EPA 905/9-76-006
>0
I
55
o
\
Office of Great Lakes Coordinator
Office of Research and Development Region V
ol
C3
Conference on
Muskegon County, Michigan
Wastewater System
Lake Michigan
City of Muskegon
Aerated teatment tegoon$
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the office of Research and Development
and the office of the Great Lakes Coordinator of Region V, U.S. EPA,
Chicago, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-905/9-76-006
December 1976
.CONFERENCE ON MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
WASTEWATER SYSTEM, SEPTEMBER 17-18, 1975:
A CRITICAL REVIEW ON EVALUATIONS OF THE SYSTEM AND
IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDED RESEARCH
edited by
John M. Walker
USEPA Wastewater Management Office
Department of Crop & Soil Sciences
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Grants 11010GFS and G005104
Project Officer
Clifford Risley, Jr.
Office of Research & Development
USEPA Region V
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Published by
SECTION 108 (a) PROGRAM
OFFICE OF GREAT LAKES COORDINATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
-------
FOREWORD
The broad aims of environmental research are to identify and quantitate
parameters which can be used to assess environmental impact, to devise correc-
tive technology, and to calculate acceptable trade-offs between aesthetic and
economic concerns of our affluent society. A major environmental problem has
been the degradation of surface waters with disposed, improperly treated wastes
An innovative system for highly renovating and utilizing wastewater is now oper-
ating in Muskegon County, Michigan. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and other federal, state, and local groups have invested millions of dollars
for developing and studying this land treatment system.
A National Review Conference was held in September 1975 to insure that re-
search and development goals were being met. These goals are to learn to oper-
ate and manage the system efficiently and to evaluate its effectiveness for
supplying high quality renovated wastewater at low cost, enhancing soil produc-
tivity, producing quality food, protecting groundwater, improving surface
waters, and serving as a base for revitalizing the County's economy.
Participants in this conference cited the need for prompt and complete docu-
mentation of the many research and development activities. They stressed the
lack and need for health effects research. They pointed out the need to study
the ability of the system to strip nitrogen from the wastewater. The other
most often cited research and developmental needs were (1) to determine more
\ u :jhVmPac^ of wastewater diversion on ground and surface water quality
and hydrology, (2) to continue optimization of the-system emphasizing steps to
maintain and improve treatment performance at reduced cost, (3) to promote
acceptance by the public through public involvement and by management for
avoidance of health and odor problems, (4) to determine the compatibility of
sludge and/or industrial wastewater application with land treatment, 5) to
estimate the effective life of the system, and (6) to learn how to manage the
system to prolong its effective life.
The overriding concern of the conferees was that the research and evaluation
of the Muskegon System be sufficiently comprehensive and documented to provide the
kind of information needed to improve operations at Muskegon and to show where and
how the Muskegon experiences can be successfully transferred elsewhere. The pro-
ceedings of this conference have been transcribed and summarized herein.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review conference was held upon the suggestion of Dr. Curtis Harlin,
Chairman of the Muskegon EPA Research Advisory Committee. His efforts and in-
terest in seeking high quality research at Muskegon, along with the very consid-
erable foresight and leadership of Clifford Risley, Jr., the primary EPA Muske-
qon Project Officer, are most gratefully acknowledged. The active participation
of involved research groups from Muskegon County, Michigan State University, the
University of Michigan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and the Mich-
igan and U.S. Geological Surveys is also most gratefully acknowledged, as is the
participation of the other speakers and attendees, who helped in this overview
and careful evaluation of research both underway and needed at the Muskegon
County Wastewater Management System.
Everyone attending the conference was keenly aware of the gracious hospi-
tality of Muskegon County and the generous provision by Muskegon Community
College of their excellent facilities. Their support helped to make this meet-
ing both productive and enjoyable. Dr. Demirjian and other members of the
Wastewater System staff, who have operated the system so successfully and con-
ducted much of the research, are to be highly commended for their willingness
to participate in this review with us. This meeting would not have been succ-
essful without Ralph Christensen and Steve Poloncsik, who worked very hard in
orqanizinq this conference and have exercised leadership and guidance for many
of the research activities at Muskegon. Finally, this report is the result of
the excellent assistance of Marty Velasco and Alison Morin in transcribing,
editing, and typing.
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD
n
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...
m
Synopsis of Each Presentation ; •,
JOHN M. WALKER, Muskegon Research Coordinator for USEPA
Region V, East Lansing, MI
Welcome
Moderator _
CURTIS HARLIN, Chief, Water Quality Control Research Program,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
USEPA, Ada, OK
Welcome by Muskegon Community College ?o
CHARLES M. GREENE, President, Muskegon Community College,
Muskegon, MI
Welcome by Muskegon County 30
JOHN JURKAS, Chairman, Department of Public Works, Muskeqon
County, MI
HERMAN IVORY, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, 30
Muskegon County, MI
TONY DEREZINSKI, State Senator for 33rd District, Capitol 31
Building, Lansing, MI
County Role in the Muskegon Project 33
JOHN HALMOND, Member, Board of County Commissioners, Muskeqon
County, MI
Region V Role in the Muskegon Project 37
VALDAS V. ADAMKUS, Deputy Regional Administrator, USEPA Region V,
Chicago, IL
Conference Perspective 41
CLIFFORD RISLEY, JR., Director, Office of Research and Development,
USEPA Region V, Chicago, IL
System Performance and Research
Review of System Design Parameters 44
WILLIAM J. BAUER, President, W. J. Bauer Consulting Engineers,
Chicago, IL
-------
Performance and Economics of the System 56
Y. ARA DEMIRJIAN, Director and Manager, Muskegon County
Wastewater Management System, Muskegon, MI ;
Discussion
72
Program Challenges 73
JOHN M. WALKER ^
Soil Monitoring - Michigan State University 77
BOYD G. ELLIS, Professor, Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences, Michigan' State University,
East Lansing, MI
Proposed Cropping Wastewater Nitrogen Stripping Studies - _ 87
Michigan State University
A. EARL ERICKSON, Professor, Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI
Discussion
Lake Monitoring - University of Michigan 91
JOHN M. ARMSTRONG, Associate Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI
Modelling Studies - University of Michigan 95
RAYMOND P. CANALE, Associate Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI
• ••• ••••'• 97
Discussion , ,
Surface Water Studies and Role of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources "
PAUL BLAKESLEE, Regional Engineer, Municipal Wastewater
Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI
Hydraulic Modelling - U.S. Geological Survey 102
WILLIAM B. FLECK, Hydrologist, Water Resources Division, U.S.
