WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
• WPD 01-76-01
DEMONSTRATION OF A PLANNING
PERSPECTIVE FOR WASTE WATER
SLUDGE DISPOSITION
OHIO/KENTUCKY/INDIANA
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
JANUARY 1976
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
DEMONSTRATION OF A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE
FOR THE
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF RESIDUAL WASTES
OHIO/KENTUCKY/INDIANA
Project Officer
Dr. M. Dean Neptune
Contract No. 68-01-3503
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Water Planning Division
Planning Assistance and Policy Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1976
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a comprehensive
methodology for planning of sludge management on a regional scale. As a
means of testing application of the methodology in conjunction with an
ongoing 208 planning project, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. in-
vestigated the wastewater treatment and sludge disposal methods of 18
plants in the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (0-K-I) region. The plants selected
for analysis represent about 80 percent of the total treatment capacity
in the region; individual plant capacities range from 35,000 to 120
million gpd (133 to 456,000 m3/d).
In application of the methodology, various sludge management alterna-
tives are analyzed in terms of technical feasibility, costs, environ-
mental impacts, socio-political implications, and other factors perti-
nent to regional-scale planning. For each of the plants (15 now opera-
ting and 3 proposed) a case history is developed and suitable sludge
disposal alternatives identified. In addition, four alternatives are
presented for region-wide sludge management systems.
This report is submitted in fulfillment of RFP No. WA-75-R217, Contract
No. 68-01-3503, by PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. under sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed
October 31, 1975.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The direction and assistance provided by Dr. M. Dean Neptune, EPA
Project Officer, are gratefully acknowledged.
Cooperation of the Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana Regional Council of
Governments, and particularly Mr. Dory Montazemi, 208 Program Director,
is appreciated.
Several local and regional agencies, consulting engineers, and indi-
viduals in the 0-K-I area provided information, conducted tours, and
assisted the project team in other ways. Appreciation is extended to
the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati, Sanitation Dis-
trict Number 1 of Campbell and Kenton Counties, South Dearborn Regional
Sewer District, Department of Public Utilities of Middletown, Butler
County S?nitary Engineering Department, City of Hamilton Water and
Wastewater Department, The Miami Conservancy District, City of Lebanon,
Clermont County Sanitary District, Northern Kentucky Area Planning
Commission, Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, and County
Planning Commissions in Clermont, Butler. Dearborn, and Warren Counties.
Direction of this project for PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. was
conducted by Richard 0. Toftner. Principal investigators were Messrs.
Vijay Patel, Thomas Janszen and Charles Sawyer. Technical editing was
performed by Ms. Anne Cassel; graphics were prepared under the direction
of Mr. Charles Fleming.
n
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ii
1 . 0 SUMMARY 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 5
3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA 8
3.1 Population 8
3.2 Economic Profile 8
3.3 Institutional Structure 11
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 17
4.1 Land Use 17
4.2 Topography 20
4.3 Soils 20
4.4 Geology 24
4.5 Hydrology 24
4.6 Climate 25
4.7 Wildlife and Vegetation 27
4.8 Water and Air Quality 27
5.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT 35
5.1 Operating and Proposed Wastewater Treatment 35
Facilities
Hi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued).
Page
5.2 Sources and Characteristics of Municipal 35
Wastewater Treatment Residuals
5.3 Projected Sludge Quantities for the 0-K-I Area 40
Population
6.0 REGULATIONS AFFECTING SLUDGE MANAGEMENT 48
6.1 Water Regulations 48
6.2 Air Quality Considerations 53
6.3 Regulations Relating to Land Use 55
7..0 ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT METHODS 58
7.1 Sludge Disposal Practices 58
7.2 Application of the Methodology 59
7.3 Eliminated Alternatives 62
7.4 Alternatives Selected for Application 63
8.0 FEASIBLE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 64
8.1 Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 69
8.2 Little Miami Wastewater Treatment Plant 71
8.3 Sanitation District No. 1 of Campbell and Kenton 74
Counties, Northern Kentucky (Bromley VJTP)
8.4 Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant 77
8.5 Franklin Wastewater Treatment Plant 79
8.6 Muddy Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 80
8.7 Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant 82
8.8 Sycamore Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 85
8.9 Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant 86
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued).
8.10 Lawrenceburg Wastewater Treatment Plant 87
8.11 Bethel Wastewater Treatment Plant 89
8.12 New Richmond Wastewater Treatment Plant 90
8.13 Felicity Wastewater Treatment Plant 92
8.14 Mayflower Wastewater Treatment Plant 92
8.15 Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (Proposed) 93
8.16 LeSourdsville Wastewater Treatment Plant (Proposed) 96
8.17 Cl eves-North Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant 98
(Proposed)
8.18 Regionalization of Sludge Disposal 99
8.19 Institutional Arrangements 116
APPENDIX A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION A-l
APPENDIX B TREATMENT PLANT CASE STUDIES B-l
APPENDIX C NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS C-l
APPENDIX D SANITARY LANDFILLS IN THE 0-K-I AREA D-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
3-1 Nine County Study Area 9
4-1 Present Land Use in the 0-K-I Area 18
4-2 Projected 1995 Land Use for the 0-K-I Region 19
4-3 Soil Classifications Occurring in the 0-K-I Region 21
4-4 Slope Characteristics of the 0-K-I Region 23
4-5 Groundwater Availability in 0-K-I Region 26
5-1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Selected as Sample Plants 36
5-2 All Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the 0-K-I Area 37
6-1 Capital and O&M Cost for Venturi Scrubber 54
7-1 Sanitary Landfills in the 0-K-I Area 61
8-1 Decision Network 65
8-2 Possible Transfer Station Location and Service Areas 96
vl
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No.
3-1 Population Projections for 0-K-I Region 10
3-2 Manufacturing Establishments in 0-K-I Region 12
4-1 Soil Associations within the 0-K-I Region 22
4-2 Typical Wildlife Species Occurring in Open Land, 28
Woodland, and Wetland in the 0-K-I Region
4-3 Vegetative Species (Wild and Cultivated) Occurring in 29
Open Areas in the 0-K-I Region
4-4 Typical Vegetative Species Occurring in Woodland Areas 29
in the 0-K-I Region
4-5 Typical Vegetative Species Occurring in Wetland Areas 30
in the 0-K-I Region
5-1 Summary of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treatment 38
Facilities Showing the Type and Quantity of Sludge
Generated
5-2 Grit and Screenings Produced from Operating Plants 39
5-3 Sources of Wastewater for Operating Treatment Plants 41
5-4 Analysis of Sludge from Franklin Wastewater Treatment 42
Plant
5-5 Population Projections for Sample Wastewater Treatment 43
Facilities
5-6 Projected Sludge Quantities for Sample Plants , 44
5-7 Projected Sludge Quantites for the Entire 0-K-I Area 45
7-1 Present Ultimate Disposal Practices at Sample Plants 60
8-1 Disposal Cost Summary for 0-K-I Sample Plants 98
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued).
No,, ESS*
8-2 Average Hauling Distances, Regional Landfill 105
8-3 Regional Volumes of Sludge and Filter Cake. 105
8-4 Estimated Costs of Regional Transfer Stations 107
8-5 Estimated Hauling Costs for Regional Landfill 108
8-6 Costs of Hauling to Riverfront for Regional Barging 109
8-7 Costs of Transport to Land Spreading Site 111
8-8 Cost of Hauling to Mill Creek WTP for Regional Incineration 113
8-9 Disposal Cost Summary for the 0-K-I Four Regional Disposal 114
Alternatives
v 111
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has published a comprehensive set
of analytical procedures for use in the planning of residual waste manage-
ment; the planning document is titled Sludge Processing, Transportation
and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A Planning Perspective (Ref. 1-1). _
The analytical procedures outlined in that document provide the basis
of this study and are referred to hereinafter simply as "the methodology."
The purpose of this project is to demonstrate application of the metho-
dology to a particular locale: the nine-county region encompassed by
the Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council of Governments, known as
the 0-K-I. The 0-K-I Council undertakes responsibility for sludge
management planning as a function of Section 208 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, amendments of 1972, which provides for an area-
wide approach to water pollution control.
Demonstration of the methodology, as reported here, represents a prelimi-
nary analysis; it does not constitute a base for final selection among
the many possible alternatives for residual waste disposal in the region.
Within the 0-K-I region some 158 wastewater treatment facilities generate
residual sludge for disposal; from among these, 15 operating facilities
and 3 proposed facilities are selected for detailed evaluation. These
18 facilities represent approximately 80 percent of the total treatment
capacity within the region. Flow capacities of these plants range from
35,000 gpd to 120 million gpd (133 to 456,000 m3/d). Each of the 15
operating facilities has been issued a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Analysis of each facility is based
on the following factors:
0 Volumes of sludge generated.
0 Characteristics of the sludge.
0 Current sludge disposal methods.
0 Recommended or future sludge disposal methods as a function of
technical feasibility, economics, socio-political effects, land
availability, and environmental impacts.
The analyses, presented in Section 8, indicate that except for the various
disposal methods currently being practiced by each wastewater treatment
plant (WTP), wet land spreading appears to be the most universally
applicable sludge disposal method.
-------
In addition, because facilities in the 0-K-I region exhibit a variety of
sludge-handling techniques that are amenable to consolidation, four
regional scale approaches to sludge management are developed.
1. Sludge generated by the 0-K-I wastewater treatment facilities
could be transported to one of four centralized processing
facilities or transfer stations equipped with sludge dewatering
capabilities. Transport trucks would haul the dewatered sludge
to a regionalized landfill site suitable to contain all the
sludge processed from the 0-K-I region. Such a site should be
compatible with population centers and should represent favor-
able conditions with respect to soil, bedrock, groundwater,
flora and fauna, and meteorology. Since the Mill Creek waste-
water treatment plant already dewaters quantities of sludge
comparable to those expected at a proposed transfer station,
this plant could act as its own transfer station.
2. Again with the four centralized transfer stations, dewatered
sludge could be consolidated at these points and then transpor-
ted to a barge-loading facility near the Ohio River. Barges
would carry the dewatered sludge down river for disposal in an
approved reclamation site in Daviess County, Kentucky.
3. Dewatered sludge from the four centralized transfer stations
could feasibly be land spread on designated agricultural or
rural lands in the 0-K-I region. One such area is located in
Dearborn County, Indiana, where hydrology, topography, and soil
associations appear suitable for land spreading without
adverse effects.
4. Finally, dewatered sludge from the four centralized transfer
stations could feasibly be incinerated at the Mill Creek waste-
water treatment facility where sufficient incinerator capacity
exists to handle the total daily production of dewatered sludge
in the 0-K-I region. The incinerator ash would be slurried
and placed in lagoons located on-site at the facility. Periodi-
cally, the lagoons would be drained and the bottoms hauled
away for landfill disposal.
To facilitate a regionalized system of sludge management, an areawide
service agency could be formed to collect, transport, process, and dispose
of sludge from all wastewater treatment plants on a prorated, user-
charge basis. The agency could be public or private, or perhaps managed
by the largest sewer district (therein the largest contributor of sludge)
within the region.
With respect to application of the methodology in this project, the
following are summary comments:
-------
0 The documentation of typical cost data for sludge trans-
port and disposal by site specific wastewater treatment
facilities in the 0-K-I region does not exist. Cost data
presented in the methodology itself were quite useful in
developing first-order feasibility, bottom!ine costs
necessary for comparative analysis of alternative sludge
disposal methods.
0 Within the 0-K-I region, there exists little available
information on industrial sludges and their impact upon
municipal wastewater treatment facilities and subsequent
disposal sites. No attempt was made in this report to
assess the industrial sludge contribution upon these 0-K-I
facilities.
0 The methodology is a valuable resource tool, useful parti-
cularly for its delineation of sludge management alterna-
tives; its presentation of sludge processing techniques,
such as thickening, stabilization, dewatering, and drying
or reduction; and its detailed references encompassing
major aspects of disposal/recovery:
0 The methodology presents typical situations and provides
patterns of analysis; these were adjusted and modified in
application to the eighteen sample wastewater treatment
facilities in the 0-K-I region.
0 The application of the methodology suggests that only slight
advantage, resulting in excess costs, may occur in employ-
ing anaerobic digestion along with incineration. Therefore,
it is recommended that future design and provision of facili-
ties involve a more careful consideration for omitting one or
the other process. Also, it may be possible to eliminate
unnecessary processing in existing plants thus saving O&M
costs.
As a result of this application of the methodology to wastewater treatment
facilities in the 0-K-I region, further recommendations are proposed:
0 Analyses similar to those performed on sludges from the
Franklin WTP (reported in Section 5) should be made on
sludges from all facilities in the region. Such analyses
would identify potential problems, such as presence of
heavy metals, or other constraints on landfill or land
spreading practices.
0 Any centralized sludge transfer or disposal facility must
satisfy current and futtrre Federal, state, and local guide-
lines and standards for air and water quality.
-------
REFERENCES
1-1 Hyatt, J.M., and P. E. White, Jr., Sludge Processing, Transporta-
tion, and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A planning Perspective.
Engineering-Science, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3104. April
1975.
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Treatment of municipal and industrial wastewaters involves the generation
of sludge. As Federal and local standards for water quality and waste
treatment become more stringent, the quantities of sludge increase. It
is estimated that the quantity of sludge generated by municipal waste-
water treatment plants in the U.S. in 1974 is about 5.2 million tons
(4.72 million metric tons) per year, on a dry basis (Ref. II-l).
Currently more than 21,000 publicly owned treatment plants are operating
in the United States (Ref. II-2). Over 18,000 of these, or about 86
percent, handle relatively small volumes of wastewater - 1 mgd (3800
m3/day) or less. Cost of these small-scale operations are significantly
higher than the costs that would be incurred in operation of larger
plants on a regional scale.
The high costs of current wastewater treatment and sludge disposal
practices represent only one aspect of the problem; protection of the
environment is another significant consideration. Many waste treatment
plants now dispose of sludge by the lowest-cost methods possible, with
little regard for potential environmental hazards or conservation of
resources. Some examples found in the 0-K-I area are: disposal at open
municipal dumps, on flood plains without cover, and on farms without
precautions for protection of livestock. Digested or semidigested
sludge is often disposed of as if it were completely innocuous, even
though well-digested sludge could contain pathogens, intestinal parasites,
and other hazardous constituents. Similarly, industrial waste sludges
are often disposed of without regard for their toxic constituents. The
attenuating characteristics of soils at the disposal site or possible
contamination of surface and groundwaters often are not considered.
Economic and environmental factors, therefore, must figure strongly in
the planning of wastewater treatment and sludge management practices.
Other major factors, too, can affect the decisions of planners; for
example, they must consider the potential for recovery of resources,
socio-political implications, and possible institutional and jurisdic-
tional arrangements. Recognizing the need for in-depth analysis and
orderly presentation of the many factors involved, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency commissioned a study of currently available alternatives
for sludge disposal, with the aim of developing guidelines for sludge
management planning. In April 1975 EPA published the resultant planning
document, titled Sludge Processing Transportation, and Disposal/Resource
Recovery: A Planning Perspective (Ref. II-TTThat document, referred
-------
to in this report as 'the methodology," identifies the major planning
considerations and provides techniques for decision-making and selection
of optimum alternatives.
As a means of testing the application of this developed methodology to
specific situations, EPA has sponsored two demonstration projects. Each
is conducted in conjunction with regional planning programs established-
earlier under Section 208 of.the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
amendments of 1972, which provides for an area-wide approach to water
pollution control. The regions selected for the demonstration projects
are Knoxville - Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Knoxville,
Tennessee, and a tri-state region centered in Cincinnati, Ohio, under
the planning direction of the Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council
of Governments, known^as 0-K-I. This report describes the work performed
in the 0-K-I demonstration project.
Application of the methodology in the 0-K-I region is tested on a sample
consisting of 15 currently operating municipal wastewater treatment
plants, selected from among 158 plants in the region, and 3 plants now
in the design or construction stage.
Each of the sample plants was surveyed by on-site inspection and by
analysis of available records. Case studies developed for each plant
(presented in Appendix B) describe location, operation, capacity,
service area, and current sludge management methods. The methodology is
applied according to pathway analysis, incorporating as many trial
iterations as are needed to eliminate infeasible alternatives and to
identify the alternatives that appear most suitable for each plant.
In preparation for the discussion and selection of alternatives, presented
in Section 8, this report provides background information pertinent to
the decision-making process. Section 3 describes economic and institu-
tional characteristics of the 0-K-I area, and Section 4 analyzes the
environmental setting of the region. Current wastewater treatment and
sludge management practices, and projections for the future, are given
in Section 5. Section 6 considers briefly the applicable Federal,
state, and local regulations affecting air and water quality and land
use. Section 7 describes the sludge management alternatives presented
in the methodology, indicating the reasons for elimination of several
for application in this region. Following the plant-by-plant analysis
in Section 8 are possible regional-scale alternatives for sludge manage-
ment and some of the institutional arrangements that could facilitate
region-wide operations.
-------
REFERENCES
II-l Personal Communication with Dr. Edward Myer. Program Analyst.
National Commission on Water Quality. Washington, D. C. December
1975.
II-2 Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste
Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, proposed for
public comment. March 1974.
II-3 Wyatt, J.M., and P.E. White, Jr. Sludge Processing, Transporta-
tion, and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A Planning Perspective.
Engineering-Science, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3104. April
1975.
-------
3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA
The study area selected for demonstration of the residual waste management
methodology includes all nine counties comprising the 0-K-I region. As
Figure 3-1 shows, four of the counties lie in southwestern Ohio, three
in northern Kentucky, and two in southeastern Indiana. These are respec-
tively, Hamilton, Clermont, Butler, and Warren (Ohio); Boone, Kenton,
and Campbell (Kentucky); and Ohio and Dearborn (Indiana).
Major transportation within the region is by rail and by an excellent
highway system. Interstate highways 71, 74, and 75 connect the region
with the entire Midwest. Interstates 275 and 471 form an encircling
connector for the 0-K-I area, which is also transversed by a number of
state and county arteries. Movement of goods by barge on the Ohio River
is active; the region is further served by major airlines as well as
numerous smaller commercial and private carriers.
The nine counties encompass 10 major drainage basins. Five basins drain
directly into the Ohio River, and five relate to the other major streams
in the region: the Licking River, Whitewater River, Great Miami River,
Mill Creek, and Little Miami River. Each of the ten major basins contains
numerous drainage areas, totalling 233 within the region.
3.1 POPULATION
Analyses of past, present, and future population trends in the 0-K-I
region provide a base for calculating the anticipated volumes of sludge
from each of the wastewater treatment facilities. Table 3-1 presents a
population projection, showing an increase from 1,615,347 in 1970 to
2,015,940 in 1990 (Ref. III-l). This increase is equal to an average
annual rate of 1.14 percent. Over this 20-year period, Hamilton County
will account for about 55 percent of the population in the nine-county
area. Interpolation and extrapolation of the values in Table 3-1
indicates that population of the region will be 1,769,742 in 1977 and
2,094,760 in 1995.
3.2 ECONOMIC PROFILE
The economic structure of the 0-K-I Region is widely diversified; major
activities include manufacturing, commerce, shipping, finance, agricul-
ture, and insurance. Manufacturing and other industrial activities are
the preponderant economic pursuits aside from retail trade.
-------
0123 6 milti
Figure 3-1. Nine county study area
-------
Table 3-1. POPULATION PROJECTION FOR 0-K-I REGION
County
Hamilton
Butler
Clermont
Warren
Boone
Campbell
Ken ton
Dearborn
Ohio
0-K-I
region
1970
924,018
226,207
95,725
84,925
32,812
88,501
129,440
29,430
4,289
1,615,347
1975
964,620
248,490
117,340
106,990
34,510
93,180
131,150
29,850
5,180
1,731,310
1980
1,000,340
267,850
127,550
123,900
38,260
96,570
136,660
30,790
5,470
1,827,390
1985
1,037,460
286,260
140,250
140,250
44,190
99,900
142,170
32,080
5,760
1,928,320
1990
1,070,090
303,730
150,860
156,890
48,270
102,580
144,300
33,190
6,030
2,015,940
Source: Ref. III-l.
-------
Industry in the 0-K-I Region is also diversified. About 77 percent of
the industries are located in Hamilton County and the second largest
group in Butler County; together these counties account for roughly 85
percent of 0-K-I's industry. Ohio and Dearborn Counties contain the
fewest industries.
Table 3-2 lists the major industries and indicates the number of establish-
ments -for each industry in 1972. Since Hamilton County is near its
industrial saturation level, the number of industrial establishments in
that county probably will not increase much beyond the present level.
Projected land use indicates that the most likely area for industrial
development in the 0-K-I region is in the corridor extending north of
Hamilton County through the cities of Hamilton and Middletown. Further
industrial growth may also occur in Boone and Kenton Counties.
Certain industries in the 0-K-I region generate liquid wastes that
cannot or should not be handled by municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Unfortunately, these wastes are occassionally and inadvertently released
to the municipal waste stream. Following are the major categories of
liquid wastes that must be controlled to allow smooth operation of
wastewater treatment plants:
Concentrated sulfuric acid solutions
Concentrated mixed acids
Dilute acid solutions containing chromium and/or other oxidants
Dilute acid solutions containing heavy metals (no chromium or ammonia)
Dilute acid solutions containing heavy metals and ammonium salts
Acidic nitrate solutions containing heavy metals
Alkaline solutions containing cyanides
Alkaline solutions containing sulfide
Concentrated alkalies (no sulfide or cyanide)
Miscellaneous alkaline solutions containing metal
Alkaline wastes with high concentrations of hazardous heavy metals
Combustible organics
Aqueous organic waste streams
Radioactive wastes
Vegetable and animal oils
3.3 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
As discussed more fully in Section 8.19 of this report, the multiplicity
of agencies operating in the 0-K-I region may deter the regionalization
of waste management. For example, 93 water and sewer agencies are now
operating in the area. Of these, approximately 53 agencies have partial
responsibility for the collection and treatment of wastewater. These
agencies are classified in three categories: (1) public - municipal or
county agencies serving one or more communities on a contractual basis;
(2) private - independent companies performing wastewater treatment
11
-------
Table 3-2. MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN 0-K-I REGION
(Number and Type - 1972)
Type of Industry
Food and kindred products
Tobacco manufacturers
Textile mill products
Apparel and related products
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and allied products
Printing and publishing
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and plastic products
Leather and leather products
Stone, clay, and glass products
Primary metal industries
Fabricated metal products
Machinery (except electrical)
Electrical machinery
Transportation equipment
Instruments and related products
Miscellaneous manufacturing
Totals
Hamilton
156
2
8
56
42
41
64
287
94
11
62
13
63
47
187
256
54
31
39
89 .
1602
Clermont
1
0
1
0
5
1
3
9
3
0
4
0
9
2
3
16
0
3
2
4
66
Butler
11
0
0
3
7
7
18
23
6
2
5
0
25
11
29
42
4
4
0
8
205
Warren
5
0
1
0
5
4
9
7
5
2
3
1
7
1
6
14
4
1
0
2
77
Boone
0
0
0
1
0
5
3
3
0
0
3
0
4
0
5
3
2
0
2
1
32
Kenton
11
0
1
3
3
3
4
8
2
0
1
0
7
4
18
13
4
4
1
6
98
Campbell
5
0
0
3
6
2
0
10
3
0
0
0
8
3
8
10
0
0
1
4
63
Ohio
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
6
Dearborn
7
0
0
0
2
1
1
5
0
1
0
0
6
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
29
Source: United States Census of Manufacturers. Bureau of Census. Washington D.C., 1972.
-------
functions; and (3) special districts - independent agencies serving
several communities. Numbers of sewer agencies by county are as follows:
Boone 1, Butler 7, Campbell 10, Clermont 6, Dearborn 5, Hamilton 7,
Kenton 17, Ohio 1, and Warren 6.
3.3.1 Sewer Districts
The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati (MSD) is the
largest single agency in the 0-K-I region. The MSD operates and main-
tains the Mill Creek wastewater treatment plant (WTP) with its collec-
tion network and the Muddy Creek, Little Miami, Sycamore, and Mayflower
wastewater treatment plants.
In Hamilton County, with the exception of the villages of Addyston,
Cleves, North Bend, and Glendale, and the cities of Loveland and Harrison,
all municipalities (28 in number) and all townships (12 in number) are
members of the MSD. It is not known what percent of the total population
is served by_the MSD. Formed originally by Hamilton County and the City
of Cincinnati, the District is responsible for the adoption of rules and
regulations, the approval of capital improvement programs, and the
establishment of rate schedules.
Besides the collection and treatment of wastewater, the District is
responsible for (1) inspection, cleaning, repair, and modification of
storm sewers in the area; (2) provision of a flood control program in
the Mill Creek Valley, (3) sampling and gauging of industrial wastes and
(4) control of air pollution. Operation of the MSD is the responsibility
of the City of Cincinnati, with ultimate governing control by the
Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners.
Sanitary sewer service in northern Kentucky is provided by two special
districts. The Sanitation District No. 1 of Campbell and Kenton Counties
provides service to approximately 78 percent of the total two-county
population; the other district provides service to a very small community
in Campbell County, comprising less than 1 percent of the County's
population.
Sanitation District No. 1 of Campbell and Kenton Counties, Kentucky is
the second largest sewer district in the area (Ref. III-2). The District
is responsible for collection and disposal of sewage and other liquid
wastes and for street cleaning. The District is controlled and managed
by a Board of Directors consisting of three members. At present the
District operates and maintains the Bromley wastewater treatment plant.
Sewer service charges in northern Kentucky are levied by a number of
municipalities as well as by the Sanitation District.
Other sewer districts serving their respective areas include South
Dearborn Regional Sewer District, Department of Public Utilities of
Middletown, Butler County Sanitary Engineering Department, City of
13
-------
Hamilton Water and Wastewater Department, The Miami Conservancy District,
City of Lebanon, and Clermont County Sanitary District. A number of
planning agencies in the area are involved in activities related to
waste treatment and disposal as well as in regulation of land uses
impinging upon sludge management. Of these, the 0-K-I Regional Council
of Governments is the largest and the Northern Kentucky Area Planning
Commission is second largest. County planning commissions operate in
Clermont, Butler, Dearborn, and Warren Counties.
In most counties the collection of municipal refuse is the responsibility
of the municipality whether incorporated or not. Disposal, however, is
done either by individual municipalities or on a county-wide basis.
There are no county garbage districts in the area.
3.3.2 Other Entities
All of the 0-K-I region l.ies in the Ohio River Division of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Development of water resources by the Corps of
Engineers in Ohio dates back to the early 1800's. (Ref. III-3) Since
then, their activities have expanded to include development and improve-
ment of harbors and navigable channels; preparation of engineering
reports on streets, shores and floodplains; construction of flood
control, hydropower, and related works, such as for water supply or
water recreation; provision of floodplain management services and flood
insurance studies; and administration of laws relating to protection of
navigable waters, and water quality. Interest of the Corps of Engineers
in sludge management follows from its concern with nonpoint sources of
pollution affecting the Ohio River. The Urban Studies Program for the
0-K-I region will be administered by the Louisville District of the
Corps of Engineers. The program will be a cooperative effort of Federal,
state, and local governments, emcompassing urban flood control and
floodplain management; drainage and urban runoff; water supply management;
wastewater management; water - related recreation; and conservation and
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. This program is expected
to be underway in fiscal year 1977.
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, ORSANCO, serves the
States of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia. The Commission was formed in 1948 to
combat pollution in the Ohio River; (Ref. III-4) one of its major tasks
now is to set strict standards applicable to segments of the Ohio River.
ORSANCO has set minimum requirements for control of industrial wastes.
Preventive measures for minimizing seasonal degradation of river quality
by salt-bearing wastes have also been adopted by the eight states.
Water-quality surveillance and evaluation is one of the basic functions
of the Commission. Chemical and bacteriological data are obtained from
45 sampling stations throughout the interstate district. To supplement
these manual measurements, the Commission has developed the ORSANCO
14
-------
ROBOT MONITOR SYSTEM, which includes (1) electronic units for automatic
and continuous analysis of water quality, (2) telemeter transmitters,
and (3) data processing facilities.
ORSANCO is developing an analysis of nonpoint sources (agricultural and
surface erosion) to determine the need for procedures and facilities for
control of pollutants from these sources. This analysis probably will
consider sludge management techniques.
The Appalachian Regional Commission has responsibilities over parts of a
ten-state area including the eastern part of Clermont County. The major
objective of the Commission is to improve the economy of the area. In
addition to other public works programs, the Commission offers grants
for construction of wastewater treatment facilities and for management
of residual wastes.
15
-------
REFERENCES
i Ridgewood Army Weapons Plant Evaluation and Resource Recovery
Feasibility Study. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. April
1975.
III-2. Regional Sewage Plan. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning
, Authority. Cincinnati, Ohio. November 1971.
III-3. Water Resources Development in Ohio. Ohio River Division, Corps
of Engineers. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1975.
111-4. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Nth Annual Report on the
Interstate Crusade for Clean Streams to the Governors of
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio. December 1962.
16
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 0-K-I region is abundant in natural assets, including varied topo-
graphy, a network of surface waters, and extensive areas of woods and
meadowland. Because of these assets the region, unlike most highly
populated areas, is profuse in vegetation and wildlife species. As in
many parts of the country, however, environmental quality has not been
maintained uniformly at a high level. Intermittent episodes of air
pollution reach alert levels, and water quality fails to meet the
applicable standards at various times. In some locations the absence of
land-use controls has allowed careless development, resulting in degrada-
tion not only of air and water quality but of natural and aesthetic
values. In contrast, some projects, such as development of parks by
county-wide and conservancy-type park districts, have yielded measurable
improvement of water quality at locations downstream and have enhanced
the natural environment.
Application of the methodology for sludge management in the 0-K-I region
entails the analysis of environmental characteristics, which are factored
into the decision-making process as a means of preserving environmental
quality.
4.1 LAND USE
Cincinnati is the center of a broad corridor of urban development, as
depicted in Figure 4-1. This corridor extends north through Hamilton
and Middletown and includes other major urban areas such as Lawrenceburg,
Oxford, Lebanon, Mason, Batavia, and Alexandria. The central portions
of most of these urban areas have reached peak density and are either
stable or deteriorating. The outer portions of the urban areas consist
primarily of housing developments, with some industries.
Urbanizing areas as depicted in Figure 4-1 are areas of relatively
medium density having substantial potential for new development.
Agricultural and rural areas have relatively low density and many have
no convenient access to urban centers. These conditions will change
gradually with future development of trafficways now planned or projected.
Figure 4-2 depicts projected land use for 1995. The area of the urbanized
regions will have increased, thus shifting the urbanizing areas into
portions of present rural areas. As a result, the total area of rural
and agricultural land use will be reduced.
17
-------
URBAN
UHl URBANIZING
| | RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL
Figure 4-1. Present land use in the 0-K-I area
Source: Ref. IV-1.
18
-------
URBAN
IIII11IIIIH URBANIZING
I I RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL
Figure 4-2. Projected 1995 land use for the 0-K-I region,
Source: Ref. IV-1.
19
-------
The increase in urbanized land and the resulting decrease in rural and
agricultural land will directly affect the selection of sludge disposal
sites. Not only will some presently available space become unavailable
for sludge disposal, but transport over greater distances may be re-
quired. In addition, sludge generation will increase as a result of
both increased population and use of more advanced wastewater treatment
techniques. Thus selection of long-term disposal sites must be based on
consideration of land development trends.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
The 0-K-I area is basically a low plateau bisected by the Ohio River and
its tributaries to produce a network of valleys and ridges, some with
considerable slope. The most rugged topography is in Hamilton, Dearborn,
and Ohio counties. Clermont County is relatively flat except in the
western portions along the rugged banks of the Little Miami River.
Kenton and Campbell counties form a low plateau cut by the Ohio and
Licking rivers. Extensive erosion has developed narrow valleys and
ridges. Boone County, though generally flat, contains steep slopes in
the western portion and gently rolling hills in the central portion.
Glaciers have cut three major valleys in the region, traversed by three
major rivers that run south to the Ohio. In the western area the Great
Miami River flows southwest from the Warren-Butler County line to the
Ohio River. South of Hamilton the Mill Creek flows south through
Hamilton County into the Ohio River. The Little Miami River passes
through eastern Warren County before forming the Clermont-Hamilton
County border and emptying into the Ohio River.
4.3 SOILS
Thirteen basic soil associations are recognized in the 0-K-I region
(Ref. IV-2,3,4,5). A soil association is the landscape having distinctive
proportioned patterns of soils, normally including one or more major
soils. The soils in one association may occur in another, but in a
different pattern. Figure 4-3 shows the various soil associations and
their distribution in the 0-K-I area. The name of each association is
constructed so that the major soil (series) is listed first, followed by
the second and third major soils; the name does not indicate minor
soils. Table 4-1 lists characteristics of the soil association, such as
permeability, water table, and hardpan. This table, together with the
delineation of soil associations in Figure 4-3, can be useful to planners
by indicating dominant soil patterns in the 0-K-I region and location of
large tracts possibly suitable for certain kinds of land use, including
sludge disposal. Areas that have low-permeability soils or hardpan and
are not subject to seasonal flooding have some potential as sludge
disposal sites. Figure 4-4, depicting the range of slopes over the
region, indicates relative accessibility of potential disposal sites.
20
-------
r.i.iHtti-:-,,!!!;-1:::^^:!;'" :';:;'W^
r :
•--S^ K-Tf^-V I
•-Uf:->~' *^J
\ !;S^ __ V::fp'-, •
\v '- *"'> -x-^ \
', ' .:
KENTUCKY
, .--• "Ill; /Ku\"-^ r^:.-^--.
ACCEPTABLE FOR LAND DISPOSAL
ACCI?TABLE FOR LAND DISPOSAL BUT USE OF CAUTION ^
. .. . . " 63V!SEOTO AVOID AREASWHE1E SEASONALLY HIGH
l''i'-''..'.l WATER TABU MAY BREAK THRO'JGH UMPERLYINO
HAR3MI
NCT TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE FOR LAND DISPOSAL
j ,] as A RESULT OF SEASOSAL FLOODIIVG OFt HIGH
WATER.
f~— ! ^OT ACCEPTABLE FOR LAND DISPOSAL AS A RESULT
<- —J OF KICHPOLLUTIOX POTENTIAL
Figure /1-3. Soils classifications in theO-K-I area for sludge disposal.
