WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
WPD 11-75-01
DEMONSTRATION OF A PLANNING
PERSPECTIVE FOR WASTE WATER
SLUDGE DISPOSITION
Knoxville/Knox County
NOVEMBER 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DEMONSTRATION OF A DEVELOPED METHODOLOGY
FOR THE
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF RESIDUAL WASTES
Contract No. 68-01-3225
Project No. EPA-WA-75-R210
Program Element 2BH149
Knoxville/Knox County
Project Officer
Dean Neptune
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Planning Assistance Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared for
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures x
Acknowledgements xii
CHAPTER I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1
INTRODUCTION 1
CONCLUSIONS 1
Study Area 1
Methodology 2
RECOMMENDATIONS 3
Study Area 3
Methodology 4
CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION 5
BACKGROUND 5
PURPOSE 7
CHAPTER III THE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE AND THE STUDY 10
APPROACH
THE METHODOLOGY PLANNING PERSPECTIVE 10
STUDY APPROACH 12
CHAPTER IV CHARACTERIZATION OF THE KNOXVILLE-KNOX 17
COUNTY AREA
INTRODUCTION 17
NATURAL SETTING 18
Geology 18
Climate and Air Quality 20
Topography 21
Hydrology and Water Quality 21
Soils 26
Flora-Fauna 27
Mineral Resources 27
CULTURAL SETTING 27
Evolution of the Knoxville-Knox County 30
Area
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
The 1990 General Plan for Knoxviiie- 31
Knox County
Institutional Characterization 34
LEGAL SETTING 37
The Garbage and Rubbish Collection and 37
Disposal Services Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act 39
The Utility District Act 40
The Urban Type Public Facilities Act 40
The Industrial Development Corporation 40
Act
Corporations 41
Additional Legal Considerations 41
CHAPTER V THE SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROBLEM 48
INTRODUCTION 48
EXISTING FACILITIES 49
Third Creek Drainage Area 49
Fourth Creek Drainage Area 52
Loves Creek Drainage Area 53
Ten Mile Creek Drainage Area 54
East Knoxville Drainage Area 54
Knox-Chapman Drainage Area 55
• ' Little Flat Creek Drainage Area 55
Bullrun Creek Drainage Area 56
Beaver Creek Drainage Area 56
Hardin Valley Drainage Area 57
Turkey Creek Drainage Area 57
EXISTING SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROCESSES 58
ANTICIPATED KNOXVILLE-KNOX COUNTY MUNICIPAL WASTE- 61
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Knob Creek 61
Powell 62
Turkey Creek 62
Karns 62
Lyon Creek 63
Loves Creek 63
Forks-of-the-River 63
PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES 64
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
CHAPTER VI SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE DISPOSAL 73
OPTIONS
INTRODUCTION 73
STUDY AREA CONSTRAINTS 74
EVALUATION OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS 76
Elimination of Infeasible Alternatives 75
Local Definition of General Disposal 73
Options
Implications of Solid Waste Management 80
Planning
Suitability of the Study Area for Land 81
Disposal Options
Alternative Disposal Options Selected 83
for Further Review
CHAPTER VII DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE 90
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
INTRODUCTION 90
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill 90
Alternative 2 - Trenching . 93
Alternative 3 - Incineration 93
Alternative 4 - Land Application: Spray 96
Irrigation
Alternative 5 - Land Application: 98
Composting
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery: IRD 99
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS 99
Economic Analysis
Environmental Factors
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill
Alternative 2 - Trenching
Alternative 3 - Incineration 124
Alternative 4 - Land Application: 125
Spray Irrigation
Alternative 5 - Land Application: 125
Composting
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery: 126
IRD
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Page
Feasibility of Alternatives 127
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill 128
Alternative 2 - Trenching 128
Alternative 3 - Incineration 128
Alternative 4 - Land Application: 129
Spray Irrigation
Alternative 5 - Land Application: 129
Composting
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery: 130
IRD
Performance 130
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfills 131
Alternative 2 - Trenching 131
Alternative 3 - Incineration 132
Alternative 4 - Land Application: 132
Spray Irrigation
Alternative 5 - Land Application: 133
Composting
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery: 133
IRD
NATIONAL AND STATE/COUNTY AIR QUALITY A-l
STANDARDS AND AIR QUALITY DATA FOR' KNOX-
VILLE, TENNESSEE
NATIONAL A-l.
STATE AND KNOX COUNTY- . A-5
GENERAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE B-l
DEFINITION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION
IN THE WATERS OF TENNESSEE
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DISCHARGE C-l
STANDARDS
APPENDIX D
SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS-STATE OF TENNESSEE D-l
-------
ABSTRACT
The existing and future sludge disposal problem in Knoxville,
Tennessee was investigated, and six major sludge management plans
were developed. The plans were derived and evaluated by utilizing
a methodology previously developed for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The plans detail the processing, transportation, and ultimate
disposal sub-systems necessary to meet environmental, operational,
and institutional constraints found in the study area. In addition,
costs of the various sub-systems and the overall costs of the plans
were determined.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of RFP No. WA75-R210,
Contract No. 68-01-3225, by Engineering-Science, Inc. under sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed
as of 10 September 1975.
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
III-l Data Requirements and Sources for Knoxville- 14
Knox County Case Study
V-l Present Sludge Quantities 59
V-2 Population Projection for the Anticipated 68
Facilities
V-3 Population Projections for the Anticipated 69
Facilities-Industrial and Commercial
Population Equivalents
V-4 Population Projections for the Anticipated 70
Facilities-Domestic, Industrial, and
Commercial Population Equivalents
V-5 Sludge Projections for the Anticipated 71
Facilities-Raw Sludge
VI-1 Summary Evaluation of Sludge Disposal ?7
Options
VI-2 Factor Maps and Ranking Used for Site 82
Suitability Analyses
VI-3 Sludge Condition Required for Alternative ^
Disposal Options
VII-1 Sludge Projections for the Anticipated 92
Facilities - Alternative 1-Sanitary Land-
fill and Alternative 2-Trenching
VII-2 Sludge Projections for the Anticipated 95
Facilities - Alternative 3-Incineration
VII-3 Sludge Projections for the Anticipated 97
Facilities -.Alternative A-Land
Application: Spray Irrigation
VII-4 Sludge Projections for the Anticipated 10°
Facilities - Alternative 5-Land
Application: Composting
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D)
Table No. Title Page
VII-5 Sludge Projections for the Anticipated 101
FacdHt-i^s - Alternative 6-Resource
Recovery: IRD
VII-6A Alternatives Evaluation Matrix-Economics and 102
Environmental Factors
VII-6B Alternatives Evaluation Matrix-Feasibility 104
and Performance
VII-7a Cost Estimate for Alternative 1-Sanitary 107
Landfill
VII-7b Cost Estimate for Alternative 2-Trenching 108
VII-7c Cost Estimate for Alternative 3-Incineration 109
VII-7d Cost Estimate for Alternative 4-Land 110
Application/Spray Irrigation
VII-7e Cost Estimate for Alternative 5-Land 111
Application/Composting
VII-7f Cost Estimate for Alternative 6-Resource 112
Recovery
VII-7g Capital, 0 & M, and Present Worth for the 113
Alternatives
VII-8 Costs (Dollars) Per Ton of Dry Sludge Solids H8
Processed, Transported, and Disposed or
Reclaimed Without Federal Funding and with
Federal Funding - 1995 Sludge Projection
VII-9 Potential Significant Environmental Impacts 120
of Alternative Sludge Management Plans
A-l Tennessee and Knox County Ambient Air Quality A-10
Standards for Suspended Particulates
Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Photo-
chemical Oxidants, Non-Methane Hydro-
carbons, and Nitrogen Dioxide
A-2 Tennessee Ambient Air Quality Standards for A-ll
Soil Index in COH Units per 1000
Linear Feet or Air
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D)
Table No. Title Page
A-3 Tennessee Ambient Air Quality Standards for A-12
Gaseous Fluorides Expressed as HF
A-4 Maximum Allowable Particulate Emission A-14
Standards for Incinerators
C-l Second Treatment Standards C-l
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title
Page
H-1 Study Area and General Location Map- 8
Knoxville and Knox County
III-l Operative and Ultimate Disposal of Residual n
Wastes: A Planning Perspective
HI-2 Study Approach to Developing and Evaluating 13
Alternative Sludge Management Plans for
Knoxville-Knox County Case Study
IV-1 Carbonate Bedrock and Karst Areas-Knoxville 19
and Knox County
IV-2 Percent Slope Map-Knoxville and Knox County 22
IV-3 Surface Hydrology-Knoxville and Knox County 23
IV-4 Flood-Prone Areas-Knoxville and Knox County 25
IV-5 Prime and Secondary Agricultural Soil Areas- 28
Knoxville and Knox County
IV-6 Mineral Resources-Knoxville and Knox County 29
IV-7 Existing Land Use-Knoxville and Knox County 32
IV-8 1990 Land Use Plan-Knoxville and Knox County 33
V-l Drainage Basins and Public Water Supply 50
Locations-Knoxville and Knox County
V-2 Utility Districts Located in Knox County 51
V-3 Wastewater Service Areas and Treatment 65
Facilities-Knoxville and Knox County
V-4 Existing and Projected Population Distribu- 66
tion-Knoxville and Knox County
VI-1 Strip-Mine Areas Near Knox County 79
VI-2 Sanitary Landfill Site Suitability Map- 84
Knoxville and Knox County
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT'D)
Figure No. Title
VI 2 Trenching Site Suitability Map-Knoxville 85
and Knox County
VI-A Land Application Site Suitability Map 86
Knoxville and Knox County
. VII-1 Capital Costs for Solids Processing Facilities 114
VII-2 Operating Costs for Solids Processing 115
Facilities
VII-3 Trucking Transportation Costs (1975) H6
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance received from the Project Officer, Dr. Dean
Neptune, is recognized and appreciated.
Specific mention must be made for the help received from the
following who provided time, information, and guidance to this
project: Messrs. Donald Parnell and Richard Zelinski of the
Metropolitan Planning Commission of Knoxville-Knox County; Mr.
Frank Erickson of the East Tennessee Development District; and
Mr. Philip Lynn of the City of Knoxville Public Service Department.
The assistance of local consulting engineering firms, regulatory
agencies, and the Tenneseee Valley Authority is also acknowledged.
Principal staff from Engineering-Science, Inc. were Mr.
Michael Wyatt, Project Manager, and Mr. Richard Heil, Project
Engineer.
xii
-------
CHAPTER I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the sludge disposal problem currently
experienced in Knoxville, Tennessee and the anticipated problem
expected upon expansion and upgrading of existing wastewater
treatment facilities and the construction of a regional facility.
The techniques employed in the projection of the present and
future sludge quantities and qualities; selection of feasible
sludge handling, transportation, and ultimate disposal or resource
recovery methods; and the evaluation of these methods compiled in-
to management plans were derived from a previously developed
methodology document discussed later in this report. The following
sections present the conclusions and recommendations derived during
this study for both the Knoxville-Knox County Study Area as they
impact upon the on-going 208 planning process in this Area and
the evaluation of the utility and constraints of the methodology
document.
CONCLUSIONS
Study Area
Six sludge management plans were found feasible for further
in-depth consideration and final selection in the Study
Area. They are (not listed in any order of priority):
(1)
truck transport and sanitary landfill disposal of a
digested, dewatered sludge to a County-owned and
operated site in the northeastern portion of the
County;
(2) truck transport and trench-incorporation of a
digested, dewatered sludge to a City-owned and
operated site in the northeastern portion of the
County;
(3) truck transport and incineration of an undigested,
dewatered sludge to a City-owned and operated
incinerator located on the site of the proposed
regional wastewater treatment facility with truck
transport and sanitary landfill disposal of a digested,
dewatered sludge from two outlying treatment plants,
to the landfill identified in (1) above;
—1 —
-------
(4) tank truck transport and land application (via
spray irrigation) of a digested sludge to a County-
owned and City-operated site in the northeastern
portion of the County with truck transport of a
digested, dewatered sludge from one outlying facility
to the landfill site identified in (1) above;
(5) truck transport and land application (via composting
and disking) of a digested, dewatered sludge to a
County-owned and City-operated site [same as in (4)
above] with truck transport of a digested, dewatered
sludge from one outlying facility to the landfill
site identified in (1) above; and
(6) tank truck and barge (from the regional facility)
transport of a digested sludge to a privately-owned
and operated sludge dewatering and fertilizer produc-
tion facility on Pickel Island in the eastern portion
of the County.
The six management plans identified above appear to present
no insurmountable problems in terms of meeting environmental
constraints, performance criteria, or institutional and
legal feasibility. However, the land application (via
spray irrigation) plan appears, at the level of cost
information available in this study, to be less cost-
effective than the other five plans.
Data constraints under which this study operated precluded
the development of the sludge management plans at any level
greater than a feasibility/representative system descrip-
tion. It appears at this time that in order to develop
the data and its concomitant level of detail.for developing
site-specific alternatives for public review and selection
of a final plan, 208 planning agencies must be willing to
spend a larger portion of time and effort in residual waste
management plan development than perhaps is currently
alloted and/or allocated to them in the 208 grant monies
and planning time-frame.
ogy
Cost data presented in the Methodology document were, in
many instances during the conduct of this study, extra-
polated from curves. Thus, the utility of the cost data
for this study is limited to a first-order feasibility
analysis with an unknown variability when applied to a
specific area. Site specific costs were either non-
existent or not made available to verify Methodology costs.
-2-
-------
The Methodology document, as was intended, was used as
both a source for information readily obtainable within
the document and as a reference to other sources of
information. During future studies in which the
Methodology document is utilized to develop alternative
sludge management plans, the user (e.g. a 208 planning
agency) should make every effort to supplement the
Methodology document with the publications referenced
in that document. This is particularly true when local
data are lacking or incomplete.
Care must be exercised in the utilization of sludge
quantity projections by 208 planning agencies. Where
local data indicate a different per capita wastewater
flow, significant variations in raw sewage qualities
due to industrial inputs or large infiltration and inflow
contributions to the sewer system, the values presented
in the Methodology document must be adjusted accordingly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Study Area
Additional local data, particularly with regard to the types
and distribution of flora and fauna, site preparation and
acquisition costs, probable users fees, and transportation
costs are required as inputs before final selection of the
preferred sludge management plan.
Future long-term solutions for resource recovery appear
promising and should be investigated as soon as possible.
These solutions include strip-mine reclamation in areas
outside the County and fuel supplementation in either a
City-owned municipal solid waste incinerator or coal-
fired power plants within Tennessee Valley Authority
jurisdiction.
The Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission
(the 208 planning agency) should, as soon as possible,
obtain from local utility districts and their engineers
verified or additional/corrected values for the sludge
quantities present in this report. A close review and
substantiation of the data and assumptions made during
both the 201 Facilities planning effort and this study
should be made by the agency to insure a common base of
facilities and sludge production.
-3-
-------
Methodology
The evaluation procedures provided in the Methodology
document can be taken to any level of detail desired.
It is recommended that, in using the Methodology,
such a feasibility level of analyses as represented
by this case study, be done initially prior to detailed
transportation routing and site evaluation. Undesireable
alternatives, as defined by the involved institutions
and general public, could then be eliminated without
undue time and monetary constraints. This feasibility
evaluation, in addition to identifying feasible alter-
natives, also identifies critical data needs requiring
further and more detailed resolution and/or quantifica-
tion.
The environmental, feasibility, and performance evalua-
tion factors in the Methodology document are rated in a
subjective manner. Prior to the site-specific evaluation
of the feasible alternatives, the 208 planning agency
should review the factors and use local, site-specific
data to provide quantitative measures or descriptions of
the ratings where possible.
-4-
-------
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
A review of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (the Act) and the associated legislative history clearly
indicates the Congressional intent to eliminate as much as possible
pollutant discharges to receiving components of the environment.
The basic waste treatment process consists of separating contaminants
in a way that is acceptable to local, State, and Federal regulatory
agencies. Proper ultimate disposal or reuse of residual wastes is
essential so that usable environmental components such as surface
or ground waters will not be needlessly contaminated and that pollut-
ants are not continuously and directly recycled into water supplies,
food chains, and other cycles.
At the present time, solids handling and other ultimate disposal
operations are probably the most troublesome problems in treatment
plant operations, partly because they have had the least attention.
The problem is becoming more critical because residual waste volumes
are increasing with higher treatment efficiencies and because the
physical-chemical sludges and other residual wastes from tertiary
treatment operations are more difficult to handle than some of the
common biological sludges.
The basic approaches embodied in the Act require pragmatic and
logical steps to identify and control pollution sources, including:
(1) regional planning and management of the Nation's waters
which will eventually identify all point and non-point
sources of pollution within a given region, and establish
effluent limitations on these sources of pollution;
(2) delegation of the permit programs to approved State programs
after guidelines have been prepared by the Federal Govern-
ment ; and
(3) control programs to determine compliance with the effluent
limitations and commencement of civil and criminal proceed-
ings against violators.
Regional planning and management processes to be undertaken by
the States must be as inclusive as physically possible, both with
respect to known types of pollution and the limitations of treatment
processes for removing various pollutants. In addition, Sections
-5-
-------
201(d), 201(e), 201(f) of the Act specifically encourage resource
utilization and resource recycling. Within this encouragement lies
the intent that planning processes carried out in fulfillment of
Sections 201, 208, and 303 recognize and promote, where possible,
areawide implementation concepts of residual waste management.
Under subsections (J) and (K) of Section 208(b)(2) of the Act,
208 planning and management agencies must address "a process to
control the disposition of all residual waste generated in such area
which could affect water quality; and a process to control the dis-
posal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations within such
area to protect ground and surface water quality." In addition,
Section 201 (d)(4) of the Act requires in facilities planning con-
sideration of "the ultimate disposal of sludge in a manner that will
not result in environmental hazards." It therefore is also the
concern of 208 planning agencies that facilities plans already made
and either presently under construction or proposed for construction
within the twenty-year 208 planning time framework be incorporated
into the overall 208 plan which is to include residual waste disposal
control.
As the United States moves toward the goals and policies
described in Section 101 of the Act, publicly-owned treatment works
(POTU's) are required to meet by July 1, 1977, or July 1, 1978 (for
new construction), secondary treatment as defined in the Federal
Register (Ref. II-l). In addition, by Sections 201(g) (2)(A) and
30l(b) (2)(B) of the Act, POTW's are to provide by July 1, 1983, the
application of best practicable waste treatment technology.
The application of wastewater treatment technologies to meet
these requirements is anticipated to generate substantial amounts
of municipal wastewater treatment plant sludges which must be
handled yearly. Realizing that sludge handling absorbs 35 percent
of the capital costs and 55 percent of the annual operation and
maintenance costs of a wastewater treatment plant, these projected
increases in sludge production will mean considerable expenditures
of money (Ref. II-2). Every effort must be taken by 208 planning
and management agencies to see that the expenditures necessary for
sludge handling and disposal are made wisely.
Recognizing that 208 agencies may require assistance in the
evaluation of residual waste management and disposal alternatives
for their areas, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared
a Methodology document which considers the sources and characteristics
of municipal wastewater treatment plant residual wastes, processing
and transportation alternatives, and various methods of ultimate
disposal and resource recovery, hereinafter referred to as the
Methodology (Ref. II-2). This Methodology also considered the
-6-
-------
physical, chemical, and biological nature of the residual wastes
generated and various alternate disposal/recovery methods in light
of economic, environmental, social, and institutional implications
in the evaluation and formulation of alternative plans and the
selection of the preferred plan in the 208 planning process.
PURPOSE
The purposes of this report are threefold, namely:
(1) to demonstrate the Methodology in a specific 208 planning
area;
(2) to apply and verify the Methodology and suggest improve-
ments; and
(3) to document the results as a planning tool for consider-
ing alternatives.
This demonstration study was conducted in Knoxville, Tennessee,
as a coordinated effort between the Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan
Planning Agency (MPC); the Water Planning Division of EPA, Washington,
D.C.; and Engineering-Science, Inc. of McLean, Virginia. The study
area is depicted in Figure II-l.
Data sources were obtained from local sources established by MPC,
principally from previous local studies and 201 and 303 planning.
The MPC provided an understanding of timely cooperation with local
sources for technical information on the location and size of exist-
ing and proposed wastewater treatment plants, the magnitude and
character of the sludges either currently generated or to be
generated, pertinent land and water resource data, and socio-
political conditions. During the course of this study, additional
outside data sources such as State and regional planning agencies;
State, county, and local agencies; and published reports were used
to augment data available through MPC. Where data was unavailable,
reasonable assumptions were made utilizing as necessary the
information provided in the Methodology.
-7-
-------
STUDY AREA AND GENERAL LOCATION MAP
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
•
NMfcvilU
M9tj ALA.
1
KY.
TEH*.
^S^
TZ^"*"
-. ^^ . - .— -^^..- ^^M*
\ 8A. S
\
•
!7"
.•*
-------
CHAPTER II
REFERENCES
II-l 38 CFR 159 (17 August 1973).
I1-2 Sludge Processing, Transportation, and Disposal/Resource
Recovery: A Planning Perspective, Wyatt, J. M., and
White, P. E., Jr. Engineering-Science, Inc., EPA Contract
No. 68-01-3104 (April 1975).
-9-
-------
CHAPTER III
THE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE AND THE STUDY APPROACH
THE METHODOLOGY PLANNING PERSPECTIVE
The planning perspective for municipal wastewater treatment
and residual waste disposal is depicted in Figure III-l. Two major
pathways of concern in the 208 planning and management process are:
(1) Given an existing wastewater treatment facility, what is
the most suitable ultimate disposal method for the resid-
ual wastes produced?
(2) Where a wastewater treatment facility is needed and planned,
and given existing and anticipated physical, technological,
environmental, social, and economic constraints of residual
waste management and control, what is the most suitable type
of wastewater treatment facility for the chosen residual
waste disposal or use methodology?
In the first situation (pathway) cited above, the existing
wastewater treatment facility is generating a known quantity and
quality of residual wastes. Federal, State, and local guidelines
and regulations help define the ultimate residual waste disposal
options available to that facility. These disposal options,
by virtue of regulatory and environmental, social, and economic
constraints, will then have restrictions as to the quantity and
quality of residual wastes they can accept. By a comparison of
the disposal method's qualities and quantities of residual wastes
they can handle with the known values from the wastewater treat-
ment facility, the facility can either utilize the disposal methods
available or further treat and transform the residual wastes
to qualities and quantities amenable to the available disposal
methods.
The second situation (pathway) is essentially the reverse
process. A planning area will have acceptable ultimate disposal
methods, again constrained in quantities and qualities which they
can handle by virtue of regulations and environmental, social, and
economic factors, acceptable for use in the area. The choice of
the type of wastewater facility will then be influenced by comparing
predicted quantities and qualities of residual wastes from a
variety of treatment processes to those of the acceptable and
available ultimate disposal methods. In this case, the quantities
and qualities of residual wastes from various wastewater treat-
ment processes can be modified by both raw wastewater modification,
-10-
-------
FIGURE HI-I
OPERATIVE AND ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
OF RESIDUAL WASTES'
A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE
(MVEN A RAM WASTEWATER ANO NEE0
FOR ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF RESIDUAL WASTE
REJECT FACILITY
ACCEPT FACILITY
RAW WASTEWATER F" —
MASTEVftTER TREATMBff
FACILITY
mm
tUANSFORM
.J
INSTITUTION At
CONSTRAINT*
MtlDUAL «A»TE
ULTIMATE
MCTNW
L_E
ENVIRONMENTAL,
SOCI AC,
ECONOMIC,
CONVTftAMTV
REJECT
I
OIVCN CONSTRAWTS
- AND NEED FOR A
TREATMENT
ACCErt.
DISPOSAL
METHOO
. MTNMMV POII A PLANNED PUTURf «AtE* OR WMTCWffEft
TREATMENT PAOUTV WlTHM «IVEN CONfTftAWTS.
PATMMT POR All EXISTINS MATE* Oft VASTEWkTI*
TRIATMENT PAC&.ITV fNTMM SIVCN CONSTRANftlb
SOURCE: RtfsrtnotDl-l Modified to Reflect situation in I&ioxvilleA^vox County
-11-
-------
such as industrial pretreatment and sewer infiltration and inflow
controls, and by residual waste treatment and transformation proces-
ses.
The evaluative proceso J^cribed above would be the same,
although more complex, where more than one wastewater treatment
facility either exists or is planned. However, the potential for
economies of scale will require that combined treatment processes,
both for wastewater and residual wastes, be investigated to insure
a cost-effective plan as well as a plan that could provide for the
resource recovery, recycling, and utilization .encouraged in the
Act.
STUDY APPROACH
The Methodology pathway (approach) used in the Knoxville-Knox
County case study is not constrained by existing/proposed quantities
and qualities of sludge. This approach corresponds to the second
situation described in the previous section. The study approach
and report organization derived from following the pathway in
Figure III-l are shown in Figure III-2.
As shown in Figure III-2, the study initially has three
independent processes occurring concurrently: 1) generation of
the raw-sludge forecast; 2) characterization of the study area;
and 3) delineation of the ultimate disposal options. The first
intersection of processes occurs in the feasibility analysis of
ultimate disposal options in which the study area constraints
(derived from the study area characterization) and the general
siting/suitability criteria for the ultimate disposal options are
compared and evaluated. Subsequently, the feasible disposal options
and the required sludge conditions (i.e., digested, de-watered, etc.)
are identified. A sludge management plan for the study area is
then developed for each feasible disposal option incorporating
the raw-sludge forecast and the required sludge condition (i.e.,
solids handling system). In the last step of the approach, each
alternative sludge management plan is evaluated according to the
criteria delineated in Chapter VII of the Methodology (i.e.,
economic, environmental, performance, and feasibility parameters),
The general data requirements and the data sources utilized to
meet them are presented in Table III-l.
The approach taken during this study and as depicted in Figure
IH-2 is a possible approach that may be taken by the 208
planning agencies. Existing ana/or proposed wastewater treat-
ment plants generally have either poor records of existing
quantities and qualities of sludge or insufficient and unavailable
-12-
-------
STUDY APROACH TO DEVELOPING AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR KNOXVILLE-KNOX COUNTY CASE STUDY
EXISTING/PROPOSED
STP'S (locations)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REQUIREMENTS
POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
RAW-SLUDGE FORECAST
(quantitiM, distribution)
CHAPTER V *
DEVELOPMENT OF
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
I
EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
CHAPTER VII
* Report chapter in which enclosed
steps are presented.
I
CHARACTERIZATION OF
STUDY AREA NATURAL
AND CULTURAL SETTINGS
(onvironnwntal a socioseonomicol
voluss)
CHAPTER IV
F
l|
I
DELINEATION OF ULTIMATE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
SITING/SUITABILITY
CRITERIA
STUDY AREA
CONSTRAINTS
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
OPTIONS
ALTERNATIVE FEASIBLE
DISPOSAL OPTIONS
I FEDERAL/STATE REGULATIONS
(sluoos conditions)
CHAPTER VI
5
l
ro
-------
TABLE III-l
DATA REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCES FOR KNOXVILLE-
KNOX COUNTY CASE STUDY
DATA REQUIRED DATA SOURCE
Existing/Proposed STP's 201 facilities plan (draft), MFC,
utility districts, Wastewater
Control System (City of Knoxville)
Population Projections 201 facilities plan (draft), MFC
Wastewater Treatment Requirements 201 facilities plan (draft),
utility districts, EPA Regional
Office
Study Area Characteristics 303(e) planning reports, 201
(e.g., geology, land use, etc.) facilities plan (draft), MFC and
TVA reports, Tennessee Department
of Conservation, miscellaneous
maps and reports from Federal,
regional, and educational
institutions
Ultimate Sludge Disposal Options/ Methodology (Chapter VI), MFC,
Siting Criteria/Costs TVA
Federal, State Sludge Disposal Methodology (Chapter VI),
Regulations Tennessee State Agencies (Air,
Water, Public Health);.
Alternative Solids Handling Methodology (Chapter IV and VIII)
Systems/Costs
Transportation Costs Methodology (Chapter V)
Evaluation Criteria Methodology (Chapter VII)
information in 201 Facilities Plans for proposed plants. Many 208
agencies will be faced, as was the case in this study, with in-
complete or on-going facilities planning programs and, thus, will
be required to generate sludge quantities and qualities utilizing
initially local information, if available, and secondly the
-14-
-------
Methodology. The data sources utilized during this study (see
Table III-l) would therefore also be the same types of sources
other 208 planning agencies would use in the development of
sludge management plans.
-15-
-------
CHAPTER III
REFERENCES
III-l Sludge Processing, Transportation, and Disposal/
Resource Recovery: A Planning Perspective, Wyatt, J.M. ,
and White, P.E., Jr., Engineering-Science, Inc., EPA
Contract No. 68-01-3104 (April 1975).
-16-
-------
CHAPTER IV
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE KNOXVILLE-KNOX COUNTY AREA
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of this chapter is to provide background
data on the Knoxville-Knox County Study Area used in developing
and evaluating municipal wastewater sludge disposal alternatives.
Because this is a case study which will be read by persons unfamiliar
with the Study Area, it is deemed necessary to include such a pre-
sentation of general background information as an aid in understand-
ing the tailoring of the Methodology to the Knoxville-Knox County
area.
The following sections are intended to provide brief but com-
prehensive pictures of the Study Area. The pictures to be described
are the natural and cultural systems or settings. An understanding
of these systems should guarantee both protection of existing and
future environmental and cultural values in the region and a minimum
cost for a sludge management system. Ignoring any or all of these
systems might result in sludge disposal methods that impair existing
and/or future uses of air, land, and water resources and lead to
costly corrective or containment actions.
The natural setting includes discussions of the physiography,
the geology, climatology, hydrology, soils, and other physical
characteristics which provide a basis for evaluating the environmental
suitability of the Study Area for various types of sludge management
options and the probable environmental impact. The cultural setting
describes the evolution of socioeconomic development in the Study
Area and the projected level, type, and distribution of future
development. This is important in delineating future sludge
quantities and in locating possible sludge management facilities,
particularly those having large land requirements. Included in the
cultural setting is a discussion of the institutional framework
(as related to wastewater sludge management) which attempts to
evaluate the legal, administrative, and technical capabilities of
existing agencies. Such knowledge is important for assigning
agency responsibility when developing sludge management alternatives
for consideration. Finally,a discussion of the legal setting high-
lights the existing laws under which a residual waste management
agency might finance, administer, implement, and enforce a
recommended management plan.
-17-
-------
NATURAL SETTING
The natural processes dominant in the Study Area are perhaps
most easily described within the context of the physiographic
region. Physiographic regions are generally defined as contiguous
areas having similar geologic structure and climate that have
evolved the same general land forms. Inherent in this definition
is the understanding that it is the interaction between geology and
climate which defines the drainage pattern of streams and rivers;
the topography, types and locations of soils, vegetation, and wild-
life; and the distribution of ground water. These latter character-
istics are directly related to the inherent environmental suitability
of the region for the various sludge disposal methods.
The Study Area physiography is also dependent in certain areas
on the reaction of the underlying carbonate rocks (i.e., limestone
and dolomite) with the existing humid temperate climate. Carbonate
and calcareous rocks are susceptible to solvation, particularly
along fractures and bedding planes. Over -long periods of time,
the subsurface solution features begin to greatly affect landforms,
surface drainage, and groundwater availability. Regions in which
large-scale solution occurs are known as "karst" regions. Within
the Study Area there are many areas in which karst features (Figure
IV-1) are abundant along with the unique problems associated with
such areas (e.g., flooding, subsidence, etc.).
The Study Area lies entirely within the Valley and Ridge
physiographic province. The Valley and Ridge province is a narrow
belt of faulted and folded rocks of Paleozoic age, extending 1200
miles (1931 kilometers) from central Alabama to the St. Lawrence
Valley. The region is characterized by parallel ridges and valleys
which are only occasionally broken by wind and water gaps. The
Valley and Ridge province in Tennessee is bounded on the west by
the Appalachian Plateau province, a low chain of folded mountains,
and on the east by the Blue Ridge province, a belt of mountains
composed primarily of metamorphic rocks.
Geology
The rocks of the Valley and Ridge province were originally
deposited on the margins of the interior Paleozoic sea, the sediment
originating from the erosion of highlands to the southeast and
northwest. During or after their deposition, the Appalachian revolu-
tion (i.e., mountain-building period) occurred which folded and
faulted the 30,000 to 40,000 feet (9100 to 12,000 meters) of strati-
fied rock and sediment causing a substantial decrease in the basin
width. The compression of these rocks resulted in parallel bands
of rock extending in a southwest-to-northeast direction.
-18-
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
CARBONATE BEDROCK AND KARST AREAS
Carbonate Rock
Sinkhole Area
o
c
;o
m
SOURCE: Reference IV-16
-------
The geologic formations present in the Study Area are primarily
limestones, dolomites, calcareous and sandy shales, and sandstones
of early Paleozoic age. Carbonate rocks underlie approximately 55
percent of the land surface with shales and sandstones underlying
40 and five percent, respectively. These formations are generally
covered by a mantle of residual soil, mostly clay, which varies
in thickness up to 150 feet (46 meters) (Ref. IV-1). The residual
soil or regolith is a product of the weathering of the underlying
bedrock and is of a much more recent age. Alluvial deposits of
gravel, sand, and clay of very recent origin have been deposited
along floodplains and terraces.
Climate and Air Quality
The climate of the Study Area is apparently moderated to a
great extent by the adjacent Cumberland Plateau (a division of the
Appalachian Plateau) and the Blue Ridge provinces. The Cumberland
Plateau to the west has a rain-shadow effect on the Valley and Ridge
province causing annual precipitation to be 10 inches (25.4 cm) less
in the Study Area than that of the plateau region. The Cumberland
Plateau also acts to reduce the impacts of winter and cold fronts.
