EIS780437D1
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
WAT
230 S
CHIC
FEBRUARY 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for the Metropolitan Area
Columbus, Ohio
Summary Report
-------
- 2 -
Copies of the Draft EIS are also available from the Planning Branch,
EIS Preparation Section of Region 5, at the above address.
The public hearing will be held in two sessions at the City of Columbus
Council Chairbers, 2nd Floor, 90 West Broad Street, Colunbus, Ohio. An
afternoon session will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. An evening
session will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Persons or groups wishing to make oral presentations or submit prepared
statements on the Draft EIS may do so at these sessions. Everyone is
encouraged to have their presentation in writing, with a copy to be sub-
mitted for the record to EPA officials. Oral presentations should be
brief to allow all parties to participate. A time limit may be imposed,
based upon the number of those wishing to speak. Interested persons who
are unable to attend may submit their comments to Gene Wojcik, Chief,
EIS Preparation Section, Planning Branch, at the above address. The
deadline for all comments on the Draft EIS is Monday, April 10, 1978.
Since'rely yours,//
4 -/ /
* i't 1 i., /
Valdas V. Adamkus
Deputy Regional Administrator
-------
•^
r^
0 - ^^ UNITED STATES
i ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
§ ^!ff7 I REG10N v
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 50604
FEB 24 1970
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The United States Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public
hearing on Thursday, March 30, 1978, to receive public comment on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities for the Metropolitan Area of Columbus, Ohio.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for review at the following
locations:
1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street, Columbus
2. City of Columbus, Department of Public Service
90 West Broad Street, Columbus
3. City of Reynoldsburg
7232 East Main Street, Reynoldsburg
4. Public Libraries of Columbus and Franklin County
a. Hilltop Branch
2955 West Broad Street, Columbus
b. Livingston Branch
3669 East Livingston Avenue, Columbus
c. Morse Road Branch
1421 Morse Road, Columbus
d. South High Branch
2912 South High Street, Columbus
e. Dublin Branch
75 North High Street, Dublin
f. Gahanna Branch
480 Rocky Fork, Gahanna
5. Ohio State University Library
1858 Neil Avenue, Columbus
6. Westerville Public Library
126 South State Street, Westerville
-------
I
5
O
01
O
T
^
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 50604
FEB
2 4
1978
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Summary Report of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement .(EIS) for Columbus, Ohio.
Copies of the detailed Draft EIS are available at the public libraries
and other locations identified in the Public Hearing Notice. Since there
is a limited number of copies of the detailed Draft EIS, it is suggested
that the Summary Report be studied before requesting the complete document.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations
promulgated by this Agency (40 CFR 6, April 14, 1975) any comments on
this statement should be submitted by Monday, April 10, 1978. Comments
or inquiries should be forwarded to the above address marked for Attention:
Planning Branch — EIS Preparation Section.
Yourvinterest and participation in the EIS process are appreciated.
/
Sincerely
Valdas V. Adgmkus
Deputy
Enclosure
.tor
-------
EPA -5-OH-FRANKLIN-COLUMBUS-WWTP &INT-77
SUMMARY REPORT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA
COLUMBUS, OHIO
Prepared by the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
And
BOOZ, ALLEN AND HAMILTON, INC. With HAVENS & EMERSON, INC,
BETHESDA, MARYLAND . CLEVELAND, OHIO
APPROV
VALDAS V. ADAM!
DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINSITRATOR
FEBRUARY, 1978
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"\
"n
-------
FOREWORD
This executive summary supplements the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) on Wastewater Treatment Facilities
for the Metropolitan Area-Columbus, Ohio. Copies of the Draft
EIS may be obtained by writing the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Planning Branch, EIS Preparation Section,
230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 or by tele-
phoning the Columbus project officer at (312) 353-2157.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject action of this Environr\er.-al I~oact State-
ment is the approval of the Facilities Plans for the City of
Columbus and the Board of Franklin County Commissioners for
the preparation of plans to expand and upgrade wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal facilities within the
Columbus metropolitan area. The proposed project includes
five major actions:
Construction of additional liquid treatment
facilities for sewage processing at the Southerly
and Jackson Pike sewage treatment plants
Design and construction of a pilot plant in order
to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended
plan to solve the bulking activated sludge problem
at Southerly
Construction of three sludge incinerators and as-
sociated dewatering facilities for processing
sludge from sewage treatment
Construction of separate sanitary sewer intercep-
tors within the Columbus planning area
Selection of a cost-effective and environmentally
acceptable system to minimize combined sewer
overflows.
The environmental impact analysis of the proposed actions
resulted in several key findings and recommendations regard-
ing population projections, primary and secondary impacts,
and socioeconomic impacts. These are summarized below.
I. POPULATION PROJECTIONS
A. Existing Projections
The amount of facilities expansion required over the
next 20 years in Columbus depends to a great extent on the
increase in population over that time period. Facilities'
designs must be based on some reasonable estimate of growth
for the planning area. Five sets of year-2000 population
projections for the mid-Ohio region are currently being
evaluated by the region's planning agencies. These projec-
tions are shown below in Table 1.
-I-
-------
TABLE 1
Population Projections
Projection
Projected Year
2000 population
(thousands)
Cumulative
projected growth
rate (1975-2000)1
Battelle/Health Dept.
Sales and Market Mgmt.
Census 70-75 Estimates
Extended
MORPC 70-75 Estimates
Extended
Chamber of Commerce
Average
882
1008
1041
1218
1286
1087
2.3%
17%
21%
42%
50%
26%
1 Based on 1975 population of approximately 860,000
The wide range in these projections is evident. In
recent meetings, regional, state and Federal agency repre-
sentatives have attempted to come to some agreement upon
one set of projections which could be used county-wide.
This would assure consistent areawide planning. As this
EIS was being written, there was no interagency agreement
on the validity of any of these projections or on which
ones might be used for planning purposes.
The Facilities Plan used a modified version of the
MORPC-extended estimates and projected populations to the
years 1995 and 2025. In reviewing the Plan, it was unclear
whether these optimistic estimates were reasonable, given
the most recent Ohio Health Department year 2000 projections
(882,000) .
3. "Best Estimate" Projections
In order to assess the soundness of the projections
and to come to some conclusions on "best estimate"
-------
projections to be used for this project, the U.S. EPA
developed four sets of independent projections based on
standard methodologies.
For the year 2000 these projections ranged from ap-
proximately 995,000 to 1.11 million. The largest of the
projections is greater than three of the five existing pro-
jections and is also larger than the average of the five.
This 1.11 million figure projects a 1975-2000 cumulative
growth rate of 29 percent for the Columbus area which
translates to- a 1.2 percent average annual growth rate over
the planning period. Thus, in the absence of county-wide
consensus, selection of this figure would give both a
reasonable population estimate for the year 2000 (i.e.,
avoiding both high and low extremes) and one that is
moderately optimistic in its growth predictions based on
recent (1970-1975) county trends. For the above reasons
this report used the 1.11 million figure in analyzing the
need for interceptor and treatment plant expansions.