Source: Ref. IV-5
-------
Table 4-1. SOIL ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN THE 0-K-I REGION
Soil association
Permeability
Subject to seasonal
high water table or
seasonal flooding
Underlain by
a hardpan
Miami-Celina-Milton
Russel-Xenia-Wynn
Fincastle-Xenia-Brooks ton
Fineastie-Montgomery-Eel
Patten-Henshaw
Rossmoyne-Cincinnati-
Edenton-Jcssup
Avonburg-Clermont
Genesee-Fox-Eel
Huntington-Wheeling
Licking-Captina
Faywood-Nicholson
Fairmont-Faywood-Edenton
Eden-Cynthiana
Moderately low
Moderately low
Moderately low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to
moderately slow
Slow
Moderate
Moderate
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow
No
For short periods
For extended periods
Seasonal high water table
and flooding
Perched water table
winter and spring
High water table winter
and spring
Seasonal flooding
Periodic flooding
Seasonal flooding and
perched water table
Perched water table
winter and spring
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Source: Ref. IV-2, 3, 4, 5
-------
ri B%-12%
Figure 4-4. Slope characteristics of the 0-K-I region
Source: Ref. IV-6.
23
-------
4.4 GEOLOGY
Bedrock formations in the 0-K-I region belong to the Ordovician System,
which occured between 430 and 500 million years ago. The formations
that underlie the area consist almost exclusively of shale and limestone
arranged in nearly horizontal beds. Sandstone is present in very
limited quantities. Beds of limestone and of shale alternate at frequent
intervals, the total thickness of the shale exceeding that of the lime-
stone. Thickness of the limestone beds ranges from 1 inch (2.54 cm) to
more than 1 foot (0.3 m). Beds of limestone, rarely found in contact,
are generally separated by beds of shale, which may be paper thin or as
much as 5 or "10 feet (2 or 3 m) thick. The maximum outcroppings of
bedrock are about 600 feet (180 m) thick (Ref. IV-7).
These bedrock formations are usually covered by residual soils from
bedrock, silt and loess soils due to wind transportation, clays of the
Wisconsin Age, and alluvium soils due to water transportation. Because
of the porosity of limestone, some sludge disposal methods could adversely
affect groundwater quality.
4.5 HYDROLOGY
The Ohio River has three major tributaries in the 0-K-I region; from the
north, the Great Miami and Little Miami Rivers; and from the south, the
Licking River. These major streams, together with several lesser streams
and extensive groundwater aquifers that underly them, provide the region
with an abundant water supply.
Groundwater occurs in varying quality and quantity in the region. In
upland areas groundwaters are sparse and of poor quality. Rocks under
the upland yield a little water to shallow wells, primarily for domestic
use. Major supplies of groundwater are found in valleys of the Little
Miami-Mill Creek, the Great Miami-Whitewater, and the Licking Rivers.
Principal groundwater sources in the Little Miami and Mill Creek Valleys
are the sand and gravel deposits. The Little Miami aquifer, from south
of Loveland to Mil ford, develops 100 to 500 gallons per minute (gpm)
(0.38 to 1.9 nrvmin). The valley south of Mil ford to the Ohio River can
support wells that yield 500 to 1,000 gpm (1.9 to 3.8 m3/min). Yields
of 100 to 500 gpm (0.38 to 1.9 m3/min) can be expected in the Mill Creek
Valley aquifer from the Ohio River to the Hamilton County corporation
line. Recharging of this aquifer is limited by a fairly continuous
impermeable layer of clay. Water from these two valleys is hard and
usually contains objectionable amounts of iron and manganese (1 ppm or
greater). The water is classified as "fair" in quality and is unsuitable
for domestic and industrial use unless treated appropriately.
Lower portions of the Great Miami Valley are reported as the most abundant
groundwater reservoir in Ohio. Highest yields (up to 3,000 gpm) (11.4
-------
m3/min) are obtained where the sand and gravel aquifer is near the river
or other major streams, where recharge induced from the stream will
sustain pumping. Where there is no recharge capability, pumping rates
range from only 500 to 1,000 gpm (1.9 to 3.8 m3/min). The least favor-
able groundwater supplies occur in valleys buried in clay, where wells
yielding only 5 to 10 gpm (0.02 to 0.04 m3/min) are common. The water
table in the area ranges from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.3 m) below the
land surface, with seasonal fluctuations of 5 to 15 feet (1.5 to 4.6 m)
annually. The quality of the groundwater is good, typically with
dissolved materials of 400 to 500 ppm. Contamination of groundwater,
though detectable, has as yet been minor. Small amounts of phenol and
"hard detergents" have been detected (Ref. IV-6).
Groundwater supplies in the Licking River Valley are adequate for
domestic use but probably not for large industrial use. Wells drilled
in permeable materials yield as much as 300 gpm (1.1 m3/min), whereas
wells drilled in alluvium yield no more than 60 gpm (0.23 m3/min) at a
depth of 100 to 150 feet (31 to 46 m).
Surface water supplies in the region account for 78 percent of the total
water processed in 1968. This percentage is expected to continue at
least through 1990. Figure 4-5 shows three classifications of ground-
water accessibility. This brief review of the region's hydrology
suggests that as possible sites for sludge disposal, the upland areas
seem most suitable and offer the least probability of adverse impact.
4.6 CLIMATE
Climate in the 0-K-I region is temperate and humid. The average tempera-
ture for January is about 33F (0.6C), for July 76F (24C), and for the
year, 54F (12C). Average annual rainfall is about 40 inches (102 cm),
distributed fairly well throughout the year. Although droughts do
occur, rains are usually adequate for normal growth of crops. The
average growing season is 186 days.
Thunderstorms occur on an average of 50 days a year. Though more frequent
from March to August, they may occur in any month. Most of the high-
intensity rains occur as summer thundershowers. Lighter spring rains
sometimes persist for several days and delay tillage. The prolonged
rains are most likely to cause flooding because they occur when the
•soils are frozen, snow covered, or saturated. Long periods of mild,
sunny weather are typical of the fall harvest season (Ref. IV-4).
Prevailing winds are from the southwest; wind velocities average 8 miles
per hour (3.6 m/sec) in summer and 11 miles per hour (4.9 m/sec) in
winter. Damaging winds of 30 to 80 miles per hour (13.4 to 35.8 m/sec)
are associated with thunderstorms.
-------
Tgg 500 • 1000 9P"i
100-50gpni
f 1< 25gpm
O I 2 3 6 mllct
Figure 4-5. Groundwater availability in 0-K-I region.
Source: Ref. IV-12, 13, 14.
?6
-------
Climatological information is particularly useful for determining those
weather conditions in the 0-K-I area which impinge most adversely on
sludge disposal by landfilling or land spreading.
4.7 WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION
Wildlife and vegetation are important natural resources of the 0-K-I
region. The kinds of wildlife and vegetation in a given area, and the
numbers of each kind, are closely related to land use as well as other
environmental factors. The welfare of any species of wildlife depends
on the presence and adequate distribution of food plants, shelter
plants, and water. When any one of these habitat elements is absent,
inadequate, or inaccessible, the species becomes scarce in the area or
absent entirely.
Three basic kinds of wildlife, based on habitat, are present to some
extent in the 0-K-I region: open land wildlife, woodland wildlife, and
wetland wildlife. Table 4-2 lists typical wildlife species occurring in
these areas.
Open wildlife areas include cultivated fields, abandoned fields that
have not yet reached advanced stages of secondary succession, and pastures.
Typical vegetation (both wild and cultivated) common to open habitats in
the 0-K-I region is listed in Table 4-3. Woodland areas include both
deciduous and coniferous forests. Continued establishment of pure
coniferous forests, however, is unlikely since they are not well suited
to compete with local hardwoods. Typical vegetative species occurring
in woodland areas are listed in Table 4-4. Wetlands, which include
ponds, swamps, and marshes, are moist to wet sites that support vegetation
specifically adapted to this environment. Typical vegetation common to
these habitats is listed in Table 4-5.
Tables 4-2 through 4-5 are by no means complete for the 0-K-I region but
are presented rather to indicate the quality of fauna and flora in the
area, which must be considered in selection of a sludge disposal site.
If it is determined that a proposed site contains a unique habitat or
that adverse impacts to flora and fauna, to the site, or to surrounding
areas might be irreversible, an alternative site should be selected.
4.8 WATER AND AIR QUALITY
Consideration of water quality in the 0-K-I region is focused on the
Ohio River. Quality of water in tributary streams, direct discharges to
the Ohio, and nonpoint sources throughout the area will ultimately
affect the Ohio River.
27
-------
Table 4-2. TYPICAL WILDLIFE SPECIES OCCURRING IN OPEN LAND, WOODLAND,
AND WETLAND IN THE 0-K-I REGION
CO
Species3
Rabbit
Quail
Squirrel
Dove
Raccoon
White tail deer
Woodchuck
Crow
Chipmunk,
Bat
Mouse
Shrew
Mole
Ring-necked Pheasant
Badger
Gray fox
Red fox
Mink
Striped skunk
Opossum
Muskrat
Beaver
Koodcock
Thrush
Red-winged Blackbird
Vireo
Scarlet Tanaqer
Woodpecker
Mallard Duck
Occurring
in
openland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Occurring
in
woodland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Occurring
in
wetland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Species3
Black Duck
Wood DucX
Scaup
Gadwall
Goldencye
Pintail
Baldpate
Mergansers
Buf f lehead
Green-winged Teal •
Canvasback
Redhead
Widgeon
Blue wing teal
Canada goose
Coot
Blue goose
Red Cockaded Woodpecker
Kildeer
Whippoorwill
Sparrow
Phoebe
Hawk
Heron
Occurring
in
opcnland
X
X
X
X
Occurring
in
woodland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Occurring
in
wetland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
The species listed may only potentially inhabit the areas
indicated and in the case of migratory species only durinq
migrating period.
The Red Cockaded Woodpecker is listed as an endangered
species by both the U.S. Department of tho Interior and the
State of Kentucky. It is very possible that this species
is present- in the O-K-I area. Therefore, special care
should b'j taken when intruding areas of diseased and dead
pines since this species nests in such areas.
Source: Ref. IV-15
-------
Table 4-3. VEGETATIVE SPECIES (WILD AND. CULTIVATED)
OCCURRING IN OPEN AREAS IN THE 0-K-I REGION
Table 4-4. TYPICAL VEGETATIVE SPECIES
OCCURRING IN WOODLAND AREAS IN THE
0-K-I REGION
ro
vo
Corn
Soybean
Dwarf sorghum
Wheat
Barley
Oats
Rye
Kentucky Bluegrass
Tall Fescue
Smooth Brome
Timothy
Redtop
Orchard Grass
Switchgrass
Red Clover
Alside Clover
Birdsfood Trefoil
Alfalfa
Pigweed (R)
Pokeweed
Strawberry
Raspberry
(R) - Rare.
Source: Ref. IV-15
Blueberry
Elderberry
Sunflower
Dandelion
Foxglove
May apple
Virginia Spring Beauty
Harebell
Smooth Yellow Violet
Birdsfoot Violet
Shooting star (R)
Red Trillium
Yellow Trout Lily
Squirrel Corn
Milkweed
Thistle
Daisy
Goldenrod
Ragweed
Smartweed
Nightshade
Blackberry
Chinquapin Oak
White Oak
Chestnut oak
Pin Oak
Shingle Oak
Black Oak
Red Oak
Scarlet Oak
Maple
Aspen
Rose
Brier
Sassafras
Black Locust
Beech
Green Ash
White Ash
Hackberry
Wild Cherry
Mulberry
Dogwood
Hawthorne
Blackhaw
Hedgeapple
Elderberry
Paw Paw
Walnut
Shagebark Hickory
Shcllbark Hickory
Bitternut Hickory
Mockernut Hickory
Pignut Hickory
Red Hickory
Poplar
White Pine
Cedar
Wild Grape
Sumac
Hazelnut
Elm
Honey Locust
Broomsedge
Autumn - Olive
Amur Honeysuckle
Tatarian Honeysuckle
Crabapple
Virurnum
Indianpipe
May Apple
Snowy Orchid (R)
Red Helmet (R)
Cut Tootliwort
R - Rare for the O-K-1 region as designated by the local
Department of Natural Resources.
Source: Ref. IV-15
-------
Table 4-5. TYPICAL VEGETATIVE SPECIES OCCURRING IN WETLAND
AREAS IN THE 0-K-I REGION
Arum Arrowhead
Turtle Head
Smartweed
Wild Millet
Rush
Bulrush
Cattail
Spikerush
Sedge
Burreed
Wildrice
Buttonbush
Rice Cutgrass
Source: Ref. IV-15.
30
-------
4.8.1 Water Quality
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the upper Ohio River near Pittsburgh
meet the state standards, based on warm-water aquatic life requirements,
as the result of the late-1973 completion of secondary treatment facilities
at the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority plant serving the Pittsburgh
metropolitan area (Ref IV-16).
In the river section from Cincinnati to below Louisville, the State DO
standards are not met during variable periods of the summer and fall
months. Completion of secondary wastewater treatment facilities either
planned or under construction, will probably result in compliance with
DO standards under most river flow conditions.
In addition to warm-water aquatic life, the Ohio River is classified for
primary (body contact) recreation and for public and industrial water
supply. Only limited sections of the river, however, meet the state
standards for total or fecal coliform in waters used for recreation or
for public supply. Improvements in disinfection of municipal and some
industrial discharges could reduce fecal coliform levels in the river.
Nonpoint sources of total and fecal coliform bacteria will be a major
factor in determining future compliance with State standards. Moreover,
occasional high values for hexavalent,chromium, copper, lead, and mercury
exceed the applicable standards. Variations in levels of these and
other substances (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds, iron, manganese,
arsenic, silver and other trace materials) are in part related to
nonpoint sources of pollutants such as urban and rural runoff, and to
certain industrial contributions to municipal wastewater treatment
facilities that are not degradable by current biological methods.
With completion of presently required improvements of point source
discharges, nonpoint sources of pollutants will become a more influential
determinant of Ohio River water quality. Methods of sludge disposal or
resource utilization will play a key role in controlling nonpoint source
pollutants entering the Ohio River and its tributaries.
4.8.2 Air Quality
Attainment of the national primary air quality standard for particulates
in the metropolitan Cincinnati Interstate Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR 79) is an ongoing task. In 1974, the State and local agencies
involved in the management of AQCR 79 reported 21 violations of the
primary particulate standard of 75 yg/m3 annual geometric mean (Ref.
IV-17). Nineteen of those reported violations were in the State of
Ohio, and two were in Kentucky.
Implementation and completion of all compliance action for particulate
control will allow the AQCR 79 to attain and maintain compliance with
31
-------
the Standard (75 yg/m ). Any addition to an existing facility or
construction of a new facility that involves the discharge of air
contaminants would be required to install and maintain equipment that
ensures compliance with the applicable Federal and State regulations.
Compliance with air pollution control regulations is a key consideration
in the assessment of alternatives for regional sludge management. A
more complete delineation of air pollution standards for the 0-K-I
region is referenced in Section 6 of this report.
32
-------
REFERENCES
Open Space Plan. Regional Planning Sta
Regional Planning Authority. May 1973.
f\ . r\ r~ n r~ p*__J_. _ .1 ^ r» ^-
IV-1 Open Space Plan. Regional Planning Staff, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
Dan inn a 1 Dlanninn flii'Hinvi+'v* Mai/ 1 07 "3
IV-2 Garner, D.E., N.E. Reeder, and J.E. Ernst. Soil Survey of Warren
County, Ohio. United States Department of Agricultural Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with Ohio Department of
Natural Resources Division of Lands and Soils and the Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development Center. U.S. Government
Printing Office^ 1971. 115 p.
IV-3 Lerch, N.K. and K.L. Powell. An Inventory of Ohio Soils, Clermont
County, Progress Report No. 37. Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Lands and Soils. 1972. 48 p.
IV-4 Weisenberger, B.C., C.W. Dowel!, T.R. Leathers, H.B. Odor, and
A.J. Richardson. Soil Survey of Boone, Campbell and Kenton
Counties, Kentucky. United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with Kentucky Agricultural
Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1973. 67 p.
IV-5 0-K-I Regional Solid Waste Management Study: Inventory and Projec-
tions 1965-1990. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 1971.
IV-6 PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Company files.
IV-7 Tenneman, N.M. Geology of Cincinnati and Vicinity. Heer Printing
Company, Columbus, Ohio. 1948. 207 p.
IV-8 Palmquist, W.N. and F.R. Hall. Generalized Columar Section and
Water-Bearing Character of the Rocks in B'oone, Campbell, Grant,
Kenton, and Pendleton Counties, Kentucky (County Group 15).
Hydraulic Investigation Atlas HA-15 (Sheet 3 of 3). The Commonwealth
of Kentucky Department of Economic Development and the Kentucky
Geological Survey, University of Kentucky. 1960.
IV-9 Gray, H.H., J.L. Forsyth, A.F. Schneider, and A.M. Gooding.
Regional Geologic Maps No. 6 and 7 (Louisville Sheet and Cincinnati
Sheet, Part A). Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indiana
Geological Survey. 1972.
33
-------
IV-10 Bownocker, J.A. Geologic Map of Ohio. Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey. 1947.
IV-11 0-K-I Regional Water System Plan. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional
Planning Authority. 1971.
IV-12 Ohio Water Plan Inventory (A composit of drainage basins in the
0-K-I region). Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Geological Survey. 1959 and 1960.
IV-13 Palmquist, W.N. and F.R. Hall. Availability of Groundwater in
Boone, Campbell, Grant, Kenton, and Pendleton Counties, Kentucky
(County Group 15). Hydraulic Investigation Atlat HA-15 (sheet 2
of 3). The Commonwealth of Kentucky Development and the Kentucky
Geological Survey, University of Kentucky. 1960.
IV-14 Steen, W.J. Groundwater in Indiana. Indiana Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Water, p. 13.
IV-15 Fauna and Flora lists provided by the Departments of Natural
Resources of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
IV-16 Ohio River Main Stem, Assessment of 1974 and Future Water Quality
Conditions. ORSANCO. March 1975.
IV-17 Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on National Primary
and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR 50; 36 FR
22384, November 25, 1971, as amended by 38 FR 25678, September
15, 1973; 40 CFR 7042, February 18, 1975.
34
-------
5.0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
This chapter reviews the current sludge handling and disposal options at
selected plants, describes the characteristics of the wastewater sludges
in the 0-K-I region, and projects the quantities of sludge to be generated
in the 0-K-I area to the year 1995.
5.1 OPERATING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
A sample of 15 operating plants and 3 proposed wastewater treatment
facilities (Figure 5-1) was selected for demonstration of the methodology.
They were selected from among a total of 158 plants in the 0-K-I area
(Figure 5-2). A complete listing of wastewater treatment facilities in
the 0-K-I region is given in Appendix A. One criterion for selection of
demonstration plants was whether a NPDES permit had been issued as of
April 30, 1975. The plants are distributed over the entire region to
account for variations in environmental, institutional, and legal
constraints, if any, in evaluating sludge disposal alternatives.
Capacities of the sample plants, based on daily average dry weather
flow, range from 120 mgd (456,000 m^/d) serving a population of over
one-half million to 35,000 gpd (133 m3/d) serving about 200 homes. The
current and proposed sludge handling and disposal methods and the plant
operating data were examined onsite. Detailed case studies are given in
Appendix B. Table 5-1 summarizes the types and quantities of sludge
produced at each plant. The sample plants as listed in Table 5-1
represent about 80 percent of the treatment capacity in the 0-K-I area
and generate about 252 tons (228 metric tons) per day of sludge on a dry
basis. The 18 plants serve a domestic population of over a million
people.
Table 5-2 shows the quantities of grit and screenings now generated at
the plants. Most plants dispose of the grit and screenings at a nearby
landfill.
5.2 SOURCES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
RESIDUALS
The characteristics of municipal wastewater treatment residuals in the
0-K-I region are highly variable and are determined by one or more of
the following factors:
35
-------
r
O I 2 3 6
TO BE
EXISTING ABANDONED PROPOSED
PACKAGE O
TREATMENT Q
D
A
Figure 5-1. Wastewater treatment facilities selected as sample plants
.6
-------
0 I Z S 6 mild
TO BE
EXISTING ABANDONED PROPOSED
TREATMENT Q
PACKAGE Q
D
A
Figure 5-2. All wastewater treatment facilities in the 0-K-I region
37
-------
Table 5-1. SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
SHOWING THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF SLUDGE GENERATED
oo
oo
Plant3
1 Kill Creek
2 Little Xianii
3 Bromley
4 Middletown
5 Franklin Area
KTP
6 Muddy Creek
7 Hamilton
8 Sycamore
9 Oxford
10 Lawrence-burg
11 Bethel
12 New Richmond
13 Felicity
14 Mayflower
15 Systech
16 Dry Creek
17 LeSourdsville
18 Cleves-tJorth
Be^d
Sludge type
Raw sludge
Raw sludge
Raw sludge
Raw sludge
Waste activated
sludgec
Raw sludge
( Industrial)
Raw sludge
(Domestic)
Raw sludge
Waste activated
sludge
Raw sludge
Raw sludge
Waste activated
sludge
Raw sludge
with return
secondary sludge
Industrial sludge
Waste activated
sludge6
Raw sludge
anerobically digested
Waste activated
sludgec
Waste activated
sludge
Waste activated
sludge
Various industrial
Raw sludge
Waste activated
s 1 udge
Raw sludge
Secondary sludge
Raw sludge
slutige with
secondary sludge
Average
daily flow,
(mgd)
120
31
20.8
10.0
9.0
8.3
7.0
3.5
2.64
1.4
2.5
0.47
0.1
0.081
0.035
0.045
30
A
0.5
Sludge
Wet
(ton/day)
1,987
417
197
103
410
229
17
117
30
254
58
66
37
333
950
6
0.8
1
11
410
3,050
25
86
20
Solids,
(%)
5
5
3.8
7
1
7
6
6
1
3.5
4
0.5
6
0.3
2
4
1
1
1
5
1
4
2.5
4
Dry
(ton/day)
99.35
20.85
7. 5
7;2
4.1
16.0
1.0
7.0
0.30
8.90
2.32
0.33
2.2
1.0
19.0
0.23
0.008
0.01
0.114
20.5
30.5
1.0
2.14
0.80
Domestic
population
1. • - b
Ib/cap cay
500,000 0.4C
170,000
170,000
55,000
Industrial
11,000
63,000
70,000
30,000
21,700
Industrial
15,000
2,400
1,725
650
600
Industri al
270,000
40,000
4,980
0.25
0 . C 9
0.26
0.15
0.18
0.22
0.01
0.25
0.15
0.02
0.20
2.5
0.19
0.01
0.03
0.33
0. 15
0.22
0.05
0. 11
0. 32
a Plant No. 1 thru 15 are operating; 16 thru 18 are proposed.
b Data in this column are calculated. Data in all other columns obtained from plant operators.
c Chemical a-Jded
d Plant No. 1.
e Plant No. 2.
1 mgd - 3,800 m3/d
ton x 0.908 - metric ton
-------
Table 5-2. GRIT AND SCREENINGS PRODUCED FROM OPERATING PLANTS
Plant
1. Mill Creek
2. Little Miami
3. Bromley
4. Middletown
5. Franklin
6. Muddy Creek
7. Hamilton
8. Sycamore
9. Oxford
10. Lawrenceburg
11. Bethel
12. New Richmond
13. Felicity
14. Mayflower
15. Systech
Grit
(ft3/day)
125
3
11
22
N.A.
30
5.5
5
4
20a
7b
2
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c
Screenings
(ft3/day)
20
5
N.A.
12
N.A.
9
N.A.
3
9
N.A.
N.A.
<1
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
c
a Plant No. 1.
b Plant No. 2.
Industrial Pretreatment Facility; No Grit and Screenings.
N.A. - Implies not known.
1 mgd = 3800 rrT/d-
1 ft3 = 0.028 m3/d
Source: Personal contacts with Plant Operators.
39
-------
1. Origin of the sludge
2. Wastewater treatment process
3. Sludge treatment process
Of the 15 sampled operating wastewater treatment plants, 6 handle
strictly municipal wastewater, 8 handle combined domestic and industrial
wastewater, and 1 plant handles only industrial wastes (Table 5-3).
Primary municipal sludge is greyish, usually with a distinct offensive
odor. Solids content of the raw sludge ranges from 3.5 to 7 percent.
Activated sludge is brown, with an average solids content of 1 to 3
percent. The composition of residuals from domestic wastewater treat-
ment plants is fairly uniform.
Characteristics of the sludge from plants handling combined domestic and
industrial wastewater depend on the quantity and type of industrial waste-
water and whether it has undergone pretreatment. Sludge from one plant
that handles strictly industrial wastewater has a fibrous texture and a
slight reddish-brown tint due to the presence of iron; it has no odor.
Screenings usually have high organic and moisture contents and a putres-
cent odor. Grit is inorganic, with little odor.
Sludge from the Franklin Wastewater Treatment Plant is unique in the area.
This plant receives a large quantity of industrial waste from the
nearby Systech Plant. The sludge from the primary clarifier, which
treats mainly industrial influent, is pumped to adjacent farmland for
soil conditioning. This practice has been in effect for about 3 years.
With the permission of the Miami Conservancy District, a sample of the
dried sludge was analyzed at the PEDCo laboratory. The results, given
in Table 5-4, show a cadmium content that is approximately 18.7 percent
of the zinc content. Recent EPA guidelines for the utilization of
sludge (Ref. V-l), recommend that sludge having a cadmium content greater
than 1 percent of its zinc content should not be applied to cropland
except under special conditions.
5.3 PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES FOR THE 0-K-I AREA POPULATION
The total population of the 0-K-I region in 1975 is estimated to be
1,731,310 (Ref. V-2). By the year 2000, the population is projected to
be 2.17 million. The population is now concentrated in a very small
region along the major streams and highways. It is anticipated that
future population growth will occur along a north-south corridor between
the Great Miami and the Little Miami Rivers.
Population projections are used as a base for calculating the anticipated
quantities of sludge from each of the operating and proposed wastewater
treatment facilities.
Population projections for the wastewater treatment plants through 1995
are shown in Table 5-5. Values provided by 0-K-I for certain plants
40
-------
Table 5-3. SOURCES OF WASTEWATER FOR OPERATING TREATMENT PLANTS
Plant
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Mill Creek
Little Miami
Bromley
Middle town
Franklin
Muddy Creek
Hamilton
Sycamore
Oxford
Lawrenceburg
Bethel
New Richmond
Felicity
Mayflower
Systech
Average
daily flow
(mgd)
120
31
20.8
10
9
8.3
7
3.5
2.64
2.5a
1.4b
0.47
0.10
0.081
0.035
0.045
Source of wastewater
Domestic
+
+
+
+
-f
+
Industrial
+
Domestic and
industrial
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
•f
a Plant No. 1.
b Plant No. 2.
Source: Personal contacts with Plant Operators.
41
-------
Table 5-4. ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE FROM FRANKLIN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Parameter
Iron
Manganese
Copper
Zinc
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Concentration
(mg/kg dry sludge)
1.6,820
3,043
574
1,321
247
1,005
46
156
Concentration
(tng/1 wet sludge)
1,178
213
40
93
17
70
3
11
42
-------
Table 5-5. POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR SAMPLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
a,b
CO
Facility0
1. Mill Creek
2. Little Miami
3. Bromley
4. Middletownd
5. Franklin
6. Muddy Creek
7 . Hamilton
8 . Sycamore
d
9. Oxford
d
10. Lawrenceburg
11. Betheld
d
12. New Richmond
13. Felicity
14. Mayflower
15. Systech
Subtotal
16. Dry Creek
17. LeSourdsville
18. Cleves-North Bend
Subtotal
Grand Total
1977
547,612
159,471
P
48,178
11,981
67,386
68,928
31,392
18,422
13,197
2,354
2,024
582
620
Seri
972,147
200,773
21,966
3,042
225,781
1,197,928
1980
561,.237
159,121
lant will be phas
48,423
12,656
68,069
69,512
32,812
17,634
13,266
2,377
1,898
587
650
res industrial po]
988,242
205,089
25,034
3,295
233,418
1,221,660
1985
583,324
159,246
;d out.
49,721
13,964
68,823
70,417
34,963
16,918
13,431
2,406
1,753
600
700
sulation onl
1,016,266
212,409
29,809
3,716
245,934
1,262,200
1990
600,639
159,825
51,722
13,571
69,629
70,176
36,567
16,041
13,579
2,425
1,666
626
750
y-
1,037,216
216,409
34,627
4,137
255,173
1,292,389
1995
613,164
158,709
53,513
13,498
71,722
70,623
37,587
15,469
13,661
2,441
1,598
655
800
1,053,440
218,414
38,563
4,558
261,535
1,314,975
* Projections are for domestic population only.
b Population projections were derived using the method described in the text.
c Plant No. 1 thru 15 are operating; 16 thru 18 are proposed.
d Population projections provided by O-K-I.
-------
Table 5-6. PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITES FOR SAMPLE PLANTS
Facility1*
1 Mill Creek3
2 Little Miami3 .
3 Bromley
4 Middletown
5 Franklin
6 Muddy Creekb
7 Hamilton3
8 Sycamore
9 Oxford3
10 Lawrenceburg3
11 Bethel0
12 New Richmond
13 Felicity6
14 Mayflower
15 Systech1
Subtotal
16 Dry Creek3
17 LeSourdsvilleg
18 Cleves-North Bendh
Subtotal
Grand Total
1977
1369. 00/54. 76j
398.75/15.95
1980
1403.00/56.12
397.75/15.91
1985
1458.25/58.33
398.00/15.92
Plant will be phased out
120.50/4.82
17.99/1.08
168.50/6.74
172.25/6.89
78.50/3.14
30.67/1.84
33.00/1.32
5.60/0.28
5.00/0.05
0.30/0.009
12.00/0.12
Sludge q
2412.06/97.00
501.75/20.07
58.58/1.76
11.41/0.46
571.74/22.29
2983.80/119.28
121.00/4.84
18.99/1.14
170.25/6.81
173.75/6.95
82.00/3.28
29.33/1.76
33.25/1.33
5.80/0.29
5.00/0.05
0.30/0.009
12.00/0.12
124.25/4.97
21.00/1.26
172.00/6.88
176.00/7.04
87.50/3.50
28.33/1.70
33.50/1.34
5.80/0.29
4.00/0.04
0.30/0.009
13.00/0.13
uantities contribute to Franklin
2452.42/98.61
512.72/20.51
66.76/2.00
12.36/0.49
591.84/23.00
3044.26/121.61
2521.93/101.41
531.10/21.24
79.50/2.38
13.94/0.56
624.54/24.18
3146.47/125.59
1990
1501.50/60.06
399.50/15.98
129.25/5.17
20.33/1.22
174.00/6.96
175.50/7.02
91.50/3.66
26.67/1.60
34.00/1.36
5.80/0.29
4.00/0.04
0.30/0.009
14.00/0.14
1995
1533.00/61.32
396.75/15.87
133.75/5.35
20.17/1.21
179.25/7.17
176.50/7.06
94.00/3.76
25.83/1.55
34.25/1.37
5.80/0.29
4.00/0.04
0.30/0.009
15.00/0.15
facility totals
2576.35/103.51
541.02/21.64
92.34/2.77
15.51/0.62
648.87/25.03
3225.22/128.54
2618.60/105.15
546.03/21.84
102.83/3.09
17.09/0.68
665.95/25.61
3284.55/130.76
3 Sludge production assumed at 0.20 Ib/cap/d @ 4% solids.
Sludge production assumed at 0.18 Ib/cap/d @ 6% solids.
5 Sludge production assumed at 0.24 Ib/cap/d ? 5% solids.
Sludge production assumed at 0.05 Ib/cap/d @ 1% solids.
? Sludge production assumed at 0.03 Ib/cap/d & 3% solids.
Sludge production assumed at 0.38 Ib/cap/d @ 1% solids.
? Sludge production assumed at 0.16 Ib/cap/d @ 3% solids.
. Sludge production assumed at 0.30 Ib/cap/d 9 4% solids.
* Plant provides pretreatment to industrial wastewater.
Values given in wet tons per day and dry tons per day.
^ sludge production from Industrial Sectors.
Plant No. 1 thru 15 are operating; 16 thru 18 are proposed.
ton x 0.908 = metric ton
Values do not account for
-------
(see footnote d of the table) are based on traffic zones and are believed
to be more accurate than the other projections, which are derived from
the drainage basin map and the population estimates given in Reference
V-2.
5.3.1 Projected Sludge Quantities For 0-K-I Projected Population
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, amendments of 1972 require the
application of the Best Practicable Treatment by July 1, 1977, and the
utilization of the Best Available Treatment technology by July 1, 1983,
by publicly owned treatment works. This will result in generation of
larger quantities of sludge which will have to be processed and ultimately
disposed.
The wastewater treatment facilities selected for the case studies could
not provide detailed information on projected sludge quantities or
anticipated wastewater flows in the year 1995 nor was this information
available from the NPDES permits. The methodology is therefore used to
develop projected sludge quantities. The quantities are calculated by
applying factors from the methodology to the population projections in
Table 5-5. Table 5-6 shows the projected sludge quantities as well as
applicable factors for the sample plants.
Projected sludge quantities for the entire 0-K-I region are shown in
Table 5-7. These estimates do not account for the sludge generated by
treatment of industrial wastes, since none of the sample plants could
provide estimates of waste loads from the industrial sectors of the
community.
Projection of future wastewater loads from industries would require
knowledge of two factors:
Table 5-7. PROJECTED SLUDGE QUANTITIES FOR THE ENTIRE 0-K-I AREA3
Year
1977
1980
1985
1990
1995
Population
1,769,742
1,827,390
1,928,320
2,015,940
2,094,760
Sludge quantity0
3760.61/150.42
3883.21/155.33
4097.68/163.91
4283.87/171.35
4451.37/178.06
a It is assumed that 85% of the population shown will be serviced by
. sewer lines (Ref. V-3).
Population estimates obtained from Ref. V-2.
c Sludge quantities are given in wet tons per day and dry tons per day.
Sludge production assumed at 0.20 Ib/cap/d @ 4% solids. (.09 kg/cap/d)
Sludge production does not account for contribution of sludge
from industrial wastewater sources.
ton x 0.908 = metric ton.