The Blue Ridge province to the east tends to divert hot summer
winds from high-pressure systems off the South Atlantic Coast.
Precipitation in the Study Area averages about 48 inches
(122 cm) annually including about 12 inches (30 cm) of snow.
Rainfall is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year with the
least rainfall occurring in September and October. The frost-free
period for the area is 215 to 220 days.
January through March is considered the winter season with
winds predominately from the west and southwest, these wind
directions also occurring during the spring season. The wind
speeds during these months (January-June) rarely fall below five
miles per hour [.224 centimeters per second (cms)]. In summer
months the wind speeds are at their lowest, with speeds below five
miles per hour (224 cms) occurring thirty percent of the time.
During the fall (October through December), the winds are more
directional than any other season, with speeds lower than five
miles per hour (224 cms) from the northwest occurring 33 percent
of the time (Ref. IV-2).
"In addition to seasonal fluctuations in wind speed and
direction, there exists pronounced diurnal fluctuations in the
wind. Daytime winds generally have a southwesterly component,
while nightime winds tend to be from the northeast" (Ref. IV-2).
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.12(e) published in the Federal
Register of June 18, 1973, states are to identify those areas which
-20-
-------
have the potential for exceeding any National Ambient Air Quality
Standards between 1975 and 1985. The identified areas are to be
known as Air Quality Maintenance Areas (AQMA's). Rnoxville-Knox
County was not designated as an AQMA. Within the Knoxville Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), the projected particulate
emissions (including Anderson, Blount, Union, and Knox County) for
1975 are 21,541 tons per year (19,542 metric tons per year) and
for 1985, they are projected to be 28,788 tons per year (26,166
metric tons per year) (Ref. IV-3). Pertinent Federal, State, and
local air pollution standards and air quality data for Knoxville
(1974) may be found in Appendix A.
Topography
The Study Area topography is classified as Open Hills surface
type in the Appalachian Rough Lands Subdivision (Ref. IV-4). This
type of topography is characterized by 20-50 percent of the land
being in gentle slopes with over 75 percent of the gentle slopes
being in lowland areas (Figure IV-2). Local relief ranges from
300-500 feet (91-152 meters).
The land surface comprises a series of narrow subparallel
valleys and ridges oriented approximately N 55°E. These are a
result of the folded and faulted nature of the underlying geologic
formations which vary in their ability to resist weathering erosion.
In general, the ridges are comprised of resistant cherty limestones
and dolomites and sandstones, while the valleys are underlain by
soluble carbonate rocks or shales which are easily weathered and
eroded. Relief between valley floors and ridge crests is between
180-400 feet (55-122 meters), decreasing slightly from northeast to
southwest.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The principle rivers draining the Study Area are the Clinch,
French Broad, and the Holston Rivers. The latter two join at
Knoxville to form the Tennessee. The northwestern third of the
area is drained to the Clinch River (Melton Hill Lake) by Bullrun
and Beaver Creeks. The remainder of the area is drained to the
Holston and French Broad Rivers and, from Knoxville downstream, to
the Tennessee River (Fort Loudoun Lake) by many small streams
(Figure IV-3.).
The mean flow of the Tennessee River at Knoxville is 12,850 cfs
(21,845 cu m/min) of which the Holston and French Broad contribute
35 and 65 percent, respectively. The flow of the Holston River
is controlled by Cherokee Dam, 52 miles (84 kilometers) upstream of
Knoxville, and that of the French Broad by Douglas Dam, 32 miles
(51 kilometers) upstream.
-21-
-------
K)
fO
I
036
I . . I . . I
SCALE IN MILES
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
PERCENT SLOPE MAP
0-3% Slope
3-9% Slope
> 9% Slope
o
v
m
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. Topographic Maps
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
SURFACE HYDROLOGY
S3
u>
HOUSTON
RIVER
FRENCH BROAD
Drainage Basins
i
m
01
-------
Major flooding of the Tennessee, Holston, and French Broad
Rivers in the Study Area has not occurred since the construction
of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) impoundments upstream and down-
stream. However, studies conducted by TVA indicate that such flood-
ing is possible in the future under certain storm conditions (Ref.
IV-5) . Flooding is possible on many of the sinaj.j.er tributary streams
under many winter storm and thunderstorm conditions. Figure IV-4
shows those areas most prone to flooding and includes sinkhole
areas (karst features) which, because of their importance in local
drainage, could under certain circumstances contribute to flooding.
Annual runoff in Knox County averages about 19 inches (48 cm)
with 7-9 inches (18-23 cm) passing through the groundwater system
before discharging to streams. Evapotranspiration processes return
the remaining 29 inches (74 cm) of annual precipitation to the
atmosphere (Ref. IV-6).
The occurrence of ground water in the Study Area is controlled
by fractures in the underlying rocks. These rocks have little pri-
mary porosity and permeability, but fracturing due to folding and
faulting and solvation along bedding planes have created a secondary
porosity and permeability. In carbonate and calcareous rocks the
fractures are enlarged by percolating ground water which dissolves
calcium carbonate from the rock. The area of active solvation with-
in carbonate rocks is generally within 300 feet (91 meters) of the
land surface. Below this depth fractures are small and precipita-
tion of dissolved calcium carbonate occurs which decreases the
secondary porosity and permeability (Ref. IV-1).
There is no area-wide aquifer underlying the Study Area which
will yield predictable, large supplies of ground water to wells.
In general, areas underlain by carbonate rocks have the most ground-
water storage and areas underlain by shale and sandstone the least.
Much of the groundwater storage in carbonate rock areas is in the
residual soil overlying the bedrock, which can be as much as 150
feet (46 meters) thick. However, the permeability of this material
is low causing it to act as a recharge reservoir for the bedrock
system. The bedrock system has limited storage but high transmission
capacities along fractures and bedding planes. The yield of springs
or wells in these areas is dependent on the number and extent of
fracture systems intercepted.
Domestic supplies of ground water [5-10 gallons per minute
(gpra)] [0.32-0.63 liters per second (I/sec)] are available to
wells in virtually all parts of the Study Area. Well yields sub-
stantially greater than that required for domestic purposes occur
much less frequently for the reasons stated above.
-24-
-------
i
ts)
Ui
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
FLOOD-PRONE AREAS
Area Of Maximum Probable Flooding
Area Flood-Prone Because It
Contains Abundant Sinkholes
SOURCE. Reference IV-5
-------
A review of the 303(e) plans developed for the Study Area
indicates that the majority of municipal and industrial dischargers
of concern in this study are located on water-quality-limiting
stream segments (Ref. IV-6, IV-7, IV-8, and IV-9). In addition
the 303(e) plans all assumed that "by 1980 all persons living with-
in an urbanized area will be served by a waste treatment facility"
(Refs. IV-7, IV-8, and IV-9). Knoxville-Knox County SMSA and, in
particular, the Study Area for this report being essentially in
urban character (Ref. IV-10), it was assumed (see also Chapter V)
that the population within the Study Area will be sewered and the
wastewater treatment facilities will meet, at the minimum, discharge
standards promulgated to ensure compliance with stream standards for
water-quality-limiting segments.
In accordance with the Water Quality Control Act of 1971,
Chapter 164 Public Acts of 1971 as Amended, Sections 70-324 through
70-342, Tennessee Code Annotated, the Tennessee Water Quality Control
Board and the Division of Water Quality Control are seeking the
achievement of water quality conditions necessary to meet all the
reasonable and necessary water needs of the people of the basin and
to provide the greatest possible net benefit to the region.
As a part of the overall water quality goal, specific water
quality criteria have been established for all streams within the
State of Tennessee. The "General Water Quality Criteria for the
Definition and Control of Pollution in the Waters of Tennessee"
were adopted on May 26, 1967 by the Tennessee Stream Pollution
Control Board and were amended and readopted on October 26, 1971
by the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board with subsequent
amendments on December 14, 1971, and October 30, 1973. This Board
succeeded and replaced the Tennessee Stream Pollution Control
Board as required by the Water Quality Control Act of 1971.
The Water Quality Criteria vary according to each of seven
recognized reasonable and necessary water uses: domestic raw water
supply, industrial water supply, fish and aquatic life, recreation,
irrigation, livestock watering and wildlife, and navigation. The
Water Quality Criteria are given in Appendix B. Tennessee's
Water Quality Standards have been approved by the Water Quality
Office of EPA (Refs. IV-7, IV-8, and IV-9).
Soils
There are 60 kinds of soil represented in the Study Area
(Ref. IV-11). These soils vary greatly in their characteristics
which are dependent to a great extent on parent material, relief,
and time, and to a lesser extent, on climate and living organisms.
In general, the most developed and thickest soils occur in the
-26-
-------
valleys where the rate of erosion is least and, consequently, the
time for soil development the greatest. The parent material in
the valley areas is chiefly residuum (the clay and silt remaining
after solution of the underlying carbonate rocks) with some over-
lying alluvial (stream) and colluvial (gravity slope) deposits.
The soils formed in the residuum are generally poorly-drained with
low to moderate fertility. Those soils formed in the alluvium
and colluvium are well-drained and highly fertile. The alluvial
and colluvial soils are the prime agricultural soils in the Study
Area; the residuum soils being more suited for hay and pasture.
The locations of these soils in the Study Area are shown in Figure
IV-5.
The soils formed near and along the ridges are generally thin,
poorly developed, and infertile. This is primarily due to the
higher rate of erosion in these steep-sloped regions which removes
the soil almost as fast as it is produced.
Flora/Fauna
Information characterizing the flora and fauna of the Study
Area was not found during the course of this study in detail
sufficient for use in the Methodology. The existing floral and
faunal systems generally found in the Valley and Ridge province
today are primarily those of oak forest (Ref. IV-11). In uncut
areas, red and white oak predominate on intermediate slopes and
chestnut oak on higher rocky slopes and crests. The valley areas
are predominately white and red oak with hickories and tulip
poplars. Some of the valley areas might have been natural prairie
at one time. The wildlife associated with such vegetated areas
would include numerous varieties of birds and small mammals,
including deer, fox, raccoon, and oppossum.
Mineral Resources
The mineral resources of the Study Area are related primarily
to the carbonate rocks. Carbonate rocks are important as sources
of crushed stoae, agricultural limestone, lime, cement, and dimen-
sion stone. Carbonate rocks near the town of Mascot are the host
for zinc deposits which are mined primarily as sphalerite concentrates.
Shale is also quarried for brick and lightweight aggregate manu-
facture. The locations of active quarries and mines are shown in
Figure IV-6. On a regional basis, the Study Area is located only
several tens of miles east of extensive coal strip-mining operations
which could provide feasible reclamation alternatives for sludge
disposal.
CULTURAL SETTING
. Just as it is unwise to plan sludge disposal management
ignorant of the natural setting, so is it equally unwise to develop
-27-
-------
i
ro
co
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
PRIME AND SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL SOIL AREAS
V
?. . f. .1
SCALE IN MILES
J±.^
C I ,
»
i
*r
Prime Agricultural
Secondary Agricultural
3
CD
SOURCE: Reference IV-II
-------
o
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
MINERAL RESOURCES
LEGEND
x Active Quarry Or Mine
• Prospect
© Mill Or Plant
Zn Zinc
L Lime
LS Limestone
M Marble
C Cement
CSS Crushed Sandstone
sh Shale
B Brick
Pb Lead
SG Sand And Grovel
LA Light Aggregate
SOURCE: Reference IV-17
-------
and evaluate disposal alternatives without considering the exist-
ing and projected cultural setting and values. Sludge disposal
alternatives compete with other public and private interests
for economic and environmental resources, whether it be for space
in a sanitary landfill or the money for building and operating an
incinerator. The following sections are intended to present in
brief form the cultural setting as it exists now and, possibly
more important, what it is desired/projected to be.
Evolution of the Knoxvi^l_le-Knox County Area
The primary driving force in the socioeconimic development of
the Study Area has been its location at the navigable headwaters
of the Tennessee River. This natural access to cheap bulk trans-
portation has led to a concentration of wholesale, retail, banking,
transportation, and manufacturing services, (primarily located in
and adjacent to Knoxville) which serve eastern Tennessee and parts
of Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina. With its evolution
from an area primarily devoted to developing local agricultural,
forest, and mineral resources to one of providing regional services
(not dependent, to any great extent, upon local natural resources),
a different set of environmental needs and values related to urban-
ization developed within the Study Area.
Initially, the urbanization process occurred north of and
adjacent to the upper Tennessee River in what is now the central
core of Knoxville. Urban development through the 1950's occurred in
areas adjacent to past development with the steep ridge areas left
undeveloped. Post-1960 development occurred in rural areas several
miles from the city limits primarily as medium and low density
residential developments. This recent development has led Lo
environmental quality problems related to the use of septic tank
disposal in clay and/or thin soil areas (i.e., groundwater pollution,
drainfield seepage, etc.). In addition, suburban development has
resulted in competition for prime agricultural land which in many
cases is susceptible to flooding (Figures 1V-4 and IV-5).
Critical to its function as a regional center, transportation
networks of all types are available within the Knoxville-Knox County
area. Highway accessibility has been increased with the completion
of Interstate Highways 40, 75, and 81. Local and surrounding
area traffic is handled by several additional Federal and State
highways. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad and the Southern
Railroad operate rail freight facilities in Knoxville providing
rail service in virtually all directions. The Tennessee River is
presently navigable from Knoxville to its confluence with the
Ohio River.
The economy of the Study Area is diversified with manufacturing
the largest single employment category. Trades, government, and
-30-
-------
services are also significant economic factors. The agricultural
economy is characterized by numerous small farms [about 1800 farms
with an average size of 73 acres (30 hectares) in 1969] with a
long-term decreasing trend in the number of farms and the acreage
fanned (Refs. IV-7, IV-8, and IV-9).
The population of the Study Area has grown from 74,000 in 1900
to 276,000 in 1970. The growth rate per decade has been fairly
constant. A current population estimate made by the Metropolitan
Planning Commission (MFC) in July, 1974 is 303,379 of which 59
percent live within the city limits of Knoxville. Figure V-4
shows the distribution of the estimated 1975 and 1995 populations
per drainage area. Primary population centers outside Knoxville
are to the north, west, and southwest of the city limits.
The existing land use (Figure IV-7) for the Study Area outside
Knoxville has major residential developments west and north of the
city limits adjacent to major highways. Industrial areas are located
primarily within Knoxville and adjacent to railroad lines. Pre-1960
development, particularly residential, occurred in a ring-like
pattern centered around the central core-area of Knoxville. Post-
1960 residential and industrial development has occurred in a much
more dispersed manner. Many medium and low density residential
projects and large commerical and office parks have been built in
formerly rural areas, particularly in west Knox County. The
northern portion of Knox County has had additional suburban
residential development on a smaller scale. East Knox County has
not experienced much development since 1960 with the exception of
the Forks-of-the-River industrial area. Recent development in
southern Knox County has been limited to some low density residential
developments.
The 1990 General Plan for Knoxville-Knox County
The primary goal of the 1990 General Plan for the Study Area
as delineated by the MFC is to provide the greatest number of people
with public services and facilities on a cost-effective basis. This
is most easily accomplished by filling in currently sparsely populated
areas with future new development. Figure IV-8 snows the 1990
land use plan which, when compared to the existing land use map
(Figure IV-7), reveals several assumptions/desires of the MPC in
regard to the future development of the area:
"Most of the urbanized areas will remain in their present
uses and character, except where urban renewal or other
similar programs can change the economic equation suffi-
ciently to allow redevelopment.
The major elements of the transportation system will
remain essentially intact.
Location of additional development will be greatly
influenced by topography and transportation corridors.
-31-
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
EXISTING LAND USE
Recreotionol
] Urban/Suburtxin Residential
F"^ •-- -- •- •~~^~
Industrial
5
I
SOURCE: Knoxvilie-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission
-------
i
u>
UJ
I
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
1990 LAND USE PLAN
Recreational
Urban/Suburban Residential
Industrial
33
rn
i
ao
SOURCE: Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission
-------
Some manufacturing uses will be located outside of the
city with regional services and distribution facilities
concentrated within the city." (Ref. IV-13).
In addition to allowing for more extensive and cost-effective
public services, increasing the density of development would
preserve land for other uses such as agriculture and recreation.
Population projections (Figure V-4) indicate three general
areas within the Study Area which are expected to absorb most of
the new development through 1990. West Knox County is expected
to accommodate the greatest amount of development. North and
south Knox County are expected to absorb the bulk of the remaining
development potential with new development in north Knox County
being a greater certainty.
Institutional Characterization
Another important parameter to be considered in the general
feasibility of a sludge management alternative is the number of
implementation alternatives practically available in the Study
Area. It would show poor foresight to develop disposal alternatives
which are compatible with the environment and the projected land
uses of an area but infeasible to implement for political or
financial reasons. And, although there are a large number of
possible financial, operational, and political alternatives, only
a limited number would apply to any given area. The following
discussion is intended to delineate the existing wastewater
agencies operating in the Study Area and their financial, legal,
and administrative capabilities, and assess the institutional
possibilities for various types of disposal alternatives.
Currently several wastewater management agencies are operating
within the Study Area. The largest such agency is the Public
Service Department of the City of Knoxville which services about
70 percent of the city population. Three utility districts
(autonomous service areas created within the county) provide sewer
and treatment services to certain developing communities in Knox
County. In addition, Knox County owns and operates an industrial
park wastewater treatment facility at Forks-of-the-River.
The Public Service Department (PSD) has been responsible for
the sanitary sewer system and treatment facilities in the City of
Knoxville since 1923. The division of the Department currently
responsible for the day-to-day operation of these facilities is
the Wastewater Control System, established in 1953. Policy
decisions for the sanitary system are made at the Department level.
The Department has all the legal powers necessary to perform its
-34-
-------
functions (which would include sludge disposal) as provided in the
Tennessee Annotated Code and Knoxville city charter (Ref. IV-10).
Among its legal prerogatives are the ability to enter into contracts
with other municipalities or private corporations outside its juris-
diction in order to provide adequate service and the power of eminent
domain, which under certain circumstances can extend beyond the
corporate limits of the city. The Department has the power to issue
general obligation bonds and can determine sewer rates (subject to
City Council approval). It has received Federal and State funds in
the past and, owing to inadequate and malfunctioning treatment plants,
is ranked high on the priority list for Federal funding. Revenues to
repay bonded indebtedness and system operating costs are generated
through user charges, improvement fees, and industrial surcharges.
If these revenues are not enough to meet expenses, funds can be
obtained from the general tax fund of the city, although this has
never been required in the past. Because city taxes guarantee the
bonds, the Department has an "A" bond rating. The Department has
an established record for providing diverse public services and
would have some of the technical expertise in-house required to
design and operate a sludge management program.
The three utility districts providing sewer service and treat-
ment to areas of Knox County are West Knox, Hallsdale-Powell, and
First Utility (Figure V-2) . The sewered populations served by
these districts are small although they are expected to increase
substantially in the future (see previous section Hydrology and
Water Quality). In the past, the utility districts have operated
relatively autonomously, although they are participating in recent
"201" and "208" planning. Two of the utility districts are currently
coordinating with the PSD in order to sewer parts of their districts
to the city system. Utility districts do not have the power to
levy taxes and must rely on revenue bonds, short-term loans, and
Federal assistance for financing capital improvements. Because of
their snuill size and inability to tax, utility district bond ratings
are low (BBB or less) which means high interest rates. Utility
districts do have most of the other legal powers given to municipali-
ties, such as eminent domain and entering into contracts as stated
in the Utility District Act of 1937 of the State of Tennessee
(Ref. IV-10). The technical and administrative capabilities of
the districts are limited, such services being normally provided
by outside consultants.
Knox County has only recently (1967) provided sewer service
and treatment with the Forks-of-the-River industrial park facility.
Traditionally, most counties in Tennessee have avoided providing
such services, hence the creation of the utility districts. This
has been in accordance with legislative and constitutional limita-
tions upon the power and nature of county government. In 1961,
however, a public act of the legislature specifically gave the
-35-
-------
counties the right to provide certain urban services including
sanitary sewer service (Tennessee Code Annotated, Sec. 3-1612).
There are tentative indications that the County is evolving a more
responsible County-wide awareness which could lead to greater
County participation in services and planning in the future. For
example, the Knox County Court, in 1971, created the Knox County
Environmental Commission with a goal of bringing County-wide
water services, sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal under a
single agency (presumably the County). Currently the county is
limited in its ability to administer any of these functions.
Although it has MFC to perform technical planning duties, the
County does not have a large technical staff available.
From an institutional perspective, then, the Study Area can
be described as a large municipal agency (PSD) surrounded by
several small utility districts within a county matrix. Tradi-
tionally, these agencies have operated independently with little or
no interaction. In recent years, however, the PSD (City of Knox-
ville) and the First Utility and West Knox utility districts have
cooperated in providing sewer service to portions of west Knox
County, thus establishing a precedent for interagency cooperation.
At the same time, a metropolitan attitude has been evolving within
the Study Area via various civic groups, planning agencies, and
City and County officials. An initial step in this perspective
change is the growing awareness within Knox County of the need
for the County to participate more extensively in the provision
of public services and in the planning and direction of future
development. These functions could, however, be usurped by
individual developers and the utility districts which do not and
could not have an area-wide perspective or concern for their impacts
on County development. As a result two desirable but conflicting
institutional processes are evolving within the Study Area:
(1) greater interagency cooperation among existing agencies; and
(2) growing pressure for the County to enlarge its responsibilities
and participation in the future development of the area. The
latter increase in power by the County would be at the expense of
the utility districts.
From a sludge management perspective, the institutional setting
is currently limiting in regards to metropolitan-level solutions.
The utility districts can not be required to participate in a metro-
politan solution. The financial instability and inherent limited
financial capabilities of the utility districts (i.e., small size,
no taxation power) would almost certainly deter their participation
in an expensive^ but environmentally-and socially-sound alternative.
Moreover, it is conceivable that a utility district would become a
principal adversary in the implementation of a large land applica-
tion system within its jurisdiction, not necessarily for environ-
mental or cost reasons, but based on its need/desire to encourage
-36-
-------
residential development within its area in order to finance the
existing system and future improvements. As a result, a sludge
management alternative incorporating a metropolitan solution would
need to be both economically advantageous to a utility district
and noninterfering with regard to its development needs in order
to expect the utility districts cooperation.
LEGAL SETTING
The setting in which residual waste management [including both
solid waste and municipal wastewater treatment plant sludges, which
are considered a "special" solid waste (see following discussion
under The Solid Waste Disposal Act, TCA 53-4302 et seq.)] could be
addresses from a legal standpoint is also a concern in the planning
and management of any disposal or resource recovery plan. The
following information has been provided by the East Tennessee
Development District (ETDD) which covers 26 counties of east
Tennessee and 3 counties of north Georgia (Ref. IV-14).
In order to determine the available options for regional
waste management it is necessary to examine the laws of Tennessee
pertaining to solid waste, intergovernmental cooperation, and the
formation of other corporate and municipal type entities capable
of waste management. Solid waste collection and disposal is
covered under a number of different sections of the Tennessee
Code Annotated (TCA). The two most significant Acts which relate
to the institutional arrangements for a resource and energy
recovery system are the Garbage and Rubbish Collection and
Disposal S ervice_s__Act_, TCA 5-1901 et seq., which authorizes
governmental bodies and joint efforts of the same to collect
and dispose of solid wastes; and the Tennessee Solid Waste
Disposal Act, TCA 53-4302 et seq., which provides for grants to
governmental bodies to aid in the proper disposal of solid waste
and loans for the construction of resource and energy recovery
systems.
In addition to these Acts, the Utility District Act, TCA
6-2601 et seq.; the IndustrialJJevelopment Corporation Act,
TCA 6-2501 et seq.; and the Corporations laws at TCA 48 have
potential use in the development of management possibilities
for a resource and energy recovery system and related industrial
development. A brief discussion of each of these laws follows.
The Garbage and Rubbish Collection and Disposal Services Act
(TCA 5-1901 et seq.)
Under this Act, the counties of the State of Tennessee
are authorized to provide garbage and rubbish collection services
-37-
-------
and to provide disposal services to the entire county or to
special districts within the county. The Act contains an inter-
local agreement section which gives counties the option of enter-
ing into cooperative agreements for either the collection or the
disposal of solid waste. (TCA 5-1901). This section of the Act
is broad in that it allows counties to enter into such agreements
with other counties or with any other governmental unit or
agency, Federal, State, or local. It includes municipalities,
towns, utility districts, and improvement districts within the
County , and also allows contracting with private contractors
for collection and/or disposal, or any other entity which provides
either or both services.
The interlocal agreement section of the Garbage and Rubbish
Collection and Disposal Services Act specifically gives the
cooperative management entity the power to raise revenues in any
and all ways that the county can raise revenues, such as by
revenue bonds, by taxes levied in specific districts, by
combinations of revenue bonds and income from facilities operated
by the several jurisdictions, etc. For the purposes of the
institutional arrangements of a resource recovery facility in the
Study area, this section could be used to form either one entity
to oversee the entire operation or groups of cooperative entities
to construct and manage transfer stations, to operate regional
sanitary landfills, and to coordinate collection.
The interlocal agreement section of the Act would give a
stronger basis for such cooperative efforts than would the
Interlocal Cooperation Act. TCA 12-801 et seq. The Interlocal
Cooperation Act is vague about power to raise revenues for the
operation of a cooperative effort. This vagueness could result
in delays while an agency formed under it is tested in court action.
The Des Moines Solid Waste Agency was formed under an Interlocal
Agreement Act very similar to that of the Tennessee Code Annotated,
and the Supreme Court of Iowa found that additional legislation
would be required to give that agency the power to raise revenues
(Goreham V. Des Moines, 188 NW 2nd 860).
At least two possible arrangements exist and would be work-
able under TCA 5-1901 et seq. (1) The local government could
contract with the provider of the recovery facility on an individual
basis for disposal of solid waste. Where the amount of waste
generated by a specific local government is insufficient to make
the transportation from that county alone economically feasible,
a cooperative unit of several local governments could be formed.
That unit could contract in turn with TVA, the City of Knoxville,
or any other provider of a resource/energy recovery facility
for disposal of solid waste. (2) Another possibility would be
for the entire Study Area to form an agency for the construction
-38-
-------
and management of transfer stations necessary to store and prepare
waste for transportation to a resource/energy recovery facility,
and for the acquisition and management of regional sanitary land-
fills for waste unsuitable for recovery and as alternative
disposal sites in the event of facility shutdown. (A private
corportation could also participate at any of the stages of the
operation; that is, it could do the collection, construct and
manage the transfer facilities, handle the transportation, or
construct and operate the recovery facility.)
Solid Waste Disposal Act, (TCA 53-4302 et seq.)
This Act as amended in 1974 will also be very beneficial
in developing the institutional arrangements for a solid waste
system with resource/energy recovery. Grants of up to one
dollar ($1.00) per capita are available from the State for each
incorporated city or town or for each county to be used in
operating and maintaining state approved disposal facilities.
Cooperative efforts are encouraged as part of the specific
legislative intent of the grant section of TCA 53-4302 et seq.
"It is the further intent of this section to reduce the number
of these optimum feasible solid waste disposal facilities or
systems to the absolute minimum by vesting in the department
(of Health) the authority to insist upon maximum cooperation
among local instrumentalities as a prerequisite to receiving
these special minimum-level grants" (TCA 53-4318).
The grant funds are available for the purposes of "Acquiring,
establishing, constructing, altering or operating solid waste
disposal facilities or systems or for the purpose of purchasing
equipment therefor, or for the service of debt incurred therefor"
(TCA 53-4317). These funds may be provided either directly to the
cities, towns, and counties involved or they may be provided by
contract with one or more other political subdivisions of the
State as authorized by the Interlocal Agreement Act. They
may also go to an approved private solid waste disposal system
or facility that is certified as eligible by the Department
of Health.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act also gives the Tennessee
Department of Public Health authority to approve grants and loans
from the Federal government or other sources to local governments
(TCA 53-4309).
-39-
-------
The 1974 amendment to the Act provides for resource/energy
recovery facility loans from the State. (TCA 53-4322 et seq.).
This section provides that the "State of Tennessee is hereby
authorized to make loans to any municipal corporation or county
for the construction of energy recovery facilities and/or solid
waste resource recovery facilities. Such loans shall be made
from the proceeds of State bond sales authorized pursuant to
implementing acts of the State of Tennessee" (TCA 53-4323).
Limits of indebtedness imposed by other laws of the State are
not applicable to loans under this Act (TCA 53-4336).
Loans under this section of the Act can be supplementary
to grants made under the other provisions of the Act. Loans are
available to special districts of the State empowered to provide
solid waste disposal service as well as to municipal corporations
and countiesi
Pertinent sections of the regulations governing solid waste
processing and disposal in Tennessee may be found in Appendix D.
The Utility District Act. (TCA 6-2601 et seq.)
Solid waste collection and disposal are among the services
that can be performed by utility districts in Tennessee (TCA
6-2603). The potential for using utility districts for the
purpose of coordinating local governments in solid waste collec-
tion and disposal has not been adequately explored in Tennessee.
A factor that supports utility districts in waste management
is their ability to charge customers for actual services. This
would allow local governments to remove solid waste collection
and/or disposal from their ordinary expenses and actual costs
could be billed to the customer-user in the same manner as other
utilities are now billed.
The Urban Type Public Facilities Act, (TCA 5-1601 et seq.)
This Act used with the Interlocal Cooperation Act, supra,
created the Tellico Area Service System in Monroe and Loudon
Counties for development of the Tellico Area and the Timberlake
Community. It gives the system utility functions including the
incineration or other disposal of solid waste. However special
authorization is necessary for the addition of each new service.
It is limited to the two counties but could be expanded or
other counties could form similar service systems if necessary.
T-he Industrial Development Corporation Act. (TCA 6-2801 et seq.)
This Act provides for the issuance of bonds to raise revenue
-40-
-------
for industrial development. The revenues can fund nonprofit
corporations established to increase industry. Its purpose is
to develop job potential through industrialization. It also
seems to provide for loans to existing industry for acquisition
of pollution control devices necessary to meet State standards.
It might prove useful in developing resource recovery related
industry and in ultimately financing pollution control equipment
for a resource/energy recovery facility. Its use for the latter
appears somewhat dubious because of the lack of clarity of those
provisions of the Act.
Corporations, (TCA 48-102 et seq.)
The Corporation Act of the State of Tennessee has been
used at all stages of solid waste collection and disposal,
and corporations chartered by this State and others are engaged
in each area of activity at this time. Two landfills in the ETDD
area are owned and operated by private for-profit corporations.
Transfer stations are operated in conjunction with one of the
landfills. Collection is carried on by large numbers of
corporations in the grant area, ranging from the largest cor-
poration in the Nation involved in the solid waste industry,
Browning Ferris Industries, Inc., to small family corporations
operating one or two trucks for collection.
In Nashville, Tennessee, the Nashville Thermal Transfer
Corporation is chartered by the State of Tennessee as a not-for-
profit corporation whose purpose is to provide low-cost district
cooling and heating services for downtown Nashville. The Nashville
Electric Service and the Nashville Gas Company were initially
approached with the idea of providing a central heating and
cooling plant for the area, but because a referendum would have
been required to give them the authority to do this, the not-
for-profit corporation was formed so that the work on the system
could be begun within a necessary time frame.
The system proposed by I.C. Thomasson and Associates for
Knoxville (see also Chapter V) is similar in design to the
Nashville Thermal Transfer Facility. While it could be establish-
ed as a not-for-profit corporation, the proposal calls for it to
be owned by the city and financed through either revenue or
general obligation bonds.
Additional Legal Considerations
In additional to the laws discussed above and earlier sections
of this chapter (see Climate and Air Quality and Hydrology and
Water Quality), there are two legal considerations that impact
on sludge management for Knoxville-Knox County. Ordinance No.
5819 of the City of Knoxville, effective 8 November, 1974,
-41-
-------
established rules and regulations governing the wastewater control
system of the city. Normal domestic wastewater, as defined in
Article III of the ordinance is as follows:
"Normal Domestic Wastewater" shall be regarded as
"normal" for Knoxville. Normal domestic wastewater
shall contain a daily average of not more than 2,500
pounds (300 Milligrams per liter) of suspended
solids; not more than 2,000 pounds (240 Milligrams
per liter) of B.O.D.; and not more than 471 pounds
(50 Milligrams per liter) of grease and oil, each,
per million gallons.
Industrial discharges to the City sewer system must either pretreat
their wastes to domestic wastewater quality levels prior to
discharge or pay an extra strength surcharge (Articles IV, Section
8, Paragraph G-l and Article IV, Section 6, Paragraph C). In
addition, Article IV, Section 8, Paragraph H establishes waste-
water discharge criteria which include heavy metals such as
cadmium, iron, chromium, copper, zinc, and nickel.
As also noted in Chapter V of this study, it was assumed, due
to a lack of data, that future industrial discharges to the City
sewer system would be comparable, in terms of strength, to domestic
sewage. It should be pointed out that the present extra strength
surcharge rates appear both low in terms of dollars charged for
pounds in excess and lacking in ability to consider excess heavy
metals in the surcharge. Thus, the industries may not presently
have a sufficient economic incentive to provide pretreatment
facilities capable of heavy metal removal. If sludge disposal
options are selected which are sensitive to heavy metal inputs
(e.g., land application systems), the City may be required, for
operational concerns in these options, to provide stricter heavy
metals discharge standards and extra strength surcharges based
also upon heavy metals. This can be done by Article IV, Section
8, Paragraph H as cited below;
"No statement xn this ordinance is intended or may
be construed to prohibit the Director from establish-
ing specific wastewater discharge criteria more
restrictive where wastes are determined to be harmful
or destructive to the facilities of the Waste Water
Control System, or to create a public nuisance, or
to cause the discharge of any treatment facility
operated by the Waste Water Control System to violate
effluent or stream quality standards imposed or as
may be imposed by the Tennessee Department of Public
Health and/or the United States Environmental
-42-
-------
Protection Agency, or to exceed industrial effluent
standards for discharge to minicipal wastewater
treatment systems as imposed or as may be imposed
by the Tennessee Department of Public Health and/or
the United States Environmental Protection Agency."