II. PRIMARY IMPACTS
A. Wastewater Treatment Plants
The proposed improvements will eliminate the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage in most of
Franklin County. Minor short-term adverse effects on the
natural environment will occur during construction at the
treatment plant sites should construction needs dictate the
shut down of any process capability.
(1) Water
The occurence of toxic conditions in the Scioto
due to releases of either ammonia or chlorine will be
essentially eliminated upon implementation of the
proposed project plan components. Seasonal chlorina-
tion will be used to protect public health, with sub-
sequent dechlorination to protect aquatic life.
Enrichment of the Scioto River due to releases of
phosphorus will also be reduced to the point of insig-
nificance.
The implementation of the proposed project plan
will have its most striking positive impact on the
water quality in the Scioto River below the outfall
from each wastewater treatment facility. Although
-3-
-------
the possibility remains that the stream standard for
dissolved oxygen may not be maintained under all flow
conditions, the overall improvement in the Scioto
River quality will be immense, particularly during
periods of low flow.
Short-term adverse impacts on water quality may
be experienced during construction activities if and
when process capabilities must be shut down. Construc-
tion specifications should contain mitigative measures
for these short-term impacts, including a definite
scheduling of improvements which will minimize bypass
of any present or proposed unit processes.
(2) Land
Increased erosion may be experienced during the
construction of interceptors and improvements at the
treatment plant sites. Since all proposed expansion
will take place within the boundaries of the present
sites, land related impacts will be minimal. Strip
mine restoration by the use of sludge will result in
land reclamation as well as improved water quality in
strip mined areas.
(3) Air
Emission control standards exist only for parti-
culate matter and mercury emissions from municipal
sludge incinerators. A wet scrubber with particulate
removal efficiency of 97.2 percent is planned to be
used at the proposed incinerators to meet the New
Source Performance Standard (NSPS). Since the esti-
mated mercury emissions from the Jackson Pike and
Southerly plants under the worst conditions are well
below the emission standard for mercury, no special
equipment will be required to control mercury emissions,
Additionally, ambient air quality standards have
been established for particulate matter to protect
both the public health and welfare. The atmospheric
modeling study performed by the Ohio EPA to determine
~the impact on the ambient concentration of particulate
matter frcnPexistiricT and proposed incinerators at
Jack~sc~n~"Pike and Southerly is inconclusive. Additional
modeling "by "the Ohio" EPA~is necessary to assess the -im-
pact of the proposed incineration facilities and de-
termine if additional incinerators.may be built and if
offsets will be required. Results of this analysis
will be included in the final EIS.
-------
B. Interceptors
The proposed construction of sewer interceptors will
have long-term beneficial effects on water quality. Short-
term adverse effects on the natural environment during
construction will be of minor significance, consisting
mainly of traffic disruption, erosion, noise and air pol-
lution due to fugitive dust. The short-term and long-term
primary impacts of the_eight, interceptors are summari7eri In
Table 2.
III. SECONDARY IMPACTS
Many locations within the Columbus planning area are
now experiencing water pollution problems because of in-
adequate septic tank and package plant performance and
over-loaded municipal treatment plants. Incorporating
these areas into an expanded and upgraded Columbus system
could provide a cost-effective and environmentally sound
sewage treatment alternative.
In this light, regional interceptor alternatives,
including the no-service alternative, were considered for
eleven sub-areas within the Columbus planning area. These
sub-areas are shown in Figure 1. Preliminary screening in-
dicated that eight of these areas were suitable for possible
inclusion into a regionalized system. A summary of the al-
ternatives considered, in addition to the no-service alterna-
tive, for each of these eight sub-areas is given in Table 3.
A. Regionalization Recommendations
Construction of the proposed regional interceptors is
likely to affect the distribution of the population, with
consequent environmental impacts due to changed land use
patterns. Recommended revisions to the proposed action
will help to mitigate these impacts. The regionalization
recommendations for each sub-area are described in Chapter
III of the EIS. The recommendations which deviate from
the actions proposed in the Facilities Plan by the end
of the planning periods (the year 2000) are as follows:
Southerly Service Area
Rickenbacker AFB added
Service only provided to Reynoldsburg in the
Blacklick Creek sub-area
—5 —
-------
(71
-P
U
ItJ
a
(0
S
01
JJ
CJ
13
a
E
e
w
u
JJ
1
tr
e
o
j
01
Jj
0
IB
a
E
s
i-l
11
^J
1
JJ
w
0
J3
C/3
LI
O
4-r
p.
0.
O
!-j
OJ
4J
c
rH
L"
-^
C
1-3
^J
CJ
-H
JJ
a
D
01
UJ
0
s
0
-rl
JJ
fl
c
•H
E
1-1
w
• •
1—1
IS
-rl
o
-H
U-i
1)
c
u
a
w
-•H
O
>
w
01
01
11
&
01
en
Cn
H
w
o
0
JJ
^
JJ
•H
E
-H
X
o
Lj
a
o
jj
D
3
•a
c
0
•H
01
O
M
Ed
r-4
U
0 D
-U J
0
•H 3
o q
jj
01
0)
s
**—
o
— ->
,-^
>
o
s
OJ
u
•.
w
4J
£
o
s
01
IB
U
U-l
0
u
01
to
,£J
o
LI
3
B4
11
01
W
OJ
TJ
U
01
W
U
>
IS
w
JJ
• -
01
01
si
o
JJ
• H
TJ
•a
c
to
01
*=
13
11
W
JJ
01
U-l
o
Cn
c
•H
01
01
o
X4
u
TJ
c
tO
1 — 1
~z
-1 •
'— 1 'Jl
11 -i^
3 C
UJ
UJ JJ
O
CJ
fU H
CJ JJ
c a
tO D
W 01
t3
O fu
a o
p,
IB C
0
CJ -H
•rH JJ
JJ IS
D C
J3 • -H
JJ -. E
01 JJ -rl
O 01 rH
IS 01 W
UH
*
CO O
01 O rH
a f .-3
w m -H
jj — u
-1-4
& S-1 U-l
en 0 u
i- S c
fl Q) 0)
(—4 0] f^
E
ra
D
u
jj
WC 01
•H 0
IB -rl -
JJ CO
- O O
01 3 a
01 W O
•H JJ rH
O 01 CO
C C
o a
- O H
•3 01
G C7> JJ
13 C 01
r-l -rl
^ W 'J-l
W 3 t)
IB TJ
a ra
01 O
13 CJ w
c -H ra
10 JJ
o> c
fl ,C -i"
02 4-1
JH OJ C
fl OJ O
fl -^
TJ +J
D * u
• 3
0 4J M
0 -H 4J
S r- i U]
fl C
*w — O
o tr o
t—
o
£»
o
) "]
_c:
5 •>
rt
«
.
.^s
-J
w
O
u-i
O
o
ro
r-t
•— »
QJ
C
-H
i— t
^
u
3
D
01
r-l
10
•rl
w
1)
^
11
01
LI
11
3
•»
c
O
•
fl
\_l
4J
»
M
C1
c
-H
01
01
0
W
o
r;
^j
JJ
•H
r^
t3
C
10
1
,1
^_
n
H
i ^
11
»
^
jj
•H
rH
13
3
tr
w
•H
10 C
0
O 4J
OJ O
•H 7J
0 W
C *J
01
- c
TS O
C U
13
rH CT"!