Geological Survey, Okemos, MI
103
Discussion
Other Concerned Agencies - The impact of large systems for land treatment
of wastewater on agency programs and policies;
agency response, and information required for
strengthening the evaluation of the Muskegon
Systern.
-------
Waste Management Research in U.S. EPA
WILLIAM A. ROSENKRANZ, Director, Division Waste Management
Research, Office of Research and
Development, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Health and Ecological Effects Research in U.S. EPA 107
ROY ALBERT, Former Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Health and Ecological Effects Research, Washing-
ton, D.C. Current Special Assistant for Health
Effects, Office of Health and Ecological Effects,
USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Water Programs Operations - U.S. EPA -,-]->
BELFORD L. SEABROOK, Sanitary Engineer-Consultant, Office of
Water Programs Operations, USEPA, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Discussion
Environmental Programs, Extension Service, U.S. Department of i?fi
Agriculture
HARRY G. GEYER, Director, Environmental Program, Agricul-
tural and Natural Resources, Extension Ser-
vice, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Waste Management Research in the Agricultural Research Service - i?8
U.S. Department of Agriculture
JESSIE LUNIN, National Program Staff Specialist for Environ-
mental Quality, USDA, ARS, Beltsville, MD
U.S. Geological Survey - Department of Interior 131
JOSEPH T. CALLAHAN, Regional Hydrologist, Northeastern
Region, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Department of Interior 133
CLYDE ODIN, Area Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lansing, MI
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 135
HOWARD TANNER, Director, Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources, Lansing, MI
Michigan Department of Agriculture 140
DONALD ISLIEB, Chief Deputy Director, Michigan Department of
Agriculture, Lansing, MI
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 144
DONALD MORELLI, Former Assistant Chief, Planning Division,
Civil Works Program, U.S. Army Corps of
VI
-------
Engineers, Washington, D.C. Current Second
Brigade Commander, USATC Engineers, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Leonard Wood, MO
Food and Drug Administration 145
GEORGE BRAUDE, Chief, Chemical Industry Practices Branch,
Division of Chemical Technology, Bureau of
Foods, Washington, D.C.
Critiques
Treatment Performance and Economics 149
CHARLES POUND, Vice President, Metcalf and Eddy Inc.,
Engineers, Palo Alto, CA
Agricultural Engineering 155
MORGAN POWELL, Project Manager, Irrigation Division,
ChLM Hill, Engineers, Denver, CO
Agricultural Management 159
LEO WALSH, Chairman, Department of Soil Sciences, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
Health Effects . . .162
CHARLES SORBER, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
and Director, Center for Applied Research and
Technology, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX
Industrial Wastes and Energy Conservation 169
RALPH H. SCOTT, Chief, Wood Product Staff, Corvallis Field
Station of Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, USEPA, Corvallis, OR
Conference Summary
CLIFFORD RISLEY, JR.
vii
-------
-------
SYNOPSIS OF PRESENTATIONS*
John Halmond, Muskegon County Commissioner, Muskegon, MI
The successful Muskegon Project stemmed from a dream about how to overcome
the pollution of the County's lakes and streams. The lakes, which could have
been attracting tourists and industry, were polluted by direct discharge of pri-
mary wastes by industries and many different municipalities in the County. Tour-
ists and new industries shunned the Muskegon area and old industries were leaving.
The project overcame provincialism and distrust, which stymied political consoli-
dation and consolidation of services. It transformed the innovative idea into
reality for region-wide high quality renovation of wastewater by spray irrigation
with simultaneous reuse of water and nutrients from the wastewater to grow food.
The project followed careful planning and examination of the various alterna-
tives for wastewater renovation. The decision to proceed necessitated purchase
of over 10,000 acres of land and displacement of nearly 200 families. This task
was accomplished with the help of long, patient hours spent by the County Board
listening to complaints of persons being relocated who thought they were not be-
ing treated well. Other problems attacked were relocation of roads, rezomng,
relocation of easements, obtaining quick-take authority, etc. Far-sighted lead-
ership has been an essential ingredient.
In the future, the hope is to retain old industries and attract new ones, to
stimulate an influx of tourists, and to sell the products from the wastewater
farm to drastically reduce the cost of wastewater treatment. Finally, the hope
is for a return in the pride of those who live in Muskegon County, and that the
spirit of cooperation that now exists between the 13 governmental units who work-
ed together to develop this wastewater system will continue in many other areas.