Zoning ordinances for 'both the City of Knoxville and Knox
County provide restrictions as to the uses of various types of
lands within their respective boundaries. The existing and
proposed land maps for the Study Area as noted earlier in
this chapter were developed by MFC and considered the various
applicable zoning ordinances. The evaluation of potential
disposal options utilized these maps and thus, indirectly,
zoning ordinances (see Chapter VI, Table VI-2 of this report).
The issue of eminent domain (see under Institutional
Characterization) has been addressed in a recent publication
(Ref. IV-15). As noted in this publication, Article 1, Section
21 of the Tennessee Constitution allows the taking of private
property for public use only upon payment of just compensation
to the owner thereof. Just compensation is satisfied by the
payment of the fair market value of the property actually
taken. To determine the fair market value, the Circuit Courts
(under which jurisdiction over eminent domain proceedings is
vested by statute unless the Chancery Courts acquire jurisdiction
over a matter pecurlarly cognizable such as to assess damages
in a suit originally brought to avoid a contract or to reform
a deed) must assess all available uses and capacities to which
the property is adaptable and all the available uses to which
it might be applied given its size, zoning, location, and
condition.
If only partial taking of a landowner's tract is involved,
the landowner is entitled to recover the fair market value of
the property actually taken, to which will be added by statute
(TCA, Title 23, Sections 1414 and 1537), damages incidentally
done to the residue by reason of the taking, less the value of
any benefits accruing thereto by reasons of the proposed improve-
ment. By definition, incidental damages to the residue are
allowable only to a property owner some part of whose land
was actually taken, and do not cover compensation for ajoining
or abutting owners no part of whose land is actually taken for
the improvement. The following have been held compensable as
incidental damage to the residue of property taken: noise, soot,
and inconvenience created by the operation of a railroad;
obstruction of view by a highway embankment within the right-
of-way; change of grade in a municipal street, reasonable
apprehension of danger from inherent and unavoidable defects in
-43-
-------
the improvement; and loss of access to abutting street. In
addition, reasonable expenses of removing and reinstalling
fixtures, moving expenses for a distance not to exceed ten
miles, cost of amortizing the remaining principal of a mortgage
or deed of trust at a rate not to exceed nine percent are also
included as incidental damages that may be recovered.
The condemnor is entitled to off-set against incidental
damages the value of any benefits accruing to the residue
by reason of the improvement, but is not entitled to offset
any general increase or advance in the value of the residue
occasioned by the construction of the improvement.
Following proper procedure (i.e., determination of juris-
diction, petition, filing of notice, and deposit of amount
of damages the condemnor determines as due the owner for which
he can seek legal remedy under equity), the City of Knoxville
of Knox County can proceed under its powers of eminent domain
(specifically, water works and sewers TCA 6-1701, et seq.) to
obtain lands necessary for ultimate disposal of sludges derived
from such works. As discussed above, it would appear that the
least costly means of acquiring such property would be the
acquisition of whole property and not leaving in an owner's
possession residue property which is part of a disposal site.
The City of Knoxville/Knox County might also wish to consider
leasing rather than purchasing the land. The City currently is
under a lease agreement for the sanitary landfill located near
Rutledge Pike and therefore has prior experience and legal
capabilities in such arrangements (Ref. IV-18).
The disadvantage of utilizing a lease arrangement for land
application systems is that, unlike purchase and outright land
ownership where the purchase price can be shared 75 percent by
Federal funding with State and local share of only 25 percent,
the lease payments would be considered an operating expense to be
borne totally by the local area. Thus, prior to evaluation of a
land-oriented sludge management plan, the true costs of leasing
versus amortization of the 25 percent capital expense of purchase
must be compared to determine the most cost-effective financial
arrangement.
In addition, care must be excerised in drawing up the lease
arrangement to protect the legal interests of the lessor from
possible suits brought against the lessee for improner operation
of the land site leading to off-site environmental degradation.
Land application programs require site preparation and design
features (contouring, dikes, berms, underground collection systems)
-44-
-------
to prevent run-off from entering nearby water courses. The
design and construction costs of these features are quite high,
generally greater than the purchase costs of the land itself.
In the development of sludge management plans for Greater Chicago,
the Metropolitan Sanitation District looked at purchase versus
leasing of suburban lands south of the city. It was noted that
"since the investment in site preparation is large relative to the
purchase price of the land, it is generally preferable to purchase,
rather than lease, land in order to be able to recover development
costs in the event of a later sale of the property" (Ref. IV-19).
-45-
-------
CHAPTER IV
REFERENCES
IV-1 "Ground-Water Resources of East Tennessee," DeBuchananne,
G. D., and Richardson, R. M., Tennessee Div. Geol.,
Bull. 58 (1956).
IV-2 Air Resource Management in Knox County, Technical Report
No. 3, Duncan, J. R., and Miller, T., Knox County Depart-
ment of Air Pollution Control (April 1972).
IV-3 Data supplied by Knox County Department of Air Pollution
Control.
IV-4 "Some Geomorphic Aspects and Problems Related to the Knox
County Area, Tennessee, "Clark, G.M., in Geology of Knox
County, Tennessee Div. Geol, Bull. 70 (1973).
IV-5 "Areas of Possible Flooding in Knox County, Tennessee",
Harns, L.D., U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol, Inv. Map I-767M
(1973).
IV-6 "Water Resources of Knox County, Tennessee," McMaster,
W. M., in Geology of Knox County, Tennessee Div. Geol.,
Bull. 70 (1973).
IV-7 Water Quality Management Plan for the Upper Tennessee
River Basin. Preliminary Draft, Division of Water Quality
Control, Tennessee Department of Public Health (undated).
IV-S Water Quality Management Plan for the Holston River Basin.
Preliminary Draft, Division of Water Quality Control,
Tennessee Department of Public Health (undated).
IV-9 Water Quality Management Plan for the French Broad River
Basin. Division of Water Quality Control, Tennessee Depart-
ment of Public Health (undated).
IV-10 Institutional Alternatives for Providing Programmed Water
and Sever Services in Urban Growth Areas; A Case Study of
Knoxville-Ktiox County Tennessee. Hayes, G. G., Report
No. 18, Water Resources Research Center, University of
Tennessee (June 1972).
IV-11 "Soils of Knox County Tennessee," Moneymaker, R. H., in
geology of Knox County, Tennessee Div. Geol., Bull. 70
(1973).
-46-
-------
CHAPTER IV
REFERENCES
(Continued)
IV-12 Design with Nature, McHarg, I.L., Doubleday/Natural
History Press, Garden City, New York (1969).
IV-13 "Land Use and Capital Improvements in 201 Facilities Plan
(Draft)," Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning
Commission (March 1975).
IV-14 Letter from Frank Erickson, ETDD, 20 August, 1975.
IV-15 Eminent Domain in Tennessee, Institute for Public Service,
University of Tennessee (May 1972).
IV-16 "Areas with Abundant Sinkholes in Knox County, Tennessee,"
Harris, L.D., U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Geol. Inv. Map
I-767F (1973).
IV-17 "Mineral Resources of Knox County, Tennessee," Maher, S.W.,
in Geology of Knox County. Tennessee Div. Geol., Bull. 70
(1973).
IV-18 Telephone conversation with Mr. Frank Erickson, East
Tennessee Development District (October 3, 1974).
IV-19 "Institutional Options for Recycling Urban Sludges and
Effluents on Land," Barbolini, R.R., in Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, Proceedings of
a conference held July 9-13, 1973 in Champaign, Illinois,
available from the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges, One DuPont Circle, N.W., Washington,
D. C. 20036.
-47-
-------
CHAPTER V
THE SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
Evaluation of the planning perspective figure in Chapter III
indicates that one of the investigations necessary in the develop-
ment of residual waste management options is the review of existing
and proposed wastewater treatment facilities in the 208 Study Area
and the projection of sludge quantities from these facilities. This
review and projection would be facilitated by having completed 201
Facilities Plans available such that the actual quantities could be
ascertained and utilized. However, the 201 Facilities Plan for Knox-
ville-Knox County was not completed during the course of this investi-
gation, thus making it necessary to utilize the Methodology to develop
sludge projections. It should be recognized that in a great many cases
this lack of completed 201 Facilities Plans for use in a 208 planning
study would likely be the rule. Therefore, the following portions of
this chapter are intended to: 1) characterize the existing situation
in terms of wastewater treatment facilities and current disposal
practices; and 2) describe the future anticipated facilities and
project for these facilities raw sludge production.
Due to the lack of sufficient or complete data within the 201
Facilities Plan as noted above, the following procedure was utilized
such that the characterization of the Study Area in terms of existing
municipal wastewater treatment facilities (and the drainage areas
served by them) and their respective sludge quantities and existing
disposal practices could be described. The goals of the procedure
were to: 1) identify the extent of the present service area served
by each existing facility; 2) identify the responsible agencies
providing the sewerage and treatment facilities; and 3) the existing
treatment facilities (their present average dry weather flows and
operational difficulties which impact upon current and/or proposed
sludge handling and disposal).
The procedure was as follows:
(1) review the 201 Facilities Plan and, to the extent possible,
abstract and synthesize data from the Plan;
(2) describe in some manner common to the Plan the existing
situation (thus providing some commonality between 201 and
208 planning);
-48-
-------
(3) contact local agencies, utility districts, and consulting
engineering firms such that missing or incomplete data
could be filled in; and
(4) from »-'ho first three steps above summarize the existing
facilities, their current sludge quantities produced and
the current disposal practices.
The same procedural format was also utilized in the development
of information necessary to describe the anticipated facilities.
During the course of this phase (i.e., description of the anticipated
facilities), it became necessary to make reasonable assumptions as to
the extent of future service areas and population served such that
projected future raw sludge quantities could be made. These
assumptions, required because of a lack of data supplied in the 201
Facilities Plan regarding future sludge quantities, were made in
order to facilitate the use of the per capita sludge generation
numbers found in the Methodology. The method and the necessary
assumptions used to describe future sludge quantities are described
in a latter portion of this chapter.
EXISTING FACILITIES
As shown on Figure y-1, there are thirty-one distinct and
separate drainage basins within the Study Area. These thirty-one
drainage basins were combined during the preparation of the 201
Facilities Plan into the eleven major drainage areas described below
and utilized during this study (Ref. V-l). The major wastewater
facilities are presented and industrial discharges to the system
discussed. Figure V-2 indicates the boundaries of the utility
districts and the City of Knoxville discussed in the following text.
Third Creek Drainage Area
The Third Creek Drainage Area encompasses approximately 64
square miles (166 square kilometers) of which 50 square miles (129
square kilometers) are in the City of Knoxville. It consists of the
central, northern, and southern portions of the City of Knoxville and
includes eight drainage basins. These drainage basins are First Creek;
Second Creek; Goose Creek; Toll Creek; and portions of Third Creek,
Knob Creek, Williams Creek and Loves Creek. Sewerage service within
the basins is provided by the City of Knoxville.
-49-
-------
KNQXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
DRAINAGE BASINS AND PUBLIC WATER SUPP1Y LOCATIONS
Oroinogt Botint
Row-wottr Intok*
Spring Supply
Wtll R«ld
o
c
20
n
-------
UTILITY DISTRICTS LOCATED IN KNOX COUNTY
036
t . . I . .
SCALE IN MILES
Utility Districts
Tl
c
m
<
ix>
-------
The largest existing waste treatment facility located in this
drainage area, as well as in the Study Area, is the Third Creek Treat-
ment Plant. It is owned and operated by the City of Knoxville. The
plant provides primary treatment for the entire wastewater flow
entering the plant, secondary activated sludge treatment for a portion
of the flow, and effluent chlorination for the entire flow. Its sewage
collection system serves the entire area within the City limits of this
drainage area and serves approximately 132,400 people (1970 figure).
The existing effective capacity of the Third Creek Treatment
Plant is 18.0 million gallons per day (mgd) (6.81 x 10^ cu m/day).
However, the average dry weather flow received at the plant is 26.8
mgd (10.14 x 10^ cu m/day). As indicated, the plant is severely over-
loaded. The effluent, which presently does not meet the requirements
of the regulatory agencies, is discharged to the Tennessee River (Fort
Loudoun Lake) at River Mile 646.3 (Ref. V-l).
Thirty-seven industries discharge to the Third Creek sewerage
system 6.52 mgd (2.47 x 10^ cu m/day). Of these thirty-seven
industries, nine operate on a seven day a week, twenty-four hour a
day basis and discharge 2.98 mgd (1.13 x 10^ cu m/day). The other
twenty-eight industries operate on a five day a week, eight hour a
day basis. Thus, on weekends the Third Creek plant receives only
46 percent of the total industrial input experienced during the
earlier five day work week; an operational problem which may
adversely impact upon wastewater treatment efficiency and sludge
handling. Only four of the thirty-seven industries provide pre-
treatment prior to sewer discharge at the present time (Ref. V-l).
Fourth Creek Drainage Area
The Fourth Creek Drainage Area occupies approximately 43 square
miles (111 square kilometers) in the western part of the City of Knox-
ville and part of west-central Knox County. It consists of four
drainage basins, including Fourth Creek, Bluegrass, Duncan Branch,
and the portion of Third Creek previously discussed.
Sewerage service for approximately 65 percent of the Fourth
Creek Drainage Area is provided by the City of Knoxville. However,
due to the land use pattern and topography, much of the area is
unsewered. These unsewered areas are treating their wastewaters
through the use of individual septic tanks and leaching fields. The
Fourth Creek Drainage Area also receives wastewater from the Ten Mile
Creek Drainage Area via the Ten Mile Creek Pump Station.
-52-
-------
The sewered area is served by Fourth Creek Treatment Plant, the
City's second largest wastewater treatment facility. It is an acti-
vated sludge plant with an effective capacity of 5 ragd (1.89 x 10^ cu
m/day). It is presently receiving an average dry weather flow of 5.7
mgd (2.16 x 10^ cu m/day) (Ref. V-l).
Five industries discharge to the Fourth Creek sewerage system
1.08 mgd (0.41 x 10^ cu m/day). Of these five industries, two
operate on a seven day a week, twenty-four hour a day basis and
discharge 0.43 mgd (0.16 x 10^ cu m/day). The other three industries
operate on a five day a week, eight hour a day basis. Thus on
weekends the Fourth Creek plant receives only 40 percent of the total
industrial input experienced during the earlier five day work week;
again with operational problems as noted for Third Creek above. Only
one of the five industries currently provides pretreatment prior to
sewer discharge (Ref V-l).
Loves Creek Drainage Area
The Loves Creek Drainage Area is located in the eastern pa-t of
the City of Knoxville. It occupies an area of approximately 14 square
miles (36 square kilometers) and encompasses the Woods Creek Drainage
Basin, as well as portions of Loves Creek and Williams Creek Drainage
Basins. Portions of the Loves Creek Drainage Area lie within the area
served by the Northeast Knox Utility District and portions lie within
the county and are not served by any utility district. The portions
not served by any utility district were considered a part of the City
of Knoxville for planning purposes.
Sewerage services in the Loves Creek Drainage Area are provided
only by the City of Knoxville. The area within the City limits and
the majority of the area within the county are presently sewered.
The wastewater is collected and treated at the City's Loves Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant which employs trickling filters, designed
to treat an average dry weather flow of 3.0 mgd (1.14 x 10^ cu m/day).
It is presently receiving an average dry weather flow of 1.2 mgd
(0.45 x 104 cu.m/day). The effluent is discharged at River Mile 5.0
of the Holston River. The sludge generated at this treatment plant
is pumped to the gravity collection system for the Third Creek Treatment
Plant and becomes a part of the raw wastewater flow to this treatment
facility (Ref V-l).
area.
No industries contribute to the sewer system in this drainage
-53-
-------
Ten Mile Creek Drainage Area
The Ten Mile Creek Drainage Area is in the west-central portion
of Knox County. It encompasses an area of approximately 19 square
miles (49 square kilometers) and contains only the Ten Mile Creek
Drainage Basin.
West Knox Utility District serves approximately 49 percent of
the area, First Utility District serves 31 percent, the City of Knox-
ville serves 3 percent, and approximately 17 percent of the drainage
area is not served by any utility district. For planning purposes
this latter portion was considered a part of the City. Approximately
62 miles (100 kilometers) of sanitary sewer serve 3,600 customers in
the West Knox and First Utility Districts. Wastewater service to the
Ten Mile Creek Drainage Basin is jointly contracted by West Knox
Utility^District, First Utility District, and the City of Knoxville.
Each utility district maintains its sewerage collection system and
the City of Knoxville owns and operates the pump stations that
transmit the waste to the City of Knoxville's Fourth Creek Treatment
Plant (Ref. V-l).
No industrial discharges in this drainage area were identified.
East Knoxville Drainage Area
The East Knoxville Drainage Area is located in the eastern
portion of Knox County. It is bounded on the north and west by the
Holston River, on the east by the Knox County limits, and on the
south by the French Broad River. It encompasses an area of approxi-
mately 67 square miles (174 square kilometers) and includes five
drainage basins. These drainage basins are Lyon Creek, Sinking Creek,
Swanpond Creek, Frazier Branchj and Tuckahoe Creek.
Most of the domestic residential wastewaters are treated by
individual septic tanks and leaching fields. The Eastwood Sub-
division is served by a prefabricated wastewater treatment plant
which is operated by the City of Knoxville.
In the Forks-of-the-River Industrial Park, an existing sewer-
age system treats the domestic waste from eighteen industries in the
area. The wastewater is treated in a 1 mgd (0.38 x 10** cu m/day)
design capacity secondary activated sludge treatment plant operated
by Knox County and the effluent is discharged to the French Broad
River at River Mile 1.9. The plant also receives process wastewater
estimated at 0.21 mgd (0.08 x 10^ cu m/day) all on a five day a week,
approximately eight hour a day basis from five industries located
-54-
-------
in the Forks-of-the-River Industrial Park. The plant is receiving
0.26 mgd (0.10 x 10^ cu m/day) average flow and is discharging an
unsatisfactory effluent, due to heavy metals discharge by one of
the industries (Ref. V-l).
Knox-Chapman Drainage Area
The Knox-Chapman Drainage Area is located in the southern
portion of Knox County. It includes six drainage basins and occupies
approximately 61 square miles (158 square kilometers). These drain-
age basins are Spring Creek, Knob Creek, Burnett-Hines, Cement Mill,
Stock Creek, and Roddy Branch. A portion of this area within Knox
County is not served by a utility district. For purposes of planning,
it was considered a part of the City of Knoxville. The remainder of
the area is served by the Knox-Chapman Utility District.
At present, no sewage collection and treatment system is serving
this area. All residential wastewater generated in the area is treated
by individual systems. The University of Tennessee Hospital, located
near the City limits, discharges approximately 0.26 mgd (1.10 x 10^
cu m/day) on a seven day a week basis to the City sewer system. No
industrial discharges were noted (Ref. V-l).
Little Flat Creek Drainage Area
The little Flat Creek Drainage Area is situated in the north-
eastern portion of Knox County and occupies an approximate area of
64 square miles (166 square kilometers). It consists of two drain-
age basins, Strong Creek and Little Flat Creek Drainage Basins,
both tributary to the Holston River.
At present,, two utility districts are serving this drainage
area. These are the Luttrell-Blaine-Corryton Utility District and
the Northeast Knox Utility District. The former serves three com-
munities in three counties. These are Luttrell in Union County,
Elaine in Grainger County, and Corryton in Knox County. Only the
Corryton area, which occupies approximately 17.5 square miles
(45 square kilometers) is included in this study. The Northeast
Knox Utility District serves the remainder of this drainage area.
The area is sparsely populated due to topography. There are
no existing sewage collection and treatment systems in the area
(Ref. V-l). Small package treatment plants are currently used to
serve some commercial establishments while septic tanks are employed
by individual residences. No industrial discharges were noted.
-55-
-------
Bullrun Creek Drainage Area
This drainage area is located in the northern part of Knox
County. It occupies approximately 41 square miles (106 square kilo-
meters) and consists of one drainage basin, Bullrun Creek. This
area is separated from the remainder of Knox County by three parallel
ridges forming Brushy, Bullrun, and Raccoon Valley.
This area is -presently served by the Hallsdale-Powell Utility
District. However, no sewage collection and treatment system is ,
existing in this area, although a 150,000 gallon per day (0.06 x 10
cu m/day) extended aeration type process is being proposed for com-
pletion in 1975. The proposed location is at Interstate 75 and
Raccoon Valley Drive (Ref. V-l).
Beaver Creek Drainage Area
The Beaver Creek Drainage Area encompasses approximately 92
square miles (238 square kilometers). It lies in the north-central
part of Knox County parallel to and south of Bullrun Creek Drainage
Area. It contains only one drainage basin, Beaver Creek, which is
tributary to the Clinch River.
Of the total area enclosed by Beaver Creek Drainage Area,
approximately 32.3 percent [30 square miles (78 square kilometers)]
in the southwestern portion of the drainage area is presently served
by the West Knox Utility District. This includes the communities of
Karnes, Solway, and Ball Camp, and the 550-acre (223 hectare)
Byington Industrial Park.
A sewage treatment and collection system is in operation
near Byington and has a total design 'capacity of ]00,000 gallons
per day (0.04 x 10^ cu m/day). It is -a prefabricated extended aera-
tion type process (Ref. V-l). This plant will be known as the Karns
facility and referred to as such in the remainder of this report.
Another utility district that serves the Beaver Creek Drainage
Area is the Hallsdale-Powell Utility District. It serves approxi-
mately 54.7 percent [50 square miles (129 square kilometers)] of
the total area. Two major communities are in this utility district,
each being served by a separate sewage and collection system. The
Hallsdale Community Treatment Plant, an extended aeration facility
owned and operated by the District, has a design capacity of 400,000
gallons per day (0.2 x 10^ cu m/day) (Ref. V-l). After chlorination,
the effluent is discharged to Beaver Creek.
-56-
-------
The other treatment facility owned and operated by the Halls-
dale-Powell Utility District serves the Powell Community. This
wastewater is treated by a contact stabilization treatment plant
with a design capacity of 400,000 gallons per day (0.2 x 10 cu
m/day). At present, this treatment facility is receiving approxi-
mately 200,000 gallons per day (0.1 x 10 cu m/day). The effluent
from the treatment plant is discharged to an aerated lagoon,
chlorinated, and then discharged to Beaver Creek (Ref. V-l).
The northeastern portion of this drainage area is served by
the Northeast Knox Utility District. It occupies about 10.2 percent
[9.4 square miles (24 square kilometers)] of the total drainage
area. No existing sewage collection and treatment system is
presently serving this part of the drainage area (Ref. V-l).
The remainder of the drainage area, which occupies 2.8 percent
[2.7 square miles (7 square kilometers)], lies within a portion of
the county not served by any utility district. For purposes of
planning, this portion was considered part of the City of Knoxville.
Industrial discharges to the sewer systems of the Hallsdale-
Powell Utility District are approximately 50,890 gallons per day
(0.02 x 10 cu m/day) on a five day a week basis (Ref. V-l).
Hardin Valley Drainage Area
This drainage area is located in the west-northwest part of
Knox County adjacent to the Clinch River. It occupies approximately
21 square miles (54 square kilometers) and is served by the West
Knox and First Utility Districts. Only one drainage basin, Hardin
Valley Drainage Basin, lies within this area.
There are no wastewater collection or treatment facilities in
the drainage area; domestic wastes being treated by individual septic
tanks. No industrial discharges were noted (Ref. V-l).
Turkey Creek Drainage Area
The Turkey Creek Drainage Area lies in the southwestern section
of Knox County, It contains three drainage basins, Turkey Creek,
Little Turkey Creek and Choto Basin, and occupies approximately 42
square miles (109 square kilometers). It is served by the First
Utility District, with the exception of the extreme northeast tip
which is within the jurisdiction of the West Knox Utility District.
There are four existing wastewater collection systems owned and
operated by the First Utility District. Three of these are located
in the Turkey Creek Drainage Basin and the fourth is in the Ten Mile
Creek Drainage Basin which was discussed previously.
-57-
-------
The three collection systems are Stonecrest, Village Green, and
Fox Den. The Stonecrest system collects the wastewater which is
then hauled by tank truck to the Ten Mile Creek collection system.
The Village Green collection system discharges into a small contact
stabilization and tertiary nitrification plant, currently operating
at a flow of 75,000 gallons per day (0.03 x 10^ cu in/day). The
Fox Den collection system discharges into a small contact stabili-
zation and filtration plant. The plant is operating at less than
10,000 gallons per day (0.004 x 10 cu m/day). A new wastewater
treatment facility (Turkey Creek), at 1 mgd (0.38 x 10 cu m/day)
is designed to treat the wastewater collected at all three of the
above collection systems as well as a large segment of the Turkey
Creek Drainage Area. The wastes from all three collection systems
are strictly domestic with no industrial discharges noted (Ref. V-l).
EXISTING SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROCESSES
Data in the 201 Facilities Plan, at least those portions of
the plan available during the course of this study, were lacking
with regard to current sludge disposal processes or quantities -and
qualities. It therefore became necessary to contact the utility
districts, local consulting engineering firms, and City/County per-
sonnel to obtain such information if available. Table V-l is the
best available information that could be developed during this
specific contact investigation phase. The estimation for Turkey
Creek was based upon a scaling up from information provided on the
Powell plant facility. It should be recognized that the accuracy
of the sludge quantity numbers may be questionable, however the
overall relative quantities between plants is felt to be a reasonable
approximation of the current picture. It should also be noted that
the low values for the Third Creek facility are due to operational
problems at the overloaded facility which during 1974 had removal
efficiences of 32 percent for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 43
percent for suspended solids (SS) (Ref. V-2).
The existing sludge disposal practices for Knoxville-Knox
County involve (1) allowing private individuals to pick up a de-
watered sludge, (2) on-site disposal of a dewatered sludge or,
(3) trucking to a landfill either all of the dewatered sludge or
the remaining portion from (1) above.
There appears to be, at least noted by personnel at the Third
Creek facility, a decline in the amount of dewatered sludge taken by
private individuals, possibly due to a saturation of the area within
an economical and convenient distance to the plant. Whether a
decline could be anticipated in the long run for this disposal option
for such outlying facilities as Powell, where access to larger
agricultural interests may be found, is unknown at this time. How-
ever, due to the urbanization process within the County and the
-58-
-------
TABLE V-l
PRESENT SLUDGE QUANTITIES
Plant
Third Creek
Fourth Creek
Loves Creek
Forks- of-
the- River
Raccoon
Valley
Karns
Hallsdale
Powell
Turkey
Creek
Type
Activated
Sludge
Activated
Sludge
Trickling
Filter
Activated
Sludge
Extended
Aeration
Extended
Aeration
Extended
Aeration
Contact
Stabili-
zation
Contact
Stabili-
zation
Size
mgd
26.80
5.70
1.20
0.26
0.15
0.10
0.40
0.20
1.00
Status
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Under Con-
struction
Existing. To
be expanded
To be aban-
doned in 1977
Existing. To
be expanded
Under con-
struction and
to be expanded
Sludge Handling
Anaerobic Digestion,
Vacuum Filter to
Private individuals
or landfill
Anaerobic & Aerobic
Digestion, Vacuum
Filter, Landfill
Raw, Pumped to
Third Creek
Aerobic Digestion,
Sand Bed Dewatering
On-site disposal
None, hauled to
Powell when needed
monthly - 2000
gallons at 3% solids
Sand Drying Beds
Applied once a week
Sand Drying Beds
Aerobic Digestion,
Sand Drying Beds,
On-site Disposal
Sludge Quantities
6721 Ibs/day dry solids
(this low value is due
to operational problems
of the Third Creek plant)
7988 Ibs/day dry solids
Included in Third Creek
100 Ibs/day dry solids
Negligible
374 Ibs/day dry solids
286 Ibs/day dry solids
Estimated
1430 Ibs/day dry solids
Ln
VO
-------
decline in both size and numbers of farms in the County, as noted
in Chapter IV, it is unlikely that either partial or total reliance
upon private individuals to truck away sludge would be a feasible
means of sludge disposal in the short or long run.
On-site disposal, again for the processes of urbanization occur-
ring within the county and the expansion plans for several of the
existing facilities which would require site acreage, is unlikely
to provide either a short-or long-range disposal option. Although
this is an existing practice at the Forks-of-the-River and Turkey
Creek plants, these plants are located in areas subject to expansion
of surrounding industrial activities, such as at Forks-of-the-River,
or urbanization such as at Turkey Creek. Avoidance of potential
problems such as complaints from neighbors and restrictions in usable
on-site land, particularly at Turkey Creek, would thus render on-site
disposal less likely to occur in the relatively near future.
Utilization of sanitary landfills for disposal of a dewatered
sludge thus appears to be both the current and possible near-term
disposal program and as such was considered to represent the "base
case" in this study. However, the future of sanitary landfills in
Knoxville-Knox County is open to question. Studies currently in
progress by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) are investigating
the possibility of collecting and transporting municipal solid
waste to regional processing centers for separation of metals, glass,
and combustible fractions (Ref. V-3). The metals and glass frac-
tion would be sold and the combustible fraction remaining would
then be transported to TVA steam power plants to augment coal
supplies. One of the regional processing centers under investigation
would be located in Knoxville-Knox County. Concurrently, the City
of Knoxville is conducting an investigation of the feasibility of
solid waste collection and burning in a municipal incinerator which
would also generate power and steam for use in the downtown area.
It thus appears that solid waste disposal and hence sanitary
landfilling, is a problem recognized in the Knoxville-Knox County
area as being sufficiently serious to warrant consideration of other
alternatives. In addition, all open dumps have been closed in the
County, and only one sanitary landfill in the northeast portion
of the County (Rutledge Pike) is presently in operation.
Thus, the long-term viability of the "base case", i.e. sludge
disposal into a sanitary landfill, is questionable, recognizing
however the probable lag time of implementation of the solid waste
alternatives mentioned above.
As existing wastewater treatment facilities are expanded,
wastewater treatment levels are increased to meet more stringent
discharge standards, and proposed facilities come on-line, the
-60-
-------
increased amounts of sludge generated that must be disposed will
increase substantially. Disposal to sanitary landfills, which may
be of questionable viability in the near future, is therefore a
problem of significant concern to Knoxville-Knox County. As stated
earlier in this report, it is one of the intended purposes of this
study, by utilizing the Methodology, to develop alternative residual
waste (in this case municipal wastewater treatment plant sludges)
handling and ultimate disposal alternatives for Knoxville-Knox County.
The following sections of this chapter discuss the wastewater treatment
facilities anticipated in Knoxville-Knox County for inclusion in this
study and the projected raw sludge productions at these facilities.
ANTICIPATED KNOXVILLE-KNOX COUNTY MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES
As noted in the contract for this study, the alternatives
evaluated were to meet disposal requirements for a 20-year period
(Ref. V-4). This also corresponds to the planning timeframe re-
quired under 208 planning (Ref. V-5). The facilities described
below are those anticipated to be operable in Knoxville-Knox County
during this 20-year period (Ref. V-l). It is assumed in this study
that these facilities as designed or proposed meet applicable dis-
charge standards required under the 1983 goals of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The solids handling
systems are as proposed currently and do not necessarily reflect the
alternatives discussed in Chapter VII of this report.
Knob Creek
Because of current operational problems at the Third Creek
facility, the City of Knoxville has been in the process of com-
pleting a 201 Facilities Plan which investigated for the Study Area
the facilities needed to meet applicable standards and to serve the
present and anticipated growth in the Area (Ref. V-l). One
major finding of this Plan has been to abandon the Third and
Fourth Creek facilities and construct a biological (activated
sludge) regional facility in the southern portion of the area
serving the majority of the urban portion of the Area. A tenta-
tive site location (Cox Sky Ranch) has been selected. This site,
although meeting some local opposition, has been evaluated by MPC
in conjunction with other alternative sites and tentatively approved
(Ref. V-6).
The Knox Creek facility will be an air activated sludge pro-
cess employing mechanical screening, grit removal, primary settling,
activated sludge, nitrification (if needed), multi-media filtration,
chlorination, and post aeration prior to discharge to the Tennessee
River.
-61-
-------
Proposed sludge handling includes sludge thickening, two-stage
anaerobic digestion, and filter press dewataring with the filter
cake trucked to a sanitary landfill.
Powell
The present Powell plant, located in the northwest portion of
the Study Area, is currently under expansion proceedings (construc-
tion bids). The Hallsdale plant is to be abandoned following the
completion of the Powell construction program (sometime in 1977)
and for the purposes of this study will not be considered as a
separate facility but as having contributed its flow to Powell.
The Powell plant after expansion will include bar screens,
grit removal, contact stabilization, aerated lagoons, air flotation
(for removal and return of algae to the lagoons), multi-media
filtration, chlorination, and post aeration prior to discharge to
Beaver Creek.
Sludge handling includes, for the contact stabilization
process sludge, aerobic digestion, thickening, and vacuum press
dewatering. The filter cake would then be trucked to a sanitary
landfill. Excess algae from the aerobic lagoons recycle would be
dried on sand drying beds for on-site disposal. Sludge from the
Raccoon Valley plant will be trucked to Powell for handling in the
thickening and vacuum press processes.