-* C
W *H
<3 W
a 3
•a
UJ
O CO
u
1) -H
(0 JJ
W 1)
CU J3
> JJ
IB 01
W 1)
JJ (0
i i
"J
13
>,
JJ
-H
rH
ra
3
tr
LI
o
JJ
to
3
01
JJ
2
u
^
o
L)
&4
>•
rH
ra
o
•H
UJ
0)
C
•-
JJ
1)
D
U-l
O
0
o
»
in
CN
w
0
UJ
C
3
E
en
•rl
a
p
^
JJ
•H
E
•H
X
o
w
a
D
Cl
O
r-l
U
£
3
2C
O1
•- *
33
0)
3
! TJ
CO
£
•J
01
>,
01
O
•H
JJ
a
CJ
01
"n
C
rl •
C JJ
0 C
-rl 10
JJ 0
O -H
C u-i
3 -H
UJ C
rH CT1
(0 rl
g 01
c
0 M
JJ
u ••
3 O
T) 01
C U
0 >
•H "3
^ <
i
01
r-i
C
•rj
01
ra
O
LI
o
^,
tO
3
s:
CTi
• rl
J^
CJ
• H
U-l
~
01
C1
£
-H
01
CO
0
J_)
o
E
10
01
w
JJ
CO
o
3
JJ
>,
^J
r|
rH
ra
3
C71
L,
U
JJ
IS
3
UJ
O
01
jj
C
01
E
1)
^
0
a
£
M
41.
r-l
ra
•H
O
•H
UJ
CJ
3
01
c
o
•H
JJ
O
3
w
jj
01
r;
O
O
0
Jj
o
3
r^
>,
JJ
•H
T)
-rl
ja
w
3
JJ
^i
0)
JJ
IS
3
rfj
1)
01
13
11
O
C
M
fl
>
1-i
U
c.
-rl
S
1
£
1)
JJ Jj
C - 11
ra u n
r—1 O
i 3 S
0 0
Jj a L,
CM 4J
cj ra
S E .u
•iJ -H
13 t) 3
O 0) 01
|J 01 1)
E-i IS W
D
.* U rg
DO r-l
D D • 3
W "3 01 O
cj JJ 3
10 01 11 CO
> 0 E -u
r4 -H D CJ
0) JJ W IS
c 01 -H a
•-4 .C 3 E
S JJ CT-H
01 O
uj 0) LI D
O IS 01
T3 W
C rH C D
O 18 (3 >
•H O rH -O
JJ O <
IB rH T3
C C
•r4 rrj rg ..
ED D
•H > >, 01
rH C CT1 V4
U U U D
a D >
o £ c -a
•P -rl U <
_f-|
E m
IB 3
D O
W W
jj _£
01 JJ
r^t c
O
73 -n
C JJ
IS O
3
CO W
X JJ
C 01
18 C.
JJ O
O
E
IS O
D JJ 01
W 01
jj D a
01 3 O
TJ rH
UJ 01
O C
o a
JJ -H D
o 01 m
D O 4J
uj W (fl
D
O 14J
0 - O
(N CO
- CT JJ
TJ. C 11
•rl D
en co u-i
C 01
O O 0
rH w in
is CJ <*">
i
C
13 ..
S C
O
i
"3
T3 -H C
CJ 0] 3
CO S O
ra ra
o ^\
L, X
!H
•—
U O | t3
C i C
D
CT>T3
C U
H D
•O C
3
rH O
U JJ
•H CJ 0)
3 O
-J J-l
C TJ D
IS C X
rH 13 JJ
arH 01
D
JJ -O IB
c c
D nj T3
E C
JJ >i ra
ra rj>
D W D
W O 01
JJ C rl
1) O
o »
G D W
030
•H o -a
jj a o
iS
CJ
CJ
IS
U-l
L,
3
en
UJ
O
c
o
• r4
Jj
O
01
Jj
o
&*
t.
rH
(0
-rl
U
-rl
UJ
4)
C
D
33
>.
C
O
•H
JJ
a
3
01
.^
TJ
U
U-i!
U-l
fl
M
..
O
•3
C
..
O
«
rt;
01
D
•H
JJ
IS
c
w
D
jj
rH
"*
D
D
'H
CJ
JJ
•2
C
ra
3
CTi
>p^
a
D
jj
•rl U-l
01 O
C
O -u
0
li O
4J i i
•3
3 0
rr* o
U IT*
•3 •
(0 01 O
C E 4J
H D
JJ 1)
O 01 3
01
11 JJ
3 JJ O
^ c ra
a a
c s s
O JJ "4
•H ra
-j D o
IS W -H
"3 JJ JJ
ra D
W T3 .£
CT1 11 JJ
D N 01
73 -H D
r-l <
E ra
0 W
LI JJ ••
"J C 11
O 01
wo w
D 1)
4-1 T) >
1
1
*
.
D
•r4
rH
w
u
3
D
01
r-4
IB
•rl
14
U C TJ D
3 ra
o
C rr) _Q
o OJ ra
•rH TJ
01 O 0)
o o ra
W 3 •
1) W 11
TJ -H E
D c o ra
W (0 > 01
D W
> 01 01
1) D CO ••
co a D o
0 OS
>irH m
-4 01 W >
•rl 0) -rl
W a r? JJ
IB D 0 IB
W 01 0 C
O JJ S W
a 01 oi
e n jj
C) C C rH
4J O IB <
Jj •
CJ 01
rd D
a-H
S 4J
•rH -H
£>
11 -rl
01 JJ
w o
D 10
£>
TJ C
ra o
>-4J
w y
W IH
O JJ
a 01
E C
D O
-P O
•- 0
w JJ
•H
O D
> 3
W 13
D
01 X
01 W
K 0
[L,
w
D >i
> J*
O 0
o o
c c
o o
2,
ra
3
CJ
01
U-l
0
C
O
•p
o
D
rH
rH
O
O
rH
ra
w
jj
c
CJ
rH
ra
H
U
•H
UH
, — ,
~j
in
o
oT
r-.