* John M. Walker, Muskegon Research Coordinator for USEPA Region V, East
Lansing, MI
1
-------
Valdas V. Adamkus, Deputy Administrator, USEPA Region V, Chicago, IL
Continuing availability of adequate water resources is a necessity for the
future sustenance and development of the nation and the quality of the lives of
TT'crjQrtr^iQ Po/"iTrtfi\/rt-PCDAn««« L* J *j_i_j^i ' v«w i t v \*j \j i
Hcujjie. Region v of tKM is charged with the oversight of the protection and
thereat Yakp! thf S^V °^ Water resources within the Region including
the Great Lakes. Lake Michigan, because of its location, is particularly sensT-
nnVpPA° th^ ad!?rse effects of man's misuse, and therefore haSP a special c aim
on EPA s attention. At a Great Lakes Enforcement conference, goals and objec-
M,,cuL!!err Sel ,, /ormed a ^amework within which the imaginative plan for the
Muskegon County Wastewater Management System was conceived.
the a?SnnanfeWater rn'9aj;°n has bee" Practiced successfully elsewhere,
the application of concepts on the scale proposed by Muskegon County had not been
a'bTnT ^attemP^ elsewhere in the United States* Info?mation was ot ava?l
?hl ™!t« T2 fa?t01l WhlCh Were cn'tical to a ^tailed engineering design of
tn hunn ; H ? 6ra1 I™? Sta.te grants were awarded to conduct feasibility studies,
ronmeni a"dtto. e^aluate. the operation of the system and its impact on the envi-
3 ?LtS J Lakes/e910)nal f"nds were also awarded to evaluate the impact of
igan wlteShed ^ ^ "^ StremS and lakes with1n the Lake Mich-
tPrpnnh aS focused intense national , as well as regional, in-
terest on the total management and reuse of Wastewater with the recovery of nutri-
M™ ^7oUrneS.by Jhe us^of treated wastewaters for agricultural irrigation. In
May 1973 Region V established a Wastewater Management Office for the Muskegon
Project to provide resident coordination of the several agencies sponsored research
activities in progress here and to make available to all interested parties a read-
ily accessible single source of reliable information concerning this effort This
conference is a direct outgrowth of this commitment of Region V.
Much remains to be learned regarding the potential of land treatment systems
tor effective wastewater management, both in Region V and elsewhere. The Muske-
gon Project represents a unique site for the study of very large land treatment
systems. The efforts of the sponsors of this conference represent a most essen-
tial core of studies to better understand the design and management of such large
systems elsewhere. Region V offers its encouragement and its assistance to the
fullest extent to other federal and state agencies and to other institutions
having an interest in the cooperative activities to enhance the scope and value
of studies of the Muskegon County Wastewater System.
-------
Clifford Risley, Jr. - Perspective, Director, Office of Research and Development,
USEPA Region V, Chicago, IL
Many of you attending this conference have been deeply involved in admini-
stration, engineering, and/or in research studies on the land application of mun-
icipal waste. This meeting was not for the purpose of exhibiting to you a com-
pleted research product; rather it is a working meeting, intended to stimulate a
thoughtful, critical re-examination of the direction of the system operations,
particularly the research programs which were based on the experience of one full
year of successful operation and observations.
During the meeting, we want to highlight the tentative conclusions, the unu-
sual experiences and observations. We want to subject them to critical comment
and scrutiny and to compare them with other experiences for reasonableness. We
want to determine, if possible, whether our data collection is being keyed to
properly document the aspects of the system that are needed to establish the val-
idity of this form of land treatment as a viable alternative for wastewater reno-
vation.
The research on the Muskegon System has been progressively oriented toward
documentation of the performance of the overall system and each of its major
components. The research has been directed toward estimating the long-term im-
pacts of the system on the surface waters and the soil resources. The research,
however, has not been geared toward defining the mechanisms of treatment which
occur throughout the system.
This meeting will offer an opportunity for you to evaluate the interest of
all participating state and federal agencies at this meeting in relation to the
Muskegon Project and to their other studies on the land application of wastewater.
-------
William J. Bauer, President, Bauer Engineering, Inc., Chicago, IL
became operational in a remarkably short time. Design began in
A,,mct iQ7i !?CtS Were awarded for construction in May 1971, bonds were so d in
nZnV J1' and ^PProxi-nately 10,000 acres of land were acquired during the fol -
owing twelve months. Aeration and storage were started in May 1973 while the
irrigation system was not complete until August 1974. The system has re iablv
produced a high oualitv effluent in spite of operating before complexly finished
°?!r^I°naLd]fficu^1es,- .The system appears to have add-
-i .,._.. ^ _^ promises to give
SffiWX,? 'Sj
uresn buriHi ?* f^St Were aPP^iable, have now subsded B) Fa
caused bv I ttr SnCal cable' wh!ch ai"e ^ill appreciable, are thought to be
(Editor^ notS ?Ph,fr In^ta11ajlon or selection of improper cable materials.
U (D Irrigation rigs are perform-
ing adequately, but get stuck in inadequately drained fields. Under drainage
t™ H Jh improved ln some areas- (^ The direction of groundwater movement is
toward the project site in accordance with the design objectives, (K) The costs
tor constructing the Muskegon System were not greatly different from those expec-
ted prior to the taking of construction bids, and (L) The operating costs have
been low and have been offset by proceeds from crops grown in the irrigated lands.
If tackling another project, I would not change the concept but I would ar-
gue more stringently against chlorination prior to land application, I would in-
clude the effect of treatment gained through percolation of wastewater through
the bottom of the storage lagoon, and I would 'design more measuring devices into
the system. I commend the remarkable leadership of the local government of
Muskegon County.
-------
Y. Ara Demirjian, Manager-Director, Muskegon County Wastewater Management System,
Muskegon, MI
Any wastewater system as large as Muskegon's requires extensive monitoring
and research for implementation of effective operation. Operational components
include a collection and transmission network, biological treatment, storage,
irrigation, farming, soil-crop filters, and drainage. Each of these components
has been studied and monitored as has been the ground and surface water. The
successful operation of this system is backed by the expertise of a broad range
of disciplines in wastewater engineering, economics, politics, hydrology, limno-
logy, and agriculture. The most important factor in the development of our man-
agement program has been our ability to make prompt use of expertise from the
different disciplines and the results of research and monitoring. These efforts
must be continued.