Turkey Creek
The Turkey Creek facility, located in the southwestern portion
of the Study Area, is currently finishing a construction and start-
up phase as a contact stabilization facility. Before 1995 flows
come on line, the plant would be modified as an oxygen activated
sludge plant with nitrification facilities. The exact flow process
was not made available for this study.
Proposed sludge handling processes include aerobic digestion
followed by sand drying beds with on-site disposal.
Karns
The Karns facility will be expanded as a contact stabiliza-
tion facility followed by sand filtration until 1990. At that
time the plant will be modified and expanded to provide air activated
sludge treatment.
The modified plant will provide primary clarification, air
activated sludge with carbon addition for nitrification, secondary
-62-
-------
clarification, rapid sand filtration, chlorination and dechlorina-
tion, prior to effluent discharge to Beaver Creek.
Primary sludge would be mechanically dewatered and disposed
into a sanitary landfill. Secondary sludge containing carbon
would be reprocessed for carbon recovery and reused with the sludge
ash going to sanitary landfill. It is unclear at this time the
rational used by the local consulting firm as to its suggested
disposition of primary dewatered sludge into a sanitary landfill.
This sludge handling process would not come on-line until 1990.
Up to 1990 the solids handling includes aerobic digestion of
the waste activated sludge, vacuum filtration, and trucking to
sanitary landfill.
Lyon Creek
A proposed modified extended aeration plant at Lyon Creek in
the eastern portion of the County would serve the Little Flat Creek
drainage basin in the Luttrell-Blaine-Corryton and Northeast Knox
Utility Districts and Lyon Creek drainage basin in the East Rnox-
ville Utility District.
This plant would provide grit removal, primary settling,
extended aeration, secondary-clarification, chlorination, and post
aeration prior to effluent discharge to the Holston River.
Proposed sludge handling includes sludge thickening, two-stage
anaerobic digestion, sand bed dewatering, and trucking the cake to
a sanitary landfill.
Loves Creek
Serving the Loves Creek drainage basin in the eastern portion
of the County, the existing Loves Creek facility, a trickling
filter plant, has a design capacity expected to be sufficient for
projected 1995 flows. The facility is anticipated to undergo
expansion after 1995.
Sludge generated at Loves Creek is currently pumped to the
gravity collection system for the Third Creek treatment plant.
Upon abandonment of Third Creek and flow diversion to the regional
Knob Creek plant, the sludge from Loves Creek then becomes part of
the raw wastewater flow to Knob Creek.
Forks-of-the-River
This facility presently serves the domestic wastes from the
industries located in the Forks-of-the-River Industrial Park as
-63-
-------
well as some process wastewater from five industries located in
the park. The current hydraulic capacity is expected to serve as
the ultimate capacity expected in the year 2005.
The plant is an activated sludge facility utilizing trickling
filters prior to the aeration basins. Primary and secondary
sludge is aerobically digested, dewatered on drying beds, and dis-
posed on-site.
PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES
With the exception of the Forks-of-the-River Plant, all other
anticipated plants will be discharging to water quality limited
stream segments (Refs. V-7, 8, and 9). Thus, the wastewater treat-
ment efficiencies required will translate directly to large
quantities of sludge to be processed and disposed.
Information made available during the course of this study was
incomplete with regards to both the anticipated wastewater flows in
the year 1995 and the resultant projected sludge quantities for
these anticipated facilities. Therefore, the Methodology was
utilized to develop these quantities. The technique utilized is
described below.
The anticipated facilities and their service areas are shown
on Figure V-3. The eleven drainage areas discussed earlier for
the existing facilities and their respective 1975 and 1995 popu-
lation estimates are shown in Figure V-4. A comparison was made
of these two figures and assuming the total population to be
sewered as anticipated by the various river basin plans in the area
(Refs. V-7, 8, and 9) (see also Chapter IV of this report), the
following breakdown of population served by the anticipated
facilities by drainage areas was utilized for this study:
(1) Knob Creek - serves all of the Third Creek, Fourth Creek,
and Ten Mile Creek drainage and two-thirds of the
Knox Chapman drainage area;
(2) Loves Creek - serves all of the Loves Creek drainage
area and one-half of the East Knoxville drainage area;
(3) Powell - serves all of Bullrun Creek drainage area and
four-fifths of the Beaver Creek drainage area;
(4) Turkey Creek - serves all of the Turkey Creek and
Hardin Valley drainage areas;
-64-
-------
$
i
WASTEWATER SERVICE AREAS AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
PLANTS
I. Knob Creek
2 Love* Creek
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Korr*
6.Lyon Creek
7. Fork*-Of-The-River
S.Hallsdale
9. Eastwood
10. Third Creek
11. Fourth Creek
12. Raccoon Valley
EXISTING PROPOSED
SCALE IN MILES
Treatment Plant
Major Trunk Lines
Forced Mains
Service Area*
To Be Abandoned
To Be Expanded
Sludge Pumped Or
Trucked Elsewhere
SOURCE: Knaxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commtsson
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
036
I . . I
Droinoge Basin
1975 Population (Estimated)
1995 Projected Population
c
JO
SOURCE: Knoxville-Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission
-------
(5) Karns - serves one-fifth of the Beaver Creek drainage
area;
(6) Lyon Creek - serves all of the Little Flat Creek drainage
area and one-fourth of the East Knoxville drainage dii_ci;
and
(7) Forks-of-the-River - serves one-third of the Knox Chapman
drainage area and one-fourth of the East Knoxville
drainage area.
Population forecasts provided by MFC (Ref. V-l) were
aggregated according to the above breakdowns, and the projected
domestic populations served by the anticipated facilities shown in
Table V-2.
The industrial and commercial discharges within the drainage
areas noted earlier were converted first to a seven day a week
basis and then to population equivalents and are shown in Table V-3.
The combined domestic, industrial, and commercial populations used
during this study are shown in Table V-4.
Utilizing the Methodology (Ref. V-10), the projections of
raw sludge quantities were determined and are given in Table V-5.
The applicable factors used in projecting the sludge quantities
are noted in this table.
Implicit in the utilization of the per capita sludge projec-
tion values in the Methodology is the fact that these values are
those to be used when the per capita wastewater flows are 100 gallons
per day. A report prepared in 1972 projected for the Knoxville
area a per capita value of approximately 100 gallons per day based
upon projected water requirements and usage (Ref. V-ll). Therefore,
the values in the Methodology were used directly. However, it
should be noted that if local situations (e.g. heavy industrial
input or specific flow and quality of sewage on a per capita basis)
warrant in other study areas, the values in the Methodology should
be adjusted accordingly.
-67-
-------
TABLE V-2
POPULATION PROJECTION FOR THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
00
I
Facility
1, Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Total
6. Lyon Creek
7, Forks-of-the-River
GRAND TOTAL
(noxville-Knox County
1975
205,729
18,019
223,748
36,720
13,707
5,856
56,283
14,955
8,394
303,380
1980
224,523
18,300
242,823
43,581
15,901
6,951
66,433
15,597
10,426
335,279
1985
238,422
18,582
257,004
49,790
17,014
7,938
74,742
15,996
12,356
360,098
1990
245,927
18,792
264,719
55,018
18,127
8,776
81,921
16,136
12,656
375,432
1995
252,457
19,719
272,176
57,030
18,384
9,048
84,462
16,510
13,281
386,429
-------
TABLE V-3
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FCH THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL POPULATION EQUIVALENTS
VD
I
Facility
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Total
6. Lyon Creek
7. Forks-of-the-River
GRANT) TOTAL
-------
TABLE V-4
POPULATION PROJECTION'S FOR THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES-
DOMESTIC, INDUSTRIAL, AND COMMERCIAL POPULATION EQUIVALENTS
I
—i
o
I
Facility
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. .Cams
Sub Total
6. Lyon CreeV
7. Forks-of-the-River
I GRAND TOTAL
knoxville-Knox County
1975
261,195
18,019
279,214
37,011
13,707
5,929
56,647
14,955
10,501
361,317
1980
280.921
18,300
299,221
43,877
15,901
7,025
66,803
15,597
12,568
394,189
1985
295,768
18,582
314,350
50,091
17,014
8,013
75,118
15,996
14,534
419,998
1990
304,236
18,792
323,028
55,324
18,127
8,853
82,304
16,136
14,871
436,339
1995
311,746
19,719
331,465
57,341
18,384
9,126
84,851
16,510
15,533
448,359
-------
TABLE V-5
SLUDGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
RAW SLUDGE
Un tons)6
Facility
4
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Total
4
7. Forks--of~the-River
GRAND TOTAL
1975
764. 00/30. 561
21. 50/ 0.43
785.50/30.99
176. 67/ 2.65
65. 33/ 0.98
2o.uOj U. 4^
270. OO/ 4.05
30. OO/ 0.60
30. 75/ 1.23
1116.25/36.87
1980
821.75/32.87
22. OO/ 0.44
843.75/33.31
209. 33/ 3.14
76. OO/ 1.14
318. 66/ 4 78
31. OO/ 0.62
36. 75/ 1,47
1230.16/40.18
1985
865.00/34.60
22. OO/ 0.44
887.00/35.04
238. 67/ 3.58
81. 33/ 1.22
TO no/ n s?
358. OO/ 5.37
32. OO/ 0.64
42. 50/ 1.70
1319.50/42.75
1990
890.00/35.60
22. 50/ 0.45
912.50/36.05
264. OO/ 3.96
53. OO/ 2.12
7fi flO/ 1 04
343. OO/ 7.12
32. 50/ 0.65
43. 50/ 1.74
1331.50/45.56
1995
911.75/36.47
23. 50/ 0.47
935.25/36.94
273. 33/ 4.10
53. 75/ 2.15
26 75/ 1 07
353. 83/ 7.32
33. OO/ 0.66
45. 50/ 1.82
1367.58/46.74
Process
Description
Primary Sedimen-
tation & Activa-
ted Sludge
Trickling Filter
to Knob Creek^
At Knob Creek
Contract Stabi-
lization2
<1990 contact
sta.>1990 prim.
& act. sludce
Same as Turkey
Creek
Extended Aera-
tion Modified3
Primary & Acti-
vated Sludge
Knoxville-
Knox County
Note: 1. Values given in wet ton3 per day and dry tons per day.
2. For contact stabilization, used 143 Ibs. dry solids per day per 1000 people at 1.5Z solids.
3. For modified extended aeration, used 80 Ibs. dry solids per day per 1000 people at 2.0% solids.
4. Knob Creek and Forks-of-the-River uet tons are for a thickened sludge at 42 solids and 234 Ibs. dry
solids per day per 1000 people.
5. Trickling filter dry tons based upon 48 Ibs. dry solids per day per 1000 people and 22 solids for
discharge into sewers to Knob Creek.
6. tons x 0.91 - metric tons.
-------
CHAPTER V
REFERENCES
V-l Knox County Facilities 201 Plan, in progress by Ryckman,
Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, Inc., Knoxville,
Tennessee (May 7, 1975).
V-2 Information supplied by Mr. Jim Clark of the Wastewater
Control Department, City of Knoxville to MFC, (6 May 1975).
V-3 Newsletter. TVA (1 May 1975).
V-4 "Demonstration of a Developed Scheme for the Ultimate
Disposal of Residual Wastes", Engineering-Science, Inc.,
EPA Contract 68-01-3225 (A June 1975)
V-5 Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Planning, Section 208, Federal Water_P_ollut_i_o_n Control
Act Amendments of 1J7_2, Environmental Protection Agency
(August 1975).
V-6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Evaluation, Knoxville-
Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission (8 July 1975).
V-7 Water Quality Management Plan for the French Broad River
Basin, Division of Water Quality Control, Tennessee
Department of Public Health (undated).
V-8 Water Quality Management Plan for the Hols ton River Basin,
Division of Water Quality Control, Tennessee Department
of Public Health (undated).
V-9 Water Quality Management Plan for the Upper Tennessee
River Basin, Division of Water Quality Control, Tennessee
Department of Public Health (undated).
V-10 Sludge Processing, Transportation, and Disposal/Resource
Recovery; A Planning Perspective, Wyatt, J.M. and White,
P.E. Jr., Engineering-Science, Inc., EPA Contract No.
68-01-3104 (April 1975).
V-ll Water and Wastewater Plan; Anderson, Blount, and Knox
Counties, Tennessee, Volumes I and II, Allen & Hoshall,
Consulting Engineers (July 1972) .
-72-
-------
CHAPTER VI
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
The Methodology allows for the selection of alternative sludge
disposal options in one of two ways: 1) evaluation of ultimate
disposal options per specific types and quantities of sludge or
2) evaluation of the suitability of an area relative to the known
disposal options. The primary difference in the selection approaches
is the former initially eliminates disposal options by the types of
sludges to be disposed, while the latter does not. As a result,
more disposal options are considered in the latter approach. As
discussed in Chapter III, the study is to utilize the latter selec-
tion approach which does not consider existing or proposed solids
handling processes and resultant sludges as a selection criterion.
The general sludge disposal options available, as defined in
the Methodology, are: 1) sanitary landfill; 2) ocean disposal;
3) waste disposal ponds; 4) sludge recycling (i.e., land application);
5} land reclamation; and 6) resource recovery. Resource recovery
includes such alternatives as incineration, pyrolysis, recalcination,
composting, and sludge reuse (e.g., as a fuel or a fertilizer base).
The first three options are traditional methods which have been
utilized within the context of sludge as being a waste to be dis-
posed of as cheaply as possible. The latter options reflect a
different attitude, one of sludge as a resource, which is currently
being encouraged by Federal and State agencies and environmental
groups.
In order to define the more feasible or suitable disposal
options to be considered for incorporation into a set of alternative
sludge management plans, a selection procedure was developed. The
basic steps involved in the procedure were:
(1) characterization of the natural and cultural settings of
the Study Area (Chapter IV);
(2) characterization of the sludge disposal problem in the
Study Area (Chapter V);
(3) delineation of the Study Area constraints as derived
from Chapters IV and V;
-73-
-------
(A) evaluation of the sludge disposal options relative to
the Study Area constraints; and
(5) selection of the sludge disposal options for incorpora-
into alternative sludge management plans.
The critical step in this selection procedure is the delineation
of the Study Area constraints (Step 3). Based on these environ-
mental, socioeconomic, and institutional conditions and values
assumed to exist in the Study Area, infeasible and inapplicable
disposal options are defined and eliminated from further considera-
tion. Characterization of the Study Area's natural and cultural sys-
tems was perceived to be a necessary inclusion to this casevstudy to
provide background for readers unfamiliar with the Knoxville-
Knox County area. This type of knowledge would or should be
resident in a 208 agency and would not necessarily be presented
in a real-life study in the detail or format used in this report.
STUDY AREA CONSTRAINTS
The environmental, socioeconomic, and institutional constraints
listed below evolved from general comparisons of the desired
characteristics for the siting and institutional arrangements of the
disposal options, as delineated in the Methodology, and the actual
or assumed characteristics presented in Chapters IV and V. The
environmental constraints defined in this study are primarily site
limiting and do not exclude alternative disposal options per se.
However, these constraints are used in defining suitable site areas,
if any, for the various disposal options considered in the evalua-
tion process. The socioeconomic and institutional constraints are
of a nature which could exclude entire disposal options (e.g., owing
to the complexity of the implementation required and/or the lack of
appropriate existing institutional mechanisms) .
Environmental Constraints/Considerations:
Valley and ridge topography limits the area of
developable land to valleys and the lower slopes of
ridges.
A large proportion of the undeveloped land is forested.
There are large areas where the depths to bedrock are
very shallow (less than six feet) .
-74-
-------
• The groundwater hydrology is primarily carbonate-
rock type (i.e., fracture porosity) which is parti-
cularly susceptible to pollution from infiltration.
• There are numerous sinkhole areas present which adversely
affect local topography and groundwater quality.
There are many areas susceptible to flooding.
Socioeconomic Constraints/Considerations:
• The area is rapidly urbanizing with major development
concentrated in western and north central Knox County.
• Prime agricultural soil areas are limited and decreas-
ing with suburban expansion.
• There has been only a limited demand for sludge product
by the Study Area public in the past and current demand
is declining.
Institutional Constraints/Considerations:
• The current "201" and "208" planning studies require
immediate solutions (i.e., the disposal option must be
technically, financially, and institutionally implement-
able in the near future).
• The sludge disposal option must guarantee disposal
(e.g., if public demand is required for disposal, such
demand must exist or be a virtual certainty at the time
it would be required).
- The area is institutionally fragmented making regional
or metropolitan solutions uncertain.
Although regional agencies exist (e.g., Eastern
Tennessee Development District), no regional sludge-
disposal projects have ever been implemented.
The Study Area is just beginning to have problems
requiring metropolitan or regional solutions. As a
result, long-term planning in related areas, such as
solid waste management, is only starting with no
commitments being made to a particular future policy.
Physical-chemical sludges are not considered in this
study because of institutional decisions previously made
excluding the consideration of a physical-chemical STP
as a viable treatment alternative.
-75-
-------
EVALUATION OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The principle function of this section was to apply the Study
Area constraints, as defined above, to the specific disposal options
available in order to evaluate their applicability to the Study Area.
In this study, this was done by comparing possible impacts, dis-
advantages, and/or problems for each disposal option, as stated in
the Methodology, with the Study Area constraints and noting those
areas where adverse relationships exist. it was assumed that dur-
ing the course of this process certain disposal options could be
eliminated as infeasible or inapplicable to the needs of the Study
Area, thereby reducing the number of disposal options to be con-
sidered .
Before certain disposal options could be analyzed, in particular
land reclamation and sludge reuse, it was necessary to define the
local options available. In the case of sludge reuse, two alter-
natives were defined. In addition, during the analysis of the
sanitary landfill option, it became obvious that an alternative type
of landfilling incorporating only sludge (i.e., trenching) would
need to be considered. As a result, 12 disposal options were
initially defined and evaluated against the Study Area constraints.
A summary evaluation of the sludge disposal options is presented in
Table VI-1.
Elimination of Infeasible Alternatives
The sludge disposal options which immediately fell out as being
infeasible or inapplicable were ocean disposal, waste disposal ponds,
pyrolysis, and recalcination. Ocean disposal is inappropriate for
geographic and institutional reasons. Waste disposal ponds, although
a viable local disposal method, require large land areas and are
incompatible with most land uses for health and aesthetic reasons.
Generally, waste disposal ponds are utilized by small, rural waste-
water treatment plants where land is abundant, cheap, and relatively
free of people to complain of odors. It is doubtful if waste dis-
posal ponds could ever be considered a real disposal option for a
treatment plant of any large size, because of the large land require-
ments and the proximity to residential land uses. Pyrolysis is a
new process which has had only limited field testing. Primarily
developed to utilize solid waste refuse, pyrolysis has only recently
been considered as a method to utilize sewage sludge. Although a
pyrolysis unit is being incorporated into a large wastewater treat-
ment plant in Minneapolis/St. Paul (as noted in the Methodology),
only 15 to 40 percent of the sludge solids are to be treated by the
unit. As a result, pyrolysis is neither a proven nor a total solu-
tion at this time. Recalcination is not a feasible alternative
without lime being used in the wastewater treatment process. As
stated in Chapter V, no such wastewater processes currently exist
-76-
-------
T/BLE VI-1
SUMMARY EVALUATION CF SLUDGE PISPOSAL OPTIONS
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
OPTION
Sanitary Landfill
Trenching
] STUDY AKEA CONSTRAINTS
Environmental
Potential groundwater pollution.
i
Potential groundwater pollution;
substantial land requirements.
Ocean Disposal Unknown impact on ocean ecology.
j
Waste Disposal Ponds Substantial land requiremerts.
, Resource Recovery j
Land Application
Land Reclamation
Inc i nr'r.-it i on
J'yro ] yni a
Reca Ic tnat 1 on
Com posting
Substant1.il land requiremei ts;
potential nurface and grour d-
water pollution.
Potential surface and groui ri-
veter pol lu t ion .
Seme air quality degradation.
None
Socioeconomlc ! Institutional
Requires rural location;
restricts future land use
op c ioTis .
Requires rural location.
Uneconomic distance.
Incompatible with other
land uses.
Requires rural location.
None
None
No market for product.
None None
None
Sludge Reuse: IRD* 1 None
S liid^o Reuse: ' None
TVA Boiler Feed
No market for all of
product .
None
None
Future of solid waste
management uncertain.
Experimental; requires
strict operation and
monitoring.
prohibit new permits.
None
Requires strict opera-
tion and monitoring.
Requires complex insti-
t u t Lonal ar rang erne tit s ,
strict operation snd
monitoring.
None
L.ir^ely experimental;
never bn-n used to
h.^nd le all solids pro-
dured ,
Physical-chemical plant
eliminated frora study.
None
from private company.
Currently only being
considered by TVA
*IRD-Independent Research and Development Company
-------
or are proposed for future wastewater treatment plants.
Local Definition of General Disposal Options
Two general disposal options requiring local definition are
land reclamation and sludge reuse. During this study land re-
clamation feasibility was derived from a general analysis of the
mining operations occurring within the eastern Tennessee region.
Two sludge reuse proposals were identified after discussions with
local planning agencies. One sludge reuse option is a recent
business proposal made to the City of Knoxville by the Independent
Research and Development Company (IRD) involving the processing of
sewage sludge to a high-nitrogen fertilizer. The other sludge
reuse option is tied to an on-going study being conducted by TVA.
The study is evaluating the feasibility of regional solid waste
recovery including firing TVA power plant boilers with the organic
fraction of solid waste. It has been suggested that organic sewage
sludges could be mixed with the solid waste and used as a fuel.
Within the Study Area, no feasible mining reclamation projects
or possibilities were identified. Subsequent investigation involved
the use of a regional mineral resource map (Ref. VI-1) and a TVA
study of strip-mined areas in eastern Tennessee (Ref. VI-2).
Synthesis of these sources led to the identification of numerous
potential strip-mine reclamation areas within 20 to 50 miles (40 to
80 kilometers) of Knoxville (Figure VI-1). Access to these areas
via rail or highway is adequate and over one-third of the haul roads
to abandoned or orphan strip-mine areas are in good condition. Most
of the orphan strip-mines are of the contour type and are less than
40 acres (16 hectares) in extent; the total bare strip-mine acreage
requiring reclamation being estimated to be 6000 acres (2430 hectares)
(Ref. VI-2). However, these areas are scattered and a reclamation
project incorporating Study Area sludge would have to be well-
coordinated to minimize transportation costs-
The IRD sludge reuse option is part of an overall effort to
develop Pickel Island in Knox County into a "Resource Recovery and
Research Center." IRD plans to:
"1. Construct a wood waste processing plant that will pro-
duce marketable steam and commercial grade charcoal.
2. Construct a municipal refuse processing plant that will
provide a fuel product and recover metals and glass.
3. Construct a rubber tire recycling plant which would pro-
duce carbon black and a fuel product.
A. Construct a sewage sludge processing plant that would
produce a high-nitrogen fertilizer.
-78-
-------
e
i
STRIP-MINE AREAS NEAR KNOX COUNTY
KENTUCKY
/ TENNESSEE
\ -
LEGEND
.••.•.•;;.-'I Active Strip-Mine Area
Orphan Strip-Mine Area
Railroad
0 5 10
iii
SCALE IN MILES
CD
aj
m
SOURCE: References VI-1 and VI-2
-------
5. Develop a river terminal and related transportation net-
work to bring raw wastes to the island from outlying areas.
Since Knoxville has no public use river terminal, the
terminal planned for Pickel Island will be used to tranship
steel and other vital commodities." (Ref. VI-3)
The IRD sludge processing plant [100 dry tons/day (91 metric tons/
day)] would convert all the sludge from the cities of Knoxville and
Chattanooga into a granular fertilizer which will have, following
supplemental nutrient (urea) addition, a nitrogen content of 15 to
20 percent by weight. The product is claimed to be in demand in
the professional turf grass and the home and garden market. The
process used was developed by Organics, Inc. and is discussed in
the Methodology.
Implications of Solid Waste Management Planning
Solid waste management in the Study Area is a growing problem,
particularly in regards to the siting and operation of sanitary
landfills. Currently there is only one sanitary landfill operating
in the Study Area with an expected useful life of three years
(Ref. V-3). Because of the increasing expense of solid waste
collection and disposal and the increasing difficulty of locating
both environmentally and socially acceptable sites, the long-term
objective of solid waste management is anticipated to be toward
resource recovery (Ref. VI-4). Resource recovery would provide a
means for recovering part of the cost of solid waste management in
addition to eliminating the need to locate an acceptable landfill
site every few years. The TVA study mentioned previously is currently
dominating the local and regional planning efforts by the City of
Knoxville and ETDD. A TVA-sponsored regional solid waste recovery
program is the first cnoice of most of the Study Area and regional
planning agencies. As a result, all solid waste studies are in
abeyance until the TVA study is completed, causing the future of
solid waste management and the sanitary landfill in the Study Area
to be uncertain.
When considering the sanitary landfill as an ultimate dis-
posal option, it should be recognized that the sanitary landfill
is a solid waste repository first and foremost. It is perceived
that a need for a sanitary landfill would exist, regardless of the
implementation of a solid waste resource recovery scheme, to dis-
pose of a small fraction of inert residual material. However, the
projected sludge quantities to be disposed compared to the quantity
of residual solid waste to be disposed would be so great that normal
sanitary landfill operation would be impossible. As a result of
the uncertain future of solid waste management in the Study Area, a
method which approximates the operation and purpose of a sanitary
landfill and has the same sludge condition requirements was introduced-
-80-
-------
trenching. Trenching is a recent disposal technique which is utilized
exclusively for sludge disposal. At this time, no municipality is
using this method although large-scale field studies have proved its
feasibility (Ref. VI-5) •
Suitability of the Study Area for Land Disposal Options
In order to evaluate the feasibility of long-term land disposal
(i.e., sanitary landfill, trenching, and land application), it was
perceived necessary to locate possible site areas within the Study
Area. The approach used in locating possible site areas was a
graphical technique involving factor maps, a factor map being the
presentation of a siting criterion such as existing land use or sink-
hole locations. Many of the factor maps used were generated during
the compilation of Chapter IV and are presented as figures in that
chapter.
An important assumption made in this analysis was that it was
desirable to locate site areas which required minimum engineering
and, as a result, a minimum cost to protect the environment or to
prepare a site for operation. Consequently, the suitable site areas
identified in the following figures represent those areas which,
based on the available data, would require a minimum engineering cost
and/or maximum resource utility of the sludge. This analytical
technique does not preclude the existence of reasonable site areas out-
side those identified as suitable, but merely attempts to locate, in
a general fashion, cost-effective site areas.
The suitability analysis began with the listing of siting/
suitability criteria (i.e., factors) discussed in the Methodology.
Subsequently, if they did not already exist, relevant factor maps
were compiled from available data. The information presented on
each map was ranked subjectively on a negative scale where zero =
no impact, -L = some impact, -2 = significant impact, and unsuitable =
major impact. Each factor map was then coded per the ranking system.
The applicable factor maps were then overlaid and, by visual analysis,
a composite map was derived which showed the sum of the factor rank-
ings for areas within the Study Area. The composite map was then
further refined by assuming that all areas with a summed factor rat-
ing greater than -2 were unsuitable. Unsuitable in this case meant
that significant engineering (and cost) was required to improve the
site characteristics or provide environmental protection. In addition,
only those suitable site areas having sufficient areal extent to
incorporate the anticipated sludge volume to be generated in the
Knoxville-Knox County County between 1975 and 1995 are presented.
The factor maps used and their ranking for each disposal or
management option are presented in Table VI-2. Some of the factors
utilized (e.g., sinkhole areas, flood-prone areas, etc.) were declared
-81-
-------
TABLE VI-2
FACTOR MAPS AND RANKING USED FOR SITE
SUITABILITY ANALYSES
FACTOR MAPS
Carbonate-rock Area
Sinkhole Area
Percent Land Slope
i 32
3%-9%
> 92
Depth to Bedrock
< 6 feet (carbonate rock)
< 6 feet (non-carbonate rock)
i. 6 feet
Flood-prone Areas
Soil Utility
Prime agricultural soil
Secondary agricultural soil
Other soils
Forested Areas
Existing Land Use
Proposed Land Use
Residential
Industrial
Distance from Knoxville
6-8 miles
> 8 miles
FACTOR RANKING
Sanitary
Landfill
-1
Unsuitable
-1
0
0
Unsuitable
-2
0
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
0
0
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
-1
-1
-1
-2
Trenching
0
Unsuitable
0
0
0
Unsuitable
-2
0
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
0
-1
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
-2
-2
0
0
Land
Application
0
Unsuitable
0
-1
Unsuitable
-2
-2
0
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
0
-1
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
-2
-2
0
0
-82-
-------
unsuitable initially and deserve some further explanation. Sinkhole
areas were undesirable locations because of their direct connection
with the underlying groundwater system and disruptive topographic
expression (i.e., deep depressions). Flood-prone areas were unsuit-
able for obvious reasons related to site safety, operability, and
environmental protection. Prime agricultural soils were considered
a valuable local resource which should be preserved where
possible. Forested areas were considered unsuitable for
ecological purposes, particularly wildlife habitat alteration, and
the cost of clearing. Existing land use areas (i.e., residential,
industrial, and recreational) were excluded from consideration
because of their already existing utility which would be disrupted
and/or degraded by the incorporation of sanitary landfill, trenching
or land application systems.
For the purposes of this study, identification of suitable
land disposal sites ended with this process. Ideally, if a similar
analysis were performed in the future, actual site visits would be
desirable in order to field-check and refine the ""imits of possible
site areas. Suitable site areas within the Study Area were identi-
fied for sanitary landfills, trenching, and land application and
are shown in Figures VI-2, VI-3, and VI-4. As a result, all the
land disposal options remained as feasible disposal options to be
considered further.
Alternative Disposal Options Selected for Further Review
Of the 12 alternative sludge disposal options originally
considered in this study, four have been previously defined as
infeasible or inapplicable: 1) ocean disposal; 2) waste disposal
ponds; 3) pyrolysis; and 4) recalcination. The remaining eight
alternatives appear to be environmentally and socioeconomically
feasible. However, some do not meet the institutional constraints
defined earlier in this Chapter. The particular constraints violated
are: 1) an immediate solution; and 2) guaranteed disposal.
Land (i.e., strip-mine) reclamation, although a desirable sludge
use, would require extensive investigation into the institutional
responsibilities involved. During the course of this study, no
institution was identified as having or taking responsibility for
the unreclaimed strip-mine areas and no studies had been conducted
considering such a reclamation approach. It was considered to be
beyond the scope of this study to initiate or formulate institutional
arrangements to increase the feasibility of this alternative. As
a result, although it is an attractive future possibility, strip-
mine reclamation does not meet the immediate needs of the study.
For essentially the same reason, the sludge reuse option that
would burn sewage sludge with solid waste refuse in TVA power plant
-83-
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SUITABILITY MAP
00
r
Possible Site Areas
o
a
i
ro
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
TRENCHING SITE SUITABILITY MAP
00
Y1
Possible Site Areas
c
TO
m
-------
KNOXVILLE AND KNOX COUNTY
LAND APPLICATION SITE SUITABILITY MAP
00
Suitable Site Arta
o
c
m
<
i
-------
boilers is also put off as a possible near terir. alternative. The
initial results of the TVA study, which will probably not be avail-
able until late in 1975, will be looking at solid waste only. If
TVA decides that using solid waste refuse to fire boilers is both
feasible and desirable, then the addition of sewage sludge should
be investigated. Consequently, the TVA nnsition on burning sewage
sludge will not be known for some time.
Composting of sewage has only rarely been economically success-
ful in this country. This has been primarily due to a lack of a
market for the product. Although there is a history of the local
public hauling substantial quantities of sludge from existing
treatment plants in the area, this practice appears to be declin-
ing (see Chapter V of this report). Moreover, the sludge was
supplied at no cost. One can assume that if there were to be a
charge for compost, it would only decrease the demand of the
compost product.
The remaining sludge disposal options to be considered, then,
which will be incorporated into alternative sludge management plans
are:
(1) sanitary landfilling;
(2) trenching;
(3) incineration;
(A) land application-spray irrigation;
(5) land application-composting; and
(6) sludge reuse-IRD.
Descriptions and evaluations of these alternative disposal options
occur in the subsequent Chapter. The sludge conditions required
for the disposal options are presented in Table VI-3.
-87-
-------
TABLE VI-3
SLUDGE CONDITION REQUIRED FOR
ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
OPTION
SLUDGE CONDITION*
1. Sanitary Landfilling
2. Trenching
3. Incineration
4. Land Application:
Spray Irrigation
5. Land Application
Composting
6. IRD (fertilizer base)
Digested, Dewatered
Digested, Dewatered
(Ref. VI-5)
Dewatered
Digested
Digested, Dewatered
Digested(Ref. VI-3)
*Note: Unless noted otherwise, the reference for the sludge
condition requirement is the Methodology.
-88-
-------
CHAPTER VI
REFERENCES
VI-1 "Mineral Resources of the Tennessee Valley Region (Map),"
Tennessee Valley Authority, Div. Water Control Planning,
Geologic Branch (1970).
VI-2 Information supplied by Allen Curry of Tennessee Valley
Authority, Knoxville, Tenn. (July 1975).
VI-3 "Pickel Island-A Regional Resource Recovery and Research
Center," Independent Research and Development Company,
Knoxville, Tennessee (April 1975).
VI-4 "Solid Waste Management Plan for Anderson, Blount, and
Knox Counties, Tennessee," prepared by Allen & Hoshall
Engineers, for East Tennessee Development District,
Knoxville, Tenn. (Oct. 1971).
VI-5 "Trench Incorporation of Sewage Sludge," Walter, J. M. in
Municipal Sludge Management, proceedings of National
Conference on Municipal Sludge Management (June 1974).