TJ
o
Jj
r4
01
5
1)
•H
Jj
o
D
UJ
UJ
D
C
• H
U-4
0
0)
0)
5n •
C 01
T! D
OJj-H JJ
CO 01
D > >,
Ola 01
01
11
CJ
jj
UJ
O
C
0
• rl
JJ
y
3
W
JJ
01
D
• »
C
O
CO
o
w
a
rtj
01
• H
JJ
13
C
W
11
JJ
rH
A
\£
J_,
0
^
*£
o
h
p
13
CD JJ
w o E oi a
O D W W rH 11
•H jj o D ra o
UJ rH U-l Jj -rl X
UH < 1 W • 01
IS TJ JJ D C
W 1) C W JJ O -
jj jz IB o IB -H ra
JJ X S -U
c 01 a D
CO UJ o TJ 3 >
CT1 O H D C W -r*
c -j w ra 01 JJ
H JJ trj -H rl IB
01 01 JJ 3 W TJ C
01 o 01 er oi w
0 E D 3 O 11
w a w o --H jj
U Ol £ CUUH rH
• cj 3 a c u-i *£
S 01 JJ a IB IB
ra a to D g w 01
D a c •- > jJ 13
W O H 01 -- . »
01 01 -r4 CJ tO CT1 d E
— i r-i c w o ra
01) O 11 C -U
11 W JJ D O
c jj •• a.<-i 3 ••
o 01 m ra uj w cj
•H D ja o J-1
JJ — 01 -U 3 01 D
IBC>301JJC>
JJ O -H O C O -H
1).H4JWWDCJJJ
Cn JJ fl O E '0
01 ac 3 W -H C W
W 01 0! C E -rl D
T)COJJ>-rHEWJJ
C -H rH -rH IS 0 3 rH
.C
1 CT1 C
11 3 O
a o -H
•rl W 01
fl. _c~^ Q
JJ W •
(N U 01
W CT1
- 11 — C
01 3 C -rl
en D O 01
C 01 -H 01
•H JJ O
01 uj aw
01 O 3 U
O W
w JJ 01 E
cjo . •-, ra
11 01 "3 O
>4UH <0 Lj
ra n o u
30 w -H 01
jr: o is UH
•H * TJ iO 01
j3 01 CJ w D
•H JJ £4 a
rH 10 O
18 - > rH
C CO — 1 "CO
o en jJ Q
•ri c rH a
JJ -rl 3 1) 01
•rl CO O > 01
TJ 01 -rl JJ
TJ O T) JJ CO
13 W C fl
CJ (8 C O
-------
CO
JJ
(0
H
m
<
0)
JJ
u
10
a
E
M
E
Ll
CD
JJ
1 -
DI
C
O
01
4J
U
10
a
e
s
3
4j
1
JJ
Ll
O
s:
in
L,
O
JJ
a
5
M
CJ
C
*~*
^
~i
>,
^
rj
r^
ft
^j
£J*
Li
O
4J
10
3
U-J
0
JJ
c
OJ
E
,
jj
• ri
73
• H
XI
3
JJ
•a
c
ifl
c
0
-H
en
0
Ll
u*
^
0)
Ll
tj
_,,.
u
• H
—1
_y
0
10
CO
• IJH
u-j 01 0
o -r*
c c-
C ft G
0 r-t H
—i a o:
JJ 'jT
10 O O
C JJ H
•H 10 O
E 3
rH CJ 10
CJ T! -~l
iO Li
sccj
O -H IB
Ll
UH Ll •-
O 01
Oi -C CJ
C JJ QJ
•H O Ll
JJ JJ
rH TJ
3 C >*-i
01 iO O
01
Ll CK rH
E-i 10
GJ 3 O
0) s
Ll Ol QJ
C_J Ll Qi
O 01 ••
•H t3 CJ
rH rH 01
M O Ll
U C CJ
10 >. ^
rH OJ T!
ta a <
i
in
.*4
•O
U
•H
u-l Oi
UH C
10 O
Ll rH
JJ 10
-•a
01 C
Ol IB
£
r4 01
01 Ol
01 C
0 -i
Ll 01
y in
0
E Ll
ifl O
CJ
Ll >,
JJ ifl
01 3
J3
JJ Ol
10 -H
t~*
T)
C JJ
10 Ifl .
01
01 G >,
§o *d
-H J
oj JJ .c
LI a 01
JJ 3 -H
01 Ll £
•
VO
rH
QJ
JJ
3
O
UH
O
•C
Ll
o
c
CJ
J";
•H
>
2
1
1
i^_
0
+J
£
O
=
O
0
"H
E
M
.^^
0)
1
•H
4J
(Q
C
i-l
o
AJ
rH
CQ
«H
(—1
,
JJ
-H
•a
-H
J3
Li
3
JJ
T3
C
ifl
C
O
-H
01
O
Ll
M
X
~3
C
10
^
01
CJ
• rj
JJ
Ifl
C
Ll
01
JJ
cH
<
JJ
Ll
O
"J
^>
O
O
1
ifl
c
Li
CJ
*-)
r— i
ft
4J
C
• .-3
_*/ r^
s) a
QJ
Ll QJ
U rS
r^
JJ
3
C ••
rH . — .
ft O
3 >
• H
CJ JJ
rH 10
JJ G
JJ Ll
•H QJ
rH
C ifl
•H
4J
>i G
JJ (0
rH 0,
(0 —
3
tr o
01
Ll Ll
Q) CJ
JJ >
•fl TJ"
3 <
C
O
-H
JJ —
a. >.
3 JJ
Ll -H
01 rH
•H 10
•a 3
C1
o
•H Ll
•J4 -H
HH iO
10
!H •»
JJ OJ
01
— -H
in o
0s C
c
-rJ ".
01 01
1)1 Oi
o c
Ll -H
U 01
tn
E 0
10 Ll
0) u
Ll
JJ T3
0] 10
O
O Ll
JJ
OJ
3 JJ
•O ifl
1
C
13
G O
UJ T
O Ll
—
4J ^
C 3
0
S C
••-1
E >
S 0
0 Ll
o a
c
Cn CJ
c
•H -a
o c
01 m
c
0 T3
C
C 10
rt3 r-^
CJ -
> 01
rH rH
O ft
> -H
C Ll
JJ
rH ft
rH E
3 -
Ll
CJ QJ
> 3
•H 0
01
01
-H
JJ
ft
C
Ll
CJ
JJ
rH
r£
Ll
O
U-l
01
10
0)
E
ft
•J)
OJ
•H
JJ
ft
C
• Ll
01 01
o -u
H rH
JJ <
QJ
JJ S
ID 10
OJ rH
10 a.
01
01 o
•H 01
0 'H
r- T"
rH
-
U CJ
O S
13 O
O '.1
O uj
in o
rH
< ^
ft
^
0
&-* CJ
f &•
2 •
C
JJ O ••
Ll -rt „
o JJ m
a IB
QJ "O QJ
^ fB ^
O Ll -H
rJ Ol JJ
U O ft
•a c
a LI
JS O 01
JJ -H JJ
T3 01 fC
C J3 —
ft -u
a 01 QJ
x 01 01
C! ft Ll
01
T3 T3 >
c c -a
ifl rj rtl
o
•o
c
IB
<
01
CJ
OJ
Ll
JJ
>,
Jj
r4
r- i
S3
3
IT
Li
0)
jj
10
3
UH
0
JJ
C
OJ
E
QJ
0
Ll
a
E
M
rH
ft
U
• H
U-J
0)
C
0)
en
O1
^
o
rH
IB
10
CJ
Ll
.•o
r— i
ft
•H
JJ
C
••3
0)
i)
Ll
C
C
o
•rj
JJ
O
3
Ll
JJ
01
C
o
u
£
Li
O
ft
J
CJ
ti
IX
MH
0
JJ
c
CJ
^
_l
.H
o
o
«.