The following examples show how studies and monitoring have resulted in the
system operating efficiently and economically. Reconstruction studies resulted
in the design and selection of a low pressure center pivot rig for irrigation of
wastewater with downward pointing nozzles to minimize aerosolization. Studies on
the biological treatment cells and storage lagoons have permitted greatly reduced
aeration with appreciable conservation of energy. Groundwater has not become
contaminated. Wastewater seeping from the storage lagoons has been sufficiently
renovated for direct discharge from the site. Discharged wastewater is meeting
stringent NPDES discharge requirements. Farm productivity and management studies
have resulted in rates of wastewater application at 3 to 4 inches per week during
the growing season with supplemental nitrogen fertilizer only. Studies have
shown that very efficient utilization of supplemental nitrogen can be obtained by
injecting it in the liquid form into the irrigation channel just prior to pumping
to the different fields. Improved growth and yields of crops, associated with
injected nitrogen fertilizer and with modification to lessen nozzle plugging,
have resulted in improved renovation of wastewater and a greater income to reduce
operating costs.
Total system development costs amounted to about $42 million or about $1
per gallon per day of wastewater treatment capacity. Operational costs in 1975
are budgeted at about $2.2 million with an off-setting predicted income from the
sale of the corn crop of about $0.7 million. Users in 1975 have been charged
$170 per million gallons plus an additional fixed fee of $45 per million gallons.
-------
John M. Walker, Muskegon Research Coordinator for USEPA Region V, East Lansing, MI
The transformation of such a large previously untried land spray irrigation
wastewater treatment system from an idea into a successful operation in on?y five
that UShaYZ kable.achievement Studies on this full-scale system have shown
that it has gone far in accomplishing its goals of surface water protection by
^n ?rfyi"? T te!!ater bef°re dischan?e and utilizing the water and
?£i?S Pn)VH ™d. 9™ food to reduce the cost of wastewater treat-
Challen9es and opportunities now exist for strengthening these studies to
ze management and system performance, to achieve effective low cost and
s J te™ wastewater renovation, and to verify that lagooning and land spraying
is a viable alternative on a large scale for advanced treatment of wastewater.
W5e^e.additional documentation and study on the Muskegon
^ Delude: (A) Establishing water quality and hydrological
IRT spf ]flc rates of wastewater irrigation on different crops and
™ c RT
™,,nri« t5 TT*? f m^ment ^ viruses, heavy metals, and organic com-
pounds throughout the system, (C) Determining the health safety of foods grown
on the system for direct human consumption, (D) Identifying the important socio-
economic impacts cf the Muskegon County System, (E) Establishing the effects of
wastewater diversion and treatment on the quality of the surface water streams
and lakes in Muskegon County, (F) Establishing the minimum aeration needed to
adequately pretreat wastewater, (G) Studying and taking advantage of factors
which detoxify wastewater contaminants during storage in the 850-acre lagoons,
(H) Determining the desirability of applying sludge to the same land used for
wastewater renovation, (I) Determining the compatibility of wastewater from diff-
erent industries with the land treatment systems, and (J) Determining the effec-
tiveness of the crop-soil system for renovating the markedly different waste-
waters at the Muskegon and Whitehall sites.
-------
Boyd G. Ellis, Professor of Soil Chemistry, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI
Land irrigation is one portion of the Wastewater Management System in Muske-
gon It must be viewed as a treatment component and not just as an agriculture
production system. The success of this portion of the system for treating waste-
water of a given pollutant constituency and at a given rate of application is de-
pendent upon the soil chemistry, physical properties, biochemical reactions, and
living organisms. By monitoring these processes in the soil, we have hoped to
understand how the system is working, to evaluate its success for long term reno-
vation of wastewater, and to warn and predict when this portion of the system may
become overloaded.
There are four major types of soils at Muskegon which react differently in
their abilities to accept and drain away large quantities of wastewater and to
sorb and retain different nutrients. Our results are preliminary because so
little wastewater has been applied during our study period. Nonetheless, we have
established a solid base level of data upon which to proceed.
Our preliminary observations and calculations indicate that elements like
sodium and potassium are being applied in amounts greatly in excess of that re-
tainable in the soil or required by crops (Editor's Note: Fortunately movement
of these elements through the soil and to drainage water is not thought to pose
any significant problem to ground or surface water.) We expect that phosphorus
will be retained by the soils if wastewater is applied uniformly to the surface
at rates of three to four inches per week (75 to 100 inches per season) and if
the phosphorus content does not increase above its current low level (about 3
ppm). Nitrogen is very dynamic and retention by soil alone is small. Additional
research is required to learn how to manage and balance the amount of nitrogen
applied with crop and soil conditions to achieve adequate nitrogen removal.
Other studies indicate that retention of heavy metals in soils appears likely
without harm to crops at the low levels present in the wastewater. The ability
to predict the retention of organic compounds in soils is very limited because
of inadequate knowledge in this field, and the limited data collected thus far.
-------
A. Earl Erickson, Professor of Soil Physics, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI
Soils have very limited abilities to retain nitrogen. If wastewater is irri
gated onto land at moderate rates (as at Muskegon) without a crop-plant that 7
?ntne?h dH the bUlk f the nitr°9en appl1ed in th* wastewater Sfl eventually eak
into the drainage water as nitrate nitrogen. With continuous wastewater am&ca
Harvesting nitrogen with a corn crop alone has the complication that most of
the corn's nitrogen is absorbed from the soil in six or seven weeks in Julv and
August, while wastewater is applied over 35 weeks. Over 20 weeks of wastewate?