-89-
-------
CHAPTER VII
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
INTRODUCTION
Having defined the quantity and distribution of raw sludge to
be disposed (Chapter V) and the feasible disposal options (Chapter
VI), the next step was to synthesize these data into alternative
sludge management plans. The development of a sludge management
plan includes the definition of a solids handling system for each
sewage treatment plant considered, the transportation scheme for
solids handling and/or disposal, and the ultimate disposal method.
Subsequently, these plan aspects (i.e., solids handling, trans-
portation, and disposal) were evaluated according to the criteria
and procedures presented in Chapter VII of the Methodology.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Although only six ultimate disposal options were defined as
feasible within the Study Area, the number of possible solids
handling and transportation schemes that could be combined with
each disposal option is quite large. As a result, the several
alternative sludge management plans developed are largely represen-
tative. For the purposes of this study, only one management plan
was developed for each disposal option with each management plan
incorporating a regional solution where possible. The latter con-
dition (regionalization) was imposed at the request of the MPC, the
current 208 planning agency, and is in keeping with its planning
perspective and objectives.
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill
This alternative represents the base case as most existing and
proposed STP's in the Study Area currently use or intend to use
sanitary landfilling as their ultimate disposal method. Based on
the suitability analysis performed earlier in the study, it was
assumed that sanitary landfill sites would be available for the
design period (i.e., 1975 to 1995). However, current local and
regional solid waste management plans are recommending alternative
disposal schemes for solid waste which would eliminate the sanitary
landfill as a disposal method (see Chapter VI). As a result,
although the existence of sanitary landfills is assured for the next
several years, the longer-term is far less certain.
The solids handling processes vary from plant to plant and
were based on existing or proposed processes. This is a deviation
-90-
-------
in concept from the Methodology approach but it is justified some-
what in its truer representation of the base case situation. In
the development of all the alternatives, the solids handling sys-
tems for existing and proposed STP's were used in part or in total
if they met the required sludge condition for the various disposal
options. The Methodology was used to define any additional or
substitutive solids handling processes required.
The sludge condition required for sanitary landfill disposal
is digested and dewatered. Aerobic digestion would be utilized by
Powell, Turkey Creek, Karns, and Forks-of-the-River STP's.
Anaerobic digestion preceded by gravity thickening would occur in
Knob Creek and Lyon Creek STP's. Dewatering would be accomplished
by pressure filtration in Knob Creek and Powell STP's, sand beds
in Turkey Creek, Lyon Creek, and Forks-of-the-River STP's, and
vacuum filtration in Karns STP.
The raw-sludge quantities presented in Chapter V of this
report and the following assumptions (from information presented in
Chapter IV of the Methodology) were used to project sludge quantities
(1) A 40 percent reduction in the dry solids input during
both anaerobic and aerobic digestion;
(2) for anaerobic digestion a three percent solids output
and for aerobic digestion a four percent solids output;
(3) pressure filtration and sand bed dewatering produces a
cake dry solids content by weight of 40 percent, while
vacuum filtration produces a cake dry solids content by
weight of 20 percent and the specific gravities of both
types of cake are equal; and
(4) a specific gravity of the digested, dewatered sludge of
0.95 which is used to convert from wet tons per day to
cubic yards per day as follows:
yd3 _ wet tons (2000 Ib. ft3 yd3 JL
day day \wet ton 62.4 Ib. 27 ft^ 0.95J
3 / 3\
yd _ wet tons [ 1.25 yd 1
day day \ wet ton f
Table VII-1 presents the estimated sludge production for various
design years.
»
The dewatered sludges would then be transported via a trucking
operation to a landfill site near the currently operating sanitary
-91-
-------
TABLE VII-1
SLUDGE PROJECTION'S FOR_T] 1 K_ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE 1 - SANITARY LANDFILL A.ND ALTERNATIVE 2 - TRENCHING
to
I
Facility
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Total
t
6. Lyon Creek
!7. Forks of the River
1
GRAND TOTAL
1
1975
45. 85/57. 311
0.65/0.81
46.50/58.12
3.98/4.98
1,48/1.85
1.25/1.56
6.71/8.39
0.90/1.13
! 1.85/2.31
55.96/69.95
1980
49.30/61.63
0.65/0.81
49.95/62.44
4. 70/5.88
1.70/2.13
1.50/1.88
7.90/9.89
0.93/1.16
2.20/2.75
60,98/76.24
1985
51.90/64.88
0.65/0.81
52.55/65.69
5.38/6.73
1.83/2.29
1.70/2.13
8.91/11.15
0.95/1.19
2.55/3.19
64.96/81.22
1990
53.40/66.75
0.68/0.85
54.08/67.60
5.95/7.44
3.18/3.98
3.10/3.88
12.23/15.30
0.98/1.23
2.60/3.25
69.89/87.38
1995
54.70/68. 38
0.70/0.88
55.40/69.26
6.15/7.69
3.23/4.04
3.20/4.00
12.58/15.73
1.00/1.25
2.73/3.41
71.71/89.65
watered sludge
to either
sanitary land-
fill or trench-
ing
Knoxville-
Knox County
Note: 1. Values given in wet tons per day and wet cubic yards per day.
-------
landfill site near Rutledge Pike in northeastern Knox County.
Trucking distances would vary from 12 to 31 miles (19.3 to 49.9
km) depending on the location of the treatment facility. There
the sludge would be mixed and buried with the daily collections of
municipal refuse. No significant increase in landfill volume
required is expected from this practice due to the Z-rgely liquid
nature of the sludge (i.e., the sludge would merely fill in the
spaces within the solid waste).
Each treatment facility would operate independently in this
alternative. It is assumed that the County would continue to
operate the sanitary landfill, charging a user's fee of $6.00 per
wet short ton ($6.60 per wet metric ton).
Alternative 2 - Trenching
As discussed in Chapter VI, trenching (i.e., the burial of
sludge in trenches) was introduced into this study as an alterna-
tive to sanitary landfills. The solids handling systems (and the
estimated sludge production) and transportation plans are the same
as those for Alternative 1.
Using the site suitability map developed for Chapter VI, a
trenching site was located in the same general area as the sani-
tary landfill in Alternative 1. The area required to dispose the
sludge estimated to be generated in the Study Area from 1975 to
1995 (1,110,000 yd3 or 839,160 cu m) is 500 acres (202.5 ha). This
is based on a trench width of two feet (0.61 m), trench depth of
three feet (0.91 m), and trench spacing of two feet (0.61 m).
An additional 200 acres to be used for buffer, buildings, and
equipment storage would also be required.
It was assumed that the City of Knoxvllle would own and
operate the trenching facility. The City was selected for this
function over the County and utility districts because it has the
largest financial, administrative, and technical base in addition
to being the largest user of the facility. Although the suitable
site areas for trenching are outside its corporate limits, the City
does have the legal powers (i.e., eminent domain) and precedent
(e.g., Knoxville Municipal Airport) to condemn land and operate
facilities outside its jurisdiction. The City would charge a
user's fee to the County and each participating utility district
utilizing the facility.
Alternative 3 - Incineration
Incineration of sewage sludges is a common disposal method in
many areas of the country. In this alternative, one regional in-
cinerator located at Knob Creek would incinerate undigested dewatered
sludge from the Knob Creek, Powell, Turkey Creek, and Karns STP's.
-93-
-------
Lyon Creek and Forks-of-the-River STP's would dispose their digested
and dewatered sludge to a sanitary landfill per Alternative 1 because
of their proximity to probable landfill sites and small sludge
contributions.
"ndigested primary and secondary sludges would be conditioned
with lime and ferric chloride prior to dewatering by pressure fil-
tration. In addition to conditioning the sludge for dewatering,
lime addition would also stabilize the raw sludge and minimize the
possible public health risk of transporting raw sludge from the out-
lying treatment plants to Knob Creek.
The following assumptions based upon information provided in
the Methodology were utilized to estimate sludge and ash production.
(1) Pressure filtration and sand bed dewatering produces a
cake dry solids content by weight of 40 percent;
(2) a specific gravity of the undigested, dewatered sludge of
0.95 used in the same manner as indicated earlier;
(3) lime and ferric chloride addition prior to pressure
filtration increases dry weight by 25 percent;
(4) incineration provides a volume reduction of 80 percent
and a weight reduction of 75 percent; and
(5) Lyon Creek and Forks-of-the-River solids handling is
the sarae as for Alternative 1.
Table VII-2 indicates the amount of incinerator ash to be disposed
into a sanitary landfill for Knob Creek, Loves Creek Powell
Turkey Creek, and Karns, and the digested, dewatered sludge to the
landfill for Lyon Creek and Forks-of-the-River.
A multiple-hearth incinerator was assumed for treatment be-
cause it is simple, durable, and has lower capital and operating
c^sts than other types of incinerators. At 30 to 40 percent solids
content, the undigested, dewatered sludge should have sufficient
energy for self-sustaining combustion in the incinerator, thereby
eliminating supplemental fuel costs. Air pollution control equip-
ment, such as scrubbers and cyclone separators, has been included
in the capital and operating costs. The incinerator ash would be
trucked to a local landfill for disposal.
Ic --.-as assumed that each participating utility would be charged
a^user s fee by the City for use of the incinerator and transporta-
tion and disposal costs of the ash to a landfill.
-94-
-------
TAJ8LE VII-2
SLUDGE PROJECTION::_ FOR THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
ALTERN.VIVE 3 - INCINERATION
I
\D
Facility
1
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves CreelT
Sub Total
1
3. Powell1
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Iota I
2
6. Lyon CrepV'
7. Forks-of-che-River
1 GRAND TOTAL
!
1975
7.64/38.16
0.11/0.54
7.75/38.70
0.66/1.66
0. 25/0.61
0.11/0,52
1.02/2.79
0.36/1. 13
0.74/2.31
9.87/44.93
1980
8. 22/41.07
0. 11/0.55
8.33/41.62
'0.79/1,96
0.29/0.71
0. 13/0.62
1.21/3.29
\
', 0.37/1.. 16
I 0.88/2.75
!
! 10.79/48.82
1985
8. 65/43. 2*.
0.11/0.55
8.76/43. 79
0.90/2.24
0.31/0.76
0.14/0.71
1.35/3.71
0.38/1.19
1.02/3.19
11.51/51.88
1990
8.90/44.48 '
0.11/0.56
9.01/45.04
0.99/2.47
0. 53/1.32
0.26/1.30
1.78/5.09
0. 39/1.23
1.04/3.25
12.22/54.61
1995
9.12/45. 58
0.12/0.59
9.24/46.17
1.03/2.56
0.54/1.34
0. 27/1.34
1.84/5,24
0.40/1.25
1.09/3.41
12.57/56.07 I
Incinerator ash
to landfill
Digested, De-
watered, truck
to landfill
-------
Alternative 4 - Land Application: Spray Irrigation
Spray irrigation of liquid sludge on agricultural land has
received considerable attention in recent years because of its
beneficial effect on crop p inactivity . This alternative sludge
management plan would utilize digested sludge from all the waste-
water treatment plans except Forks-of-the-River STP, which would
continue to dispose its sludge- to a sanitary landfill. It was
assumed that, because of the substantial industrial contribution to
Forks-of-the-River STP, as noted in Chapter V of this report, the
heavy metal content of the sludge would be too high for safe long-
term application to agricultural land.
The remaining wastewater treatment plants would end their
solids handling processes with either aerobic or anaerobic
digestion. The liquid sludge would then be transported by tank
truck to the land application site and pumped into a storage lagoon
for later application. The transportation distances to the site
vary from 14 to 40 miles (22.5 to 64.4 km).
The following assumptions based upon information provided in
the Methodology were utilized to project sludge production.
(1) A 40 percent reduction in the dry solids input during
both anaerobic and aerobic digestion;
(2) for anaerobic digestion a three percent solids output
and for aerobic digestion a four percent solids output;
(3) a specific gravity of the digested sludge of 1.03
which is used to convert from wet tons per day to cubic
yards per day as follows:
yd3 = wet tons / 2000 lb . ft3 yd3 _J. _
day day ^wet ton X 62.4 lb . X 27 ft3 X l.Q3j
3 / 3 \
yd wet tons I, nror yd \
— — - - — — — • — —
. .
day day \ wet ton/
(4) Forks-of-the-River solids handling the same as for
Alternative 1.
Table VII- 3 indicates the amount of digested, undewatered sludge
from Knob Creek and Loves Creek, Powell, Turkey Creek, Karns , and
Lyon Creek to be applied to the land and the digested, dewatered
sludge from Forks-of-the-River to the landfill.
-96-
-------
TABLE VII-3
SLUDGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE 4 - LAND APPLICATION: SPRAY IRRIGATION
Facility
1. Knob Creek
1
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell1
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Total
6. Lyon Creek
Sub Total
2
7, Forks-of-the-River
GRAND TOTAL
in cubic yards per day
1975
18.34/704.56
0.26/ 9.99
18.60/714.55
1.59/ 45.81
0.59/ 17.00
0.25/ 7.20
2.43/ 70.01
0.36/ 13.83
21.39/798.39
1.85/ 2.31
800 . 70
1980
19.72/757.58
0.26/ 9.99
19.98/767.57
1.88/ 54.17
0.68/ 19.59
0.30/ 8.64
2.86/ 82.40
0.37/ 14.21
23.21/864.18
2.20/ 2.75
866.93
1985
20.76/797.54
0.26/ 9.99
21.02/807.53
2.15/ 61.95
0.73/ 21.03
0.34/ 9.80
3.22/ 92.78
0.38/ 14.60
24.62/914.91
2.55/ 3.19
918.10
1990
21.36/820.59
0.27/ 10.37
21.63/830.96
2.38/ 68.57
1.211 36.59
0.62/ 17.86
4.27/123.02
0.39/ 14.98
26.29/968.96
2.60/ 3.25
972.21
1995
21.88/840.56
0.28/ 10.75
22.16/851.31
2.46/ 70.88
1.29/ 37.17
0.64/ 18.44
4.39/126.49
0.40/ 15.36
26.95/993.16
2.73/ 3.41
996.57
To Land
Application
Site
To Sanitary
Landfill
Knoxville-
RJIOX County
Note: 1. Values given in dry tons per day and dry cubic yards per day for Knob Creek, Loves Creek, Powell, Turkey Creek,
Karns, and Lyon Creek and the resultant subtotal to land application site.
2. Values given in wet tons per day and cubic yards per day for Forks-of-the-River to sanitary landfill or
on-site disposal.
-------
The land application site assumed for this study was located
using the land application suitability map developed in Chapter VI
and would occupy that area adjacent to and west of House Mountain
in northeastern Rnox County. The land requirements for the land
application area are estimated to be 670 acres (271 ha). This is
based on an application rate of 15 dry short tons of sludge/acre/
year (34 dry metric tons/ha/year) and the estimated 1995 sludge
production for the Study Area (see Table VII-3). The application
rate is an average rate for humid climatic regions and was obtained
from the Methodology. Because of the high water content of the
sludge, a subsurface collection system would need to be installed
to collect leachate for water quality analysis and possible treat-
ment before discharge to surface water courses. An additional 330
acres (134 ha) would be acquired for buffer land and a storage
lagoon. The storage lagoon would be capable of holding liquid
sludge for the several month period between growing seasons and
would be 15 to 20 acres (6 to 8 ha) in area (six-month storage
capacity).
Because of the large and long-term land requirements of the
spray irrigation system, a joint City/County ownership of the sys-
tem was assumed to be the most viable institutional arrangement.
For the purposes of this study, the County would own the land while
the City would own and operate the storage, application, and
collection facilities. Acreage would be leased to local farmers
for crop production with the crops grown monitored by the state
public health department which is operated at the County level.
User charges would be levied on the participating utility districts.
No leasing revenues were included in the economic analysis.
Alternative 5 - Land Application; Composting
This is a unique alternative developed for this study. In
concept, it is similar to Alternative 4 in that the sludge would be
applied to agricultural land to benefit crop production. Instead
of liquid sludge, however, digested, dewatered sludge and compost
would be applied to the land during the period between growing
seasons. During the growing season, the digested, dewatered sludge
would be composted and stored. Depending on the demand, a
quantity of compost could be packaged for public sale. If public
demand were substantial, a significant reduction in land require-
ments at the land application site could be realized in addition
to increased revenue.
As in Alternative 4, all the wastewater treatment plants would
participate except for Forks-of-the-River STP which would dispose
to a landfill. The solids handling processes and the pertinent
assumptions for the wastewater treatment plants would be the same
-98-
-------
as those for Alternative 1, the required sludge conditions being
the same. Table VII-4 presents the anticipated sludge production
from these processes for various years. The dewatered sludges
would be transported via container truck to the land application
si te.
The composting and land application site location and area re-
quirements are identical to those of Alternative 4. However,
owing to the low water content of the dewatered sludge and compost,
site development would not require subsurface collection or spray
application systems. The composting area would require a five
acre (2 ha) concrete pad for sludge processing (i.e., bulking and
windrowing) and storage.
The institutional arrangements and rationale for Alternative
4 were assumed to apply to this alternative, also. No leasing or
composting revenues were considered in the economic analysis.
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery; IRQ
As discussed in Chapter VI, Independent Research and Develop-
ment Company (IRD) has proposed to develop a resource recovery
center on Pickel Island, located near the mouth of the French
Broad in eastern Knox County. Among its planned operations is a
sludge processing plant that would convert wastewater sludges from
the Chattanooga and Knoxville metropolitan areas into a high nitro-
gen fertilizer. For this alternative, all the wastewater treatment
plants (including Forks-of-the-River STP) would deliver a digested
liquid sludge to IRD.
The solids handling processes would end with digestion, either
aerobic or anaerobic depending upon the facility producing the
sludge quantities presented in Table VII-5. The liquid sludge would
be transported via tank truck to Pickel Island except for that of
Knob d-eek STP which would be barged. It was assumed that each
treatment facility would make its own transportation arrangements
and that IRD would provide a vacuum filter dewatering process and
charge a dewatering fee for liquid sludge received.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
The six sludge management alternatives were evaluated with
respect to economics, environmental factors, feasibility, and per-
formance according to the guidelines presented in Chapter VII of
the Methodology. Table VII-6 shows the completed sludge management
evaluation matrix. The bases of the quantifiable (i.e., economics)
and qualitative (i.e., environmental, feasibility, and performance)
factors are presented in the following sections.
-99-
-------
TABLE VII-4
SLUDGE PROJECTIONS FOH THE ANTICIPATED_FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE 5 - LAN3 APPLICATION: COMPOSTING
Facility
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek.
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Kama
Sub Total
6. Lyon Creek
Sub Total
7. Forks-of-the-River
GRAKD TOTAL
1975
45.857 57. 311
0.65/ 0.81
46. 50/ 58.12
3.98/ 4.98
1.48/ 1.85
1.25/ 1.56
6.71/ 8.39
0.90/ 1.13
54. ll/ 67.64
1.857 2.31
55.967 69.95
1980
49.307 61.63
0.657 0.81
49.95/ 62.44
4.707 5.88
1.70/ 2.13
1.507 1.88
7.907 9.89
0.937 1.16
58.787 73.49
2.20/ 2.75
60.987 76.24
1985
51.907 64.88
0.65/ 0.81
52.557 65.69
5.387 6.73
1.837 2.29
1.707 2.13
8.91/ 11.15
0.957 1.19
62. 41/ 78.03
2.55/ 3.19
64.96/ 81.22
1990
53.407 66.75
0.687 0.85
54.087 67.60
5.957 7.44
3.18/ 3.98
3.10/ 3.88
12.237 15.30
0.987 1.23
67.297 84.13
2.607 3.25
69.897 87.38
1995
54.707 68.38
0.70/ 0.88
55.407 69.26
6.157 7.69
3.237 4,04
3.207 4.00
12.587 15.73
l.OO/ 1.25
68.987 86.24
2.737 3.41
71.717 89.65
To Compost
Site
To Sanitary
Landfill
Knoxville-
Knox County
o
o
I
Note; 1. Values given in wet tons per day and wet cubic yards per day.
-------
TABLE VII-5
SLUDGE PROJECTIONS FOR THE ANTICIPATED FACILITIES
ALTERNATIVE 6 - RESOURCE RECOVERY: IRQ
i
t—'
o
t—'
i
Facility
1. Knob Creek
2. Loves Creek
Sub Total
3. Powell
4. Turkey Creek
5. Karns
Sub Total
6. Lyon Creek
7. Forks of the River
GRAND TOTAL
1975
611. 33/704. 56 1
8.67/9.99
620.00/714.55
39.75/45.31
14.75/17.00
6.25/7.20
60.75/70.01
12.00/13.83
18.50/21.32
711.25/819.71
1980
657.33/757.58
8.67/9.99
666.00/767.57
.47.00/54.17
17.00/19.59
7. 50/8.64
71.50/82.40
12.33/14.21
22.00/25.36
771. 83/889. 5i
1985
692.00/797.54
8.67/9.99
700.67/807.53
53.75/61.95
18.25/21.03
8. 50/9.80
80.50/92.78
12.67/14.60
25.50/29.39
819.34/944.30
1990
712.00/820.59
9.00/10.37
721.00/830.96
59.50/68.57
31.75/36.59
15.50/17.86
106.75/123.02
13.00/14.98
26.00/29.97
866.75/998.93
1995
729.33/840.56
9.33/10/75
738.66/851.31
61.50/70.88
32.25/37.17
16.00/18.44
109. 75/126.49
13.33/15.36
27.25/31.41
888.99/1024.57
Digested sludge
to Pickel Island
Knoxville-
Knox County
Note
: 1. Values in wet tons per day and wet cubic yard: per day.
-------
TABLE VII-6A
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
Economics and Environmental Factors
PARAMETERS
ECONOMICS
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS
CAPITAL COST
ANNfAL CAPITAL
AMORTIZATION
0. AND H. COST
RECLAMATION*
RL'.'ENIT
PRESENT WORTH
WATER QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
LAND QUALITY
FLORA AND FAUNA
AESTHETICS
PUBLIC HEALTH
COMMUNITY IMPACT
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
ALTERNATIVE 1
$ 4,836,000
S , 456,000-
$ 484,000
S 13,000
S 9,828,000
RATING
it
No change In any water quality
Produces sight increases in odors
and truck emissions
Ultimately limits soil produc-
tivity and use options
ALTERNATIVE 2
S 6,876,000
$ 649,000
$ 496,000
S 13,000
511,994,000
RATING
*«
No change in any water quality
Produces slight increases in odors,
dust, and truck emissions
Increase soil productivity;
limits use options
Severely disrupts local ecology j Severely disrupts local ecology
Degradation of aesthetic qualities
In some local areas
No change in public health
No change in social or physical
elements of the community
Maintains present level of energy
and materials resource usage
Some loss of areas with desirable
aesthetic qualities
Some Increase in public health
involvement
Involves displacement of resi-
dents from community
Increase primary resource con-
sumption and decreases secondary
resource production
ALTERNATIVE 3
$ 5,099,000
$ 481,000
$ 357,000
$ 0
$ 8,879,000
RATING
No change in any water quality
Produces slight increases in odors,
dust, and truck emissions
No change In land quality
Has only Minor Impact on ecology
N- changes in present aesthetic
qua I i ty
No change in public health
invo Ivement
Increases noise or odor levels In
community
sumption and decreases secondary
resource production
o
Ni
I
* Methane recovery from anaerobic digestion
** Lf site is properly managed
Note: 1. See also Table VII-7
-------
TABLE VII-6A (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
Economics and Environmental Factors
PARAMETERS
ECONOMICS
CAPITAL COST
AN-NUAL CAPITAL
AMORTIZATION
0. AND M. COST
RECLAMATION*
RKVENUE
PR£SENT WORTH
ENVIRONMENTAL
FACTORS
WATKR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
LA.ND QUALITY
ALTERNATIVE 4
5 9.060,000
$ 855,000
$ 938,000
$ 13,000
5 18,965.000
RATING
**
No changes In any w.iter quality
Produces slight increases In odors
and truck emissions
Increuses soil productivity
FLORA AND FAUNA Severely disrupts sone local ecology
AESTHETICS
Df|;r:ii!.it Ion of aesthetic qualities
in some local areas
PUBLIC HEALTH Increases potential of harm to
public health
COMMUNITY IMPACT
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
Involves displacement of residents
from community
Promotes beneficial use of sludge
and reduces usage of natural
resources
ALTERNATIVE S
5 6,536,000
$ 617,000
$ 561.000
$ 13,000
12,342,000
RATING
**
N.I ch.infjCH In any uatc-r quality
dust, and truck emissions
Increases soil productivity
Si-verely disrupts some local ecology
IVKr.id.it ion of aesthetic qualities
in iome local areas
Increases potential of harm to
public health
Involves displacement of residents
from community
Proaotes beneficial use of sludge
a. id reduces usage of natural
resources
ALTERNATIVE 6
$ 4,304,000
$ 406,000
$ 565,000
$ 13,000
$10,147,000
RATING
*»
No cli.m|;c8 In any u.-itcr quality
and tug and truck emissions.
No change In land quality
No impacts on ecology
No ch.inge In present aesthetic
quality
No change In public health Involve-
ment
No change in social or physical
elements of the community
Promotes beneficial use of sludge
and reduces usage of natural
resources
o
u>
I
* Methane recovery from anaerobic digestion
** If site is properly managed
Note: 1. See also Table VII-7
-------
TABLE VII-6B
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
Feasibility and Performance
PARAMETERS
FEASIBILITY
PERFORMANCE
FINANCIAL
FEASIBILITY
PUBLIC
ACCEPTABILITY
LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY
EASE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
SYSTEM
EFFtCTIVRNESS
RELIABILITY
ADAPTABILITY
CALAMITY
RESISTANCE
PERMANENCE
ALTERNATIVE 4
Readily falls within funding
capabilities of responsible agency
Opposed by some local groups
Compatible with existing land use
plans
Will require minor reorganization
of agencies
Will meet performance criteria
Complex system with little
mechanical downtime
Will not adapt to neu processes
or performance criteria
Will cease function for more than
several days
System adequate for immediate
planning horizon
ALTERNATIVE 5
Readily falls within funding
capabilities of responsible agency
Opposed by some local groups
Compatible with existing land use
plans
Will require minor reorganization
of agencies
Will meet performance criteria
Simple system with little mechanical
downtime
Will adapt to some new processes
Will cease functions for a very
short period of time
System adequate for Immediate
planning horizon
ALTERNATIVE 6
Readily falls within funding
capabilities of responsible agency
Supported by some local groups
Compatible with existing land use
plans
Readily implementable by existing
agencies within current legislative
limits
Will meet performance criteria
Complex system unproven In full-
scale operation
Will adapt to some new processes
In event of calamity, will cease
function and require major repairs
System adequate for Immediate
planning horizon
I
r-1
O
I
-------
TABLE VII-6B (Continued)
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX
Feasibility and Performance
PARAMETERS
FEASIBILITY
PERFORMANCE
FINANCIAL
FEASIBILITY
PUBLIC
ACCEPTABILITY
LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY
EASE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
SYSTEM
EFFECTIVENESS
RELIABILITY
ADAPTABILITY
CALAMITY
RESISTANCE
PF.R.MANENCE
ALTERNATIVE 1
Readily falls within funding
capabilities of responsible agency
Public ambivalent coward this
syscem
Compatible with existing land use
plans
Readily Implementable by existing
agencies within current legislative
limits
Will meet performance criteria
Simple system with little mechanical
downtime
Will adapt to aome new processes
Will remain fully functional and
require only minor repairs
Interim measure, usable for several
years only
ALTERNATIVE 2
Readily falls within funding
capabilities of responsible agency
Opposed by some local groups
Compatible with existing land use
plans
Readily Implementable by existing
agencies within current legislative
limits
Simple system unproven in full-scale
operat Ion
Will adapt to some new processes
Will remain fully functional and
require only minor repairs
Systen adequate for Imnedlate
planning horizon
ALTERNATIVE 3
Readily falls within funding
capabilities of responsible agency
Strongly opposed by local groups
Compatible with existing land use
plans
Readily Implementable by existing
agencies within current legislative
limits
Will meet performance criteria
Simple system with little mechanical
downtime
Will adapt to some new performance
criteria
Will cease function for more than
several days
System adequate for Immediate
planning horizon
I
h->
O
I
-------
It should be noted at this time that the level of analysis is
at a general feasibility level. Only representative transportation
distances and routes were used in this study. In addition, dis-
posal site areas were only generally located. However, the
evaluation procedures which follow can be taken to any level of
detail desired. It is recommended that, in the actual use of the
Methodology, such a feasibility level of analysis, as represented
by this case study, be done initially prior to detailed transpor-
tation routing and site evaluation. Undesirable alternatives, as
defined by the involved institutions and public, could then be
eliminated without undue time and money commitments.
Economic Analysis
Included in Tables VII-7a through 7f and summary Table VII-7g
are the cost worksheets and figures used for the six alternatives.
Figures VII-1, VII-2, and VII-3 show the capital, operation and
maintenance, and truck transportation costs, respectively, used
and extrapolated from the Methodology cost curves. The following
assumptions were made in the preparation of these costs:
(1) sludge processing equipment (thickeners, digesters,
pressure or vacuum filters, incinerators, etc.) were
assumed to have a service life of 20 years;
(2) the interest rate used was seven percent;
(3) transportation modes (trucks or barge) would not entail
a capital cost because either existing trucks would be
utilized or future truck and barge capacity would be
leased;
(4) landfills would not entail a capital expenditure because
a landfill will be required and operated for either
solid wastes or the residuals remaining from solid waste
processing and the landfill user charge would include
the user's share of the amortized capital (the local
land fee by 1995 was assumed at $6/wet ton);
(5) land costs were included as a necessary capital expen-
diture and ammortized over the 20-year planning period
at seven percent;
(6) assuming that one-half of the total anaerobic digestion
methane gas production per day to be excess suitable for
reclamation revenue, it was estimated (using 0.4 cubic
feet (0.01 cu m) per capita, 600 BTU/ft (5350 kg-cal./
cu m) , and !?0 ,085/therm) that the contribution would be
-106-
-------
TABLE VII-7a
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
SANITARY LANDFILL
(Base Case)
I
M
O
I
PROCESSING
No. Pltnc
3 Powell
4 Turkey Creek
5 K*rn»
6 Lyon Cr«ek
7 Forks- of -th*-Iiv*r
TRANSPORTATION
3 Powell
4 Turkey Cr.ek
3 Kerne
6 Lyoo Cr**k
7 Torki of ch« Klvor
ULTIMATE &ISPOSAL
All Plant* to Sanitary Landfill
TOTAL COSTS (Capital. Annual OtH, T
Processes
Digestion (Anaerobl-;)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Dig esc l^n (Aerobic)
Dewaler (Sar.d Bed»)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Dcuatfcr (Vacuum Filura)
Thickening (Cavity)
Digestion (Anaerobic)
Dewater (Sand &ed«)
fiigeatlon (Aerobic)
Cewacer (Sand fiede)
Trdiitportatloa
Truck 16.6
Truck 30.1
Truck 24.4
Truck 14.1
Truck 11.7
UeC Tcm*/I *y
72
o»l Aanu.l)
36.94
4.10
2.46
2.15
1.29
1.07
0.64
0.66
0.66
0.40
1.82
1.09
1995
Dry Term/Day
22 16
2.46
1.29
0.64
0.40
1.09
£/y«c Ton
6
94
S100C
2600
155
42
120
90
96
30
26
1J
100
28
76
80
Z
SolUi
40
40
40
20
40
40
.434,000
S1003
264.29
14.63
3.96
11.33
8.50
9.06
4.72
2.45
1.23
9.44
2.64
7.17
7.55
(/Dry Toa
6 00
5.70
6.90
9.60
5.10
4.50
$1000
39
29
7
16
20
13
14
4
4
1
4
It
11
*/0.y
132 96
14.02
11.35
6.14
2.04
4.91
$414.240
si ooo
303.29
43.63
10.96
27.33
28.50
22.06
IS. 72
6.45
5.23
10.44
25.17
18.55
Annual
S10CO
48 33
5.12
4.14
2.24
0.74
1.79
Totll
Annual
51000
157. 68
(940.700
>ludg* production /or 197>-1995»
-------
TABLE VII-7b
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
TRENCHING
o
oo
i
PROCESSING
No.
112
3
4
5
t
7
Plant
Knob Cr««k 'i Lovaa Craak
Powell
Turkiy Cr«ak
Karna
Lyon Cr«*k
Forka-of- tha-Rivar
Unit
Processes
Thlckenlne (Cravlt •}
Digestion (An«erob -c)
Deuatcr (Presbuie i'ilt«t«)
DiRCfrtlcn (Aerobic
Thickening (Cravlt 0
Dewater (Pressure .'ilc«r«)
Digestion (Aerobic
Dewater (SanJ Biidb
Digestion (Aerobic
Deuaier (Vacuu= l"l t«n)
Thlckenlnz (Grivll 0
Dewater (Sand Bed£^
Blgistlon (Aerobic!
Dewacer (Sand Beda^
1995
Dry Tona/Day
Processed
36.94
36.94
22.16
4.10
2.46
2.46
2.15
1.29
1.07
0.64
0.66
0.66
0.40
1.82
1.09
TTO.VSPORTATION
1 I 2
3
4
5
6
7
LTTIXA
AII ri
TOTAL
Knob Creek 1 Lynn Crt«k
Powell
Turkey Crctk
fUrnl
Ly&n Creek
Fork«-of-t>.e-Rlv«r
TE DISPC:AL
anil CO Trenching Sic*
Land Cose (700 acrea
t 5700/jcrt)
Sice Developcenc
Equlpaent
COSTS (Capital. Mnu«l OI.H.