OJ
-rj
JJ
Ifl
c
Ll
CJ
4J
rH
ft
JJ
C
ft
rH
Q,
Ll
O
CJ
in
LI
CJ
•a
,
in
, 01
Oi G
Ll M
01
c
CJ
Q
•a
c -a
ifl • C
01 JJ
rH -rj <
ft rH
•H -H 0)
Ll O 01
01 (0 >
JJ UH -tH
ft JJ
.c c
- JJ Ll
Ll CJ
0) CJ JJ
3 JJ rH
O fl <
a. LI
C OJ Ll
ft D. O
E 0 fc,
i
1
)
-7-
-------
Figure I
Planning Area For
Metropolitan Columbus
LEGEND
I. WEST SCIOTO 7 BIO WALNUT CREEK
2. 810 RUN 8. ROCKY FORK
3. DARBY CREEK 9 BLACKLICK CREEK
4. GROVE CITY 10. GROVEPORT
5. MINERVA PARK II. RICKENBACKER A.F.B.
6 SUNBURY-GALENA "—EXISTING SERVICE AREAS
-8-
-------
TABLE 3
Reqionalization Alternatives
Subarea
Number of
Alternatives
Considered
Alternative Types
West Scioto
Big Run
Minerva Park
Big Walnut Creek
Rocky Fork
Blacklick Creek
Groveport
Rickenbacker Air
Force Base
2
1
2
Two new interceptors
One new interceptor
One new interceptor
Upgrade existing
plant
Five new interceptor
systems
Upgrade existing
plant
Two new interceptors
Upgrade existing
plant
Two new interceptors
-9-
-------
Service only provided to New Albany in the
Rocky Fork sub-area
Partial service to the Bia Walnut Creejc _sub_T_
area may be necessary by 1985.
Jackson Pike Service Area
Some portions of Delaware County to be in-
cluded with the West Scioto sub-area
Service will not be provided to the Big Run
sub-area.
B. Secondary Impact Analysis
While the construction of the proposed action would
not be expected to significantly affect total planning
area population as compared to expected growth with the no-
action alternative, it would be likely to affect distribu-
tion of the population, with consequent environmental
impacts due to changed land use patterns. Specifically,
the impact analysis concluded that the secondary impacts
of the action proposed in the Facilities Plan would be:
Population increase in Franklin County between
1975 and 2000 is likely to be similar with or
without the proposed action
In Big Run. the proposed sewer phasing would have
a potential for inducing growth in an area which
is primarily agricultural and historically has
been considered unsuitable and unattractive for
development
In West Scioto, similar population increase is an-
ticipated with or without the proposed action
because of the area's attractiveness; however,
the type of development and distribution of the
population within the service area's 24,300 acres
may differ in each case
In Big Walnut, the attractiveness of the Hoover
Reservoir area may stimulate S^owth with or
without the proposed action; however, the rate
of growth with the sewers may exceed the rate
'without the sewers
-10-
-------
In Rocky Fork and Blacklick, provision of public
sewer service has the potential to hasten the
existing trend in Franklin County of converting
vacant and agricultural land to higher uses
The ability of the area's economy to support ad-
ditional population and the adequacy of water
supplies may be more significant determinants of
population growth and development patterns than
availability of public sewer services.
The regionalization changes to the facilities plan
proposed by the EIS would provide phased service to certain
subareas, and hence will help to preclude the possibility of
induced growth where ^uch growth is undesirable. Thus,
future growth patterns can be directed and controlled and
the potential for adverse secondary impacts will be reduced.
Ultimately, however, control and direction over growth will
have to come from environmentally and economically sound
areawide planning.
All sewer designs in the Facilities Plan were based
on an estimate of ultimate population. EPA's cost-
effectiveness guidelines require comparing different
-'design periods. An analysis was performed to show the
size and cost differences between designs based on ulti-
mate population, on interceptors flowing half full in the
year 2000, and on interceptors flowing full in the year
2000. The cost difference between designs using half
full by 2000 and full by 2000 vary from 3 percent to
24 percent, with the average and median variation around "
18 percent. This demonstrates that, on the average, an 18
percent increase in cost w5.ll permit twice as much inter-
cepted flow at design conditions. The comparison of
ultimate density to the projected design density for the
year 2000 showed that most of the areas are at or less
than 25 percent of their ultimate density by the year 2000 ,
making designs based on an ultimate population concept, not
cost-effective for the Columbus_area. The EIS recommends
de'slgning most gravity sewers using the half-full, year 2000
criterion.
IV. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A. Industrial
The present industrial base of Columbus consists oi
some 1,000 dischargers of wastewater which collectively
-11-
-------
send approximately 15 mgd of wastewater to the two treat-
ment plants. This total industrial release is slightly
less than 10 percent of the average daily wastewater flow
received at Jackson Pike and Southerly. Of these many
and varied industrial releases, only one, that of the
Columbus Anheuser-Busch Brewery, presented the opportunity
to derive significant changes in the proposed project plan
through implementation of an industrial pretreatment require-
ment. Thus, several pretreatment alternatives for the
brewery were considered in the EIS. These alternatives,
ranging from no pretreatment to total on-site brewery
waste treatment to Southerly NPDES effluent restrictions,
are presented below:
1. Brewery wastes without pretreatment (the
Facilities Plan assumption)
2. Pretreatment of the brewery wastes to the point
that the soluble oxygen demanding load is largely
removed (a roughing filter at Anheuser-Busch)
3. Pretreatment of the brewery wastes to remove and
handle the large majority of the oxygen demand
and suspended solids
4. Total brewery waste treatment to Southerly NPDES
effluent restrictions at Anheuser-Busch.
Table 4 summarizes the new capital and entire operating
costs for each of the scenarios. Scenarios four, which
excludes a joint municipal brewery treatment scheme, was
the least attractive. Scenario one, the Facilities Plan
Proposal, and scenario three represent nonoptimal alterna-
tives. The best overall brewery waste treatment strategy
was found with scenario two, which satisfies the majority
of the industrial waste's soluble oxygen demand before
release to the city sewer. As shown on the Table, this
scenario indicates an overall present worth cost savings
of $17 million over the Facilities Plan recommendation at
a 60,000 Ib/day BOD5 loading.
Hence, the EIS recommends a revised Facilities Plan
that incorporates pretreatment of the brewery waste stream
to the level of treatment identified in scenario two. This
assumes that the brewery will pretreat its 60,000 Ib/day
6005 load for control of its soluble oxygen demand and that
the previously recommended roughing trickling filter and
intermediate sedimentation system at Southerly be eliminated.
-12-
-------
TJ-
Cd
CQ
o
EH
Cd —
S cn
EH --I
< cn
Cd ra
a m
H
in
Cd r^
EH ON
CO rH
r-
a\
S >
Cd cn
P- rH
CQ ra
EH 0
< a
S 4-1
Cd 0
EH
r-] V)
< c
O
2 -
o
cn >
eu
S
o
U
o
U
w
c
•H
^,
a
c
0)
0
co
t:
ra
o
>,
u
3J
-J
0)
i-l
oc
3
r3
r-l
>1
rQ
\
JJ
rH
O
O
O
k.
o
,
0)
3
01
i-l
P3
3
ra
>^
r3
T3
^^
jQ
rH
0
o
o
H
0
0
rH
•sr
ro
CN
rH
^J1
m
CN
rH
CO
1
0)
-U
(TJ
£
•H
4J
CO
w
Jj
w
0
0
r-t
(0
4J
•H
a
m
u
.
