment in which disease
occurs.
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS THAT AFFECT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Chemical constituents, both organic and inorganic, form the second
major category of wastewater constituents that may have an impact on human
health. Their sources include industrial, residential and agricultural
wastes. Health implications of their presence in water are known for only
a few.
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic chemicals found in water that appear to affect health are
arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, flouride, lead, mercury and nitrate. These
chemicals can affect human health in the following manner:
Arsenic is common in nature and is present in water in
relatively high concentrations. The symptoms of chronic arsenic poisoning
are fatigue and lack of energy.
Cadmium is normally present at very low levels in surface
and groundwater. The human intake of cadmium has been attributed to
various ailments, including renal dysfunction and hypertension and symptoms
similar to food poisoning.
Cyanide is used in industrial activities and may enter
surface water and groundwater. When ingested, cyanide interferes with the
body's oxygen transport system causing illness or death.
-------
Flouride is a naturally occurring mineral in water. Excess
flouride can cause dental flourosis and in increased doses can cause bone
changes including crippling flourosis.
- Lead occurs in water primarily from industrial and domestic
activity. Lead poisoning is a chronic disease that can produce a variety
of symptoms including anorexia, nausea, vomiting, paralysis, mental
confusion, visual problems, and anemia.
- Mercury is found in both surface and ground water. Chronic
poisoning is normally associated with industrial exposure particularly to
mercury fumes. Mercury can accumulate in the body and chronic exposure can
produce inflamation of the mouth and gums, swelling of salivary glands,
loosening of teeth, kidney damage, and personality changes.
- Nitrates may enter water from various sources natural,
agricultural, industrial, and domestic. Serious, sometimes fatal poisoning
in infants has occurred following ingestion of water that contains
nitrates. In this disease (methemoglobinemia) nitrate is reduced to
nitrite which in turn seriously imparts the oxygen carrying capacity of the
blood.
Nitrosamines
These are present in soils and have been detected in sludge. It is
speculated that they may be formed in the activated sludge process.
Nitrosamines are known to be potent carcinogens (Ayanaba 1973, 1974).
Barium enters the body primarily through air and water,
since appreciable amounts are not contained in foods (NAS 1974). Ingestion
of soluble barium compounds may result in effects on the gastrointestinal
tract causing vomiting and diarrhea, and on the central nervous system,
causing violent spasms.
Chromium is found rarely in natural waters, but is found in
air, soil, some foods, and most biological systems. It is recognized as an
-------
essential trace element for humans. Symptoms of excessive dietary intake
of chromium in man are unknown, and chromium deficiency is of greater
nutritional concern than overexposure.
Iron is an essential trace element required by both plants
and animals, is common in many rocks, is an important component of many
soils and may be present in water in varying quantities. Prime iron
pollution sources are industrial wastes, mine drainage waters and iron-
bearing groundwaters. Iron affects the taste of water and may stain
laundry plumbing fixtures. Iron can have a direct effect on the recre-
ational use of water other than its effects on aquatic life. Suspended
iron precipitates may interfere with swimming and be aesthetically objec-
tionable due to yellow ochre or reddish iron oxide deposits.
Manganese is found in various salts and minerals although it
does not occur naturally as a metal. Manganese is a vital nutrient for
both plants and animals, and is normally ingested as a trace nutrient in
food. Very large doses of manganese can cause some disease and liver
damage; however, these are not known to have occurred in the U.S.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) - PCS compounds are
slightly soluble in water and are resistant to both heat and biological
degradation. They are used principally in the electrical industry in
capacitators and transformers. The acute and chronic effects of PCB's have
been determined on a number of aquatic organisms and birds. Exposure to
PCB's is known to cause skin lesions in humans and to increase liver enzyme
activity that may have a secondary effect on reproductive processes.
- Zinc is an essential and beneficial element in human
metabolism and definciencies of zinc in children leads to growth retarda-
tion.
PATHOGEN SURVIVAL IN SOIL
The detention time of pathogens in soil is the most important factor
in the destruction of these organisms. Initial reactions between pathogens
-------
in sludge and the soil matrix are physical entrapment and chemical
absorption at the soil surface (McGauhey and Krone 1967). Bacterial
pathogens appear to die back rapidly once in the soil matrix.
Both abiotic (non-living) and bLotic (living) factors affect pathogen
elimination from the soil. Abiotic factors include soil moisture, tempera-
ture, texture, aeration, and organic matter content. A major bLotic factor
is competition between the soil microbial population and the applied
pathogens.
Pathogenic bacteria cannot reproduce in the soil and will slowly die
off. Viruses cannot reproduce at all in soil, but may remain viable in
soil for some time. Three factors are important in removing virus particu-
lates in the soil matrix. Those are adsorption, attack by bacteria and
natural die off.
The greatest threat posed by land application or DLD disposal occurs
when pathogens are allowed to pass to the groundwater and thereby contami-
nate drinking water supplies because there was insufficient detention time
for these organisms to be inactivated in the soil matrix.
In general, pathogens die off more quickly on vegetation than in the
soil due to the lack of protection given by vegetation from ultra-violet
radiation, dessication and temperature extremes.
AEROSOL TRANSMISSION OF PATHOGENS
Aerosol droplets may contain bacteria and/or viruses. The most direct
means of infection by pathogenic aerosols is by inhalation.
A primary cause of bacterial destruction in aerosols is rapid dessica-
tion. The rate of die off of bacteria is a function of relative humidity,
temperature, sunlight, and wind velocity. Bacterial aerosols may remain
viable for several hours.
-------
10.5 ENGLISH UNIT/METRIC UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
-------
ENGLISH UNIT/METRIC UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
C
co
O
O
PJ
f»
z
2
pi
Z
H
B
i'r^LlSH JJNIT
acre
acre - feet
British Thorn
British Them
cubic feet/minute
cubic Ceet/second
cubic Feet
cubic Lcet
cubic tr.chnc
------- |