Ml
1\!
FOUNTAIN RUN
© . .
THE FOUNTAIN RUN WATER DISTRICT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PARHOTT. ELY and KURT
consulting engineers, iuo.
G2O euolid a^onuo
lexingtoa, kontueky 4O5O2
JULY,
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
-lv Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 1-1
2. Introduction 2-1
2.1. Study Purpose and Scope 2-1
2.2. Planning Area Description 2-1
3. Effluent Limitations 3-1
4. Current Situation 4-1
4.1. Conditions in the Planning Area 4-1
4.1.1. Institutions 4-1
4.1.2. Economic, Demographic and Land Use-Data 4-1
4.1.3. Water Quality and Uses 4-4
4.1.4. Environmental Conditions 4-5
Topography 4-5
Geology 4-5
Soils 4-6
Climate 4-8
Hydrology 4-9
Natural Communities 4-30
Archaeological and Historic Sites 4-11
Sensitive and Environmental Use Areas 4-11
Aesthetics 4-11
Air Quality 4-12
-------
Page
4.2. Existing Treatment Systems 4-13
4.4. Performance of Existing Systems 4-14
5. Future Situation 5-1
5.1. Future Land Use 5-1
5.2. Population Projections 5-1
5.3. Forecast of Flows and Waste Loads 5-2
5.4. Future Environment of the Planning Area
Without the Project 5-3
6. Alternatives 6-1
6.1. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities 6-1
6.2. Regional Solutions 6-1
6.3. Waste Treatment Systems 6«?1
6.3.1. Alternative A - Conventional Sewers 6-2
and Central Treatment
6.3.1.1. Summary of Alternative A-l 6-2
6.3.1.2. Summary of Alternative A^2 6-2
6.3.1.3. Alternative A - Sewers 6-2
6.3.1.4. Treatment Alternatives 6-6
Aerated Reactor System 6-6
Oxidation Lagoon 6-7
6.3.1.5. Disposal of Treated Effluent 6-?8
Intermittent Sand Filtration 6-8
Spray Irrigation 6-9
Infiltration-Percolation 6-9
-------
Page
6.3.2. Alternative B - Effluent Sewer System
with Central Treatment 6-11
6.3.3. Alternative C - Community Subsurface Disposal
System 6-14
Design Criteria 6-15
Public Management 6-16
System Design 6-17
Present Worth of Alternative C 6-13
6.3.4. Alternative D - Individual On-Site Disposal
vith Public Management 6-21
6.4. Evaluation of Alternatives 6-23
6.4.1. Monetary Evaluation 6-23
6.4.2. Environmental Evaluation 6-24
6.4.2.1. Primary Impacts 6-24
Erosion 6-24
Stream-Bank Damage 6-25
Aesthetics 6~25
Air Quality 6-25
Sensitive Ecosystems 6-26
Unique, Rare or Endangered Species 6-26
Archaeo-Historic Sites 6~26
Dislocation of Individuals 6~26
Employment 6-26
Surface Water Effects 6-2*>
Groundvater Effects 6-27
Energy Effects 6-27
-------
Page
6.4.2.2. Secondary Impacts 6-28
Impacts on Development 6-28
Solid Wastes 6-28
Pesticides 6-28
Damage to Ecosystems 6-28
Other Secondary Effects 6-28
6.4.3. Evaluation of Implementation 6~29
7. Plan Selection 7- 1
7.1 Public Participation 7- 1
7.2 Evaluation & Ranking 7- 2
7.3 Selected Plan 7-3
7.4 Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan 7- 3
8. Cost Estimates, Preliminary Designs 8- 1
8.1 Description of Design 8- 1
8.2 Summary of Cost Estimates 8- 6
9. Arrangements for Implementation 9- 1
9.1 Institutional Responsibilities 9- 1
9.2 Agency Support 9- 1
9.3 Financial Programs and Schedules 9- 1
10. Summary of Environmental Conditions 10- 1
10.1 Existing Environmental Conditions 10- 1
10.2 Future Environment Without the Project 10- 2
10.3 Evaluation of Alternatives 10- 2
10.4 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan 10- 3
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Subject Following Page;
1. Climate 4-8
2. Air Quality 4-12
3. Sanitary Sewer Construction Costs 6-3
4. Oxidation Lagoon Construction Costs 6-7
5. Sand Filter Construction Costs 6-8
6. Sand Filter Operating Costs 6-8
7. Infiltration Basin Construction Costs 6-10
8. Effluent Sewer System Construction Costs 6-13
9. Community Subsurface Disposal Operating Costs 6-19
10. Community Subsurface Disposal Construction Costs 6-20
11. Summary of Alternative Costs 6-23
12. Summary- of Environmental Assessment 6-28
13. Ranking of Alternative Wastewater Systems 7- 3
14. Detailed Construction Costs 8- 7
15. Annual Fund Requirements 9- 1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
X. Environmental Use and Sensitive Areas
II. Alternative A - Gravity Sewer System
III Alternative B - Effluent Sewers
IV Alternative C - Subsurface Disposal
APPENDIX
I. List of References
II. Agreements and Resolutions
HI. Comments and Quotations
IV. Equipment Specification
V. Selected Soil Series
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Subject Following Page!
1. Vicinity Map 2-1
2. Planning Area Map 2-2
3. Existing Land Use 4-3
4. Topography 4-^
5. Geologic Map 4-5
6. Limiting Soil Factors 4-7
7. Climate 4-8
8. Stream Flow 4-9
9. Ground Water Hydrology 4-9
10. Future Land Use 5-1
11. Population Projections 5-1
12. Oxidation Lagoon 6-7
13. Interceptor Tank and Pump 6-12
14. Typical Effluent Disposal Trenches 8-5
-------
1. FOUNTAIN RUN WATER DISTRICT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
1.1. Summary
The Fountain Run Water District was established in the 1960's for the purpose
of providing water service in the City of Fountain Run, Kentucky, and in near-
by rural areas. The community leaders who helped to form the Water District
soon saw the need for public management of wastewater in the District. This
authority is provided to water districts by Section 74.407 of the Kentucky
Revised Statutes.
The Board of Commissioners therefore obtained financial assistance from the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and contracted to have prepared this
20-year plan for wastewater facilities, as provided in Section 201 of Public
Law 92-500. A primary purpose in the preparation of this Plan was to qualify
for Federal assistance in the design and construction of wastewater facilities.
The Fountain Run Water District is located in northwestern Monroe County and
serves about 170 water meters, of which 145 are located in the city limits.
The 1975 population of the city was 318 and of the Water District was 436, by
local head count. About 19 small business, one factory employing about 180
persons, and an elementary school are served by the District. The District
has experienced a moderate rate of growth, adding about 4 customers per year.
The Planning Area covers about 2,239 acres. It joins Barren County on the
north and Allen County on the west. The vicinity map, Figure 1, shows the
relative location.
Environmental factors such as the topography, geology, soils, climate and hy-
drology have been examined and described in Section 4.1.4. Natural communi-
ties have been given brief examination by literature reviews, and requests for
information and comments from appropriate State agencies have been made. No
unique, rare or endangered natural communities or species have been identified
for the Area.
No point sources of air pollutant emissions or wastewater effluent are known in
the Area. Air quality data from Glasgow, 20 miles to the north, would indicate
that air quality is good in the Planning Area. Overflowing septic tank systems
would appear to constitute the only source of wastewater discharges.
Comments received during the public hearing indicated that several overflowing
septic tank absorptions fields do exist even within the city limits. In addi-
tion, several unsanitary pit privies are in use. About 20 percent of the homes
1-1
-------
are located on soils having very low permeability, which would probably cause
short-term failure of septic tank systems installed- in accordance with the
Plumbing Code.
The economic future of the Area appears to be good, with the newest industry,
Fountain Run Industries, reportedly making plans for expansion and an increase
in number of employees. Population has been essentially stable over the past
decade, and increases of 50 to 100 percent have been predicted for the next. 20
years.
Without public management of wastewater, the future would not be as bright. If
current wastewater disposal practices are continued, health hazards and environ-
mental degradation could result.
Four basic alternate methods for wastewater management were examined in this
Plan. Details of the systems are contained in Section 6.
Alternate A was composed of a conventional gravity sewer system with a central
treatment facility in Jake's Branch. The least-cost treatment for Alternate A
was the oxidation lagoon followed by an infiltration-percolation system. This
alternate would apparently be unacceptable due to high user costs.
Alternate B would utilize similar treatment processes but the majority of the
sewer system was designed' on a fairly recent concept. In this alternate, solids
in wastewater would be removed and stored near each source (household or business)
and only the liquid portion carried to a central treatment facility. No manholes
would be used in this part of the system. Part of the system would be "pressure
sewers" but the majority would flow under gravity. The west side of the business
area would be served by a conventional sewer with manholes. The user costs for
this Alternate would be about 75 percent of those in Alternate A.
Alternate C was developed to further reduce total costs. This alternate involves
the use of short stretches of "effluent sewer" (similar to sewers in Alternate B)
but the effluent would be carried directly to a disposal site. At least 122 cus-
tomers would be grouped on short sewers and the effluent disposed of at 22 sep-
arate "community" sites. It is also recommended that new individual disposal
systems be provided for an additional 22 customers. Provision, of services to
the elementary school and Fountain Run Industries would be an option which
would not affect the relative costs of the four alternatives but which may re-
duce the average charges per customer. Even without the school and industry
sharing the costs, this alternate has user costs which would be significantly
lower than the previous two. The user costs were estimated to be about 58 per-
cent of those required for Alternate B, while Present Worth was about 21 percent
lower than Alternate B and 42 percent lower than "A".
A fourth alternate, Alternative D, was considered for purposes of comparison.
This alternate consisted of all on-site disposal for the same 144 customers
included in "C". Critical problems of implementation and design were identified
which caused .this alternate to be not recommended.
1-2
-------
The environmental effects from each alternate were evaluated, and details are
contained in Section 6.4 of this Plan. Primary and secondary environmental
effects would appear to be greater with Alternate A than the others, but no
effect was considered significant.
A public hearing conducted on July 6, 1976, at Fountain Run resulted in Alter-
nate C being selected as the preferred alternate, due to the lower total cost.
In this system, septic tanks would be utilized to remove and store solids near
the source at most locations. Only the west side of the business district would
be provided a conventional sanitary sewer. The remainder of the area would have
"effluent sewers" to conduct the septic tank effluent to sviitable disposal sites.
Disposal would be by subsurface trenches of an improved design. The District
would maintain the septic tanks, sewers and disposal sites.
Implementation of this alternate would require the following facilities:
122 septic tanks;
13,250 linear feet of effluent sewer;
950 liner feet of 8" sanitary sewer.;
104 small dosing siphons;
9 small effluent pumps;
4 main dosing tanks with pumps;
6 main dosing tanks with siphons;
44,100 linear feet of absorption trenches at 44 sites;
10.6 acres of land;
1 set sludge pump and soil injection equipment.
Total capital costs for these items would be $340,191 including all engineering
and legal fees and contingencies. Total annual funds required, including debt
retirement, would be about $12,600. It has been assumed that the system would
be eligible for 75 percent Federal funding and that a loan would be obtained
from the Farmers Home Administration for $78,548 of the local share. Based on
these assumptions, the average monthly billing per customer would be $7.29.
1-3
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Study Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this document is to provide a plan for the development of
adequate wastevater collection, treatment and disposal facilities within
the Fountain Run Planning Area, Monroe County, Kentucky. Basic elements
considered in the plan include:
a. The provision of adequate public sanitary sewerage facilities to
serve the needs of the populace during the planning period (1975-1995).
b. Compliance with stream quality and plant discharge effluent standards.
c. Minimization of capital and operating expenses necessary to accomplish
the two prior objectives.
d. A plan of implementation, outlining the steps required to effect the
proposed improvements.
e. Assessment of the environmental effects associated with implementation
of the plan.
The size and nature of the Planning Area,including the existing socio-
economic characteristics, is such that the majority of the elements which
must be addressed in the Plan can be adequately disposed of in a brief
fashion. The one significant exception is the Alternatives Analysis
Section. Because of the small population and low density characteristics
of the Area, particular attention has been given to some rather unique
alternative means of reaching the above stated objectives.
2.2. Planning Area Description
The community of Fountain Run is located in Monroe County, Kentucky, in the
south-central portion of the State. It is approximately 40 miles southeast
of Bowling Green and 25 miles south of Glasgow. Barren River Reservoir lies
north of Fountain Run between Glasgow and Scottsville. Reference is made to
the vicinity map, designated Figure 1.
There are two political subdivisions of the Commonwealth within the Planning
Area. These are the City of Fountain Run, a sixth class city under Kentucky
Statute, and the County of Monroe. The Fountain Riih Water District was
created by an act of the Monroe County Fiscal Court for the purpose of con-
structing and operating a public water distribution system, and encompasses
the entire City of Fountain Run, as well as an unincorporated portion of
Monroe County. The relationship between the boundaries of these two govern-
mental entities is shown on Figure 2.
The Fountain Run Planning Area consists of approximately 2,230 acres in
the western portion of Monroe County, Kentucky. The Planning Area adjoins
Barren County to the north and Allen County to the west. Fountain Run is
the only developed area within the Planning Axea. All other development is
sparsely scattered throughout the Area with only occasional residences along
major thoroughfares.
2-1
-------
Bowling Green
,2O6
Glasgow
Pop.= ll,68O
Barren River -—•)
Reservoir A f
Scottsville
Pop. = 3.7O2
Fountain Run
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Fountain Run. Kentucky
["SCALE: 1 = 250,0001
Tompkinsville
Pop. = 2.313
-------
The Planning Area boundary has been defined by the Kentucky Department
for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and has been concurred in
by the Atlanta Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The boundary line was derived by examining the existing "urban" service area
and water district limits, and projecting their logical expansion over the
twenty year planning period. Figure 2 depicts the outline of the Fountain
Run Planning Area in Monroe County.
A long-range Planning Area has also been delineated on Figure 2. However,
it is anticipated that all substantial growth during the planning period
will occur in the smaller, primary, Planning Area.
2-2
-------
\
.
\ * v.=c
\Crrn •'-?.' --'.Wood
'Ch
\ FIGURE 2
SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLANNING AREA
FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY
-------
3. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
There is presently no public sewage collection-treatment system serving the
residents of either the Fountain Run Water District or the City of Fountain
Run.
There are no known point source discharges in the Planning Area. A search
of the records of the State control agency has confirmed this, and no
discharges are listed in the Barren RiverComprehensive Water and Sewer
Plan. Sewage disposal practices in the Area are confined to septic tanks
with sub-surface discharge and privies.
The potential for discharge to flowing streams is limited by two factors.
Fountain Run is situated on two small intermittent streams, so that any
proposed surface discharge would comprise total stream flow for extended
periods. These streams, Jake's Branch and Spring Creek, are directly
tributary to the Barren River Reservoir.
According to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the flood pool of the reservoir
is at elevation 590 feet, which would place this pool about two stream miles
below Fountain Run. Summer pool, at elevation 552 feet, is considerably
farther downstream, however.
The Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
has recently caused to be prepared a River Basin Plan which includes the
waters of Barren River. As a result of that work and associated develop-
ment of a computer program which predicts oxygen level profiles in the
stream, the Department has indicated that treatment level T4B would be
required for any discharge to the stream at or near Fountain Run.
Effluent characteristics for treatment level T4B are as follows:
BOD(5) = 10 mg/1
SS = 15 mg/1
NH3-N - 1 mg/1
DO =8 mg/1
Such treatment should provide an ultimate BOD of 19.5 mg/1 and a strength
factor of 11.5. The requirement for this degree of treatment is based on
a 7-day, 10-year low flow in the receiving stream equal to zero.
Examination of the drainage characteristics of the area indicates there
are no alternative discharge points which would require a less stringent
degree of treatment.
3-1
-------
4. CURRENT SITUATION
4.1. Conditions in the Planning Area
4.1.1. Institutions
Fountain Run Water District is a special service district established by
the Monroe County Fiscal Court under the authority of Kentucky statute.
As such, it is empowered to establish and operate public utility systems
for water treatment and distribution and sewage collection, treatment and
disposal.
The City of Fountain Run has the inherent broader general authority to
act on behalf of the public than does the Water District. This general
authority extends to such areas as law enforcement, planning and zoning,
and other issues not directly related to the operation of sewerage
facilities. It does not, however, cover as broad a geographical area as
does the District. Neither is it presently as able to assume the addi-
tional responsibility of managing a sewerage system as the District, which
currently has at least a limited number of personnel in its employ, and
has an established billing system in effect for its water customers.
Although only a few water districts in Kentucky presently operate sewerage
systems, adequate authority to do so exists, as previously stated. Accord-
ing to the Kentucky Public Service Commission, sewer systems in the
Commonwealth which are managed by water districts include Quicksand,
Goshen-Hannony Lake, Reidland and Warren County. Thus, there is adequate
precedent for the Fountain Run Water District to provide public sewerage
service within the limits of its geographic boundaries.
The Water District has assumed a principal role in activities directed
toward the ultimate provision of a public sewerage system by being
designated the grantee for 201 planning activities. It is logical that
the District continue to lead this effort and, subsequently, assume
operational responsibility for the system.
4.1.2. Economic, Demographic, and Land Use Data
4.1.2.1. Socio-economic Factors
Fountain Run is located in Monroe County, Kentucky approximately
17 miles west of Tompkinsville, the major urban center of Monroe
County. The Fountain Run Planning Area constitutes a somewhat
isolated economic community. Monroe County is lacking in major
transportation routes, and only a few internal industries exist
to support the county. These local industries are characterized
by lumber mills and stone quarries. One such lumber mill is
located within the Fountain Run Planning Area, although its
impact on Fountain Run is not expected to be appreciable as its
estimated capital is only $500,000.
The principal highways through the Planning Area are Kentucky
Route 87, which runs generally north and south, and Kentucky
Route 100, an east-west route. There is no rail or air service
within the Planning Area.
4-1
-------
Educational facilities within the Planning Area are limited to
one elementary school, with approximately 250 students. This
school is operated by the Monroe County Board of Education,
which provides secondary education facilities outside the
Planning Area.
There are three industries operating in Fountain Run, according
to the 1974 Kentucky Directory of Manufacturers. These are:
1. Fountain Run Milling Company
(C. H. Bailey)
Mill Street, Fountain Run
Product: Livestock Feed
Number of Employees: 3
2. Fountain Run Industries
Fountain Run, Kentucky 42133
Product: Ladies Pants
Number of Employees: 106
3. Sprowl Lumber Company
Fountain Run, Kentucky 42133
Product: Wood Pallets
Number of Employees: 26
None of the above are "significant" water users in the usual
sense.
Fountain Run has only a limited number of commercial establishments,
including one bank. These include approximately a dozen small
businesses in the center of town and one or two scattered elsewhere
in the Area. Reference is made to Exhibit IV.
The potential for further industrial development at Fountain Run
is limited. While land is readily available, other necessary
features, including surface and/or air transportation, are not.
The lack of high speed highways and rail service are probably the
greatest deterrent to industrial development, exclusive of the
lack of public sewerage.
4.1.2.2. Demography
The population of Monroe County, according to the 1970 census,
was 11,642. Projections developed at the county level by
Spindletop Research, Inc. in 1972 indicate a 1975 population of
11,573, and a continued decrease to 9,942 in the year 2020.
Monroe County's population has been on a steady downswing since
1940. The rate of decline, however, has slowed in recent years
indicating that the population has begun to stabilize. The
prospect of a reversal in this trend does not appear bright as
the bulk of the population drop was from the child-bearing
age brackets, 20-29 years of age.
4-2
-------
The City of Fountain Run reflects many of the same population
characteristics as Monroe County. Census figures have been
on the decline since 1940; however, the most severe drop was
reported in the 1960-70 decade when the drop was over 50%,
leaving 1970's population at 123 people. Based on the 1970
census figures, Fountain Run vould represent only 1% of the
Monroe County population. Census data also indicates that there
was a gain of 80 persons in the 1950-1960 decade, in contrast
to the reported "recent11 decline.
While the census bureau and planning agencies have indicated
that the city population vas only 123 in 1970, local records
show that 318 persons resided in the City in 1975, and local
officials disagree with the 1970 Census Report. Water District
officials reported that 436 persons lived within the bounds
of the District in 1975. The population existing outside of the
Water District but inside the Planning Area appears to be very
small, probably not exceeding 50 persons. Therefore, the total
Planning Area Population is apparently about 480 persons.
The characteristics of the local population are similar to
other small rural towns. Many elderly persons have moved into
town after retirement from nearby farms. Some of these persons
have become widowed and live alone, and therefore many of
the dwelling units are occupied by one person. Some also do
not have flush toilets and automatic clothes washers. These
factors are reflected in the low per capita water consumption
of 23 gallons per capita per day.
The possibility of Fountain Run growing on a self-sufficient
basis is not likely. On the other hand, Torapkinsville has shown
& sustained population growth over the last 30 years, and all
indications point to a continuance of this_ trend. In addition,
Glasgow is experiencing steady growth. As long as gasoline
supplies remain plentiful, some individuals would be willing
to commute to these latter cities while living in Fountain Run.
It is apparent that a major factor of influence with regard to
population dynamics in the Fountain Run Planning Area is the
availability of adequate public management of wastewater.
Population dynamics should, of course, have a greater effect
on the proper selection and sizing of treatment facilities.
It vould seem appropriate in the situation of Fountain Run to
select a process that would provide effective wastewater
management at a design flow commensurate with existing demographic
conditions. In addition, the system should be easily expandable
within the limits of likely growth.
4.1.2.3. Land Use
The predominant land use category within the Fountain Run
Planning Area is rural residential. The population center is
circumscribed by a triangle formed by Kentucky Highways 87
100, and a county road. The residential development is
4-3
-------
Fountain Run, Kentucky
201 Facilities Plan
Land Use
Figure M.
IQOO aooo
30OO
400O
tculc In leel
1.) Existing
Legend
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public/ Semi- Public
I I Agriculture, Woodlands
& Vacant
-------
characterized "by linear growth that exists along these roads,
(See Exhibit 1$ as opposed to the traditional block pattern
scheme. Except for one school, a small commercial base, and
a couple of cemeteries, the land surrounding Fountain Run is
rolling farmland. Existing land use patterns'axe"shown on"
Figure 3, which is adopted from the Comprehensive Water and
Sewer Plan of the Barren River Area Development District.
The areas delineated in Figure 3 do not represent zoned land
uses or a legally adopted comprehensive plan. At this stage
of the community's development, strict land use planning may
not be needed, and is probably not desired by local citizens.
It can be seen from Figure 10 that no significant increase in
non-residential land use categories is anticipated. Residential
growth is expected to "fill in" the triangle which is located
at the center of the city and expand somewhat to the southeast
within the confines of the corporation limits.