HH
•—
—
<"<-} CT, C"NJ
. . .
O rH OJ
^^
rH
m cn CN
. . •
[^ rH 0%
TJ» T
*-*.
i-H
-«•
OT O""i 00
• . *
CN i — I *=T
*=T T
. — .
CN
• —
T ^t*
O •
k£) ^
-O ^-D
* —
rH
— -
co c^ r~*
* * •
O rH CN
n *3" r-
^_^
, — 1
—
TJ* ty\ ro
> • .
r-t r-H m
-— t ^r in
^— ,
CN ' — I i*1"1
• . •
"3* CO CN
T in
,
CM
— •
TT "^T
. *
O VD ^O
{Q {&
>^
i — t
>1 i-.
i-J i)
C/ rC — *
3 -> d
OJ 3 4J
U O O
22 W E-<
^4
a]
01
>
CO-
il)
JJ
l"C
S
•H
jj
cn
Cd
-u
cn
0
o
31
c
•H
4J
rg
V-j
O
O
i—j
-—»
CO ro «-H
. . t
o in vc
mm co
• • •
o m in
CM ^ ^D
• • •
o in in
T Tf
o .
in in
n m ^jO
• • •
rH in ko
c% rn CN
* * •
o in o
r"1 «3* r^*
• . *
o m m
m in
0 -
en m
>,
, — t
>- U
M 0)
O « rH
3 — > (T3
a; D ^
in 0 O
C 0"; ^H
«>
i
0)
jj
<8
E
jj
Cd
jj
^
1)
rH
n3
>
H
CT
Cd
r;
JJ
u
O
2
jj
C
O
cn
QJ
a.
*-4
rH
rH
r^ ^o im
CN Cn CJ
rH
CN ^O CO
i— i cn o
rH
JV
m p- CN
cn o
, — >
cn c^i
O rH rH
rH —1
CN -~O 00
^5* cn m
r^
O i-O ^D
CN ON rH
rH
JV
( — m o
O rH
rH I— i
0 0
O CN CN
rH i— 1
>,
. — 1
> H
S-l 0)
CD -C -i
3 -rJ "3
0) 3 -U
^ O O
03 W t-
(3
S
H JJ
- O C
• j £ ^ -2
^ .j r~' *~? "~^
, , ( rr- .^ i 1 i 1
CO (T^ O rH 0^ ^
C 'H — * —
C?^ O JJ H c^-- ^
^ £ -—
iJ jj Qj JJ
c -H rH m c cn
0) T) O • 0) T}
E t) >i"=r £ -r-j
ra O «- ra 0
cu ,
ra O r3
JJ C V> >i JJ C O
in o rj cn 0 CN
•r-f C2v C "rH
JJ JJ (D JJ JJ ^ TD
Mraojcr cnrac c
i-ijjcr>c >HJJO ra
•i-l O 3 H -H O -H
CM r- 1 MH Jj ClUrHrH JJ--^
cn -H c UH rH cn cn
S-l O -H 0) JJ
•• s-i jj o •• 'H £ r-i cn
C "t C C -rJ (HO
raradJjJ (8 13 fl +J O
rH O C rH . C
CUT) O CU'CCO-Hi-H
CU Cn rH CU rH r3
tn > c (3 cn> CJrH CC
•r-l 0 M • r-l -i-l O II 01 C
-H cn JJ cr -H cn rH s-i ^^
•H 13 3 -H 13 JJ CM +
o cy tn o o
ra3T3C ra3EHQO ^^
ti^ cu -H &j cu *-~ ^\ cn
C CU rH C m jJ
E C T3 E 1 cn
O-OC o^iniOO
Ij T 18 Vj T • U
r-l CO rH r3 rH
rO ci> . w T3 to 13
OJ rH rf-J r« ^ rr^j _p JJ
JJ C3> c/> -H ra JJ C5; c; -r-i
rs r-i rH ra X ^ —
-r-i r-i cu TT; cu -H rH cn -H
0)>wr3 JJ CU>-H Cf-
•H >i -r-l -H JJ Ci) O
cn3cn»i-H cn, -itr;
ajcr P--H acrox:
cncurji- o cncuo jj
cn c CN u cn M
CU . -H co Su CD . JJ o
O O C O O C 3
O-POC2J rH O-UCJ
i-iCU-iH ra MCUrHjJ
Cu JJ S C i ra c
^ -H CU -H •* > CU
JJCJT-J4J c^-iJO — ' tn
H
-------
B. Capital and Operating Costs
The analysis of the Facilities Plan treatment plant
recommendations resulted in various alternative ways of
utilizing and upgrading the two existing Columbus waste-
water Treatment Plants (Southerly and Jackson Pike).
Alternatives for liquid treatment and disposal included:
treatment and land application, treatment and reuse, and
treatment and discharge. These proposed modifications
represent $46 million savings in capital costs and 8
percent savings in annual operating costs.
Alternative disposal concepts considered for the
solids produced by the two Columbus plants included:
several codisposal opportunities, four resource recovery
schemes, and a landfill disposal option. The EIS also
examined the resource savings that might be available
with the following alternative treatment technologies:
phosphorous removal, intermediate sedimentation, oxygen
production and dissolution, secondary solids thickening,
conditioning and dewatering, recycle management, and
pyrolysis. Finally, a variety of process optimization
alternatives were analyzed for cost-effectiveness. These
were: flow equalization, reduction of electrical energy
charges, the activated sludge system, effluent filtration,
and waste solids processing.
Based on the alternatives analysis, Figure 2 was de-
veloped to describe the recommended facilities for the
Columbus wastewater treatment plants. Conceptually, with
the exception of the total elimination of the isolated aero-
bic activated sludge system for stabilization of the
broths associated with thermal conditioning, and the addi-
tion of dechlorination and post aeration facilities, the
proposed Jackson Pike facilities are not uniquely different
than the proposed project plan found in the Columbus
Facilities Plans. Its uniqueness is found in the recommended
sizing of the attendant unit processes. At Southerly,
with the abandonment of the first stage pumping station,
roughing trickling filter, and sedimentation system made
possible by the recommended pretreatment of Anheuser-Busch
wastes, a more substantial deviation from the Facilities
Plan has occurred.
Table 5 summarizes the changes in unit process sizing
derived from the recommended project plan in comparison to
the improvements originally proposed in the Columbus
Facilities Plan. Where no change from the originally
-14-
-------
(N
O
C
L.
o
<
»• TJ
3 «
J? £
Z
iu
5
Ul
O
<
z
<
2
Q
O
o
if
o
at
-15-
-------
If)
0)
rH
XI
10
**
c
fC
r-l
fl.
4J
U
0)
•n
0
04
•d
V
*o
e
0)
g
g
0
u
V
01
X
4J
x:
4J
"?