Tranfiportacioa
Kode, Kllia
Truck 18.4
Truck 16.6
Truck 30.8
Truck !'.«
Truck 14.1
Truck 11.7
Wet Tone /Day !/>•'' t Ton
72 6.45
Total Annual)
1995
Dry Tons/Day
22.16
2.46
1.29
0.64
0.40
1.C9
Capital
$1000
uo
2800
720
155
42
120
90
96
50
26
13
100
28
76
80
Solid!
40
iu
40
20
40
40
Capital
S1000
490
1440
250
$6.676.000
Annual
Capital
51000
41.53
204.29
67.96
14.63
3.96
11.33
8.50
9.06
4.72
2.45
1.23
9.44
2.64
7.17
7.55
S/Dry Too
6.03
5.70
8.80
S.60
5.10
4.50
Annual
Capl Lai
sicoo
46 . 25
135.92
13.60
$1000
21
39
62
29
7
16
20
13
14
4
4
1
4
18
11
S/2ay
132. S6
14.02
11.35
6.14
2.04
4.91
$,94,070
Total
51000
63.53
303.29
129.96
43.63
10.96
27.33
2B.iO
22. C6
18.72
6.45
5.23
10.44
6.&H
25. 17
16.55
Total
51000
48.53
5.12
2.24
0.74
1.79
Total
Anr.ual
169.51
46.25
135. 92
23.60
$1.158.100
*l**«d upon *v*r»g« elude* pcaducciaft for 1975-1993.
-------
TABLE VII-7c
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
INCINERATION
I
r—'
o
I
PROCISSIXC
NO.
112
3
4
5
6
7
Plant
Powell
Turkey Creek
Karns
Lyon Creek
Forks -of -the -River
Unit
Incineration
Deuater (Pressure Ftltura)
Dewater (Pressure Flltirt)
Thickening (Gravity)
Deuacer (Sar.d geds)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Dewater (Sand Be^s)
1995
Dry Tone/Day Capital
Processed $1000
36.94 440
36.94 1100
44.26 2SOO
4.10 190
2.15 110
1.07 62
0.66 13
0.66 100
0.40 28
1.82 76
1.09 80
Arr.uj 1
Capital
S1COO
41.53
103.83
273.73
17.93
10.38
5.85
1.23
9.44
2.64
7.17
7.55
Annual
04M
$1000
22
66
90
21
15
9
4
1
4
IS
11
TRAXS'OSTATIO:;
1 1 2
3
5
6
7
ULTIVATt
1-3
6 1 7
TOTAL COS
Knob Creek fc Loves Cra«k
(Ash to Landfill)
Crrek
Powell
Kama
Slui.'c to Ur.rtflll
Lyon Cr^.k
Forks -of -Che -Biver
DISPOSAL
Incinerator Ash
SluJ;e
TS (Capital, nr.r.uai jiM.
Koi. , Ml lea
Truck 18.4
Truck 19
Truck 26.6
Truck 26.6
Truck 14.1
Truck 11.7
Wet Tor.£./3iy S.'^l Ton
14.77 (,
3.73 6
Total Annual)
1995 t
Dry Tons/Day Solid.
11.08 Ath
4.10 40
2.15 40
1.07 40
0.40 40
1.09 40
55.099.000
$/Dry Ton
3.45
6.30
8.00
8.00
5.10
4.50
5/Day
38.23
25.83
17.20
8.56
2.04
4.91
$356.630
" Tc-.il
annual
51000
139,83
363.73
25.38
K.S5
5.23
6.64
25.17
13.55
Total
Annual
$1000
13.94
9.43
6.28
3.12
0.74
1.79
Total
Ar.r.ujl
S100C
32.35
8.17
$838.110
*Baa*d upon average »ludg« production for 1975-15^5.
-------
TABLE VII-7d
o
i
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
LAND APPLICATION/SPRAY IRRIGATION
PROCESS I NC
No. Mant
4 Turkey Creek
6 Lyon Creek
7 Forki-ol-the-River
TRANSPORTATION
To Land AoMUatlon Site
142 Knob Creek 4 Lovea Creak
) fowell
4 Turkey Creek
S Kama
6 Lyon Creek
To landfill
7 Forka-of-the-Hlvar
UlTIM/.TE DISPOSAL
Unit
Proceasec
Dlge«tlon (Aerobic I
Digestion (Aerobic >
Thickening (Cravlt/)
Digestion (Anaerobic)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Dewater (Sand Sadat
Transportation
Mode Kllel
Truck 28.0
Truck 20.9
Truck 40.4
Truck 29.0
Truck 13. •
Truck 11.7
A.creag.
1000
Site Development - tncludea screening and
1995
Dry Tone/Day Capital
rroceteed $1000
36.94
36.94
4.10
2.13
1.07
0.66
0.66
1.82
1.09
1995
Dry ToneYDay
22.16
2.46
1.29
0.64
0.40
1.09
Cost
f 700/ecre
$68£0/aere
440
2800
155
90
50
13
100
76
80
Z
Sollua
3
4
4
4
)
40
Capital
tiooo
700
4SS6
A.nnua 1
Capital
$1000
41.53
14.6}
8.50
4.72
1.23
9.44
7.17
7.55
S/Dry Ton
80.00
44.00
75.00
56.50
46.00
4.50
Annua 1
Capital
$1000
66
430
OtM - Includee puaplng aanpowex.
Mterlala
Landfill
TOTAL COSTS (Capital. Annual 04X,
W«t Toi » '^ay
2.73
Total Annual)
$yuct Ton
6
$9.060.000
$/Day
16.38
Annual*
OiM
$1000
22
29
20
14
4
1
18
11
»/».y
1772.80
108.24
96.75
36.16
18.40
Annual
OU1
$1000
40
6
$941.000
Total
Annual
$1000
63.53
43.63
28.50
18.72
5.23
10.44
25.17
18.55
Total
$1000
647
40
35
13
7
Total
Anr.ua 1
$1000
66
430
40
6
J1.803. 060
*Iaa*4 upon average aludge production for 1975-199$.
-------
TABLE VII-7e
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
LAND APPLICATION/COMPOSTING
PROCESS
Ho.
lit
)
4
>
6
7
141
1
4
)
6
7
IXC
Plant
Knob Creek t Love* Creak
Powll
Turkey Creek
Kerne
Lyon Creek
Forka-nf-th*~Rlvur
STATION
Unit
Praceeaa i
Thickening (Gravity)
Plge.tlon (Aiuer iblc)
Dawatcr (Preueur i Flltare)
Plgcatlon (Aerobic)
Thickening (Gravity)
Dcwater (Preaaurt Filter*)
Dlfiottlon (Aerobic)
Dewatcr (Sand Be le)
Dlgeatlon (Aerotlc)
Dcwater (Vacuua. filter*)
Thickening (Gravity)
Dtgaatlon (Aneerjblc)
Dewater (Sand 1*4*)
Oljeitlcm (Aerobic)
Deuater (Sand l«de)
Tranaportetlcm
Hod* Mllta
Knob Creek 4 Lovee Creak Truck 11.0
Pow«Il
Turkey Cre*k
Kama
Lyon Creek
Porka-of-cne-Rlv*r
Truck 20.9
Truck 40.4
Truck 19.0
Truck 11. 1
Truck 11.7
199)
Dry Tone/Day
Froceaaad
36.94
36.94
11.16
4.10
1.46
1.46
1.1J
1.29
1.07
0.64
0.46
0.66
0.40
1.12
1.09
199)
Dry Tone/Day
11.16
1.46
1.29
0.64
0.40
1.09
Capltel
11000
440
ieoo
720
1)>
41
110
90
96
SO
26
1)
100
it
76
ao
t
tolld*
40
40
40
10
40
40
Annual
Capital
91000
41.))
164,29
67.96
14.63
1.96
11.1)
.SO
.06
.71
.t)
.11
.44
.64
.17
'"
I/Pry Tu '
a.io
6.10
10.7)
11.11
5.00
4.50
Annual* Total
04X
11000
11
39
61
if
7
16
10
1)
It
4
4
1
4
IB
11
l/Oay
It). 91
16.46
1).6>
7.10
1.00
4.91
Annual
11000
63.))
103.19
119.96
43.6)
10.96
27.1)
21.50
22.06
18.71
t.t)
5.21
10.44
6.64
2). 17
18.))
Total
Annual
«1003
67
6
) .
3
1
- 2
U1.TTMJ.TE DISPOSAL
Uac
Acraag* Coat Toa*7Day I/Vac
1 - t
7
COPPO.^.
Land
Pad, Storage
Runoff Pond.
Coapoitare. Truck*.
Loader*. Sc4le»,
Control Uouae
Din
UadMll
Forka of the River
TOTAL COSTS (Capitol. Annual UM.
1000 l)00/*cr*
Total Annual)
1.7) «
1
Annual
Capital Capital
Ton* S1000
700
600
400
i. 534. 000
11000
46
41. M
17.76
Annual
out
11000
107
6
J61.000
Toral
Annual
11000
66
41.30
11.76
107
6
• l.LM.UC
•*aa*d upon av*ra(* *lwd|* production (or 1*71-1991.
-------
TABLE VI1-7f
COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 6
RESOURCE RECOVERY
(IRD)
N5
I
PROCESSING
No.
1 & 2
3
4
5
6
7
Plant
Knob Creek 4 Loves Creek
Powell
Turkey
Karns
Lyon Creek
Forks -of -che -River
Unit
Processes
Thickening (Gravity)
Digestion (Anaerobic)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Digestion (Aerobic)
Thickening (Gravity)
Digestion (Anaerobic)
Digestion (Aerobic)
1995
Dry Tons/Day
Processed
36.94
36. 94
it. 10
2.15
1.07
0.66
0.66
1.82
Capital
S1000
440
2800
155
90
50
13
100
76
Annual
Capital
51000
41,53
264.29
14.63
8.50
4.72
1.23
9.44
7.17
Annual*
OiM
$1000
22
39
29
20
14
4
1
18
TRANSPORTATION
1 t 2
3
4
5
6
7
To Pickel Island
Knob Creek. I Lovee Creek
Powell
Turkey Creek
Karns
tyon Creek
Forks-of- the- River
Transportation
Mode Klles
Barge 16
Truck 15.8
Truck 23.1
Truck 21.1
Truck 14-7
Truck 1.0
1995
Dry Tons/Day
2.46
1.29
0.64
0.40
1.09
I
Solids
3
4
4
4
3
3.5
RESOURCE RECOVERY
TOTAL
Plant
IRD
COSTS (Capital. Aanual OiM,
Unit
Processes
Devater (Vacuum Fill ers)
Total Annua" x
1995
Dry Tons/Day
28.04
Capital
$1000
580
$4.304.000
S/Dry Ton
30.00
47.00
44.00
48.25
4.60
Annual
Capital
S1000
54.75
5/Day
73.80
60.63
28.16
19.30
5.01
Annual
0«.M
$1000
30
$564,500
Total
Annual
$1000
63.73
303.29
43.63
2H.50
18.72
5.23
10.44
25.17
Total
Annual
$1000
319. 50«*
27
22
10
7
2
Total
Annual
SI 000
84.75
$970.760
"Annual Capital - SRfl.lfW (nayahle to harpe owners)
Annual Oik - $239,000t
t $14-66 to-ing cost/trip mile x J2 miles x 32 mile. - $i29.12/trip x 365 crips/year - $229,628.80/ye.r
+ $9660 (maintenance) - 5239.000
-------
TABLE VII-7g
CAPITAL. 0 & M, AND PRESENT WORTH
FOR THE ALTERNATIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Alternative
Sanitary Landfill
Trenching
Incineration
Land Application:
Spray Irrigation
Land Application:
Composting
Resource Recovery:
IRD
Total Capital
$ 4,836,000
$ 6,876,000
$ 5,099,000
$ 9,060,000
$ 6,536,000
$ 4,304,000
Total Annual 0 & M
$ 471,000**
$ 483,000**
$ 357,000
$ 935,000**
$ 548,000**
$ 552,000**
Present Worth*
$ 9,828,000
$ 11,994,000
$ 8,879,000
$ 18,965,000
$ 12,342,000
$ 10,147,000
I
H-
M
LO
* Amortized Capital at 7 percent for 20 years (factor = 0.09439).
** Includes $13,000/year debited against annual 0 & M for reclaimed resource of methane off-gas
-------
CAPITAL COSTS TOR SOLIDS PROCESSING FACILITIES
UJ
Q-
o
o
o
CO
OO
UJ
l_>
o
ct:
o_
i/o
o
o
oo
a:
a
1000
LEGEND
Gravity Thickening
Vacuum Filtration
Aerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Pressure Filtration
Incineration
Sand Bed Dewatering
CD
.01 0.1 1
CONSTRUCTION COSTS, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
-------
OPERATING COSTS FOR SOLIDS PROCESSING FACILITIES
1000
100
Q
o:
LLj
Q.
o
o
o
10 :
LU
O
a:
a.
o
on
a:
a
0.1
0.1
LEGEND
GT - Gravity Thickening
VF - Vacuum Filtration
Dae - Aerobic Digestion
Dan - Anaerobic Digestion
PF - Pressure Filtration
I - Incineration
SB - Sand Bed Dewatering
J L
i i i i l
1 10 100 1000
OPERATING COSTS, THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR
10,000
£75
I
ro
-------
FIGURE VII-3
O
cc.
UJ
D-
O
CJ
TRUCK TRANSPORTATION COSTS
(1975)
DISTANCE TO DISPOSAL POINT, MILES
-116-
-------
lor both Knob Creek/Loves Creek and Lyon Creek approxi-
mately $13,000 per year, of which 95 percent ($12,350 per
year) is attributed to Knob Creek/Loves Creek and five
percent ($650 per year) is attributed to Lyon Creek;
(7) no other reclamation resource revenues were developed due
to lack of specific cost data in the Study Area (i.e., the
revenue numbers presented in the Methodology were felt to
be unrepresentative of the Study Area);
(8) other transportation modes such as rail or pipeline were
not investigated due to the substantial amount of rail-
car switching necessary in the Study Area and the rela-
tively short distances involved from the plants to the
ultimate disposal areas;
(9) the annual 0 & M costs were based on the average sludge
quantities handled over the 20-year planning period; and
(10) the cost curves in the Methodology were utilized due to
lack of local data and extrapolated when necessary,
recognizing however the possible degree of error intro-
duced by such a technique.
Table VIl-7g shows, for each of the six alternatives, the total
capital cost, the total annual operation and maintenance costs
(0 & M), and the calculated present worth.
Where local costs were unavailable (e.g., site development or
composting and trenching costs), the -following references cited in
the Methodology were utilized:
(1) for trenching-site development and equipment costs,
Ref. VII-1;
(2) for land application/spray irrigation site development
and operating costs, Ref. VII-2; and
(3) for land application/composting site development, equip-
ment, and operating costs, Ref. VII-3.
Table VII-8 shows for each alternative the costs by alternative
and by each plant without Federal funding and with 75 percent
Federal funding. Thus, the lower case numbers would reflect the
cost per ton borne by State and local funding.
-117-
-------
TABLE VII-8
CQSTS (DOLLARS) PER TON OF DRY SLUDGE SOLIDS PROCESSED. TRANSPORTED. AND
DISPOSED OR RECLAIMED WITHOUT FEDERAL FUNDING AND WITH FEDERAL
FUNDING - 1995 SLUDGE PROJECTION
oo
I
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Forks-of-the-River
Alternative Cost
1 Cost ($/ton of dry solids) without Federal Funding.
2 Cost ($/ton of dry solids) 75 percent Federal funding of capital costs.
-------
Environmental Factors
The summary listing of potential environmental impacts presen-
ted in Table VII-9 shows the categories of concern investigated for
each alternative. The following discussion^ nresent the rationale
for the evaluations found in Table VII-6.
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill
No unacceptable changes in any water quality are expected from
this alternative because of strict state guidelines and regulations
for the location, design, and operation of the sanitary landfill,
precluding degradation of surface and ground waters. Whether non-
degradation of water quality occurs in fact is the responsibility
of the operating agency and the concerned state regulatory agencies.
A very minor increase in pollutant emissions could be expected
from the operation of the trucks transporting the sludge (on the
average, 3-4 truck trips/day would be required). Disposal of the
sludge would be expected to contribute additional odors at the land-
fill site prior to the daily covering operations.
Although abandoned sanitary landfill sites often are used to
provide new recreational facilities (e.g., parks, baseball diamonds,
etc.), this is done not so much out of choice as by limitation.
Methane gas generation, subsidence, corrosive leachate, and un-
developed soil profiles severely limit the possible uses of such a
site for many years after landfilling ceases.
Sanitary landfills by their very nature damage the existing
aesthetic value of an area and disrupt the existing ecologic sys-
tems. However, the sanitary landfill (and the open dump which
preceded it) has been in existence in the Study Area for many
years and most likely will continue to exist in the future.
As a result, no changes are expected in community impact, public
health involvement or resources consumed because of the implemen-
tation of this alternative.
Alternative 2 - Trenching
No unacceptable changes in any water quality are expected from
this alternative for much the same reason as given in Alternative 1.
A trenching operation would undoubtedly come under strict supervision
and regulation by the state environmental and public health agencies
and would necessarily be located in the best natural location with
water quality protection devices provided if necessary.
-119-
-------
TABLE VII-9
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Alternative
1. Sanitary
Landfill
Process
•Truck transport of
digested, dewatered
sludge to landfill
•Disposal of sludge at
sanitary landfill site
2. Trenching
•Truck transport of
digested, dewatered
sludge to trenching
site
•Disposal of sludge
at trenching site
3. Incineration "Truck transport of
dewatered sludge to
Knob Creek STP
•Truck transport of
digested, dewatered
sludge (Lyon Creek &
Forks-of-the-River
STP's) to sanitary
landfill site
• Incineration
Potential Significant
Environmental Impact
•Air pollutant emissions
•Noise
•Traffic
•Destruction of wildlife
habitat
•Groundwater degradation
•Damage to aesthetics
'Development of new
recreation lands
'Odors
'Public health hazard
•incompatibility with
other land uses
*Same as Alternative 1
Same as Alternative 1
"Air pollutant emissions
•Noise
•Traffic
•Vector propagation
•Same as Alternative 1
*Air pollutant emissions
•Public health hazard
•Damage to aesthetics
•Construction dust
•Construction noise
-120-
-------
TABLE VII-9 (Continued)
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Alternative
Process
3. Incineration •Truck transport of
incinerator ash to
sanitary landfill site
4. Land
Application:
Spray
Irrigation
Potential Significant
Environmental Impact
•Air Pollutant emissions
•Noise
•Traffic
•Dust
<»Disposal of sludge »Same as Alternative 1
at sanitary landfill site
•Disposal of incinerator
ash at sanitary landfill
site
*Truck transport of
digested sludge
to land application
site
•Truck transport of
digested, dewatered
sludge (Forks-of-the-
River STP) to sanitary
landfill site
•Spray irrigation of
digested sludge at
land application site
•Destruction of wildlife
habitat
•Groundwater degradation
•Damage to aesthetics
•Dust
'Development of new
recreation land
'Incompatibility with
other land uses
*Air pollutant emissions
*Noise
'Traffic
'Same as Alternative 1
Odors
•Construction dust
Construction noise
Destruction of natural
vegetation
'Destruction of wildlife
habitat
Damage to aesthetics
Vector propagation
•Displacement of local
residents
-121-
-------
TABLE VII-9 (Continued)
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Alternative
Process
4. Land
Application:
Spray
Irrigation
5. Land
Application:
Composting
•Disposal of sludge
at sanitary landfill
site
'Truck transport of
digested, dewatered
sludge to land applica-
tion site or sanitary
landfill (Forks-of-the-
River STP)
•Disposal of sludge at
sanitary landfill site
•Composting at land
application site
*Land application of
compost and/or digested,
dewatered sludge
Potential Significant
Environmental Impact
•Groundwater degradation
• Surface water pollution
• Incompatibility with
other land uses
• Enhance soil producti-
vity
•Toxic elements to food
chain
•Same as Alternative 1
•Same as Alternative 1
'Same as Alternative 1
•Odors
•Dust
•Noise
•Vector propagation
•Groundwater degradation
•incompatibility with
other land uses
•Surface water pollution
•Damage to aesthetics
"Construction noise
•Construction dust
•Odors
*Dust
*Noise
•Vector propagation
•Groundwater degradation
Incompatibility with
other land uses
-122-
-------
TABLE VII-9 (Continued)
POTENTIAL SIGKIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Iternative
Process
5. Land Application:
Composting
6. Resource
Recovery:
IRD
•Tn.-ck transport of
digested sludge
to IRD facility
•Barge transport of
digested sludge to IRD
facility
«Use of product
Potential Significant
Environmental Impact
•Displacement of local
residents
•Surface water pollution
•Destruction of natural
vegetation
•Destruction of wildlife
habitat
"Damage to aesthetics
•Enhance soil producti-
vity
•Toxic element to food
chain
•Same as Alternative 4
•Surface water pollution
•Vector propagation
*Air pollutant emissions
°Traffic _ .
0Damage to aesthetics
•Enhance soil prodycti-
vity
*Groundwater degradation
•Toxic elements to food
chain
Air quality considerations are the same as those for Alter-
native 1. In addition, noise and dust would be generated during
the operation of the trenching system.
Assuming the location of the trenching site would be on land
of only marginal productivity, a slight increase in soil pro-
ductivity would be realized after the incorporation of sludge.
-123-
-------
This benefit, however, would only be realized if cropping of the
trenching site were the subsequent land use. As a result, this is
a conditional benefit. In addition, trenching could be viewed as
development limiting in that residential and industrial development
would probably not be allowed on the site until the buried sludge
degraded anaerobically to an inert hunus, a slow process requiring
many years to occur.
Considerable disruption of existing ecosystems and damage to
aesthetics would occur during the operation of the trenching
facility. In addition, it is likely that sorce local residents
would be displaced by the acquisition of site and buffer lands,
owing to the large acreage and type of land (i.e., cleared) re-
quired .
Depending on one's point of view, resource conservation might
or might not be occurring in this alternative. If one assumes
that the land utilized would have been upgraded in productivity
with or without trenching (viz. fertilizer or compost), then
resources would be conserved. However, the decline in the
agricultural economy of Knox County (at least in terms of acreage
and number of farms) and increase in population and residential
land use requirements seem to indicate that the development-
potential loss would be greater than the potential agricultural
benefits that would occur.
Alternative 3 - Incineration
No unacceptable changes in water quality, land quality, public
health, ecology or aesthetics are expected to occur with the incinera-
tion of the dewatcred sludges or disposal of the incinerator ash to a
sanitary landfill. Air quality would be somewhat impacted by truck
emissions, incinerator stack emissions, and incinerator dust leak-
age during transit and disposal.
The possible air quality impacts from the operation of the
regional incinerator at Knob Creek were investigated by utilizing
in-house air quality models. Air quality data, specifically wind
rose data from sources noted in Chapter IV of this report and the
following typical incinerator stack parameters were used: stack
height of 75 feet (22.86 meters), stack diameter of 4 feet (1.22
meters), exit gas temperature of 350 F (177C), and exit gas velocity
of 30 feet per second (9.14 meters per second).
The average annual particulate concentrations within approxi-
mately a two-mile (1.61 kilometer) radius of the incineiator were
never above 0.03 yg/m and the distribution was in a northeasterly
and southwesterly direction.
-124-
-------
The maximum 24-hour concentration would occur under an A
stability classification with the wind from the north and would
result in a concentration of 0.33 ug/m ; an insignificant addition
to the existing levels (see Appendix A).
Thus the operation of a regional sludge incinerator located
at Knob Creek utilizing proper emission control devices to meet
Federal State, and locnl regulations is anticipated to create no
significant impact to the existing levels of particulates within
the Study Area.
Al t e rnativ^JLjiJiand_j^lication: Spray Irrigation
Vith the incorporation of the surface and underground collection
and storage svstems required for a liquid sludge spray irrigation
svstera and the expected nutrient uptake by crops, no unacceptable
chances in any water quality are anticipated by the implementation
of this alternative. As in Alternative 2, considerable State par-
ticipation in the design, operation, and nonatoring of the system
by environmental protection and public health agenc.es would be
expected to guarantee proper system performance.
=,ir nnllutant emissions and traffic from
Minor increases in air ^^averaging 40 truck trips/day)
truck transportation of the sludge * lan
and some increase in odors woul -
an some ^
tion site. ThV°SSrieatIonwou?d be .incized by proper
aerosols from the spray irrigation wouia d
operational considerations and surrounding buffer l..nd.
,™,1H hp located en already existing
The land application site wou Jd Je ^" ible with existing
or potential farmland and would not be ^^^ j required
land uses, aesthetics or ecosystems hou-e.er, tne g
area
and surface runoff control.
.
and would reduce the n« d for ot ,er fe^ ^^^^ ^ t(j tbe net
crop production. Tlierc is ^o --4 restrictions on
benefit to nsrlcMlt,,ral production because o ^ J^ Uc health
th. types of crops to be / ^. ^L of'slud.e at
-125-
-------
figure) and the exclusion of Forks-of-the-River sludge assumed ior
this alternative are based largely or solely on this consideration.
However, sludge, soil, and crop monitoring for toxic element con-
centrations would be required to verify this application rate
locally.
Alternative 5 - Land Application: Composting
No unacceptable water quality changes are expected with the
implementation of this alternative. As with Alternatives 2 and 4,
State regulation and monitoring could be expected to be rigorous.
Some runoff, collection, and storage facilities might be necessary,
particularly around the composting pad, although subsurface drainage
collection (at the land application site) should not be required, owing
to the low water content of the dewatered sludge and/or compost.
Minor increases in air pollutant emissions from trucks trans-
porting the sludge to the composting facility would be expected to
occur. The composting operation and the land application of the
sludge/compost (viz. disking) would be expected to generate some
dust, although the former would be mitigated by utilizing a con-
crete compost pad. The rural location and the use of buffer areas
would tend to minimize the impact of dust generated during disking.
The construction and operation of the composting facility
could be expected to disrupt existing ecosystems and degrade the
aesthetics (viz. noise, odors, etc.) of the area local to it.
These aesthetic impacts could be alleviated by the use of buffer
lands. The land application site and operation would be compatible
with existing land uses and praciices. However, the displacement
of some local residents would be required to obtain the necessary
land.
The use of the sludge and/or compost on the land would in-
crease the soil productivity and represents a beneficial use of
the sludge. It is anticipated that fewer restrictions would be
placed on the types of crops grown making this alternative a
greater potential contribution to the local agricultural economy.
Considerations of long-term sludge/compost application to the
soil, particularly in regards to heavy metal build-up and soil
toxicity, are the same as those discussed in Alternative 4.
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery: IRD
No unacceptable changes in water quality, land quality, ecology,
aesthetics, public health involvement, or community impact are expected to
-126-
-------
occur with the implementation of this alternative. Some minor in-
creases in pollutant emissions could be expected from barge and
truck transportation operations. Because it would be used to
product a high-nitrogen fertilizer, the sludge would become a.
resource.
Feasibility of Alternatives
The feasibility of implementing the alternative sludge manage-
ment plans was evaluated in this section by preliminary analyses of
four parameters: (1) financial feasibility; (2) public acceptability;
(3) land use compatibility; and (4) ease of implementation. The
procedures and rationale used in these analyses are particular
both to the general feasibility level of the Study and the nature
of the Knoxville-Knox County Study Area and should be viewed as an
example only. It would be the responsibility of the individual
planning agency using the Methodology to identify the evaluating
criteria (e.g., bonding capability, public opinion surveys, etc.)
and detail most relevant to discerning the feasibility of alter-
natives .
For the financial feasibility analysis, it was assumed that
the City of Knoxville (viz. Knob Creek SIT) could readily finance
on an individual basis or as a regional administrator, any of the
alternatives considered. As noted earlier, the PSD (City of Knox-
ville) has the capability to issue A-rated bonds of any type and
adjust user charges, is currently on a pay-as-you-go basis, and is
high on the state priority list for Federal funding. The utility
districts are not nearly as capable financially and are already
charging high user's fees. As a result, alternative sludge manage-
ment costs considerably higher than those currently incurred would
be undesirable although not necessarily infeasible. A percent
increase in sewer charges was estimated for the utility districts
for comoarative purposes based on the assumptions that: (1) 30
percent of the total annual cost (i.e., O&M and amortized capital
costs) of the sewer system is attributable to solids handling and
disposal; and (2) Alternative 1 (sanitary landfilling) represents
the base case to which all alternative costs are referenced. The
costs per dry ton of solids (without Federal funding) presented
in Table VII-8 were used as a basis for this analysis..
Public acceptability was gauged by project and MFC staff
familiar with the feelings of local interest groups in the Study
Area. This method is acceptable only at the preliminary feasibi-
lity stage. Subsequent evaluations and investigations should
include public participation via public meetings, mass-media
presentations, and/or public opinion surveys.
Land use compatibility with future land use plans was a
siting criterion for all the alternatives considered. As a
-127-
-------
result, all the alternatives are compatible with existing land use
plans.
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill
This alternative, as noted above, is the base case anJ »I11
occur barring the implementation of another sludge management plan
developed in this or subsequent studies. As a result, it is
assumed to be both financially feasible and easily implementable in
that no changes in the institutional relationships or responsibili-
ties from those currently existing are recommended.
Landfilling of sewage sludge shares common public acceptabi-
lity problems with landfilling of municipal refuse. The majority
of the public is ambivalent toward landfilling, but residents in
the immediate vicinity of a disposal site usually voice strong
objections to the facility.
Alternative 2 - Trenching
Trenching is estimated to be somewhat more expensive than
sanitary landfilling. Increases in utility district costs would
range from one to five percent above those estimated for Alter-
native 1.
Some local opposition to this alternative would be expected
from those residents who either would be displaced or adjacent to
the facility. In addition, some local real estate developers
might view this as an undesirable use of potentially developable
land. Local environmental groups could be expected to be ambiva-
lent depending on the balance between aesthetic and resource con-
servation values extant.
This alternative would be readily implementable because no
changes in institutional relationships or powers are recommended
for this alternative. There would be an increase in the functions
and responsibilities of Knoxville, but this would not be expected
to hinder implementation to any great extent.
Alternative 3__- Incineration
Incineration, based on the cost assumptions and procedures
used in this study, would be overall, the lowest cost alternative.
Cost reductions of four to five percent from Alternative 1 were
estimated for those utility districts participating in regional
incineration. Lyon Creek and Forks-of-the-River STP's would incur
no cost change as they would continue to use sanitary landfilling.
Some strong local opposition to the incinerator would be
expected from residents in the vicinity of the Knob Creek plant.
-128-
-------
The general public and local environmental groups would be ex-
pected to be ambivalent, at best, towards incineration.
No implementation problems are foreseen with this alternative.
There would be no institutional changes required and no significant
additional responsibilities or functions assumed by the City of
Knoxville in operating a regional incinerator.
Alternative 4 - Land Application: Spray Irrigation
Spray irrigation of sludge is the most expensive of the alter-
natives considered. Utility district costs increase six to 13 per-
cent over those for Alternative 1.
The acquisition of the land and the construction and operation
of the facility are expected to generate opposition from the
residents to be displaced and those that would be living adjacent
to the facility. The general public would probably have an ambiva-
lent attitude to the facility owing to its rural location. Local
environmental groups would probably support this alternative more
readily than any of the preceding alternatives.
Some minor reorganizational changes, particularly within the
Knox County government, would be expected with the implementation
of this alternative. Because Knox County would be involved in the
ownership and, consequently, in the operation (primarily advisory),
an agency would need to be established to administer its respon-
sibilities and advise the operation of the facility. The City of
Knoxville would acquire significant new functions and responsibili-
ties requiring administrative and technical staff recruitment.
Alternative 5 - Land Application; Composting
This alternative is comparable in cost to Alternative 2
(Trenching). Increases in utility district costs would be an
estimated two to six percent over those of Alternative 1.
Some local opposition to this alternative would be expected
from residents in the vicinity of the land application site. The
general public attitude would probably range from ambivalent to
moderately supportive owing to its rural location and the availa-
bility of a cheap compost product. Local environmental groups
would probably support this alternative more readily than spray
irrigation.
The ease of implementation would be equivalent to that of
Alternative 4.
-129-
-------
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery: IRD
The transport of digested sludge to the IRD sludge processing
facility, based on the assumptions made in this study, is one of
the less expensive alternatives. Cost reductions would be expected
for all the utility districts ranging from an estimated one to
seven percent. Forks-of-the-River STP would have an estimated
cost savings of 12 percent owing primarily to its proximate
location to the proposed IRD facility.
The general public and most special interest groups would
probably support this alternative owing to its minor community and
environmental impacts.
Because no changes in institutional relationships or respon-
sibilities would be necessary, no implementation problems are
anticipated for this alternative.
P^erf o nuance
Performance capabilities of the alternatives have been.evaluated
utilizing five basic parameters, namely: 1) system effectiveness;
2) reliability; 3) adaptability; A) calamity resistance; and 5) per-
manence.
As noted earlier in this report, many of the sludge processing
systems used in the alternatives were based upon either existing or
proposed systems if they would meet the required final sludge charac-
teristics needed prior to transport and ultimate disposal. This was
done to provide a degree of commonality with the 201 facilities planning
effort. Other sludge processing systems provided in the Methodology
and not proposed for use in the 201 facilities plans were evaluated
for their possible substitution if they would clearly provide a greater
degree of performance capabilities. At the level of detail provided
on a local basis, no substitutions of systems were identified at this
time. Potential operational difficulties of the sludge processing
systems used in the development of the six sludge management plans
which may adversely affect their performance capabilities are discussed
in the evaluation below.
Where, in addition to the sludge processing systems, the trans-
port and ultimate disposal systens could also be adversely affected
in maintaining their performance capabilities, these are also noted
and discussed below. Means of system nonitoring and control are pointed
out such that the potential for system upset or malfunction could be
mitigated.