Many of the residences in the City are located on small
acreages; thus, the density of housing is very low. The City
limits cover an area of about 260 acres and include 143
residences. This would indicate a dwelling unit density of
0.55 d.u. per acre within the city limits, or an "average"
land area cf 1.8 acres per house. On the two most densely
populated streets, the average lot frontage is 228 feet on one
and 160 feet on the other; the latter of which includes the
business district. Lots are typically more than 200 feet
deep, with the smallest lot being about 100 by 120 feet.
The three streets forming the central triangle of the city contain
about 80 residential and commercial units. If conventional
sewers were constructed to the maximum extent, about 120 homes
and businesses might be reached. This would indicate a maximum
(1976) service population of about 280 for conventional sewers.
A.1.3. Water Quality and Uses
Ground water resources are inadequate to marginal for sustained usage at
withdrawal rates representative of domestic consumption. There are no
public water supplies in the Area which utilize ground water sources,
and few if any individual supplies. Further information regarding
ground water can be found in Section 4.1.4.2.
The only public water supply in the Area is that operated by the Fountain
Run Water District. The District serves substantially all the residences
and businesses within the Planning Area. Water is purchased from the
Glasgow system, which has an abundant source of raw water in that one of
its two treatment facilities is located on Barren River Reservoir.
Treated water is pumped from the plant through a transmission main to the
Monroe-Barren County line. From this point, the Fountain Run distribution
system consists of four and six inch distribution lines, with a small
4-4
-------
footage of three and two inch lines. A 100,000 gallon elevated storage
tank is located on College Street.
No significant use is made of surface waters from vithin the Planning
Area. Since the Planning Area is in such close proximity to Barren River
Reservoir, vhich serves many diverse water needs, any proposed activity
in the Area should take into consideration the protection of this
impoundment.
4.1.4. Environmental Conditions
4.1.4.1. Topography
The Fountain Run Planning Area lies in the upper reaches
of two small water sheds, which are drained by Jakes Branch
and Spring Creek. The land is gently rolling to moderately
sloped, with maximum and minimum elevations of about 850
and 700 feet, MSL, respectively. A portion of the
Fountain Run topographic quadrangle, showing the relief of
the Planning Area, is provided in Figure 4.
4.1.4.2. Geology
The Fountain Run Study Area is within the Mississippian
Plateau, or Pennyrile, physiographic region of Kentucky.
This region is bordered to the north "by the Bluegrass
and Western Coal Field Regions. The Jackson purchase is
to the west; the Eastern Coal Field to the east, and the
Nashville basin is to the south.
The bedrock in the area is the Fort Payne limestone
formation. This limestone is interbedded with chert and
dolomite. The Fort Payne formation is Mississippian in
age and is common to the valleys near Fountain Run. The
Salem and Warsaw limestone formations are just above the
Fort Payne formation. These limestones are. also of the
Mississippian age and outcrop along the crests.
These formations largely determine the terrain of the
study area which can be described as typically karst.
That portion of the geologic quadrangle which comprises
the Planning Area is reproduced in Figure 5. A description
of the two formations encountered in the Area is provided
below:
Salem/Warsaw Limestones
Limestone, dolomite, and shale: Limestone, bioclastic,
medium-gray; composed largely of well-sorted fragments of
crinoid stems 0.5 to 2 mm in diameter; many grains tinted
brown; crossbedding and scour-and-fill structures
widespread; distinguished from bioclastic limestone of Fort
4-5
-------
1' i fc^Ss*?;. _3~ \^\ I/ "f—<\^^cC" U N V» V
ymmw
FIGURE 4
Topographic Features
Fountain Run, Kentucky
-------
Salem and Warsaw Limestones
Fort Payne Formation
FIGURE 5
Geologic Map
Fountain Run, Kentucky
-------
Payne Formation by better sorting, smaller size of
fragments, darker color, lack of crinoid bioherms (reefs)
and biostromes (poorly sorted beds containing whole stem
plates), and-scarcity of silicified material in soil.
Dolomite, argillaceous, medium-gray, variably cherty,
similar to beds in Fort Payne Formation, is present
locally in beds as much as 10 feet thick in all parts of
unit. Shale, dolomitic, dark-gray, is present locally
in beds a few feet thick. SPIRIFER LATERAL IS Hall is
common in lower part of unit. Except about the hill 3/4
mile south of Flippin, where there are many outcrops,
unit is typically weathered to crumbly clay residual soil
nearly free of chert or silicified fragments.
Fort Payne Formation
Dolomite and limestone: Dolomite, argillaceous and
silty, medium-gray, very fine grained, variably cherty;
commonly contains small geodes. Limestone, light to
medium-gray, bioclastic, in part biostromal, composed
of poorly sorted fragments of crinoids including abundant
whole stem plates 1 to 1.5 cm in diameter; grain size
differs widely in adjacent layers; lenticular, cross-
bedded. Residual soil generally contains abundant
silicified blocks and crinoid stem plates.
4.1.4.3. Soils
The Fountain Run Area has been covered by a preliminary
soils report. This report, although not available for
distribution, has been provided by the Soil Conservation
Service. According to this report, the principal soils
associations found in the Area are WAYNESBORO-CRIDER-
MOUHTVIEW and FREDERICK-BEDFORD-TRIMBLE.
A description of these two associations is provided below.
1. Waynesboro-Crider-Mountview Association!
Sloping to strongly sloping, deep, well drained,
clayey and loamy soils on sideslopes and
ridgetops with sinks and depressions.
This association occupies about 24% of the
county. It is dominantly sloping to strongly
sloping but includes many small gently sloping
areas on the narrow ridges and moderately broad
valleys.
The Waynesboro soils make up about 57% of this
association. They are deep, loamy, well drained
with clayey subsoils and occur dominantly on the
narrow and moderately broad ridges and
sideslopes. Some are gravelly. The Crider
4-6
-------
roils occupy about 18% of the association and
the Mountview soils about 16%. They are deep,
veil drained and occur predominantly on
relatively broad ridges and valley positions
that are gently sloping to sloping. The Crider
soils have a brown silt loam plow layer and a
brown to reddish brown silt loam or light silty
clay loam subsoil in the upper part, over red
clayey old alluvium or residuum in the lower
part. The Mountview soils have a brown silt
loam plow layer and a yellowish brown or strong
brown silt loam or silty clay loam subsoil in
the upper part, over red clayey old alluvium or
residuum in the lower part. The Mountview soils
have a brown silt loam plow layer and a yellowish
brown or strong brown silt loam plow layer or
silty clay loam subsoil over several feet of
clayey residuum or old alluvium. Other soils are
the Bedford on ridges and valleys and alluvial
soils in sinks, small bottom lands and drainage-
ways. They occupy the remaining nine percent of
the association. Bedford soils are moderately well
drained with a fragipan layer at & depth of about
24 inches that restricts root development and
movement of air and water. The small areas of
bottom soils range from well drained to poorly
drained.
About 80% of this association has been cleared of
trees and is in pastute, hay or row crops, mostly corn,
tobacco and soybeans; and the other 20% is mostly in
trees or brush.
2. Frederick-Bedford-Trimble Association;
Sloping to moderately steep, well drained, deep,
clayey or cherty soils on sideslopes, and gently sloping
soils with fragipans on ridgetops.
This association is small compared with all other
associations. It makes up about 2% of the county.
Most of the association is in the extreme northern
part of the county, but one small area is in the
western part of the county.
The Frederick soils make up about 45% of the
association. They are deep, well drained, cherty,
and clayey. The Bedford soils, which are
moderately well drained and moderately deep to a
fragipan, make up about 18% of the association.
Trimble soils, which make up about 15% of the
association, are well drained, deep, cherty and are
4-7
-------
mainly sloping to moderately steep. Minor soils,
which make up the remaining 22% of the associa-
tion, ate the veil drained Mountview, Crider,
Waynesboro, and alluvial soils in sinks and on
narrow stream bottoms. The Mountview and Crider
soils are slightly larger in acreage than the
"Waynesboro soils.
About 80% of this association is in pasture, hay
and row crops, and the other 20% is mostly in
trees or brush.
From the information made available by SCS, a soils
limitations map (Figure 6) has been prepared. This figure
depicts those areas which have limitations with respect to
use for sewage disposal and an indication as to the type of
limitation which can be expected for a given soil type.
It Can be seen that a substantial portion of the developed
area in Fountain Run (primarily that area within the corpora-
tion limits) is free of limitations on sub-surface disposal
systems. Favorable soil conditions, together with the
relatively low housing density which exists in Fountain Run,
are factors which have a direct influence on the analysis of
treatment alternatives presented in Chapter 6 of this Plan.
4.1.4.4. Climate and Precipitation
The climate of Fountain Run is temperate. The temperature
is'generally moderate; however, there are short periods of
below-freezing weather in the winter and hot weather in the
summer.
Freezing temperatures occur less than 85 days annually, and
temperatures of zero or below can be expected at least once
every winter. The winter daytime temperature is generally
above freezing, whereas the night-time temperature falls
below freezing. This temperature differential creates a
daily freeze-thaw cycle. The average daily temperature in
January is 38°F.
The average annual snowfall is 10 inches, but the ground seldom
remains covered for more than a few days. About five times a
year, a snowfall of one inch or more can be expected.
Approximately 50 days a year, the maximum temperature is 90°F
or above, with an occasional reading above 100°F. The
average daily temperature in July is 79°F. (See Table 1 and Figure 7)
Fountain Run receives an average of 50 inches of rainfall
annually. Measurable precipitation occurs about 124 days a
year, with spring being the wettest season and fall the driest.
The variability of rainfall and temperature yields a suitable
growing season for Fountain Run and Monroe County. The
average length of the growing season -±s 175 days.
4-8
-------
FIGURE 6
Limiting Soil Factors
FOUNTAIN RUN. KY.
Scale: 1"=1320'
3OOOOOC
"ir.nnonr
\\v
Floodplain
No Limitations
Steep
Permeability Less Than-Sif/hr.
-------
1234
MONTH
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUN.
JUL.
AUG.
SEP.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
ANN.
EVAP
.9
1.2
1.9
3.4
4.1
5.0
5.5
5.5.
4.7
3.6
2.1
1.0
38.9
TEoMP.
38.1
40.1
47.4
58.1
67.2
76.0
79.1
77.9
71.4
60.0
47.0
39.1
TOTAL
PRECIP.
6.67
4.97
4.86
3.87
4.23
4.80
3.93
2.89
3.00
2.49
4.25
4.53
50.49
EXTME.
PRECIP.
10.83
6.21
3.82
3.82
5.86
3.01
1.85
.99
5.14
2.63
7.23
7.72
59.11
SOURCE:
Column 1-EVAPORATION FROM LAKES and RESERVOIRS. Adolph F Meyer,
NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD
Column 2-4- CLIMATOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED STATES NO 8& 13
U.S. DEPT. COMMERCE
TABLE NO.-L
CLIMATE
FOUNT IN RUN
-------
I/I
Ul
X
u
z
8 _
i
7 __
6 _
5 _
4 _
3 _
2 _
T
T
T
T
T
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
MONTH
—I r
JUL AU6
1 1 1 T
SEP OCT NOV DEC
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
_ 40
- 38
_ 36
Precipitation
Temperature
Evaporation
Ul
Q.
Ul
FIGURE NO. 2-
CLIMATE
FOUNTAIN RUN
-------
4.1.4.5. Hydrology
The Fountain Run Planning Area lies within the Barren River
drainage basin, v;hich flows to the Green River near Morgantown,
Kentucky. The drainage pattern within the Barren River basin
is dentritic. Surface flow within the Area is to two minor
tributaries, Jake's Branch and Spring Creek, thence to Indian
Creek and to Barren River Reservoir. The distance from
Fountain Run to the reservoir flood pool is about two miles.
About half the Area drains to each tributary. The majority of
the existing development, however, is located on Jake's Branch.
Some growth is occurring in the Spring Creek watershed; notably,
the new Fountain Run Industries site, which has recently been developed.
Some residential construction has also recently taken place tributary
to Spring Creek.
There is a stream gauging station on the Barren River, located
1.9 miles southwest of Finney, Kentucky. This station, 03.-3129.00,
is at Barren River Dam and is, therefore, not representative of
stream flow at that point. Records are available for a station
at the same approximate location for the period prior to March,
1964, and would not be influenced by the effects of the reservoir.
A gauging station located on the South Fork of Little Barren
River has been selected to illustrate typical stream flow which
might be expected near Fountain Run if the Reservoir was not affect-
ing the flow. Since the Planning Area is upstream.from the Finney
station, it is apparent that stream flows in the area would be some-
what less than for* that station.
The selected station is located about 0.8 miles southeast of
Edmonton in Metcalfe County. At this point, the Little Barren
River is similar in character (drainage area, topography, land
use, etc.) to the Barren River above Indian Creek.
Average discharge at the Edmonton gauging station, 03-3075.00, over
a 30 year period, is 26.2 cfs. Frequent periods of zero flow do
occur, particularly in the fall. Figure 8 shows stream discharge
at the Edmonton station for a portion of 1973, which was a drought
year. It can be seen that stream flow reached zero briefly in
late August and again in mid-December. There was an extended
period of zero flow from mid-September to mid-November.
Ground water in the Planning Area is found principally in the
Mississipian rocks. Figure 9 shows the generalized ground water
hydrology of the Area. The majority of the population within the
Area is situated where ground water is inadequate for domestic
supply (Meramec age). The remainder of the area is underlain
by marginal water-bearing strata of the Osage age.
According to the hydrologic atlas, there is no information
regarding wells within the Planning Area. One well, located
4-9
-------
i i
r i r
\ i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i rn I r r T r T^ i i i i i i i • i i
2 6 1014182226304 8 12162024281 5 9 13172125292 6 1014182226304 8 12 16202428
AUG.
SEP.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
FIGURE NQ_S_
STREAM FLOW AT EDMONTON (LITTLE BARREN RIVER) (1963)
-------
Water in Mississippian rocks of Meramec age
More than half the drilled wells in this area are inade-
quate for a domestic supply with a bailer and bucket
(less than 100 gpd). Very few wells yield enough
water for a domestic supply with power pump (more
than 500gpd).
Nearly all dug wells are inadequate for a domestic
supply (less than 100 gpd).
Small springs and wet-weather seeps occur near the
base of the Warsaw limestone. Flows are as much
as 100 gpm, but most are less than 2 opm.
ESS
Water in Mississippian rocks of Osage age
Yields of about half the drilled wells are adequate for
a domestic supply ivith bailer or bucket (more than
100 gpd). A few wells in lowland areas bordering
streams yield enough for a domestic supply with
power pump (more than 500 gpd). Most wells pene-
trate perched water bodies of small areal extent in
limestone at a shale contact. In some wells water
from these perched water bodies migrates below any
openings in the wells during rainless periods. These
wells are then dry until rainfall reestablishes a
perched water body.
Scale! f=2000'
Figure 9
Hydrology
Fountain Run
-------
immediately south of the Planning Area, reportedly has a
dependable yield of 54 gpm, and a depth to water of 39 feet.
The aquifer is in the Osage strata.
Local sources advise that there are a few residences within
the Fountain Run Water District which use private wells for
domestic water. It is not known how many, if any, are
located within the corporation limits.
4.1.A.6. Natural Communities
Some areas around Fountain Run may have been part of the
"Barrens of Kentucky" which may have been the easternmost extension
of prairie. Barren County, which lies just to the north of the
Planning Area, is named for this grassland ecotype. However, the
soils of the Area are not "prairie" soils but are classified as
typical soils which have developed under a forest cover. This
would not preclude the inclusion of part or all of the Area in
the "Barrens", since a representative of the Soil Conservation
Service explained that true prairie soils are not found in
Kentucky.
Present ecotypes consist of forest, grassland, wet sinkholes,
brushland and farmland. Inspection of aerial photographs
revealed that about one-third of the Area is forest. Most
extensive woodlands are along Spring Creek.
No unique or sensitive ecotypes are known to exist in the Area.
A letter was directed to the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources to obtain information on sensitive ecotypes
and locality records for rare and endaiigered species near
Fountain Run. Their reply indicated that only "tiny remnants
of primeval Barrens of Kentucky" might exist in the Area. It
was stated that no actual sightings of rare or endangered
species were known, but that a possibility did exist for
individual spotted skunks, coyote, eagles or ospreys to be
found in the Area. The letter from that Department is included
in the Appendix to this report.
A request was made to the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Louisville
District Office, for a copy of their "Presumptive List" of
animal and plant species in Monroe County. The Corps provided
a computer printout of species. The list contained 45 mammals,
37 reptiles, 34 amphibians, 237 birds, 104 fish-and 105 trees
and shrubs having ranges which may include Monroe County.
This list contained 11 species which are also listed as rare
or endangered by either State or Federal agencies. These rare
and endangered species are summarized below. It was not
considered necessary to reproduce the Presumptive List.
4-10
-------
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
FROM PRESUMPTIVE LIST - MONROE COUNTY
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens Rare (State)
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
River Otter Lutra canadensis Rare (State)
Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius Rare (State)
Golden Eagle Aqulla chrysaetos Rare (State)
Bald Eagle, Southern Haliaeetus leucocephalus Endangered
Bald Eagle, Northern Haliaeetus leucocephalus Rare (State)
Osprey Pandion haliaetus Rare (State)
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Endangered
E. Slender Glass Lizard Dphisaurus ventralis Rare (State)
E. Ribbon Snak.e Thamnophis sauritus Rare (State)
Four Toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Rare (State)
No locality records were found for the above species in the
Planning Area.
A.I.A.7. Archaeological and Historic Sites
The State Archaeology Office was consulted to determine if
archaeological sites were known to exist in the Area. No sites were
known to exist in the Planning Area. The nearest site identified
by the Office was located about three miles NW of Fountain Run.
The Kentucky Heritage Commission document: Survey of Historic
Sites in Kentucky, was reviewed for possible locations of historic
sites in the Area, and none are listed.
4.1.4.8. Sensitive and Environmental Use Areas
Consultation with appropriate agencies and information sources did
not reveal the existence of lakes, wetlands, wildlife refuges,
parks, recreation areas, virgin forest, "record" trees or reser-
voirs of rare plant species in the Planning Area. The flood pool
of Barren River Reservoir is located about two miles from Fountain
Run, and the summer pool is located about four miles directly west
of the Area.
Sinkholes do exist in the Planning Area, largest having a drainage
basin of about 170 acres. It is located north of-the Fountain
Run Cemetery.' Environmentally sensitive features are shown on
Exhibit I.
4.1.4.9 Aesthetics
Several visits by the consultants have impressed them with the
gentle natural beauty of the Planning Area. However, no areas of
unique aesthetic value have been identified.
4-11
-------
A.1.5. Air Quality
The air quality in the Planning Area is very good. No major
highways pass through the Area and there are no polluting
industries nearby. The nearest air quality monitoring station
operated by the State is located in Glasgow, a much larger city
with several industries.
Air quality records for Glasgow in 1974 indicate a geometric
mean of 60 micrograms per cubic meter for suspended particulates,
and a maximum 24 hour average of 65 micrograms per cubic meter
for sulfur dioxide.
Portions of the 1974 Annual Report of the State Division of Air
Pollution are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY
AIR QUALITY
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
Site
asgow City Hall
Site
Glasgow City Hall
Report
Period
74/01-74/12
Report
Period
74/01-74/12
No.
Obs
56
No.
Obs
55
24 Hr.
Max.
124
SULFUR
Observation
Min.
18
DIOXIDE
24 Hr. Average
Max.
65
.2
Arith. Geo.
Mean St.Dev. Mean St. Dev.
64 22.2 60 1.47
Arithmetic Measurement
Mean Method
9.4 24 Hr. Bubbler
The Planning Area is not located in an Air Quality Maintenance
Area and is Class II under the non-degradation rule.
4- 12
-------
4.2. Existing Treatment Systems and Wastewater Flows
As previously mentioned under Section 3, there is presently no public
wastewater collection and treatment system in the Planning Area.
Domestic waste disposal is by septic tank/sub-surface disposal or by
privies.
There are only two non-domestic systems in the Area, serving an elementary
school and an industrial plant. The school system consists of a septic
tank and sub-surface disposal field, and serves a total of about 250
persons. According to Water District records, the school uses an average
of 1600 gallons of water per day. This figure is apparently based on
vater records for a twelve month period. Adjusted to a 5-day week and a
9-month school term, average daily discharge from the school, when in
operation, is estimated to be about 3,400 gpd, or 14 gpcd.
Fountain Run Industries, -which is located about 0.6 miles east of the
center of Fountain Run, presently employs about 180 persons. Water
consumption records for this establishment are inconclusive,-.since the
firm has recently changed locations from a site near the center of
Fountain Run and also increased in personnel employed from about 100
to 180 persons.
This industry discharges sanitary waste only, and is served by a 2000
gallon septic tank and 5,600 feet of distribution field.
4-13
-------
4.4 PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
Only one type of waste-water disposal system is presently being used in the
Planning Area, which is septic tanks and subsurface disposal in soil. The typical
system installed under the Kentucky Plumbing Code for a home would consist of a
500 gallon steel tank or a 1000 gallon concrete tank with 200 lineal feet of ab-
sorption trench. Such small systems are not adequate for long-term use by modern
households. These systems provide only 400 square feet of bottom surface and
little useful trench sidewall area. This is an inadequate design area in any
soil finer than medium sand.
Of the 135 or so homes in Fountain Hun and its immediate environs, 29 (21%)
are located on soils having permeabilities lower than one-half inch per hour. The
remaining homes are on soils having permeabilities ranging from 0.6 to 2 inches per
hour. At least 5 homes are located on soils with slopes exceeding the maximum
recommended for standard septic tank systems.
Lack of proper maintenance and procrastination about repairs are typical pro-
blems associated with privately operated wastewater systems, and this area is no
exception. Even with the best design and construction, neglecting the pumping of
sludge and scum when needed and delaying repairs of inevitable malfunctions will
cause even simple septic tank systems to become a nuisance. It seems apparent that
adequate maintenance and repair of on-site wastewater systems is best a function
of a responsible public agency such as a city or special district.
These adverse factors combine to cause a high rate of effluent surfacing from
existing systems. No field surveys were conducted, but it is estimated that at
least 30 percent of the existing septic tank systems are exhibiting symptoms of
hydraulic overloading and produce a surface effluent at least during the wetter
months. The remaining households may experience rapid failure of undersized sys-
tems.
There are two publicly-owned septic tank systems in the area. One is at the
elementary school and is nearly 20 years old. It is apparently working satisfac-
torily, according to a description provided by the school principal. However, the
school system is approaching the length of service considered as normal for major
repairs and should be examined to determine the extent of subsurface ponding.
The other publicly-owned system is at the site of Fountain Run Industries.
The city installed this system in November, 1974. This system is apparently
functioning satisfactorily although the rate of ponding has not been determined.
If this industry increases the work force from the present 180 to 300 as is being
discussed, then the septic tank capacity may need to be increased.
It would appear likely that until the city or water district is able to assume
responsibility for design, construction and management of all wastewater systems
in the community, existing home systems will continue to cause an unnecessarily
high level of nuisance and a potential health hazard.