?lonTVhLP±l-H°h' theref0re' 1S free t0 leach f™ the ^ A POS 1 lolu-
the ofSer llrt nl th ^'Y T6" Cr°P Which w111 harvest the "' Wn during
the other part of the year and release the nitrogen to the corn when it is re-
e **™ * "
2orneand **™^ °* ^ * ****** W°Uld be a lth1n °ne
Whot/herh Wl11 a!S° bejsludges to be dl'sposed of at Muskegon. The question is
whether they can be used on the sandy soil there, along with the high app ?caiio
of wastewater, without contaminating the environment. HP-I^MU
We are proposing a new research program to find these answers. The ability
of several cropping systems to strip nitrogen will be evaluated by measuring ni-
" " '3le so11
4- vtst * IT •! - - — ,3 •—•••"•••••* w %• ¥ M i M M i* v. VI WV 111C QDUI I 11 vJ 11
bo2ndanr;nin1heyso?TP ^ ^^ ^ "^ fr™ the "saturated-saturated
-------
John Armstrong, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI
Our research deals mainly with the impact on the aquatic environment of waste-
water diversion to the treatment sites. Therefore, the main emphasis in our stu-
dies has been to look at surface waters in the County by sampling 24 stations
twice monthly in three major drainage basins from 1972 to 1975.
The preliminary examinations we have been able to give to our data, thus far,
suggest that there has been little -change during the short period after wastewater
diversion. Our studies have included measurements of a limited number of chemical
parameters; identification of phytoplankton, macrophytes, and benthic organisms;
investigations of sediment-lake water interactions; and modeling to predict
effects and performance of the three lakes as a result of diversion and other
possible management techniques.
We are proposing a three-year effort to continue station monitoring and re-
finement and tuning of models to each lake. We also propose developing a compu-
ter simulation model of the wastewater treatment system with an examination of
some of the optimal strategies that might be used to operate the lagoons and the
farming operations with respect to different objectives. The one major objective,
of course, is to meet water quality standards and preserve the quality of the
aquatic environment. Another important objective, obviously, is to maximize the
profit from crops that are grown.
-------
Raymond Canale, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI
The purpose of our project is to evaluate the impact of wastewater diversion
and subsequent land treatment upon surface waters of the County. The three lakes
in Muskegon County which are affected are all eutrophic. They experience oxygen
depletion in bottom waters in the summer with very high concentrations of both
nitrogen and phosphorus occurring in lakes during parts of each year studied Es-
timates are that Mona Lake is phosphorus limited, Muskegon Lake is nitrogen lim-
ited, and White Lake is on the borderline. Summer chlorophyll levels are very
high in each of the lakes as in the western basin of Lake Erie. All of our con-
clusions must be considered as preliminary because we do not have all our data nor
have we had sufficient time to analyze the data which has been collected.
Apparently there has been little change in populations of phytoplankton or
macropnytes. With the rather high rates of exchange of water in the lakes each
year, however, one would expect fairly rapid change. Since there has not appar-
ently been much change, we must determine whether this is due to the short period
of time since wastewater diversion, to significant continued non-point source con-
tribution of pollutants, and/or to pollution replenishment from the nutrient-rich
lake bottom sediments.
_0ur lake model contains chemical and biological components. It has been
applied first of all to White Lake where we have a more complete understanding of
diffuse and non-point source nutrient inputs and where our definitions of the
existing biological and chemical situation is more advanced. We have estimated
algae production as a function of nutrient concentration, light, and temperature.
We have other models to predict exchange relationships between layers of water in
the lake and the bottom sediments. Our next step will be to synthesize these
submodels into one comprehensive model to predict impacts of wastewater diversion
and other potentially applied lake management techniques on water quality. We
hope to continue this research.
10
-------
Paul Blakeslee, Regional Engineer, Municipal Wastewater Division, Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI
The responsibility for the review of planning, construction, and operations
of wastewater treatment facilities in Michigan lies within the state Department of
Natural Resources. The review of the Muskegon County project was truly a team
effort in which we have tried to take a balanced look at both the environmental
and natural resources effects.
From the beginning with the Muskegon County project, we have tried to keep
its overriding goal of being the wastewater treatment facility for the entire
Muskegon Metropolitan area in perspective. It also is a large farm operation and
a research facility. As reviewers and regulators we have tried to balance its
primary role for wastewater treatment on a continuing basis with its many other
possibilities for use. Examples of potential conflict include multiple site use
(recreation—hunting and snowmobiling, industrial development, and landfill area),
cropping for economic return versus optimization for wastewater renovation, and
even operation of the system components under stress conditions for research pur-
poses.
We require monitoring to insure that there is avoidance of adverse ground-
water jmpact off-site as per the design. We required resident relocation from
the site rather than intermixing private ownership because of unknown potential
health related problems. Buffer zones and specially designed spraying systems
were installed to minimize public contact with wastewater aerosols.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources cooperated with EPA, Michigan
State University, the University of Michigan, and Muskegon County in research
projects. In these studies the impacts of the system were evaluated on soils and
groundwater and on downstream, surface streams and lakes. The questions were
asked: Can the anticipated high levels of performance of the crop-soil filter be
sustained? Over what time period can these results be achieved? What can be
done to extend the useful life of the system?
We need to know the costs of each of these kinds of improvements in waste-
water treatment technology i.e., what we are giving up and gaining in terms of
resources. We have been asking the County to provide us with very detailed on-
going operational information each month because of its system's uniqueness and
our hope that we can translate experiences from the Muskegon County System with
realism to other facilities and proposals. Translation of information and ex-
periences from Muskegon to these other facilities and proposals without adequate
study, documentation, and consideration are prone to disaster.