-130-
-------
Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfills
As noted earlier, regulatory and public health agencies would
establish requisite performance criteria such that proper control
and monitoring of a sanitary landfill operation would occur. It is
expected that the overall system effectiveness of this alternative
would be such that performance criteria would be met.
The systems employed in this alternative are relatively simple
and their reliability good (see Table VII-6 of the Methodology).
Little mechanical downtime is anticipated and transportation sub-
systems are expected to present no operational problems based upon the
existing local history of landfill operation.
Without proper industrial pretreatment controls, the anaerobic
digestion process can be adversely affected; thus, as pointed out
earlier, the City must exercise care in what it will allow dis-
charged to its sewers. Sand bed dewatering, because of large land
requirements (see Table VII-6 of the Methodology), may necessitate
incorporation of covers to allow proper operation during rainy
seasons of the year, although local rainfall records (see Chapter
IV of this report) do not indicate substantial problems in this
regard.
The overall ability of the system to maintain operational
integrity and, hence, to be relatively calamity resistant, ranges
from good to very good (see Table VII-6 of the Methodology).
As noted in Chapter V of this report, the permanence of this
alternative in the Study Area is questionable and thus may be some
degree be expected to serve only as an interim measure usable only
as long as solid waste in the area is also disposed in sanitary
landfills.
Alternative 2 - Trenching
System effectiveness, adaptability, and calamity resistance of
this alternative would be similar in nature to sanitary landfills
as discussed above.
The trenching system, although simple in concept, is unproven
in full-scale operation and would, during the initial stages of
operation, be somewhat of an experimental procedure. Its relia-
bility would therefore be constrained until local acceptance and
any operational problems were addressed and solved. Once these
difficulties were overcome, the overall system should be adequate
for the planning horizon of twenty years.
-131-
-------
Alternative 3 - Incineration
As noted earlier under Environmental Factors, adherence to
emission standards for the incinerator is not expected to create
difficulties in meeting applicable air quality standards. Other
sub-systems within this alternative are also expected to meet per-
formance criteria.
Reliability of the system is expected to range from good to
very good (see Table VII-6 of the Methodology). The incinerator
sub-system could also meet new performance criteria by incorporating
a higher degree of emission control, albeit at higher costs to the
users.
Due to potential explosion hazards and a fair rating for ease
of operation and maintenance (see Table VII-6 of the Methodology),
the ability of the incinerator to withstand a calamity (i.e. an
internal explosion) was such that this sub-system would, under
such circumstances, cease functioning for more than several days.
Thus, on-site storage of the raw dewatered sludge feed would be
required.
The overall system is expected to be adequate for the twenty
year planning horizon.
Alternative U - Land Application: Spray Irrigation
The overall system effectiveness of this alternative is
expected to be such that all performance criteria can be met. The
low application rates utilized during the growing season and the
exclusion of Forks-of-the-River sludge is anticipated to provide a
degree of control over long-term heavy metal build-up in the soils
and crops at the land application site. City control and monitoring
of heavy metals discharges to its sewers is also expected to pro-
vide a measure of protection in this regard. The low application
rates and leachate collection, monitoring, and possible treatment
is expected to provide protection against groundwater contamination
from nitrates.
The alternative, although complex as a total system, has a low
reliance upon those mechanical systems which could create downtime
problems.
If new performance criteria are established during the twenty-
year operation period, the overall system has no reliable and
relatively inexpensive means of adapting. No further sludge pro-
cessing procedures beyond digestion have been incorporated and
their inclusion either at the plants or at the application site
may be either economically disruptive or infeasible due to process
or land constraints.
-132-
-------
Calamity resistance, particularly at the land application
site, is such that if during unanticipated severe weather the
site were to become flooded, the system would cease functioning
for more than several days. Although the site storage lagoon is
provided for just such a potential difficulty, the impact of
adverse weather during the application periods could be severe.
Barring the unlikely event of such weather, the alternative is
deemed to adequate for the twenty-year planning horizon.
Alternative 5 - Land Application: Composting
This alternative was included for evaluation primarily to
overcome the difficulties noted for the land application (spray
irrigation) system above, namely, a complex system unable to
adapt to new processes and potentially constrained during calamity
events.
As noted for the spray irrigation system, the composting/
land application system effectiveness is expected to meet perfor-
mance criteria. There would also be less likelihood of ground-
water contamination due to the application of a dewatered, rather
than liquid, sludge.
Although the composting operation sub-system has some reliance
upon mechanical components, their complexity is not great and
provision has been made for backup equipment. Therefore, the
reliability of this system is expected to be good and certainly
better than spray irrigation.
Because provisions in this alternative have been made for de-
watering at the various plants, some adaptability, such as enclos-
ing sand beds or modifications in pressure filter chemical feed
systems, could be accomplished if future operational conditions so
dictated. In addition, if the local market for a composted product
were sufficient, a degree of operational adaptability in terms of
the amount to dispose to the land application site could be accom-
plished. The composting operation would also allow a greater degree
of freedom for storage and processing during inclement weather
conditions, thus making the overall system more resistant to
calamity.
This alternative is expected to be adequate for the twenty-
year planning horizon.
Alternative 6 - Resource Recovery. IRD
Because the operation and marketing of a fertilizer product is
expected to come under close scrutiny by regulatory and public
health agencies and allowed only if proper percautions are taken,
the overall system is expected to meet performance criteria.
-133-
-------
The reliability of tlie system, particularly during the fer-
tilizer production phase, is anitcipated to be a complex system
which, as noted in the Methodology, is unproven on a scale com-
parable to that proposed in this alternative. Also, as noted
earlier in this chapter, the operation of this phase of the overall
system is in private, not public, control which could impact upon
the reliability of the overall system, particularly if the private
operation were to abandon the project.
The sub-system of fertilizer production may, as time pro-
gresses, provide a measure of adaptability in that better processes
could be employed to handle variations in the quality of sludge
input and to produce a product with wider market and sale potential.
Here again, the adaptability feature is centered in private and not
public control, which may present problems of passing along these
new process costs to the public sector or passing along the savings
incurred in the operation due to a better sales picture.
This alternative has a higher potential for operational prob-
lems due to calamity. Daily barge traffic from Knob Creek to
Pickel Island could be seriously disrupted during flooding, barge
spills during loading, transport or unloading, or barge wrecks
while passing under rail and road bridges. Digested sludge delivery
via road to Pickel Island could be impaired and the overall opera-
tion of this alternative crippled if the road and rail bridge to
Pickel Island were rendered impassable due to flooding and failure
of tbe bridge supports, thus necessitating major repairs. The
likelihood of such a calamity as bridge failure due to flooding
would however be quite small because of the upstream TVA dams on
the French Broad River. However, the potential barging difficul-
ties noted for Knob Creek, although remote, would create the
necessity of providing an alternate backup transport mode such as
tank trucking.
The overall system is expected, with proper safeguards as noted
in this chapter, to be adequate for the twenty-year planning horizon.
-134-
-------
CHAPTER VII
REFERENCES
VII-1 "Trench Incorporation of Sewage Sludge," Walker, J.M.
in Municipal Sludge Management, Proceedings of the
National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management,
Information Transfer, Inc., Washington, D.C. (June 1974).
VII-2 "The Economics of Sludge Irrigation," Troemper, A.P.,
in Municipal Sludge Management, Proceedings of the
National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management,
Information Transfer, Inc., Washington, D.C. (June 1974).
VII-3 "Composting Sewage Sludge," Epstein, E. and Wilson, G.B.,
in Municipal Sludge Management, Proceedings of the
National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management,
Information Transfer, Inc., Washington, D.C., (June 1974).
-135-
-------
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL AND STATE/COUNTY AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND AIR QUALITY DATA FOR KNCKVILLE, TENNESSEE
-------
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL AM) STATE/COUNTY AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AND AIR QUALITY DATA FOR KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE
NATIONAL
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS**
Primary
Standard
Secondary
Standard
ug/nf
ppm
ug/nf
ppm
Sulfur oxides -
annual arithmetic mean 80 0.03
2A-hour concentration 365* 0.14*
3-hour concentration
Suspended Particulate matter -
annual geometric mean 75
24-hour concentration 260*
Carbon monoxide -
8-hour concentration 9.0
1-hour concentration 35.0
Photochemical oxidants - 160* 0.08*
1-hour concentration 1
Hydrocarbons
(corrected for methane)
3-hour concentration (6-9am) 160* 0.24*
Nitrogen oxides -
annual arithmetic mean 100 0.05
1300* 0.5*
60
150*
Same as pri-
mary
Same as pri-
mary
Same as pri-
mary
Same as pri-
mary
* Not to be exceeded more than once a year.
** 40 CFR 50; 36 FR 22384, November 25, 1971, EPA Regulations.
A-l
-------
40 CFR, PART 60 - STANDARDS OF FKRFOR.MAIiCE FOR NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
60.2 Definitions
(a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., as
amended by Public Law 91-604, 84 Stat. 1676).
(c) "Standard" means a standard of performance proposed or
promulgated under this part.
(d) "Stationary source" means any building, structure,
facility, or installation which emits or nay emit any
air pollutant.
(f) "Owner or operator" means any person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises an affected facility
or a stationary source of which an affected facility is
a part.
(g) "Construction" means fabrication, erection, or installa-
tion of an affected facility.
(j) "Opacity" means the degree to which emissions reduce the
transmission of light and obscure the view of an object
in the background.
(v) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided solid or
liquid material, other than combined water, as measured
by Method 5 of Appendix A to this part or an equivalent
or alternative method.
Subpart 0 - Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants^
60.150 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The affected facility to which the provisions of this sub-
part apply is each incinerator which burns the sludge pro-
duced by municipal sewage treatment facilities.
A-2
-------
60.152 Standard for particulate matter.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test
required to be conducted by 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator ^f -ny sewage sludge incinerator
subject to the provisions of this subpart shall dis-
charge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere of:
(1) Particulate matter at a rate in excess of 0.65
g/kg dry sludge input (1.30 Ib/ton dry sludge
input).
(2) Any gases which exhibit 20-percent opacity or
greater. Where the pressence of uncombined water
is the only reason for failure to meet the require-
ments of this paragraph, such failure shall not
be a violation of this section.
60.154 Test Methods and Procedures
(b) For Method 5, the sampling time for each run shall be
at least 60 minutes and the sampling rate shall be at
least 0.015 dscm/min (0.53 dsef/min), except that
shorter sampling times, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be approved by the
Administrator.
(c)
(3) Determine the quantity of dry sludge per unit
sludge charged in terms of either R^.., or R^j.
(i) If the volume of sludge charged is used:
S = (60 X 10 )
or
R_ S
SD = (8.021) -~ (English Units)
where:
D = average Jry sludge charging rate during
the run, kg/hr (English units: Ib/hr).
A-3
-------
uV = average quantity of dry sludge per
unit volurae of sludge charged to the
incinerator, mg/1 (English Units:
lb/ft3).
Sy = sludge charged to the incinerator during
the run, m (English units: gal).
T = duration of run, min (English units:
_ min) .
60 x 10 = metric units conversion factor, 1-kg-
min/m -mg-hr.
8.021 = English units conversion factor,
ft^-min/gal-hr.
(ii) If the mass of sludge charged is used:
n S
S = (60) !? M (Metric or English Units)
where:
S = average dry sl-idge charging rate during
the run, kg/hr (English units: Ib/hr).
R = average ratio of quantity of dry sludg
to quantity of sludge charged to the
incinerator, mg/mg (English units:
Ib/lb).
S = sludge charged during the run, kg
(English units: Ib).
T = duration of run, min (Metric or English
units).
60 = conversion factor, min/hr (Metric or
English units).
(d) Particulate emission rate shall be determined by:
C = C Q (Metric or English Units)
aw s s
where:
C = particulate matter mass emissions, mg/hr
(English units: Ib/hr). _
C = particulate matter concentration, mg/m
8 (English units: Ib/dscf).
Q = volumetric stack gas flow rate, dscm/hr
S (English units: dscf/hr). Qg and Cg shall
be determined using Methods 2 and 5,
respectively.
A-
-------
(e) Compliance with 60. 152 (a) shall be determined as
follows:
C . = (10"3) ^ (Metric Units)
ds S
or
C
C . = (2000) -=52- (English Units)
ds bD
where:
C, = particulate emission discharge, g/kg dry
- sludge (English units: Ib/ton dry-sludge).
10 = Metric conversion factor, g/mg.
2000 = English conversion factor, Ib/ton.
(39 FR 9319, Mar. 8, 1974; 39 FR 13776, Apr. 17, 1974; 39 FR 15396,
May 3, 1974)
STATE AND KNOX COUNTY
Tennessee Air Quality Act (Tennessee Code Annotated Section 53-3408
et seq.)
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations
Chapter II - Definitions
The following terms shall, unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise, have the following meaning:
1. Air Contaminant is particulate matter, dust, fumes, gas,
mist, smoke, or vapor, or any combinations thereof.
2. Air__Corvtaminant Source is any and all sources of emission
of air contaminants, whether privately or publicly owned
or operated. Without limiting the generality of the fore-
going, this term includes all types of business, commercial
and industrial plants, works, shops, and stores, and heating
and power plants and stations, building and other structures
of all types, including multiple family residences, apart-
ment houses, office buildings, hotels, restaurants, schools,
hospitals, churches and other institutional buildings, auto-
mobiles, trucks, tractors, buses and other motor vehicles,
garages and vending and service locations and stations,
A-5
-------
railroad locomotives, ships, boats and other water borne
craft, portable fuel-burning equipment, incinerators of all
types, indoor and outdoor, refuse dumps and piles, and all
stack and other chimney outlets from any of the foregoing;
provided, however, that neither automobiles, trucks, tractors,
buses or other motor vehicles powered by any fuel other than
diesel oil and which were manufactured prior to September 1,
1967, automobiles, trucks, tractors, buses or other motor
vehicles powered by diesel oil and manufactured prior to
January 1, 1970, nor automobiles, trucks, tractors, buses
or other motor vehicles which are equipped to comply and
do comply with the Federal "Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
Control Act" shall be considered or determined to be an
"air contaminant source."
4. Air Pollution is presence in the outdoor atmosphere of
one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities and
of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to
human, plant or animal life or to property, or which
unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and
property.
5. Ambient Air is that portion of the atmosphere, external
to buildings.
6. Board is the Air Pollution Control Board of the State of
Tennessee.
9. Department is the Department of Public Health of the State
of Tennessee.
10. Effective date of these regulations is April 3, 1972.
11. Emission is the release of material to the ambient air.
15. Fugitive Dust is any visible emission, other than water
droplets, issuing from any source other than through a
stack.
16. Garbage is putrescible animal or vegetable waste.
A-6
-------
17. Hazardous Air Contaminant is any air contaminant which
may cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible illness and has been so designated by the
Technical Secretary.
18. Incinerator is any equipment, device or contrivance used
for disposal of waste of refuse by burning, excluding
wigwam burners and air curtain destructors.
20. Modification is any physical change in, or change in the
method of operation of an air contaminant source which
increases the amount of any air contaminant emitted by
such source or which results in the emission of any air
contaminant not previously emitted except that:
a. routine maintenance, repair, and replacement shall
not be considered physical changes, and
b. the following shall not be considered a change in
the method of operation:
1. an increase in the production rate, if such in-
crease does not exceed the operating design
capacity of the affected source;
2. an increase in the hours of operation; and
3. the use of an alternate fuel if the source is
designed to accommodate such alternate fuel:
provided, however, that the Technical Secretary is notified
within thirty (30) days of such changes.
22. New Source is any air contaminant source constructed after
April 3, 1972, and any air contaminant source constructed
prior to that date to which any modification is made after
that date.
23. New Source Performance Standard is a standard for the
emission of an air contaminant promulgated by the Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and pub-
lished in the Federal Register.
A-7
-------
25. Opacity is that property of a substance tending to obscure
vision and is measured in terms of percent obscuration.
As used in these regulations it does not include obscura-
tion of vision due to uncombined water droplets. The per-
centage opacity of a plume is m "-«»••< cally equal to twenty
(20) times the Ringelmann number for a plume of black
smoke having equivalent capacity of obscuration.
26. Open Burning is the burning of any matter under such con-
ditions that the products of combustion are emitted
directly into the open atmosphere without passing directly
through a stack except when equipment is provided and used
to control fuel-air ratio.
27. Particulate Ma_t_ter is any material, except uncombined
water that exists in a finely divided form as a liquid or
a solid.
28. Parts Ber Billion (ppb) is a term describing parts of an
air contaminant per billion parts of gas by volume (1 ppb
equals 0.0000001 percent by volume).
29. Parts Per Million (ppm) is a term describing parts of an
air contaminant per million parts of gas by volume (1 ppm
equals 0.0001 percent by volume).
30. Person is any individual, partnership, copartnership,
firm, company, corporation, association, joint stock
company, trust, estate, political subdivision, or any
other legal entity, or their legal representative, agent
or assigns.
31. Political Subdivision is any municipality, city, incor-
porated town, county, district or authority, or any
portion of combination of two or more thereof.
33. Process Emission is any emission of an air contaminant to
the ambient air other than that from fuel burning equip-
ment, incinerator, wigwam burners, or open burning.
38. RingeLnann Chart_ is the chart published and described in
the U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8333.
A-8
-------
39. Salvage Operation is any business, trade or industry
engaged in whole or in part, in reclaiming one or more
items of value.
40. Smoke is small gas-borne particles resulting from incom-
plete combustion, consisting predominantly, but not
exclusively, of carbon and other combustible material.
It does not include water vapor or water droplets.
41. Soiling Index is a measure of the soiling properties of
suspended particulates determined by drawing a measured
volume of air through a known area of Whatman No. 4 filter
paper for a measured period of time, expressed as co-
efficient of haze (COH) per 1,000 linear feet.
42. Stack is any chimney, flue, duct, conduit, exhaust, vent,
or opening of any kind whatsoever capable of, or used for,
the emission of air contaminants.
43. Suspended Particulates is particulate matter which will
remain suspended in air for an appreciable period of time.
44. Technical Secretary is the Technical Secretary of the Air
Pollution Control Board of the State of Tennessee.
45. Wigwam Burner is a type of burner commonly known as
tepee, truncated cone, conical burner, or silo burner.
Chapter III__-_Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section I — Applicability
Ambient air quality standards as given in Tables I, II, and
III are applicable throughout Tennessee.
These ambient air quality standards shall not be construed,
applied or interpreted to allow any significant deterioration of
the existing air quality in any portion of the state.
Section 2 — Definitions
Primary ambient air quality standards define levels of air
quality believed adequate, with an appropriate margin of safety,
to protect public health.
Secondary ambient air quality standards define levels of air
quality believed adequate, with an appropriate margin of safety, to
protect the public welfare from any known anticipated adverse
effects of the pollutant.
A-9
-------
TABLE A-l
TENNESSEE AND KNOX COUNTY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR SUSPENDED PARTICULATES SULFUR DIOXIDE.
CARBON MONOXIDE. PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS.
NON-METHANE HYDROCARBONS, AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE
Contaminants
Suspended
Particulates
Sulfur
Dioxide
Carbon
Monoxide
Photo-
Chemical
Ox id ant
Hydrocarbons
(non-
rne thane)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Primary Standard
Concentration
3
ug/m
75
260
80
365
10,000
40,000
160
160
100
ppm
by vol.
0.03
0.14
9.0
35.0
0.08
0.24
0.05
Average
Interval
AGM
24 hr
AAM
24 hr
8 hr
1 hr
1 hr
3 hr
a .in.
AAM
Secondary Standard
Concentration
3
ug/m
60
150
60
364
1,300
10,000
40,000
.160
160
100
ppm
by vol.
0.02
0.139
0.5
9.0
35.. 0
0.08
0.24
0.05
Average
Interval
AGM
24 hr
AAM
24 hr
3 hr
8 hr
1 hr
1 hr
3 hr
a.m.
AAM
Note: 1. All values other than annual values are maximum concen-
trations not to be exceeded more than once per year.
2. PPM values are approximate only.
3. All concentrations relate to air at standard conditions
of 25°C temperature and 760 millimeters of mercury
pressure.
A-10
-------
4. ug/m - micrograms per cubic meter.
5. AGM - Annual geometric mean.
6. AAM - Annual arithmetic mean.
TABLE A-2
TENNESSEE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SOILING
INDEX IN COH UNITS PER 1000 LINEAR FEET OF AIR
Primary Standards
Soiling
Index
1.0
3.5
Averaging
Interval
24 hr
average
2 hr
average
Secondary Standards
Soiling
Index
0.6
2.0
Averaging
Interval
24 hr
average
2 hr
average
Note: All values are maximums not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-3
TENNESSEE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR GASEOUS
FLUORIDES EXPRESSED AS HF
Primary Standards
Concentration
ug/m
1.2
1.6
2.9
3.7
ppb
by vol.
1.5
2.0
3.5
4.5
Averaging
Interval
30 days
7 days
24 hr
12 hr
Secondary Standards
Concentration
ug/m
1.2
1.6
2.9
3.7
ppb
by vol.
1.5
2.0
3.5
4.5
Averaging
Interval
30 days
7 days
24 hr
12 hr
Notes: 1. All values are maximums not to be exceeded
more than once per year.
2. Concentrations in micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m ) are approximate only.
3. All concentrations relate to air at
standard conditions of 25°C temperature
and 760 millimeters of mercury pressure.
Section 4 —
The standards set forth in this Chapter shall be achieved by
July 1, ,1975.
Chapter V - Visible Emission Regulations
Section 1 — Definition
As used in this Chapter, existing air contaminant source refers
to such sources as were in operation or under construction prior to
August 9, 1969, and new air contaminant sources refers to such sources
as began construction on or after August 9, 1969.
A-12
-------
Section 2 — General
A. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit discharge
of a visible emission from any new air contaminant source
within a density greater than number one (1) on the
Ringelmann Chart or an opacity in excess of twenty (20)
percent for an aggregate of more than five (5) minutes
in any one (1) hour or more than twenty (20) minutes in
any twenty-four (24) hour period.
B. On and after August 9, 1973, no person shall cause,
suffer, allow or permit discharge of a visible emis-
sion from any existing air contaminant source with a
density equal to or greater than number two (2) of the
Ringelmann Chart or an opacity equal to or in excess of
forty (40) percent for more than five (5) minutes in any
one (1) hour or an aggregate of more than twenty (20)
minutes in any twenty-four (24) hour period.
C. On and after August 9, 1975, the provisions of subsection
B of this Chapter shall no longer be applicable and all
air contaminant sources shall be construed as new sources
for the purpose of this Chapter.
E. It is expressly intended that in testing compliance with
subsections A and B that visible emissions tending to
produce a black plume will be evaluated in terms of the
Ringelmann scale and that visible emissions tending to
produce a non-black plume will be evaluated in terms of
equivalent opacity and expressed as percent opacity.
Chapter VI - Non-Process JEmission Standards
Section 1 — General Non-Process Particulate Emissions
A. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit particulate
emissions in excess of the standards in this Chapter.
B. In any county where one or more sources are emitting
particulates at rates in conformity with applicable maxi-
mum allowable emission rates and the ambient air quality
standard for particulate matter is being exceeded, the
Board shall be responsible for setting an appropriate
emission standard for each source contributing to the
particulate matter in the ambient air of the county, at
such value as the Board may consider necessary to achieve
the desired air quality.
A-13
-------
C. The owner or operator of an existing fuel burning
installation proposing to make a modification of this
source or to rebuild or replace it shall only take such
action if it will result in the source meeting the maxi-
mum allowable particulate emission standards for a new
fuel burning installation.
D. As used in this chapter, existing installations or equip-
ment shall mean such as were under construction or in
operation prior to the effective date of these regulations.
Section 2 — Non-Process Particulate Emission Standards
C. Incinerators
From and after the effective date of these Regulations,
the maximum allowable particulate emission from incinera-
tors shall be as indicated in Table 1 of this Chapter.
It is further provided that from and after July 1, 1975,
the particulate emission standards as given for existing
incinerators shall no longer be applicable and the parti-
culate emission standards as given for new incinerators
shall be applicable to all incinerators.
TABLE A-4
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PARTICULATE EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR INCINERATORS
Rated of Operated Charging
Rate in Pounds per Hour
Less than 200
200 to 2000
Greater than 2000
Greater than 2000*
Emission Standard in
Percent of Charging Rate
New
Incinerator
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.075
Existing
Incinerator
0.6
0.4
0.4
* For Knox County
A-14
-------
Incinerators having 2.5 cu ft furnace volume or less
used solely for the disposal of infective dressings and
other similar material shall not be required to meet
these emission standards.
Section 3 — General Non-Process Gaseous Emissions
A. No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit gaseous
emissions in excess of the standards in this Chapter,
B. Any person constructing or otherwise establishing an air
contaminant source emitting gaseous air contaminants
after the effective date of these regulations shall
install and utilize the best equipment and technology
currently available for controlling such gaseous emission.
Section 4 — Sulfur Oxides
A. General Provisions,
1 In any county where one or more sources are sitting
sulfur oxideUd all = ^--th^county^re
sr^^
or 620 parts per million correctea >•" ^J v
excess £r by volume calculated BS sulfur dioxide
fSul) and the ambient air quality for sulfur dioxide
(b\)2) aua uue *" , _ „, ct,flii he responsible for
is being exceeded, the Board shall be P
setting emission standards for """^ f he count
to the sulfur oxides in the anbient air oi- *• -
at such value as the Board may consider ncc^sary
achieve the desired air quality.
B. Emission Standards
-.
i 1973 the ou-ner or operator of an air
After January 1, 1973, theown j effective dac
ing:
A-15
-------
a. 440 ppm corrected to 15 percent excess air when
liquid fossil fuel is burned (equivalent to 0.80
Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour
average).
b. 620 ppm corrected to 15 percent excess air when
solid fossil fuel is burned (equivalent to 1.2
Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour
average).
c. Where different fossil fuels are burned simultan-
eously in any combination, the applicable standard
shall be determined by proration. Compliance shall
be determined by using the following formula:
Y (0.80) + Z (1.2)
X + Y + Z
where:
X is the percent of total heat input derived
from gaseous fossil fuel and,
Y is the percent of total heat input derived
from liquid fossil fuel and,
Z is the percent of total heat input derived
from solid fossil fuel.
3. It shall be the responsibility of the owner or operator
of such air contaminant source to monitor or otherwise
demonstrate that sulfur oxides in gases discharged from
the source do not exceed the applicable concentration.
Section 5 — Nitrogen Oxides
A. Emission Standards
1. New Air Contaminant Sources
Air contaminant sources with a total heat input of
250 million Btu's per hour or greater constructed
after April 3, 1972, shall not cause, sulfer, allow
or permit the emission of nitrogen oxides (measured
as N02) in excess of the following:
A-16
-------
a. 165 ppm corrected to 15 percent excess air when
gaseous fossil fuel is fired [equivalent to 0.20
Ibs of nitrogen oxides (measured as NO2) per
million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour average}.
b. 227 ppm corrected to .15 percent excess air when
liquid fossil fuel is firec [equivalent to 0.30
Ibs of nitrogen oxides (measured as NC^) per
million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour average].
c. 525 ppm corrected to 15 percent excess air when
solid fossil fuel is fired [equivalent to 0.70
Ibs of nitrogen oxides (measured as N02) per
million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour average].
d. When different fossil fuels are burned simultan-
eously in any combination the applicable standard
shall be determined by proration. Compliance
shall be determined by using the following
formula:
X (0.20) Y (Q.30) Z (0-70)
X + Y + Z
where:
X is the percent of total heat input derived
from gaseous fossil fuel and,
Y is the percent of total heat input derived
from liquid fossil fuel and,
Z is the percent of total heat input derived
from solid fossil fuel.
Chapter IX - Construction and Operating Permits
Section 1 — Construction Permits
A. On and after April 3, 1972, no person shall begin the con-
struction of a new air contaminant source or the modifica-
tion of an air contaminant source existing prior to
April 3, 1972, which may result in the discharge of air
contaminants without first having applied for and received
from the Technical Secretary a construction permit for the
construction or -modification of such air contaminant source.
B. The application for a construction permit shall be made on
forms available from the Technical Secretary not less than
A-17
-------
ninety (90) days prior to the estimated starting date of
construction.
C. In the event the requirement for a construction permit
prior to the construction of a new air contaminant source
or the modification of any existing air contaminant source
will create an undue hardship on the applicant, the appli-
cant may request of the Technical Secretary a waiver to
proceed with construction or modification prior to the
issuance of a Construction Permit. The applicant for a
waiver shall explain the circumstances which will cause
such undue hardship. If a waiver is granted, the appli-
cant shall, as soon as reasonably practical, submit a
report containing such information as would have otherwise
been required in filing for a construction permit.
The applicant, after a waiver is granted, proceeds at his
own risk; and, if after construction or modification has
begun or been completed, the proposed or completed
installation does not meet with the Technical Secretary's
approval, alterations required to effect such approval
shall be made within a reasonable time as specified by the
Technical Secretary. In no case shall this reasonable
time exceed 180 days after notification that the con-
struction or modification does not meet the Technical
Secretary's approval.
D. Construction permits issued under this section are based
on the control of air contaminants only and do not in any
way affect the applicant's obligation to obtain necessary
permits from other governmental agencies.
E. The Technical Secretary shall not grant a permit for'the
construction or modification of any air contaminant source
if such construction or modification will interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of the secondary air quality
standards or will violate any provision of these regula-
tions.
Section 2 — Operating Permit
A. Any person planning to operate an air contaminant source
constructed or modified in accordance with a construction
permit issued by the Technical Secretary, in Section 1,
shall apply for and receive an operating permit from the
Technical Secretary within sixty (60) days after commence-
ment of the operation of said air contaminant source.
A-18
-------
D. Application for an operating permit shall be made on
forms available from the Technical Secretary and signed
by the applicant. Such application for an operating
permit shall be filed with the Technical Secretary not
less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of an
existing operating permit.
E. The operating permit shall only be issued on evidence
satisfactory to the Technical Secretary that the operation
of said air contaminant source is in compliance vith any
standards or rules and regulations promulgated by the Board
and that the operation of said air contaminant source will
not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the
secondary air quality standard. Such evidence may include
a requirement that the applicant conduct such tests as are
necessary in the opinion of the Technical Secretary to
determine the kind and/or amount of air contaminants
emitted from the source. Standard operating permits shall
be valid for a period of one (1) year or for such longer
period of time as the Technical Secretary may designate.
A permit issued for a period of less than one (1) year
shall be designated as a temporary permit.
F. Any person in possession of an operating permit shall
maintain said operating permit readily available for
inspection by the Technical Secretary or his designated
representative on the operating premises.
G. Operation of each air contaminant source shall be in
accordance with the provisions and stipulations set forth
in the operating permit.
Section 3
No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants, uncombined water, or other
materials which cause or have a tendency to cause a traffic hazard
or an interference with normal means of public transportation.
Section 4 — Exemptions
A. No person shall be required to obtain or file a request
for a State permit due to ownership or operation of the
A-19
-------
following air contaminant sources unless specifically
required to do so by the Board:
1. Mobile sources such as: automobiles, trucks, buses,
locomotives, planes, boats and ships;
2. Fuel-burning equipment of less than 500,000 Btu per
hour capacity;
3. Particulate emissions from a single stack, of an air
contaminant source, discharging less than 0.5 Ib per
hour of non-hazardous particulates or the total par-
ticulate emissions from an air contaminant source
amounting to less than two (2) pounds per hour of non-
hazardous particulates, whichever is the more
restrictive. This exemption does not apply to inci
incinerators;
4. Equipment used on farms for soil preparation, tending
or harvesting of crops or for preparation of feed to
be used on the farm where prepared;
5. Operations exempted under Chapter IV (Open Burning)
of these regulations;
6. Sources within the counties of Shelby, Davidson,
Hamilton and Knox until such time as the Board shall
determine that air pollution is not being controlled
in such county to a degree consistent with the sub-
stantive provisions of the Tennessee Air Pollution
Control Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
B. Notwithstanding the exemptions granted in Section 4A above,
no person shall discharge, from any source whatsoever, such
quantities of air contaminants or other materials which
cause or have a tendency to cause injury, detriment,
annoyance, or adverse effect to the public.
Amendments to the Regulations. 19 June 1973
1. Chapter II (Definitions) is amended by adding a new definition
as follows:
Point Source shall have the same meaning as defined in Part 51
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
2. Chapter VI is amended by deleting entirely Section 4 and renum-
bering the remaining sections accordingly.
A-20
-------
6. Add the following Chapter XIV - Control of Sulfur Compounds
Emissions
Section I — General Provisions
A. For the purpose of this chapter each county in Tennessee
will be classified by the Board into one of three cate-
gories, defined as Class I, Class II, and Class III.
Ambient concentration limits expressed as micrograms per
cubic meter which define the classification system for
sulfur oxides are:
Class 1 Class II Class III
Greater Than From - To Less Than
Annual Arithmetic 100 60-100 60
Mean
24-hour Maximum 455 260-455 260
3-hour Maximum l,300a 1,300
a Any concentration above 1,300 ug/tn
B. The above classification will be based upon measured
ambient air quality, where known, or where not known,
estimated air quality in the area of maximum sulfur oxide
concentration.
C. The more restrictive classification will be chosen where
there is a difference between the maximum value(s) and the
annual arithmetic mean, e.q., if a county is a Class I with
respect to the annual arithmetic mean and Class II with
respect to a 24-hour maximum value, the Classification will
be Class I.
D. Where a county is classified a Class I county on the basis
of measured or estimated air quality levels reflecting
emissions predominantly from a single point source, it
shall be further classified as a Class IA county.