45
-------
1. The types and sizes of industries that will operate in the
region.
2. When the industries will start operating.
A requirement for pretreatment of industrial wastes in future years
could significantly reduce the loadings and treatment upsets at municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Within the 0-K-I area, the pretreatment
standards as promulgated on December 10, 1973 by the Federal EPA, are
not yet enforced. According to the law, there exists a three year
period from the date of promulgation to the time of actual enforcement
(Ref. V-4). Even with such a requirement, however, the problem of
industrial sludge disposal will persist. Whether the treatment takes
place at the industrial site or at a municipal wastewater treatment
plant, the quantity of sludge to dispose of will be the same.
46
-------
REFERENCES
V-l Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors (Draft), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA
430/9-75-XXX.
V-2 Population Projections and Acreages by Drainage Area, Interim
Report 1. 0-K-I Regional Council of Governments. Cincinnati,
Ohio. June 1975. (See Ref. III-l).
V-3 Personal Communications with Mike Smith of 0-K-I,
Cincinnati, Ohio, November, 1975.
V-4 40 CFR 128. November 8, 1973.
47
-------
6.0 REGULATIONS AFFECTING SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
Regulations regarding air and water quality, land use, and solid waste
disposal affect the selection of alternatives for sludge management.
Inappropriate alternatives can be eliminated on^ the basis of legal
restrictions. For this reason it is important that planners are aware
of any changes in the applicable regulations.
6.1 WATER REGULATIONS
Since the 0-K-I Region encompasses counties in three states, regulations
pertaining to each state are applicable. Of particular interest are
regulations that apply to the discharge of pollutants resulting from
treatment and/or disposal of wastes from treatment facilities.
6.1.1 Ohio Regulations
Chapter 6111 of the Ohio Revised Code empowers the Director of Environ-
mental Protection to develop plans; administer Federal and state grants;
encourage studies, investigations, research, and demonstrations relating
to water pollution; and adopt, modify, and repeal regulations in accor-
dance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code. The Director may also
issue, revoke, modify, or deny permits for sewage, industrial waste, or
other waste discharge into state water bodies in compliance with all
requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (FWPCA, PL 92-500), and subsequent regulatory provisions such as
pretreatment standards as they are promulgated.
6.1.2 Kentucky Regulation
In Kentucky the Department for Natural Resources and the Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality
administers regulations dealing with water quality. Requirements which
effectuate Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) Chapter 224, permit authority
for sewage systems, is 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR)
5:005, permits of discharge sewage; industrial and other wastes, pursuant
to KRS 13.082, 224.033 (17). Regulation 401 KAR 5:005 requires a permit
prior to construction and operation of a sewage system and sets forth
requirements for receiving a permit to construct and operate such a
system. Other pertinent regulations include 401 KAR 5:035, use classi-
fication of waters; treatment requirements; while, compliance relates to
KRS 224.020 and 224.060; pursuant to KRS 13.082 and 224.033(17). All of
these regulations, are a reiteration of FWPCA, PL 92-500, and mandate
-------
that all persons discharging pollutants through point sources shall
apply "best practical control technology" and "best available technology
economically achievable." The regulation provides narrative water
quality standards for all waters and sets forth a use classification
scheme with numeric criteria for applicable waters. Although these
regulations relate primarily to point sources, pollution from nonpoint
sources is the most likely result of sludge disposal by application to
land.
6.1.3 Indiana Regulations
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Law, Indiana Code (1C) 1971, 13-1-3
(Chapter 214, Acts of 1943; amended by Chapter 132, Acts of 1945; and
amended by Chapter 64, Acts of 1957), determines water quality control.
The law creates the Stream Pollution Control Board of the State of
Indiana. Board members are granted power to make determinations that
prohibit pollution to any waters of the state. Regulation Stream Pollu-
tion Control-15 (SPC-15), which has been adopted and promulgated by the
Stream Pollution Control Board, prescribes policy and procedures to be
followed in issuance of construction, operation, and discharge permits
under the Environmental Management Act, 1C 1971, 13-7, as amended. Also
it provides for issuance of discharge permits under the National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System program required by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended. Official New Rule SPC 17 as adopted
and promulgated by the Stream Pollution Control Board is pursuant to the
authority of 1C 1971, 13-7 as amended. Although the regulations refer
primarily to point source discharges, planners should consider over-all
water quality, and in particular any possible contamination of surface
and groundwaters resulting from land disposal of sludge.
6.1.4 Water Quality Standards
The Ohio River forms the southern border of Ohio and Indiana and the
northern border of Kentucky; it is the receiving water body for all
tributaries in the 0-K-I Region. By action of the ORSANCO Engineering
Committee in September 1974, the Ohio River water quality criteria were
updated. Limiting levels, concentration or intensity of key quality
parameters established for intended water uses were later reflected in
water quality standards promulgated by Ohio (EP-1) on January 10, 1975.
Ohio and Indiana have EPA approved National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit programs while Kentucky does not, so issuing
authority still rests with Federal EPA Region IV. The water quality
standards for issuing NPDES permits apply in most cases, to all warm-
water streams in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio as listed in the following
paragraphs; any differences in application are noted.
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
Minimum daily average of 5.0 mg/1 and no value less than 4.0 mg/1 at any
time.
Temperature
Maximum rise above natural temperature shall not exceed 5F (2.77C),
allowable maximum temperatures during a month shall not exceed:
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
Temperature
F
50
50
60
70
80
87
C
10.0
10.0
15.6
21.1
26.8
30.6
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December
Temperature
F
89
89
87
78
70
57
C
31.7
31.7
30.6
25.6
21.1
13.9
No value below 6.0 nor above 8.5; high values due to photosynthetic
activity may be tolerated.
Ohio: values of 6.0 to 9.0 except values below 6.0 or more than
9.0 if there is no acidic or alkaline pollution attributable to
human activities.
Kentucky: values of 6.0 to 9.0
Bacteria—Total Coliform
Shall not exceed 5,000 per 100 ml as a monthly average value (either
Most Probable Number (MPN) or Millipore Filter (MF) count), nor exceed
this number in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during any
month, nor exceed 20,000 per 100 ml in more than 5 percent of such
samples.
Bacteria--Fecal Coliform
Content (either MPN or MF count) shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml as a
monthly geometric mean based on not less than five samples per month;
nor exceed 400 per 100 ml in more than 5 percent of such samples.
Indiana: Public water supply - total coliform as above.
Recreation: April through October: fecal coliform as above;
November through March: fecal coliform content (either MPN or MF
50
-------
count) shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as a geometric mean based
on not less than five samples; nor exceed 2,000 per 100 ml in more
than one sample.
Kentucky: Public water supply - total coliform as above.
Recreation: total coliform level shall not exceed an average of
1,000 per 100 ml. Total coliform shall not exceed this number in
20 percent of the samples in a month, not exceed 2,400/100 ml on
any day. If the total coliform level is exceeded, then a fecal
coliform standard shall be used. There shall be a reduction of
fecal coliform to such degree that (1) during the months of May
through October fecal coliform density in the discharge does not
exceed 200 per 100 as a monthly geometric mean (based on not less
than ten samples per month), nor exceed 400 per 100 in more than
ten percent of the samples examined during a month, and (2) during
the months of November through April the density does not exceed
1,000 per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean (based on not less
than ten samples per month), nor exceed 2,000 per 100 ml in more
than ten percent of the samples during the month.
Dissolved Solids
Not to exceed 500 mg/1 as a monthly average value, nor exceed 750 mg/1
at any time. (Equivalent 25C specific conductance values are 800 and
1,200 micromhos/cm).
Ohio: may exceed one, but not both of the following:
a. 500 mg/1 as a monthly average nor exceed 750 mg/1 at any one .
time, or,
b. 150 mg/1 of dissolved solids attributable to human activities
indicated at point of municipal discharge.
Chemical Constituents
The following are some of the limiting values for individual chemical
constituents adopted by Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.
Constituents (mg/1)
Cadmium
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Copper
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Indiana
0.01
0.05
_
1.0
0.05
_
-
Kentucky
0.01
0.05
_
1.0
0.05
M
-
Ohio
0.005
0.05
0.05
1.3
0.04
0.0005
1.0
51
-------
6.1.5 Solid and Liquid Waste Management
Maintaining water quality criteria requires control not only of point
sources but also of nonpoint sources, such as surfaces subject to runoff
and erosion. Sludge disposal by landfilling and landspreading can
create significant nonpoint sources. Contamination of surface and
groundwaters is likely if the disposal site is poorly located or inade-
quately prepared. An undetermined number of area sources are also
unregulated. Because disposal of liquid and solid wastes entails
potential major area sources, all three states regulate waste disposal.
6.1.5.1 Solid Waste Disposal Regulations In Kentucky - Solid waste
disposal in Kentucky is regulated by Kentucky Solid Waste Regulations
401 KAR 2:010 Solid Waste, Relates to KRS Chapter 224, Pursuant to KRS
13.082 and 224.033(17).
The Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection enforces
the regulation through permitted sanitary landfills and inspections.
Sanitary landfills are solid waste disposal sites or facilities at which
putrescible and other solid wastes may-be disposed. The regulations
define solid waste to include garbage, rubbish, ashes, incinerator
residue, street refuse, dead animals, demolition wastes, and special
wastes including explosives, pathological wastes, and radioactive
materials. This definition is broad enough to include wastewater sludges
in any form including ash from incineration.
The regulations provide for protection of ground and surface water
through directed drainage, dikes, impoundment, slope grading, and site
selection. Site selection must take into account attenuating soils,
geology, and observation of ground water levels. Sanitary landfills are
prohibited in flood-prone areas.
6.1.5.2 Solid Waste Disposal Regulations in Ohio - In Ohio solid waste
and sludge disposal is regulated under EP-20 Sanitary Landfill Standards
and HE-24-01 to HE-24-12 inclusive of the Ohio Sanitary Code. Disposal
of sewage solids and liquids at sanitary landfills is limited and must
be segregated from areas used principally for the disposal of solid
wastes resulting from community operation [EP-20-09 (H) (HE-24-09)].
Incinerators of solid waste including sludges must be operated so that
the resulting residue will be substantially free of organic and putres-
cible material and that pollution of the air will not exceed the air
quality standards established for the area by the air pollution control
board pursuant to Section 3704.03 of the Revised Code [EP-20-10 (C)
(HE-24-10)]. This requirement can be met in the 0-K-I region. Regula^
tions also provide for the protection of ground and surface waters in
selection and operation of sanitary landfills.
52
-------
6.1.5.3 Solid Waste Disposal Regulations in Indiana - Solid waste
disposal in Indiana is regulated by Indiana Stream Pollution Control
Board, Regulation SPC 18. This regulation prescribes the policy and
procedures to be followed in connection with issuance of construction
and operating permits under the Refuse Disposal Act, 1C 1971, 19-21, as
amended by Public Law 148, Acts of 1972; and as provided by the Environ-
mental Management Act, 1C 1971, 13-7. Indiana classifies sludges of
less.than 30 percent solids as hazardous wastes. Under no circumstances
shall hazardous wastes be accepted at a sanitary landfill unless authorized
in writing by the Board as its designated solid waste management agent.
Indiana also specifically controls pollution resulting from sanitary
landfilling. For example, the law requires investigation of geological
factors, soils, and ground and surface waters before permits are granted
for construction and operation of a sanitary landfill. ' The Board also
reserves the right to require monitoring wells. Surface water courses
and runoff must be diverted from the sanitary landfill by trenches and
proper grading. Open burning of solid wastes at a landfill or elsewhere
is prohibited.
6.2 AIR QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
The use of incineration as a means of sludge disposal could introduce
new sources of air pollution into the Metropolitan Cincinnati Interstate
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR 79). Construction of a new source or
modification of an existing source that would result in the emission of
air pollutants into the ambient air requires control of that source to
meet the appropriate state and Federal regulations presented in Appendix
C.
Wet scrubbing is considered the most effective and economical means of
controlling emissions from sludge incineration. Figure 6-1 shows the
capital and operating costs for venturi scrubber. The venturi scrubber
has been installed on several sewage sludge incinerators and has achieved
particulate removal efficiencies ranging from 98.3 to 99+ percent.
Emission tests of sewage sludge incinerators equipped with venturi
scrubbers yield values ranging from 0.26 to 0.63 pound of particulate
emissions per ton of dry sludge charged. Thus this equipment easily
meets the Federal new source performance standard of 1.30 pounds of
particulate emissions per ton of dry sludge charged. Furthermore, among
the units tested plumes did not exceed 20 percent opacity, which is the
second requirement of the Federal new source performance standard."
Although the Federal new source performance standard for sewage treatment
plant incinerators does not regulate sulfur dioxide emissions, the State
of Ohio proposes that sulfur dioxide emissions be limited by the following
equation:
53
-------
10
Q
LU
M
o
$
00
2 4
D_
-------
E = 19.5 P°'67
Where E is the allowable emission in pounds of S02 per hour and P is
tons of wet sludge charged per hour. New S02 limitations are under
review by the Ohio EPA Director. Operators of sewage sludge incinerators
in AQCR 79 should encounter no difficulty in complying with this current
limitation without adding special equipment.
Three plants in AQCR 79 use sludge incineration, all in compliance with
the air pollution control regulations. These plants could increase
sludge handling to their rated capacities, and maintain the current
scrubber efficiencies.
Combined capacity of the Muddy Creek, Middletown, and Millcreek plants
is 1052 tons per day of wet filter cake. Projection for the 0-K-I area
for 1995 is 594 tons per day of wet filter cake for disposal. Therefore,
since these three plants have the capacity for handling the projected
sludge quantities, no further construction is needed. Total pollutants
generated at these three plants would be 6.232 Ib/hr of particulate, and
24.75 Ib/hr of 502- The Ohio Emission Limitations for this rated capacity
are 1397.8 pounds per hour of particulate, and 1570 pounds per hour of
SO?- Although the capacity of these three plants for handling projected
sludge is adequate, an alternative regional possibility for the future
would be to construct one sludge incinerator with a capacity exceeding
594 tons per day of wet sludge to serve the entire area. This alternative
is examined in Section 8.
If such a regional plant were located in Kentucky, the applicable emission
standard would be the Federal new source performance standard of 1.35
pounds of particulate per ton of dry sludge charged. Meeting this
standard would necessitate the installation of a scrubber with 96.04
percent efficiency. Kentucky has no S02 regulation that affects sewage
sludge incineration. If the plant were located in Ohio, it would have
to comply with the Federal new source performance standards and also
with the proposed Ohio S02 regulation covering sludge incineration.
Controlled emissions from a possible new plant are projected to be 24.75
Ib/hr of S02» and 99.99 Ib/hr of particulate sludge generation in the 0-
K-I Area in 1995. Therefore incineration is feasible and emission
standards can be met.
6.3 REGULATIONS RELATING TO LAND USE
Regulations governing land use in the 0-K-I region are not coordinated
among the three states or even among the counties and townships within-
each state. Each of the two Indiana counties does have a zoning ordinance
that regulates land use within the county. Sludge disposal is permitted
in areas zoned agricultural if it is beneficial to county residents.
55
-------
In the Ohio and Kentucky portions of the region, however, individual
townships regulate zoning, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Since
the townships are based more on political than on geographical factors,
the land-use regulations often differ significantly without apparent
reason. In Clermont County, for example, most townships disallow
sanitary landfills and make no alternative provision for disposal of
residual wastes. Development of an effective sludge disposal system
within the 0-K-I region will require coordination of the land-use laws
among the region's several jurisdictions. This is possible if each
jurisdiction mutually agrees under each states interlocal cooperation
provisions as sited in Section 8.
56
-------
REFERENCES
VI-1 PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Company Files. December
1975.
57
-------
7.0 ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT METHODS
Methods for the ultimate disposal of residual wastes include sanitary
landfilling, land reclamation, sludge recycling, ocean disposal, ponding,
and resource recovery. Each of these methods has advantages and disad-
vantages. For example, direct disposal of raw sludge into the ocean may
cause serious health hazards and may interfere with the natural aquatic
life cycle. However, wastewater sludges may be valuable as fertilizer
supplements and soil conditioners and can be utilized to reclaim sandy
soils and strip mine spoils by converting them into valuable crop land
or recreation areas.
In this application of the methodology, the sludge management alterna-
tives are considered for each of the wastewater treatment facilities.
Some can be eliminated at the outset because they are not applicable to
the 0-K-I region.
7.1 SLUDGE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Many waste treatment plants dispose of sludge by the lowest-cost methods
possible, with little regard to potential hazards to the environment.
Examples are disposal on municipal sites, which are often dumps; on
floodplains without covering; and on farms without precautions for
protection of livestock. Although digested or semidigested sludge is
often disposed of as if it were a completely innocuous material, even
well-digested sludge contains pathogens, intestinal parasites, and
possibly hazardous chemicals. Similarly, industrial waste sludges are
often disposed of without sufficient regard for their toxic properties.
Disposal of sludges by methods that are both economically feasible and
environmentally protective requires careful consideration of the avail-
able alternatives. Selection usually is based on employing the least
costly of the methods that are environmentally safe. Other factors,
however, such as the life of the site, secondary environmental aspects
(e.g., noise from trucking), and projected uses of the disposal site
should also be considered.
Following are the basic criteria for selection of an ultimate disposal
method: (1) the method must be in accordance with local, state, and
Federal water quality regulations; (2) the method should not cause
significant degradation of surface or ground water, air, or land surfaces;
(3) no sludge residues, grit, ash, or other solids should be discharged
into receiving waters or plant effluents; and (4) sludge must be stabi-
lized prior to spreading on land.
58
-------
The numerous methods used for sludge disposal in the study area are
summarized in Table 7-1. Of the 15 plants now operating, eight use
incineration, three use wet landspreading, (application of liquid sludge
on land), two use dry land spreading of dewatered sludge, (application
of dried treated sludge on land), one uses landfilling, and one uses
various methods at different times. For the three proposed plants,
also, incineration and land spreading are the most popular disposal
alternatives. Interestingly, all the plants located in large urban
areas use incineration, whereas the plants located in small urban areas
surrounded by rural areas use land spreading. Because facilities do not
maintain records of costs for disposal of sludge, an economic evaluation
is not readily available. Wherein possible, the methodology was used to
generate such cost information.
There are approximately 23 sanitary landfills in the 0-K-I area (Figure
7-1). Although some of these sites are small, most are large enough to
handle dewatered sludge which can be mixed with household refuse or
construction site debris. Appendix D lists the 23 sanitary landfills.
AH of the landfill sites are licensed by the respective state agencies.
7.2 APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY
The methodology was developed as a guide to 208 Planning Agencies in
evaluating alternatives for the ultimate disposal of wastewater treatment
residuals. It is intended for application to plants now operating as
well as to those proposed for the future. In each case the planners
must consider physical, technological, environmental, economical, social,
and institutional constraints.
Applying the methodology to the 0-K-I region involves two basic steps:
(1) projecting sludge quantities in the study area and (2) developing
feasible and acceptable sludge management alternatives. For projection
of sludge quantities, information on the anticipated wastewater flows in
1995 at each facility is incomplete. Therefore, an average factor of
0.20 Ib/cap/day (0.08 kg/cap/day) as shown in the methodology is used in
calculations, including those for typical costs of feasible sludge man-
agement alternatives.
During the course of this demonstration, several advantages and con-
straints to application of the methodology have been recognized.
7.2.1 Advantages
(1) The methodology is particularly useful in showing decision-
making pathways toward sludge management alternatives.
(2) It compiles current technological data useful not only to plant
operators but also to practicing engineers and planners.
59
-------
Table 7-1. PRESENT ULTIMATE DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT SAMPLE PLANTS
Wastewater treatment
facility
Ultimate disposal
practice
1. Mill Creek
2. Little Miami
3. Bromley
4. Middletown
5. Franklin
6. Muddy Creek
7. Hamilton
8. Sycamore
9. Oxford
10. Lawrenceburg
11. Bethel
12. New Richmond.
13. Felicity
14. Mayflower
15. Systech
16. Dry Creek
17. LeSourdsville
18. Cleves-North Bend
Incineration, Ash to Ash
Laqoon
Incineration, Ash to Ash
Lagoon
Incineration, Ash to
Ohio River
Incineration, Ash to
Ash Lagoon
Land spreading (Wet - Primary
Industrial Sludge)
•Incineration (Primary Domestic
Sludge)
Incineration, Ash to
Ash Lagoon
Landfilling (Mixed with
Construction Debris)
Incineration, Ash to
Ash Lagoon
Land spreading (Wet)
Land spreading (Dry)
(Various)
Land spreading (Dry)
Land spreading (Wet)
Incineration, Ash to
Ash Lagoon
(Not applicable)3
Incineration, Ash to Landfill
Land spreading (Wet).
Landfilling
Systech pretreats industrial liquid wastes. The effluent from
the plant is pumped to the Franklin WTP for further treatment.
60
-------
Q LANDFILL MARKER
Figure 7-1. Sanitary landfills in the 0-K-I area.
61
-------
(3) It documents typical cost data that are useful, as in this
demonstration study, when actual costs are not available.
(4) The methodology demonstrates that pipe transport of digested
sludge (3.5 percent solids) is not economically feasible when daily
throughputs are low.
7.2.2 Constraints
(1) As in all 'model1 or 'typical' applications, care must be
exercised in applying the methodology's typical cost data to a specific
plant operation. A presentation of the data base used to derive these
costs could provide the planner with a rationale for developing site-
specific estimates.
(2) With respect to interpretation of data requiring scalar modifi-
cation or extrapolation, the methodology provides no reference points.
For example, costs are given for land spreading of sludge with 3.5
percent solids. The planners should know what contributes to these
costs and how to extrapolate for sludges of different solids content.
(3) Cost analysis in the methodology should be extended to include
costs of hauling dewatered sludge (25 to 40 percent solids) by truck and
costs of dry land spreading by various means.
7.3 ELIMINATED ALTERNATIVES
All of the alternatives for sludge dipsosal that are described in the
methodology were evaluated for possible application to each of the 15
operating and the three proposed plants. Evaluation was based on
several criteria, including economic feasibility, environmental impacts,
public acceptance and technical effectiveness. If in any case a disposal
alternative did not meet the criteria, it was not considered further for
application to the plant in question.
Several alternatives were eliminated on a regional basis before scenarios
for each plant were developed. Ocean disposal was not considered since
the geographic location of the study area precludes this possibility.
(Disposal in ocean waters is not generally recommended in any case.)
Pyrolysis was not considered practicable in the 0-K-I area for several
reasons. Since pyrolysis technology is relatively new, and its applica-
tion to wastewater sewage sludge is even more recent, test data with
which to evaluate its applicability to the 0-K-I region are not yet
available. Pyrolysis remains, however, a possible alternative for
future application. Recalcination was eliminated as a resource recovery
alternative for the 0-K-I region, since no treatment plants in the area
use.lime in sufficient quantities to make the method feasible. Disposal
ponds, although not eliminated, were seldom considered because of the
characteristically objectional odors associated with disposal ponds and
62
-------
the difficulty in sealing or lining them. Land reclamation was considered
for a regional consolidation of sludges rather than for individual
plants. The only site for reclamation is some 250 miles from the study
area; therefore on an individual plant basis the transportation costs
and limited sludge quantities disfavour this alternative.
7.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR APPLICATION
Alternatives selected for application in the study area are land spreading
(wet and dry), landfilling, incineration, and ponding. Effort was made
first to investigate those alternatives that offer possible utilization
benefits as a result of the existing method of disposal. Because of the
relatively large outlying rural areas in 0-K-I, land spreading is often
considered a possible alternative. In each case, however, possible
effects of environmental parameters such as soils, hydrology, and
topography are also considered. Landfill ing, ponding, and incineration,
also considered for each- plant, offer no utilization benefits.
63
-------
8.0 FEASIBLE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Application of the methodology in the 0-K-I region must be done on a
trial and error basis through successive iterations until a satisfactory
alternative can be selected. As discussed in Section 7, certain possible
alternatives are eliminated as infeasible in the 0-K-I region (e.g.
ocean dumping) and others are considered on a regional scale rather than
for application to individual plants (e.g. land reclamation). Disposal
methods now practiced satisfactorily at the treatment plants are con-
sidered as alternatives for the future, along with other methods.
Figure 8-1, a modification of Figure VII-1 in the methodology, delineates
pathways used in testing various approaches to a "best" sludge managment
alternative under varying conditions. Each disposal alternative, such
as land spreading, is tested under a uniform set of conditions for each
plant.
As an aid in applying the methodology consistently in this analysis of
the 0-K-I region, the following set of definitions and assumptions was
developed:
DEFINITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
1. 'Raw sludge' is defined as the material that settles out in
the primary settling tanks (clarifiers). Solids content in
raw sludge is 4 to 6 percent.
2. 'Waste activated sludge' is the sludge that settles in the
secondary settling tank (clarifier), that is not recycled to
the aeration tanks. Solids content is 1 to 3 percent.
3. 'Combined wet sludge1 denotes the summation of raw sludge and
waste activated sludge. Solids content is 4 to 6 percent.
4. 'Dewatered sludge' is any sludge that has passed through a
dewatering step, e.g. vacuum filtration or centrifugation.
5. 'Filter cake' refers specifically to the wet cake that is
dropped off a rotary vacuum filter. Solids content is 20 to
30 percent.
64
-------
SLUDGE
NO
ARE AREASSUCH AS AGRI-
CULTURAL. PARKS. PUBLIC
LAND, OR STRIP MINES
AVAILABLE FOR USE AS
LANOSPREADING OH RE-
CLAMATION SITE?
CAN THE INCINERATOR BE OPERATED
MORE ECONOMICALLY AKD MORE
Ef.'VIRONME'.'TALLY SAFE THAN
OTHER LANU DISPOSAL METHODS?
YES
YES
KQ
YES
TS OR ARE THE SITE/SITES ENVIRON-
MENTALLY ABLE TO SUPPORT A
LAND SPREADING OR RECLAMATION
OPERATION FOR A LONG TERM
PERIOD?
NO
YES
IS TRANSPORT OF SLUDGE TO THE
SITE ECONOMICALLY AND LOGISTICAltY
FEASIBLE BY TRUCK. RAIL, PIPELINE
ORBAHGE?
NO
YES
ATTHIS POINT ALL ALTERNATIVESSHOULD
HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AND IT THEREFORE
BECOMES NECESSARY TO CHOOSE THE LEAST
ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING AND LEAST
COSTLY OF THE PREVIOUSLY ELIMINATED
ALTERNATIVES.
YES
CAN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
SLUDGE EE ALTERED SUCH THAT
LAND DISPOSAL AND/OR TRANSPORT
MIGHT BE MADE POSSIBLE?
tn
CHOCSE THE MOST ECONOMICAL
ANO FEASIBLE MEANS CF TRANSPORT
TO THE DISPOSAL SITE.
CA.'J THE DISPOSAL METHOD A'.O .V.ODE
OF TRAr.SP&RT :.!EET PUBLIC ACCti-TA?,ILITY
STAND-'nSS ASlVEM ASPUSLIC MEALTH
AND DESIRED PERFOHV.AKCE STAfJDAROJ?
YES
NO
|NO
YES
A3E THERE ANY OTHER AREAS
Af.'3 OP. f.'ODES OF Tfl.ViSFORT
CFICOVEi'.ATIONSOF ASEAS
ANO MOOES OF TRANSPORT TO
CAN AN INCINERATOR
BE CONSTRUCTED?
NO
CAN THE INCINERATOR EE OPERATED
MORE tCQIVO.VICALLY A%D r.'.ORE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE THAN
OTHER LAfiU DISPOSAL METHODS ?
CHOOSE A
LIMITED AREA OR SITE
AVAILABLE THAT CAN FUNCTION
AS A LANDFILL SITE OR DISPOSAL
POND SITE.
IS THE SITE/SITES ENVIRONMENTALLY
ABLE TO SUPPORT LANDFILL OR
DISPOSAL PONO OPERATIONS?
YES
CAM THE DISPOSAL METHOD A\0 V.GOE
OF TRANSPORT MEET PUBLIC ACCEPTA-
BILITY STANDARDS AS WELL AS
PUBLIC HEALTH A.VD DESIRED PERFOR-
MANCE STANDARDS?
CHOOSE A'J ALTERNATIVE SITE
FOR LANDFILL OR DISPOSAL PCND
NO
YES
PROCEED W;TH AN IMOEPTH
EVALUATION OF THE MOST
FEASIBLE METHOD.
Figure 8-1. Decision network.
-------
6. 'Incinerator feed1 in most instances is the 20 to 30 percent
solids filter cake defined in 5.
7. 'Ash' is the residual solid material resulting from incinera-
tion of the filter cake. Most of the ash is slurried and
disposed of in lagoons. Slurried ash is assumed to be 7.5
percent solids.
8. 'Secondary sludge1 refers to the sludge settled out in a
secondary clarifier or in settling tanks.
9. 'Digested sludge' refers to the sludge that is aerobically or
anaerobically digested.
10. 'WTP' denotes wastewater treatment plant.
11. 'Wet land spreading1 for the purpose of this report refers to
the application of liquid sludge or slurried ash (1 to 9%
solids) on rural or agricultural land.
12. 'Dry land spreading' for the purpose of this report refers to
the application of dewatered sludge (15 to 45% solids) on
rural or agricultural land.
13. In the context of developing alternatives, 'navigable stream1
is defined as one in which large sludge barges could safely
negotiate; it is not used in the legal sense.
14. Information and quantities presented are based on data received
from the wastewater treatment plants. Where data were not
provided, typical data described in the methodology are used,
and appropriately referenced in the text.
15. The methodology was used to generate capital costs and O&M
costs for the WTP process equipment; the exception to this is
the Cleves-North Bend and the LeSourdsville wastewater treat-
ment plants (proposed) which supplied specific design data
costs.
16. In general, data obtained from the individual treatment facili-
ties are converted from gallons to tons according to the
following formula:
Tons = (gallons x 8.34 pounds per gallon)/2000 pounds per ton
17. Unless otherwise stated, all sludge quantities are calculated
on a wet ton basis.
66
-------
18. No recommendations are made specifically for disposal of
sludge during inclement or winter weather; this remains a
matter of individual plant operation. However, recommenda-
tions were made for the disposal of sludge during inclement
weather for regional alternatives.
19. Quantities of aerobic or anaerobically digested sludge suitable
for wet land spreading could not be calculated when not
included in WTP data since the overall plant material balances
were not that precise.
20. Haulaways of sludges are calculated in wet tons per day.
21. Truck transportation costs in all cases are based on round
trip travel distance.
22. Pipe transportation of sludge in most cases is uneconomical
because it involves low throughputs, high construction costs
in urban areas, and limited distribution flexibility.
23. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that vacuum
filter operation involves no solids removal in the filtrate
stream, i.e. 100 percent capture is assumed. In reality the
capture rate is only 90 to 95 percent.
24. Wet land spreading wo'uld be done by use of farm equipment, by
spraying, or by soil injection. Typical costs are based on a
composite of these three means of application.
25. For wet or dry land spreading, land would be bought, leased,
or contracted for with the land owners. Although local govern-
ments acting jointly or individually have power of eminent
domain and may take land for a public purpose, this is not
considered as an immediate practical step, but rather as a
last resort.
26. 'Processing equipment1 refers to the unit processes (e.g.,
gravity thickening, anaerobic digestion, incineration, etc.)
used in the treatment of sludge, prior to transport and ultimate
disposal. The applicable unit processes for each plant for
which capital and O&M costs are calculated are shown in Table
8-1 at the end of Section 8.17.
27. All costs represent mid-1975 costs. An interest rate of 8
percent calculated over a 20 year ammortization period of
level debt service is assumed. The 8 percent interest rate
reflects current interest rates.
67
-------
28. Capital costs for unit processes are referenced to an Engineering
News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index of 2200, representing
mid-1975 costs. The unit prices include basic manufacturing
and installation costs, contractor's profit, and a 25 percent
allowance for engineering, legal costs, and contingencies.
Not included in the prices are the costs of land or the
acquisition of rights-of-ways.
29. The operation and maintenance costs for the unit processes-are
related to the average daily weight of dry solids processed.
Materials incorporated in the costs typically include expend-
able materials, chemicals, power for pump and blowers, etc.
Labor costs were based on an average hourly wage rate of $4.00
with 25 percent additional fringe benefits. Costs of materials
were adjusted to a Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Commo-
dities of 150. Operating labor is used for equipment start-
up, sampling analyses, monitoring, control and shut down.
Maintenance labor is required for cleaning and repair of
process equipment.
30. If the alternative for centralized dewatering facilities at
the four suggested regionalized transfer areas within 0-K-I
area is selected, these facilities will generate a filtrate
that can be treated in small, on-site package plants prior to
chlorination and discharged to a nearby stream. Filtrate
could also possibly be discharged to existing sewer systems.
Table 8-1 at the end of this section summarizes cost of selected alter-
natives for each of the 15 sampled wastewater treatment plants and 3
proposed plants in the 0-K-I region. In addition Table 8-9 summarizes
costs of four regional alternatives.
A*
'Table 8-1 illustrates that excess costs may result in employing anaerobic
digestion along with incineration. Therefore, future design and provi-
sion of facilities should involve a more careful consideration for
omitting one or the other process. Although the largest initial capital
cost and annual costs are associated with digestion, a.detailed engineering
and cost investigation would be necessary to determine a correct approach.
Moreover, existing capitalized equipment in operating plants need not
be a constraint to improve management. For example, decommissioning of
unnecessary equipment may provide savings of O&M costs.
Scenarios describing selection of sludge management alternatives for
each plant are presented in the following sections. For application on
an 0-K-I regional basis, four alternatives are presented: central land-
fill, barging down the Ohio River, central land spreading and central
incineration. Suggested region-wide institutional and financing arrange-
ments are also presented for consideration.
68
-------
8.1 MILL CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Mill Creek WTP is 120 mgd (456,000 m3/d). Evalua-
tions are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities
of sludge and residuals (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
or Residual tonslmetric tons)/d
Raw sludge 1987(1804) 5.0
Anaerobically 455(413) 9.1
digested sludge
Filter cake 124(113) 33.0
Ash from
Incineration:
Dry basis 23(21) 100
Wet basis 307(279) 7.5
(slurried with
scrubber water)
Dry land spreading and landfilling of ash are not considered suitable
for the Mill Creek WTP since ash is slurried with the incinerator
scrubber water prior to discharge. Ponding of the anaerobically digested
sludge is not practicable because Hamilton County has very little
undeveloped area suitable for such purposes.