11
-------
William B. Fleck, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Okemos, MI
Considerable progress has been made by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooper-
ation with the Michigan Geological Survey in establishing a model to successfully
predict the effects of the Muskegon County land treatment system on ground and
surface water hydrology in the area. Data is being collected for development of
the model on height of the water table in groundwater observation wells and on
flows of groundwater and surface water drainage and discharging from the site.
The model hopefully will be refined to permit the estimation of the impact on
the localized hydrology of ground and surface waters of wastewater storage and of
spraying different amounts of wastewater onto the soil each week at Muskegon.
Hopefully the study can be expanded, if resources permit, to develop a transport
model to predict in addition movement of associated wastewater contaminants
through the soil under the lagoons and through the crop-soil filter in the irri-
gated fields into the ground and surface water.
William A. Rosenkranz, Director, Division Waste Management Research, Office of
Research and Development, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
There is still an obvious lack of quantitative data to delineate the balance
between the beneficial and adverse influence of crop land irrigation with munici-
pal effluents. Examples are cited of studies underway to gain some of this infor-
mation on the different land wastewater treatment modes: crop land sprinkler
irrigation (as at Muskegon County), infiltration-percolation (as at Lake George),
and overland flow (as being studied in Ada, Oklahoma). The cooperative expertise
of specialists from federal, state, university, and local agencies is needed to
gain this data.
Although much progress has been made in the more rational design of land
treatment systems, more adequate evaluation of systems such as at Muskegon are
necessary for determining more cost effective design criteria and operating modes.
In this evaluation of the Muskegon County System should be a special emphasis on
resolving health related issues, odor control, long-term ecological effects, and
social acceptance. Resolution of these issues are critical for resolution of
problems associated with site selection and availability.
12
-------
Roy Albert, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Health and Ecological
Effects Research, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
EPA's Health Research Program on exposure-dose-effect relationships are run
to provide the health intelligence required for issuing permits, guidelines and
criteria, or for promulgating standards. Such information is also used to eval-
uate the potential health impact of options for pollution control. In promulga-
ting standards, we want to insure that the standard is placed on the continuum and
that the margin of safety is adequate, so that health is fully protected but that
overly stringent or costly controls are not required.
In the water quality portion of the program, our health research is directed
toward developing criteria for the safe treatment and disposal of wastewater and
sludges and for protection of fresh and marine recreational waters. Perhaps one
of our biggest dilemmas is maintaining continuity and diversity in the research,
that is, planning and conducting the program to allow for more than short-term
pursuance of research on long-term effects, as well as for flexibility to study
emerging issues. It is important to address fully both known problems, as well
as emerging issues, so that rational decisions can be made to protect our environ-
ment and ultimately our public health.
13
-------
Belford L. Seabrook, Sanitary Engineer-Consultant, Office of Water Programs Oper-
ations, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
treatment of wastewater is not new and has been a significant factor in
-"1""39^6"? 2f wastewater from many sources including highway and
and indusHP ?hl '"^i fee??ts' ^cultural food processing, municipalities,
a conceD? nf 5;pJ t °f, a"d.treatment is evolving from a disposal concept to
? rn?P ? fl utilization, and reuse and where appropriate can plaj a
role in future wastewater management plans.
tion ?nCL'H ^OWn ab°Ut t?6 ^en?ficial uses °f wastewater, such as crop irriga-
tion in and zones, removal of nitrogen and phosphorus, strip mine reclamation,
and reuse by industry Some of the unknown factors are the adverse health
effects, public speculation about potential health hazards, and the full cost of
i?c vafEp'S ISn'h J-1-'-,^6 1egal and SOC1'al costs cont™sted with the econo-
mic value of the beneficial uses.
Hnn n!IC5-Can 3?d ^^^ learned fr™ studies of these older existing utiliza-
frStSI S P°f SyStemS' ReSUltS °f an EPA ^""issioned survey of existing land
treatment systems are summarized. While wastewater disposal and utilizat on pr"o-
jects may provide some information which can be extrapolated or used to predict
the performance of land treatment systems, they are not directly comparable and
continued and expanded evaluation of bonafide land treatment systems like at
Muskegon are essential. Appropriate laws and regulations relating to the con-
struction, operations, and evaluations of land treatment systems are reviewed.
w.tpm0 accf tance 1s ^he primary factor limiting the use of soil treatment
systems for wastewater. Close participation and involvement of the public in the
J™1"9 and.r?!1^ of land. treatment operations will help overcome this public
acceptance limitation and help insure the high quality renovation of wastewater
14
-------
Harry Geyer, Director, Environmental Program, Agricultural and Natural Resources
Extension Service, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
The primary role of the Extension Service is that of education. This na-
tional service embodies the technical competence of land grant universities and
their staffs throughout the United States, embracing about 16,000 professionals.
They utilize research information from universities, experiment stations, the
Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as
that of other federal agencies, and private institutions. Our responsibility
is to interpret this information and get it to the appropriate audience, be it
federal or local decision makers, to enable them to make rational decisions.
Since we are affiliated with the Department of Agriculture, we are also inter-
ested in a system that will enhance efficiency of agricultural production. We
are therefore interested in the aspects of land utilization or wastewater
treatment through the land system that will contribute to efficient agricultural
production.
From an educational standpoint, the Muskegon project is one from which we can
learn many things. Can land treatment systems operate on privately as well as
publicly owned land? We need more information on possible health related problems
so that we can adequately inform those who are concerned with possible harm occurr-
ing to the health and livestock. There is also a need for information that will
show the economic advantages or disadvantages of using municipal wastewater as a
replacement for commercial fertilizer. The Extension Service has an established
comprehensive capability for transmitting information, but without factual infor-
mation it is difficult to accomplish.