4-14
-------
5. Future Situation
5.1 Future Land Use
No attempt was made to predict land use changes in the process of preparing
this plan. However, projections of land use changes were made by the Barren River
Area Development District in their Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. The changes
identified in that Plan are shown on Figure 10. No significant changes are pro-
jected.
5.2 Population Projections
It has been pointed out in Section 4.1.2.2. that some discrepancy exists
between sources of historic population data, particularly with regard to the period
around 1970. Census data for that year indicate the city population to be 123.
Local sources are in disagreement with this figure, and exception was taken in the
preparation of the Barren River Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.
That report, which was prepared in 1973, indicates a population at that time
equal to 388. Projections were made in that Plan, 'as follows:
Year Population
1973 388
1975 442
1980 510
1990 665
2000 880
Reference is made to Figure 11, which illustrates historic population data and
the Barren River (BRADD) projection. In addition, a 20-year, straight line projec-
tion from existing (1975) population is also shown. This projection by Parrott, Ely
and Hurt (PEH) is based on an assumed 50% growth from the present population of 318.
Present population data are from the Chairman of the Fountain Run Water
District. It is believed that this figure is an accurate count of the population
of the City. The reader's attention is called to the fact that this assumption
leads to the conclusion that population has remained stable over the past 15
years. This conclusion is borne out by observations in the Area.
Among the factors which were considered in arriving at the projected growth
rate of 50% for the 20-year planning period are:
1. Present relative stability.
2. The influence of recent Industrial location in the Area, and potential
moderate industrial growth.
3. Median age group and marital status of current residents.
This projection would indicate a 1995 population of about 480 for the city
and over 600 for the water district.
5-1
-------
Fountain Run, Kentucky
201 Facilities Plan
Land Use
Figure KL
2.) Future
Legend
Residential
Commercial
jo Industrial
ma Public/Simi-Public
P Agriculture, Woodlands
& Vacant
-------
900 _
800 _
700 _
Figure 11
Population Projections
Fountain Run, Kentucky
c
o
600 -
500 _
3
£ 400 _
300 _
(3I8) Per Lo al
~ House Count
200 _
IOO _
-O Census Data
•O B.R.A.O.D. Projection
P.E H. Pro'ection
I940
i
I950
-------
5.3 Forecast of Flows and Waste Loads
Since there is presently no public sewerage system In Fountain Run, predictions
as to future wastewater flow must be made from water consumption data and/or commonly
employed design assumptions. Records of the Fountain Run Water District indicate a
present average daily water usage of about 23 gpcd among domestic users.
The present low rate of water consumption may be in part explained by the large
percentage of retired and single occupancy homes in the Area. Also, several homes
having public water do not have indoor toilet facilities or automatic clothes wash-
ers. A comparison of the master meter readings and total of individual meter read-
ings for identical periods revealed that the master meter reading was actually lower.
This indicates the validity of the mean per capita water consumption for residences.
It is reported that about 4000 gpd was used by non-residential places having
a total monthly consumption exceeding 10,000 gallons per month. Only one of these,
Fountain Run Industries (F.R.I.), is expected to increase water use significantly.
Current plans for expansion Include the possibility of an increase -of 67 percent
in number of employees. A proportionate increase in wastewater is expected since
no process water is used by F.R.I.
The other "commercial" user is the elementary school, which is expected to in-
crease in proportion to population, or by 50 percent.
If the current residential water use was projected to increase proportionately
to population, the result would be a very low wastowater projection. It seemed more
reasonable to assume a projection which would reflect more "normal" wastewater flows.
Studies in other areas have indicated that the average water use for rural house-
holds is about 40 gallons per capita per day (40 gpcd). This average was applied
to the projected population to achieve a conservative flow projection for the year
1995. *
If it is assumed that the population served/ in 1995 would be essentially that
of the incorporated city, then a water use by residential customers of 19,200 gpd
would be predicted. Added to the projected commercial use of 6500 gpd, the total
would.be 25,200 gpd. It is normally assumed that about 85 percent of water used
is actually returned to the wastewater system; application of this factor would
reduce the projected 1995 base sewage flow to 21,850 gpd.
Projections for immediate potential wastewater flow were made in a manner
similar to that just described, except that an estimate of customers served was
used as a base. For the conventional sewer system and central treatment, a total
of 106 residences, 8 businesses and the elementary school would be served. At.
the average occupancy rate of 2.7 persons per household, a total initial population
of 286 would be served, which is 90 percent of the city population.
Assuming a water consumption rate of 40 gpcd, total residential consumption
by prospective sewer customers would be 11,440 gpd. In addition, water consumption
by Fountain Run Industries, the school and commercial customers would raise this
consumption rate to about 16000 gpd. Assuming 85% of water consumption is returned
5-2
-------
to the wastevater system, a total base sewage flow of about 13,600 gpd is projected.
To this must be added an estimate of infiltration. Based on pipe manufacturer's
claims, it has been assumed that infiltration will not exceed 200 gpd per inch -
mile of sewer. This would produce about 5500 for a total combined flow of 19,100
gpd. Based on these projections, the immediate and 1995 wastewater characteristics
are summarized in the table below:
Immediate 1995
Base Flow 13,600 21,800
Total Flow 19,100 27,300
BOD5 Loading 50 Ibs/day 71 Ibs/day
5.4. Future Environment of the Planning Area Without the Project
The discussion in Section 5.2 illustrated that population projections range
from a low of about 600 to perhaps over 1000 persons in the Planning Area. At the
present estimated rate, 30 percent of the homes may be discharging septic tank efflu-
ent to the surface. This assumed high rate of improper disposal is based on the
following factors:
1. 20 percent of residences are on soils with limited permeability (less
than 0.6 inches per day);
2. Inadequate design of standard disposal systems is used in State code as
compared to standards set forth in the U.S.P.H.S. Manual of Septic Tank
Practice.
3. Lack of proper maintenance and repair is normally experienced with individ-
ual disposal, and failure rates have averaged about 15 percent in several
sanitary surveys.
While the improper disposal of household wastewater will probably not affect
wildlife in this instance, a detrimental effect could be generated in the Barren
River Reservoir. As described previously, the reservoir pool backs up to within
2 miles of Fountain Run. Discharges of septic tank effluent directly to ditches
and streams could cause heavy algae growth in these streams, which feed directly to
the reservoir. Subsequent annual die-off of heavy alage growths might contribute to
a degredation of water quality in the upper reaches of the reservoir near Fountain
Run.
Public health hazards would also be associated with the direct discharge of
septic tank effluent to the surface.
Infectious hepatitis, typhoid, salmonellosis and gastroenteritis are all dis-
eases which may be transmitted by direct contact with septic tank effluent. It
5-3
-------
has also been postulated that insects may transport such disease organises from the
point of sewage discharge to foods which cuay subsequently be eaten by man.
Improper disposal of septic tank effluent (or any other primary effluent) may
also contaminate groundwater. It is not known whether groundwater in the area has
been contaminated, but where the individual property owner is responsible for his
own disposal system, the possib.ility always exists for future contamination.
In conclusion, it may safely be stated that the absence of public management
of wastewater in Fountain Run would be likely to result in deteriorating environ-
mental quality and increasing public health hazard.
5- 4
-------
6. ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
The "existing facilities" for wastewater disposal consist of more than 130
septic tanks and pit privies. The adverse factors of inadequate design and neglect
of maintenance have been described in Section 4.1. It is considered impracticable
to try to upgrade the existing systems to the level of current septic-tank techno-
logy.
6.2 Regional Solutions
The improbability of the implementation of "regional solutions" in the ordinary
sense is obvious. The nearest existing treatment facility in Monroe County is at
Thompkinsville, which is 17 miles east of Fountain Run. The nearest city is Scotts-
ville, a distance of about 12 miles to the vest in Allen County. The capital cost
of sewers, force mains and pumping stations to deliver Fountain Run's small flow to
Scottsville exceed one million dollars, or nine times the cost of any local alternative.
6.3 Waste Treatment Systems
A complete spectrum of alternatives was analyzed for the community, ranging
from conventional gravity sewers with aerated reactor treatment to individual on-
site disposal for each home. This approach was used due to several factors.
First, a preliminary engineering report had been prepared for gravity sewers
with oxidation pond treatment, under earlier funding guidelines. The data from that
report was readily updated to reflect current prices and treatment standards.
Second, staff members of the consulting firm had extensive experience and
knowledge of recent developments in design of on-site disposal systems. It seemed
appropriate to apply this knowledge in a community where sewers did not exist.
Four distinct alternatives were developed in this Flan, as listed below:
A. Gravity sewer system with low-maintenance treatment in two sub-alternatives:
(1) Aerated reactor tanks followed by soil infiltration-percolation.
(2) Oxidation lagoon followed by soil infiltration-percolation.
B. Effluent sewer system, consisting of interceptor tanks and siphons or
pumps, with small diameter plastic sewer lines carrying effluent to a central
oxidation pond and additional treatment.
C. Community subsurface disposal system, consisting of effluent sewers serv-
ing small clusters of users as well as individual on-site disposal systems,
all utilizing subsurface disposal in suitable soil.
6-1
-------
D. Individual on-site disposal systems throughout the community on an assumed
design. About 20 percent of the homes would not be served adequately with con-
ventional designs of subsurface disposal due to soil conditions.
These alternatives are described in detail in the sections that follow.
6.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A
6.3.1.1. Summary - Alternative A-l
The following analysis indicates that construction of a conventional sewer
system to serve the most densely populated area of the District would cost
$339,620. If a mechanically aerated biological reactor was constructed to
treat this wastewater, the cost would be $29,000, and expansion at the end
of 10 years is predicted at a cost of $12,500. Since the effluent of this
plant would apparently not meet suspended solids requirements, additional
treatment would be required. An infiltration basin was the disposal system
having the lowest present worth. An intermittent sand filter would be the
next lowest in total cost and was 13 percent higher than the infiltration
basin. The most significant physical difference in the two systems is the
amount of land required, with nearly 4 acres needed for an infiltration
basin but less than I/A acre needed for a sand filter. The net present
worth of the infiltration basin was $53,900, which when added to the present
worth for the sewers ($390,08Z) and aerated reactor($89,482), brings the total
present worth of this alternative to $533,500.
6.3.1.2. Summary - Alternative A-2
This alternative would utilize an oxidation lagoon of 2-acre surface area in
lieu of the mechanically aerated reactor in Alternative A-l. The same sewer
system and infiltration basin would be used as was described in Alternative
A-l. The total present worth of this Alternative would be:
Gravity Sewer System <= $390,100
2-Acre Lagoon « 81,600
Disposal Basin = 53.900
Total Alternative A-2 - $525,600
The components used in Alternatives A-l and A-2 are described in more detail
in the following sections.
6.3.1.3 Alternative A - Sewers
This alternative was based primarily on a sewer system developed under an
earlier preliminary engineering study. The sewer system is shown in Exhibit
II. Sewer lines proposed in this system would consist of 20,020 feet of
6-2
-------
8-inch pipe and 1770 feet of 6 inch pipe along with 105 manholes and other
appurtenances. Since the proposed system would lie in two drainage basins,
a sewage pumping station and 600 feet of 4-inch force main would also be re-
-quired. Initial construction of this sewer system would cost $339,620 plus
engineering and legal fees. These costs are itemized in Table 3.
Annual operating costs would be about $9000, including billing services.
The present worth of these alternatives is calculated at an assumed interest
rate of 6.125 percent, for a period of 20 years. ("Present worth" is an eco-
nomic method of determining how much money would be required now to pay for
all anticipated costs during a specific period of time. Some money would be
spent the first year, as for capital expenditures, while the remaining funds
are assumed to be "invested" at a specific rate of interest. The earned in-
terest and capital would be expended as needed until, at the end of the pro-
ject period, all funds would be spent).
Present worth is the sum of the following:
(1)) Initial construction cost.
(2) Annual operating costs times a factor representing the rate of interest
(6.125) and length of time covered by the project period (20 years).
When operating costs change during the period, two costs and two factors
are used.
(3) Capital expenditures for expansion of facilities during the project per-
iod, times a factor converting this cost to a present worth.
The present worth is reduced by the salvage value of facilities and land at
the end of the project period. The present worth of the salvage value is
subtracted from the present worth of expenditures.
For each component in an alternative, such as the gravity sewer system, the
present worth may be computed separately and then added with other compon-
ents in various alternatives. Present worth for this sewer system was cal-
culated as follows:
PRESENT WORTH-GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM
Initial Capital: $339,600
Operating Costs, year 1-20: 9,000
Salvage Value at end of 20 years 169,800
PW of initial capital $339,600
PW of Operating Costs=$9000xll.354= 102.186
Total $441,786
Less: PW of Salvage Value =
$169,800 x 0.3045= (-) 51.704
Net Present Worth $390,082
6-3
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
FOR
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM
FOUNTAIN RUN WATER DISTRICT
Item
No,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY
Item Description
8" Vitrified Clay Pipe, ASTM C-200,
Furnishing and Laying
8" Cast Iron Sever Pipe, Furnishing and
Laying
6" Vitrified Clay Pipe, ASTM C-200, Including
Plugs, Bends and Bar, Furnishing and Laying
6" Cast Iron Sever Pipe, Furnishing and
Laying
16" Steel Cover Pipe, Furnished and
Installed
8" x 6" V.C. Wye Branch, ASTM C-200, Including
Bar and Plug, Furnishing and Laying
.01 '-6. 00' Trench and Backfill
6. 00 '-8. 00' Trench and Backfill
1.01 '-6. 00' Standard Manhole, Complete
Extra Depth of Manhole, Range 6. 01 '-12. 00*
Extra for Boring for 16" Steel Cover Pipe
Extra for Boring for 6" C.I. Pipe
Extra for Solid Rock Excavation
Concrete Piers
Crushed Rock on Trench Surface
Crushed Rock for Trench Backfill
Quantity
19,400
620
1,370
400
290
135
17,500
2,550
105
10
290
400
1,400
8
370
550
Unit
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
Ea.
L.F.
L.F.
Ea.
V.F.
L.F.
L.F.
C.Y.
Ea.
Ton
Ton
Unit
Price
$ 5.00
10.00
5.00
7.00
30.00
20.06
3.00
5.00
500.00
60.00
30.00
17.00
30.00
200.00
6.00
6.00
Total
$ 97,000
6,200
6,850
2,800
8,700
2,700
52,500
12,750
52,500
600
8,700
6,800
42,000
1,600
2,220
3,300
6-4
-------
Estimated Construction Cost
Fountain Run Water District
Page Two
Item
No.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Item Description
Bituminous Paving Replacement, Trench Width
2" and Over, Streets and Drives
Concrete Walk Replacement, 4" Thick
Bituminous Paving Replacement, With Con-
crete Base, State Maintained Streets and
Roads
Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station, Complete
4" Force Main, Furnishing, Laying, Trenching
and Backfill
C.I. Fittings, In Place
Quantity
250
150
900
600
300
Unit
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.S.
L.F.
Lb.
Unit
Price
$ 6.00
6.00
15.00
7.00
1.00
Total
$ 1,500
900
13,500
12,000
. 4', 200
300
$339,620
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
6-5
-------
6.3.1.A Treatment
Due to increased restrictions on effluent from wastewater facilities, nev
designs of treatment vere required. Experience with communities of similar size in-
dicated that consideration of two treatment methods would be adequate. These two
methods were oxidation pond or lagoon (Alternative A-l) and aerated biological re-
actor (Alternative A-2). Both systems would require an additional final step due
to the requirement that effluent suspended solids not exceed 15 parts per million.
Aerated Reactor System
An aerated, complete mix, multiple chambered reactor was considered due
to its simplicity of operation. Another factor causing consideration of this sys-
tem was the manufacturer's claims for effluent quality, which were within limits
for all criteria except suspended solids. The manufacturer provided a price quota-
tion, by letter, for this plant of $24,506. Additional costs for excavation and
backfill would bring the total initial cost to $29,000. Expansion of the plant
would be necessary in about 10 years, with expected growth.
Operating costs would be low with the "aerated reactor" system, since
only a 10 horsepower blower motor would be needed. The manufacturer claims that
no daily maintenance is required; no comminutor or bar screen is used, and the 72
hour detention time reportedly absorbs shock loads without disruption of treatment.
Manpower costs have been estimated by assuming 6 hours per week, at a total cost
of $6 per hour, would be needed. Annual power cost would be $2,300 with electri-
city at 3c per kilowatt. This would result in a total annual operating and main-
tenance cost of $4,300.
The present worth of this facility would be $89,500 as shown below. In
this analysis, it was assumed that a 50 percent expansion in plant capacity would
be needed after 10 years.
Present Worth-Aerated Reactor
Initial Construction Capital $29,000
Present "Worth of Operating Costs, years 1-16=
$4300 x 7.317 31,463
Present Worth of Operating Costs, years 11-20=
$6450 x 7.317 x 0.552 26,051
Present Worth of Expansion Capital, year 10=
$12,500 x 0.552 6,900
Total $93,414
Present Worth of Salvage Value=
-CS333xO.304+8333x0.304x0.552)= (-) 3,932
Net Present Worth $89,482
Manufacturer's literature illustrating the aerated reactor design is included in
the Appendix.
6-6
-------
Oxidation Lagoon
The other method for providing treatment was the oxidation lagoon. The de-
sign of this lagoon was based on best available guidelines. A loading rate of 50
pounds of 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) per acre was used to size the
lagoon. The 1995 projected population was used for estimating total BOD, and the
result indicated a lagoon of just under 2 acres surface area would be needed. A
2-acre lagoon would theoretically provide capacity for 588 persons at a production
rate of 0.17 Ibs. of BOD^ per person per day. The proposed design would include
3 cells each having a minimum depth of 36 inches and a maximum depth of 66 inches.
A freeboard of 3 feet would be provided above the maximum operating depth. The
width of all cells would be 150 feet, with the first cell being twice as long as
the succeeding two cells. A system of piping and overflow devices would be pro-
vided to adjust the depth and control the flow to each cell. The lagoon is illus-
trated in Figure 12.
This lagoon would, have the capacity to accommodate an increase of about 50
percent above the estimated existing theoretical wastewater load and still retain
secondary treatment capability; therefore, no expansion would be proposed during
the 20 year planning period.
As in the case of the aerated reactor, the lagoon would probably require an
additional treatment step for removal of suspended solids. Although most of the
suspended solids would be algae, current federal guidelines require removal of
phytoplankton.
The initial construction cost for this lagoon would be about $80,000. These
costs are itemized in Table ^ • Maintenance costs were estimated to total
$1,000 per year and would include such items as effluent testing and mowing of
dikes.
The present worth of this lagoon was estimated to be $81,600, as shown below.
Present Worth-2-Acre Lagoon
Initial Construction Capital $69,990
Land Capital (may be donated) 10,500
Present Worth of Operating-Maintenance Cost,
years 1-20= $1,000 x 11.354 11,354
Total $91,844
Less: Salvage Value at 20 years:
-(23,340+10,400)xO.3045= (-) 10,274
Net Present Worth $81,570
6-7
-------
\
/
i
!
•1
-i
\
I
i
•V
\'l
1-
»•
•s
!.'
V
/
. • _ . . •.- • *
i_
J. I/1K*
-
y
N
> i
;,
:i
?!
i ^
r
^
i
u
*
s.
/
^-Top of Dike
•v
_ I^R' tr.
. _ . '
/
\
•<
!•
1
\
/
x__
Water Elevation -^
_* ?°i'
-*B"-M
i
T
-E&. A
/
\
1
^
:t
i
\
ft
'
/
\
Plan View
Scale: 1"= 100'
25.5'
/
/
/ .
/
/
a
^— •
1
•••^
16.5'
\
x
X
.1
>
9'
^
\
150'
Max. Water Level -7
-i.- (Morm. vvaicr Level j
-^-
9'
y
/
16.5
/
/
/
1
3'
25.5 r
\
\
R1 X
>.
\
8.5'
Figure J_2_
201 Facilities Plan
Section "A-A
Scale: 1"= 30' Horiz.
1"=10' Vert.
Proposed Lagoon
Fountain Run, Kentucky
-------
TABLE 4
Item
-1. Grubbing & Stripping
2. C.I. Pipe
"3. Sittings 20% of Pipe
4. Misc. Structures
5. Concrete
-6. Fencing
7. Signs
8. Fertilizing & Seeding
r Earth Movement
0. Land Cost
Total
2-ACRE LAGOON
(NSTRUCTION COSTS
Quantity
33,560
1,000
20
2,426
6
25,000
7
Unit
Unit Price
S.Y. 0.13
L.F. 12.00
L.S.
L.S.
C.Y. 200.00
L.F. 3.00
Ea. 25.00
L.S.
C.Y. 1.50
Acre 1500.00
Total
$ 4,365
12,000
2,400
1,275
4,000
7,300
150
1,000
37,500
10,500
$80,490
(Say $80,000)
-------
6.3.1.5 Disposal of Treated Effluent
Three methods of final treatment or disposal were considered for use with
the aerated reactor and the lagoon. These were sand filtration, spray irrigation
and infiltration-percolation.
Sand Filtration
A report by Marshall and Middlebrooks of the Utah Water Research Laboratory^1'
states that intermittent sand filtration is very efficient at oxidizing applied nitro-
gen compounds and removing suspended algae. With typical secondary effluent applied,
BOD5 was consistently removed to levels of 5 milligrams per liter, after passing
through the filter. For use with lagoon effluent, a filter loading rate of 400,000
gpd per acre was assumed, which was derived from data in reference (1).
This would indicate a filter surface of about 3,100 square feet for the
estimated lagoon effluent of 29,000 gpd. Initial capital required for a filter
of this size would be about $17,500, including $3,000 for pumps and $3,000 for
chlorination facilities, although the latter may not be necessary. These costs are
itemized in Table 5 Annual operation and maintenance of the filter would re-
quire about $3,500 , as shown in Table 6.
The present worth of this filter would be $61,100, as shown below.
Present Worth-Intermittent Sand Filter^
Initial Construction Capital $17,500
Present Worth of Expansion Capital in year 10=
$3,150 x 0.552 1,739
Present Worth of Annual Operation and Maintenance,
years 1-10= $3,500 x 7.317 25,610
Present Worth of Annual Operation and Maintenance,
years 11-20= $4,550 x 7.317x0.552 18.377
Total $63,226
Less: Present Worth of Salvage Value =
5833x0.304+2110x0.304x0.552 (-) 2,127
Net Present Worth $61,099
6-8
-------
TABLE 5
SAND FILTER CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Sand & Gravel $ 3,800
Concrete Work 3,600
Earthmoving 500
Underdrain 1,800
Pumps (or siphons) 3,000
Chlorination 3,000
Land 1.800
Total $17,500
TABLE 6
INTERMITTENT SAND FILTRATION
OPERATING COSTS
Item Annual Cost
Operation of Pump $ 500
Cleaning of Filter 1,000
Operation of Chlorinator 200
General Maintenance 1.800
$3,500
-------
Spray Irrigation
Spray irrigation seemed to be a feasible method for disposal since soil
conditions are generally good and land appeared to be available. Land require-
ments are dictated by the weekly loading rate of 2 inches and the mean design
effluent volume of 29,000 gpd from the lagoon. The aerated reactor system would
need additional storage facilities for use with spray irrigation, but this theo-
retical need was not included in any alternative due to obvious cost disadvantages.