The Mill Creek WTP now practices anaerobic digestion, vacuum filtration,
and incineration with subsequent disposal of incinerator ash to lagoons;
all of these have applicability for future operation of the plant.
8.1.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
The nearest rural area suitable for spreading of either anaerobically
digested sludge or slurried ash is about 25 miles (40 km) west of the
plant in Dearborn County, Indiana. Since there is no rail service and
no navigable waterway from the treatment plant to this area, transport
must be by pipeline or truck. Calculations indicate that trucking is
more economical than piping because of the long distances and steep
slopes, as well as the associated pumping costs.
Soils in most northern portions of Dearborn County are acceptable for
land spreading. Seasonal high water tables and flooding pose no threat.
Although slopes are steep in places, many possible sites with gentler
.19
-------
slopes might be available. Except for areas near the Whitewater River,
there is little possibility of contaminating groundwater within the
Dearborn County region.
Truck transport over 50 miles (80 km) round trip distance is estimated
to be $2.20 per wet ton ($2.42/metric ton) of either anaerobically
digested sludge or slurried ash (Ref. VIII-4). Costs of wet land
spreading of either type of sludge is estimated to be $1.08 per wet ton
($1.19/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and land
spreading therefore is $3.28 per wet ton ($3.61/metric ton).
The Mill Creek WTP generates 455 wet tons (413 metric tons) of anaerobi-
cally digested sludge per day; costs of land spreading of this material
are calculated as follows:
(455 wet tons/day) x ($3.28/wet ton) x (365 days/year)
= $544,726 per year
Of this total, $221,000 is annual amortized capital cost and $324,726
O&M. Applying the methodology to the existing WTP process equipment
would add annual amortized capital costs of $602,200 and $92,000 O&M.
Analogously, wet land spreading of the ash slurry in quantities of 307
wet tons (279 metric tons) per day would cost $367,540 per year. Of
this total $149,000 is annual amortized capital costand $218,540 O&M.
Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an
annual amortized capital cost of $1,083,300 and O&M of $331,000.
Though the ash slurry is suitable for wet land spreading, it has little
fertilizer value aside from its mineral content. Its value for strictly
agricultural applications is limited unless something like urea is added
as a supplementary fertilizer.
8.1.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
The plant produces approximately 124 wet tons (113 metric tons) of
filter cake per day. The filter cake could be land spread in the same
area as the digested sludge. The cost of transporting the filter cake
by truck would be $2.75 per wet ton ($3.03/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-5).
Spreading costs are estimated at $1.24 per wet ton ($1.37/metric ton) of
filter cake (Ref. VIII-10,11). Total cost for transport and dry land
spreading is $3.99 per wet ton ($4.40/metric ton) of filter cake. Total
annual cost of transport and disposal is $180,600 of which $65,500 is
amortized capital cost and $115,100 is O&M. Applying the methodology to
existing WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized capital
cost of $813,000 and O&M of $250,000.
-------
8.1.3 Landfilllng
Landfill ing can be considered an ultimate disposal method only when the
sludge has been dewatered. The total quantity of filter cake that would
have to be landfilled is 124 wet tons (113 metric tons) per day. The
nearest landfill that could accept the sludge cake is located about 20
round trip miles (32 km) from the plant on Este Avenue in Cincinnati.
The only feasible means of transporting the sludge cake to the landfill
would be by truck since there are no rail services or navigable waterways,
and filter cake is not readily suitable for piping. The cost of truck
transport would be $1.45 per wet ton ($1,60/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-5).
Cost of landfilling is estimated to be $12 to $15 per wet ton ($13.21 to
$16.52 per metric ton) (Ref. VIII-6). Total cost would therefore be
$13.45 to $16.45 per wet ton ($14.81 to $18.12/metric ton); annual cost
would be $670,300 to $820,110. Using a mean cost of landfilling ($13.50
per wet ton), and $1.45 per wet ton transportation, the total annual
cost is $676,700, of which $184,400 is annual amortized capital costs
and $492,300 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP processing
equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $813,000 and O&M
of $250,000.
8.1.4 Disposal Ponds
This plant currently practices on-site ponding of the incinerator ash.
It is estimated that cost of ash ponding is $0.14 to $0.50 per wet ton
($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Transport costs (piping) are
estimated to be $0.03 per wet ton ($0.03/metric ton). Total costs of
transport and ponding is $0.17 to 0.53 per wet ton ($0.18 to $0.58/metric
ton), or a mean annual cost of $39,500 of which $9,200 is annual amortized
capital costs and $30,300 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP
process equipment, would add an annual amortized capital cost of $1,083,600
and O&M of $331,000.
If ponding is the sole means of ultimate disposal, the ponds will
eventually be filled. It will then be necessary either to find more
land for new ponds or to practice another method of disposal.
If ponding is not the ultimate means of solids disposal, then the
dewatered, settled solids from the pond must be removed periodically for
landfill disposal. When ponding is thus combined with landfilling, the
ponds can be used almost indefinitely.
8.2 LITTLE MIAMI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Little Miami WTP is 31 mgd (117,800 m3/d). Evalua-
tions are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities
of sludge (see Appendix B):
71
-------
Sludge type
Quantity
tons(metric tons)/d
Percent solids
Raw sludge
Raw sludge
(from holding
tanks)
Anaerobically
digested sludge*
Filter cake
Ash from
Incineration:
Dry basis
Wet basis
417(378)
250(227)
210(191)
42(38)
4.0
7.0
5.0
25.0
16.8(15.3)
244(203)
100.0
7.5
* The digesters are presently used as holding tanks, but could be conver-
ted back to function as anaerobic digesters. It is assumed that as a
result of the digestion process, a 45 percent reduction in total
solids is achieved (Ref. VIII-12); that the solids content of the
digested sludge is 5 percent (Ref. VIII-13); that solids content of
filter cake is 25 percent (Ref. VIII-4); that the ash content of
digested filter cake upon incineration is 40 percent (Ref. VIII-13).
Ponding of raw sludge is not considered acceptable because of possible
leachate and odor problems. Currently the Little Miami WTP hauls the
sludge to the Mill Creek WTP for dewatering and incineration.
The Little Miami WTP plans to have four vacuum filters, two incinerators,
and ash lagoons on line by 1977; this equipment will facilitate sludge
processing and disposal on-site. Therefore the following scenarios
reflect those possible alternatives when all process equipment is
operating.
8.2.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Anaerobically digested sludge from this plant can be transported to
agricultural areas in eastern Clermont County for wet land spreading.
Most soils in eastern Clermont County are acceptable for land spreading,
however care should be taken to avoid some areas with seasonal high
water tables. Soils of the former association, however, are acceptable
for land spreading. Since little groundwater is available in this area
of Clermont County, no adverse effects are foreseen. Slope in the area
72
-------
is acceptable for such practice. Areas closer to the treatment plant
are projected to become urban and suburban and thus unsuitable for wet
land spreading.
No rail facilities or navigable waterways serve the area, which is about
60 miles (96 km) round trip distance from the Little Miami WTP. Anaero-
bically digested sludge transport would be by truck or by pipeline.
Although cost data are not cited, it appears that piping of the compara-
tively small amount of sludge over such a distance would not be economic
by virtue of high unit costs for operation and capitalization. Trucking
is therefore considered the best way to transport the sludge.
Trucking costs for the 60 miles (96 km) trip are estimated as $2.80 per
wet ton ($3.08/metric ton); (Ref. VIII-4); land spreading costs are
estimated at $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total
estimated cost of transport and spreading is therefore $3.88 per wet ton
($4.27/metric ton). On an annual basis the cost is $297,402, of which
$124,143 is annual amortized capital costs and $173,259 O&M. Applying
the methodology to the existing WTP process equipment would add an
annual amortized capital cost of $150,500 and O&M of $19,000.
8.2.2 Land Spread (Dry)
The land available for spreading of the anaerobically digested sludge
could also be used for spreading of the filter cake. Estimated truck
transport costs for the GOjniles (96 km) round trip distance would be
$2.90 per wet ton ($3.19/metric ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-5). Cost
of dry land spreading is estimated to be $1.23 per wet ton ($1.35/metric
ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-10, 11). Total cost of transport and dry
land spreading is $4.13 per wet ton ($4.55/metric ton) or an annual cost
of $63,313 of which $23,293 is annual amortized capital cost and $40,020
is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment
would add an annual amortized capital cost of $176,596 and O&M of $38,000,
8.2.3 Landfill ing
A landfill site can possibly be located on the same area as proposed for
ponding of the slurried incineration ash by the Little Miami WTP Cost
of truck transport is estimated to be $1.16 per wet ton ($1 28/metric
ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-5). Cost of landfill ing is estimated at
$12 to $15 per wet ton ($13.22 to $16.52/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-6).
Total cost of transport and landfill ing is therefore estimated to be
$13.16 to $16.16 per wet ton ($14.49 to $17.80/metric ton). Using a
mean cost of landfilling ($13.50 per wet ton) and $1.16 per wet ton
transportation, the total annual cost is $224,738, of which $60,310 is
annual amortized capital cost and $164,428 O&M. Applying the methodology
to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized capital
cost of $176,596 and O&M of $38,000.
73
-------
8.2.4 Disposal Ponds
The Little Miami WTP proposes to pond their slurried ash approximately 4
miles (6.4 km) round trip distance from the plant site. No cost estimates
were available from the plant, therefore the following estimates are
developed. Ponding cost is estimated to be $0.14 to $0.50 per wet ton
($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Transport costs (tank truck)
are estimated to be $0.30 per wet ton ($0.33/metric ton). Total cost of
transport and ponding is $0.44 to $0.80 per wet ton ($0.49 to $0.88/metric
ton), or a mean annual cost of $50,691 of which $18,363 is annual amortized
capital cost and $32,328 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP
process equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $264,930
and O&M of $68,000.
8.3 SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CAMPBELL AND KENTON COUNTIES,
NORTHERN KENTUCKY (BROMLEY WTP)
Influent rate at the Bromley WTP is 20.8 mgd (79,040 m3/d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge and residual (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
or ResiduaT tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge 197(179) 3.8
Filter cake 19.4(17.6) 38.0
Ash from
Incineration:
Dry basis 0.20(0.18) 100.0
Wet basis 2.7(2.5) 7.5
Anaerobically 47.7(43.3) 9.1
digested sludge*
Filter cake* 13.2(11.9) 33.0
Ash from
Incineration:*
Dry basis 7.4(6.7) 100.0
Wet basis 98.7(89.6) 7.5
* Values represented by an asterisk (*) reflect the quantity of sludge
or ash as a result of processing at the Mill Creek WTP.
74
-------
The Bromley WTP will be phased out when the Dry Creek WTP conies on-line
in 1977. Currently, the Bromley WTP dewaters the sludge by vacuum
filtration followed by incineration of the filter cake. The incinerator
ash is slurried and disposed of in the Ohio River. Alternatives to the
current disposal method include wet and dry land spreading, landfill ing,
and ponding. However, in order to implement any of these four ultimate
disposal practices, a sludge stabilization process such as chemical
treatment would have to be implemented. Moreover, a total amortized
capital cost of $32,119 could not reasonably be recovered in the remaining
two years of plant operation. In addition, $10,000 annual O&M would be
incurred. Lastly, the design and construction of a chemical treatment
process in all probability would take no less than two years to complete -
the remaining life of the plant. Therefore, implementation of such a
process is impractical.
As a result of this unique situation, it may be practical to truck
transport the raw sludge to the Mill Creek WTP for further treatment and
processing.
The ultimate disposal of the sludge would be by one of the four disposal
alternatives as discussed for the Mill Creek WTP. The Bromley WTP would
have to absorb its proportional costs for any of the four disposal
alternatives. The following disposal alternatives therefore reflect the
cost that would be incurred by the Bromley WTP for each alternative as
reflected in a user charge paid to Mill Creek WTP. Bromley WTP would
also incur a cost for transport by tank trucks 16 miles {25 km) round
trip to the Mill Creek WTP. This cost is estimated to be $1.90 per wet
ton ($2.09/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Cost on an annual basis for this
segment of transport is estimated to be $136,620, of which $65,851 is
annual amortized capital and $70,769 is O&M.
8.3.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land spreading of the anaerobically digested sludge before it is vacuum
filtered or the slurried ash* could be practicable. Cost of transport
for the 50 miles (80 km) round trip distance is estimated to be $2.20
per wet ton ($2.42/metric ton) of either anaerobically digested sludge
or slurried ash (Ref. VIII-4). Cost of wet land spreading either the
digested sludge or the ash is estimated to be $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/-
metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and land spreading
therefore is $3.28 per wet ton ($3.61/metric ton). Total annual cost**
of transport and disposal of the digested sludge is $193,726 of which
$89,014 is annual amortized capital and $104,712 is annual O&M. Applying
* Represents sludge or ash residual as a result of processing at the
Mill Creek WTP.
** Total Annual Cost = (total cost of transport and disposal) x (total wet
tons per day) x (365 days per year) + (annual cost of transporting raw
sludge from Bromley WTP to Mill Creek WTP).
75
-------
the methodology, existing process equipment would add an annual amortized
capital cost of $200,760 and O&M of $8,000.
Analogously, wet land spreading of the ash slurry in quantities of 98.7
wet tons (89.6 metric tons) per day would cost $254,784. Of this total
$113,779 is annual amortized capital and $141,005 is annual O&M. Applying
the methodology, existing process equipment would add an annual amortized
capital cost of $285,071 and O&M of $38,000.
8.3.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
The land available for spreading of digested sludge could also be used
for spreading of dewatered sludge. The average cost of round trip
transport for the 50 miles (80 km) distance would be $2.75 per wet ton
($3.03/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-5). Spreading costs are estimated at
$1.24 per wet ton ($1.36/metric ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-10,11).
Total cost of transport and dry land spreading would be $3.99 per wet
ton ($4.40/metric ton). Total annual cost of transport and disposal is
$155,844, of which $72,821 is annual amortized capital costs, and
$83,023 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment
would add an annual amortized capital cost of $234,887 and O&M of $24,000.
8.3.3 Landfill ing
The filter cake* could be disposed of in landfills. The nearest landfill
that could accept the sludge cake is located about 20 miles (32 km)
round trip from the plant on Este Avenue. The only feasible means of
transporting the sludge cake to the landfill would be by truck, since
there are no rail services or navigable waterways, and piping would not
be suitable. Cost of truck transport would be $1.45 for wet ton ($1.60/-
metric ton) (Ref. VIII-5). Cost of landfilling is estimated to be $12
to $15,per wet ton ($13.21 to $16.52/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-6). Total
cost would therefore be $13.45 to $16.45 per wet ton ($14.81 to $18.12/metric
ton). Annual cost would be $201,422 to $215,876. Using a mean cost of
landfilling ($13.50 per wet ton), and $1.45 per wet ton transportation,
the total annual cost is $208,649, of which $85,479 is annual amortized
capital cost and $123,170 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP
process equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $234,887
and O&M of $24,000.
8.3.4 Pond Disposal^
The slurried ash resulting from incineration could be ponded in the on-
site ash pond at the Mill Creek WTP. Cost of ash ponding is estimated
at $0.14 to $0.50 per wet ton ($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4).
Transport costs (piping) are estimated to be $0.03 per wet ton ($0.03/-
* Represents sludge or ash residual as a result of processing at the Mill
Creek WTP.
76
-------
metric ton). Cost of transport and ponding is $0.17 to $0.53 per wet
ton ($0.18 to $0.58/metric ton). The mean annual cost is $12,609 plus
$136,620 to transport raw sludge from Bromley WTP to Mill Creek WTP or
an annual total of $149,229 of which $69,003 is annual amortized capital
and $80,226 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process
equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $285,071 and O&M
of $38,000.
8.4 MIDDLETOWN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Middletown WTP is 10 mgd (38,000 m3/d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge and residual (see Appendix B):
SIudge type
or Residual
Raw sludge
Waste activated
sludge
Combined wet sludge
Filter cake
Ash from
Incinerator:
Dry basis
Wet basis
Quantity
tons(metric tons)/d
103(94)
413(375)
516(469)
60(54)
6.5(5.9)
87(79)
Percent solids
6.9
1.0
2.2
26.0
100
7.5
Middletown WTP employs anaerobic digestion, vacuum filtration, incinera-
tion, and ash lagooning. The ash residue from the lagoon is periodically
hauled from the plant by private contractors. As long as the ash is
hauled from the lagoons, this method of disposal should remain adequate.
Other possible alternatives for disposal of sludge or residuals include
wet or dry land spreading and landfilling.
8.4.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land spreading of the combined wet sludge after it has been stabilized
may be possible in rural areas west of Middletown. Soils in this area
appear acceptable for land spreading. Some sites in the area, however,
may have a high water table for short periods of time. Slope is acceptable
for land spreading. A round trip of 30 miles (48 km) would be required.
77
-------
Transport of the combined wet sludge would cost approximately $2.00 per
wet ton ($2.20/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Cost of land spreading is
estimated at $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total
cost of transport and spreading is therefore $3.08 per wet ton ($3.39/-
metric ton), or $580,090 annually, of which $232,100 is annual amortized
capital cost and $347,990 O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP
process equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $80,000
and O&M of $20,000.
8.4.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
Dry land spreading of the filter cake might be done in the same agricul-
tural area as described for" wet land spreading.
Because piping would not be economical and there are no rail facilities
or navigable waterways to the site of disposal, trucking would be the
best method of transport. Estimated truck transport cost is $1.16 per
wet ton ($1.28/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-5). Costs of dry land spreading
is estimated to be $1.25 per wet ton ($1.38/metric ton) of filter cake
(Ref. VI11-10). Total costs of transport and dry land spreading is
$2.41 per wet ton ($2.66/metric ton) or an annual cost of $52,800 of
which $14,900 is annual amortized capital costs and $37,900 O&M. Applying
the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual
amortized capital cost of $129,200 and O&M of $55,000.
8.4.3 Landfilling
Landfilling of the filter cake could be done in the same area but would
require construction of a landfill facility. Truck transport costs
would be $1.16 per wet ton ($1.28/metric ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-
5). Cost of construction and operation of the landfill is estimated at
$12.00 to $15.00 per wet ton ($13.21 to $16.52/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-6).
Total cost for transport and landfilling therefore would be $13.16 to
$16.16 per wet ton ($14.49 to $17.80 per metric ton). Annual cost would
be $262,800 to $328,500. Using a mean cost of landfilling ($13.50 per
wet ton), and $1.16 per wet ton transportation, the annual cost is
$321,050, of which $86,100 is annual amortized capital costs and $234,950
O&M. Applying the methodology to the existing WTP, process equipment
would add an annual amortized cost of $129,200 and O&M of $55,000.
8.4.4 Pond Disposal
Ponding is used in an area adjacent to the treatment plant for disposal
of incinerator ash. This does not constitute an ultimate means of
disposal since the ash must be removed periodically. Local contractors
now haul the ash residue for use as bedding in pipeline construction.
It is estimated that the cost of ponding of ash is $0.14 to $0.50 per
wet ton ($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Transport cost
78
-------
(piping) are estimated to be $0.11 per wet ton ($0.12/metric ton).
Total cost of transport and ponding is $0.25 to $0.61 per wet ton ($0.27
to $0.57/metric ton) or a mean annual cost of $13,700 of which $2,700 is
annual amortized capital cost and $11,000 O&M. Applying the methodology
to existing WTP process equipment, would add an annual amortized capital
cost of $197,000 and $71,000 O&M.
8.5 FRANKLIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Franklin WTP is 9.0 mgd (34,200 m /d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge 16.6(15.1) 6.0
(Municipal)
Raw sludge 229(208) 7.0
(Industrial)
Landfilling and dry land spreading are not considered feasible, since
the Franklin plant lacks dewatering capabilities.
Franklin WTP now land spreads raw industrial sludge and pipes raw
municipal sludge to the solid waste plant for incineration. Ash from
the incinerator presently is recycled to the primary industrial clarifier.
If the land spreading of raw sludge, causes no adverse environmental
impacts, this method could be continued for the life of the land spreading
site.
8.5.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
The industrial sludge is transported by pipeline about 1000 feet (305 m)
long for spreading on agricultural and open land adjacent to the plant.
There is some potential of adverse impact on surface and groundwaters,
since the spreading site is located on the flood plain of the Great
Miami River. Thus far, however, samples obtained from 14 groundwater
monitoring wells operated by the Miami Conservancy District have indicated
no adverse impact to groundwater. PEDCo's analysis of a composite
sludge sample indicates that the sludge contains high levels of cadmium
and zinc. These constituents pose a potential threat not only,to ground
and surface waters but possibly to crops grown on the sludge. Plant
records show that pipe transport costs $0.04 per wet ton ($0.04/metric
ton) of municipal industrial sludge. Cost of spreading is estimated to
be $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total estimated
cost of transport and spreading is $1.12 per wet ton ($1.23/metric ton).
79
-------
On an annual basis the cost is $93,800 of which $22,700 is annual
amortized capital and $71,100 O&M.
8.5.2 Disposal Ponds
Disposal by ponding at the site adjacent to the Franklin WTP would offe\
no advantage over wet land spreading because disposal would still be on
the flood plain of the Great Miami River. Other sites some 15 miles (24
km) away in areas to the east or west would be environmentally more
suitable. Sludge transport by truck would be the most economical means.
Soils appear acceptable for land spreading as well as do slope conditions
in the area. Potential for groundwater contamination also is minimal if
flood plain areas are avoided.
As an approximation, cost of transport over a 30-mile (48 km) round trip
distance to the disposal site would be about $1.40 per wet ton ($1.54/-
metric ton) (Ref. VI11-4). Disposal costs may range from $0.14 to $0.50
per wet ton ($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). • Therefore, total
cost of transport and ponding would be $1.54 to $1.90 per wet ton (0.92
to $1.32/metric ton). Using a mean cost of $0.32 for ponding and $1.40
transportation a mean annual cost of $143,800 of which $63,100 is annual
amortized capital cost and $80,700 O&M would be incurred.
8.6 MUDDY CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Muddy Creek WTP is 8.3 mgd (31,500 m3/d). Evalua-
tions are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities
of sludge and residual (see Appendix B):
Sludge type
or residual
Raw sludge
Waste activated
Thermally condi-
tioned sludge
Filter cake
Ash from
incineration
Quantity
tons(metric tons)/d
117(106)
30(27)
147(133)
19.6(17.8)
79 (71.7)
Percent solids
6
1
5
35 to 40
7.5
Landfill ing of the incinerator ash is not considered feasible since the
ash is in a slurried state. The plant now practices vacuum filtration,
incineration, and subsequently lagooning of the slurried ash. If no
harmful environmental impact results,'this method of disposal will
remain acceptable for the future.
80
-------
8.6.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land spreading of the thermally conditioned sludge from the Muddy Creek
plant might be done in rural areas to the north and west of the plant
The most suitable sites for land spreading are in Dearborn County,
ndiana, which contains large areas of agricultural and undeveloped
*rlo«-h?9an? a?d "am'son Townships within Dearborn County are
nr I ~la !;74' and most of the area 1s zoned agricultural.
land suitable for
tern portion of H
Ttly °f flood Pla1n that is unacceptable for land
ho t
™ JOUgh *he e*treme western portion of Hamilton County is
S
ac9ces ?b P^nH ^1™ °f ?°°ne County' ,
topography is too rugged for land spreading.
Soils in Dearborn County appear well suited for land spreading Thev
are mostly underlain by a hardpan which prevents infiltration into
groundwater as we 1 as percolation and movement of so 1 waters Ground
water production is very poor. Though topography may be ruqqed and
sloping, many areas are suitable for land spreading "
would be $3.60 per wet ton ($3.96/metric Sn) (Ref? VIII-4) Cost o?
spreading is estimated at $1.08 per wet ton ($ .19/metr c ton) lllf
VII -4). Total cost of transport and land spreading! therefore it*
estimated at $4.68 per wet ton ($5.15/metr1c ton) S?J$251 l^annuallv
of which $107,500 is annual amortized capital cost -and $ 43 500 o&S y>
App lying the methodology to the existing WTP process equ pmen? woSld add
an annual amortized capital cost of $100,380 arid $100,000 MM PinSlinf
because of the
8-6.2 Land Spreading (Dr)
uhe f11ter cake> with Sol1ds content of 35 to 40
cost nft be P°S^'ble in the same Dearborn C^"ty area The
o°f °cakeS(ReSflni;nd U ^ $^ P6P W6t t0" «5.n/2?r1c
$1-33 pe/ieTto"^}^ c§ LftFf llgr^te (Ref'JJH^ ^
e awet0ton°f$6r57/SPOr ^ *? ^ » «^ "Is^ied"1 o' ' 97
disposal i^ U?1nn S'l^l T°tal annual cost of transport and
disposal is $42,700 of which $17,400 is amortized capital cost and
81
-------
$25,300 is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process
equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $120,000 and
$116,000 O&M.
8.6.3 Landfill ing
Hamilton County has only one landfill reasonably near the Muddy Creek
WTP. It is located in an industrial park approximately 20 miles (32 km)
from the plant. Since this landfill accepts residential and common
commercial waste, it may be possible to mix the filter cake with solid
waste in the landfill ing process. Hamilton County is considering a
resource recovery plant to process solid waste. Such an operation would
reduce the flow of solid waste into the landfill by 75 percent and
extend the life of the landfill by as much as 30 years. The landfill
might then provide long-term disposal for the filter cake.
Transport of the filter cake by truck to the disposal site would be
about $3.90 per wet ton ($4.30/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-5). Cost of
landfilling would be about $12 to $15 per wet ton ($13,22 to $16.52/-
metric ton) (Ref. VIII-6). Total cost of transport and landfilling
would therefore be $15.90 to $18.90 per wet ton ($17.52 to $20.82/metric
ton) of filter cake. On an annual basis, the cost would be $113,750 to
$135,210. Using a mean cost of landfilling ($13.50 per wet ton) and
$3.90 per wet ton transportation, the annual cost is $124,480 of which
$37,500 is annual amortized capital cost and $86,980 is O&M. Applying
the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual
amortized capital cost of $120,000 and $116,000 O&M.
Again, neither rail service nor barge transport is available.
8.6.4 Disposal Ponds
The plant presently performs,incineration with subsequent ponding of the
slurried ash on site. Though no cost figures were available from the
plant, it is estimated that the cost of ponding is $0.14 to $0.50 per
wet ton ($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) of slurried ash (Ref. VIII-4).
Transport costs (piping) are estimated to be $0.12 per wet ton ($0.13/-
metric ton). Total cost of transport and spreading is estimated to be
$0.26 to $0.62 per wet ton ($0.27 to $0.67/metric ton) or a mean annual
cost of $12,687 of which $2,500 is annual amortized capital and $10,187
is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment
would add an annual capital amortized cost of $108,400 and $49,000 O&M.
8.7 HAMILTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Hamilton WTP is 7 mgd (26,600 m3/d). Evaluations*
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
82
-------
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge 254(231) 3.5
Filter cake 50(45) 20.0
Anaerobically 97.8(88.8) 5
digested sludge*
Filter cake* 19.6(17.8) 25
* Represents the quantity of sludge that will result if the thickeners
are converted back to their original function as anaerobic digesters
(Ref. VIII-12,13). Only anaerobically digested sludge could be
considered for land spreading, landfilling or ponding.
The plant presently employs vacuum filtration and landfills the filter
cake. The landfill has an expected life of 5 years, after_which a new
landfill site must be located or a new method of disposal implemented.
8.7.1 Land Spreading (Met)
The anaerobically digested sludge could be spread in a rural area
approximately 10 round trip miles (16 km) to the north and west of the
plant. Soils in this area appear acceptable for land spreading. Since
groundwater availability is moderate, care must be taken to prevent
groundwater contamination. Slope is acceptable for land spreading
operations. Transport costs are estimated at $3.00 per wet ton ($3.30/-
metric ton) (Ref. VII1-4). Land spreading costs are estimated to be
$1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) of anaerobically digested sludge
(Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and spreading of wet sludge is
estimated to be $4.08 per wet ton ($4.49/metric ton) or $145,644 annually,
of which $61,256 is annual amortized capital cost and $84,388 O&M.
Applying the methodology to the existing WTP process equipment would add
an annual amortized capital cost of $80,000 and $11,000 O&M.
8.7.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
Land spreading of the filter cake (provided its derivation is from an
anaerobically digested sludge) could be done in the same rural area.
Soils and hydrologic characteristics in this area appear suitable.
Areas east and south, which are projected to become urbanized, afford no
sites for land spreading.
Transport could best be done by truck. Rail and barge transport are not
available and piping costs would be prohibitive for such a low throughput.
-------
Cost of trucking round trip for 10 miles (16 km) is estimated to be
$0.87 per wet ton ($0.96/metric ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-5). Cost
of spreading filter cake is estimated at $1.28 per wet ton ($1.41/metric
ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-10). Total cost of transport and dry
land spreading is $2.15 per wet ton ($2.36/metric ton) of filter cake.
Total annual cost of transport and spreading is $15,381 of which $4,061
is amortized capital cost and $11,320 O&M. Applying the methodology to
the existing WTP process.equipment would add an annual amortized capital
cost of $96,400 and $25,000 O&N.
8.7.3 Landfill ing
Filter cake from the plant .is now disposed of in a landfill 1.0 round
trip miles (1.6 km) from the plant. Area of this city-owned landfill is
sufficient to permit continued disposal for at least 5 years at the
plant design rating. No firm-fixed cost data were available from the
plant. Cost of transport of the filter cake is therefore estimated at
$0.58 per wet ton ($0.64/metric ton) {Ref. VIII-5). Cost of landfilling
is estimated between $12 to $15 per wet ton ($13.22 to $16.52/metric
ton) (Ref. VIII-6). Total annual cost is estimated at $229,585 to
$284,335. Using a mean cost of landfilling ($13.50 per wet ton) and
$0.58 per wet ton transportation, the annual cost is $256,960 of which
$65,700 is annual amortized capital cost and $189,260 is O&M. Applying
the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual
amortized capital cost of $37,100 and $27,000 O&M. Since the filter
cake is not stabilized, this is not considered an environmentally
acceptable disposal practice (Ref. VIII-13).
In order for landfilling to be environmentally safe practice, it is
recommended that the thickeners be converted back to their original
function as anaerobic digestors. Using a mean cost of landfilling
($13.50 per wet ton) and $0.58 per wet ton transportation, the annual
cost is $100,728 of which $26,145 is annual amortized capital cost and
$74,583 is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process
equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $96,400 and
$25,000 O&M.
8.7.4 Disposal Ponds
Anaerobically digested sludge might be ponded in the nearby areas already
described. Transport costs are estimated to $1.50 per wet ton ($1.657-
metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Cost of ponding is estimated to be $0.14 to
$0.50 per wet ton ($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost
of transport and ponding would be $1.64 to $2.00 per wet ton ($1.80 to
$2.20/metric ton) or a mean annual cost of $64,968 of which $28,665 is
annual amortized capital cost and $36,304 O&M. Applying the methodology
to the existing WTP process equipment, would add an annual amortized
capital cost of $80,30n and $11,000 O&M.
84
-------
8.8 SYCAMORE CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Sycamore WTP is 3.5 mgd (13,300 m3/d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge 58(53} 4.0
Waste activated 67(61) 0.5
sludge
Combined wet sludge 125(114) 2.0
Anaerobically 25(23) 7.0
digested sludge
Dry land spreading and landfill ing are not considered for the Sycamore
WTP since the plant has no dewatering capabilities. Ponding is not
considered because land near the plant is not suitable for such a purpose.
Sludge from the plant is now hauled to the Mill Creek WTP for dewatering
and incineration.
8.8.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land application of the anaerobically digested sludge from the Sycamore
plant is feasible for two reasons: 1) the plant receives an insignifi-
cant industrial waste load, and 2) the plant is located in a rural
farming area.
The anaerobically digested sludge would be transported by truck. Rail
transport is not feasible because of short haul distances. Pipeline
transport would be impractical since it limits distribution of the
sludge to one or two points, whereas more than one land spreading area
would be required.
Nearest area suitable for spreading is in Clermont County, about 40
round trip miles (64 km) from the plant. Soils in this area appear
acceptable for land spreading. Some soils however often develop a high
water table in winter and spring and they should be avoided in selection
of a specific site within the area. Slope in the area appears acceptable
for land spreading.
The anaerobically digested sludge could be wet land spread provided its
inherent odor causes no nuisance problem. Hauling costs are estimated
to be $1.80 per wet ton ($1.98/metric ton), and land spreading costs are
85
-------
estimated to be $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton). Total cost of
transport and hauling is $2.88 per wet ton ($3.17/metric ton). Annual
cost would be $26,280 of which $10,400 is annual amortized capital and
$15,880 is O&M. Applying the methodology to the existing WTP process
equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $20,000 and
$20,000 O&M.
8.9 OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Oxford WTP is 2.64 mgd (10,000 m3/d). The evalua-
tions are based upon daily generation of the following types and quanti-
ties of sludge (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tonsTmetric tons)/d
Raw plus return
secondary sludge 37(34) 6.0
Anaerobically 2.05(1.9) 5.0
digested sludge
Dry land spreading and landfill ing are not practicable because the
Oxford WTP has no dewatering capabilities. The plant now spreads the
anaerobically digested sludge on agricultural land. If no adverse
environmental impacts occur or are monitored, this method of disposal
should prove satisfactory for the future.
8.9.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Although the area immediately surrounding Oxford is projected to become
urbanized over the next 20 years, land spreading remains a suitable
means of sludge disposal because the city is situated in a predominately
rural region. Even after projected urbanization, land spreading sites
will be available about 7 miles (11 km) distant in all directions from
the plant. For the purposes of evaluation, a mean round trip transport
distance of 14 miles (22 km) is assumed.
Soils in the areas of possible land spreading near the plant have moder-
ately low permeability. Since this area is a poor source of groundwater,
contamination of groundwaters in the spreading areas would be unlikely.
Topography is flat to gently sloping. Thus, the soils and the hydrologic
and topographic features are well suited for land spreading.