E. In any county where one or more sources are emitting sulfur
oxides and all sources within the county are meeting the
applicable emission standards of 1.6, 3.0, or 4.0 lb/10 Btu
for fuel burning sources and 2000, 1000, or 500 parts per
million for process sources and the ambient air quality for
sulfur dioxide is being exceeded, the Board shall be respon-
sible for setting emission standards for sources contributing
A-21
-------
to the sulfur oxides in the ambient air of the county, at
such value as the Board may consider necessary to achieve
the desired air quality.
Section II — Non-Process Emission Standards
A. On and after July 1, 1975, the owner or operator of an air
contaminant source located in a Class I County shall not
cause, suffer, allow, or permit the emission from that
source of sulfur oxides (calculated as sulfur dioxide) in
excess of 1.6 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2
hour average.
B. On and after July 1, 1975, the owner or operator of an air
contaminant source located in a Class II County shall not
cause, suffer, allow or permit the emission from that source
of sulfur oxides (calculated as sulfur dioxide) in excess
of 3.0 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour
average.
C. On and after July 1, 1975, the owner or operator of an air
contaminant source located in a Class III County shall not
cause, suffer, allow or permit the emission from that source
of sulfur oxides (calculated as sulfur dioxide) in excess
of 4.0 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour
average.
H. After January 1, 1973, the owner or operator of an air
contaminant source with more than 250 million Btu per hour
heat input, constructed after April 3, 1972, shall not
cause, suffer, allow or permit the emission from that
source of sulfur oxides (calculated as sulfur dioxide) in
excess of the following:
a. 0.80 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour
average, when liquid fossil is burned.
b. 1.2 Ibs per million Btu heat input, maximum 2 hour
average, when solid fossil fuel is burned.
c. Where different fossil fuels are burned simultaneously
in any combination, the applicable standard shall be
determined by proration. Compliance shall be deter-
mined by using the following formula:
A-22
-------
Y (0.80) + Z (1.2)
X + Y + Z
where:
X is the percent of total heat input derived
from gaseous fossil fuel and,
Y is the percent of total heat input derived
from liquid fossil fuel and,
Z is the percent of total heat input derived
from solid fossil fuel.
Amendments to the RegulationsT 9 October 1973
Chapter XIV, Section 1, is amended by adding the following
subparagraph (F) to read:
"F. The following is the Board designation of counties
adopted pursuant to paragraph (A) above:
Class 1A - Polk
Class 1 - Sullivan, Roane, Maury
Class 2 - Humphreys
Class 3 - All other counties in the State."
Amendments to the Regulations. 10 May 197A
3. That Chapter III (Ambient Air Quality Standards) be and
the same is hereby amended by deleting in Table 1, the
secondary standard for Sulfur Dioxides for the A.M. and
24 hour average interval and having such standard read
the same as the primary standard.
A-23
-------
AIR QUALITY
KNOXVILLE-KNOX COUNTY
SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
Annual Geometric Mean (AGM)
(pg/m3)
Station 1973 1974 Location
012 47.7 41.7 Rutledge Pike (Skaggston Sch.)
013 32.5 29.6 Beaver Cr. Dr. (Hallasdale-Powell
Lab)
014 48.0 48.1 Hendon Chapel Rd. (Gap Creek Sch.)
003 81.6 73.6 Locust St. & Cumberland Ave.
005 96.5 88.7 Papermill Rd. & Westover Dr.
006 59.5 56.1 Young High Pike & Chapman Highway
007 71.1 71.8 Asheville Highway & Tulane Ave.
008 84.4 74.6 1-95 & Heiskell Ave.
Oil 95.4 103.0 17th Street fi, Dale Ave.
A-24
-------
APPENDIX B
GENERAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION AND CONTROT
OF POLLUTION IN THE WATERS OF TENNESSEE
-------
APPCNOIX e
6ENEUL VATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE DEFINITION AND CONTROL OF
POLLUTION IN TH£ WftTERS OF TENNESSEE
Adopted en October 26. 1971
Amended on December 14, 1971 and October 30. 1973
Tennessee Viler Quility Control Board
The Vater Quality Control Act of 1971, Chapter 16* Public Act* of J971 u i-end*d by Chapter J86, makes It the
doty of the Water Qjality Control Board to study and investigate ill problem concerned with the pollution of
the waters of the State and with its prevention, abatement, and control and to establish such standards of
quality for any v»ter» of the State in relation to their re«son«bl« and necessary use as the Board shall deem
to be tn the public interest and establish general policies relating to existing or proposed future pollution
•t the Board shall deem, necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Control Act. The following general consider-
ations and criteria are officially adopted by the Board as a guide In determining the permissible conditions of
ttalen with respect to pollution and the preventive and corrective measures required to control pollution In
various waters or in different sections of the same waters.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Waters have »any uses which In the public interest arc reasonable and necessary. Such uses Include:
sources cf water supply for domestic and industrial purposes; propagation and maintenance of fish and
«th*r desirable aqautic life; recreational boating and fishing; the linal disposal of municipal sewage
and Industrial waste following adeovate treatment; atock watering and irrigation; navigation; genera-
tion of power; and th« enjoyment of scenic and esthetic qualities of the waters.
Z. The rigid application of uniform water quality is not desirable or reasonable because of the varying
l»e* of such waters. The assimilative capacity of a stream for sewage and waste varies depending upon
various factors including the following, volwoe of flo-. depth of ch.on.1. the presence of falls or
rapids, rate cf flow, temperature, natural characteristics, and the nature of the stream. Also the
relative laporlance assigned to each use -ill differ for different w*ter« and sections of waters :
throughout the stream.
5. to permit reasonable and necessary uses of the waters of the State, existing pollution should be cor-
rected as rapidly as practical and future pollution controlled by treatment plants or other measures.
There Is an economical balance between the cost of sewage and waste treatment and the benefits re-
eetved, tfilhln permissible limits, the dilution faetoV'and the assimilative capacity of surface water
Should be utilized. Vaste recovery, control of rates and dispersion of waste into the streams, and
control cf rates and characteristics of flow of water* in the stream where adequate, will be .considered
to be a aieana of correction.
«. Sewage, Industrial wastes, or other wastes, as defined In the Water Quality Control Act of 1971,
Chapter 16* Public Acts of 1971, as amended by Chapter 386, shall not be discharged Into or adjacent
to streams or other surface waters in such quantity and of such character or under such conditions
of discharge in relation to the receiving waters as will result in visual or olfactory nuisances, un-
*»« Interference to other reasonable and necessary uses of the water, or appreciable damage to the
natural processes cf self-purification. In relation to the various qualities and the specific uses of
the receiving waters, no sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes discharged shall be responsible
for conditions that fail to »ect the criteria of water quality outlined below. Bypassing or accidental
apllla will not be tolerated.
the criteria of water quality outlined below are considered as guides In applying the water quality
objective. |n order to Insure reasonable and necessary uses of the waters of the Slate. In order to
protect the public health and maintain the water suitable for other reasonable and necessary uses; to
provide t,r future development; to allow proper iharing ef available water resoureesj and to meet th,
needs of particular situations, additional criteria will bo set.
B-l
-------
OUTER I* OF WCP CO'OITIOtt
]. Domestic Raw Water Supply
(t) Dissolved Oxygen . There >htll always bt »uf Tie lent dissolved oxygen present to prevent
•dor* of decomposition and other offensive conditions.
(b) pH t The pH value shall lie within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 and shall net fluctuate more
than 1.0 unit In this range over a period of 24 hour*.
(e) Kardnes* or Mineral Compounds - There shall be no substances added to the waters that will
Increase the hardness or mineral content of the water* to such an eitent to appreciably
letpalr the usefulness of the water as a source of domestic water supply.
(d) Total Dissolved Solids - The total dissolved solids snail at no lime e«ceed £00 mg/1.
(c) Solids, Floating Materials and Deposits - Tr.ere shall be no distinctly visible solids,
scum, foam, oily sleek, or the formation of slimes, bottom deposits or sludge banks of
such (It* or character as may impair the usefulness: of the water as s source of domestic
water supply.
(0 Turbidity or Color - There shall be no turbidity or color sdded In amounts or character-
istic* that cannot be reduced to acceptable concentrations by conventional water treat-
ment processes.
(gl Tnpcrstur* . The maximum water temperature change shall not Vxceed 3C relative to an
upstream control point. The temperature of the water shall not exceed 30.5 C and the
•ailMM rate of change shall not exceed 2C per hour. The temperature of Impoundments
•her* stratification occurs will bt measured at a depth of S feel, or aid-depth which.
«ver Is less, and the temperature In flowing stream shall be Measured at aid-depth.
(h) lHa»ii'iiii'ial Coliform - The concentration of the fecal eel if era group shall not ex-
ceed 1,000 per 100 ml. as the logarithmic Man based on a minimum of 10 samples col.
Itctetf from s given sampling site aver t period of not more than SO consecutive days
with Individual samples being collected at intervals of not less than 12 hours. In
addition, the concentration of the fecal coliform group in any individual sample shall
not exceed S.OOO per 100 ml.
(I) Taste or Odor - There shall be no substances added which will result In taste or odor
that prevent the production of potable water by conventional water treatment processes.
(fl Toxic Substances - There shall be no toxic substances added to the waters that will
•reduce toxic conditions that Biter!ally affect man or animals or impair the safety of
• conventionally treated water supply.
W Other Pollutants - Other pollutants shall net be-added te the water in oyantlties that
•ay be detrimental to public health or impair the usefulness of the water as • source of
domestic water supply.
2. Industrltl Water Supply
(el Dissolved Oxygen - There shall always be sufficient dissolved oxygen present to prevent
•dor* of decomposition and other offensive conditions.
(b) fH - The pH value shall lie within the range of C.O to 9.0 and shall not fluctuate mere
thin 1.0 unit In this range over a period of 24 hours
(•) Nardne** er Mineral Compounds - There shall be no substances added to the water* that
will Increase the hardness or mineral content of the waters to such an extent as to ap-
preciably Impair the usefulness of the water as a source of industrial water supply.
(d) fatal Dissolved Solids . The total dissolved solids shall at no time cmceed 500 mo/1.
(•) Solids, Floating Materials and Deposits - There shall be no distinctly visible solids,
•cum, foam, oily sleek, or the formation of slime*, bottom deposits or sludge banks of
•uCh tit* or character as may Impair the usefulness of the water a* a e ounce of industrial
inter supply.
(0 Turbidity or Color . There shall! be no turbidity or color added] In amounts or character.
Ittles that cannot be reduced to acceptable concentrations by conventional water treatment
processes.
B-2
-------
(g) Temperature - The ma»i»i>» water temperature chanos shall not exceed X* relative to on wpstrea*
control point. The tc«perature of the «»t«r thSU not exceed SO. S°C end the maximum rat* of
change ahall not e.ceed JC° per hour. The temperature af impoundments where stratification
»^.^r» will b« measured it • depth of S feet, or ••d-dcp'.h whichever i« leaa, »nd th« tempera-
ture In flowing streams shall be measured at mi'd-deplh.
(h) Taste or Odor - I'.crc chill be no Substance* added that "ill mull In taste or odor that
would prevent the <.•'* of the water for industrial processing.
(I) Te«lc Substaneel .here shall be no substances added to the water* that may produce to«ie
Condition! that v-11 adversely affect th- water for industrial processing.
|J1 Other Pollutants - Other pollutants shall not be added to the waters in quantities that nay
adversely affect the water for industrial processing.
Hah and Aquatic Lif«
(a) Dissolved Oxygen - The dissolved oxygen shall be • mi'nlmum mf 5.0 mg/1 except In limited
sections of slrea«s where, (i). present technology cannot restore the water quality to the;
desired «ininu« of 5.0 e.j/1 dissolved oiyoen, (:i) the cost of Meting th« standards is
ccononically prohibitive «hen compared with the e« pee ted benefits to be obtained, or
(III) the natural qualities of tht water are less t«,n the desir«tl «ini^. of 5.0 »9/l
dissolved o«ygen. Swch exceptions shall b« determined on a« individual basis but in no
Instance shall the dissolved o.ygen concentration be lets th»n 3.0 «9'1. Th« dissolved
exyo.en concentration shall be measured at -id-depth in waters h.vii-i . total depth of
Un (10) feet or less and at a depth of five (SI feet in water, havino, • total depth of
greater than ten (13) feet. The dissolved oiyoen concentration of recooflited trout
•trttns shall not be less than 6.0 *g'l.
(b) pH . The pH value shall lie within the ranae of 6.5 to 8.5 and shall not fluctuate -ore
than J.O unit In this range over • period of 24 hour*.
(e) Solids, Floating Materials and Deposits - There shall be no distinctly visible solids.
seu». foa*. oily «leek, or the formation of aliaes. botto* deposits or slwdge banks of
such size or character that xay be detrimental to fiah end aoxatie life.
(d) Turbidity or Color - There shall be no turbidity or color added in such amounts or of
Such character that will naterially affect fisn and aquatic life.
(e) Temperature - The naxinu* water temperature change shall not exceed 3C° relative to an
vpslrea* control point. The temperature of the water shell not eieeed 30.5°C and the
•ax!*u« rate of change shall not exceed X' per hour. The temperature of recogniied
trout waters shall not exceed JO°C. There shall be no abnormal le-perature changes that
•ay affect aquatic life unless caused by natural conditions. The temperature of impound-
mjeflls where stratification occurs will be measured mt a depth of 5 feet, or aid*depth
whichever Is less, and the te»xrature in flowing streams shall be measured at aid-depth,
(f) Taste and Odor - There shall be no substances added that will impart unpalatable flavor
to fish or result in noticeable offensive odora in the vicinity of the water or otherwise
Interfere with fish or aquatic life.
(g) Toxic Substances . There shall be no substances added to the waters that will produce
toxic conditions that affect fish or aquatic life.
(h) Other Pollutants - Other pollutants shall not be added to the waters that will be
detrimental to f!sh or aquatic life.
(H
-------
4. fieer«ttlen
(•) Dissolved 0*ygen - There shall always be sufficient dissolved e«ygen present to prevent
•dors of decomposition end ether offensive conditions.
(b] pH - The pH value shall lie within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 end shall not fluctuate «ore
then 1.0 uo«t In this range ever a period of i4 hour«.
(o) Solids, Roiling Material! and Deposit* . Tr>er« shall b« no distinctly visible solids,
•cum, foam, oily sleek, or the formation of slime., cotton deposits or sludge banks of
•ueh (tie or character that may be detrimental to recreation.
(d) Turbidity or Color - There shall be no turbidity or color »dded in tueh amounts or
«haraeler that will result in an objectionable appearance to the water.
{•) Temperature - *h< •»«'•«"" water temperature change shil] not exceed X relative to
an upstream control point. The te«-p«r»ture of the water shall not oceed 30.5°C and
iht cailnun rate of change shall not c«ceed 2C per hour. The temperature of impound-
menls where stratification occurs will be Matured at % depth of 5 feet, or mid-depth
whichever Is less, and the teaper.lure in flowing strewn shall be measured at mid-depth.
|fl «|UMi!il«3i««l Colifor. - The concentration of the fec.l col if or. group shall not e»-
ceetf 300 per 100 ml. a* the logarithmic mean based co • minimum of 10 samples collected
froa a given sampling cite over s period of not more than S3 consecutive days with In.
dividual samples being collected at intervals of not less than 12 hours. In addition,
the concentration of the fecal eolifor* group in any Individual sample shall not e«eeed
1.000 per 100 ml. Water areas in the vicinity of d
-------
(.) Har*...* „ Mineral Co-pou-a, - TMr. .hall t* *, a^to-c., .,«.< „ Mt.r lh.t „,„
1 r""1 lc 7* '" •""* •• u !— ip iu — **• "»""** -'«•'"• —
orin, «.t.r,.a. and t*oo,it, - T*,r. .h.M W ^ di.tinctl, vilibl. ,oli(to
aleck. or tht for-ation .f .li..,, t,Uo. ^^ „. ( '
or character *l to interfere with liveitock nttrinf «nd «il«flif«
Te-pyr.tor. . Th. t«««tur. ,t ti» «t.r ,h,ll o.t u, „,„„ ...'
M le Inltrfere with it» o*« for li.cttoeli vttcring «vd wilifllf*.
(f) To«!c Sutst.nco - Ther. »*..]] be no lvb*t»ncc> idd»d «e «ter Ih.t ,!J1 pro4«« to.le
>n h«* .111 iffect l«« »lt«r for }<
,
(«) Othtr PolJUt»"U - Other poIIuUnts »"UI not tx .««d t.-th, w,Ur In quwtili*» ^sleh „,
t* AtrlMntd to ft« viler for livuUck vatcring »nd »il
7. K
(t) 0!»»«l«ii 0»«t« - Th«r« |K,11 tlvira I* ioffiettnt dittelnd o.yjet. ^»tnt |» pr««nt odor.
of o^eotposllion and other effrosiv* condition!.
(bj Kir*»ei» or Mineral Cenptunets - Th«r* thtll be no »u»«t*ne«« iddett U the »»t»r that will In.
erc*l« t>>* *Infrr»l content to (ueh a* »tent u 10 i«p*ir It* v»* for navigation.
foj S»Itd», Hoitin^ Material* and Cepoiitj - llwni ah»JJ b« no (flatinetly viifbl* falFds, teumi
fM«, oUr alttk, or th* foreation cf tlioea, botto» deposit* or tludg* bank* of such ,(,.
or ektf»et«r U t» interf«r« «ith nawi^atron.
(4) T«*per*t«r* - Tfte tenperaWr* e-f the v»t*r thaJI not b« rai»«d or le«*r«d to aueh an extent
•» t« Interfere with !t» i»»« ''or navisation purposes.
(•) To*Ie Sut»t»vc« . Th«i I »hall be no lutntanctt a**n» t« «t«r th»t .111 produce lo«fe cww
oHtloni that xlll affect the *ater for navigation.
Cfl Other Pollutar-j - Other pollutants «htll «t be add** to tho «t«r I« «mntltla» ««ifeh **y
bo 4alriMfltal i« th< vattr* u<«d for navigation.
These criteria thouU not d« construed as per«lttJP9 the de9ra<*at(«n of Moh«r oyality wter when weh can
»• prtventtd b/ reuoniblt pollution control oeaiuru. The above eonditioni art recognirid a» applying to
wtere affected by the diwharga of *ewt»e and/or indj*lri«l vwte or other wait, and not rewriting fro.
tutor*!
J. Conventional Water Treatment - Conventional «ler tntaUent a» referred to In th» erlierfi denote*
«o*9u}at)a>\ atiiwnlation, filtration and ehlorinatlon.
Ji, Klxfoo Zone - *;*<•* »*» refer* to U.i »eetfon orflo-ing ttrea* or l«p*uftd.d «at«r» n«e*t**ry
for tttlvtoli to beee«e rf;*p«r,ed. T>« «!«J»a ion. Meeasw? !n «*eh P.rtfc«:»r
-------
8, In general, deviations fro* nor«al water condition «ey be undesirable, but tho nt« and extent
•f the deviation! should be considered In Inleroreting the above criteria.
C. The criteria and standards provide that all discharges of se»age. Industrial waste, and other
•rule* vlll receive the best practicable treatment (secondary or the equivalent) or central
according to the policy and procedure of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board, A degree
of trea'tMent greater than secondary when necessary to protect the- water uses will be required
for (elected ac.jge and waste discharges.
TCWtSSCE ANTIDECRaDATION ST*TtM£NT
1. Tn* Standards and Plan adopted are designed to provide for the protection of existing water
quality and/or the upgrading or "enhancement* of water quality In all waters within Tennessee.
It I* recognlied that tome waters nay have eiistlng ability better than established standards.
2. The Criteria and Standards shell not be construed as permitting the degradation of these
Klgner quality waters when such can be prevented by reasonable pollution control measures.
In this regard, existing high quality witer will be •aintained unless and until It is affirma-
tively denonstrited to the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board that i change Is justifiable
as t result of necessary social and eeononic development.
9. til dlschtrges of sewage, industrial waste, or other waste shall receive the best practicable
treatment (secondary of the equivalent) or control according to the policy «nd procedure of
the Tennessee Viler Ouality Control Board. * degree of treaUent oreater than secondary when
necessary to protect the water uses will be required for selected sewaoe and waste discharges.
4. In Implementing the provisions of the above as they relate to Interatste atreans. the Tennessee
Viler Quality Control Board will cooperate with the appropriate Federal Agency in order to
ssslst In carrying out responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. as amended.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
DISCHARGE STANDARDS
-------
APPENDIX C
The goals of the Federal Water Quality Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (the Act) require that publicly-owned treatment works
utilizing treatment and discharge meet secondary treatment as
defined by the Environmental Protection Agency by July 1, 1977, or
June 1, 1978 (for new construction). The secondary treatment
standards were given in ^38 CFR 159 (August 17, 1973) and are shown
in Table C-l below.
TABLE C-l
SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARDS
Parameter
BOD5 (mg/D*
SS (mg/D*
Fecal Colifonn**
(No./lOO ml)
pH
30 Consecutive Days
30
30
200
6-9
7 Consecutive Days
45
45
400
6-9
* Arithmetic Mean
** Geometric Mean
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS
STATE OF TENNESSEE
-------
APPENDIX E>
SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS
REGULATION 1. DEFINITIONS
A. Bulky Waste - Large items of refuse such as but not
limited to appliances, furniture, auto or large auto
parts, trees and branches, and stumps.
B. Composting - The controlled biological decomposition of
solid organic waste material under aerobic conditions,
which shall produce an end product free of pathogenic
organisms,
C. Commissioner - The Commissioner of the Tennessee Depart-
ment of Public Health or his authorized representative.
D. Department - The Tennessee Department of Public Health.
E. Garbage - All kitchen and table waste, and every accumula-
tion of animal or vegetable waste that attends or results
from the preparation, dealing on or handling of food stuffs,
F. Hazardous Waste - Includes, but is not necessarily limited
to, explosives, pathological wastes, radioactive materials,
and certain chemicals which shall be determined by the
Department.
G. Health Officer - The director of a city, county, or
district health department having jurisdiction over the
community health in a specific area, or his authorized
representative.
H. Incinerator - A solid waste burning device which provides
acceptable controlled combustion resulting in a nuisance m
free residue composed of little or no combustible or
organic material.
I. Industrial Waste - All solid wastes which result from
industrial processes and manufacturing operations.
J. Open Burning - The burning of any matter under such con-
ditions that the products of combustion are emitted
directly into the open atmosphere.
K. Open Dumping - The depositing of solid wastes into a body
or stream of water or onto the surface of the ground
D-l
-------
without compacting the wastes and covering with suitable
material to a depth and at such time intervals as pre-
scribed in these regulations.
L. Person - Any and all persons, natural or artificial,
including any individual, firm or association, and
municipal or private corporation organized or existing
under the laws of this State or any other state, and any
governmental agency or county of this State.
M. Refuse - Putrescible and nonputrescible solid wastes
except body wastes, including, but not limited to, garbage,
animal carcasses, rubbish, incinerator residue, street
cleanings, and industrial waste.
N. Rubbish - Nonputrescible solid wastes, consisting of both
combustible and noncombustible wastes, such as, but not
necessarily limited to, paper, cardboard, tin cans, yard
clippings, wood, glass, bedding, crockery, plastics,
rubber by-products, or litter of any kind.
0. Solid Waste - Garbage, refuse, and other discarded solid
materials, including solid-waste materials resulting from
industrial, commercial, and agricultural operations, and
from community activities, but does not include solids or
dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant
pollutants in water resources, such as silt, dissolved or
suspended solids in industrial waste water affluents,
dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or other
common water pollutants.
P. Solid Waste Disposal System - The relationship of the
coordinated activities of and resources for processing and
disposal of solid wastes within a common geographical area
and under the supervision of any person or persons engag-
ing in such activities.
Q. Solid Waste Processing - An operation for the purpose of
modifying the characteristics or properties of solid
wastes to facilitate transportation or disposal of solid
wastes including, but not necessarily limited to, incinera-
tion, composting, separation, grinding, shredding, and
volume reduction.
R. Solid Waste Disposal - The process of placing, confining,
compacting, or covering solid waste except when such solid
waste is for reuse, removal, reclamation, or salvage.
D-2
-------
S.
T.
Transfer Station - An approved place for consolidation or
temporary storage of solid waste prior to transportation
to a processing operation or the final disposal site.
Household - Those who dwell under
pose a family.
^-me roof and com-
REGULATION 2. REGISTRATION OF DISPOSAL OR PROCESSING OPERATION
A.
Registration Required - No person, except as herein
specified, shall operate or maintain a solid waste pro-
cessing facility or disposal facility or site within the
State of Tennessee without making application for and
receiving acknowledgement from the Commissioner. It is
the intent of this section to exempt from registration
the individual householder disposing of solid waste from
his own household upon his own land providing this does
not create a public nuisance.
Q •
C.
Change of Ownership - In the event of an intended change
waste processing facility or a
by the proposed new owner at
to the proposed change, of ownership.
'
SPIRAL. STATE. OH OTHER
to "«£ Mission to the granting agency.
are submtte fro.
off JUially adopted a plan for
are included in
""0
^ ^ ,„„
.«* jurisdictions.
ln acco
with these regulations
D-3
-------
REGULATION 5. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
** • • • •
B. Processing Facilities - Incinerator (1,000 Ibs/hr capacity
or greater), composting plants, transfer stations,
hazardous waste processing and other processing methods.
1. Incinerators - Processing facility design and con-
struction shall be such as to produce a facility
which will preserve the prescribed quality of the
environment and provide the maintenance of good
health and safety of the operators. This regulation
shall also require compliance with other applicable
Tennessee environmental control regulations. Plans
and specifications shall be prepared by an engineer
licensed to practice in Tennessee and shall contain
the following:
a. A master plan for the area lying within a one
mile radius of the site. This plan shall be
drawn at a scale of not less than 1 in. = 400 ft.
It shall indicate existing roads, bridges,
streams, rail facilities, water impoundments,
land use, zoning, topography - 20 ft contour
interval, water and waste water treatment
facilities, water supply sources, and other
utilities adjacent to or located on the site.
It shall show the proposed site, location of pro-
posed access roads,,and major drainage routing.
b. A site plan for the area lying within the desig-
nated site boundaries. This plan shall be drawn
on a scale of not less than 1 in. = 100 ft. On
this plan shall be noted site boundaries, topography
- 5 ft contour intervals, on-site structure, access
roads, drainage appurtenances, sanitary facilities,
utilities, water supply, waste water collection and
treatment facilities, and any other facilities
utilized in waste processing.
c. A set of drawings and specifications for equipment
and buildings shall be included.
d. Such other drawings and details as may be required
by the Department.
D-4
-------
e. Traffic control information in the area of the
processing facility must be evaluated. Such
evaluation shall be reflected in a letter from
the controlling traffic authority indicating
that the operation of a processing facility at
the proposed site will be acceptable. A map of
the proposed route to and from the designated
disposal site shall be submitted to the Depart-
ment.
f. A manual containing operational procedures must
be submitted to the Department. This manual
must include but not necessarily limit to:
operating hours, personnel duties, odor and
vector control, waste processing sequence, fire
and accident prevention, site and equipment
maintenance, and any other operations necessary
for the maintenance of an approved system.
g. Operation and/or construction plans shall indicate
an acceptable method of handling solid waste in
the event of a failure in the primary processing
facility.
h. A proposal shall be submitted for the disposal
or use of processed waste.
2. Composting Plants - Plans and specifications shall be
prepared by an engineer licensed to practice in
Tennessee and shall contain the following:
a. A master plan for the area lying within a one mile
radius of the site. This plan shall be drawn at a
scale of not less than 1 in. = 400 ft. It shall
indicate existing roads, bridges, streams, rail
facilities, water impoundments, land use, zoning,
topography - 20 ft contour interval, water and
waste water treatment facilities, water supply
sources, and other utilities adjacent to or
located on the site. It shall show the proposed
site, location of proposed access roads, and major
drainage routing.
b. Construction plans and specifications in
sufficient detail to indicate the actual construction
required.
c. Plans for use of the composted material.
D-5
-------
d. Such other drawings and details as may be
required by the Department.
Compost plant design and construction shall be such
as to produce a facility which will preserve the
prescribed quality of the environment and provide
for the maintenance of good health and safety of the
operators.
3.
4. Hazardous Waste Processing Other Processing Methods -
Plans and specifications shall be prepared by an
engineer licensed to practice in Tennessee and shall
contain the following:
a. A master plan for the area lying within a one mile
radius of the site. This plan shall be drawn at a
scale of not less than 1 in. = 400 ft. It shall
indicate existing roads, bridges, streams, rail
facilities, water impoundments, land use, zoning,
topography - 20 ft contour interval, water and
waste water treatment facilities, water supply
sources, and other utilities adjacent to or
located on the site. It shall show the proposed
site, location of proposed access roads, and major
drainage routing.
b. Construction plans and specifications in sufficient
detail to indicate the actual construction required.
c. Such other drawings and details as may be required
by the Department.
Hazardous waste processing and other processing methods
shall be such as to preserve the prescribed quality of
the environment and provide for the maintenance of good
health and safety of the operators.
C. Disposal Facility or Site
1« «•«
2. Sanitary Landfill - Basic design considerations:
a. Site selection - No site shall be subject to
flooding. Geologic conditions shall be such as
not to permit pollution of the ground water.
D-6
-------
Sufficient soil cover or other material approved
by the Department shall be available, preferably
at the site, for covering the waste at the
required intervals and to the required depth.
The site must comply with local zoning require-
ments and land use planning.
Access Roads - All-weather roads shall be pro-
vided to the disposal site and shall be of such
design and construction as to safely accommodate
the traffic using the site. On-site roads shall
be all-weather or, in lieu thereof, wet-weather
disposal areas shall be provided.
Site Drainage - All surface water shall be
diverted around the operations area. Water shall
not be allowed to accumulate at any location on
the site unless such location has been approved
by the Department.
Site Fencing - Access to the site shall be con-
trolled by means of gates which may be locked
and by fencing if such become necessary. All
fencing and gates shall be of sufficient height
and strength to serve the purpose intended.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM OPERATION
A General - The operation and maintenance of all solid
waste disposal systems shall be such as not to endanger
the public health or safety, not to adversely affect the
quality of the environment and to provide for the proper
processing and disposal of solid waste.
B. Processing Facility
1. Incinerators - Incinerator operation shall be such
that the requirements of the Tennessee Air Pollution
and local control regulations are met.
Access to Site - Access to the incinerator shall
be limited to the hours in which authorized
operating personnel are on duty at the site.
a
u cff* Sforaee - All solid waste disposed of at the
"' " "a 8be confined to the designated during
are!. Storage of the waste at the site shall be
kept to a minimum.
D-7
-------
c. Supervision of Operation - An incinerator shall
be operated under the supervision of a responsible
individual who is thoroughly familiar with the
operating procedures established by the designer.
d. Incinerator Residue - An incinerator shall be so
operated that the residue produced will contain
little or no combustible or organic material.
All incinerator residue shall be disposed of in
a sanitary manner.
2. Composting Plants
a. Access to Site - Access to the composting plant
shall be limited to the hours in which authorized
operating personnel are on duty at the site.
b. Site Storage - All solid waste disposed of at the
site shall be confined to the designated dumping
area. Storage of the waste at the site shall be
kept to a minimum.
c. Supervision of Operation - A composting plant
shall be operated under the supervision of a
responsible individual who is thoroughly familiar
with the operating procedures established by the
designer.
d. Nongradable Solid Waste - Solid waste which is not
degradable by compost methods and is a resulting
by-product of a composting plant shall be
disposed of in a sanitary manner.
e. Use of Composted Solid Waste - Composted solid
waste offered for use by the general public shall
contain no pathogenic organisms, shall be innoc-
uous, shall be nuisance free, and shall not
endanger the public health or safety.
3 Transfer Stations, Hazardous Waste Processing Plants,
and Other Processing Methods - Operation of transfer
stations, hazardous waste processing plants, or other
processing methods shall be such that the intended
function of the facility will be best served, that
the public health and safety will not be endangered,
and that nuisances will not be created. Specific
operating procedures for each installation shall be
approved by the Department prior to initiation of
operation.
D-8
-------
C. Disposal Facilities and Sites
1. Sanitary Landfill
Handling of Special Wastes - Dead animals, sewage
solids or liquids, and other materials which are
either hazardous or hard to manage shall be
disposed of in a sanitary landfill only if
special provisions aie made for such disposal and
are approved by the Department.
Drainage and Grading - The entire site shall be
graded and/or provided with drainage facilities
to minimize run-off onto the sanitary landfill,
to prevent the erosion of earth cover, and to
drain rain water falling on the surface of the
sanitary landfill. The final surface of the
sanitary landfill shall be graded to drain, but
no surface slope shall be so steep as to cause
erosion of the cover. The surface drainage
shall be consistent with the surrounding area
and shall in no way adversely affect proper
drainage from these adjacent lands.
FOR avPEOVAL OF A "SPECIAL" SOLID WASTE
by the Department.
A thorough understanding of the nature of a -Jjcj-j ^J"
be gained to insure that the waste can £• *£"£ £ thj well being
sit! without posing a threat to public health or ^ whafc
D-9
-------
1. Physical Characteristics
a. color
b. texture
c. density
d. viscosity
2. Chemical Characteristics
a. A complete chemical analysis
3. Generation Source
a. Schematic flow diagram of the manufacturing process
which creates the waste stream
or
b. Schematic flow diagram of waste treatment facilities
if special waste is resultant from waste treatment.
4. Quantity
a. Amount taken to processing or disposal facility per
trip (Ibs or yds).
b. Number of trips in a stated amount of time.
5. Location, ovner, and registration number of the site at
which processing or disposal will occur.
This information should be sent to Mr. Jerry Loftin, Suite 320,
Capitol Hill Building, Nashville, Tennessee 37219.
"US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1WJ-210»10:7»
D-10
------- |