Total land area required for disposal of lagoon effluent would be 9 acres, with
a buffer zone 100 feet wide. Initial capital costs for the spray system would
be about $41,840, including 9 acres of land at $2,000 per acre. By designing
the system conservatively for the relatively small increase in total flow over
the 20 year period, no expansion appeared necessary with this system.
Operating costs for spray irrigation would include power for the 6 hp pump,
and maintenance of controls and 56 spray heads. Such costs should not exceed
$3,400 per year for this small system.
These estimates indicate that spray irrigation would not be competitive
with sand filtration, unless the land was obtained through a donation. The pre-
sent worth of this disposal method would be $74,932.
Present Worth-Spray Irrigation
Initial Construction Capital $41,800
Present Worth of Annual Operation & Maintenance2
$3,400 x 11.354 38,604
Total $80,404
Less Present Worth of Salvage Value of Land =
$18,000 x 0.304 (-) 5.472
Net Present Worth $74,932
Infiltration-Percolation
The third disposal scheme considered is classified as "infiltration-percola-
tion" which utilizes higher application rates than spray irrigation. This concept
assumes nearly complete infiltration of the applied water into the soil and the
control of all runoff. This is generally easier to accomplish in a small system
than larger ones. The application area should ideally be nearly level with a
water-tolerant species of grass maintained and harvested as necessary.
An application rate of 1 inch per day was assumed in this design, which
would appear to be reasonable for the soils in the area. Soils suitable for
such use may include better drained areas of soils such as the Crider, Mountview
6-9
-------
and Trimble series. (See discussion of soils in Section 4.1.4.3.)
The design of the infiltration basin would be similar to a spray irrigation
system. The major difference would be the leveling of the surface to provide a
maximum 2 percent slope with no undrained depressions. The application area
would be constructed in two equal sectors, each about 100 feet by 240 feet in
size with a total area of 1.1 acres. A low dike would surround the infiltration
area to eliminate uncontrolled runoff. Application would be done on days with
less than 0.3 inch rainfall and when air temperatures were above freezing. Stor-
age would be available in the lagoon to provide for periods when land application
could not be used.
To facilitate removal of nitrogen and enhance infiltrative capacity, a water-
tolerant plant species such as Bermuda Grass could be planted in the basin and har-
vested for hay. H. Bower reported that such plantings improved the infiltrative
capacity of soil.
The total wastewater flow is predicted to increase by only 28 percent, dur-
ing the 20-year period. This is because of the relation of base flow to total
flow. An increase of 50 percent in the base flow is 8,000 gpd, which is 28 per-
cent of the 29,000 gpd design effluent flow from the lagoon. Therefore, this
disposal system would only require about 30 percent larger capacity during the
planning period. This increase would be accommodated by increasing the area of
land, the length of irrigation, laterals and number of spray heads. (This same
rationale-was applied to the sand filter design.
Total initial-construction and land costs for this sub-system would be
about $17,000, and the annual operating cost would be about $3,000. These ini-
tial costs are identified in Table 7 Capital expansion costs at the
end of 10 years would be about$3,200, and annual operation and maintenance is
assumed to increase by $1,000, to $4,000 per year. Present worth of this disposal
facility would be about $53-, 900.
Present Worth-Infiltration^Basin
Initial Construction Capital $16,770
Present Worth of Expansion Capital"
$3,200 x 0.552 1,766
Present Worth of-Annual Operation &
Maintenance, years l-lO=$3000x7.317 21,951
Present Worth of'Annual Operation &
Maintenance, -years 11-20=$4000x7.317x0.552 16,156
Total _ $56,643
Less: Present Worth of Salvage Value of
Permanent Improvements and Land at 20 years:
(1920+7060)xO".304 (=) 2.730
Net Present Worth $53,913
6-10
-------
TABLE 7
Land
Perforated Pipe
Main
Valves
Earth Movement
Bermuda Grass
Pump
INFILTRATION BASIN
3.53 acres
1360 ft.
800 ft.
3 ea.
1000 yd.3
1.10 acres
Total
COSTS
$2000/acre
$1.00/ft.
$3.00/ft.
$250
$2. 00 /yd.3
$24/acre+labor
$3000
$ 7,060
1,360
2,400
750
2,000
200
3,000
$16,770
-------
6.3.2. ALTERNATIVE B - EFFLUENT SEWER SYSTEM WITH CENTRAL OXIDATION POND
AND INFILTRATION BASIN
Pressure sewer systems have received renewed interest in recent years. n
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has funded demonstrations of "pressure sewers"
at several locations, as has the Farmers Home Administration. Reports have been
published describing the systems installed at Grandview Lake, Indiana, u; and Mt.
Andrew, Alabama. (3) In addition, some independent reports have been published des-
cribing such systems, most notably by the Douglas County, Oregon, Engineer' s Off ice. ^ '
Early pressure sewer systems utilized grinder pumps or even modified garbage grinders.
These systems were difficult to maintain and the latest (more reliable) versions of
grinder pumps are rather costly. A less costly and more reliable system incorporates
septic tanks and heavy duty sump pumps.
The latter system has been recommended in the Grandview study. The advan-
tage of eliminating 70 to 80 percent of the suspended solids before the wastewater
enters the sewer system is evident.
Bowne (^and others have described the following advantages with such sys-
tems.
1. Excavations may be kept shallow since effluent may be pumped at low
cost.
2. Precise line and grade are not required and trenches may, therefore,
be much narrower.
3. Infiltration of ground water into the welded plastic lines is very un-
likely and, therefore, hydraulic capacities can be lowered.
4. Elimination of manholes by use of sealed cleanouts allows further re-
duction in cost and infiltration.
5. This type of construction may usually be done on the road shoulder or
unpaved right-of-way rather than in the paved road. This allows further
reduction in costs and reduces inconvenience to the public in existing
communities.
6. Since plastic pipe is flexible, sewers may be routed around obstacles
rather than removing them.
7. Bedding and backfill requirements are less stringent.
8. The elimination of 70 percent of suspended solids and 50 percent of BOD^,
in the interceptor tanks, reduces stream organic loading and reduces the
environmental effect of accidental discharges from the sewer system.
6-11
-------
9. Sewer peaking loads may be reduced by the interceptor tanks, particular-
ly where impeller-type pumps are used. Such pumps may operate safely
without discharge, and space would be available for temporarily increased
storage during short periods of peak hydraulic load in the effluent
collector line.
10. Where existing plumbing is oriented to the rear of the house and the
sewer is to be located at the front, considerable expense to the home-
owner may be saved by keeping the existing house plumbing and septic
tank. By installing a pump on the effluent side of the septic tank,
the effluent may be economically pumped to the street sewer.
11. Sewage treatment facilities may be designed for actual.base flow rather
than allowing 50 to 120 percent extra for infiltration. To achieve
this reduction, interceptor tanks in areas of high ground water must be
completely sealed to prevent infiltration.
12. "Where all wastewater sources utilized interceptor tanks, mechanical treat-
ment facilities such as bar screens, comminutors, grit chambers and pri-
mary clarifiers could be eliminated.
In addition, mean daily BOD loading of the treatment facility would be
reduced by properly designed and managed interceptor tanks. Fifty percent BOD
reduction would be anticipated where wet sludge fron the tanks was disposed of
by land application. For situations where sludge is re-introduced into the
waste stream at the treatment plant, reductions in BOD loading of about 45%
have been calculated.
Injection of wet sludge from interceptor tanks in topsoil is a most feasible
method of disposal in agricultural areas.
For purposes of this analysis the basic configuration used in the gravity
sewer system was also used for the effluent sewers. It is likely that the effluent
sewer system could be easily extended to additional customers. This alternative in-
cludes about 20,000 feet of small diameter (2 to A-inch) plastic sewer without man-
holes. Some lines would be pressure lines, but most would flow under gravity.
In addition, 3,800 feet of conventional 8-inch gravity sewer with manholes
was tentatively proposed for the commercial area and trunk line to the treatment
facility. An estimated 110 interceptor tanks would be used and each would have
either a heavy duty sump pump or automatic siphon to provide scouring velocities
in the sewer system. A typical tank and pump are shown in Figure 13.
Five larger pumps would also be used, of one horsepower size, and one major
dual pumping station would be installed on the east side of town.
Although up to 50 percent reduction £n BOD loading would be anticipated with
this system, a 2-acre lagoon and disposal facility identical to that proposed in
Alternative A is proposed here to assure conservative cost data. This treatment"
6-12
-------
FIGURE 13
House Service Connection
(schematic)
M Fuse Box & Alarm
i.
Check Valve
r
\
x
INTERCEPTOR
TANK
1000 gal.
•i
-
^
(
] /
J /
t
<^~
f
^
=
a
^ >
^ ^
1 (*r\rr\
1 uorp.
-Sump Pump
1/3 HP Standard
P.V.C. Main
House Sewer
-------
disposal combination appeared to be most cost effective.
Total costs for this Alternative were considerably lower than for Alternative
A-l or A-2. Operating costs would include pump operation and .maintenance, inter-
ceptor tank pump-out on a 5-year cycle, flushing of lines if needed and maintenance
of the treatment facility. Overhead costs would include billing, which would be
done by the Water District. These items would total about $10,800 per year.
The total initial cost for this sewer system would be about $196,000, includ-
ing tank and pumps. The city presently owns a 6-vheel drive truck which could be
readily used for sludge pumping and soil injection, so only costs for a pump, tank
and injectors are included here. The cost of the lagoon and infiltration basin
would bring the total initial cost to $300,200; these costs are itemized in Table 8,
The present worth o£ this Alternative would be $382,400, as shown below:
PRESENT WORTH-EFFLUENT SEWER SYSTEM
WITH CENTRAL TREATMENT
Sewer System
Initial Construction Capital $196,700
Present Worth of Expansion Capital 18,018
Present Worth of Constant Operating Cost -
$5860 x 11.354 66,534
Present "Worth of Varying Operating Cost =
$40 x 85.594 3.424
Total Present Worth of Sewer System $284,676
Present Worth of Salvage Value (Initial Capital)
$98,350 x 0.3045 29,948
Present Worth of Salvage Value of Expansion Capital
$33,000 x 0.237 (-) 7.820
Total Salvage Value (-)$ 37,768
Present Worth of Treatment Lagoon (from Alt.A) $ 61,600
Present Worth of Disposal Basin (from Alt. A) 53.900
Total Present Worth, Alternate B $382,408
6-13
-------
TABLE 8
EFFLUENT SEWER SYSTEM WITH
CENTRAL TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Cost per
Item Unit Quantity Unit Total
SEWER SYSTEM
*8" PVC Gravity Sewer F*. 3,800 $ 10.00 $ 38,000.
Manholes Ea. 8 500.00 4,000.
Extras for 8" Sewer L.S. 4,400.
4" PVC or ABS Effluent Sewer Ft. 13,600 4.00 54,400
3" PVC Effluent Sewer Ft. 6,400 3.50 22,400.
2" PVC Effluent Sewer Ft. 5,500 2.50 13,750.
Air Release & Cleanouts L.S. 2,750
1 hp. Pumps and Tanks Ea. 5 700.00 3,500.
1/2 hp Pumps and Tanks Ea. 5 500.00 2,500.
Dosing Siphons and Tanks Ea. 100 450.00 45,000.
Effluent Pumping Station L.S. 1 6.000.
Total Sewer System $196,700
TREATMENT SYSTEM
Oxidation Lagoon, 2 acre L.S. $ 80,000.
Infiltration Basin L.S. $ 17,000.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Injectors and Tank L.S. $ 6,000.
Total System Cost §299 700
(Say $300,000)
* Prices include excavation, rock & backfilling.
-------
6.3.3 Alternative C - Community Subsurface Disposal System
The process of developing the previous alternative created a climate for
considering decentralization of the sewer system. Several persons have publish-
ed papers during the past 10 years identifying criteria for improved designs
of on-site subsurface disposal systems. Public law 92-500 has caused some re-
examination of subsurface disposal as a means of achieving "zero discharge of
pollutants." Public or central management of on-site disposal has been proposed
by J. T. Winneberger and others. A Step 2 (201) grant has been awarded to the
small town of Boones Mill, Virginia, for a "community septic tank system."
So the concept of community ownership and management of septic tank systems is
not without precedent.
Even the Small Scale Wastewater Management Project at the University of
Wisconsin has proposed the establishment of centrally-managed on-site disposal.
In a recent progress report/6' Otis.et al, give the following advantages of
decentralized Wastewater systems:
1. Existing functional septic-tank-soil absorption systems can be
utilized rather than providing (unnecessary) new facilities.
2. Isolated homes and clusters of homes can be served individually
rather than extending sewer lines at higher cost.
3. Only minimal treatment is required (when using subsurface disposal),
avoiding expensive secondary and tertiary treatment facilities.
4. The possible necessity of upgrading (previously approved) treatment
facilities to meet changing standards for effluent discharges to sur-
face waters is avoided.
5. Operation and maintenance costs are low. (Also, system complexity
is minimized).
6. More rational planning of community growth is possible since strip
growth encouraged by conventional sewers is avoided. (Marginal non-
agricultural land is often more developable under these concepts, there-
by reserving more productive land for agricultural uses).
7. It is ecologically a more sound method of wastewater disposal since ac-
cidental sewer discharges are minimized and nutrients are returned to
the land.
The obvious disadvantages of on-site subsurface disposal can be over-
come by public ownership and/or management of all wastewater facilities. Re-
search has adequately identified the causes and prevention of failure of sub-
surface disposal systems. ' '
6-14
-------
Available technology is adequate for successful design and operation of
disposal systems even in soils with relatively low permeability. Host of the
"failures" of on-site disposal systems can be traced to either inadequate design
(usually through arbitrary application of codes) or lack of proper maintenance
by the private owner. The first inadequacy can be remedied by the application of
engineering technology, and the latter may be overcome by central management of
disposal systems. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the homeowner to em-
ploy consultants to design improved septic tank systems, but a community or
district can readily do so.
Design Criteria
The design criteria used in this analysis are very conservative, but do not
reflect the results of any field testing of soils. Soils data provided by the
U. S. Soil Conservation Service were used. Although local water records indicate
an average water consumption of only 60 gallons per day per residential customer,
this analysis assumes an average household wastewater flow of 200 gallons per day.
This would equal 74 gallons per capita at the average occupancy rate of 2.7 per-
sons per household, compared to a current consumption of 23 gallons per capita-
It was assumed that all existing septic tanks would be modified or replaced,
to provide two compartment settling with improved design of overflow devices.
The cost for this improvement was estimated to be $200, which is considerably
higher than local prices for standard tanks, but is representative of prices in
metropolitan areas. Where obviously useful, multiple-custcner septic tanks are
proposed.
A dosing siphon or electric pump would be installed near or integral with
each septic tank. This would assure better flushing of lines by avoiding the
effect of low-rate trickle flows from septic tank outlets.
Homes were grouped in several patterns to meet the somewhat conflicting
goals of lowest cost, simplicity of operation, disposal to most suitable soils
and amenability to future growth. The pattern shown in Exhibit IV would
probably be further modified after detailed field investigations of soil and
geologic conditions.
The preliminary disposal systems design would provide 300 linear feet of
absorption trench, one foot in width and about 3 1/2 feet in depth, per customer-
equivalent. The trenches would be constructed with 24 inches cf sidewall below
the highest useful liquid depth. In gravity flow systems this depth would be
measured below the invert of distribution lines, while in pumped systems the
total depth of gravel filled space could be utilized. Each disposal unit would
have a total sidewal] area of 1200 square feet, plus 300 square feet of bottom
surface, per customer-equivalent. This area would provide a design loading rate
6-15
-------
(on sidewalls only) of 0.33 gallons per square foot per day in each of two half-
sy steins. Only one half-system would be used at any one time, in order to provide
an annual cycle of loading and resting in absorption trenches.
The concept of alternating use of absorption surface has been advocated by
various authorities, notably Winneberger,(7,10) for at ieast 10 years. Seme local
and state regulatory authorities (10) have adopted the requirement that all septic
tank absorption systems be constructed to provide alternation of use. Some in-
vestigators believe that loading rates for alternating fields could be at least
double the rate assumed here. '-^
The costs of such absorption systems constructed in a community-wide effort
should not exceed current costs of "standard" absorption trenches in Kentucky.
The highest rates in the state for standard trenches are $2.00 to $2.50 per lineal
foot. A cost of $2.25 per foot is used in this Alternative. An analysis(8' of
the relative equipment time and materials used in the two geometries indicated
that trenches one foot vide and 3.5 feet deep would probably cost only 90 percent
as much, per lineal foot, as the standard trench 2 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep.
The relative efficiency i= =u=h greater f=r Tiarrcv tranches '-"her. abccrptic- sur-
faces are compared per unit cost. The narrow trench would apparently provide equal
total absorption area at about 54 percent of the cost of the standard trench. This
difference becomes especially significant in larger systems such as considered in
this alternative.
Where several homes are grouped to utilize one disposal site, the sewers
would be constructed as effluent sewers in the manner described in Alternative B.
This would not only provide sewer services at lowest cost, but would also avoid
the danger of harmful infiltration and inflow. Such extraneous water would be
particularly harmful to subsurface disposal systems, for obvious reasons.
One possible exception to this design would be the row of businesses on the
west side of Main Street. Pending field investigations to determine the avail-
ability of septic tank sites on these small lots, a "conventional" gravity sewer
and one central septic tank is proposed.
Public Management
Of critical importance to this Alternative would be the public ownership and/
or management of all wastewater facilities, on-site or off-site. This would in-
clude septic tanks, dosing devices, sewers and treatment-disposal facilities. In
order to achieve legal control over on-site disposal, the public agency would need
to have at least a public utility easement to the systems. The ultimate degree
of control would be ownership of the land on which all disposal facilities were
located. An intermediate method would be the purchase of "subsurface" or develop-
ment rights by the district. This latter system would allow the original property
owner to retain limited use of the land surface but would prevent any construction
or use of the surface which would interfere with the operation or maintenance of
the disposal facilities. Acceptable surface uses might include play areas, pasture,
6-16
-------
and flower gardening. In this alternative, a combination of the three arrange-
ments was assumed. That is, the district would obtain easements to the individual
on-site facilities, development rights to the smaller multiple-user systems and
complete ownership of larger community systems. In any case, the district would
own all installed facilities, including septic tanks.
Another level of service could be provided where no public funds were expend-
ed for individual on-site facilities. Such systems could be serviced by the Dis-
trict under a contractual agreement with the property owner. A set fee could be
added to the customer's water bill and any major repairs or renovation be charged
directly, in accordance with special policies of the District. This latter arrange-
ment has been utilized in some areas of California.^6'
The City and the District both apparently have the legal authority to imple-
ment the proposed management system.
System Design
Application of the concepts outlined in the preceeding discussion resulted
in a community plan composed of 22 individual on-site systems and 22 systems with
2 or more households and/or commercial places utilizing a common disposal area.
The systems at the school and at Fountain Run industries were not included in
this analysis.
The largest disposal area (site No. 1) would occupy a 2.5 acre field in the
center of town. It is shown on Exhibit IV with the other sites. It would
initially serve 34 users and have a capacity for approximately 45 household
equivalents at the 200 gpd design flow. This large site could be developed into
a mini-park for recreational use.
The next largest system (site No. 2), in customers served, would be on the
west side of the commercial strip. It would occupy about one and 1/3 acres and
serve 14 customers. The site is sloping, but the soils map indicated good depth
and permeability.
Site 3 would serve 12 customers composed of 10 homes and 2 churches. It
would be located on a vacant field between houses and would cover 0.7 acres.
The site is nearly level and the soil has a good permeability rating by S.C.S.
Site No. 4 is of nearly identical size, serving 11 customers. It would be
located in an open field north of a row of houses.
Site No. 5 would serve 7 customers including one church. It would be part
of an open field and is shown set back 150 feet from the road.
Site No. 6 is across a small stream from No. 5 and would serve 6 customers.
Land is available for expansion of this site to serve additional homes if nec-
essary. The soil type on this site has good permeability, unlike the soil on
the adjacent north side of State Road 100.
6-17
-------
Site No. 7 would be located on the extreme western corner of the District.
It would serve 4 homes and would be located in an open field about 150 feet
north of the street.
Sites No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 would all serve 3 homes each. Site No. 8 would
have a potential for expansion due to the amount of extra sewer along the road
and the potential building sites nearby; it should be sized for at least 6 homes.
Sites No. 12 through 22 would all serve 2 homes except for No. 19 which
would serve the Feed Mill and one home.
The disposal systems for the elementary school and Fountain Run are shown
on Exhibit IV in the approximate locations. The school system has been
operating since the late 50fs with only one repair. This system may be due for
renovation, but this can only be determined by examination of the system, which
has not been done. The inclusion of this system would not change the relative
ranking of these alternatives but would-tend to make the average charge per custo-
mer slightly lower.
The existing disposal system at Fountain Run Industries is less than 2 years
old. Since this Is already a publicly owned septic tank system and is working
well, no change is anticipated and its inclusion would not change the ranking
of these alternatives.
Due to the nature of this alternative, construction costs had to be calcu-
lated in considerable detail, and applied to the grouping process in a methodical
multi-objective process.
The 22 community systems would require the construction of 12,550 linear
feet of sewer. This would be composed of 950 feet of 8-inch gravity sewer with
manholes, 10,400 feet of 4-inch gravity sewer for septic tank effluent and 1200
feet of smaller (2-inch and 3-inch) sewer for effluent, some of which would be
pressurized. Pumps would be required at 13 locations, including 4 large disposal
fields and 9 individual homes. Two horsepower "effluent pumps" appeared adequate
for the largest flow, and one-third horsepower pumps would be used at individual
residences. In the total system, 122 septic tanks and 8 large dosing tanks would
be required.
It is proposed that clear title be obtained by the District to land on which
wastewater from 11 or more homes would be disposed. In addition, land for systems
serving from 3 to 10 homes should be owned by the District, but the surface use
rights could be deeded to the original owner, if desired to simplify surface main-
tenance. It is not proposed that land serving one or two users be publicly owned,
but a utility easement will be needed to service all publicly owned equipment and
improvements.
6-18
-------
A sludge pump and soil injection equipment will be needed for periodic clean-
ing of septic tanks. The sludge could be applied by soil injection to the publicly
owned tracts or nearby farms.
The total construction cost for this Alternative would be about $226,800,
including land purchase but excluding engineering and legal fees. (See Table 10).