Since there are no navigable waterways or rail facilities in the area,
transport is limited to truck or pipe. Available data indicate that
piping would be uneconomical in this instance by virtue of short distances
and low throughput. Trucking, therefore, is the optimum means of trans-
port.
-------
Costs of hauling the anaerobically digested sludge are estimated to be
$0.88 per wet ton ($0.96/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Land spreading
costs are estimated to be $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) (Ref.
VIII-4). Total cost for transport and spreading of the anaerobically
digested sludge would be $1.96 per wet ton ($2.16/metric ton), or $1,467
annually of which $500 is annual amortized capital costs and $967 is
O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would
add an annual amortized capital cost of $10,000 and $10,000 O&M.
8.9.2 Disposal Ponds
In view of the projected urbanization of the area near the plant, a pond
or lagoon for disposal of the anaerobically digested sludge should be
located at a site remote from the treatment plant. Since potential
sites would therefore be approximately the same distance from the plant
as the land spreading sites, ponding would incur the same transport
costs as those for wet land spreading. Estimates of ponding costs are
$0.14 to $0.50 per wet ton ($0.15 to $0.55/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4).
Total cost for transport and ponding is estimated to be $1.02 to $1.38
per wet ton ($1.12 to $1.51/metric ton), or a mean annual cost of $898
of which $400 is annual amortized capital cost and $598 O&M. Applying
the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual
amortized capital cost of $10,000 and $10,000 O&M.
8.10 LAWREN.CEBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rates at the Lawrenceburg WTP are 1.4 mgd (5,320 m3/d) at plant
No. 1 and 2.5 mgd (9500 m3/d) at plant No. 2. Evaluations are based on
daily generation of the following types and quantities of sludge (see
Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
waste secondary 950(863) 2.0
sludge (Plant
No. 2)
Industrial Sludge 333(303) 0.3
(Plant No. 1)
Combined waste 1,283(1,165) 1.5
secondary plus
industrial sludge
Anaerobically 212(194) 5.0
digested sludge
Filter cake* 2.1(1.9) 25.0
* Very little of the anaerobically digested sludge is vacuum filtered;
most of it is recycled.
-------
The Lawrenceburg WTP presently vacuum filters 2.1 wet tons {1.9 metric
tons) of combined waste secondary plus industrial sludge per day which
is then subsequently land spread. The sludge which is not vacuum
filtered is sent back to plant No. 2, where it is allowed to settle in
the clarifier and periodically wasted.
8.10.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Wet land spreading of the anaerobically digested sludge could be accomp-
lished prior to vacuum filtration. This would result in distributing a
wet sludge of 5 percent solids. Permeability characteristics of the
soils nearby are not well suited for wet land spreading, however, and
rugged topography is another deterrent. Northern portions of the county
about 10 round trip miles (16 km) distance would be suitable for wet
land spreading. Soils in this area appear acceptable for land spreading
with little danger to groundwaters. Though slope is extreme in places,
several acceptable areas are available in this locale. Transport costs
are estimated at about $2.32 per wet ton ($2.54/metric ton) of anaerobi-
cally digested sludge (Ref. VIII-4). Land spreading costs are estimated
at about $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) of anaerobically digested
sludge (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and spreading therefore
is $3.40 per wet ton ($3.74/metric ton) or $263,092 annually. Of this
total $107,423 is annual amortized capital and $155,669 is O&M. Applying
the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual
amortized capital cost of $170,600 and $24,000 O&M.
8.10.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
Since the city is located near rural areas, dry land spreading is feas-
ible and is currently practiced at the plant. Farmers haul the filter
cake away at their own cost. If the farmers were not to handle the
filter cake land spreading could be done at a distance of 10 round trip
miles (16 km) from the plant in all directions except to the east where
the available land consists of river flood plains. Transport is best
accomplished by truck since there are no rail or barge facilities and
piping of the relatively small amount of sludge would not be economical.
The costs involved are those for transport and spreading of the filter
cake. Assuming a round trip distance of 10 miles (16 km) the hauling
cost is estimated to be $1.16 per wet ton ($1.28/metric ton) of filter
cake (Ref. VIII-5). Spreading costs are estimated at $1.57 per wet ton
($1.73/metric ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-10,11). Total cost of
transport and dry land spreading is $2.73 per wet ton ($3.01/metric
ton). Total annual cost of transport and disposal is $2,092 of which
$1,100 is amortized capital cost and $992 O&M. Applying the methodology
to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized capital
cost of $20,000 and $20,000 O&M.
-------
8.10.3 Landfilllng
The City of Lawrenceburg operates its own landfill for solid waste. Use
of this landfill for filter cake disposal is not acceptable since the
landfill is situated on a flood plain and is susceptible to seasonal
flooding. Locating of a new landfill near the treatment plant is
unacceptable for the same reasons cited in the analysis of wet land
spreading. An environmentally acceptable area would be, as for wet land
spreading, about 10 round trip miles (16 km) away.
Transport costs would be about $1.16 per wet ton ($1.28/metric ton)
(Ref. VIII-5). Landfilling costs are estimated at $12.00 to $15.00 per
wet ton ($13.21 to $16.52/metric ton)(Ref. VIII-6). Total cost for
transport and landfilling is estimated at $13.16 to $16.16 per wet ton
(14.49 to $17.80/metric ton) of filter cake. Annual cost would be
$10,100 to $12,400. Using a mean cost of landfilling ($13.50 per wet
ton), and $1.16 per wet ton for transportation, the total annual cost is
$11,237 of which $3,000 is annual amortized capital and $8,237 is O&M.
Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an
annual amortized capital cost of $20,000 and $20,000 O&M. This method
of disposal appears highly economical, but not all the combined waste
secondary plus industrial sludge is vacuum filtered at the Lawrenceburg
WTP. Only a very small portion is filtered; the remainder is recycled.
8.10.4 Disposal Pond
Since soils in the vicinity of the plant are not suitable for landfilling
they are by no means suitable for ponding of the anaerobically digested
sludge. A disposal pond would have to be located in the areas mentioned
earlier, about 10 round trip miles (16 km) from the plant. Cost of
transport is estimated to be the same as for wet land spreading. Cost
of ponding is estimated to be from $0.14 to $0.50 per wet ton ($0.15 to
$0.55/metric ton) of anaerobically digested sludge (Ref. VIII-4). Total
cost of transport and ponding is therefore estimated to be $2.46 to
$2.82 per wet ton ($2.71 to $3.11/metric ton), or a mean annual cost of
$204,284 of which $92,721 is annual amortized capital cost and $111,563
is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment
would add an annual amortized capital cost of $170,600 and $24,000 O&M.
8.11 BETHEL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Bethel WTP is 0.47 mgd (1786 m3/d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following type and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
-------
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge Not known Not known
Anaerobically 5.7(5.2) 4.0 (estimated)
digested sludge
Dry land spreading and landfill ing are not evaluated since the Bethel
WTP has no dewatering capabilities. Ponding cannot be considered
because ordinances against landfills in most parts of Clermont County
would, also prohibit operation of sludge lagoons. The Bethel WTP now
hauls the sludge to unknowTi destinations and disposes of it by various
methods.
8.11.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land spreading is a very probable alternative for ultimate disposal of
the anaerobically digested sludge from the Bethel WTP. Bethel is
located in a rural area which offers many suitable sites.
Soils are underlain with a hardpan that will prevent excessive movement
and leaching of sludge. As a result, groundwaters will also be protected
from infiltration. Slope is also acceptable for such an operation.
Transport of the sludge would be by truck or pipeline since no rail or
barge service is available. Use of pipelines would limit the plant to
one or a few of the many available sites for land spreading. Truck
hauling, which provides maximum mobility, is considered the most suitable
transport method.
Based on a round trip hauling distance of 16 miles (26 km) it is esti-
mated that the anaerobically digested sludge could be transported by
tank truck for approximately $1.40 per wet ton ($1.54/metric ton)(Ref.
VIII-4). Cost of spreading is estimated to be $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/-
metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and spreading is
therefore $2.48 per wet ton ($2.73/metric ton). Annual cost is $5,160.
Of this total cost $2,000 is annual amortized capital cost and $3,160 is
O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would
add an annual amortized capital cost of $10,000 and $10,000 O&M.
8.12 NEW RICHMOND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
o
Influent rate at the New Richmond WTP is 0.1 mgd (380 m /d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
90
-------
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Waste secondary 0.82(0.75) 1
sludge
(aerobically
digested)
Sludge cake (from 0.041(0.37) 20 (assume)
sand drying beds)
Land-filling and ponding are not feasible in the New Richmond area
because soil permeability, slope, and erosion potential would limit such
operations. Land spreading of dewatered sludge would be economically
prohibitive because of such minute volumes.
The nearest operating landfill is located in Jackson Township about 25
miles (40 km) from the New Richmond WTP; with the relatively low amounts
of sludge generated at this plant, hauling over such a distance would be
uneconomical. Ordinances within Clermont County prohibit new landfill
sites in most areas; the exclusion may also pertain to disposal ponds.
The plant currently uses sand drying beds with subsequent dry land
spreading of the sludge cake during the summer months. In winter the
wet sludge is stored in holding tanks that have capacity for several
months storage. This practice could most likely be continued in the
future, provided no adverse^environmental impacts occur.
8.12.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land spreading of the aerobically digested waste secondary sludge,
though possibly feasible, is not considered the most suitable means of
sludge disposal. Soils, hydrology, and topography are not suited for
spreading of undewatered sludge. If the aerobically digested waste
secondary sludge is to be land spread, sites must be selected with care
to prevent adverse environmental impact. Cost of hauling for an average
10-mile (16 km) round trip distance is estimated at $1.20 per wet ton
($1.32/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Cost of spreading is estimated at
$1.08 per wet ton ($11.19/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of
transport and spreading therefore is $2.28 per wet ton ($2.51/metric
ton) of waste secondary sludge. Cost on an annual basis is $682. Of
this total $300 is annual amortized capital cost and $382 is O&M.
Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an
annual amortized capital cost of $10,000 and $10,000 O&M.
91
-------
8.13 FELICITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Felicity WTP is 0.081 mgd (307 m3/d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
Sludge Type Quantity Percent Solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Waste activated 1.0(0.91) 1.0
sludge
Landfilling is not considered for the Felicity WTP since laws in Clermont
County prohibit new landfill sites in most areas; the laws also imply
prohibition of disposal ponds. Dry land spreading is not an option
because the plant has no dewatering facilities.
The plant now spreads wet activated sludge on farmlands. Disposal of
unstabilized sludge in this manner is not considered an environmentally
acceptable disposal method (Ref. VIII-13). To correct the problem a
sludge stabilization process such as chemical treatment would have to be
added to the plant.
8.13.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Since the Felicity plant is located in a rural area, agricultural land
for spreading of chemically treated waste activated sludge is plentiful.
Soils in this area are for the most part acceptable for lands spreading.
Some soils however may exhibit a seasonal high water table and should be
avoided. Groundwater availability in the area is minimal, and potential
contamination is slight. Slope is great in only a few places and is
suitable in most areas. Cost of hauling for an average 10-mile (16 km)
round trip distance is estimated at $1.20 per wet ton ($1.32/metric ton)
of chemically treated waste activated sludge (Ref. VII-4). Spreading
costs are estimated at $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) of chemically
treated waste activated sludge (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport
and spreading is therefore $2.28 per wet ton ($2.51/metric ton) of
chemically treated waste activated sludge. Cost on an annual basis is
$832. Of this total $300 is annual amortized capital cost and $532 is
O&M. Chemical treatment process equipment capital cost of $10,000 and
$10,000 O&M (Ref. VIII-4).
8.14 MAYFLOWER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Influent rate at the Mayflower WTP is 0.035 mgd (133 m3/d). Evaluations
are based on daily generation of the following types and quantities of
sludge (see Appendix B):
92
-------
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Waste activated 0.36(0.32) 1.0
sludge
(aerobically
digested)
Dry land spreading and landfill ing are not evaluated because the May-
flower WTP has no dewatering facilities. Ponding is also eliminated
because few if any areas near the plant or within Hamilton County would
be suitable sites for such a disposal pond.
The Mayflower WTP now trucks its waste activated sludge every 2 weeks to
the Mill Creek WTP, where it is dewatered and incinerated. This practice
appears acceptable for the future.
8.14.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Agricultural areas suitable for wet land spreading lie 50 round trip
miles (80 km) west of the plant in Dearborn County, Indiana. Soils and
slopes are suitable for land spreading, and potential for groundwater
contamination is low.
Transport probably would be by truck, since no adequate rail or barge
service is available and pipeline transport over long distances with
minimal throughput would be uneconomical.
Trucking costs are estimated to be $3.00 per wet ton ($3.30/metric ton)
of waste activated sludge (Ref. VIII-4). Wet land spreading is estimated
to cost $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/metric ton) of waste activated sludge
(Ref. VIII-4). Therefore total cost of transport and spreading would be
$4.08 per wet ton ($4.49/metric ton) or $536 annually. Of this total
$300 is annual amortized capital cost and $236 is O&M.
8.15 DRY CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (PROPOSED)
Design influent rate for the Dry Creek WTP is 30 mgd (114,000 m3/d).
The plant is scheduled to be on line in 1977. Evaluations are based on
daily generation of the following types and quantities of sludge or
residuals in the design year (see Appendix B):
93
-------
Sludge type
Quantity
tons(metric tons)/d
Percent solids
Raw sludge
Waste activated
sludge
Thermally condi-
tioned sludge
(combined wet
sludge)
Filter cake
Ash from
incinerators:
Dry basis
Wet basis
410(372)
3049(2768)
457(415)
5
1
104(94.6)
14(12.7)
187(169)
35
100
7.5
Neither ponding or wet land spreading of the ash is considered, since
the ash will be disposed of only in dry form.
The plant proposes to thermally condition the combined wet sludge,
subject it to vacuum filtration, and incinerate the filter cake, with
subsequent disposal of the dry ash in a landfill. If no adverse environ-
mental impacts are observed, this method of ultimate disposal should
prove satisfactory.
8.15.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
Land spreading of the thermally conditioned sludge could be done in
rural areas about 30 round trip miles (48 km) south of the Dry Creek
WTP. Soils in this area have slow permeability and are not subject to
seasonally high water tables or flooding and seem well suited for land
spreading. Potential for groundwater pollution appears low since
groundwater availability is minimal. Slope, though steep in places,
allows many acceptable sites for spreading.
Transportation of the sludge would be by truck. Neither rail nor barge
service is available, and topography would prohibit economical pipeline
transport.
Cost of truck transport would be $1.20 per wet ton ($1.32/metric ton)
for the thermally conditioned sludge (Ref. VIII-4). Cost of wet land
spreading would be $1.08 per wet ton ($1,19/metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4).
94
-------
Total cost of transport and spreading would be $2.28 per wet ton ($2.51/
metric ton); annual cost would be $380,315. Of this total $141,500 is
annual amortized capital cost and $238,815 is O&M. Applying the metho-
dology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized
capital cost of $381,380 and $306,000 O&M.
8.15.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
Dry land spreading of the filter cake can be done in the same rural
area. Again, transport would be by truck. Cost of truck transport for
30 miles (48 km) round trip distance would be $1.28 per wet ton ($1.41/-
metric ton)(Ref. VI11-5). Spreading costs are estimated at $1.23 per
wet.ton ($1.35/metric ton) of filter cake (Ref. VIII-10,11). Total cost
of transport and dry land spreading is $2.51 per wet ton ($2.76/metric
ton). Total annual cost is $95,280 of which $27,500 is amortized
capital cost and $67,780 is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing
WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of
$451,080 and $341,000 O&M.
8.15.3 Landfill ing
Although four landfills are operating in Northern Kentucky none are
acceptable for handling of sludge because all four sites are subject to
flooding. The nearest landfill that could take the sludge is about 24
round trip miles (38 km) from the plant on Este Avenue in Cincinnati.
The cost of truck transport of the wet filter cake would be $1 28 per
wet ton ($1.41/metric ton)(Ref. VIII-5). Cost of landfilling would be
$12.00 to $15.00 per wet ton ($13.21 to $16.52/metric ton)(Ref. VIII-6).
Total cost of transport and landfilling would be $13.28 to $16.28 per
wet ton ($14.62 to $17.93/metric ton). Annual cost would be $504,110 to
618,000. Using a mean cost of landfilling ($13.50 per wet ton) and
$1.28 per wet ton for transportation, the total annual cost would be
$561,048 of which $151,500 is annual amortized capital cost and $409,548
is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment
would add an annual amortized capital cost of $451,080 and $341,000 O&M.
The Dry Creek WTP plans to landfill dry ash, and since it is not known
where the landfill is going to be located, it is assumed for the purpose
of cost evaluation, that the ash will be landfilled in the same area as
the filter cake. Therefore the total cost of transport and landfilling
would be the same at $13.28 to $16.28 per ton ($14.62 to $17.93/metric
ton) of ash. Annual cost would be $67,861 to $83,191. Using the mean
cost for landfill ing of ($13.50 per wet ton) and $1.28 per wet ton for
transportation, the total annual cost would be $75,526, of which $20,400
is annual amortized capital cost and $55,126 is O&M. Applying the
methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual
amortized capital cost of $712,580 and $416,000 O&M.
95
-------
8.16 LESOURDSVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (PROPOSED)
Design influent rate for the LeSourdsville WTP is 4.0 mgd (15,200 m3/d).
Evaluations are based on projected daily generation of the following
types and quantities of sludge (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge 25(23) 4.0
Secondary sludge 87(79) 2.5
Combined raw 112(102) 2.8
plus secondary
sludge
Aerobically 79(72) 4.0
digested* sludge
haulaway
Concentrated 21(19) 15.0
aerobically
digested sludge
(standby unit)
* Because some concentration of solids occurs within the aerobic sludge
digestor, haulaway requirements are lower. A standby unit is available
to concentrate the sludge further as required.
Ponding of the sludge is not considered as a disposal alternative since
groundwater contamination is possible. Odors, too, could cause nuisance
to nearby residents.
The LeSourdsville WTP plans to wet land spread aerobically digested
sludge; a standby concentration unit will also be used at times, and the
resultant thickened sludge will be landfilled. This practice appears to
be acceptable for future operation of the plant.
8.16.1 Landspreading (Wet)
The aerobically digested sludge is suitable for wet land spreading.
Although the plant is located in an area that is projected to be urban
and suburban, agricultural areas suitable for land spreading are available
about 12 round trip miles (19 km) to the northwest.
-------
Although soils in these areas are mostly suitable for spreading, some
areas contain soils which are completely unacceptable and they should be
avoided. Groundwater availability is also generally low, but care must
be taken to avoid use of some areas where groundwater contamination
could occur. Slope is generally low and acceptable for land spreading.
Since transport by water or rail is not available and since piping would
be uneconomical because of inaccessibility, trucking is the logical
means of transport. Estimated trucking costs of $1.20 per wet ton
($1.32/metric ton) are based on hauling 12 miles round trip (19 km)
(Ref. VIII-4). Cost for wet land spreading is estimated to be $1.08 per
wet ton ($1.19/metric ton)(Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and
spreading will be $2.28 per wet ton ($2.51/metric ton). Cost on an
annual basis will be $65,744. Of this total, $24,500 is annual amortized
capital cost, and $41,244 is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing
WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of
$28,800 and $32,500 O&M.
8.16.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
Dry land spreading can be performed in the same agricultural area. Cost
of round trip truck transport is estimated to be $1.16 per wet ton
($1.27/metric ton) of concentrated ,aerobically digested sludge (Ref.
VIII-5). Spreading cost is estimated to be $1.31 per wet ton ($1.44/-
metric ton) of concentrated aerobically digested sludge (Ref. VIII-
10,11). Total cost of transport and dry land spreading is $2.47 per wet
ton $2.72/metric ton). Total annual cost for transport and spreading is
$18,933 of which $5,700 is amortized capital costs and $13,233 is O&M.
Applying the methodology to existing WTP process equipment would add an
annual amortized capital cost of $32,100 and $35,500 O&M.
8.16.3 Landfill ing
The plant proposes to utilize landfilling when the standby sludge
concentration unit is operated. The landfill site is about 12 miles (20
km) round trip from the plant. Hauling costs are estimated at $1.16 per
wet ton ($1.28/metric ton) (Ref. VII-5). Costs provided by the plant
design firm are estimated at $40,000 capital and $5,600 annual operating
and maintenance (Ref. VIII-8). If a 20-year life of the landfill is
assumed, an annual cost of $16,491 will be incurred, of which $6,300 is
annual amortized capital cost and $10,191 is O&M. Applying the methodo-
logy to existing WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized
capital cost of $32,100 and $35,500 O&M.
97
-------
8.17 CLEVES-NORTH BEND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (PROPOSED)
Design influent rate for the Cleves-North Bend WTP is 0.5 rogd (1,900
m3/d). Evaluations are based on daily generation of the following types
and quantities of sludge (see Appendix B):
Sludge type Quantity Percent solids
tons(metric tons)/d
Raw sludge plus
return secondary
sludge 20(18) 4.0
Aerobically diges-
ted sludge 20(18) 4.0
Dewatered aerobic
sludge 1.8(1.6) 45.0
Ponding of aerobically digested sludge is considered untenable since
little area remains in Hamilton county for such an operation.
The plant proposes to use an on-site landfill to dispose of dewatered
aerobic sludge. As long as this practice entails no adverse environ-
mental impacts, it should be acceptable for the future.
8.17.1 Land Spreading (Wet)
The aerobically digested sludge might be land spread in the rural areas
to the north and the west of the plant; the most likely site is the area
in Dearborn County, where soils, hydrologic characteristics, and slopes
are suitable.
Distance from the Cleves-North Bend WTP is approximately 10 round trip
miles (16 km). Rail or pipeline transport would not be economical for
the short distances and small volumes involved. Since no barge transport
is available, the optimum method of transport is by truck. Costs for
transporting the aerobically digested sludge a 10-mile (16 km) round trip
distance are estimated to be $1.10 per wet ton ($1.22/metric ton)(Ref.
VIII-4). Spreading costs are estimated to be $1.08 per wet ton ($1.19/-
metric ton) (Ref. VIII-4). Total cost of transport and spreading is
estimated to be $2.18 per wet ton ($2.40/metric ton). Annual cost would
be $15,914. Of this total $5,800 is annual amortized capital cost and
$10,114 is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing WTP process
equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of $4,000 and
$1,000 O&M.
98
-------
8.17.2 Land Spreading (Dry)
Dewatered sludge can be land spread at the same location. Again,
trucking is the only feasible mode of transportation. Cost of trans-
porting the dewatered sludge 10 round trip miles (16 km) is approximately
$1.16 per wet ton ($1.28/metric ton)(Ref. VIII-5). Spreading cost is
estimated to be $3.58 per wet ton ($3.94/metric ton) of dewatered
aerobic sludge (Ref. VIII-10,11). Total cost of transport and spreading
would be $4.74 per wet ton ($5.22/metric ton). Total annual cost for
transport and spreading will be $3,114 of which $1,800 is amortized
capital cost and $1,314 is O&M. Applying the methodology to existing
WTP process equipment would add an annual amortized capital cost of
$8,300 and $1,500 O&M.
8.17.3 Landfilling
Plant operators propose to landfill the dewatered sludge on-site. Costs
estimated in design are $4,500 capital and $525 annual operating and
maintenance (Ref.
an annual cost of
amortized capital
VIII-9). If a 20-year life of the landfill is assumed,
$725 would be incurred of which $200 would be annual
cost and $525 is O&M. Applying the methodology to
existing WTP process equipment would add
cost of $8,300 and $1,500 O&M.
an annual amortized capital
Table 8-1 summarizes the total amortized annual capital costs and O&M
for all 18 plants.
8.18 REGIONALIZATION OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Experience in handling of residuals indicates that economics are usually
realized when larger volumes are handled-at one location rather than
smaller volumes at several. Because this may also be true with sludge
handling and disposal, four alternatives have been developed for possible
regional sludge handling and disposal: landfilling, barging to a land
reclamation site, land spreading, and centralized incineration.
Four transfer stations would service the mid-to-outlying areas of the
0-K-I Region. Transfer stations would serve three functions: 1) to
consolidate sludge from numerous plants in outlying areas; 2) to provide
large-volume dewatering facilities, with resultant processing cost
savings, and 3) to provide for transport of dewatered sludge on a volume
basis, with probable transport cost savings. The approximate proposed
locations and service areas of the transfer stations are shown in Figure
8-2.
First Regional Alternative: Landfill
In the first regional alternative, involving landfill, each transfer
station would dewater the sludge from plants in its vicinity and haul it
to the central landfill on Este Avenue. Since the Mill Creek WTP is
-------
Table 8-1. DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Land' Spread (Wet)
Plant
1) Hill Creek WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ultimate
disposal
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
see pg.
68 *
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum
filtration
Incineration
Transport (truck)
disposal0
Total cost of alternative
2) Little Miami
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disnosal
Total cost of alternative
3) Bromley WTP
Total cost c
Transport (truck)
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck!
Disposal
f alternative
Transport (truck!
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum flltratior
Incineration
Transport (truck
D1SDOsalc
_ Total cost of alternative
4) Middle town
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Gravity thickener
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
5) Franklin WTP
Transport (pipe)
(on-site)
Disposal6
Total cost of alternative
6) Muddy Creek
WTP
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
20 year capital8
cost
($1.000)
12,045.0
3,520.0
900.0
16,465.0
12,045.0
2,607.0
1,606.0
5,420.0
2,380.0
600.0
24,658.0
3,011.0
2,068.0
400.0
5.479.0
d 1,318.0
4,015.2
370.0
94.0
6,269.5
d 1,318.0
4,015.2
501.9
180.7
1,003.7
764.0
194.0
7,977.5
1,405.0
201,0
3,640.0
1,002.0
6,248.0
4.0
450.0
454.0
401.5
1,606.1
1,860.0
290.0
4,157.6
Annual capital
cost
($1,000)
602.2
176.0
45.0
823.3
602.3
130.0
80.3
271.0
119.0
30.0
1,232.6
150.5
103.4
20.0
273.9
65.9
200.7
18.5
4.7
289.8
65.9
200.7
25.1
9.0
50.2
38.2
9.7
398.8
70, 0
10.0
182.0
50.1
312.1
0.2
22.5
22.7
20.1
BO. 3
93.0
14.5
207.9
Annual 0 and M
cost
($1.000)
92.0
189.0
135.0
416.0
92
120
38
81
128
91
550
19
111.2
62.2
192. 4
70.8
8.0
19.8
14.1
112.7
70,8
8.0
11.0
5.0
14.0
41.1
29.2
179.1
10.0
10.0
195.0
153.0
368.0
3.4
67.7
71.1
10.0
90.0
100.0
43.5
243.5
Total annual
cost
($1,000)
694.5
365.0
•180.0
1,239.3
694
250
118
352
247
121
1,782.6
169.5
214.6
82.2
466.3
136.7
208. 7
38.3
18.0
402.5
136.7
208.7
36.1
14.0
64.2
79.3
38.9
577.9
80.0
20.0
377.0
•203.1
680.1
3.6
90.2
93.8
30.1
170.3
193.0
58.0
451.4
100
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Land Spread (Wet) (Cont.)
Plant
7) Hamilton WTP
Unit processes,
transportjtfon
and ultimate
disposal
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
8) Sycamore WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Gravity thickener
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
9) Oxford WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
10) Lawrenceburq
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
11) Bethel WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
12) New Richmonc
WTP
Digestion
(Aerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
13) Felicity WTP
Chemical treatroen
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
14) Mayflower
WTP
Digestion
(Aerobic)
Transport (truck]
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
15) SYSTECK
16) Dry Creek
WTP
Not applicable, •
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
17) LeSogrdsvil
WTP
e Digestion
(Aerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
0 year capital*
cost
($1.000)
1.606.0
1,032.0
192.0
2,830.0
200.0
200.0
158.0
50.0
608.0
200.0
6.0
4.0
210.0
3.412.0
1,730.0
418.0
5,560.0
200.0
28.0
12.0
. 240.0
200.0
40.0
20.0
260.0
200.0
4.0
2.0
206.0
200.0
40.0
20.0
260.0
>ludge 1s contribut
1,606.0
6,021.6
1,930.1
900.0
10,457.6
576.3
334.0
156.0
1,066.3
Annual capital
cost
($1.000)
80.3
51.6
9.6
141.5
10.0
10.0
7.9
2.5
30.4
10.0
0.3
0.2
10.5
170.6
86.5
20.9
278.0
10.0
1.4
0.6
' 12.0
10.0
0.2
0.1
10.3
10.0
0.2
0.1
10.3
10-0
0.2
0.1
10.3
ed in Franklin WTP
80.3
301.1
96.5
45.0
522.9
28.8
16.7
7.8
53.3
Annual 0 and M
cost
(SI .000)
11.0
55.5
28.9
95.4
10.0
10.0
8.5
7.4
35.9
10.0
0.3
0.6
10.9
24.0
92.9
62.7
l'<5.6
10.0
1.5
1.7
13.2
10.0
0.2
0.2
10.4
10.0
0.2
0.3
10.5
10.0
0.2
0.1
10.3
31.0
275.0
103.7
135.1
544.8
32.5
17.9
23.4
73.8
Total annual
cost
(41.000)
91.3
107.1
38.5
236.9
20.0
20.0
16.4
9.9
66.3
20,0
0.6
0.8
21.4
194.6
179.4
83.6
457.6
20.0
2.9
2.3
25.9
20.0
0.4
'0.3
20.7
20.0
0.4
0.4
20.8
20.0
0.4
0.2
20.6
111.3
576.1
200.2
180.1
1,067.7
61.3
34.6
31.2
127.1
101
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Land_jpread (Wet) (Cont.j
Alternative
18) Cleves Nor
Bend WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ultimate
disposal
th Digestion
(Aerobic)
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
20 year capital
cost
($1.000)
80.0
76.0
40.0 '
196.0
Annual capital
cost
(SI ,000)
4.0
3.8
2.0
9.8
Annual 0 and M
cost
(SI ,000)
1.0
4.1
6.9
11.0
Total annual
cost
($1,000)
5.0
7.9
7.9
20.8
Land Spread (Dry)
1) Hill Creek
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
2) Little Miami
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
V'ecuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
3) Bromley WTP
Transport
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
4) Middletown Vi
TP Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Gravity thickener
12,045.0
2.608.0
1,606.0
1,200.0
110.0
17,569.0
3.011.0
522.0
428.0
38.0
3,999.0
1,318.0
4.015.2
501 JO
180.7
128.0
12.0
6,155.8
1,405,0
201.0
Chemical treatment 441,6
Vacuum filtration 542.0
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
5) Franklin WTP
6) Muddy Creek
WTP
•»
Not applicable
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
244.0
54.0
2,887.6
401.5
1,606.1
401.5
320.0
28.0
2.757.1
602.0
130.4
80.3
60.0
5.5
878.5
150.5
26.1
21.4
1.9
199.9
65.9
200.7
25.1
9.0
6.4
0.6
307.7
70.0
10.0
22.1
27.1
12.2
2.7
144.1
20.1
80.3
20.0
16.0
1.4
137.8
92.0
1ZO.O
38.0
64,5
50.8
365.3
19.0
19.0
23.0
17.0
78.0
70.8
8.0
11.0
5.0
6.9
5.4
107.1
10.0
10.0
16.0
19.0
13.1
24.6
92.7
10.0
90.0
16.0
17.1
8.1
141.2
694.3
250.4
118.3
124.5
56.3
1,243.8
169.5
45.1
44.4
18.9
277.9
136.7
208.7
36.1
14.0
13.3
6.0
411.8
80.0
20.0
38.1
46.1
25.3
27.3
236.8
. 30.1
170.3
36.0
33.1
9.5
279.0
102
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
land Spread (Dry) (Cont.j
Plant
7) Hamilton WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ultimate
disposal
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
8) Sycamore WTP
9) Oxford WTP
10) Lawrenceburg
WTP
Not appl (cable
Not applicable
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
11) Bethel WTP
12) New Richmond
WTP
13) Felicity WTP
14) Mayflower WTP
15) SYSTECH
16) Dry Creek WTP
Not appl icable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable, •
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
17) LeSourdsville
WTP
Digestion
(Aerobic)
20 year capital*
cost
($1,000)
1,606.0
321.2
60.0
22.0
2,009.2
200.0
200.0
8.0
14.0
422.0
ludge Is contribute
1,606.0
6,021.6
.1.405.2
468.0
82.0
9,682.8
576.3
Concentration tank 66.7
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
18) Cleves North
Bend WTP
Digestion
(Aerobic)
Centrifugatlon
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
86.0
28.0
757.0
80.0
85.0
8.0
28.0
201.0
Annual capital
. cost
($1.000)
80.3
16.1
3.0
1.1
100.5
10.0
10.0
0.4
0.7
21.1
d to Franklin HTP
80.3
301.1
70.3
23.4
4.1
479.2
28. 8
3.3
4.3
1.4
37.8
4.0
4.3
0.4
1.4
10.0
Annual 0 and M
cost
($1,000)
11.0
14.0
3.2
8.1
36.3
10.0
10.0
0.5
0.5
21.0
31.0
275.0
35.0
25.2
42.5
408.7
32.5
3.0
4.6
8.7
48.8
1.0
0.5
0.4
1.0
2.9
Total annual
cost
($1.000)
91.3
30.1
6.2
9.2
136.8
20.0
20.0
0.9
1.2
42.1
111.3
576.1
105.3
48.6
46.6
§87.9
61.3
6.3
8.9
10.1
86.6
5.0
4.8
0.8
2.4
13.0
landfllUnq
1) Mill Creek
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
2) Little Miami
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
12,045.0
2,608.0
1,606.0
632.0
3.056.0
19,947.0
3,011.0
522.0
172.0
1,034.0
4.739.0
602.?