15
-------
Jesse Lunin, National Program Staff Specialist for Environmental Quality, USDA,
. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the arm of the U.S Department of
Agr culture that conducts research on crop production and protection livestock
tSre wi^thrp"650^"5'^^6*1"9' nutr1tion' a"d all other aspect of agHcul-
exce
'^^6*1"9' nutr1tion' a"d all other aspec of agHcul-
of those areas related to forestry. Because of its orqan
stru^ture' ARS is uni>ely equipped to work on problems of
ra^V^ ?tudiesrat many locations around the country are underway on max
that mi?5no£Ciai USe °r wastewater and sewage sludge and minimizing problems
npn, u H CUu r°m e^ensive quantities of nitrogen, heavy metals, and patho-
gens. We have had excellent results with these cooperative efforts Information
cX^thfru e,SetSpUdieS ^ ^ °btained fr°m the ARS co^ uter°pr?nto yT em
called the Current Research Information System (CRIS) by giving appropriate key
Land application of wastewater is still not a well-accepted practice in the
t n'n? JhP tlC^lly ac"Ptable- T^e is a definite need for comp ete eva ua-
w ?1 ?Jnf!m,P S/S e^-SUCh /S-here 3t Muske9°n- The ARS has participated and
will continue to participate in such studies to the extent of its resources
16
-------
Joseph T. Callahan, Regional Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
For more than eighty years the Geological Survey has been engaged in studies
of the streams of the United States, the groundwater systems, and the chemistry
of groundwater. It is only in the last fifteen years that we have had the re-
sources to do basic research into the physics of water movement, a basic question
when we think about wastewater treatment.
Our hydrologists have learned to describe mathematically how a molecule of
water will move through the soil and zone of aeration to the water table, and
through the aquifer systems to areas of discharge. They have developed different
types of models to predict these relationships. Hopefully our modelling efforts
on the present system at Muskegon will lead to the point where one can predict
how much water can be put on the land and its hydrology once applied.
Beyond physical movement of water, our interest at Muskegon would also be to
determine the movement of various ions through the system. We have had some succ-
ess with modelling of movement of ions like chloride in other studies, and parts
of this work may be applicable here. In the long run this study and other similar
studies of land treatment systems are important because not only can water be
conserved and reused, but also the quality of the water and the entire environ-
ment can be improved.
Clyde Odin, Area Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lansing, MI
Very few studies have been made by fish and wildlife people on the type of
wastewater system which you have at Muskegon. Nonetheless, we are very interest-
ed in the program and the precedent which it may be setting for future wastewater
management.
Since the Muskegon Wastewater System will result in improvement of the qual-
ity of receiving waters, fish and wildlife will benefit. We need to know, how-
ever, more about the impact of the treatment site itself with its 1700 acres of
lagoons, available food, and lack of disturbance. Over 40,000 ducks and geese
were observed on the Muskegon treatment area during the peak of migration last
fall. If other land treatment systems are constructed throughout the country,
their combined impacts could be quite significant. Are there dangers to short-
stopping birds during their fall migration? Is there danger of transmission of
pathogens or toxic substances through the food chain? Will crop depredation
become a problem? Can the area be hunted without danger to the system? Similar
questions should also be asked about other wildlife that will be attracted to
the area.
17
-------
Howard Tanner, Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI
A land treatment system should be operated in such a manner that the soil
will be enhanced and crops successfully grown in perpetuity. Not all wastes can
be accepted into a treatment system and crops and rates of wastewater irrigation
must be carefully selected and adjusted to the particular limits of the given
situation, if the goal is to be attained.
Lack of information on virus persistence, movement, and virility during the
land treatment process; lack of consulting engineers' experience with land treat-
ment; and lack of equal consideration of all possible alternatives for wastewater
treatment including energy/resource evaluations is limiting adoption of land
treatment systems in Michigan like Muskegon County's. Lack of knowledge about
health related questions further inhibits adoption of land treatment alternatives
because it inhibits approvals for private rather than public ownership of land
use for wastewater renovation.
The health safety of the Muskegon County System should be studied and docu-
mented. While land treatment is technically feasible and probably very safe now,
this additional study and documentation is needed to make the system more socially
and politically acceptable.
18
-------
Donald Isleib, Chief Deputy Director, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Lansing,
MI
The Michigan Department of Agriculture has two important roles, first, a
regulatory role to protect the public food supply and second, the role of stimu-
lating and nurturing the practice of agriculture in the state. While the regu-
latory role consumes a major part of our resources, the latter role is also im-
portant because Michigan is a food deficient state, importing about 50% of its
food.
We have a particular concern for accidental or environmental additions of un-
wanted materials in foods. It is very difficult to predict what the consequences
of many contaminants may be. Therefore I hope that the designers and operators
of the Muskegon System and others like it will share with us the obligation to
acquire the evidence necessary for conscientious regulatory performance. We hope
to devote some of our resources in cooperatively obtaining and analyzing samples
of food grown on systems like Muskegon's to determine their health safety.
A recycling system like Muskegon's for producing food with wastewater re-
sources, implicitly may be something less than absolutely pure. The agriculture
environment is not an aseptic environment either, nor is it a totally sanitary
environment. I have no qualms that the acceptibility of agriculture products
from the Muskegon system can be demonstrated. This system represents a very re-
freshing and appropriate application of resource management. I hope that the
lessons learned here and data accumulated can be extended so that it need not
apply only to lands in the public domain, and that with appropriate insights,
technology, and guidelines private individuals may also share in the utilization
of this resource.
19
-------
Lt. Col. Donald Morel 11, Assistant Chief, Planning Division, Civil Works Program,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
The Corps of Engineers is vitally interested in land treatment and projects
such as in Muskegon County. Their interest stems from their Congressionally man-
dated comprehensive studies of urban centers and the Army's need to treat waste-
waters as completely and inexpensively as possible on site in their many Army
bases and recreational areas around the country and world.