Operating and maintenance costs would include items such as pump operation
and maintenance, line flushing and repair, servicing septic tanks on a regular
schedule, inspection of disposal field condition, repair and mowing of disposal
fields and periodic alternation of flow in the fields. These costs were estimated
to total $6,110 per year as shown in Table 9-
A total of 144 residential and commercial customers are included in this
Alternative. The elementary school would be another potential customer, and Foun-
tain Run Industries is already a publicly owned system. Including these latter
sources, 146 customers would share the costs of this system.
The present worth of this Alternative is approximately $392 700 as shown
below. This present worth included a 20-step calculation of the present
worth of expansion capital, which was based on 2 percent annual growth. This
appeared to be a conservative approach, since the disposal systems were already
overdesigned by a factor of at least 2. A capital investment of $1100 for each new
customer was assumed, but in actuality an investment of less than $300 would be re-
quired in many locations.
PRESENT WORTH-COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE C
Initial Construction Capital $226,800
Present Worth of Expansion Capital 43,243
"Present Worth of Constant Operating Cost:
$6110 x 11.354 69,372
Present Worth of Varying Operating Cost:
$60 x 85.594 5.136
Subtotal $344,551
Less: Present Worth of Salvage Value:
(75,600+61,700) 0.3045 (-) 41.807
Net Present Worth $302,744
6-19
-------
TABLE 9
COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
OPERATING COSTS
Item Annual Cost
Operation of Pumps $ 400
Maintenance of Effluent Sewers 1,100
Maintenance of 8" Sanitary Sewers 210
Servicing Septic Tanks & Siphons 2,500
Maintenance & Repair of Disposal Fields 1,900
Total $ 6,110
6-20
-------
TABLE 10
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
FOR COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE C
ITEM Quantity Unit Price Total
SEWER SYSTEM
Fittings & Misc. (8") L.S. $ 1,200
* B" Gravity Sewer 950' Ft. $10. $ 9,500.
Manholes 5 Ea. 500, 2,500,
4" Effluent Sewer 10,400 Ft. 4. 41,600.
2" & 3" Effluent Sewer 1,200 Ft. 3. 3,600.
Pumps, 1 hp 8 Ea. 400. 3,200.
Pumps, 1/3 hp v/tanks 9 Ea. 300. 2,700.
Dosing Siphons (Homes) 98 Ea. 200. 19,600.
Septic Tank, 1000 gal. 121 Ea. 200. 24,200.
Septic Tank, 3000 gal. 1 Ea. 750. 750.
Dosing Tanks, 1000 gal. 8 Ea. 300. 2,400.
Siphons for Dosing Tanks 8 Ea. 150. I?200-
Subtotal, Sewers & Treatment $112,450
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Individual Disposal Fields 22 Ea. 675. 14,850.
2-Unit Disposal Fields 11 Ea. 1350. 14,850.
3-Unit Disposal Fields 4 Ea. 2480. 9,920.
Disposal Site No. 7 1 L.S. 3,240.
Disposal Site So. 6 1 L.S. *'???"
Disposal Site No. 5 1 L'S. 5,645.
Disposal Site No. 4 1 L.S. 8,745.
Disposal Site No. 3 1 L.S. 9>?t2"
Disposal Site No. 2 1 L.S. 11,050
Disposal Site No. 1 1 L.S. 25,655
Subtotal, Disposal $108,345.
Sludge Pump & Soil Injector 1. Ea. 6000. 6.000.
Total Construction Cost, Alternative C $226,795.
* Price includes excavation, rock, and backfilling
-------
6.3.4. ALTERNATIVE D - INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE DISPOSAL
Individual on-site disposal is not usually considered a feasible alternative
for a community wastewater management plan. But where on-site disposal is being
used with some degree of success, consideration of community management of on-site
systems seems desirable.
The advantages for central management of all wastewater facilities have
been outlined in the discussion under Alternative C and need not be repeated here.
It is sufficient to say that such management would be extremely beneficial even
in the complete absence of multi-use facilities, such as with total on-site disposal.
Part of the land acquisition and ownership questions raised in Alternative
C would be eliminated with total on-site disposal. Only utility easements would be
needed to provide access to facilities for infrequent maintenance and repairs. This
concept has been successfully applied by the Georgetown Divide-Utility District at
Georgetown, California.
By avoiding the costs of sewer construction and maintenance, this Alternative
would have the lowest capital and operating costs and, therefore, the lowest present
worth. However, inspection of soil maps prepared by the U. S. Soil Conservation
Service revealed that about 20 percent of existing occupied structures are located
on soils having severe limitations for utilization of on-site disposal. While it
would probably be possible to design specialized systems which would function under
such adverse conditions, the bases for such designs may be unfamiliar to regulatory
agencies, thereby hindering the approval process. In addition, such special designs
would require a much greater expenditure of engineering time and possibly have high-
er capital costs than simple absorption trenches.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that 20 percent of the systems
would have costs 50 percent higher than the "standard" system. The standard system
would be identical to the individual systems considered in Alternative C, having a
200 gallon septic tank, a dosing siphon or pump and a disposal field with 1200 square
feet of design infiltration surface.
The construction cost for standard systems was estimated to average $1200, while
the costs for special designs was assumed to be $1800. The same population of 144
homes and businesses would be served as described in Alternative C.
The total capital costs for this Alternative would be about $190,200 and the
annual operating costs would be about $5000. The present worth would be about
$268,300, as shown below.
6-21
-------
PRESENT WORTH-ON-SITE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE D
Initial Construction Capital $190,200
Present Worth of Expansion Capital 41,000
Present Worth of Constant Operating Cost=
$5000 x 11,354 56,770
Present Worth of Varying Operating Cost=
$60 x 85.594 5.136
Subtotal $293,106
Less: Salvage Value at 20 years=
$63,400+18,000) 0.3045 (-) 24.786
Net Present Worth $268,320
6-22
-------
6.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
6.4.1 Monetary Evaluation
The Facilities Planning Guidelines require that monetary comparison of al-
ternatives be made on the basis of present worth. The procedures for calculation
of present worth have been described in Section 6.3, and the present worth of the
four alternatives have been summarized in Table 11.
The four basic alternatives which have been described in Section 6.3 are
reiterated here for convenience.
A. Conventional gravity sewer system with two alternative treatment methods.
(1) Aerated reactor tanks followed by soil infiltration-percolation.
(2) Oxidation lagoon followed by soil infiltration-percolation.
B. A sewer system composed primarily of "effluent sewers", with inter-
ceptor tanks and dosing devices at each source, and central treatment
by oxidation lagoon and infiltration-percolation.
C. Community subsurface disposal system, a combination of effluent sewers
and on-site disposal, all utilizing subsurface disposal of septic-tank
effluent.
D. Individual on-site disposal utilizing public management of on-site
systems.
The system with apparent least present worth would be the en-site disposal
system, Alternative D. The next lowest in present worth was the community sub-
surface disposal system, Alternative C, which was 11 percent higher than "D". •
The next system in ascending order was the effluent sewer system with central
treatment, Alternative B, which was 26 percent higher than "C". Since Alternative
C has a much greater factor of safety in design criteria than "B" this difference
is significant. Alternatives "A-l" and "A-2", utilizing conventional severs and
treatment, were very close in present worth, differing by only about 2 percent,
but were 37 percent higher than Alternative "B".
Since the difference between the lowest cost system ("D") and the next
system ("C") was probably less than the level of accuracy in the cost estimates
for Alternative D, other factors would be more significant in deciding between
the two. These factors are discussed in the following sections.
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF PRESENT WORTH FOR FINAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Item A-l A-2 B
Sewers
Trea'tment
Disposal
390,100
89,500
. 53,900
390,100
81,600
53,900
246,900
81,600
53,900
Total 533,500 525,600 382,400 302,700 268,300
6-23
-------
6.4.2 Environmental Evaluation
All of the four basic alternatives under consideration would appear to meet
the effluent criteria and other environmental criteria of responsible regulatory
agencies. As in most wastevater projects, the primary impacts are more readily
determined than secondary Impacts.
6.A.2.1 Primary Impacts
Primary impacts are those environmental effects resulting from construction
and operation of the proposed facility. These may include effects of noise,
erosion, siltation, damage to stream channels, damage to sensitive areas,
effects on endangered species, reduction of existing pollution and effects on
local air quality, among others.
Construction Effects
The following factors were considered in analyzing construction effects:
1. Erosion from sewer construction.
2. Erosion from treatment and disposal sites.
3. Stream-bank damage from sewer lines and treatment facilities.
4. Aesthetic effects of excavation, etc.
5. Noise from construction equipment
6. Air quality effects from fugitive dust.
7. The presence of sensitive ecosystems, unique plants, endangered species
and archaeo-historic sites.
8. Dislocation of individuals, businesses and governmental services
9. Employment.
Erosion
Erosion was estimated for each alternative by assuming a uniform soil credibil-
ity (K factor) for the soil (the dominant soil type) and uniform erosion con-
trol practices (mulching) and estimating the steepness of the affected area
by use of a topographic map. The Universal Soil-Loss Equation was applied to
these assumptions and the total annual soil loss was adjusted to the estimated
time of construction exposure. The results of these calculations are summar-
ized below.
Alternative
A-l
A-2
B
C
D
SOIL LOSS FROM CONSTRUCTION
Soil Loss,
21
30
25
6
2
Tons
From this table it may be predicted that the conventional gravity sewer system
and lagoon with disposal in an infiltration basin (Alternative A-2) would cre-
ate the greatest soil loss. The least soil loss would be created by Alternative
D, using on-site disposal and Alternative C would create slightly higher losses
than D due to the effluent sewers being provided.
6-24
-------
Since all such losses would be distributed over a fairly large area in a
"non-sensitive" environment, no significant adverse impact would be
anticipated.
Stream-Bank Damage
Damage to stream banks in the form of earth cuts and fills would be exper-
ienced in Alternatives A-2 and B due to the construction of a 2-acre
7-agoon in the bed of Jakes Branch. This construction would require the
diversion of the intermittent stream around one side of the lagoon. Addi-
tional damage could occur from construction of sewer lines crossing
streams in Alternatives A-l, A-2 and B.
Alternatives C and D* would not cause such damage since no major construc-
tion is proposed in any stream.
Aesthetics
All alternatives could be considered to have adverse aesthetic effects by
those to whom any construction activity appears ugly. Since no places
of unique aesthetic value were identified in this study, no significant
impact is expected.
Noise
Since larger construction equipment generally produces greater noise levels,
Alternatives A-l, A-2 and B would tend to produce greater significant
noise impact than Alternatives C and D. However, the most noise would be
produced by bulldozers constructing the lagoon, and the lagoon site is
located more than 500 feet from the nearest residence.
Sewer line construction in an existing community often produces noise levels
which exceed the USEPA criteria for noise. Since the construction of ef-
fluent sewers, as in"Alternatives B and C, would be done with smaller equip-
ment, fewer excessive noise incidents would be expected.
The total lack of pavement crossings in Alternative D would indicate that
this Alternative would have least adverse noise impact.
Air Quality
Air quality would be temporarily degraded by fugitive dust in dry periods.
Since "fugitive dust- is related to the relationship between the source
and receiver, sewer line construction in streets or rights-of-way would
probably create the greatest impact. It is doubtful that this type of
problem can be effectively controlled except as a result of complaints.
6-25
-------
Sensitive Ecosystems
No sensitive ecosystems were identified in the inventory and no adverse im-
pacts appear possible. The most sensitive feature of the area may be sink-
holes which have been identified on Exhibit I.
Unique, Rare or Endangered Species
No unique individual trees listed by the State Forestry Office for the Plan-
ning Area. No sighting of rare or endangered species are known for recent
years. The State Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has stated in
an attached letter (see Appendix) that no rare and endangered species were
known to exist within the Planning Area. No adverse impact would be
predicted.
Archaeo-Historic Sites?
No archaeological or historic sites are recorded for the area and, there-
fore, no adverse impact is predicted. If Alternative A-2 or B were select-
ed, then investigation of the lagoon site may be-desirable.
Dislocation of Individuals
No dislocation of individuals, businesses or governmental services appeared
to be necessary in any of the Alternatives. About 6 acres of land in small
tracts would be reserved for public use in Alternative C, but this would not
cause any foreseeable dislocation.
Employment
Greatest employment would probably be generated with Alternatives A-l and
A-2, but no alternative appeared to require significantly more or fewer
man-days to complete. Local contractors (within 20 miles) would most likely
be successful bidders for Alternatives C or D, while larger companies would
be expected to be successful bidders on the other alternatives.
OPERATING EFFECTS
The operating effects of the various facilities could also constitute a
"Primary Impact." Impacts on surface water and ground water are of primary
concern.
Surface Water Effects
Since all alternatives are designed to meet local effluent criteria estab-
lished by State and Federal regulation, no adverse impact on surface waters
would be predicted.
6-26
-------
Groundwater Effects
All of the final alternatives utilized some form of disposal to the soil.
Consideration of soil conditions and the hydrogeology of the area have
shown that the possibility of groundwater contamination by the proposed
facilities is remote. All soils considered for disposal are fine textured
and moderately well drained. They are considered to have a large capacity
for absorption of ammonia nitrogen, nitrate and phosphorous. No high
groundwater conditions were evident in any disposal area.
More detailed consideration of the location of any existing wells should
be made in the Step 2 (design) process. Nearly all persons in the area of
concern are customers of the Water District, but a few private wells may
still exist, and if so, adequate separation distances from disposal sites
must be provided or the wells should be abandoned and sealed.
The potential for overflow of partially treated wastewater in the effluent
sewer system is probably much less than the potential for overflow of raw
wastewater in the conventional system. This is due in part to the provision
of on-site storage of several hours capacity in the. dosing tanks and septic
tanks. A typical 1,000 gallon septic tank would have a reserve storage
capacity of about 100 gallons with a rise of 6 inches in liquid level. This
would equal about 12 hours of average flow, which should be sufficient time
to complete most repairs or replace failed pumps.
In addition, hydraulic overloads from infiltration and inflow appear to be
much more likely with conventional sewers than with effluent sewers, due
to the relative integrity of joints and the presence of manholes in the
conventional system.
Further protection against accidental overflow in effluent sewers could
be provided by small emergency sand filters located adjacent to dis-
posal field pumps, or by emergency subsurface disposal trenches.
No groundwater depletion or wetland degradation would result from the
operation of any alternative considered.
Ener
Energy consumption would be greatest in Alternative A-l, where a 10 horse-
power blower running continuously and a small pumping station of about 7.5
horsepower would be used. Energy consumption would be least in Alternative D.
Each of the effects described above has been given a numerical rating and the
ratings added to give a total for ranking purposes. This process is shown on
Table 12 . The results would indicate that the five alternatives do not ex-
hibit a very wide spread in relative environmental impact. The total rankings,
in ascending order of possible negative impact, were:
1. Alternative D = 29
2. Alternative C - 30
3. Alternative B = 37
4. Alternative A-l = 40
5. Alternative A-2 = 43
6-27
-------
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR FINAL ALTERNATIVES
NEGATIVE
IMPACTS
Primary
Erosion
Stream Damage
Aesthetics
Noise from Construction
Odor
Fugitive Dust
Air Pollution
Natural Communities
Sensitive Areas
Scientific & Cultural Resources
Dislocation
Employment
Groundvater Quality
Surface Water Quality
Energy Consumption
Noise from Operation
Secondary
Development
Pollution from Development
Damage to Ecosystems
Damage to Sensitive Areas
Totals
A-l
3
3
3
6
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
40
A-2
4
5
4
6
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
43
B
3
4
3
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
37
C
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
30
D
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
_1
29
-------
6.4.2.2. SECONDARY-IMPACTS
Development
Conventional gravity sewers often are considered to stimulate growth and en-
courage new industry to move to an area, where excess capacity exists in a sewerage
system. Of course, this is dependent on many other factors as well, such as avail-
ability of general and skilled labor, transportation facilities and distance to mar-
kets. Nevertheless, it would appear likely that conventional gravity sewers as con-
sidered in Alternatives A-l and A-2 would tend to cause more development and, there-
fore, create a potential for greater secondary impact than Alternatives B, C and D.
Due to the difficulties of predicting growth in a rural community, all alter-
natives were considered to be associated with a uniform gradual increase of population.
The assumed growth rate of two percent per year would have negligible secondary impact
due to the relatively small population and the lack of "polluting" industries^ No
major highways run through the Area and, therefore, no future residential growth would
be adversely affected by highway noise or motor vehicle emissions.
Solid Wastes
Solid waste production from all sources would tend to increase in proportion
to population, or about 50 percent. The city is presently hauling solid waste to an
approved landfill in Barren County and expects to continue to do so.
The additional 58 tons or 230 cubic yards of anticipated solid waste gener-
ated each year is not considered to be significant.
Pesticides
Pesticide use may increase slightly as a continuing trend. Increases in
household uses of pesticides would be a minor impact as compared to agricultural uses
in this farming area.
Damage to Ecosystems
No development was projected for areas known to be habitats for rare or en-
dangered species or for wetlands; no such areas were identified in the inventory.
Other Secondary Effects
No effect was evident for historic or archaeological sites. No violation
of existing land use or environmental regulations is anticipated for any Alternative.
6-28
-------
6.4.3. EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION
Based on the consultant's understanding of the powers of Water Districts,
any of the Alternatives could legally be implemented by the District. Alternatives
C and D are apparently unique proposals in Kentucky and for that reason may entail
more original thought and careful evaluation for successful implementation.
On the other hand, the conventional sewer with central treatment would require
such a large expenditure of local funds, even with federal assistance, that opposi-
tion from potential customers may be even greater than anticipated. Alternatives
A and B may also require a trained operator, or at least require considerably more
manpower than the other Alternatives, which would be a disadvantage.
Alternative D would seem particularly difficult to implement from the stand-
point of the 20% of homes located on soils of low permeability. As pointed out in
6.3, that Alternative could involve much higher costs for design and construction
of the systems located in poor soils than was used to determine relative present
worth. From this standpoint, Alternative D is not recommended.
In perspective, none of the Alternatives had any overwhelming advantage for
implementation. Further consideration of implementation is contained in Chapter 9.
6-29
-------
7. Plan Selection
7.1 Public Participation
A notice of public hearing for discussion of the environmental inventory and alter-
natives developed in the Plan was published in the Tomkinsville News. Copies of
the notice were provided to the Water District for distribution.
The hearing was held on July 6, 1976, at the Fountain Run Elementary School. Apr
proximately 15 persons were present at the meeting, including directors of the
Water District.
The four alternatives and projected costs were explained, and the attendees were
asked if any had knowledge of sensitive environmental features which might be
affected by any proposed construction. No one mentioned any such feature.
Discussion centered around Alternative C, the community subsurface disposal sys-
tem. Alternative A, conventional sewers and central treatment, was considered
too expensive by all participants. Even Alternative B, the effluent sewer sys-
tem with central treatment, was considered too expensive for local income levels.
Several participants mentioned the fact that a significant portion (local esti-
mates were 30 percent) of the population was living on retirement income and
Social Security.
One citizen expressed concern about odors from a treatment facility in the pro-
posed location, for Alternatives A and 6. Some others agreed that odors might
cause some problems.
It was pointed out that the element of risk of "failure" may be higher in Alter-
native C than with conventional sewers, due to the complexity of soils and rela-
tive sensitivity to errors, but that any failure would probably only affect a few
persons and would be correctable. The importance of the central management con-
cept to correcting problems was explained.
To those attending who had no immediate problem with their individual disposal
systems, even the expenditure of $7.00 per month seemed to be little justified
when the discussion was commenced. An objection to Alternative C was that it
might not attract new industry in the manner hoped for by some citizens. Some
questioned whether as many persons would "sign up" for services as had been pro-
jected, and this led to a discussion of the possible mandating of subscriptions
by health authorities or city ordinance. (An opinion of the State Attorney
General advised that Water District Commissioners would have legal authority to
require use of the system).
The participants largely agreed that the community disposal system would be a
desirable improvement and that Alternative C would probably not cost any more
7-1
-------
than maintaining and replacing existing septic tank systems. Several persons
mentioned neighbors and business places where septic tank failures were known
but have not been corrected.
Toward the end of the 3-hour meeting the Chairman of the Water District asked
each Commissioner his opinion concerning the desired course of action. All
indicated a desire to pursue the design and construction of a community waste-
water management system. All but one person supported the concept of community
subsurface disposal (Alternative C). The one person expressed reservations, in-
dicating he would prefer conventional gravity sewers or no project.
Since the majority favored Alternative C, subsurface disposal, due to the lower
cost and simplicity of operation, the Chairman instructed the consultants to
proceed with the remaining chapters, with Alternative C as the preferred alter-
nate.
7.2 Evaluation and Ranking
The basic alternatives have been evaluated in detail in Section 6.4 and the main
differences are only summarized in this section for the three recommended alter-
nates. These are:
A2. Conventional gravity sewers with oxidation lagoon;
B. Effluent sewer system with oxidation lagoon;
C. Community subsurface disposal system.
7.2.1 Evaluation
In terms of total cost, the systems were evaluated by comparing net present
worth of each alternative. Of the three alternatives considered most feasible
(A2, B and C) , there was a difference of 76 percent in the highest and lowest
costs. However, the most significant cost to the average citizen is the esti-
mated monthly bill; this varied more than present worth. The average user
charge with conventional sewers and central treatment (Alternative A-2) was
estimated to be more than $15 per month while the charge with community sub-
surface disposal was estimated to be about $7.00 per month.
Evaluation of environmental effects did not reveal any significant adverse
impacts associated with any alternative. Relative impact was roughly propor-
tional to present worth in each case (page 6-27). This conclusion was affect-
ed by the small size of the project, the lack of any truly sensitive environ-
mental features, the lack of known rare or endangered species and the relative-
ly slow rate of growth experienced by the community.
Evaluation of implementation (page 6-29) indicated that none of the alternates
had any significant advantage for implementation. The cost to the users for
Alternates A and B would probably prevent implementation at this time. But
7-2
-------
on the other hand, some potential users may not see any advantage in Alternate
C which would justify even the relatively low user charges. The District is
authorized under Section 74.407 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes to establish
and operate sewage disposal systems.
7.2.2 Ranking
Table 13 shows the relative ranking of each of the three recommended alternates.
This ranking only shows the relative order and is not quantitive. Higher num-
bers indicate higher cost or greater adverse impact. Where the result is ap-
proximately equal, the same ranking number is used.
This ranking system illustrates that Alternative C would have the best over-
all ranking with "B" a very close second. The factors for monetary costs,
financial implementation and primary environmental effects were most signi-
ficant in determining the order of composite ranking.
7.3 Selected Plan
The plan selected for recommendation is Alternative C, the Community Subsur-
face Disposal System. This system includes short sewers, carrying only septic
tank effluent, which serve 122 customers. It is proposed that at least 22
additional customers be served by improved design of on-site disposal systems
which would be District-maintained. Final disposal of all effluent will be tc
the soil mantle by subsurface absorption trenches located at 44 individual
sites, as shown on Exhibit IV.