130.4
80.3
31.6
152.8
997.4
150.5
26.1
8.6
51.7
236.9
92.0
120.0
38.0
34.0
458.3
742.3
19.0
19.0
9.2
155.2
202.4
694.3
150.4
118.3
65.6
611.1
1.639.7
169.5
45.1
17.8
206.9
439.3
103
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Landf11 ling (Cent.;
Plant
3) Bromley WTP
Unvt processes,
transportation
and ultimate
disposal
Transport
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
4) Middletown WTP
Total cost o
5) Franklin WTP
6) Muddy Creek
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Gravity thickener
Chemical treatment
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
f alternative
Not applicable
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
7) Hamilton WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
8) Sycamore WTP
9) Oxford WTP
10) Lawrenceburg
WTP
Not applicable
Not applicable
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
11) Bethel WTP
12) New Richmond
WTP
13) Felicity WTP
14) Mayflower WTP
15) SVSTECH
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
20 year capital
cost
($1,000)
1,318.0
4,013.2
501.9
180.7
68.0
326.0
6,409.8
1.405.0
201.4
441.6
542.0
244.0
1.478.0
4,312.0
401.5
1,606.1
401.5
268.0
482.0
3,159.1
1,606.0
321.2
40.0
482.0
2,449.2
200.0
200.0
8.0
52.0
460.')
Annual capital
Cast
($1.000)
65.9
200.8
25.1
9.0
3.4
16.3
320.5
70.0
10.0
22.1
27.1
12.2
73.9
215.3
20.1
80.3
20.0
13.4
24.1
157.9
80.3
16.1
2.0
24.1
122.5
10.0
10.0
0.4
2.6
23.0
Annual 0 and M
cost
($1,000)
70.1
8.0
11.0
5.0
3.6
48.8
146.5
10.0
10.0
16.0
19.0
13.1
221.7
289.8
10.0
90.0
16.0
14.5
72.4
202.9
11.0
14.0
2.1
72.4
99.5
10.0
10.0
0.5
7.8
28.3
Nut applicable, sludge 1s contributed to Franklin WTP
Total annual
cost
($1,000)
136.0
208.8
36.1
14.0
7.0
65.1
467.0
80.0
20.0
38.1
46.1
25.3
295.6
505.1
30.1
170.3
36.0
27.9
.96.5
360.8
91.3
30.1
4.1
96.5
222.0
10.0
20.0
0.9
10.4
41.3
104
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Ldndfining (Cont.)
Plant
16) Dry Creek WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ul timate
disposal
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Vacuum filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
Air floatation
Heat treatment
Vacuum filtration
Incineration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
17) LeSourdsville
WTP
Digestion
(Aerobic)
Concentration tanl
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
18) Cleves North
Bend UTP
Digestion
(Aerobic)
Centrifugation
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
20 year capital*
cost
($1.000)
1,606.0
6,021.6
1,405.2
468.0
2,562.0
12,062.8
1,605.0
6,021.6
1,405.2
5,219.5
64.0
344.0
14,660.3
576.3
66.7
86.0
40.0
769.0
80.0
85.0
Annual capital
cost
(SI ,000)
80.3
301.1
70.3
23.4
128.1
603.2
80.3
301.1
70.3
260.9
3.2
'17.2
733.0
28.8
3.3
4.3
2.0
38.4
4.0
4.3
On-slte; transport cost minimal
4.0
169.0
0.2
8.5
Annual 0 and M
cost
(51.000)
31.0
275.0
35,0
25.2
384.3
750.5
31.0
275.0
35.0
75.0
3.4
51.7
471.1
32.5
3.0
4.6
5.6
45.7
1 0
0.5
Total annual
cost
($1,000)
111.3
576.1
105,3
48.6
512.4
1,353.7
111.3
576.1
105.3
335.9
6.6
68.9
1,204.1
61 3
6.3
8.9
7.6
84.1
5 0
4.8
and included in disposal cost
0.5
2.0
0.7
10.5
Disposal Pond
Plant
1) Mill Creek
WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ultimate
disposal
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum filtration
Incineration
Transport (pipe;
on-site)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
2) Little Miami
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Vacuum filtration
Incineration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
20 year capital*
cost
($1.000)
12,045.0
2,607.0
1,606.0
5,420.0
4.0
180.0
21,862.0
3,011.0
522.0
1.766.0
236.0
130.0
5,665.0
Annual capital
cost
($1,000)
602.3
130.0
80.3
271.0
0.2
9.0
1.092.C
150.5
26.1
88.3
11.8
6.5
283.2
Annual 0 and M
cost
($1,000)
92.0
120.0
38.0
81,0
3,4
26.9
361.3
19,0
19.0
30.0
12.7
100.3
Total annual
cost
($1.000)
694.3
250 0
118.3
352.0
3 6
35.9
1,454.1
169,5
45.1
118.3
24.5
26 1
383.5
105
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Disposal Pond (Cont.)
Plant
3) Bromely WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ul tiir.ate
disposal
Transport**
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Chemical
conditioning
Vacuum filtration
Incineration
Transport (truck)
Disposal0
Total cost of alternative
4) Mlddletown
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Gravity thickener
Vacuum filtration
Incineration
Transport (pipe;
on-site)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
5) Franklin WTP
Transport (truck)
Disposal6
Total cost of alternative
6) Muddy Creek
WTP
Air floatation
Vacuum filtration
Incineration
Transport (pipe;
on-site)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
7) Hamilton WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck]
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
8) Sycamore
9) Oxford WTP
Not applicable
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport
Disposal
•Total cost of alternative
10) Lawrenceburg
WTP
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transport (truck
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
11) Bethel WTP
12) New Richmond
WTP
13) Felicity WTP
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
0 year capi tala
cost
(M.ooo)
1,318.0
4.015.2
501.9
180.7
1.003.7
6.0
58.0
7.083.5
1,405.0
201.0
542.0
1,806.7
4.0
50.0
. 4,008.7
1,128.0
134.0
1,262.0
401.5
401.5
1,365.2
4.0
46.0
2,218.2
1.606.0
516.0
58.0
2.180.0
200.0
6.0
2.0
20H.O
3,412.0
1,730.0
124.0
5,266.0
Annual capital
cost
(51,000)
65.9
200.7
25.1
9.0
50.2
0.3
2.9
354.1
70.0
10.0
27.0
90.0
0.2
2.5
199.7
56.4
6.7
63.1
20.1
20.0
6B.3
0.2
2.3
110.9
80.3
25.8
2.9
109.0
10.0
0.3
0.1
10.4
170.6
86.5
6.2
263.3
Annual 0 and M
cost
($1,000)
70.8
8.0
11.0
5.0
14.0
0.8
8.6
118.2
10.0
10.0
19.0
32.0
3.4
7.6
82.0
60.6
20.1
80.7
10.0
16.0
23.0
3.4
6.9
59.3
11.0
27.7
8.6
47.3
10.0
0.3
0.2
10.5
24.0
92.9
18.6.
135.5
Total annual
cost
($1.000)
136.7
208.7
36.1
14.0
64.2
1.1
11.5
472.3
80.0
20.0
46.0
112.0
3.6
10.1
271.7
117.0
26.8
143.8
30.1
36.0
91.3
3.6
•9.2
170.2
91.3
53.5
11.5
156.3
20.0
0.6
0.3
20.9
194.6
179.4
24.8
398.8
106
-------
Table 8-1 (Cont.). DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR 0-K-I SAMPLE PLANTS
Disposal Pond (Cont.]
PUnt.
14) Mayflower WTP
15) SYSTECH
16) Dry Creek WTP
17) LeSourdsville
WTP
18) Cleves North
Bend WTP
Unit processes,
transportation
and ul tirr.ate
disposal
Not applicable
20 year capital*
cost
(tl.OOO)
Annual capital
cost
($1,000)
Not applicable, sludge Is contributed to Franklin WTP
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Annual 0 and M
cost
(51, 000)
Total annual
cost
($1,000)
a Amortized over 20 years at 81 level debt service.
Digestion process can be eliminated, thus resulting in savings 1n annual 04M costs. In addition.
the incineration process will kill most pathogens.
c Disposal of slurried incinerator ash.
^ Transport of raw sludge from Bromley WTP to Mill Creek WTP.
c Disposal of raw Industrial sludge.
Disposal of dry incinerator ash.
The mean costs were utilized In calculations rather than the ranges given 1n the text for landfilling
and disposal ponds.
107
-------
._ two to _
4
036 mil.. ^~'\,/
TRANSFER STATION BOUNDARY
O TRANSFER STATION LOCATION
Figure 8-2. Possible transfer station location
and service areas.
108
-------
well established and now vacuum filters sludges in volumes similiar to
those of the proposed transfer stations, the Mill Creek plant could
operate essentially as its own transfer station. Average round trip
hauling distances from treatment plants to transfer stations and from
transfer stations to the landfill are listed in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2. AVERAGE HAULING DISTANCES, REGIONAL LANDFILL
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill Creek
WTP
Average round trip
hauling distance
to transfer station,
miles (km)
28' (44)
24 (38)
28 (44)
20 (32)
not applicable
Round trip of
distance from
transfer station
to Este Ave. landfill ,
miles (km)
30 (48)
20 (32)
32 (52)
34 (54)
16 (26)
Each transfer station would be required to vacuum-fil ter daily the
sludge generated in its service area. Table 8-3 lists the approximate
daily volumes of sludge (3.5 percent solids assumed) that would be
vacuum-filtered at each transfer station and the resulting volumes of
filter cake (30 percent solids assumed).
Table 8-3. REGIONAL VOLUMES OF SLUDGE AND FILTER CAKE
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill Creek
WTP
Daily volumes of
sludge to be filtered,
wet tons (metric tons)
1975
366 (332)
329 (299)
700 (636)
806 (732)
455 (413)a
1995
557 (506)
489 (444)
1,054 (957)
Daily volumes of
filter cake produced,
wet tons (metric tons)
1975
43 (39)
38 (34)
82 (74)
1,208 (1,097) 94 (85)
1,783 (1,619) 138 (125)
1995
65 (59)
57 (52)
123 (112)
141 (128)
208 (189)
9.1 percent solids.
109
-------
Estimated amortized capital and annual operation and maintenance costs
for the vacuum filters are given in Table 8-4. Because no sludge trans-
fer station is now in operation, cost data are not available. Since the
stations would be similar in principle to transfer stations for solid
wastes, capital costs of solid waste transfer stations are entered in
the tabulation to indicate the order of magnitude of costs of construc-
ting the sludge transfer stations.
Estimated costs of hauling (wet basis) from the treatment plants to the
transfer station and of hauling dewatered sludge from the transfer
stations to the landfill are given in Table 8-5.
Cost of landfilling would be approximately $1-2.00 to $15.00 per wet ton
($13.22 to $16.52/metric ton) of filter cake. With total daily cake
generation in 1995 of 594 wet tons (539 metric tons), a mean annual cost
of landfilling would be $2,926,935 of which $731,700 is annual amortized
capital and $2,195,235 is O&M. Table 8-9 delineates the total annual
amortized capital and O&M for this alternative.
Second Regional Alternative: Barging To Land Reclamation Sites
The transfer stations could also be utilized to consolidate sludge that
would be barged down the Ohio River for use in land reclamation at a
mining site in Daviess County, Kentucky. Hauling distances from transfer
stations to barge facilities and the respective costs are listed in
Table 8-6.
Dock and loading facilities would have to be located and constructed.
Complete costs for constructing such a facility are unknown. An estimated
cost for the installation of five docking cells is $40,000 per cell or a
total of $200,000 (Ref. VIII-7). This is only a partial cost, however,
since other items of cost would be loading and unloading equipment, road
access, annual operation and maintenance, and preparation of impact
statements required for such an undertaking. A rough estimate of towing
costs for the 500-mile round trip (800 km) is $15.00 per mile (1.6
km)(Ref. VIII-4). Sixty-four trips per year would be required, totaling
32,000 miles (51,200 km), or $480,000 in barging fees of which $120,000
is annual amortized capital and $360,000 is O&M. Reclamation procedures
are estimated at 1.22 per wet ton ($1.34/metric ton) of filter cake or
an annual cost of reclamation of $264,508 of which $21,900 is annual
amortized capital and $242,608 is O&M (Ref. VIII-10,11). Table 8-9
delineates the total annual amortized capital and O&M for this alternative.
Third Regional Alternative; Land Spreading
The four regional transfer stations could possibly be utilized to consoli-
date and dewater wastewater treatment plant sludges before transport to
a regional dry land spreading site. As stated earlier, an average of
594 wet tons (539 metric tons) of filter cake (30 percent solids) would
110
-------
Table 8-4. ESTIMATED COSTS OF REGIONAL TRANSFER STATIONS0
(values in dollars)
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill Creek
WTP
Capital cost of
vacuum filters'3
863,215
782,904
1,405,200
1,606,080
2,207,136
Annual O&M
for
vacuum filter3
26,000
25,000
36,000
39,000
48,000
Capital cost of
transfer station0
67,000
67,000
110,760
110,760
not applicable
Total annual
costd
72,511
67,495
111,798
124,842
158,357
Transfer stations designed to accommodate 1995 daily sludge generation.
Capital costs include either continuous belt or drum type filter, housing,
pumps, and equipment for chemical conditioning and biological treatment of
the effluent (Ref.' VIII-4).
c Amortized at 8% over 20 years level debt service (Ref. VIII-5).
Total annual cost = capital cost of vacuum filter/20 yr. life +
capital cost of transfer station/20 yr. life + annual O&M for vacuum filter.
-------
Table 8-5. ESTIMATED HAULING COSTS FOR REGIONAL LANDFILL1
(values in dollars)
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill Creek
WTP
Total
Cost of
hauling from WTP's
to transfer station" per
wet ton (metric ton)
1.82 (2.00)
1.68 (1.86)
1.82 (2.00)
1.54 (1.70)
1
not applicable
Cost of hauling
from transfer
station to landfill per
wet ton (metric ton)
1.07 (1.18)
0.85 (0.94)
1.07 (1.18)
1.07 (1.18)
0.85 (0.94)
Total annual
transport costs
395,401
317,539
748,210
734,085
64,532
2,259, 767e
Estimated using 1995 daily sludge generation rate.
Ref. VIII-4.
Ref. VIII-5.
Includes cost of round trip.
Includes cost of round trip.
d Total annual transport costs = (Round trip hauling costs per wet ton from
WTP's to transfer stations x wet tons of sludge (3.5 percent solids)
generated per day x 365 days) + (Round trip hauling cost per wet ton
of filter cake from transfer station to disposal site x wet tons of filter
cake (30.0 percent solids) generated per day x 365 days).
e Of this total 1,089,208 is annual amortized capital and 1,170,559 is O&M.
-------
Table 8-6. COSTS OF HAULING TO RIVERFRONT FOR REGIONAL BARGING9
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill Creek
WTP
Total
Round trip
mileage from
transfer station to
river front,
miles (km)
44 (70)
6 (10)
46 (74)
32 (54)
6 (10)
Cost of transport,
waiting, and
off-loading,
$/wet ton ($/metric ton)
1.07 (1.18)
0.64 (0.70)
1.07 (1.18)
1.07 (1.18)
0.64 (0.70)
Total annual0
transport cost,
dollars
395,401
313,170
748,210
734,085
48,589
2,239,455d
Estimated using 1995 daily sludge generation rates.
Ref. VIII-5. Includes round trip costs.
c
Total cost includes transport from wastewater treatment plants to transfer
stations and from transfer station to riverfront facilities.
Of this total 1,079,400 is annual amortized capital and 1,160,055
is O&M.
113
-------
be generated per day in 1995 at the four transfer stations and Mill
Creek WTP. This is equal to 216,810 wet tons (196,863 metric tons) per
year. A safe long-term application rate of 33 to 66 wet tons per acre
per year (74 to 148 metric tons/hectare/yr.) would require 3285 to 6570
acres per year (1331 to 2663 hectare/yr)(Ref. VI11-4). Dearborn County,
Indiana, is projected to remain mostly rural and could probably afford
the largest single tract of land required for spreading of the filter
'cake. Access to Dearborn County would be via Interstate 74. As stated
earlier, the soils, hydrology characteristics, and slopes in this area
appear acceptable for land spreading of filter cake.
Table 8-7 lists average transport distances and costs. Costs include
time for travel, waiting, and off-loading (Ref. VIII-5).
The filter cake would be dumped onto the land surface, and then mixed
into the soil by disking. Cost of spreading is estimated at $1.18 per
wet ton ($1.30/metric ton) of filter cake or an annual cost of spreading
of $255,836. Of the total $21,175 is annual amortized capital and
$234,661 is O&M. Total annual amortized capital and O&M costs are
delineated in Table 8-9.
All three of the regional alternatives thus far discussed require
consideration of how and where to store the filter cake during periods
of waiting for barge service or during inclement weather that prohibits
landfill ing or land spreading. It is assumed that barges would be
available on a regular basis and that the docking facilities would
provide the limited storage capacity required during periods of waiting
for barge service. Inclement weather, however, may prevent either
landfill ing and land spreading for extended periods of time. It is
recommended that instead of providing for storage during these periods
the filter cake be incinerated at the incinerators now operating in the
0-K-I region. The present incinerator capacity in the 0-K-I region is
sufficient to handle daily filter cake generation up to the year 1995.
Therefore, this presents a possible fourth regional alternative.
Fourth Regional Alternative; Centralized Incineration
Utilization of the four regional transfer stations to consolidate and
dewater wastewater treatment plant sludges prior to transport to a
regional incineration center should also be considered. Mill Creek WTP
has several assets which would make it advantageous to serve as the
incineration center. It is centrally located in the 0-K-I area and is
easily accessible by major trafficways. Mill Creek WTP also has four
incinerators, each having a capacity of 200 wet tons (182 metric tons)
per day, or a total capacity of 800 wet tons (728 metric tons) per day.
This capacity is sufficient to handle not only the present daily genera-
tion of 395 wet tons (359 metric tons) of filter cake, but also the
projected 1995 daily sludge generation of 594 wet tons (539 metric tons)
114
-------
Table 8-7. COSTS OF TRANSPORT TO LAND SPREADING SITE
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill Creek
WTP
Total
Distance
round trip,
miles (km)
58 (92)
70 (112)
84 (134)
92 (148)
76 (122)
Transport cost,b
$/wet ton (metric ton)
1.91 (2.10)
2.12 (2.33)
2.54 (2.80)
2.75 (3.03)
2.33 (2.57)
Daily filter
cake generation,
wet ton (metric ton)
43 (39)
38 (35)
82 (74)
94 (85)
138 (125)
Total annual
transport cost,
dollars
415,330
343,962
814,205
820,546
176,894
p
2,570,937°
Costs include hauling from WTP's to transfer stations plus transport from transfer
station to land spreading site. Transport by 15-ton (13.6 metric ton) trucks is
assumed. Estimates derived using 1995 daily sludge generation rates.
Ref. VIII-5; includes round trip costs.
c
°-f no!5 total S1'239'200 1s annual amortized capital cost and $1,331J37
is O&M.
-------
of filter cake. Costs of transporting the sludge from the various WTP's
to the transfer stations has been listed in Table 8-5. Hauling distances
and costs from the transfer stations to Mill Creek WTP are listed in
Table 8-8.
Capital cost of an open hearth incinerator is estimated at $16,060,000
amortized at 8 percent over 20 years (Ref. VIII-4). Annual operating
and maintenance costs are estimated at $240,000 (Ref. VIII-4). The
incineration process will generate an estimated 722,707 wet tons (656,218
metric tons) per year of slurried ash (7.5 percent solids). It is
recommended that this slurried ash from the scrubbers be deposited in
the ash lagoon on-site. Periodically the lagoon could be cleaned of the
ash (25 percent solids assumed) and the ash hauled to the landfill
located on Este Ave. An estimated 216,810 wet tons (196,863 metric
tons) of lagoon ash would have to be landfilled on an annual basis.
Capital cost of lagooning is estimated to range from $0.04 to $0.13 per
wet ton ($0.04 to $0.14/metric ton) of slurried ash. Operating and
maintenance costs are estimated to range from $0.10 to $0.37 per wet ton
($0.11 to $0.41/metric ton) of ash slurry (Ref. VIII-4). Cost of truck
transport of the lagoon ash to the landfill is estimated at $1.45 per
wet ton (1.60/metric ton)(Ref. VIII-5). Cost of disposal at the landfill
is estimated at $12.00 to $15.00 per wet ton ($13.22 to $16.52/metric
ton) of lagoon ash (Ref. VIII-6). Table 8-9 delineates the total annual
amortized capital and O&M costs that would be incurred by operating a
regional incineration system for wastewater treatment plant sludges in
the 0-K-I area.
8.19 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Responsibilities for sludge management in the 0-K-I region are currently
fragmented among various sewer districts, and are in some cases further
dispersed within these districts. Much more efficient and economical
operations can be achieved by reorganization to provide for management
on a regional basis or on a subregional basis through two or more of the
larger sewer districts. Ideally, direction for formulation of new
institutional arrangements will come from the designated 208 planning
agency (0-K-I) and the arrangements will coincide with over-all wastewater
management in the region. The following sections deal with possible
mechanisms for region-wide sludge management and for financing of sludge
disposal/recovery operations.
8.19.1 Organizing ST_udge_'Management
As discussed earlier in Section 3.3, numerous sewer districts are now
operating in the 0-K-I area (Ref. VIII-1). As the only operating agencies
responsible for wastewater treatment and sludge management, these districts
must be involved in any program for improvement of sludge management.
The current fragmented approach probably precludes development of more
116
-------
Table 8-8. COST OF HAULING TO MILL CREEK WTP FOR
REGIONAL INCINERATION
Transfer
station
1
2
3
4
Mill
Creek
WTP
Total
Round trip mileage
from transfer station
to Mill Creek WTP,
miles (km)
40 (64)
10 (16)
42 (68)
42 (68)
0 ( 0)
Cost of transport,3
waiting, and
off-loading,
$/wet ton ($/metric ton)
1.07 (1.18)
0.64 (0.70)
1.07 (1.18)
1.07 (1.18)
0.00 (0.00)
Total annual
transport cost,
dollars
259,928
210,620
497,035
489,765
0
1,457,348°
Ref. VIII-5.
Total cost includes transport from wastewater treatment plants
to transfer stations and from transfer station to Mill Creek
WTP.
Of this total $702,400 is annual amortized capital costs and
$754,948 is O&M.
117
-------
Table 8-9. DISPOSAL COST SUMMARY FOR THE 0-K-I
FOUR REGIONAL DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Landfill
Unit processes,
transportation
and ul timate
disposal
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transfer stations
and vacuum
filtration
Transport (trucks)
Disposal^
Total cost of alternative
Barging to land
Reclamation
Site
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transfer stations
and vacuum
filtration
Transport (trucks)
Transport (barge)
Reclamation
Total cost of alternative
Landspreading
Digestion
(Anaerobic)
Transfer stations
and vacuum
filtration
Transport (truck)
Disposal
Total cost of alternative
Incineration
Transfer station
and vacuum
filtration
Transport (truck)
Incineration
Disposal of ash
to landfill
ash lagponb
Transport of
ash (truck)
Landfill of ashb
Total cost of al ternative
20 year capital
cost
($1,000)
12,648.0
7,220.0
21,784.0
14,635.0
56,287.0
12,648.0
7,220.0
21,588.0
2,400.0
438.0
44,294.0 -
12,648.0
7,220.0
24,784.0
424.0
45,076.0
7,220.0
14,048.0
16,060.0
1,228.0
3,032.0
14,634.0
56.222,0
Annual capital
cost
($1,000)
632.4
361.0
1,089.2
731.7
2,814.3
632.4
361. 0
1,079.4
120.0
21.9
2,214.7
632.4
361.0
1,239.2
21.2
2,253.8
361.0
702.4
803.0
61.4
151.6
731.7
2.811.1
Annual 0 and M
cost
($1,000)
85.0
126.0
1,170.6
2,195.2
3,576.8
85.0
126.0
1.160.1
360.0
242.7
1.973.8
85.0
126.0
1,331.7
234.6
1,777.3
126.0
754.9
240.0
169.8
162.8
2,195.2
3,648.7
Total annual
cost
( $1 ,000)
717.4
487.0
2,259.8
2,926.9
6,391.1
717.4
487.0
2,239.5
480.0
264.6
4,188.5
717.4
487.0
2,570.9
255.8
4,031.1
487.0
1,457.3
1,043.0
231.2
314.4
2,926.9
6,459.8
Amortized at 8X over 20 year level debt service.
Mean costs of the ranges as stated in text utilized to determine the annual costs.
118
-------
cost-effective operations, more efficient disposal options, or regional-
scale recovery and reclamation techniques. Reorganization would require
commitment to change by the operating sewer districts and will necessarily
entail intergovernmental arrangements (Ref. VIII-2).
The main intergovernmental mechanisms for consideration for policy
makers include: (1) joint operation of sludge collection, transfer, and
disposal/utilization by two or more sewer districts; (2) provision of
these services on a contractual basis by one sewer district to all
others in the 0-K-I area; and (3) an overall operating district super-
vised by a board of directors with day-to-day operation delegated to a
manager and staff. Alternative (3) involves creation of yet another
single-purpose governmental entity, which in itself may not be cost
effective (Ref. VIII-3). On the other hand, dissolution of all existing
sewer districts in the 0-K-I area and subsequent merging into a single
umbrella sewer district would be an ideal institutional arrangement.
Such an agency could conduct both wastewater treatment and sludge disposal
operations, providing simplified management and probably economies of
scale. Immediate implementation would be difficult, however, unless
concurrence among the area-sewer districts could be achieved quickly.
As options offering similar administrative and economic benefits,
alternatives (1) and (2) should be considered.
8.19.2 Enabling Legislation
In the states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, local units of government
and districts may agree under certain circumstances to perform various
public services jointly. Generally, agreements can be made to undertake
any functions and responsibilities that each unit could perform singly.
All three states have enabling legislation, as do most states, providing
that public agencies of a state may exercise powers and authorities
jointly with other public agencies of the state or public agencies of
other states. This legislation allows a broad range of interlocal
cooperation and exercise of powers. Typically these shared functions
include fire and police protection, hospital service, communications,
garbage collection and disposal, water service, wastewater treatment,
and waste management. Authorities are broad enough to enable sewer
districts in the 0-K-I area to implement joint agreements under the
following enabling provisions:
Indiana - Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ind.
Ann. Stat., Sec. 53:1101-07 (1957)
Kentucky - Interlocal Cooperation Act., Ky.
Rev. Stat., Sec. 65. 210-300 (1962)
119
-------
Ohio - Joint Municipal Improvement Act,
Ohio Rev. Code Tit. 7, Sec. 715-02
(1965)
In addition, the Ohio code has provisions that permit Boards of County
Commissioners to establish and operate garbage and refuse disposal
districts, (County Garbage, and Refuse Disposal Districts, Ohio Rev.
Code, Chap. 343). These districts must be financed by self-sustaining
modes, such as revenue bonds and user charges. This provision offers a
possible mechanism for regional transfer and land disposal of wastewater
sludges, perhaps in conjunction with municipal refuse management.
Formulation of a joint operating entity would require designation of a
service arm by all of the sewer districts under interlocal enabling
provisions of each state. This could be accomplished either by joint
establishment of an operating service with adequate financing, staff,
equipment, and facilities, or by joint authorization by all sewer
districts for one of its members to serve all of them under contract.
8.19.3 Financing
The financing techniques used by the individual sewer districts can be
applied to joint operations. User charges might be levied to cover
direct operations and to retire revenue bonds used to finance facilities
and equipment. Each sewer district would finance the joint operation on
a prorated basis depending upon level of service demanded, as determined,
for example, by amount of sludge delivered, transport costs, and amount
of dewatering required. The joint operation would in effect regionalize
costs and income for sludge management without requiring formation of a
new regional governmental entity. Some state financing also is legally
possible, particularly with regard to capital requirements to implement
a regional system. For example, in Ohio, the Water Development Authority
is authorized to award bond-generated funds for implementing wastewater
treatment and waste management facilities.
A source of funding to provide land for land spreading is authorized
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL92-
500) according to a Decision Memorandum issued by the EPA Administrator
in late 1975. Federal funds not to exceed 75 percent of land costs may
be available for eligible projects considered most cost effective. The
cost effectiveness test must precede the Federal funding and not be
dependent upon it. Funds can be used for land purchase, but not for
land preparation, access roads, buildings, equipment, operations and the
like. This funding source has potential for regional application using
a joint operating approach as well as for single plant systems. However,
the cost effectiveness test may be more easily met through a regional
approach.
120
-------
REFERENCES
VIII-1 Regional Sewage'Plan. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning
Authority, Cincinnati, Ohio. November 1971.
VIII-2 Intergovernmental Approaches to Solid Waste Management. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government Printing
Office. 1971. p. 17.
VIII-3 Developing a Local and Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Government Printing
Office. 1973. p. 29.
VIII-4 Wyatt, J.M., and P.E. White, Jr. Sludge Processing, Transporta-
tion, and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A Planning Perspective.
Engineering Science, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3104. April
1975.
VII1-5 Ridgewood Army Weapons Plant Evaluation and Resource Recovery
Feasibility Study. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
April 1975.
VIII-6 PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc. Company Files. 1975.
VIII-7 Personal Communications with local barge haulers. August
1975.
VlH-8 Personal communications with James Hinchberger. Sanitary
Engineering Department, Butler County, Hamilton, Ohio. August
1975.
VIII-9 Personal communciations with D. Stitt of M.M. Schirtzinger and
Associates, Ltd. Chillicothe, Ohio. October 1975.
VIII-10 McMichael, W.F. Cost of Hauling and Land Spreading of Domestic
Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge. National Environmental Research
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 1974. 5p.
VIII-11 Personal communication with Bob Sutton, Clermont County
Agricultural Extension Agent, Clermont County, Ohio; and
Edward Moeller, Local Farmer.
121
-------
VIII-12 Medcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1972. 782 p.
VIII-13 Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal. U.S,
Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Transfer. EPA
625/1-74-006. October 1974.
122
-------
Appendix A. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12a
13
14a
15
16*
County/Plant Name
Boone County, Kentucky
City of Florence
Kenton County Sanitation
District *1
Boone County
Burl Park
Little Denmark
Latonia Race Track
Big Bone Lick State Park
Burlington Service Area
Hebron Service Area
Gunpowder Creek Service Area
Walton Service Area
Butler County, Ohio
Middletown Service Area
Village of Monroe Service
Area
City of Hamilton Service
Area
City of Fairfield
Village of Oxford
Plant location
Rosetta Drive
Greater Cinti. Airport
Burlington
Route 18
Denmark Drive
Latonia Race Track
Big Bone Lick State Park
Burlington
Hebron
Gunpowder Creek West of
Florence
Needmore Street
300 Oxford State Road
Lawton Street
2451 River Road
Groh Lane
Juniper Hill Subdivision
Receiving
stream
So. Fork Gunpowder
Creek
Elijahs Creek
Aliens Fork
Aliens Fork
So. .Fork Gunpowder
Creek
Dry Creek
So. Fork Gunpowder
Creek
Aliens Fork
Upper Wool per Creek
So. Fork Gunpowder
Creek
Mudlick Creek
Great Miami River
Shaker Creek
Great Miami River
Pleasant Run
Four Mile
Design flow
-------
Appendix. A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24a
25
26
27
28
29
30
County/Plant Name
Butler County, Ohio
(Continued)
County Operated Systems
County Operated Systems
County Operated Systems
County Operated Systems
County Operated Systems
County Operated Systems
New Miami Plant
Lesourdsville Reg. Waste-
water Treatment
Lakota Hills STP
Brentwood Estate Sewage
Treatment
Hunting Creek Sewage Treat-
ment Plant
Dutchland Woods Sewage
• Treatment Plant
Greenview North Sewage
Treatment Plant
Millville Sewage Treatment
Plant
Plant location
Cinti. -Dayton Rd. & 1-75
Port Union
Normandy Heights Ravenna
Drive
Vanda Drive
Black Road
Bonham Road
Sipps Lane, New Miami
S.R. *4 at Lesourdsville
7375 Maud-Hughes Road
Union Township
Mindy Drive, Fairfield
Township
Princeton Pike, Liberty
Township
Hansbrinker Ct. , Liberty
Township
Hogue Road, Hanover
Township
Hanever/Ross Township
Receiving
stream
East Branch Mill
Creek
East Branch Mill
Creek
Great Miami River
Great Miami River
Indian Creek.
Four Mile
Great Miami River
Great Miami Rive •
Gregory Creek
Unnamed tributary of
Great Miami River
Hunts Creek, Gregory
Creek, Great Miami
River
Hunts Creek, Gregory
Creek, Great Miami
River
Four Mile Creek
Indian Creek
Desian flow
. (mgd)
0.25
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.12
N.A.
0.12
4.0
0.075
0.045
0.075
.080
0.07
N.A.
decree of
treat-sr.t
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Primary
ro
a Sa.-nple plants selected for case studies.
N.A. Implies information not available.
-------
Appendix A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
CO
- J
Plant No.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
County/Plant Name
Butler County, Ohio
(Continued)
Alamo Heights STP
Morris Hill Sewage Treat-
ment Plants
West Chester Woods Sewage
Treatment Plant
Southwestern Union Twp.
Arborcrest - Cloverdale
STP
Highland Greens STP
Lakota High School
Rolling Knolls STP
Gettysburg Estates Mobile
Home Park
Mill Run Farm STP
Woods Sewage Treatment
Campbell County, Kentucky
Crestview Sanitary District
No. 2
Brookwood Estates
Clermont County, Ohio
Halls Run (PUB Subdistrict)
Shayler Run (PUB Subdistrict
Vikir.g Village (PUB Sub-
district)
Plant location
Stahlneber Road & Jean
Drive, Hanover Twp.
Dust Commander Drive,
Fairfield Twp.
Barrett Road, Union
Township
Port Union
Princeton Pike & Liberty,
Fairfield Rd.
North of 1-75, Union Twp.
5050 Tylersville Rd . ,
West Chester
North of S.R. t42.
Union Twp.
8600 Columbus-Cincinnati
Rd. , West Chester
Tylersville Rd. l S.R.
»747, Union Twp.