•O
01
IB
•H
u
o
n
n
(^
01
01
cy
c
(0
x:
o
>i
r—
V^
01
A
4J
3
O
cn
01
£&
-H
Q.
c
0
cn
o
10
hj
1
1
0>
t-t
0>
tJ
U
XI
(0
Ol
M-l
01
T3
O
XI
<0
^^
1
.
^
cn o>
01 l-l
CO 3
cn cn
01 -*4
U fe
O
M O
X 4J
U M
H 01
3 01
a
^^
i i
XXX
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
X
1 1
1 1
X X
1 1
1 1
X XXX
1 1
1 1
X
1 1
1 1
X X X X 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
X
1 1
1 1
X XX
1 1
1 1
X X XXX
1 1
1 1
X
1 1
X X X X X 1 1
I 1
1 1
A
1 1 0)
C (0
1 O C 1 >
rH -HO J*
(01 4-1 -H 1 U
> 10 4-1 <0
n o c i 4J 10 i OQC
c e o CM \ o
01 OI-HI OIOICI C -H
0) ce 4J E < o o 4J
M 10 1 0) -H --II -H U
U 4-> 4J M -O 0) 4J 4J 0)
C/) -HCI OIO)CniOI «J M-l
MO) 4J W TD 4J MC
•a oei rH act 4J-H
(0 (0 O C-OIO Cu 4JCO ElO-H-H
>-HQO)-H (0 fH-HfcQ
01 o 4-i T-I cn i 4-i cn-H -a -a i 4->
>: E fl 4J loc'aoio) (04JO)
u ai 4-> 10 >, i 4J -H oi4->cni4J c c
(0 PC W M M cn rH £ (0 CO 0) *H
« 0)101 ,XM>rHI 3M
4-1 Qd (0 £ p. tj 0) "H (0 CU rH O
M-H E 4) ~-l 1 E — 1 4-> 4J ClEMHrH
(OM3MM 3MCCJ -H 3 M-l Xi
«ODJ)
^- ~~^
c
o
O -P C
•^ o o
CO ffl iH
C M 4J
10 4-1 -H
a, c -a
X O T3
w u <
— **— , *-.
O TJ 0)
«^ «.* ^««
CO
0)
-H
M
10
-H
rH
^
X
3
(8
0) C
tJI-H
c
10 0)
JC 0^
u c
a
O A
z u
— * «—•.
10 XI
-16-
-------
,_*
•a
-i
J3
1
J-
01
x;
•3
O
W
0)
•H
OK
C
0
01
y
U
(8
*-}
•
Cn
*4-<
ID
•O
O
Q
a
en
*M
01
•a
o
j3
id
^.^
rH
1
n
-i
a i— i y-<
O O
i-4 03 'C
a -H (u
c >
g O C -O -H
O -H O ,
C rH iw -r-i o>
C M -P r-l 4J 01
id -P -H a id
a c TJ g N -a
x o -a o -H o
W O < 0 rH C
-H O
(-1 J3 -H
^-^^ O Id •!->
U TJ 0) "W -P -H
— — -~ oi 'D
01 c
fH >-l O
rH O 0
(0 >M
U >.
g rH
fl) 0) rH
> 4J (0
•H 01 g
01 18 01 0)
-H
C g -H 4J
id 01 O -P id
x; en o u u
U C 4) id -P
flj ffi
o x;
2 O
01
id J3 O
-17-
-------
proposed project plan is indicated, the reader is referred
to Appendix I for the unit process's sizing. Additional
discussion of the rationale leading to the final recommenda-
tions can be found in Appendix K.
Table 6 compares the first cost of the recommended
project plan with the originally proposed project plan
for Columbus. The recommended project plan is seen to
contain an additional expenditure of some $8 million, the
majority of which is associated with the expanded effluent
filtration system. It is believed that the recommended
improvements are necessary for reliable operation, and are
prudently sized. The recommended project plan also offers
about $54 million in first cost savings. The majority of
these savings are derived by optimal sizing and use of
biological reactors and their attendant solids-liquid
separation systems, and the economic return derived with
pretreatment of the brewery waste applied to Southerly,
which allowed the elimination of the originally proposed
first stage treatment system. It is believed that the
associated recommendations also represent realistically
sized alternatives.
Thus, the recommended project plan offers a net
capital savings of almost $46 million in comparison to the
original project plan. This savings, slightly in excess
of 29 percent of the original Facilities Plan's first cost
estimate, remains significant even in the context of the
costing accuracy normally found in Facility Planning docu-
ments. It should also be noted that the recommended project
plan offers a wastewater treatment system which integrates
the liquid and solids handling capabilities of both plants.
This allows a combined hydraulic capacity some 50 mgd more
than originally proposed.
The operational costs associated with the recommended
project plan were determined by reducing or increasing the
costs of the original project plan by the assumed impact of
the proposed alternative. This was necessary since the dif-
ferences in the basis of design for influent flow and pol-
lutant mass would have a rippling impact upon the operating
costs for the integrated liquid and solids processing capa-
bility of the Columbus plants. Thus, this cost comparison
more accurately reflects relative differences rather than
true definite costs.
-18-
-------
QJ
rH
(81
C
ID
i — t
cu
4J
o
OJ
•n
0
t-l
OJ
•O
C
0)
o
o
U rd
t/1
rH
rs
C
O
4-1 -H 4-1
OJ 4-1 W
Z -r-l 0
T3 O
2
rH 4-1
id o
G QJ C
-H T-i rd
Cn O rH
•H lj CU
r-l CU
0
O"1
c
•H 4J
m a
in QJ
QJ O
u c
o o
l-i rj
CU
1 ! !
1 i I
I
x— •* - — * ^"*
C*"> *3* ( I ^ |
vovo r- r~ in i rHi as as r~ CN as ^3 i CN
COCN in invci crs I r~ TI- o 1 to- ! to-
i 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
OO rH rHO CN f»- O rH O •=!• O CN
1 • 1 « 1
rH OS O CN kO PI CN
1 rH 1 1 "-*
to- to- to-
1 1 !
1 1 1
1 1 1
O PI O OCOI rH| OOOO OOiO
• • • *
O CN 1 PI 1 1 O
to- to-
1 1 t
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
vo PI oo cor^-i CNI masoocN PIVOIT
COCN **O ^J*PS) VOI O^U3rH CNOi^O
rH rH rH in rH rH PI
. - 1 1 tO- 1 to-
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 ! 1
r-l rH i | rr-j |
E id o i i id i
•H U -H
r-l -H OS 1 1 tP C 1
CU D» O On C 4-1 0
G O rH c 1 1 DS-H c an-H i
'OOrHO-H — CCOJG4-I ^
G -H O -H X 1 rH 1 -H 0 S -1-! "3 1 --1
rdC4-)-H 03 Ul — C-HOJr-ir-i ~—
0-H03 -HI lQJ4JiJ>ajOJ 1
4J-r-trrJ QJ rH rH ^-Hrd4-IG rH rH
G4-)rTJCJ tji Ol cdj OT3Gcd-H rdird
QJ (dC-PC 1 Ol .GOSQJCr-iOlO
4JCr-(4J(IJW<-H -H rg
OJQ)Q)S-4r-lU--llJ-ll 1 rHrHOr^rHkX:i
r-ity2x:-HEHO)E-'lt-i OOOOOEntrj
cu cjcu en wi icawKcnco
^i*
I
CN
CN
rH
. |
PI
kO
CN 1
as
to-
. — .