New facilities which would be included in this plan are listed below:
122 septic tanks;
13,250 linear feet of effluent sewer;
950 linear feet of 8" sanitary sewer;
104 small dosing siphons;
9 small effluent pumps;
4 main dosing tanks with pumps;
6 main dosing tanks with siphons;
44,100 linear feet of absorption trenches at 44 sites;
10.6 acres of land;
1 set sludge pump and soil injection equipment.
7.4 Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan
The environmental effects have been evaluated in Section 6.4.2, beginning on
page 6-24. No significant primary impacts have been identified.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Unavoidable adverse impacts would include a minor amount of soil erosion.
Siltation would be minimal and would not appear to have significant impact
7-3
-------
Table 13
RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY
Factor
Environmental Effects
Primary
Secondary
Monetary Costs (Present Worth)
Implementation
Institutional
Financial
Legal
Social-Political
Water Quality Objectives
Environmental
Land Use Regulations
Reliability
Composite Ranking
Alternative
A B C
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
3.
3
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
_!
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
_!
1
7-4
-------
in the agriculture setting. Noise from "backhoes" and other medium construc-
tion equipment may at times exceed health and welfare guidelines but such
episodes would be of fairly short duration. Air quality may be slightly de-
graded from fugitive dust but the total effect would probably be less than
that caused by plowing of fields in the area.
This alternative involves the possible purchase of at least 11 and perhaps as
many as 22 small tracts of land. However, no individuals} businesses or gov-
ernmental services would be dislocated.
This project would not appear to have any significant adverse effect on long-
term productivity of the environment. After completion of the project, all
of the land could be utilized for agricultural uses such as pasture and hay
production. Upland wildlife could also utilize disposal areas.
Irreversible commitments of resources would be minor, consisting of fuel to
operate internal combustion engines during construction, small electrical
consumption by pumps, concrete in the form of septic tanks and dosing tanks,
and granular fill in absorption trenches. Plastic pipe used for sewers
might be considered to be irreversibly committed although recycling would be
technically possible.
The project may tend to change the character of the area by increasing the
density of future housing. This effect may also tend to reduce the encroach-
ment of residential uses onto agricultural lands. With no direct discharge to
surface streams, there should be no adverse impact on the aquatic environment.
The projected growth of 2 percent per year is not expected to cause any signi-
ficant adverse impact from secondary effects. The area seems well suited to
further residential, commercial and light industrial growth.
7-5
-------
8. Cost Estimates, Preliminary Design
8.1 Description of Design
Eased on the results of the public hearing and decision of the Fountain Run
Water District Board of Commissioners, Alternative C will be described in more
detail as the selected system. This Alternative is a unique combination of ef-
fluent sewers and subsurface disposal systems arranged to provide economical
management of the community's wastewater.
The primary design concept is to retain the solids at the place of generation
and carry only settled effluent to a suitable disposal site. Effluent from
more than one home or business is collected in common sewers for disposal at a
community site except where sewer costs significantly exceed individual dispos-
al costs. This grouping process resulted in 22 disposal sites having from 2
to 34 customers. In addition, it ±s recommended that 22 additional customers
be served on an individual basis by providing new septic tanks and absoprtion
fields which will be publicly owned, and managed. The 22 "community" shared
disposal sites would serve a total of 122 homes and small businesses, and the
total project would serve 144 customers. The proposed locations of sewers and
other facilities are shown on Exhibit IV.
A conventional gravity sewer with manholes is proposed for the west side of
the business district. This is due to the uncertainties of placing septic
tanks on some of the narrow lots. This sewer would lead to a large septic
tank and disposal field and would be 950 feet in length.
SEPTIC TANK DESIGN
The septic tank design recommended for these installations would be based on
latest recommendations of State and Federal agencies. Tanks would be at least
1000 gallons liquid capacity and contain two settling compartments. It is pro-
posed that overflow devices be designed after the recommendations of the Agri-
cultural Research Servicei1-^ Their recommendations advise a 6-inch diameter
riser and a 2-inch diameter discharge pipe, for home systems. This configura-
tion reportedly gives a 67 percent reduction in exit velocity when compared to
a 4-inch riser and outlet, thereby increasing retention of solids. An alternate
overflow device would be an NSF approved solids retainer, which is commercially
available. Larger tanks would have proportionately larger overflow devices.
All joints and access holes in the septic tanks would be sealed to eliminate
excessive infiltration. All tanks would be equipped with ports at ground level
to provide access for inspection and sludge removal. Multiple-user tanks larger
than 1500 gallons will be designed with volumes at least equal to that provided
by the equation: Volume = 1,125 + 0.75 daily flow.'35'
8-1
-------
Following each septic tank would be a tank to store effluent until sufficient
volume was collected to achieve scouring velocity upon discharge to the efflu-
ent sewer. This could be accomplished by either a tipping device, a dosing
siphon or an electric pump. One design of fiberglas dosing siphon (Pacific
Flush Tank Company) has a drawing depth of 13 inches in the 3-inch size. A
tank with inside dimensions of 4 1/2 feet by 2 feet would, therefore, provide
a discharge volume of about 72 gallons per cycle, which would be adequate. The
space for a dosing chamber may be obtained by simply blocking off part of an
oversized septic tank; the particular design will be determined in the final
design phase. A typical arrangement of septic tank, pump and sewer are shown in
Figure 13 following page 6-12.
If pumps are used to introduce effluent into the sewers, a one-third horsepower
heavy duty sump pump would be adequate in most situations. The Peabody-Bames
Company advertisers several models of "effluent pumps" in the 1/2 to 2 horsepower
sizes as being designed particularly for use in pumping effluent.
SEWER DESIGN
The design of effluent sewers is based on consideration of studies done at Grand-
view Lake, Indiana, (2) Mt. Auburn, Alabama^) and Roseburg, Oregon. ^ Other
studies have demonstrated flow patterns from homes in rural areas. These stud-
ies have reported that domestic peak demands average 36 gpm for 15 minutes and
69 gpm for 60 minutes, with a public water supply. These data indicate that a
4-inch sewer laid on a grade of 0.005 would have a capacity to handle the simul-
taneous peak hourly demand from about 50 homes, when only 1/2 full. Since no
sewer section.in the proposed system would carry effluent from more than 25 homes
even with future expansion, a sewer size of 4 inches was judged to be adequate
for gravity flow.
Manholes are not proposed with the effluent sewers due to several factors. First,
there is less need for such large access since the sewers will not be carrying
visible solids and are relatively shallow. Second, manholes are often a source
of inflow and infiltration, which would be especially damaging to the absorption
fields. And third, sealed cleanouts and air releases could be provided at much
lower cost than manholes. A more remote benefit would be the possibility of con-
verting the system to an all-pressure system in order to increase capacity.
The decision to utilize gravity flow rather than a completely pressurized system
was based on the reduced maintenance and operating costs and increased reliability
in a gravity flow system. The primary disadvantage of utilizing gravity flow is
the need for laying gravity sewers on a continuous negative grade. While the
grade may not be as critical as with sewers carrying solids, it is still a cost
factor which may be eliminated in a pressure system. It may be possible that
additional information from current demonstrations of pumped effluent systems
would indicate this design modification to be desirable in the final design
phase, but this is not predictable from existing data. The total cost of either
8 r 2
-------
sewer design should be nearly equal, with pressure systems possibly having a
lower capital cost but higher operating cost than non-pressure systems.
The longest gravity sewer shown in the system extends about 1800 feet along Ky.
State Highways 100 and 87. It would initially carry effluent from 10 homes and
one business to a pump located on Ky. 87. Ultimate construction of homes along
Ky. 100 may add as many as 9 homes to this line, raising the total to approximate-
ly 20 customers. Surface topography provides a minimum grade of about 0.01 (1%)
for this line with no significant variation in depth of line.
Inspection of topographic maps and soil maps, and field observations indicated
that a minimum grade of 0.005 (0.5%) may be achieved on all effluent lines shown
on Exhibit IV without exceeding a depth of about 5 feet, and that no solid rock
excavation would be necessary. These criteria will be checked during final de-
sign.
FINAL DISPOSAL
Disposal of all effluent will be by subsurface absorption in soil. Research over
the past 20 years has adequately identified the causes of absorption system fail-
ure and means of avoiding such failure. (5,7,9,26,30,37) Application of this
technology by local regulatory agencies in Indiana and California and by the
State agency in Ohio has shown the economic and environmental advantages to be
significant.
Special criteria used in the design of the Fountain Run System include:
1. Provision for annual alternation in use of disposal fields to avoid
abrupt failure of systems by formation of a clogging mat.
2. Utilization of a relatively narrow absorption trench geometry to maxi-
mize sidewall areas for infiltration.
3. Utilization of sand in the absorption trenches, adjacent to soil sur-
faces, to avoid the blocking effect of stone fill.
4. Provision of greater total infiltration-absorption area to allow long-
term use of systems, as compared to areas dictated by the U. S. Public
Health Service Manual of Septic Tank Practice.
5. Use of a minimum size of absorption area which is not determined by
the number of bedrooms or number of persons, but is based on an assumed
flow per typical residential unit.
6. Provision of intermittent dosing of absorption surfaces by use of
pumps or dosing siphons.
8-3
-------
The systems proposed in this preliminary design may be somewhat oversized, as
explained on page 6-15. However, the lack of in-field testing and the very low
average water consumption experienced by the existing population combined to
produce a conservative approach toward sizes of absorption fields.
After investigation of actual soil conditions in the second (design) phase, it
will be possible to make more accurate determination of suitable loading rates,
which may allow reductions in the size of some disposal fields.
The present design is based on a design loading rate of 0.33 gallons per square
foot per day in each of the two half-systems. The primary design infiltration
surface is the trench sidewalls; bottom surfaces will be additional infiltration
surface of lesser value due to compaction and sedimentation effects.^'1^ ' With
an assumed future wastewater flow of 200 gallons per day per customer-equivalent,
a total of 1200 square feet of useful trench sidewall is proposed. In a trench
geometry one foot wide and 3 1/2 feet deep, 4 square feet of design infiltration
surface could be provided per linear foot. This geometry could be utilized in
all soils on which systems are proposed, according to available soils data.
(The U. S. Soil Conservation Service preliminary report for Monroe County indi-
cates that depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet in all parts of the Planning
Area, and depth to seasonal water table is greater than 5 feet on all proposed
disposal sites. Actual depths will be determined during final design.)
Trenches of the specified geometry will provide 1200 square feet of useful side-
wall in 300 linear feet, and therefore the proposed disposal sites are multiples
of 300 feet, depending on number of projected users. A typical set of absorp-
tion trenches is .shown on Figure 14.
Within each disposal field the trenches will be arranged alternately across the
field so as to provide a more disperse application of effluent to the soil man-
tle during each annual cycle. In Figure 14, trenches are labeled "A" and "B"
to indicate the alternating use pattern. All "A" trenches will be used one
year, then the flow changed to rest the "A" set and utilize the "B" set. The
ultimate field loading rate with this design would be less than 0.2 gallons per
square foot per day with a spacing of 3 feet between trenches. This 2.25 inches/
week may be compared to the 2 to 4 inches per week recommended with spray irri-
gation systems. At a spacing of 6 feet, the application rate would be about
0.12 gallons per square foot per day or 1.3 inches per week.
The advantages of the annual use-rest cycle have been described by McGauhey
and Winneburger (7,10). The primary purpose is to allow the breakdown of the
clogging mat which forms on the soil surfaces within the trench. A secondary
purpose is to allow a method of disposal during any necessary repairs or ex-
tension of absorption trenches. The latter use is particularly important with
multiple-user systems, where flow to the system cannot be so readily halted as
where only one user is involved.
8-4
-------
FIGURE 14
TYPICAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL TRENCHES
(ABSORPTION TRENCHES)
[ Minimum. 12 Soil Cover
Distribution Pipe—.;
^Design 7
slnfiltrotion>
(_Surface J
Half - System
A
- 3' Min.—
(6* Design)
lmP«
• • •. .
,.-.' .*>,"'.• ****» ' • \'. r, / /, .•
24
Half— System
B
Graded Rock
Sand
ABABABABABABABAB
Typical Alternate Arrangement
of Trenches
-------
Distribution of effluent within the field will be accomplished by perforated
plastic pipe. The diameter of the pipe will be designed to assist in even
distribution of the effluent, especially in larger systems. A commercial
source of 3-inch perforated pipe is known, and sources of smaller diameters
will be sought if needed. As mentioned previously, all disposal fields will
be dosed intermittently by mechanical devices. Four fields will be equipped
with dual one-horsepower pumps and all others will be equipped with automatic
siphons. Dosing tanks will be sized to provide at least 12 hours average flow
in storage.
Surface drainage onto the disposal sites will be controlled. All surfaces
over absorption trenches will be graded to drain. Drainage from adjacent
areas will be diverted, if necessary,, and directed around the borders of the
disposal sites to avoid temporary flooding of the sites during heavy rains.
After completion of construction, all sites will be seeded, and mulched where
necessary to prevent erosion.
8.2 Summary of Cost Estimates
Detailed construction costs for the community subsurface disposal system are
shown in Table 14. Some additions have been made, as a result of the comments
received at the public hearing and as" a consequence of a more detailed analysis
of construction and equipment needs. Some persons at the public hearing ques-
tioned the possibility of obtaining title to land needed for disposal, espec-
ially at a low price. Therefore, the estimated costs for land have been increased,
with the rate per acre increasing as tract size becomes smaller. Land costs have
now been included even in the two-unit systems. A truck for sludge handling has
also been added.
These changes have resulted in an increase of $34,890 over the initial capital
cost utilized in the Alternatives Analysis. However, this increase does not
affect the conclusions contained in that Analysis, due to the much .greater dif-
ference in the cost of the other alternatives.
The costs tabulated in Table 14 are considered reasonable for similar construc-
tion in the Kentucky-Tennessee area at this time; however, uncontrollable de-
lays in the approval process and an unpredictable rate of inflation could change
the project costs significantly. It appears very unlikely that such changes
would affect the relative costs for the various alternatives. In fact, the rate
of inflation for conventional sewerage has been predicted to increase at a con-
siderably higher rate than for septic tank systems. (43)
The operating and maintenance costs for this system, have been presented in
Table 9, (page 6-20) and no changes appear necessary at this time. The total
8-- 6
-------
annual operating and maintenance costs of $6,110 include funds for operation of
pumps where separate electrical service is provided, maintenance of sewers, ser-
vicing septic tanks and siphons, and a reserve for repair of disposal fields.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
The following table shows the revised cost data for the selected plan in sum-
mary form:
Estimated Cost Net
Capital Operation & Maintenance Present Worth
$261,685 $6,110/yr. $332,150
The above estimates do not include engineering fees, legal fees and construction
contingencies, but these are included in the schedule on the following page.
8-7
-------
1 SUMMARY OF COSTS O'- PLANAR TREATMENT WORKS
SCHEDULED BY PROJECT AND CATEGORY
(Read in {ructions on reverte before completing form)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
'
PROJECT STEP
ESTIMATED CALENDAR QTR/YEAR
APPLICATION WILL BE SUB-
MITTED TO EPA FOR FUNDING
a. CATEGORY 1
Secondary Treatment and BPWTT
b. CATEGORY II
More Stringent Treatment
C. CATEGORY IMA
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
d. CATEGORY II!B
Major Rewe: Sys-em Rehabilitation
e. CATEGORY IVA
New Collectors, etc.
f. CATEGORY IVB
New Interceptors, etc.
g. CATEGORY V
Correction of Combined Sewer Over-
flows
h. CATEGORY VI
Treatment aiul.or Control of
Stormwatcrs
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
STEP ', PROJECT COST
ProiectNoC 210410 _ni
GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF
ALL PROJECTS TO B£ INCLUDED IN
THE ENTIRE GRANT
* SECOND
** PROJECT
STEP
April
1978
s
323,031
17,160 .
s 340, 191
MUNICIPALITY (AppHcantj:
i
*THIRD
PROJECT
STEP
S
S
* FOURTH
PROJECT
STEP
S
S
* FIFTH
PROJECT
STEP
$
$
COST ESTIMATES OF RECOMMENDKD PROJECTS WERE COMPUTED AS Oc .
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX OF 22OS ,
f
TOTAL ALL !
PROJECTS j
i
i
i
S
s
S 15,000
S -
355,191
June 1976 Awn REFLECT THF LATEST
(month ana year)
\5 REPORTED BY THE ENGINEERING NF.WS RECORD
NOTE: Suggested for rat far data to be included in the facilities plan.
Include projrct description in facilities ?hn narrative.
• * The Fi«» Ptoj^rt is the initial (Step //' project under this p ran: fo: the treitmcnt works.
1
*."....... ... .„- . ,...„.. I,,.,. , ,.,,..-..,...,.„.....•............,...!...••
-------
TABLE 14
DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
COMMUNITY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
FOUNTAIN RUN. KENTUCKY
Quantity Unit Price Total
SUBSYSTEM 1
On-Site Septic Tanks 34 Ea. $ 200.00 $ 6,800
Pumps, 1/3 hp. w/tanks 1 Ea. 300.00 300
Small Dosing Siphons 33 Ea. 200.00 6,600
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia. 4,250 Ft. 4.00 17,000
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia. 790 Ft. 3.00 2,380
Main Dosing Tanks w/pumps 2 Ea. 1,200.00 2,400
Absorption Trenches 10,200 L.F. 2.10 21,420
Land 2.5 Ac. 2,000.00 5.000
Subtotal $61,900
Absorption Trenches 3,600 L.F. 2.10
Land 0.8 Ac. 2,500.00
Subtotal $19,320
-------
TABLE 14 (cont.)
Quantity Unit
Total
SUBSYSTEM 4
On-Site Septic Tanks
Multi-User Septic Tanks
Pump, 1/3 hp.
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
SUBSYSTEM 5
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" Dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
SUBSYSTEM 6
On-Site Septic Tanks
Multi-User Septic Tank
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
SUBSYSTEM 7
Multi-User Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
6
2
4
4
1,270
200
3,300
0.8
7
7
1,080
140
2,100
0.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
300.00
300.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.10
2,500.00
200.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
3,000.00
$ 1,200
600
1,200
800
5,080
600
550
6,930
2.000
$18,960
fWf
1,400
1,400
4,320
420
550
4,725
1,500
$14,315
3
1
4
720
100
1,800
0.75
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
300.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
2,500.00
600
300
800
2,880
300
550
4,050
1,875
$11,355
2
2
230
1,200
0.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
Ac.
300.00
200.00
4.00
2.25
3,000.00
600
400
920
2,700
1,500
$6,120-
-------
TABLE 14 (cont.)
Quantity Unit
Unit
Price
Total
SUBSYSTEM 8
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
1/3 hp Pump w/tank
1/2 hp Pump w/tank
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 2" dia.
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
SUBSYSTEM 9
On-Site Septic Tanks
Effluent Sewers, 4" dia.
Main Dosing Tank w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
SUBSYSTEM 10
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
SUBSYSTEM 11
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
3
2
1
1
500
100
900
0.6
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
200.00
300.00
450.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
2,500.00
$ 600.
400
300
450
2,000
300
2,025
1,500
3
300
900
0.33
Ea.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
4.00
2.25
3,000.00
$ 7,575
600
1,200
400
2,025
1,000
$ 5,325
3
2
350
100
900
0.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
2,500.00
600
400
1,400
300
400
2,025
1,250
$ 6,375
3
2
400
50
900
0.33
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
200.00
4.00
3.50
2.25
3,000.00
600
400
1,600
175
400
2,025
1,000
$ 6,200
-------
TABLE 14 Ccont.)
2-UNIT DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
(Sites 12 through 22}
On-Site Septic Tanks
Multi-User Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
1/3 hp Pump & Tank
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Absorption Trenches
Land Cost
Subtotal
INDIVIDUAL DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Absorption Trenches
Subtotal
Total Treatment & Disposal Costs
Sludge Pump» Soil Injector and Truck
Grand Total
Quantity Unit
Total
14
4
14
1
1,220
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
200.00
300.00
200.00
300.00
4.00
$ 2,800
900
2,800
300
4,880
6,600
1.8
L.F.
Ac.
2.25
3,000.00
14,850
5,400
$ 31,930
22
22
6,600
Ea.
Ea.
L.F.
200.00
200.00
2.25
4,400
4,400
14.850
$ 23,650
$241,685
20,000
$261,685
-------
9. ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
9.1 Institutional Responsibilities
The Fountain Run Water District is established under Kentucky State Law by the
Kentucky State Public Service Commission and the Monroe County Fiscal Court. The
District is empowered to establish and operate public utility systems, including
sewage collection and treatment systems, and has expressed a desire to establish
such services. While the City of Fountain Run would also have necessary authority
to establish sewerage services, the District covers a greater geographical area.
There are no industrial waste dischargers in the proposed service area. There-
fore, it is not necessary to obtain industrial letters of intent. However, it
is recommended that the District adopt the attached model ordinance (see Appen-
dix) which would protect the system from potential abuse by industrial users.
It is proposed that any industrial waste dischargers would pre-treat wastewaters
to a concentration and strength equivalent to domestic sewage before discharge to
the public system. This would avoid the need for complex treatment facilities
and highly trained operators in the District-owned system.
9.2 Agency Support
The majority of the District Board of Commissioners expressed support for the pro-
posed plan at the close of the public hearing. Only one person dissented, on the
grounds of desiring a system more likely to attract industry.
9.3 Financial Programs and Schedules
Annual fund requirements for the successful operation and maintenance of the sys-
tem and retirement of debt are summarized in Table 15. A 75 percent grant for in-
itial costs is assumed, with the remaining 25 percent being provided through small
tap-on fees and a loan from the Farmers* Home Administration. An estimated amount
for engineering, legal and contingency costs has been included at 30 percent of
the construction costs. This higher than average amount is believed necessary due
to the complexities of the design process relative to the capital costs, as well
as the uniqueness of the concept.
A minimum rate of 20 percent is assumed for reserves due to the current favorable
financial condition of the District. Based on these assumptions, an annual funds
requirement of about $12,300 is indicated. These funds would be obtained by
monthly user charges. If 144 customers are served by the system, then the aver-
age monthly bill for wastewater services would be $7.$0. Actual bills would
probably be based on the amount of water consumed above a certain minim-urn.
A summary of construction costs has been provided in Table 14. It should be
noted that the design criteria for disposal facilities would allow an increase
of about 100 percent in the wastewater flow, from that currently indicated by
water consumption.
9-- 1
-------
TABLE 15
ALTERNATIVE C
ANNUAL FUND REQUIREMENTS
Operation and Maintenance $ 6,100
Office and Billing Expense 1,000
Subtotal $ 7,100
Debt Service
Construction Cost $261,685
Engineering, Legal and Contingencies* + 78,506
Total Initial Cost $340,191-^—
Less Grant (75%) <-) 255,143
Local Share 85,048
Less Tap-On Fees <§ $50 ea. (130) (-) 6.500
Nat Debt Amount $ 78,548
(Assume 40 yr. loan @ 5% Use Capital
Recovery Factor of 0.05828)
Average Annual Principal & Interest $ 4,578
Surplus for Reserves at 20%** -f 915
Total Debt Service Funds 5,493
Total Annual Funds Required $12,593
Average Monthly Billing per Customer (144) $7.29 mo.