Hickory-Hill Lane
Dodsworth Lane
Ky. 10 South of persimmon
grove intersection
Summerside Road
St. Route 132
Glenrose Lane
1 Receiving
stream
Two Mile Creek
Mill Creek
Branch of East Fork
of Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
East Fork of Kill
Creek
Unnamed tributary
of Mill Creek
Branch of Mill Creek
East Fork of Mill
Creek
Unnamed Branch of Mil]
Creek
East Fork
Uhl Creek
Brush Creek
Halls Run
Shayler Run
Dry Run
Design flow
(mgd)
0.027
0.10
0.15
0.052
0.06
0.25
0.04
0.0325
O.C3
0.07
o.:s
0.07
0.1
o.so
0.50
0.125
i
Degree of
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
-------
Appendix A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56a
57a
58
59
60
61
62
County/Plant Name
Clermont County, Ohio
(Continued)
Withamwoods (PUB Sub-
district)
Sumrr.erside (PUB Subdistrict)
Amelia-Batavia (PUB Sub-
district)
Miami System (KGS Sub-
district)
Owensville System (MGS Sub-
district)
Longfield Acres Subdivision
Mil ford
Batavia
Williamsburg
Bethel
New Richmond
Indian Lookout
Clermont County Sewer
District
Clermont County Sewer
District
Clermont County Sewer
District
Clermont County Sewer
District
Plant location
Winding Way
t>i_:!
-------
Appendix A (ccntinusu). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
63
64
65
€6
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75a
76
County /PI ant Name
Clermont County, Ohio
(Continued)
Village of Neville
Village of Newtonsville
Covmty-MG 3 Water Sub-
district
Wiliamsburg Sewage Plant
Eatavia Sewage Treatment
Plant
Amelia-Batavia Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Arrowhead Park Sewage
Treatment Plant
Stonelick Creek Sewage
Treatment Plant
Oak Knolls Estate Sewage
Treatment Plant
Goshen Schools Sewage
Treatment Plant
Gaslight Village Mobile
Home Park
PUB Water Subdistrict
Felicity Sewage Treatment
Plant
Hilltop Estates Mobile
Home ParX
Plant location
Neville U.S. 52
Newtonsville
By-pass 50 and 126,
Miamiville, Ohio
Williams burg
Haskell Lane, Batavia
Haskell Lane, Batavia •
Bridge St., Branch Hill
S.R. 132, North of
U.S. 50
Rolling Knolls Dr.,
Goshen Township
Goshen Road, Coshen
S.R. 28, Goshen
S.R. 749, New Richmond
Prather Road, Felicity
S.R. 132, New Richmond
Receiving
stream
Ohio River
Upper East Fork of
Little Miami River
Little Miami River
Little Miami River
East Fork Little
Miami
East Fork Little
Miami
Little Miami River
Stonelick Creek
Unnamed branch of
O'Bannon Creek
Tributary of O'Bar.non
Creek
O'Bannon Creek
Nine Mile Creek
Bear Creek
Fagin Run to Twelve-
Mile Drive
Design flow
(mgd)
0.03
0.04
0.60
0.25
0.150
1.2
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.4
0.20
0.03
Degree of
treat-er.t
Secondary
Secondary/
tertiary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Tertiary
Secondary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Secondary
Secondary
Tertiary
I
en
Sample plants selected for case studies.
-------
Appendix A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
77
78a
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86a
87
88a
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
County/Plant Name
Dearborn County, Indiana
Aurora Utilities
Lawrenceburg Utilities
Town of Dillsboro
Town of Moores Hill
So. Dearborn Regional
Sewer District
Bright
Lake Dilldear
Greendale Utilites
Hamilton County, Ohio
Harrison (Not MSD)
Cleves (Not MSD)
Shady Lane Park
Muddy Creek
Audubon Woods
West Fork Acres
White Oak Estates
Monfort Heights
Frontier Park
Brunswick Village
Oakhollow Estates
Colerain Heights
Plant location
Manchester Street
Durbin Road
Dillsboro
Moores Hill
West of Tanners Creek
and SO. of U.S. 50
Bright
U.S. 50 and Dearborn-
Ripley County Line
Probasco Avenue
Campbell Road
Harbor Drive
Quadrant Road
River Road
Race Road
Sombero Court
Jessop Road
Audro Drive
Tiniberpoint Drive
Benhill Drive
Oak Meadow Lane
Springdale Road
Receiving
stream
Hogan Creek
Ohio River
Laughery Creek
Hogan Creek
Tanners Creek
Miami -Whitewater
Laughery Creek
Tanners Creek
Whitewater
Ohio River
Ohio River
Ohio River
Taylor Creek
Taylor Creek
Briarly Creek
Taylor Creek
Taylor Creek
Briarly Creek
Briarly Creek
Blue Rock Creek
(mgd)
0.85
1.5
0.10
0.11
3.16
0.05
0.05
0.37
0.85
0.50
• 0.070
15.0
0.084
0.035
0.035
0.025
0. 048
0.035
0.033
0.180
Degree of
treatment
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Tertiary
Secondary
3>
t
Sample plants selected for case studies.
-------
Appendix A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plane No
97
98a
99
100
101a
102a
103
104a
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
County/Plant Nane
Hamilton County, Ohio
(Continued)
Northbrook
Mayflower Estates
Kingsbridge
Xempermill Village
Mill Creek
Little Miami
Glendale (Not MSD)
Sycamore
Loveland (Not MSD)
Loveland (Not MSD)
River Hills {Not MSD)
Wayside Hills
Four Mile
Watch Hill 5th
Cold Stream Farms
Britney Acres
Kountain Brood
Dry Run
Washing ton Hills
Viking Villape (MSD)
Taylor Creek
Plant location
Capstan Drive
Overdale Drive
John Gray Road
John Gray Road
1600 Gest St.
Kellogg & Wilmer
Sharon Road
Remington Road
Harper Avenue
E. Kemper Road
River Hills Drive
Shady Hollow Court
Kellogg
Bennett Road
Five Mile Road
Asbury Read
Pinecreek Drive
Forest Lake Drive
Senate Court
Glenrose Lane
Colerain Township
Receiving
stream
Blue Rock
Banklick
Pleasant Run
Pleasant Run
Ohio River
Ohio River •
Mill Creek
Sycamore Creek
Little Miami
Little Miami
Unnamed creek
Unnamed creek
Ohio River
Five Mile Creek
Five Mile Creek
Five Mile Creek
Eight Mile
Dry Run Creek
Dry Run Creek
Dry Run Creek
Great Miami River
Design flow
(mcd)
0.035
0.080
0.09
0.20
240
45.0
0.60
5.0
0.375
1.00
N.A.
0.023
0.50
0.017
0.026
0.15
0.0196
0.60
0.053
0.125
5.0
Degree of
trearr-.= .-.-
Secondary
Tertiary
Secondary
Tertiary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary/
tertiary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Tertiary
Secondary
Tertiary
Sample plants selected for case studies.
N.A. Implies information not available.
-------
Appendix A (continued). MASTEWATER TREATMfNT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plar.t No.
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
I
CO
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Cour.ty /Plant Name
Hamilton County, Ohio
(Continued)
Cleves
Westbrook Village Mobile
Home Park
Fox Run Mobile Home Park
Pleasant Run Jr. High
Pleasant Run Elementary
Oakview Estates
Millwood Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant
Commonwealth Park STP
Northeast Knolls STP
Kenton County, Kentucky
Quail Hollow
Summit Hills 12
Summit Hills *1
Pius Heights
Elsmere
Ft. Mitchell
Park Hills
Plant location
North Miami Ave.
Hamilton-Cleves Pike
825 Hamilton-Cleves Pike
1170 Pipin Road
11765 Hamilton Ave.
7581 Appleridge Court
11256 Brookridge Dr.
7308 Eglington Court
Sycamore Township
Lakeside Park of U.S. 25
Dudley Pike and Ky. 17
Intersection
Dudley Pike
Dudley Pike
Turkeyfoot Road
Dixie Highway
Hollow Road (Ky. 1072)
-
Receiving
stream
Great Miami River
Roadside ditch to
unnamed tributary
of Great Miami
Ditch tributary to
Great Miami
Unnamed Creek
Pleasant Run Creek
Steel Creek
North Branch Creek
Branch of Clough
Creek
Sharon Creek
Unnamed tributary of
Horse Branch Creek
Banklick Creek
Banklick Creek
Bullock Pen Creek
Bullock Pen Creek
Unnamed tributary
of Pleasant Run
Creek
Unnamed tributary
of Pleasant Run
Creek
Design flow
(mgd)
0.41
0.05
0.04
0.0032
0.015
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.022
0.02 <15
0.03 (2)
0.06
0.15
0.08
1.08
0.125
0.18
Degree of
trea—er.-
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Secondary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Tertiary
Secondary
Secondary/
tertiary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
-------
Appendix A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
134a
135*
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143a
144
14S
146
County/Plant Name
Kenton County, Kentucky
(Continued)
Bromley
Dry Creek
Ohio County, Indiana
Rising Sun Utilities
Warren Countv, Ohio
Lebanon
Mason
Mason
South Lebanon
Springboro
Waynesville
Miami Conservatory
District
Knoilbrook Meadows
Lebanon-Eeerfield Sewer
District
Waynesville Sewage Treat-
ment Plant
==========
Plant location
Ky. 8 at Bromley
High Water Road
State Route 56
Glosser Road
Main Street
Brookview Drive
Mason Road
Lower Springboro Rd.
Route 73
Franklin
S.R. 122
Onion Road, Monroe
S. Water Street
Receiving
stream
Ohio River
Dry Creek
Ohio River
Turtle Creek
Muddy Crock
Muddy Creek
Dry Run
Clear Creek
Little Miami
Great Miami River
Dick's Creek
Shaker Creek
Little Miami River
Design flow
(mgd)
40.0
30
0.18
0.75
0.75
N.A.
0.03
0.60
0.20
23.0
0.07
0.50
0.4
Degree of
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
N.A.
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Sample plants selected for case studies.
N.A. Implies information not available.
-------
Appendix A (continued). WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES IN 0-K-I REGION
Plant No.
147
148
149
150
lil
152
153
154
155*
156
157
158
County /Plant Name
Warren County, Ohio
(Continued)
(Proposed) Southwest Warren
County Regional
Hami Iton-Deer field
Harlan-East Fork Water
System
Lebanon Correctional Inst.
Warren County Garage and
Office Bldg. Sewage
Treatment Plant
Kings Mills Subdistrict
STP
Viking Village STP
Deerfield-Hamilton Plant
Franklin (Systech)
Harveysburg Treatment
Plant
Mason- South Lebanon
Morrow Treatment Plant
Plant location
Deerfield Township
Striker Road
Pleasant Plain
S.R. 63
105 Markey Road
Deer field Township
Glen Rose Lane
Franklin, Ohio
Harvey sburg, Ohio
Kings Mills, Ohio
Morrow, Ohio
Receiving
stream
Muddy Creek
Little Miami River
Little Miami River
ShaXer Creek
Tributary to Turtle
Creek
Little Miami River
Dry Run
Deer f ield-Hami 1 ton
Great Miami
Caesar Creek
Muddy Creek
Central Little Miami
River
Design flow
-------
APPENDIX B TREATMENT PLANT CASE STUDIES
B.I MILL CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-l)
The Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, the largest plant in the
0-K-I Region, is operated by the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) of
Greater Cincinnati. It is located on Gest Street in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The plant serves the greater part of the residential and commercial
sections of the city together with the industrialized Mill Creek Valley,
which houses a large variety of industries, both in size and type of
manufacturing operation. Some of the major industries that contribute
significantly to the load of the treatment plant are chemical processors,
metal fabrication, food processors, and electronics. Very few indus-
tries pretreat wastewaters in any way, and it is generally not known
what kind of pretreatment, if any, is performed. Currently, the plant
provides only primary treatment, but construction is well underway to
expand the facility to provide secondary treatment by 1977.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 120 mgd
(456,000 m3/d)
Design flow 240 mgd
(with secondary treatment) (912,000 m3/d)
Current population served 500,000
Design population Stable
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-l)
Wastewater from the Mill Creek interceptor and the Ohio River inter-
ceptor sewers pass through bar screens spaced 3 inches apart. The
objects caught in the bars are mechanically raked off, ground into small
pieces, and returned to the wastewater. Objects that cannot be ground
are removed and disposed of in a landfill.
The wastewater then flows into a wet well, from which it is pumped into
a prechlorination chamber. All raw waste is prechlorinated to destroy
odor-producing compounds. Prior to primary clarification, the waste-
water flows into a grit chamber. The clarified effluent is postchlo-
rinated and discharged into the Ohio River.
When secondary treatment facilities are completed, the effluent from the
primary clarifier will flow into aeration tanks and then into secondary
settling tanks. The effluent will be postchlorinated and discharged
into the Ohio river.
B-l
-------
CO
I
r\i
PROPOSED FACILITY ADDIT
r~
AERATION
f
1
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
RETURN ACTIV/
««
THICKENED
r--
1
1
1
I
*
•V- AN.AEfiO
1 \ DIGbSII
TOAW SLUDGE*
i — ' .
GRIT CHAMBER
1
PRE-
CHLORIHATION
GRIT TO
LANDFILL
f
BAR SCREEN
SCREENINGS ^
TO LANDFILL
t
RAW WASTE
SECONDARY
SETTLING
TANK
POST
CHLORINATION
SLUDGE
-
CHEMICAL
CONDITIONING
.NCINERATOR
ASH TO
FIIIRATE RETURI^
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
Figure B-l. Flow diagram for Mill Creek wastewater treatment plant.
-------
Solids Handling
Daily production of raw sludge at 5 percent solids totals 1,987 wet tons
(1804 metric tons).
Anaerobic Digestors
•3
Ten digester tanks, each of 2.33 million gallons (8,820 m ) capacity are
provided. Currently six tanks are in operation; each tank is loaded at
80,000 to 90,000 gallons (304 to 342 m3) per day, with an average de-
tention time of 25 days. The digesters produce an average of 1.2
million cubic feet (34,000m3) of gas per day. The plant has no facil-
ity for storage of this gas, but 1t is used in the plant for the pro-
duction of power and in the incinerators. Solids content of the sludge
leaving the digesters is reduced to 9.3 percent.
Sludge Holding Tanks
Four holding tanks, each of 346,000 gallon (1,315 m ) capacity, are
provided. The tanks are designed for a detention time of 5.1 hours.
The holding tanks permit periodic rather than continuous removal of
digested sludge from the digesters for the elutriation system.
Elutriation
The digested sludge is mixed with effluent from the primary settling
tank to enhance removal of certain compounds that inhibit filtration of
the sludge.
ton (0.9 metric
vacuum filtration,
Chemical Conditioning and Vacuum Filtration
Two pounds (0.91 kg) of polyelectrolyte are used per
ton) of dry solids in the elutriated sludge prior to
2
Eight vacuum filters, each with 500 square feet (46.5 m ) of filter
cloth, are provided. Currently three filters are in use. The filters
are loaded at a rate of 2.5 pounds per square foot per hour, (12.3
kg/m2/hr) to yield a filter cake with 33 percent solids.'
Incineration
Four multiple-hearth incinerators are provided, but only one is opera-
ting. Approximately 23 dry tons (20.8 metric tons) of ash are produced
each day. The ash is slurried with scrubber water and ultimately dis-
posed to ash lagoons located nearby.
B-3
-------
B.2 LITTLE MIAMI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-2)
The Little Miami Plant, operated by the MSD of Greater Cincinnati, is
the second largest in Hamilton County. It is located on Wilmer Avenue
and serves the eastern section of the MSD, mostly a residential-com-
mercial community. One paper mill contributes some pollution to the
plant. The plant is being up-graded to provide secondary treatment by
1977.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 31 mgd -
(117,800 m7d)
Design flow 45 mgd ~
(171,000 nT/d)
Current population served 170,000
Design population Not known
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-2)
Raw wastewater from the Little Miami interceptor and the Delta Avenue
force main flows through a bar screen to a grit chamber. From the grit
chamber, the wastewater flows through the chemical building, where
chemicals can be added if needed. The wastewater >s clarified in the
primary clarifier, and its effluent is then chlorinated prior to dis-
charge into the Ohio River.
When construction for the secondary treatment facility is completed,
biological treatment will be provided by use of aeration tanks and
secondary clarifiers.
Solids Handling
Daily production totals 417 wet tons (379 metric tons) of raw sludge at
5 percent solids.
Sludge Holding Tanks
The present anaerobic digesters are used as holding tanks, which retain
the sludge for about 20 days. About 250 wet tons (227 metric tons) per
day (260 day/year basis) of raw sludge at 6 percent solids are hauled to
Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, where the sludge is dewatered and
incinerated.
B-4
-------
c
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
CO
i
in
RAWWASJE BARSCREEM
SCREENINGS TO
LANDFILL
GRITTO LANDFILL
(PROPOSE TO INCINERATE)
r£s^---H«H*--i
I vp v_y i
| RAW SLUDGE
I
1
VACUUM FILTRATE RETURN I __
FILTER
J
INCINERATOR
I
i PROPOSED FU
ASH TO
1 ASH LAGOON
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
rURE SLUDGE HANDLING '
i
1
1
i r _ I). __ _ _•— I *-
1 ^ f I — * l
PRIMARY AFBAT,fiM SECONDARY
•trTTI IMR ! . •_ ("EHATIOM
«« T^ TANKS *" SETTLING -*•
IArnl | TANKS
jiu 1 1 I
<'l 1 TRETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE !
"•4_i i -I
'tl 1 '
/^SLUDGE\ 1 1
•~l HOLDING r^* •.--..,.. j POST
\SJ*««/ 1^ASTE ACTIVATE° SLUD" CHIOR.BAT10.
i \ L J
— x
SLUDGE TRUCKED TO ,.
MILL CREEK FOR INCINERATION j^_, ^g^^^^^-
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
Figure B-2. Flow diagram for Little Miami wastewater treatment plant.
-------
Proposed Sludge-Handling Facility
The plant is equipped with an anaerobic digester with gas storage facil-
ity, a vacuum filter, and an incinerator. None of these units is cur-
rently in use.
With completion of secondary treatment facilities, now under construc-
tion, the plan is to install four vacuum filters and two incinerators,
which will be adequate to handle the expected sludge production. Three
ash lagoons are to be located within 2 miles (3.2 km) of the plant, each
with a projected life of 25 years.
B.3 SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CAMPBELL AND KENTON COUNTIES.
NORTHERN KENTUCKY (BROMLEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT)
(Ref. B-3)
Sanitation district No. 1, Campbell and Kenton Counties operates the
Bromley, Northern Kentucky, Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves a
community about 70 percent residential-commercial and 30 percent in-
dustrial. Some of the major industries discharging process water into
the plant are distilleries and breweries, slaughterhouses, and plating
and textile plants. None of these provides any kind of pretreatment.
The Bromley treatment facilities will be phased out in 1977, when con-
struction of the new plant at Dry Creek is completed. The present site
will be converted into a lift station.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 20.8 mgd
(79,040 m3/d)
Design flow 40 mgd
(152,000 m3/d)
Current population served 170,000
Design population Not known
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-3)
The influent enters a grit chamber, where it can be prechlorinated if
needed. From the grit chamber it flows to the pump house, where it is
pumped to a comminutor. Most of the suspended solids settle out in the
primary settling tanks before the effluent is discharged into the Ohio
River.
B-6
-------
ASH MIXED WITH EFFLUENT
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
RAW SLUDGE
CO
i
COMMINUTOR
PUMP HOUSE
SLUDGE WELL
VACUUM FILTER
ISOLATION VALVES
GRIT CHAMBER
(PRE-
CHLORINATION)
IK
GRITTO^
LANDFILL
FILTRATE RETURN
INCINERATOR
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
RAW WASTE
Figure B-3. Flow diagram for Bromley wastewater treatment plant.
-------
Solids Handling
Daily production is 197 wet tons (179 metric tons) of raw sludge at 3.8
percent solids. All of the raw sludge is either returned to the grit
chamber or pumped to the sludge well, where it undergoes dewatering
followed by incineration. Plant operators alternate these systems every
3 or 4 days.
Vacuum Filtration
There are two vacuum filters, each with an area of 377 square feet (35
m2). One filter serves as a backup. The filter is loaded at a rate of
3.25 pounds per square foot per hour (15.9 kg/m'/hr) to produce 19.4 wet
tons (17.6 metric tons) per day of filter cake at about 38 percent
solids. Maximum capacity of the filters is 4.4 pounds per square foot
per hour (21,5 kg/mVhr).
In c 1 n_e_r a_tion_
One multiple-hearth incinerator yields 1,650 pounds (749 kg) of dry
solids per hour. The incinerator is typically loaded at 1228 pounds
(550 kg) per hour and produces 450 pounds of ash (206 kg) per hour. The
ash is mixed with the final effluent,and discharged into the Ohio River.
B.4 MIDDLETOWN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-4)
The Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant is located on Oxford State
Road, in Middletown, Ohio. The City of Middletown is responsible for
the operation of the plant. Three-fourths of the total load to the
plant is residential and commercial and the rest is industrial. The
major industries served are paper mills, plating and steel.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 10 mgd
(38,000 m3/d)
Design flow 23 mgd
(87,400 m3/d)
Current population served 55,000
Design population 90,000
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-4)
Wastewater flows through bar screens and a grit chamber before entering
the primary settling tanks. Clarified effluent from the primary set-
B-8
-------
CO
I
ASH TO
ASH LAGOON
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
RAW WASTE
Figure B-4. plow diagram for Middletown wastewater treatment plant.
-------
tling tanks flows into aeration tanks, where an active bio-mass breaks
down the organic matter. Any excess bio-mass is settled out into
secondary clarifiers, and the effluent from the secondary clarifier is
chlorinated and discharged into the Great Miami River.
Solids Handling
Daily production is 103 wet tons (94 metric tons) of raw sludge at 6.9
percent solids, and 413 wet tons (375 metric tons) of waste activated
sludge at 1 percent solids.
Anaerobic Digestion
Two digester tanks with a total capacity of 1.4 million gallons (5,320
m3) are provided. The raw sludge is pumped to the digesters, where
detention time is 57'days. The digesters produce approximately 53,600
cubic feet (1,518 m3) of gas per day; the gas is used in plant opera-
tion.
Since the capacity of the digestor is not enough for all the raw sludge
currently produced, some of the raw sludge is bypassed for chemical
conditioning.
Gravity Thickening
Two gravity thickeners are operated to thicken the waste activated
sludge from 1 percent solids to 4.4 percent solids.
Chemical Conditioning
The thickened waste activated sludge and the anaerobically digested
sludge are chemically conditioned. Daily use of conditioning agents
totals 5,000 pounds (2,270 kg) of lime and 695 gallons (2.63 m3) of
ferric chloride at 10 percent concentration.
Vacuum Filtration
Three vacuum filters are provided, two having a filter cloth area of 500
square feet (46.5 m2) and one having an area of 250 square feet (23.2
m2). The smaller one is a standby unit. The filters are loaded at 2.68
pounds per square foot per hour (13.1 kg/m2/hr). The design loading
rate is 3.5 pounds per square foot per hour (17.1 kg/m2/hr). Approxi-
mately 60 wet tons (54 metric tons) of filter cake at 26 percent solids
is produced per day.
Incineration
Two multi-hearth incinerators are provided; one serves as a standby.
The incinerator is loaded at about 60 tons wet (54 metric tons) per day
B-10
-------
and generates 6.5 tons (5.9 metric tons) of ash per day. Maximum capa-
city of each incinerator is 90 tons (82 metric tons) per day.
The ash is disposed of in two adjacent lagoons, each of 3000 cubic yard
(2,300 m-*} capacity; one is used while the other is being cleaned.
Normally, one lagoon fills in about 4 months.
B.5 FRANKLIN AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-5)
The Franklin Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated by the Miami
Conservancy District, is located on Route 73, Franklin, Ohio, on a 230-
acre (568 hectare) tract on a flood plain of the Great Miami River. The
plant serves about 35 percent residential and 65 percent commercial -
industrial users. Industries are mainly paper and metal fabricating.
Except for save-alls in the paper industry, none of the industries
provides pretreatment. The Miami Conservancy District holds the policy
that industries should not be burdened with pretreating their wastes,
since waste treatment is not their primary function.
The wastewater treatment plant is fully integrated with a solid waste
plant located across the street. A distinctive feature of this environ-
mental control complex is that both the plants are oriented towards
resource recovery and reuse of paper fibers and glass.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 9 mgd .,
(34,200 nT/d)
Design flow 23 mgd
(87,400 m3/d)
Current population served 11,000
Design population (year 1985) 18,000
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-5)
Separate primary treatments are provided for municipal and industrial
influents. The screened raw wastewaters are pumped in parallel into
separate distribution chambers ahead of the treatment units. From the
distribution chambers, the influent flows through two separate grit
chambers into pre-aeration tanks and then into two separate primary
clarifiers.
B-ll
-------
SLUDGE PUMPED TO ADJACENT FARMLAND
FOR SOIL STABILIZATION
T
INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER^
MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER
CO
ro
NDUSTRIAL'
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
MUNICIPAL
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
Jl
c
JNCTION
H AMBER
AERATION BASINS
Not
No 2
No 3
_REJ_URN STABLLIZEDSLUDIBE ^.
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
TO SOLID WASTE PLANT
MIXED WITH SOLID WASTE
AND INCINERATED
Figure B-5. piow diagram for Franklin wastewater treatment plant.
-------
From the primary clarifiers the municipal and industrial effluents are
mixed and treated together. Three earthen aeration basins are utilized
for operation of a modified activated sludge step-aeration process.
Final secondary clarifiers are provided as part of the activated sludge
process secondary treatment facilities. Secondary clarified effluent
discharges over V-notch weirs into a chlorinator prior to discharge to
the Great Miami River.
Solids Handling
Secondary clarified sludge is returned and mixed with the raw industrial
wastewater at the head end of the plant. The plant does not have, nor
do they plan to have, a separate sludge storage facility.
Production is estimated at about 16.6*wet tons 05.1 metric tons) per
day of primary municipal sludge at 6 percent solids. This sludge is
pumped to the solid waste plant, where it is mixed with household trash
and garbage and incinerated. The fluid-bed incinerator has a capacity
of 150 tons (135 metric tons) per day.
Daily production of primary industrial sludge ranges from 57 wet tons
(51.9 metric tons) per day to about 686 wet tons (623 metric tons) per
day, with a mean of 229 tons (208 metric tons) per day. Since 1972,
this sludge has been pumped about 1000 feet (305 meters) to adjacent
farmland owned by the Miami Conservancy District. Thus far they have
applied about 1,500 wet tons (1,350 metric tons) of sludge per acre on
10 acres (4 hectares) of land. Tomatoes, lima beans, carrots, and
cabbage have been grown successfully, but corn does not grow well,
possibly because of nitrogen deficiency.
A total of 230 acres (93 hectares) of land is available for land ap-
plication of sludge. Groundwater has been continuously monitored for 3
years from 14 test wells, placed at various locations within the plant
premises. No adverse environmental impacts have been detected.
B.6 MUDDY CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-6)
The Muddy Creek Plant located at 6125 River Road in Cincinnati, is
operated by the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. The
plant serves 99 percent residential community with 1 percent industrial
and commercial. The small group of industries that discharge wastewater
into the plant consists of trucking, transportation, and petroleum
storage.
B-13
-------
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 8.3 mgd
(3,154 m3/d)
Design flow rate 15.0 mgd
(57,000 nryd)
Current population served 63,000
Design population 118,000
(year 2000)
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-6)
Incoming raw wastewater from the sewer system enters a flood control
chamber before it enters the pump building. The pump building houses a
screening device and a wet well. The wastewater is then pumped into
detritus tanks where sand, cinders, and coarse grit are removed. From
the detritus tanks the influent flows through a comminutor to pre-
aeration tanks, which are used primarily to keep the wastewater fresh
but can also be used for the mixing of chemicals to remove phosphorous,
as required. Most of the suspended soli-ds are then settled out in the
primary settling tanks. Biological treatment is provided by the acti-
vated sludge treatment process. Finally, the effluent is chlorinated
prior to discharging into the Ohio River.
Solids Handling
The plant produces 117 wet tons (106 metric tons) of raw sludge at 6
percent solids per day and generates 30 wet tons (27 metric tons) of
waste activated sludge at 1 percent solids per day. Therefore, a total
of 147 tons (133 metric tons) of combined wet sludge at 5 percent solids
is pumped daily to two sludge holding tanks. The total volume of the
two holding tanks is 83,800 cubic feet (2,346 m3).
Sludge Concentration Tank
One sludge concentration unit of the dissolved air flotation type is
provided, but it was not operating at the time of the visit. All waste
activated sludge and some of the raw sludge can be concentrated to an
average of 6 percent solids with loading rate of 0.95 pounds per square
foot per hour (4.65 kg/m^/hr).
Thermal Conditioning
The thermal conditioning unit also was not operating, and the combined
wet sludge was being hauled to Mill Creek WTP for incineration and
B-14
-------
CD
I
if
S'/J EFFLUENT CHLORINE SECOND/
n"7 / ',11^ PniBTAPT i^rf *?rTTI II
O -/| TANK TANK!
sl t-'
$ F
n
FILTI
»
VACUUM THERMAL
INCINERATION ^«- FILTER ^^ SLUUUt
CONDITIONII
1
1
1
I
ASH SLURRY
TO LAGOON
\RY .cpATinii PRIMARY
UR -« AERATION ^^ *irTTi linn
S TAWKS g TANKS
i ^ '
[ETUflNJVCJIVATEOJjLypGE* £
§ i
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE S ^_ %
~ " "' "'" — '" ' " ~ "' ci ' " ^ a
3 ' <
t 1 S
i 0
SUPERNATANT T M
i 1 1 *•
IATE T 4 i 5
i ^ S
^-"•^ 1 1 E
/SLUDGED SLUD6E \
•»-( HOLDING r^~- CONCENTRATION •» — 1-*
«G Y TANKS J ^ TANK
^«^ ^^ 1 X
|-w_ PRIMARY SLUDGE AND f
SCUM (BY PASS) ,
TO LANDFILL-^-/
ffMo 1 cVVA 1 1 n
SLUDGE
TO LANDFILL.^
OR INCINERATOR
"f
•^J
PREAERATION
f
COMMINUTOR
t
GRIT CHAMBER
f
BAR SCREEN
f
RAWWASTEWATER
Figure B-6. Flow diagram for Muddy Creek wastewater treatment plant.
-------
ultimate disposal. When the unit is in operation, the sludge is con-
ditioned with high-pressure steam at 275 psig (19.0 x 106 N/m2) and
temperature 370F (188C). The sludge is pumped from the storage tanks to
sludge grinders, which chop large solids into particles 0.25 inch (0.64
cm) or smaller. High-pressure sludge .pumps follow the grinders in the
flow pattern and provide a smooth flow at 275 psig (19.0 x 106 N/m2)
pressure to a two-stage heat exchanger, in which hot sludge from the
reactors heats circulating water. This heated water then flows to the
second section of the heat exchanger, where cold incoming sludge from
the high-pressure pumps is heated by the water. The reactor is an
insulated pressure vessel designed to hold the sludge for approximately
45 minutes at a flow rate of 4,000 gallons (15 m3) per hour.
Vacuum Filtration
Two vacuum filters of 250 square feet (23.2 m2) each are provided.
Normally one is in operation and the other is a standby unit. The
filters are loaded at 5 pounds per square foot per hour (24.5 kg/m^/hr).
Solids content of the filter cake is between 35 and 40 percent.
Incineration
The incinerator is rated to handle 6,000 pounds per hour (2,724 kg/hr)
of sludge cake (35 to 40% solids) with a resulting ash generation of 920
pounds per hour (418 kg/hr). Ash is normally disposed of in an adjacent
ash lagoon having a 20-year life at design operating rates. The in-
cinerator however, was not operating at the time of the visit.
B.7 HAMILTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-7)
The city of Hamilton operates this plant, which is located on River Road
in Hamilton, Ohio. Some of the industries the plant services include
plating, chemicals, and paper. Only the paper industry has a pretreat-
ment step.
One large paper industry, Champion Paper, has its own wastewater treat-
ment plant across the river from the Hamilton plant. It is proposed
that in about 2 years, the City of Hamilton will take over the operation
of the Champion wastewater plant. At that time, Champion will provide
primary treatment for its waste and pump the effluent across the river
for secondary treatment at the City of Hamilton Plant.
The city has also proposed to construct an Energy Resource Recovery
Center, about 3 miles (5 km) north of the city. If the plan is ap-
proved, the city hopes to incinerate a mixture of garbage and sludge to
produce steam to run the City's Power Plant.
B-16
-------
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 7 mgd
(26,600 m3/d)
Design flow 12 mgd
(45,600 myd)
Current population served 70,000
Design population 75,000
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-7)
The wastewater enters the plant through a 60-inch.-diameter interceptor.
To prevent clogging of the pumps, coarse material in the raw wastewater
is continuously and automatically cut and screened by a comminuting -type
bar screen without removing the screenings from the flow. Wastewater is
then pumped from the wet well to two aerated type grit chambers. The
grit is removed from the hopper and disposed of in a landfill. Raw
waste from the grit chambers flows to the primary settling tanks.
A maximum of 6 mgd (22,800 m?/d) of settled wastewater enters three
aeration tanks Effluent from the aeration tanks settles in the sec-
ondary settling tanks before it is chlorinated and discharged to the
Great Miami River. If the flow exceeds 6 mgd (22,800 m-Vd) (capacity of
aeration tanks , the excess is bypassed into a chlorine contact chamber
and discharged to the river. When the expansion is complete this situa-
tion will not occur.
Solids Handling
Current daily production of raw sludge is 254 wet tons (231 metric tons)
at 3.5 percent solids.
Vacuum Filtration
The raw sludge is chemically Conditioned prior to filtration with about
2000 pounds (900 kg) per day of ferric chloride and 200 pounds (yi kg;
per day of liquid caustic.
Two vacum filters, each of 250 square foot (f^V^ters are
alternately each week so that one ^always on t and y. T;*2™f^dare
loaded at about 5 pounds per square foot F^r (24.5 kg/m ^ at 20
produce about 50 wet tons (45 metric tons) per day of filter caice
percent solids.
B-17
-------
CO
I
CO
\ t
CHLORINE
rnniTAPT
CHAMBER
SETTLING
TANKS
AERATION
TAN KS
'
t-.
°l
Ul
«*'
EI
Si
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SLUDGE_CAKE TRUCKED
' TO ADJACENT LANDFILL
SLUDGE PUMPED TO
ENERGY RESOURCE
RECOVERY CENTER
« /THICKENER W
FILTRATE RETURN
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
iiiiini PROPOSED
SCREENINGS
-*
TO BURIAL
G
LANDFILL
RAW WASTE
Figure B-7. Flow diagram for Hamilton wastewater treatment plant.