CN
•*^
— r4
rH <
6
rJ EH
<
EH Q |
C W
EH U}
^>
a
05
(U rH
4J (1)
01 -P
>,rH
CO -H
C
O
rd
OJ
4-1
rd
S-l U
in QJ i
CN < o tn
n 4->
tn
rH 4J
QJ
II f3
O
O
O O 0 -2
4-1 TJ
U C C C
rd o o a
PL, -H -H 4-1
4-1 4J in
- rd rd
tn rH rH OJ
•H rH rH t3
'H tn rd rd 3
in rd 4-i 4-1 rH
rd 03 in in u
c c c
r-- -H -H -H
tn
03
in tn
O O G
OJ 0)
-H in
rH 'J-l U-l JJ
3 OJ OJ O
*^ O5 OS Q
CN ro rr m
fy_ j .^^, ^_,^ ^^, ^ , ^^^
-19-
-------
•O
rH
)»f
0
.C
4J
3
o
%
— •— — ~— ~_
13
CU
T3 -P
C U
CU Q) C
E T~> (0
K 0 rH
O M CU
O Pu
0)
OS
to
O"i
4J 4J C
U (0
CO
rH
(0
C
o
•H
4-> -P -P
CU -H W
5S t3 O
•a u
(0 4->
cue
CTlT-lrH
•H O CU
M >H
O Cu
Cn
c
•H 4-1
CO Qi
CO CU
CU U
O C
o c
SH U
CM
1 1 1
1 1 1
~-^ II -^ 1
ro ^* m
**"" **^ 1 1 *-^ 1
tNin o r^voi 01 o IN r~ in vor-ni rH
OI-H TJ«VOI mi ooovo aooi vo
rH OJ rH
1 V> I 1
> 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
t ^ i j in co c*^ co rH ^"^ m p»* ^)* ^™ ^ m
• • 1 •! •••• • | •
inrH vo mtNvoom in
rH 1 rH 1 1 rH
W- •{/> {/>
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
i-nm o ovoi 01 oooo 001 o
• • • • .
o o •* i m i i o
•W- 1 1 1 W-
I I I
I I I
I I I
i I i
rHcvi m ocn oo .HOMOCN OrH \o
OrH in VO• vt-
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
>H rH | 1 T3 1
(0 rH (d C
E >d U t i (d i
•H O -H
>H -H JT> 1 I Cn C 1
Cw t7> 0 O> C -P O
C O rH C 1 1 Cn-H C Cn-H i
-a OrH O-H CCCUC4J
C -rt O -H &}*— l-HOS-HtQ 1 ^-*
(OC-P-H O tO rH C-HCUiHSH rJ
0-iHp "H|-^| CU4-lCnCUCU 1 —
4J *rH 'O CU rH vf -rH (d 4J C rH
d4-Ji3cu en 01 ' — ti OTJCfO-H (Oi i — i
CU(0CU (0 -tHCflSu^JCO (0
E4-> (OC4JC 1 -PI JSO2CUCHOI -P
-PCrH-Poscneu-p o E-ICJ QMOCL o
(OCUtOCCS ECI4^I CU Q4tni4J
aiEo 4JT34JCU ,3 tntOi-Hcntoco-rt x)
H -H — 1 -P (0 C (0 3 1 31 'O'OO'O'OCCII 3
4-*T3EtncUOCUrH CO -fH-iH>i-H-H(0 CO
CU^CU^V-liHOi-jX-ll 1 rHrHUrH,-H>-|.Cl
Cu'^-Ofc CO W 1 ICOCOKCOCO < I
1 1 1
—^^"™»i«^^
i-H C^\
en oo
m ^*
v> <«•
m
.
CN |
m
o
,
in i
to-
•>*
U3 1
^O
to-
^.^
2
0) H
4J 4)
CO 4-1
>,rH
cn -H
b
0 ^
•H fl
•P (U
m cu i
CM <; o "l
rH 4-> T3 2
Q) >,0
II »T3 K O
HH >l
o o
4-1
O C
rd O
CM -H
JJ
•> (0
W rH
CD -«H rH
•rH 03 10
W (0 4-1
(0 n tn
ffl C
in
c c
o <"
•H4J
4J 01
(0
rH 0)
-H-a
(0 3
4J rH
to o
c c
-H -H
rH 4J 4-> O
o o c
- CU CU
rH W
14H CU
cu o
« Q
rH U-l
3 a)
rH (N CO TT in
-20-
-------
Table 7 compares the estimated operating costs of the
recommended project plan with the original Columbus project
plan for the average operating year in the twenty year plan-
ning period. On a 1974 to 1975 pricing basis the recom-
mended alternative is seen to offer an operating advantage
approaching eight percent. Slight reductions are offered
in each costing category, with the reduction in operating
power most significant. This is due to the assumed selec-
tion of a more efficient oxygen dissolution system and the
elimination of the energy intensive isolated activated
sludge system for recycle management. At Southerly, it
was found that with pretreatment of the brewery waste and
the elimination of the trickling filter, the additional
aeration horsepower was nearly equivalent to the 1050 horse-
power savings derived by eliminating the first stage bio-
logical treatment system. As shown at the bottom of the
Table, the scenarios which apply waste solids either to the
power plant or the strip mines have a relatively small
impact upon the total operating budget of the Columbus
plants.
-21-
-------
Table 7
Operating Cost Comparison of Original Project Plan
with the Recommended Project Plan
( Millions of Dollars )
ORIGINAL PROJECT PLAN'
1974-1975 Basis
Jackson Pike
Chemicals
Power
Personnel
Maintenance
Total
RECOMMENDED
SI.
1.
1.
1.
$5.
PROJECT
96
38
29
05
68
PLAN *
Southerly
$2.
1.
1.
0.
55.
01
36
23
94
54
Total
$ 3.
2.
2.
1.
Sll.
97
74
52
99
22
1974-1975 Basis
Present Day
Total
$16.73
Jackson Pike
Chemicals
Power
Personnel
Maintenance
Total
$1.
1.
1.
0.
$5.
98
21
29
97
45
Southerly
$1.84
1.07
1.16
0.85
$4.92
Savings
Percent
Reduction
Total
$
3.
2.
2.
1.
$10.
$
0.
7.
82
28
45
82
37
85
6
Present
Total
$
5.
4.
3.
2.
$15.
$
1.
8.
73
10
26
28
37
35
1
Day
(1)
* Assumes on-site waste solids handling and disposal
(1) Elimination of incineration at Jackson Pike with application
of the dewatered solids to the refuse/coal fired power plant
will yield about $0.45 million of savings in power, personnel,
and maintenance
(2) Application of thermally conditioned solids to strip mine
lands will increase net expenditures in power and personnel.
With year round hauling, the estimated rise in cost is about
$0.6 million.
-22-
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978- 752-573
------- |