* 30% of construction, based on complexities and uniqueness of project.
** Assumed low rate due to favorable financial condition of the District.
-------
10. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
10.1 Existing Environmental Conditions
The Fountain Run Planning Area is located in rolling uplands with only small
intermittent streams providing surface drainage. Sinkholes occur in some
parts of the Area. The surrounding area is also rural, with the nearest other
incorporated city lying 13 miles away. The nearest major urban area (Bowling
Green) is 34 miles to the northwest.
A major environmental feature close to the Planning Area is the Barren River
Reservoir, a flood control reservoir operated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers.
The nearest summer pool of the Reservoir is about 4 miles west of the Area and
the maximum flood pool is about 2 miles south.
No major point sources of air or water pollution are in or near the Planning
Area. No major roads and no railroads cross the Area.
Water for domestic and commercial uses is provided from the Glasgow water sys-
tem, which draws water from the Barren River Reservoir. Total water consump-
tion by the District averaged about 12,000 gallons per day in 1975.
No unusual geologic conditions exist which would affect the construction or
operation of wastewater facilities, although the presence of sinkholes is a
factor to be considered. Soils are mostly moderately well drained, deep to
rock or groundwater and of silt loam or clay loam texture. Several major soil
types appear to be suited to disposal of wastewater. Limiting soil factors are
shown on Figure 6 following page 4-7.
The climate is temperate, with about 85 days having low temperatures of less
than 32°F, and a normal daily freeze-thaw cycle in mid-winder. The average
year will have 50 days with maximum temperatures at 90°F or above. Average
annual precipitation is 50 inches, with 10 inches in the form of snow. Tables
and graphs of climatic factors are presented following page 4-8.
Stream flows are very low in summer and early fall, with zero flow conditions
normal for periods of several days each year. Groundwater supplies are gener-
ally not adequate for domestic use where most homes are located. Figure 9
shows the groundwater hydrology of the Area.
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Kentucky
Division of Forestry were consulted concerning natural communities in the
Planning Area. No sensitive areas, rare or endangered species or unique in-
dividual trees were known to occur in the Planning Area. The presumptive
species list for Monroe County was obtained from the U. S. Corps of Engineers
and from that list 11 species may be presumed to be potential residents or
transients in the Planning Area. The list is shown on page 4-11. No recent
records of these 11 species are known for the Area.
10-1
-------
No archeological or historic sites were listed by the state agencies for the
Planning Area.
No point source wastewater discharges were identified. All local businesses
and industries apparently use septic tank absorption fields for disposal of
effluent. Survivial curves for these systems have not been developed and
vere considered to be beyond the scope of this study.
10.2 Future Environment Without the Project
If the proposed system is not implemented, the Area would tend to grow more
slowly than projected. New regulations presently being adopted by the State
may make development with private septic tank systems on the less permeable
soils nearly impossible or at least financially difficult, and replacement of
failed septic tank systems would be much more expensive than under previous
regulations. The amount of time permitted to elapse before an overflowing
septic tank system is repaired varies- considerably and may tend to increase
with the increase in costs of repairs. If so, then the community may exper-
ience a worsening problem from privately-owned and maintained systems in the
near future.
An increase in overflowing systems would create a greater health hazard than
now exists. In addition, increasing organic loads and consequent algal growth
in ditches and streams may cause adverse effects in Indian Creek and Barren
River Reservoir. It seems apparent that unless the management of community
wastewater is properly accomplished by the District or city, then future en-
vironmental conditions will worsen.
10.3 Evaluation of Alternatives
A liberal interpretation of Alternative D might allow consideration for "Opti-
mum operation of existing facilities," if existing systems met minimum health
and environmental standards. However, it is known from examination of soil
maps and comments received during the public hearing that many homes and some
businesses do not have properly designed or functioning systems. Therefore,
many existing systems would need extensive rspairs or complete replacement,
and without outside funding there appears to be no possibility for such capi-
tal expenditures.
Regionalization is likewise impractical, due to excessive costs for transport
of vastewater.
Simplicity and reliability of operation for wastewater facilities were con-
sidered to be important factors in relation to environmental quality. In
this regard the selected alternate seems to have significant advantages. If
any subsystem or part of a system were to fail, only a portion of the total
wastewater load would be affected. Sufficient capacity would be available
10-2
-------
in nearby subsystems to allow temporary diversion of flow for safe disposal,
in the case of the four largest subsystems. Spare pumps would be stocked for
immediate replacement should any failure occur. The flexibility built into
the system would minimize any environmental damage which may be possible from
malfunction of any component, when compared to a conventional system such as
would be provided in Alternate A.
As in many areas considering a completely new sewer system, the potential en-
vironmental effects of the conventional sewer system were high relative to
effects of treatment alternates. Table 12 (following page 6-27) summarized the
negative impacts for each alternative, and the cumulative impacts would appear
to be relatively similar in each case. None of the impacts appeared to be
significant; this was due to the small size of the project.
Secondary impacts from growth would appear to be nearly equal in each alter-
nate. No significant pollution effects could be projected from the numerically
small population increase. No potential damage to natural ecosystems or cul-
tural resources were identified with any alternate.
10.4 Environmental Effects of Selected Plan
As described in sections 6.4 and 7.4, no significant environmental effects
were identified in connection with the selected alternate.
There would be no apparent violation of existing land, use or environmental
regulations caused by the implementation of this alternate.
10-3
-------
APPENDIX
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Marshall, Gary R. and E. Joe Middlebrooks. Intermittent Sand Filtration to
Upgrade Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Utah Water Research Labora-
tory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322. Pub. No. PRJEW 115-2. Feb. 1974.
2. Hindricks, G. F. and S. M. Rees. Economical Residential Pressure Sewer System
With No Effluent. SIECO, Inc., Columbus, Indiana. Dec. 1975. (EPA-600/2-75-072.)
3. Will son, G. B. , G.A. Reed and J. 0. Newman. "Low Cost Rural Sewage System."
In: Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Dec. 1974.
4. Bowne, W. C. Pressure Sewer Systems. Douglas County Engineer's Office, Roseburg,
Oregon. May 1974.
5. Kreissl, James. In: Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Individual
Onsite Wastewater Systems. Nov. 1975. National Sanitation Foundation, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
6. Otis, R. J., D. E. Stewart and L. Forde. Alternative Wastewater Facilities for
Rural Communities - A Case Study of Westboro. Wisconsin. Small Scale Waste
Management Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wise. 1976..
7. McGauhey, P. H. and J. H. (Timothy) Winneberger. Final Report on A Study of
Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank Percolation Systems. Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkely, Ca. SERL
Report No. 65-17. Oct. 1965.
8. Abney, J.A. On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems - Technical Considerations and
Recommended Design Approaches. Appalachian Environmental Demonstration Pro-
ject, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection,
Corbin, Kentucky. June 1973.
9. Bouma, Johannas. "Innovative On-Site Soil Disposal and Treatment Systems for
Septic Tank Effluent. In: Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal
Symposium. ASAE. 1974 (op.cit)
10. Winneberger, J. (Timothy). The Principle of Alternation of Subsurface Waste-
water Disposal Fields. On-Site Waste Management. Volume V. Hancor, Inc.
Findlay, Oh 45840. 1976
11. Jones, Elmer E. Agricultural Research Center, USDA, Beltsville,_Md. (Personal
Communication)
-------
12. Preliminary Soil Survey of Monroe County. Kentucky. Soil Conservation Service,
U. S. Department of Agriculture.
13. Water Resources Data for Kentucky Part 1. Surface Water Records. 1960-1972.
Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior.
14. "Geologic Quadrangle - Fountain Run" - By A. Hamilton, Geological Survey, U.S..
Department of the Interior, 1963.
15. Availability of Groundwater in Allen. Barren. Edmonson. Green. Hart, Logan,
Metealfe, Monroe. Simpson and Warren Counties. Kentucky. By R.F. Brown and.
T. W. Lambert. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-32. 1962. Geological
Survey, U. S. Department of the Interior.
16. "Rare and Endangered Mammals in Kentucky". Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources, Division of Game Management. April, 1975. (Phamplet)
17. KFWR-H & F-7 "Protection of Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife Species"
Regulation relating to KRS 150.183, by the Kentudky Division of Game Management.
18. "United States List of Endangered Fauna," U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. May 1974.
19. "Climatological Data, Kentucky" Monthly and Annual Summaries, 1961-1975. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Asheville, N.C.
20. Survey of Historic Sites In Kentucky. Kentucky Heritage Commission. Spindletop
Research, Inc., Lexington, Ky., March 1971.
21. Archeology and Archeological Resources. Society for American Archaeology,
Washington, D.C.
22. Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. Barren River Area Development District.
By Hensley - Schmidt, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Planners, Louisville, Ky.
July, 1973.
23. Kentucky Ambient Air Quality 1974 Annual Report. Division of Air Pollution,
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection,
Frankfort, Ky., April, 1975.
-------
24. "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation and Maintenance
of a Navagation Project - Green and Barren Rivers, Kentucky." U.S. Army
Engineer District, Louisville, Kentucky. June 1975.
25. Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual.- U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service.
26. Bailey, George W., Role of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution Control. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Adm., Southeast
Water Laboratory. March, 1968.
27. Bernhart, A.P. D.Sc. Small Waste Water Units for Soil Infiltration and Evapo-
Transpiration. Jan. 1972. 18 pp. Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Toronto, Canada.
28. Bernhart, A.P. D.Sc. A Rational Approach to Determining Sizes of Building Lots
According to their Capabilities for On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal.
1972. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada.
29. Bouma, J. and Hole, F.D. Development of a Field Procedure for Predicting Movement
of Liquid Wastes in Soils. 1971. Soil Survey Division, Geol. & Natural History
Survey, University of Wisconsin.
30. Bouma, J., Ziebell, W.A.; Walker, W.G.; Olcott, P.G.; McCoy E.; and Hole, F.D.
Soil Absorption of Septic Tank Effluent. University of Wisconsin. 1972.
31. Cotteral, J.A. and D.P. Norris. Septic Tank Systems. Aug. 1969. Journal San.
Eng. Div., ASCE. pp 715-747.
32. Dean, R.B. (Editor) Nitrogen Removal from Wastewaters. 1970. Federal Water
Quality Administration, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, 0.
33. Kardos, Louis. Recycling Sewage Effluent Through the Soil and Its Associated
Biosysterna. 1971. Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Fa.
34. Mokma, D.L., Correlation of Soil Properties, Percolation Tests and Soil Surveys
in Design of Septic-Tank Disposal Fields in Eaton, Genesee, Ingham and Macomb
Counties, Michigan. 1966. Department of Soil Science, Michigan State University.
35. Manual of Septic Tank Practice. 1967. U.S. Public Health Service Publication
No. 526.
36. On-Site Waste Management. Volumes I, II, III & IV. Collection of papers by
Hancor, Inc.
-------
37. Popkin, Ronald A., Improved Subsurface Disposal. Ultimate Disposal Research
Activities, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967
38. Tilstra, J. R., K.W. Malueg, & W.C. Larson. Removal of Phosphorous and Nitrogen
from Wastewater Effluents by Induced Soil Percolation. May 1972. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation.
39. Technical Manual on Wastewater Treatment Systems for Rural Communities. 1972
Ca. 150 pp. The Mitre Corp. Washington, D.C.
40. Winneberger, J. T. & J. W. Klock. (ERC-R-73014). Current and Recommended
Practices for Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Systems in Arizona. 1973. Engineer-
ing Research Center, College of Engineering Sciences, Arizona State University,
lempe, Arizona 85281.
41. Hendricks, David W. and Wilfred D. Pote. "Thermodynamics of Oxidation Ponds."
Journal of the "Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 46, No. 2.. Feb. 1974.
42. "Design, Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Technical
Bulletin: Wastewater Treatment Ponds." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
43. Rajagopal, R., R. L. Patterson, R. P. Canale, and J. M. Armstrong. Water
Quality and Economic Criteria for Rural Wastewater and Water Supply System.
July 1975. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47, No. 7
pp. 1834-47.
-------
II SUGGESTED REGULATION
-------
REGULATION NO.
A REGULATION FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SEWERS AND DRAINS, PRIVATE
SEWAGE DISPOSAL, THE INSTALLATION AND CONNECTION OF BUILDING SEWERS, AND THE
DISCHARGE OF WATERS AND WASTES INTO THE PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM(s); AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; IN THE FOUNTAIN RUN WATER DISTRICT, COUNTY
OF MONROE, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.
The Board of Directors of the Fountain Run Water District hereby adopts the
following rules and regulations:
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the meaning of the
terms used in this regulation shall be:
Sec. 1. "BOD" or "Biochemical Oxygen Demand" shall mean the measure of decompos-
able organic material in domestic or industrial wastewaters as represented
by the oxygen utilized over a period of five (5) days at twenty degrees (20°)
Centigrade and as determined by the appropriate procedure in "Standard Methods".
Sec. 2. '"Building Drain" shall mean that part of the lowest horizontal piping of
a drainage system which received the discharge from soil, waste, and other
drainage pipes inside the walls of the building and conveys it to the build-
ing sewer, beginning five (5) feet outside the inner face of the building
wall.
Sec. 3. "Building Sewer" shall mean the extension from the building drain to the
public sewer or other place of disposal.
Sec. 4. "City" shall mean the duly constituted municipal corporation of the City
of Fountain Run, Monroe County, Kentucky.
Sec. 5. "District" shall mean the Fountain Run Water District, Monroe, County,
Kentucky.
-------
Sec. 6. "Superintendent" shall mean the Superintendent of the Water District,
or his authorized deputy, agent or representative.
Sec. 7. "Combined Sewer" shall mean a sewer receiving both surface runoff and
wastewater.
Sec. 8. "Discharger" shall mean any person that discharges or causes a discharge
to a public sewer.
Sec. 9. "Domestic Wastewater" shall mean the water -carried wastes produced from
non-commercial or non-industrial activities and which result from normal human
living processes.
Sec. 10. "Effluent" shall mean the liquid outflow of any facility designed to
treat, convey or retain wastewater.
Sec. 11. "Effluent Sewer" shall mean a pipe or conduit for carrying only effluent
which has received at least primary treatment.
Sec. 12. "Garbage" shall mean animal and vegetable waste resulting from the hand-
ling, preparation, cooking, and serving of food in home kitchens, stores,
markets, restaurants, motels, hotels, and other places where food is stored,
prepared, or served. Specifically excluded are food-processing wastes from
canneries, slaughterhouses, packing plants and similar industries.
Sec. 13. "Industrial Wastewater" shall mean all water-carried wastes and waste-
water of the community excluding domestic wastewater and uncontaminated water,
and shall include all wastewater from any producing, manufacturing, process-
ing, institutional, commercial, agricultural, or other operation where the
vastewater discharged includes significant quantities of wastes of non-human
origin.
- 2 -
-------
Sec. 14. "Natural Outlet" shall mean any outlet into a watercourse, pond, ditch,
lake, or other body of surface or groundwater.
Sec. 15. "Regulation" shall mean, unless otherwise specified, this Regulation.
Sec. 16. "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, committee, association,
corporation, public agency, firm, company, and any other organization or group
of persons, public or private.
Sec. 17. "pH" shall mean the reciprocal of the logarithm of the hydrogen ion con-
centration which is the weight of hydrogen ions in grams per liter of solution.
Sec. 18. "Properly Shredded Garbage" shall mean the wastes from the preparation,
cooking, and dispensing of food that have been shredded to such a degree that
all particles will be carried freely under the flow conditions normally pre-
vailing in public sewers, with no particle greater than one-half (1/2) inch in
any dimension.
Sec. 19. "Public Sewer" shall mean any sewer dedicated to public use and whose use
is controlled by the District.
Sec. 20. "Sanitary Sewer" shall mean a sewer which carries domestic and/or indus-
trial wastewater and to which storm, surface, and groundwaters are not inten-
tionally admitted.
Sec. 21. "Sewage" shall mean wastewater.
Sec. 22. "Sewerage" shall mean any and all facilities used for collecting, convey-
ing, pumping, treating and disposing of wastewater.
Sec. 23. "Sewer" shall mean a pipe or conduit for carrying wastewater.
Sec. 24. "Shall" is mandatory; "May" is permissive.
Sec. 25. "Slug" shall mean any discharge of water, domestic wastewater, or indus-
trial wastewater which in concentration of any given constituent or in quantity
- 3 -
-------
of flow exceeds for any period of duration longer than fifteen (15) minutes
more than five (5) times the average twenty-four (24) hour concentration or
flows during normal operation.
Sec. 26. "Standard Methods" shall mean the current edition of "Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" and as published by the American
Public Health Association.
Sec. 27. "Storm Drain" (sometimes termed "storm sewer") shall mean a sewer which
carries storm and surface waters and drainage, but excludes domestic and in-
dustrial wastewaters.
Sec. 28. "Suspended Solids" shall mean the insoluble solid matter suspended in
wastewater that is separable by laboratory filtration in accordance with the
procedure described in "Standard Methods".
Sec. 29. "Wastewater" shall mean the water-carried wastes of the community derived
from human or industrial sources including domestic wastewater and industrial
wastewater. Rainwater, groundwater or drainage of uncontaminated water is not
wastewater.
Sec. 30. "Wastewater Treatment Plant" shall mean any arrangement of devices and
structures used for treating wastewater.
Sec. 31. "Watercourse" shall mean a channel in which a flow of water occurs, either
continuously or intermittently.
ARTICLE II
Use of Public Sewers Required
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, deposit, or permit to be
deposited in any unsanitary manner on public or private property within the
- 4 -
-------
city or in any area under the jurisdiction of the District, any human or animal
excrement, garbage, or other objectionable waste.
Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful to discharge to any natural outlet within the District,
or in any area under the jurisdiction of the District, any wastewater or other
polluted waters, except where suitable treatment has been provided in accord-
ance with subsequent provisions of this regulation.
Sec. 3. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall be unlawful to construct or main-
tain any privy, privy vault, septic tank, cesspool or other facility intended
or used for the disposal of wastewater.
Sec. 4. The owner of all houses, buildings or properties used for human occupancy,
employment, recreation or other purposes, situated within the city and abutting
on any street, alley or right-of-way in which there is now located or may in
the future be located a public sewer of the District, is hereby required at
his expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein, and to connect such
facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provi-
sions of this regulation, within ninety (90) days after date of official notice
to do so, provided that said public sewer is available at the owner's property
line.
ARTICLE III
Private Wastewater Disposal
Sec. 1. Where a public sewer is not: available under the provisions of
Article II, Section 4, the building sewer may be connected to a private waste-
water disposal system complying with the requirements of the Monroe County
County Health Department and with the provisions of this article.
- 5 -
-------
Sec. 2. At such time as a public sewer becomes available to a property served by
a private wastewater disposal system, a direct connection shall be made to the
public sewer within ninety (90) days after notification by the District and in
compliance with this regulation. If deemed necessary by the Superintendent,
facilities shall be abandoned and filled with suitable material in accordance
with requirements of the Superintendent.
Sec. 2. There shall be two (2) classes of building sewer permits: (a) for resi-
dential and commercial service, and (b) for service to establishments produc-
ing industrial wastewater. In either case, the owner or his agent shall make
application on a form furnished by the District. The permit application shall
be supplemented by any plans, specifications, or other information considered
pertinent in the judgement of the Superintendent.
Sec. 3. All costs and expenses incident to the installation and connection of the
building sewer shall be borne by the owner. The owner shall indemnify the
District for any loss or damage that may directly or indirectly be occasioned
by the installation of the building sewer.
Sec. 4. A separate and independent building sewer shall be provided for every build-
ing; except where one building stands at the rear of another on an interior lot
and no private sewer is available or can be constructed to the rear, building
through an adjoining alley, court, yard, or driveway, the building sewer from
the front building may be extended to the rear building and the whole considered
as one building sewer.
Sec. 5. . Old building sewer service connections may be used for new buildings only
when they are found, on examination by the Superintendent, to meet all require-
ments of this regulation.
- 6 -
-------
Sec. 6. The building sewer shall be connected into the public sewer at the proper-
ty line, or curb line, where branch sewers extend from the main sewer to either
the curb line or property line, or, to the service branch on the public sewer
where such public sewer exists within an easement on private property.
Sec. 7. No person shall make connection of roof drains, exterior foundation drains,
areaway. drains, or other sources of surface runoff or groundwater to a build-
ing sewer or building drain which in turn is connected directly or indirectly
to a sanitary public sewer or to an effluent sewer.
Sec. 8. All excavations for building sewer installation that extend adjacent to
public right-of-way shall be adequately guarded by the owner with barricades
and/or lights so as to protect the public from hazard. Streets, sidewalks,
parkways, and other public property disturbed in the course of the work shall
be restored in a manner satisfactory to the District.
ARTICLE V
Use of the Public Sewers
Sec. 1. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any storm water, sur-
face water, groundwater, roof runoff or subsurface drainage to any saniatry
sewer or effluent sewer.
Sec. 2. Stormwater and all other unpolluted drainage shall be discharged to such
sewers as are specifically designated as combined sewers or storm drains, or
to a natural outlet approved by the Superintendent. Industrial cooling water
or unpolluted process waters may be discharged, on approval of the Superinten-
dent, to a storm drain, combined sewer, or natural outlet.
Sec. 3. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any of the following
described waters or wastes to any public sewer:
- 7 -
-------
(a) Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil, or other flammable or
explosive liquid, solid or gas, lubricating oils or cutting oils.
(b) Any waters or wastes containing toxic or poisonous solids, liquids,
or gases in sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction with
other wastes, to injure or interfere with any wastewater treatment pro-
cess, constitute a hazard to humans or animals, create a public nuisance,
or create any hazard in the receiving waters of the wastewater treatment
plant.
(c) Any waters or wastes having a pH lower than 5.5, or higher than 9.0,
or having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard
to structures, equipment and personnel of the sewerage system.
(d) Solid or viscous substances in quantities or of such size capable of
causing obstruction to the flow in sewers, or other interference with the
proper operation of the sewerage system such as, but not limited to, ashes,
cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar,
plastic, wood, unground garbage, whole blood, paunch manure, hair and
fleshings, entrails and paper dishes, cups, milk containers, either whole
or ground by garbage grinders.
(e) Any liquid or vapor having a temperature higher than one hundred
fifty degrees (150°) F.
(f) Any water or waste containing fats, wax, grease, or oils, whether
emulsified or not, in excess of one hundred (100) mg/1 or containing
substances which may solidify or become viscous at temperatures between
thirty-two (32) and one hundred fifty (150) degrees F.