-------
Sludge Transportation
The filter cake is transported by truck to an adjacent landfill about
0.5 mile (0.8 km) from the treatment plant. Approximately 12 round
trips are made each day.
Sanitary Landfill
There are 17 acres (7 hectares) of land available for sanitary land-
filling. In the landfill, the filter cake is mixed with construction
site debris. It is covered daily, except Saturdays and Sundays, with
fill in the proportion of 3:1.
The landfill has a life of 7-1/2 years if it is used for the filter cake
from the wastewater treatment plant together with the lime sludge from
the water treatment plant. Additional land that can be acquired for
landfill in the future amounts to 48 acres (19 hectares).
Proposed Sludge Handling Facility
The city has proposed to build an Energy Resource Recovery Center about
3 miles (5 km) north of the city. If the plans are approved, the raw
sludge will be thickened prior to vacuum filtration. The two digesters
that are currently not in use will be converted to thickening units.
Thickened sludge will then be vacuum filtered and stored in a sludge
transfer tank. The sludge will then be pumped to the Center, where it
will be incinerated together with the city's garbage and solid wastes.
The resultant heat will be used to produce steam to run the City's Power
plant.
B.8 SYCAMORE CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-8)
The Sycamore Wastewater Treatment Plant, operated by the MSD of Greater
Cincinnati, is located on Remington Road in a residential area in the
Northeast section of Hamilton County, Ohio. About 90 percent of the
service area is residential, 5 percent is commercial, and 5 percent Is
industrial.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 3.5 mgd
(13,300 m3/d)
Design flow 5.0 mgd
(19,000 m3/d)
Current population served 30,000
Design population 50,000
B-19
-------
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-8)
Raw wastewater enters a grit chamber, where the coarse grit is removed.
From the grit chamber it flows through a mechanically cleaned bar screen
into primary settling tanks. The settled wastewater then enters an
aeration tank, where most of the oxygen-demanding organic matter is
broken down by microorganisms. The effluent is then settled out in
secondary settling tanks, postchlorinated, and finally discharged into
Sycamore Creek. During heavy rains, when the plant capacity is ex-
ceeded, some of the influent is bypassed into a storm water holding tank
and then discharged into Sycamore Creek directly without treatment.
Solids Handling
The plant produces 58 wet tons (53 metric tons) per day of raw sludge at
4 percent solids and 67 wet tons (61 metric tons) per day of waste
activated sludge at 0.5 percent solids.
Anaerobic Digestors
The raw sludge is pumped to a two-stage anaerobic digester at a rate of
14,200 gallons (54 m3) per day. Gas produced from the digestors is used
to heat the digestors, and the excess is burned off.
Gravity Thickener
2
One gravity thickener of 960 square foot (89 m ) area is provided. The
waste activated sludge is thickened and then pumped to the anaerobic
digestors.
o
Approximately 5,900 gallons (22.4 m ) of thickened and digested sludge
is trucked daily to Mill Creek WTP, where it is dewatered and incin-
erated.
B.9 OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-9)
The Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant is operated by the City of Oxford
in Butler County, Ohio, and is located on McKee Avenue. The plant
discharges its effluent into the Four Mile Creek. Oxford is mostly a
residential area with some commercial but no industrial activities.
B-20
-------
AERATION
TANKS
U,. RETURN SLUDGE.
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
GRAVITY
(THICKENING]
WASTE
ACTIVATED,
' SLUDGE
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
DO
I
ro
i
RAW SLUDGE
BAR SCREEN
SCREENINGS TO
WASTE i
CTIVATED_ J
LANDFILL
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE'
/SECONDARY^
ANAEROBIC]
DIGESTION;
GRIT CHAMBER
GRIT TO
LANDFIL^
OVERFLOW AND STORM
WATER HOLDING TANK
DIGESTED SLUDGE TRUCKED TO
MILL CREEK INCINERATOR
^ BY PASS TO
SYCAMORE CREEK
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
RAW WASTE WATER
Figure B-8. Flow diagram for Sycamore wastewater treatment plant.
-------
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 2.64 mgd
(10,000 m3/d)
Design flow 9.00 mgd
(34,200 m3/d)
Current population served 21,700
Design population 30,000
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-9)
The influent flows through bar screens and is pumped to a vaculator,
where grit and scum are separated. Grit is pumped to a grit classifier
and collected in a dumpster truck to be hauled to a landfill. From the
vaculators, the liquid waste flows to a decant tank, where the skimmings
are separated.
Suspended solids are removed in two circular primary settling tanks.
Biological treatment is provided by use of high-rate trickling filters.
Some of the effluent from the trickling filters 1s recirculated to the
primary settling tanks, and the rest is allowed to settle out into two
secondary settling tanks. The clarified effluent is disinfected in a
chlorine contact tank and discharged into Four Mile Creek.
Solids Handling
Total production of sludge (raw plus return secondary) each day is 37
wet tons (34 metric tons) at 6 percent solids.
Anaerobic Digestor
Two anaerobic digestor tanks are operated in a two-staqe sequence. The
digester tanks are designed for a loading rate of 0.12 pounds per cubic
foot per day (1.93 kg/nr/d) and a detention time of 40 days. Approxi-
mately 15,000 cubic feet (425 m3) of gas is produced per day. Most of
the gas is used to heat the digesters and the rest is wasted, since
there is no gas storage facility.
A private contractor hauls 2.05 wet tons (1.9 metric tons) per day of
anaerobically digested sludge at 5 percent solids to farmland in the
area.
B-22
-------
DO
ro
CO
DIGESTED SLUDGE
TRUCKED TO FARMLAND
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
HIGH RATE
TRICKLING
FILTER
SECONDAR
SETTLING
TANKS
PRIMARY
ANAEROBICX RAW I «„,,.,.
DICESTORS HlUDGT' SETTUMG
SECONDARY SLUDGE
SKIMMiriCS
TO LANDFILL
GRIT
CLASSIFIER
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
RAW WASTE
Figure B-9. Flow diagram for Oxford wastewater treatment plant,
-------
B.10 LAWRENCEBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-10)
The South Dearborn Regional Sewer District operates the plant, which is
located on Third Street in Lawrenceburg, Indiana.
The District operates two separate plants, designated as Plants No. 1
and No. 2, which are located about a half mile (0.8 km) apart. Plant
No. 1 handles strictly industrial waste, together with the waste sludge
from Plant No. 2. Plant No. 2 handles about 55 percent domestic and 45
percent industrial treated effluent from Plant No. 1. The major in-
dustries in the district are two distillaries and a plating operation.
General Facility Description
Plant No. 1
Current flow of influent 1.4 mgd
(5,320 m3/d)
Design flow 1.5 mgd
(5,700 m3/d)
Plant No. 2
Current flow of influent 2.5 mgd
(9,500 m3/d)
Design flow 3.5 mgd
(13,300 m3/d)
Current population served 15,000
Design population 32,000
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-10, Plates A and B)
Plant No. 1
Industrial wastewater from the City of Lawrenceburg, together with the
waste sludge from Plant No. 2 enters an influent wet well and a bar
screen. The raw waste is then pumped into a cooling tower, since the
waste from the distillaries must be cooled from 140F (60C) to 95F (35C)
to facilitate further treatment. From.the cooling tower, the waste
flows through a grit collector and a comminutor to the anaerobic di-
gestors. The supernatant from the digestors is degasified prior to
final clarification. Clarified effluent is then pumped to Plant No. 2
for further treatment.
B-24
-------
CO
1
ro
WASTE SLUDGE INFLUENT WET WELl
FROM PLANT NO. 2 AND BAR SCREEN
__ GRIT
INDUSTRIAL WASTE COOLING TOWCR •» COLLECTOB
GRIT TO LANDFILL
FILTRATE RETURN
X
FILTER CAKE TO ^''
WASTEWATER SOIL CONDITION/ ^
«nnrr LANDFILL/DRYING BEOS
W«M. SLUUuE
INDUSTRIAL
EFFLUEWTTO^ EFFLUENT
PLANT NO. 2 WET WELL
COMNIinilTOR
VACUUM FILTER
t
CFTTI IIIR TkltV<
f
RAW WASTE FROM
LAWREHCEBURO
^ ANAEROBIC
DIGESTORS
A
(9
a
-------
Plant No. 2
Raw domestic wastewater is mixed with the effluent from Plant No, 1.
The mixture flows through a comminutor, bar screen, and grit chamber.
Activated sludge type of treatment is provided in the aeration tanks.
The remaining suspended solids are allowed to settle out in the final
settling tanks; the effluent is chlorinated and discharged to the Ohio
River.
Solids Handling
Daily input to Plant No. 1 1s 950 wet tons (853 metric tons) of waste
sludge from plant No. 2 at 2 percent solids and 333 wet tons (303 metric
tons) of industrial sludge at 0.3 percent solids.
Anaerobic Digestors
o
Two digester tanks, each of 360,000 gallon (1,368 m ) capacity are
provided, but are not used as conventional anaerobic digestion units.
Sludge enters the digestion tanks, which are not heated, and any gas
that escapes is burned off.
No stratification occurs in the tanks. After a detention time of 10 to
12 hours, the liquid fraction and the solids undergo degasification.
Finally the solids are settled out in the settling tanks.
A portion of the settled sludge undergoes vacuum filtration and the rest
is returned to the anaerobic digestors. Lime and ferric chloride are
the conditioning agents for vacuum filtration.
Vacuum Filtration
p
One vacuum filter of 262 square foot (24.3 m ) area is provided. The
filter is loaded at 3.2 pounds per square foot per hour (15.7 kg/rrr/hr)
and produces 2.1 wet tons (1.9 metric tons) per day of filter cake at 25
percent sol ids.
The filtered sludge cake is usually hauled by a local farmer in his own
truck for land spreading. If the fanner is not able to haul the sludge,
it is either stored in dumpster trucks or put on sand drying beds
located adjacent to Plant No. 1.
Approximately 975 wet tons (885 metric tons) per day of combined waste
secondary plus industrial sludge at approximately 2.0 percent solids is
sent from Plant No. 1 to the secondary clarifier in Plant No. 2.
Periodically, this sludge is wasted to the Ohio River.
B-26
-------
AERATION
TANKS
SETTLING
TANKS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
"RETURNjftCTiyATEp SLUDGED
GRIT CHAMBER
co
i
r\j
GRIT TO
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TO PLANT NO. 1 AS INFLUENT
LANDFILL
COMMINUTOR
AND
OAR SCREEN
T
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
RAW DOMESTIC
WASTE
-INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT
FROM PLANT NO. I
Figure B-10. Flow diagram for Lawrenceburg wastewater treatment plant No. 2.
(Plate B).
-------
B.ll BETHEL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-ll)
This plant is located on West Street in Bethel, Ohio, and is operated by
the Clermont County Sewer district. The plant serves a mostly residen-
tial and commercial community in the village of Bethel. No known indus-
trial waste sources are connected to the treatment works.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 0.47 mgd
(1,786
Design flow 0.52 mgd
(1,976 m3/d)
Current population served 2400
Design population 2700
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-ll)
Raw wastewater flows through a manually cleaned bar screen into the
primary clarifier. Clarified effluent then flows to a standard trick-
ling filter. The effluent from the trickling filter settles out in the
final settling tank before discharge to Town Run Creek.
Solids Handling
Raw sludge is pumped to a 79,206 gallon (300 m3) unheated anaerobic
digestor. About 18 loads per month of digested sludge are hauled away
in a 2,300 gallon (8.7 m3) tank truck. The sludge is hauled to differ-
ent sites, depending on what is available.
The plant generates about 5.7 wet tons (5.2 metric tons) of anaerobi-
cally digested sludge daily. A solids concentration of 4.0 percent is
assumed, since plant data are not available. Drying beds of 5,280
square feet (490 mz) are available at the plant site but are not used
because citizens have complained of odors.
B.I 2 NEW RICHMOND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-12)
The Village of New Richmond in Clermont County operates this plant,
which is located on Front Street and Route 52. The plant serves a
mostly residential and commercial community. One wool mill is the only
industry that discharges effluent to the plant. The mill has some
pretreatment capabilities and contributes about 3 percent of the total
flow into the plant.
B-28
-------
03
I
ro
10
SECONDARY
SETTLING
TANKS
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
HAULAWAY
SCREENINGS
TO HAULAWAY1
RAW WASTE
Figure B-ll. Flow diagram for Bethel wastewater treatment plant.
-------
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 0.10 mgd
(380 m3/d)
Design flow 0.40 mgd
(1,520 m3/d)
Current population served 1725
Design population 2500
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-12)
The facility is a small "package" unit. Influent normally enters the
plant through a comminutor and flows into a wet well. In an emergency
or breakdown, the influent can be bypassed through the bar screens.
From the wet well, the influent is pumped into a cortact stabilization
unit, which consists of an aeration zone, a clarifier, a re-aeration
zone, and an aerobic digestor. The clarified effluent is chlorinated
before being discharged into the Ohio River.
Solids Handling
About 0.82 wet ton (0.75 metric ton) per day of waste sludge at 1 per-
cent solids is fed to the aerobic digestor.
Aerobic Digestor
The digestor has a capacity of 92,000 gallons (350 m3). Periodically,
sludge from the digestor is wasted to the sludge holding tank.
Sludge Holding Tank
o
The sludge holding tank has a capacity of 250,000 gallons (950 m ).
During the winter months, the sludge is held in the tanks and not hauled
away.
Sand Drying Beds
Six drying beds with a total area of 1,200 square feet (111 m2) are
provided. During warm weather, sludge is drawn from the holding tanks
and spread on the drying beds to a depth of 6 inches (15 cm). After
about 3 weeks, the dried sludge fs taken off the sandbeds and stockpiled
in an adjacent area.
Local residents and at least two fanners haul the sludge from the stock-
piles on an as-needed basis. The farmers use the sludge as a soil
conditioner for corn and tobacco crops.
B-30
-------
SAND
DRYING
BEDS
DRIED SLUDGE
TAKEN BY
FARMERS AND RESIDENTS
CD
I
U)
WASTEWATER/SLUDGE RETURN
RAW WASTEWATER
Figure B-12. Flow diagram for New Richmond wastewater treatment plant.
-------
B.I3 FELICITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-13)
Felicity wastewater treatment plant, located on Prather Road in Felicity,
Ohio, is operated by the Clermont County Sanitary District. The plant
serves the residential and commercial community in Felicity. No indus-
tries operate in the area.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 0.081 mgd
(307 m3/d)
Design flow 0.20 mgd
(760 m3/d)
Current population served 650
Design population 1500
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-13)
Flow enters through a comminutor into an aeration basin, which provides
secondary treatment by extended aeration. The treated effluent is
clarified, chlorinated, and discharged to Bear Creek.
Solids Handling
Approximately 1 wet ton (0.91 metric ton) per day of waste activated
sludge at 1 percent solids is hauled by local truckers to nearby farm-
land. This practice has been used for the past 2 years.
B.I4 MAYFLOWER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-14)
This package plant, operated by the MSD of Greater Cincinnati, is
located on Overdale Drive in Hamilton County and serves about 200 new
homes. It serves no commercial or industrial institutions.
General Facility Description
Current flow of influent 0.035 mgd
(133 m3/d)
Design flow 0.080 mgd
(304 m3/d)
Current population served 600
Design population 600
B-32
-------
RAW
WASTEWATER
8
COMMINUTOR
BAR
SCREENS
AERATION
TANKS
SETTLING
TANKS
oo
i
CO
f
I |
I RETURN SLUDGE _f
f
CHLORINATION
WASTE SLUDGE
TRUCKED TO
FARMLAND
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
Figure B-13, Flow diagram for Felicity wastewater treatment plant.
-------
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-14)
The plant provides secondary treatment by the contact stabilization
process. It can provide tertiary treatment, but the rapid sand filter
was out of operation at the time of inspection. The effluent is chlo-
rinated before being discharged into the Banklick Creek.
Solids Handling
Theoretically 11.4 wet tons (10.4 metric tons) per day of waste acti-
vated sludge at 1 percent solids is fed to the aerobic digestor. Capa-
city of the digestor is 18,300 gallons (69 m3), sufficient for 2 to 3
days Every two weeks one 1600-gallon (6 m3) tank truck hauls 1200
gallons (4-6 m3) of sludge to the Mill Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, where it is dewatered and incinerated.
B.I5 SYSTECH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Ref. B-15)
The Systech Waste Treatment Plant, owned and operated by Systems Tech-
nology Corporation of Dayton, is located on Route 73, in Franklin, Ohio.
This plant operates with the Miami Conservancy District Regional Waste-
water Treatment Plant and the City of Franklin Solid Waste Plant to form
the Franklin Environmental Complex, one of the most comprehensive waste
treatment facilities in the area.
The Systech Plant is basically a service organization for pretreatment
of liquid industrial waste before discharge into the environment, as
required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972.
Most of the small industries of the area were faced with the prospect of
building and operating their own treatment plants. Since this was
economically unfeasible for some of the marginal industries, the serv-
ices offered by Systech appeared to be an attractive alternative. The
plant serves a radius of about 150 miles {240 km). Some of the major
industries served by the plant are fabricated metal products, petroleum
and allied products, rubber and plastics, primary metal industries,
chemicals and by-products, food products, paper and printing products,
textile mill products, and machinery and tooling.
Liquid Treatment
Liquid industrial wastes are shipped to the plant in volumes ranging
from 55 gallon (0.208 m3) drums to tankers. The plant is equipped with
receiving and holding tanks for noncombustible wastes. The liquid
wastes are analyzed in the Systech laboratories. Depending upon the
type and the constituents of the wastes, one or more of the following
methods of treatment is applied: oxidation-reduction, acidulation,
neutralization, chemical detoxification, thermal destruction, solvent or
petroleum recovery.
B-34
-------
DO
I
CO
CJ1
RAW WASTE
/^~\
WASJEf AEROBIC j .,
BE-AERATIOU WD „_.„,.,.,. .
V TANK /SLUDGE\ DIGESTORy
.SLUDGE HAULED TO
MILL CREEK INCINERATOR
WASTEWATER/SLUDGE RETURN
• WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
Figure B-14. Flow diagram for Mayflower wastewater treatment plant.
-------
The treated waste, which is of an acceptable quality for treatment in a
conventional municipal treatment plant, is then pumped about 1 mile 0.6
km) to the Miami Conservancy District's wastewater treatment plant. If
it contains much inert material, the waste is pumped to the primary
industrial clarlfier; otherwise 1t is pumped to the primary municipal
clarifier.
B.16 DRY CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Proposed; Ref. B-16)
The Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment facilities, located on High Water
Road, near Constance, Kentucky, will be operated by the Sanitation
District No. 1, Campbell and Kenton Counties, Kentucky. About 15 per-
cent of the total flow in the design year is expected to be from in-
dustries. One of the major industrial waste load contributors will be
the Weidemann Brewery; the. others are several small industrial founda-
tions and the Greater Cincinnati Airport. The District has proposed
that industries be required to provide and maintain sampling and gauging
stations on their wastewater discharges for the purpose of determining
loads and flows. This information will be a basis for determination of
user charge.
General Facility Description
Design flow 30 mgd
(114,00 m3/d)
Design population served 270,000
(year 2000)
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-16)
Wastewater from the Lakeview and Dry Creek area and from the Bromley
Pump Station will be screened and will then flow into five grit-removal
tanks. From the grit tanks, the wastewater will flow to primary set-
tling tanks. Effluent from the primary tanks will flow to aeration
tanks. The wastewater will then be clarified, chlorinated, and dis-
charged into Dry Creek.
Solids Handling
Total daily sludge production in the design year will consist of 410 wet
tons (372 metric tons) of raw sludge at .5 percent solids and 3,049 wet
tons (2,768 metric tons) of waste activated sludge at 1 percent solids.
Secondary Sludge Thickeners
The waste activated sludge will be concentrated from 1 percent solids to
5 percent solids in dissolved air flotation thickeners. The thickeners
R-36
-------
ca
i
CO
1
FILTRATE RETURN
t
ASHTOLANDFIU ^ INCINERATOR ,^ . VACUUM ^ STORAGE — THERMAL ^ STORAGE
FILTER CONDITIONING
1
Is
^ SLUDGE THICKENED^ \ g
a f^ THICKENERS SLUDGE Irf
•""•V 1*
£«SI 1 PC
3 > ° RETURN^LUDGE j
'.'$& S"*! T !
^ 1 )]/.— CHLnRINATHB ^ SETTLING •« AERATION .— , , , 5ETTL1MG
.3 / tf TANKS TANKS TANKS
" li
§/ f
//M^ GRIT TO LANDFILL -*
WASTEWATER
- — — SLU06E
SCREENINGS TO LANDFILL -—
J
1
GRIT
TANKS
'1
BAR
SCREENS
t
RAW VVASTEVUATER
Figure B-16. Flow diagram for Dry Creek wastewater treatment plant.
-------
will be loaded at a rate of 0.5 pound of suspended solids per square
foot per hour (2.5 kg/m2/hr). Based on this loading rate and a normal
operation of 168 hours per week, four units with a total surface area of
5,240 square feet (487 m^) will be required.
Sludge Storage
The raw sludge and the thickened waste activated sludge will be stored
prior to thermal conditioning. Based on maximum storage requirements
during wet weather, it is proposed that three tanks, each with a volume
of 200,000 gallons (760 m3), be provided.
Thermal Conditioning
The combined wet sludge will be thermally conditioned prior to vacuum
filtration. At a production rate of 3,550 pounds per hour (1,612 kg/hr)
of dry solids and a normal operating rate of slightly over 21 hours per
day, daily production will be about 457 tons (415 metric tons) of
thermally conditioned sludge at 8 percent solids. This thermally con-
ditioned sludge will be stored in a 200,000- gallon (760 m3) tank.
Vacuum Filtration
2
Three 400 square foot (37 m) filters are proposed. Normally two fil-
ters will be on line while the third is on standby. Yield from the
vacuum filters will be 8 pounds per square foot per hour (39 kg/m^/hr).
Approximately 104 wet tons (94.6 metric tons) of filter cake at 35
percent solids will be produced each day.
Incineration
Two incinerators, each operating about 11 hours per week, are proposed.
In case of emergency or breakdown of a unit, the other could be operated
22 hours per day. The incinerators will yield 14 tons (12.7 metric
tons) of ash per day. At an ash density of 30 pounds per cubic foot
(481 kg/m3), approximately 35 cubic yards (27 m3) of ash will be removed
to a landfill each day.
B.I7 LESOURDSVILLE REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Proposed;
Ref. B-17)
When construction is completed in August 1977, the plant will be oper-
ated by Butler County; it is to be located on State Route 4 in LeSoiirds-
ville, Ohio. The total load that will be contributed by industries and
the type of industries to be served are not known.
b-38
-------
General Facility Description
Design flow 4 mgd
(15,200 m3/d)
Design population 40,000
Liquid Treatment (Figure B-17)
Raw influent will flow through a bar screen and a grit chamber into
primary settling tanks. Biological treatment will be provided by
trickling filters. Prior to final settling tanks, phosphate removal is
provided. Tertiary filters.will provide further removal of suspended
solids. Finally the effluent will be chlorinated, aerated, and dis-
charged into the Great Miami River.
Solids Handling
Total daily sludge production will be 25 wet tons (23 metric tons) at 4
percent solids, and 87 wet tons (79 metric tons) of secondary sludge at
2.5 percent solids.
Aerobic Digestors
The raw sludge and the secondary sludge will be pumped to two aerobic
digesters, each with a capacity of 236,500 gallons (900 m3). The com-
bined detention time in the tanks will be 18 days. Approximately 79 wet
tons (72 metric tons) of the digested sludge will be hauled away for
disposal per day.
Sludge Conditioning and Concentration
It is proposed that if sludge conditioning is required, 10 to 15 pounds
(4.5 to 6.8 kg) of polymers per ton (0.9 metric ton) of dry solids will
be added.
One sludge concentration unit (stand-by) is proposed to handle 1,200
gallons per hour (4.6 m3/hr) for production of a thickened sludge at a
solids content of 15 to 18 percent. This material will be landfilled at
a site about 6 miles (10 km) away.
B.I8. CLEVES - NORTH BEND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Proposed;
Ref. B-18)
The 01 eves - North Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant is the smallest of
the proposed plants selected for case study. The plant will be located
on Harbor Drive, Cleves, Ohio, and will be operated by the Village of
B-39
-------
CASCADE
AERATOR
TANK
TERTIARY
FILTERS
CD
I
THICKENED SLUDGE
TO »E LANDSPREAD
SLUDGE
CONDITIONING
AND
lONCENTRATIOK
\
AEROBICALLY
DIGESTED SLUDGE
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
SCREENINGSTO LANDF.LL
RAWWASTEWATER
Figure B-17. Flow diagram for LeSourdsville regional wastewater treatment plant.
-------
Cleves. It is scheduled to go into operation in 1978 and is designed to
handle primarily residential wastewater.
0.5 mgd
(1,900 m3/<0
4,980
General Facility Description
Design flow
Design population (year 2000)
Liquid Treatment (Figure 8-18)
Raw wastewater will enter an inlet structure for distribution to two
primary clarifiers. Secondary treatment is provided by rotary bio-
logical contractors. The effluent is clarified prior to chlorination
and then discharged into the Ohio River.
Solids Handling,
Ahnut ?n wet tons (18 metric tons) of raw sludge at 4 percent solids
wi?? be produced each day. The secondary sludge is recycled to the
inlet structure.
Aerobic Digestion
Centrifugation
^ j i A~*
The aerobically Digested sludge
rpntrifuqed in a horizontal unit
centnruge ^
e-4i
-------
RAW
»-
WASTE
INLET
STRUCTURE
*
»•
i
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
RAW
SLUDGE
ROTARY
BIOLOGICAL
CONTRACTORS
RETURN SLUDGE
I1 S
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
!
1
»- CHLORINATOR *-fI. »
mil r5
IH*
ii )
CO
ro
AEROBIC
DIGESTOR
JDIGESTED|
I SLUDGE j
t
SLUDGE
HOLDING
TANK
-
y
CENTRIFUGE
i
*
DEWATERED SLUDGE
TO BE LANDFILLED
-WASTEWATER
•SLUDGE
Figure B-18.- Flow diagram for Cleves-North Bend wastewater treatment plant.
-------
REFERENCES
B-l Seymour, Gerry. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cin-
cinnati, 1600 Gest Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
B-2 Pritchard, Robert. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater
Cincinnati, 1600 Gest Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
B-3 Goebel, Robert. Sanitation District No. 1 of Campbell and Kenton
Counties, Kentucky.
B-4 Keith, Harry. Middletown Wastewater Treatment Plant, 300 Oxford
State Road, Middletown, Ohio.
B-5 Flower, Wesley. The Miami Conservancy District, 38 East Monument
Avenue, Dayton, Ohio.
B-6 Weider, Charles. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater
Cincinnati, 1600 Gest Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
B-7 Harrel, Thomas. Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plant, River Road,
Hamilton, Ohio.
B-8 Ross, John. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati,
1600 Gest Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
B-9 Pitman, Bruce. City of Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant, Munic-
ipal Building, Oxford, Ohio.
B-10 Yorkanin, John. South Dearborn Regional Sewer District, Third and
U.S. 50 West, Lawrenceburg, Indiana.
B-11 Wardroup, John. Clermont County Sewer District, 66 S. Riverside
Drive, Batavia, Ohio.
B-l2 Poynter, Robert. Village of New Richmond Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Front Street and Route 52, East, New Richmond, Ohio.
B-13 Snider, Ray. Clermont County Sanitary District, 66 South Riverside
Drive, Batavia, Ohio.
B-l4 Seymour, Gerry. The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cin-
cinnati, 1600 Gest Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
B-43
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
B-15 Wittmann, Thomas. Systems Technology Corporation, 3131 Encrete
Lane, Dayton, Ohio.
B-16 Supplement I, Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewerage System
Improvement Design Report. Sanitation District No. 1, Campbell and
Kenton Counties, Kentucky. (January 1972).
B-17 Hinchberger, James. Sanitary Engineering Department, Butler
County, 720 Campbell Avenue, Hamilton, Ohio.
B-18 Stitt, David. M.M. Schirtzinger & Associates, Limited, 1550
Western Avenue, Chillicothe, Ohio.
B-44
-------
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS6
Sulfur oxides
annual arithmetic mean
24-hour concentration
3-hour concentration
Suspended ParticuTate matter -
annual geometric mean
24-hour concentration
Carbon monoxide -
8-hour concentration
1-hour concentration
Photochemical oxidants -
1-hour concentration
Hydrocarbons
-(Corrected for methane)
3-hour concentration (6-9am)
Nitrogen oxides -
annual arithmetic mean
Primary
Standard
yg/m
80h
365b
75
260b
160b
160b
100
ppm
0.03U
0.14b
9.0
35.0
0.08b
0.24b
0.05
Secondary
Standard
yg/m3
1300b
60h
150b
Same a
Same a
Same a
Same a
ppm
0.5b
s primary
s primary
s primary
s primary
40 CFR 50; 36 FR 22384, November 25, 1971, EPA Regulations.
Not to be exceeded more than once a year.
C-l
-------
40 CFR, PART 60 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE 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 promul-
gated under this part.
(d) "Stationary source" means any building, structure, facility,
or installation which emits or may 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 installation 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 subpart
apply is each incinerator which burns the sludge produced by
municipal sewage treatment facilities.
C-2
-------
60.152 Standard for participate 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 of
any sewage sludge incinerator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall discharge 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 requirements 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/rmn (0.53 dscf/min), except that shorter sampling times,
when necessitated by process variables or other factors, may
be approved by the Administrator.
(c) ...
(1) If the volume of sludge charged is used:
S = (60 X 10-3)
or
SD = (8.021) J^Jt (English Units)
where:
Sp = average dry sludge charging rate
during the run, kg/hr (English units: lb/hr)
C-3
-------
Rnu = average quantity of dry sludge per unit volume of
sludge charged to the incinerator, mg/1 (English
units: Ib/ft3).
Sy = sludge charged to the incinerator during the run,
m3 (English units: gal).
T = duration of run, min (English units: min).
60 x 10-3 = metric units conversion factor, l-kg-min/nP-mg-hr.
8.021 = English units conversion factor, ft3-min/gal-hr.
(ii) If the mass of sludge charged is used:
R S
SD = (60) JWJ1 (Metric or English Units)
where:
Sn = average dry sludge charging rate during the run,
u kg/hr (English units: Ib/hr).
RnN| = average ratio of quantity of dry sludge to quantity
of sludge charged to the incinerator, mg/mg (English
units: Ib/lb).
S.. = sludge charged during the run, kg (English units:
M 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:
Caw = CsQs
-------
where:
C, = particulate emission discharge, g/kg
dry sludge (English units: Ib/ton dry
3 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)
C-5
-------
OHIO AND HAMILTON COUNTY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR SUSPENDED PARTICIPATES, SULFUR DIOXIDE,
CARBON MONOXIDE, PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS.
NON-METHANE HYDROCARBONS. AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE
Contaminants
Suspended
Participates
Sulfur-
Dioxide
Carbon-
Monoxide
Photo-
Chemical
Oxidant
Hydrocarbons
(nonmethane)
Nitrogen-
Dioxide
Primary Standard
Concentration
yg/m
75
260
80
360
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.m.
AAM
Secondary Standard
Concentration
i
vg/m
60
150
60
260
10,000
40,000
160
160
100
ppm
by vol .
—
0.02
0.10
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 con-
centrations 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,
4. yg/m^ - micrograms per cubic meter.
5. AGM - Annual geometric mean.
6. AAM - Annual arithmetic mean.
7. Sulfur dioxide standards in Ohio are in the process
of being revised.
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
SANITARY LANDFILLS IN THE 0-K-I AREA
County
1. Butler
2. Butler
3. Butler
4. Butler
S. Sutler
6. Clenront
7. Dearborn
8. Dearborn
9. Hamilton
10. Haallton
11. Hamilton
12. HaalHon
13. Hamilton
14. Hamilton
Name
Oscar Schlichter Co.
City of Oxford
Champion International
Corporation
Butler County Landfill
Falrfield Industrial
Development
Clennont Environmental
Recl'araatfon. Inc.
City of Lawrer.ceburg
Landfill
Rump Ice Landfill Olsposa
Environmental Land
Developotnt At toe.
Ruirplt* Landfill Disposal
BF1 Waste Systems
Anderson Township
Uaste Collection
City of Vyontng
Village of Aefcerty
Village
Location
2601 Harrilton-Cleves
Rd., Hamilton. Ohio
Collins Run Rd.
Oxford, Ch1o
Kami Uon-Cl eves Rd.
Hamilton. Ohio
Uoodsdale Rd.
Trenton, Ohio
2841 Bobmeyers Rd.
Falrfleld. Ohio
Aber Rd.
Batavia. Ohio
test Center St.
Lawrenceburg, Ind.
Husnan Rd. ; South
Of U.S. 50. Ind.
Este Avenue.
Cincinnati, On1o
1079$ Huges Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Bond Rd.
Cincinnati. OMo
311 Brwdwell Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio
BCD Oak St
Cincinnati, Ohio
49 Ridge Ave.
Cincinnati, OMo
Estimated
remaining
capacity*
(tons)
b
38.435
438.000
b
64,057
b
48,000
51.100
5.400,000
1.500.000
b
96,000
9.608
b
County
15. Hamilton
16. Hamilton
17. Warren
18. Warren
19. Warren
20. Campbel 1
21. Canpbell
22. Kenton
23. Boone
Name
Village of Harrison
Level and Landfill
Franklin Solid
Uaste Disposal
Stubbs Mills Landfill
Lebanon Landfill
City of Newport
Landfill
City of Fort Thomas
Landfill
Bavarian Trucking
Company Landfill
H. Kentucky
Sanitarian Co.
Location
200 Harrison Rd.
Harrison, Ohio
100 E. Level and
Loveland, Ohio
Farm Ave..
Franklin, Ohio
Morrow Mi 11 grove
Rd., Morrow, Ohio
Turtlecreek-Union
Rd.. Lebanon. Ohio
Route 9 Licking
Pike. Kentucky
Route 8 North of
Silver Grove, ty.
Off Route 17
South of Inde-
pendence. Ky.
McCoy Rd..
Walton. Ky.
Estimated
remaining
capacity8
(tons)
2.989
40,996
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
* tsttaaud mining capacity was based on PEOCo surveys.
* Indicate* disclosure of Information refused or Information not available.
------- |