NEPA Process and Specific Requirements - Environmental Impact Analysis: Process and Methods - page 80

After excluding unrealistic alternatives based on obvious inability to meet
the purpose and need, 26 potentially realistic alternatives were identified.
These 26 alternatives were screened (see Chapter 5 for discussion of alterna-
tive screening) based on criteria developed to measure consistency with the
purpose and need statement. Based on the screening, 3 of the 26 alternatives
were found to meet the purpose and need:
r Process water treatment residuals at the Dalecarlia WTP, and dispose
via contract hauling. Process forebay residuals by current methods
and periodically haul off-site.
r Thicken water treatment residuals at Dalecarlia WTP and then
pump via a new pipeline to the D.C. WASA Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Process forebay residuals by current methods and
periodically haul off-site.
r Process water treatment residuals at Dalecarlia WTP and dispose of
the solids in Dalecarlia monofill (i.e., a dedicated landfill constructed
to accept material from only one type of material from only one
source). Process forebay residuals by current methods and periodi-
cally haul off-site.
The no-action alternative (i.e., continue the current practice of discharge to
the Potomac River) did not meet the purpose and need because it did not sat-
isfy the limits set by the reissued NPDES permit. However, as discussed above,
the no-action alternative is required under NEPA as a basis of comparison of
the action alternatives. Thus in addition to the three action alternatives, the no-
action alternative was carried forward for a detailed analysis in the draft EIS.
Construction and operation of residuals treatment and/or disposal facilities
at or adjacent to the Dalecarlia WTP was a common element of all the alterna-
tives surviving screening and carried forward for a detailed analysis in the
draft EIS. The addition of facilities at the Dalecarlia location and the operation
of the facilities proved to be unpopular with the neighborhoods surrounding
the facility because of the perceived noise, aesthetic, traffic, and other impacts.
This issue was the most controversial aspect of the project and generated sub-
stantial and numerous comments. Many of the comments focused on carrying
forward alternatives that did not require new facilities at Dalecarlia; however,
since a thorough screening process demonstrated such alternatives were not
consistent with the purpose and need statement, the project proponent was
able to focus on the most controversial issue of facility location and design. By
focusing attention on this issue, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was able to
work with the stakeholders to develop facilities designs, layouts, locations, and
operations that minimized impacts. If there had been a weaker or less defini-
tive purpose and need statement, the focus would have shifted to an unpro-
ductive examination of less viable alternatives. This would have consumed
time and resources, and an efficient and effective proposed action that was