- 8 -
-------
(g) Any garbage that has not been properly shredded.
(h) Any waters or wastes containing strong acid iron pickling wastes,
or concentrated plating solutions whether neutralized or not.
(i) Any water or waste containing the following chemical constitutents
and/or similar objectionable or toxic substances that exceed the follow-
ing limits:
Maximum Allowable
Constitutent Concentration (mg/1)
Cadmium 0.01
Chromium (Uexavalent) 0.05
Copper 0.2
Cyanide 0.025
Iron 5.0
Lead 0.05
Nickel 0.1
Zinc 2.0
(j) Any waters or wastes containing phenols or other taste- or odor-
producing substances, in such concentrations exceeding limits which may
be established by the Superintendent as necessary, after treatment of the
composite sewage, to meet the requirements of the state, federal or other
public agencies or jurisdiction for such discharge to the receiving waters.
(k) Any radioactive wastes or isotopes of such half-life or concentration
as may exceed limits established by the Superintendent in compliance with
applicable state or federal regulations.
- 9 -
-------
(1) Materials which exert or cause:
(1) Unusual concentrations of inert suspended solids (such as, but
not limited to, sodium chloride and sodium sulfate).
(2) Excessive discoloration (such as, but not limited to, dairy
wastes, dye wastes, and vegetable tanning solutions).
(3) Unusual BOD, chemical oxygen demand, or chlorine requirements,
in such quantities as to constitute a significant load on the waste-
water treatment plant or disposal facilities.
(f) Unusual volume of flow or concentration of wastes constituting
"slugs" as defined herein.
(m) Waters or wastes containing substances which are not amenable to
treatment or reduction by the, wastewater treatment processes employed,
or are amenable to treatment, only to such degree that the wastewater
treatment plant effluent cannot meet the requirements of other agencies
having jurisdiction over discharge to the receiving waters.
Sec. 4. If any waters or wastes are proposed to be discharged to the public sewers,
which waters contain the substances or possess the characteristics enumerated
in Section 3 of this Article, and which in the judgement of the Superintendent,
may have a deleterious effect on the sewerage system, processes, equipment or
receiving waters, or which otherwise create a hazard to life or constitute a
public nuisance, the Superintendent shall require the discharger to obtain a
wastewater discharge permit. The Superintendent, at his/her discretion also
may:
(a) Reject the wastes,
(b) Require pretreatment to an acceptable condition for discharge to
the public sewers,
- 10 -
-------
(c) Require control over the quantities and rates of discharge, and/or
(d) Require payment to cover the added cost of handling and treating the
wastes not covered by existing taxes or sewer charges.
If the Superintendent permits the pretreatment or equalization of waste
flows, the design and installation of the plants and equipment shall be sub-
ject to the review and approval of the Superintendent, and subject to the re-
quirements of applicable codes, regulations and laws.
Sec. 5. Where preliminary treatment or flow-equalizing facilities are provided for
any industrial waters or wastes, they shall be maintained continuously in sat-
isfactory and effective operation by the. owner at his/her expense.
Sec. 6. Grease, oil and sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the opinion
of the Superintendent, they are necessary for the proper handling of liquid
wastes containing grease in excessive amounts, or any flammable wastes, sand,
or other harmful ingredients; except that such interceptors shall not be re-
quired for private living quarters or dwelling units. All interceptors shall
be of a type and capacity approved by the Superintendent and shall be located
as to be readily and easily accessible for inspection.
Sec. 7. When required by the Superintendent, the owner of any property serviced by
a building sewer carrying industrial wastes shall install a suitable control
manhole together with such necessary meters and other appurtenances in the
building sewer to facilitate observation, sampling, and measurement of the
wastes. Such manhole, when required, shall be accessibly and safely located,
and shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Superinten-
dent. The manhole shall be installed by the owner at his/her expense, and
shall be maintained by him/her so as to Tbe safe and accessible at all times.
11
-------
Sec. 8. All measurements, tests and analyses of the characteristics of waters and
wastes to which reference is made in this regulation shall be determined in
accordance with latest edition of "Standard Methods", and shall be determined
at the control manhole provided, or on suitable samples taken at said control
manhole. In the event that no special manhole has been required, the control
manhole shall be considered to be the nearest downstream manhole in the pub-
lic sewer to the point at which the building sewer is connected. Sampling
shall be carried out by customarily accepted methods to reflect the effect
of constituents on the sewerage system and to determine the existence of haz-
ards to life, limb and property.
Sec. 9. No statement contained in this article shall be construed as preventing
any special agreement or arrangement between the District and any industrial
concern whereby an industrial waste of unusual strength or character may be
accepted by the District for treatment, subject to payment therefore, by the
industrial"concern.
Sec. 10. In addition to any other restrictions in this regulation, any person
discharging wastewater to a public effluent sewer may only do so by means of
an approved septic tank or other approved treatment device.
ARTICLE VI
Industrial Wastewater
Section 1. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any industrial
wastewaters directly or indirectly to sewerage facilities owned by the Dis-
trict without first obtaining a District permit for Industrial Wastewater
Discharge.
- 12 -
-------
The permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge may require pretreatment of
industrial wastewaters before discharge, restriction of peak flow discharges,
discharge of certain wastewaters only to specified sewers of the District, re-
location of point of discharge, prohibition of discharge of certain wastewater
components, restriction of discharge to certain hours of the day, payment of
additional charges to defray increased costs of the city created by the waste-
water discharge and such other conditions as may be required to effectuate the
purpose of this regulation.
No permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge is transferable without the
prior written consent of the Superintendent.
No person shall discharge industrial wastewaters in excess of the quantity
or quality limitations set by the Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge.
Any person desiring to discharge wastewaters or use facilities which are not
in conformance with the Permit should apply to the District for an amended
Permit.
Sec. 2. Applicants for a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge shall complete
an application form available at the office of the Superintendent.
Upon receipt of the permit fee prescribed in Article IV, Section 2, of
this regulation and of all required information, the application shall be
processed and, upon approval, be signed by the Superintendent and one copy re-
turned to the applicant. When properly signed, the application form shall con-
stitute a valid Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge.
The application shall be approved if the applicant has complied with all
applicable requirements of this regulation and furnished to the District all
- 13 -
-------
required information and if the Superintendent determines that there is ade-
quate capacity in the sewerage facilities to convey, treat, and dispose of
the wastewaters.
Sec. 3. The District may change the restrictions or conditions of a Permit for In-
dustrial Wastewater Discharge from time to time as circumstances may require.
The District shall allow an industrial discharger a reasonable period of time
to comply with any changes in the Permit.
Sec. 4. The Superintendent may suspend a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge
for a period of not to exceed 45 days when such suspension is necessary in order
to stop a discharge which presents an imminent hazard to the public health,
safety, or welfare, to the local environment or to the public sewerage system.
Any discharger notified of a suspension of his Permit shall immediately
cease and desist the discharge of such industrial Wastewater to the sewerage
system. In the event of a failure of the discharger to comply voluntarily
with the suspension order, the Superintendent shall take such steps as are
reasonably necessary to insure compliance.
Any suspended discharger may file with the Superintendent a request for
a hearing by a Hearing Board constituted under the provisions of Article X
of this regulation. The Board shall meet within fourteen (14) days of the
receipt by the Superintendent of such request. The Board shall hold a hearing
on the suspension and shall either confirm or revoke the action of the Super-
intendent. Reasonable notice of the hearing shall be given to the suspended
discharger. At this hearing, the suspended discharger may appear personally
or through counsel, cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in his own
behalf.
- 14 -
-------
In the event that the Board fails to meet within the tine set forth above or
fails to make a determination within a reasonable time after the close of the
hearing, the order of suspension shall be stayed until a determination is made
either confirming or revoking the action of the Superintendent.
The Superintendent shall reinstate the Permit on proof of satisfactory
compliance with all discharge requirements of the District.
Sec. 5. The Superintendent may revoke a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge
on a finding that the discharger has violated any provision of this regulation.
No revocation shall be ordered until a hearing on the question has been held
by the Hearing Board. At this hearing, the discharger may appear personally
or through counsel, cross-examine witnesses, or present evidence in his/her
own behalf. Notice of the hearing shall be given to the discharger at least
fifteen (15) days prior to the date of hearing.
Any discharger whose Permit has been revoked shall immediately stop all
discharge of any liquid carried wastes covered by the Permit to any public
sewer that is tributary to the sewerage system of the District. The Superin-
tendent may disconnect or permanently block from such public sewer the indus-
trial connection sewer of any discharger whose Permit has been revoked if
such action is necessary to insure compliance with the order of revocation.
Before any further discharge of industrial wastewater may be made by the
discharger, he/she must apply for a new Permit for Industrial Wastewater Dis-
charge, pay all charges that would be required upon initial application to-
gether with all delinquent fees, charges and penalties and such other sums as
the discharger may owe to the District. Costs incurred by the District in re-
voking the Permit and disconnecting the industrial connection sewer shall be
- 15 -
-------
paid for by the discharger before issuance of a new Permit for Industrial
Wastewater Discharge.
Sec. 6. The Superintendent may classify discharges of industrial wastewater by
industrial categories and recommend the establishment of an industrial waste-
water treatment surcharge based on the average flow quality and flow quantity
for the industrial category adjusted by some commonly recognized parameter
that establishes the relative size of the industrial discharger being charged.
Such classification shall be in accordance with the federal government's "Stan-
dard Industrial Classification Manual", latest edition.
Sec. 7. All persons owning vacuum or "cesspool" pump trucks or other liquid waste
transport trucks and desiring to discharge septic tank, seepage pit, intercep-
tor or cesspool contents, industrial liquid wastes, or other liquid wastes to
sewerage facilities of the District or to facilities that discharge directly
or indirectly to such sewerage facilities shall first have a valid Trucker's
Discharge Permit. All applicants for a Trucker's Discharge Permit shall com-
plete the application form, pay the appropriate fee, receive a copy of the
District's regulations governing discharge to sewers of liquid wastes from
trucks and shall agree, in writing, to abide by these regulations.
Discharge of septic tank, seepage pit, interceptor or cesspool contents,
or other wastes containing no industrial wastes may be made by trucks holding
a Permit only at facilities designated by the Superintendent for that purpose.
Truck transported industrial wastes shall be discharged only at the locations
specified by the Superintendent for the specific waste. The District may
- 16 -
-------
require payment for treatment and disposal costs or may refuse permission to
discharge certain prohibited wastes.
The Trucker's Discharge Permit shall be valid for one year from date of
issuance.
Any person negligently or willfully violating the District's requirements
for liquid waste discharges from trucks shall be in violation of this regula-
tion and may have his Permit revoked by the Superintendent.
ARTICLE VII
Protection from Damage
Sec. 1. No unauthorized person shall maliciously, willfully or negligently break,
damage, destroy, uncover, deface or tamper with any structure, appurtenance,
or equipment which is a part of the sewerage system. Any person violating
this provision may be subject to immediate arrest under charges of disorderly
conduct.
ARTICLE VIII
Power and Authority of Inspectors
Sec. 1. The Superintendent and other duly authorized employees of the District
bearing proper credentials and identification shall be permitted to enter all
properties for the purpose of inspection, observation, measurement, sampling
and testing in accordance with the provisions of this regulation. The Super-
intendent or his representatives shall have no authority to inquire into any
industrial processes beyond that point having a direct bearing on the kind
and source of discharge to the sewers or waterways or facilities for waste
treatment.
- 17 -
-------
Sec. 2. While performing the necessary work on private properties referred to in
Article VIII, Section 1 above, the Superintendent or duly authorized employees
of the District shall observe all safety rules applicable to the premises es-
tablished by the company and the company shall be held harmless for injury or
death to the District employees and the District shall indemnify the company
against loss or damage to its property by District employees and against liabil-
ity claims and demands for personal injury or property damage asserted against
the company and growing out of the gauging and sampling operation, except as
such may be caused by negligence or failure of the company to maintain safe
conditions as required in Article V, Section 7.
Sec. 3. The Superintendent and other duly authorized employees of the District
bearing proper credentials and identification shall be permitted to enter all
private properties through which the District holds a duly negotiated easement
for the purpose of, but not limited to, inspection, observation, measurement,
sampling, repair and maintenance of any portion of the sewage works lying with-
in said easement. All entry and subsequent work, if any, on said easement,
shall be done in full accordance with the terms of the duly negotiated ease-
ment pertaining to the private property involved.
ARTICLE IX
Penalties
Sec. 1. Any person found to be violating any provision of this regulation except
Article VII shall be served by the District with written notice stating the
nature of the violation and providing a reasonable time limit for the satis-
factory correction thereof. The offender shall, within the period of time
- 18 -
-------
stated in such notice, permanently cease all violations. Persons in violation
of a valid Permit for Industrial Waste Discharge are subject to the provisions
of Article VI of this regulation.
Sec. 2. Any person who shall continue any violation beyond the time limit provided
for in Article IX, Section 1, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on convic-
tion therof shall be fined in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) for
each violation. Each day in which any such violation shall continue shall be
deemed a separate offense.
Sec. 3. Any person violating any of the provisions of this regulation shall become
liable to the District for any expense, loss or damage occasioned by the Dis-
trict by reason of such violation.
ARTICLE X
Hearing Board
Sec. 1. The District Board shall act as needed for arbitration of differences be-
tween the Superintendent and sewer users on matters concerning interpretation
and execution of the provisions of this regulation.
ARTICLE XI
Validity
Sec. 1. All regulations or parts or regulations in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.
Sec. 2. The invalidity of any section, clause, sentence, or provision of this
regulation shall not affect the validity of any other part which can be given
effect without such invalid part or parts.
- 19 -
-------
ARTICLE
Regulation in Force
Sec. 1. This Regulation shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval, recording and publication as provided by law.
INTRODUCED this the day of , 19
ADOPTED and APPROVED this the day of , 19
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
- 20 -
-------
Ill COMMENTS
-------
FISH & WILDLIFE
COMMISSION
BY DISTRICTS
IST -OR DONALD L BOUCHER.PAOUCAH
ZND-FAY BRITT, MADISONVILLE
3RD-HALC MURPHY, LOUISVILLE
4TH-OR JAMES C SALATO. COLUMBIA
STH-DR.K £ LANTER. UNION
6TH-CHARLES E PALMER, JR..LEXINGTON
•DR. W. W CAMPBELL, JACKSON
DR. ROBERT C.WEBB, GRAYSON
STH-PERSHING HAYES,TYNER
ftB
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT or FISH & WILDLIFE RESOURCES
ARNOLD L. MITCHELL,COMMISSIONER
February 2, 1976
CAPITAL PLAZA TOWER ,
FRANKFORT, KY. 40601
PHONE 564-34OO
Mr. Jack L. Abney
Environmental Planner
Parrott, Ely and Hurt
620 Euclid Avenue
Lexington, Kentucky 40502
Dear Mr. Abney:
1
TO
GME
GDP
RLri
li'EP
RGL
JCN
J C
""!" .
! f!i-E !
BASE NO.
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
J
K i
In the vicinity of Fountain Run, you might encounter the
spotted skunk or coyote. There is also a possibility of an occa-
sional eagle or osprey. Caves might contain the southeastern bat.
I have no knowledge of any of these actually occurring in the area.
I am not aware of any unique or sensitive ecotypes. Since
little biological work has been done in this area, these types
may exist. This is near the primeval Barrens of Kentucky and tiny
remnants of these might still be present.
I am still inquiring about the area around Owingsville.
•Sincerely yours,
/ »
L.-
JAMES S. DURELL, ASST. DIRECTOR
Division of Game Management
JSD/prp
cc: Mr. Peter W. Pfeiffer
-------
IV
MANUFACTURER'S SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR COMPLETE-MIX. MULTI-STAGE
BIOLOGICAL REACTOR TREATMENT
SYSTEM
(NOT SIZED FOR THIS PLAN)
-------
MJJ -1JUU
(303) 355-165
Cu*+** I
_» •% __ •_ _ .mi i-
Kftttfn it H •»» r/f*
fitt. frnifrt
40 f S.I
tltfttt fmf IMittun
O-IO,OOOH+v* *f fram
••tit frtmtltri Smttt H Mr* <"<*-«/
r
fCflfetwlu
X"
(hMWiM M* rruft - ~
f- Sft/finmtlir
< CfM-Ttr, -
PLAN.
I'CffC 4,1 Lift It
BLOWER COMPARTMENT *,/» , -, ,:o
fVC Olfftltlr Pftl
I"Itl TH «r fO'fltfr
Hotai*t Cinr
fill Hnfl H Ce.tr.
frmtl I Mm,mum Lit
trtftt Cttlr Cfrtr It ft T
OiO'Tttt fOtl Tt MurnuHt '
*»,.
s'-o-
OI3~ JHummiuf CKrfff
It Htftltr S*twfil
tiHntr tut It '
/-*..
4V t- In / ,/• •'
\vt B I V I^ J^~e"^""r *""* • ' *"•*•• „. ,.
. . Ti?' / '3* • iKItr 7iM tin V3 Oil. tt tit
• . . ,^xL__^i<-'. ' rttmit, am.
• : . .—'t^jffo' - '' ' , •' •' • Htttntn it ft 4ttron4 if Sittttt
'M~z --^- » —l—^ '--^-^ L^ CMinttr.
<**)
d IfCtM trttot Tttt It tO%tf H fltc,
ttfti f,H,nt wit* WtHr.
SECTION B-B DCTAIL
CROSS SECTION C-C DETAILS
-\ —
yi A*fft tfyf i* i
- Imtlll Scrttint *f*rt trfvHg Mauling
ftf ftMiitimt HUH • itui'i *** ro'l
J| -— ft/11 OUCOOHItl S*,ltltt9, Kttf/ttfff
SHHin fM fnttu't f*ilt»n
$
— t" 4,r imiH tuts flmlir ftft
Silfnttr
— f C'tC *» lot
Slttltrt M»«»» tin
SECTION F-F
ComitttmtHI It It /tHttlltf
HI fHlHor* HftHIt tttt
I'-Q"
f If
fiHfSTtSXi ffc^fwl'^ljo'; '*, UrTrsJo'
•«'
CfHl Hfrml. It
Hfu^fHHm it
O.lf/U*m Ctfttet
. ei/rsrm rn*i ttfu
i. •PjOvMUM tt Of/'tOtl 41
I Itf ttMtt H
ttltllr
Cornfitn- tm fun,
*am,,*m 4111, 3004.HH
Cm Iftt Sittt if fin*
rorf o~iti sitmt if
I Ctrnfthll
CROSS SECTION £4 TYPICAL
REACTOR
SeCTIONA-A DETAIL
Ottfltfff
CROSS SECTION D-D INLET TEE
i"*s-o
iara CI..N_E_EJI_
(NIC tie
AMIOvID
HOGAN AND OLHAUSEN PC.
CONIUUIH* IH«IHIII1
IB-UAH 8 CQtOIA
CLIENT i
STARFISH COVE MOTEL
TITLI
REACTOR DETAILS
779.i-g
••II NO
' I NO _
HO fll
INI I II I NO
-------
V
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF SELECTED SOIL SERIES
AT FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY
SOURCE!
PRELIMINARY SOIL SURVEY OF
MONROE COUNTY, KENTUCKY
BY THE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
-------
Soil .'.eries Depth *.o
and Seasunai
1'av Symbol hlr;h
Bedrock water table
Feet ^ect
Bedford: £»5 iWs
78B, 780
Crider: >5 >5
'7liB, 71jC, 60S, 60C
Frederick: > 5 > 6
703, 70C2; 70D2, 70D3, C3
Mois:".rvic:!v: > 5 ^5
VIOL, 71TJ
Nolir.i > 5 ^ll
Trimble: »5 9- $
70?B, 709C, 70931, 709D3,
709E1, E3
.VX1, 373E2, 372-3. 37333
•wt'^Tiflooy^ s ^^ f ^^ * '
JVliC. _<7liL>, 37tiS, .<7a'l, 37JiD5
Drpth
from
surface
Inches
0-12
12-26
26 38
38-61
0-8
8-36 .
36-65
0-6
32-75
0-15
15-31*
31*-60
0-1*0
W-53
0-6
6-1*6
to- 62
O-1,
\\-.«<
', 1»- V
o-s
11- Jl'j
Lii ( ',
CLifsificMion*
USJ1A texture Unified
Silt loan- XL
Heavy silt loan J1L cr CL
Silt loan MJj or CL
Heavy silty clay CL
loam
Silt loam ML or CL
Light silty clay CL or CH
lOA"
Heavy silty clay CH
loam
Cherty silt loam ML or CL
Cherty silty clay CL-MH
loan or CH
Silty clay MH or CH
Clay CH
Silt loan ML or CL
Heavy silt loam ML or CL
Heavy silty clay CL or CH
loam
Silt loam ML or CL
Very cravelly ML or CM
(>ivO ."asiiiy loam
Gravel bed,
mostly limestone
Cherty cilt IO.JM KL or CL
Cherty licht silty ML or CL
clsy Lv.ir
Cher- y Ii ,h'. • -L'..- ML or ffil
Lopj1! t'Jj oi1 ".TJ
U'-.iy 1- am CL
Clay .'e-.in r'L or OT
o • «. /-t -ii- r n
Llttl) 'll OJ i».
(Jr iv. I":;. I.VM f.L
.". -:y J-.O-R 'JT.
AAS'iO
A-li
A-l* or A-6
A-6
A-6 or A-7
A-l* or A-6
A-6 or A-7
A-f
A-li or A-6
A-6 or A-7
A-7
A-7
A-l* or A-6
A-l* or A-6
A-6 or A-7
A-l* or A-6
A-l* or A-2
A-lt or A-6
A-l* or A-6
il-Ii or A-?.
A-l or »-6
A-6
A-6 or A-7
t.-'i
t ')
A-S
Permeability
In. /hr.
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.<0.2
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.2-2.0
.2-0.6
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
.6-2.0
2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0'.6-2.0
o.6-::.o
.6-P.O
".2-2!o
.6-V.O
,?-\ .('<
Available
vat or
capauity
In. /in.
of g^il
.18-. 23
.18-. 20
< .06
.19-. 21
.18-. 23
.19-. 21
.19-21
.15-19
.18-. 20
.15-18
.13-. 17
.18-. 23
.18-. 23
.19-. 21
.18-23
-c.07
.15-. 19
.12-. 18
.11-.17
.lo-.'c
'.u-'.ia
.13-1?
:S:1
.«,««
Ell
5.6-6.0
5.1-5.5
1.5-5.0
ii. 5-5-0
' 6.6-7.3
5-1-5.5
li.5-5-0
7.!i-7.P
5.1-:-?
5-1-5.J
5.1-5 5
6.1-6.5
5.1-5-5
1,5-5.0
6.6-7.3
7.1-7.8
?.;,-?. s
6.1-6.5
5.1-5.!>'
•:. 1-5.5
l'*l'.l
6.1-.'.'.;;
5.1--'- p
•i. -• .'.'
------- |