The Corps' Urban Studies Program considers many facets of region-wide urban
planning, including evaluation of various alternatives for wastewater management
with emphasis on energy and resource savings. The District Engineers are supposed
to be the catalysts for the Corps that bring together all the diverse organiza-
tions and groups to implement the region-wide urban studies plan.
I am vitally interested in the community and commercial leaders here at Musk-
egon, who in cooperation with state and federal people, put all these diverse
interests together to establish a region-wide land treatment system for waste-
water management that works. I would like to take some of their experiences back
for our Urban Studies people to learn by.
20
-------
George Braude, Chief Chemical Industry Practices Branch, Division of Chemical
Technology, Bureau of Foods, FDA, Washington, D.C.
The Food and Drug Administration has responsibility for the safety of food
and for the protection of the human and am'mal food chain from contamination. The
Food and Drug Administration conducts surveys on dietary intakes to learn of con-
taminants and may establish rules, regulations, or tolerances for these contami-
nants including the ones potentially derived from sludge and wastewater applied to
land.
At Muskegon, where wastewater is being applied that contains very low levels
of heavy metals like cadmium, arsenic, lead, and selenium, the risk from heavy
metal contamination because of plant uptake and food chain contamination appears
low. The Food and Drug Administration is concerned, however, especially where
greater quantities of heavy metals are applied to soils via sludges or more heav-
ily contaminated wastewaters. Crops like corn tend to screen out heavy metals
from the grain and thus protect the food chain. If, however, the entire corn
plant were used as silage and fed to animals then far greater quantities of heavy
metals could be ingested by the animals and enter the food chain posing an in-
creased hazard.
A second area of interest and concern is microbiological. FDA microbiolo-
gists feel that the use of any form of sewage on crops in human and animal food
chains could cause problems and that care has to be exercised in the pretreatment
of sewage and its use. For a situation such as Muskegon1s, the degree of aeration
and residence time of the sewage are important parameters. So is the potential
problem of the bypassing or short circuiting of treatment systems. The degree of
chlorination, and its effects on the survival of pathogens, especially viruses is
another area of interest and concern. Admittedly, there is only limited informa-
tion on the direct correlation between sewage-borne contaminants and food-borne
diseases.
A third area of FDA concern, which is perhaps more prevalent in Muskegon
sewage, is with industrial and environmental organic pollutants. These may go
through industrial and municipal sewage treatment systems largely unchanged, or
only partly modified, and may be taken up and contaminate the food chain. In
some instances, these materials are formed during chlorination within the plant.
Our primary concern in these areas will be for the direct physical contamination
of crops to which the sewage is applied and which may be eaten by animals. Po-
tential accumulation and biomagnification in the fatty tissues of animals appears
probable.
The risks and hazards involved in the use of sewage on land and crops in the
human food chain have remained a continuing concern. Starting with the planning
phase and continuing through the day by day operation of the system, persons re-
sponsible should be aware of the hazards and conduct operations in such a way to
minimize risk. Additional research is needed to identify and further clarify
these risks and to establish methods for their minimization.
21
-------
Charles E. Pound, Vice-president, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA
t,,™/!!6 HUSiego" County System is demonstrating that both an acceptable agricul-
ment orwastLa;P, 'f6 Wastewater effluent -re resulting with minimal treat-
ment of wastewater. Most engineers tend to look more favorably at conventional
per ences ?"?h^'f nt ****** b*cause °f thei> Professional tra?ninS and ex-
Knlrtl nf tJ situation -is to be reversed, complete documentation of all
aspects of the successfully operated Muskegon County System are essential As a
practicing engineer, I would like to refer to various experiences of the land
treatment system at Muskegon. I am frustrated in my attempts to refer to te
following experiences because of a lack of available published data.
1. Treatment performance data suggest that considerable reduction in nitro-
gen levels occurs during aeration and storage. Properly documented, I
could use the information to design a system for appreciable removal of
nitrogen by these processes.
2. Data obtained at Muskegon on organics has dealt with very specific com-
pounds. EPA's drinking water standards categorize organics in broader
terms in which data at Muskegon should also be categorized if it is to be
readily transferable to other places.
3. Construction and operating costs of the Muskegon County System, which is
yielding treatment comparable to AWT systems elsewhere, are significant-
ly less than is normally encountered in constructing and operating con-
ventional secondary wastewater treatment facilities. It is very impor-
tant that we obtain documented unit costs for the Muskegon County System.
4. I would like to be assured of the effectiveness of the system for reno-
vating wastewater. The method being used at Muskegon for sampling ren-
ovated drainage water is probably overly optimistic for showing effec-
tiveness of the treatment system. Measurement of the wastewater per-
colate quality from just above the saturated zone in the soil would
probably be more reliable.
I also need to know what level of aerosols can be tolerated with what degree
or risk. I suggest that these answers could come from studies at Muskegon or
elsewhere. Irrigation by rig and furrow application may be a feasible energy
saving, aerosol avoiding partial alternative to spraying at Muskegon
22
-------
G. Morgan Powell, Project Manager, Irrigation Division, CH2M Hill Engineers,
Denver, CO
*
The Wastewater Treatment System in Muskegon is apparently very successful.
Because of its recently demonstrated cost effective operation, its large size,
and its innovative design, its importance as a model to be studied and evaluated
cannot be overemphasized. Quality reports on all phases of the system are badly
needed by consultant engineers who are attempting to build new systems for other
communities based upon the concept of cost effectively reutilizing resources,
protecting surface and groundwater, and renovating wastewater. I urge that these
reports soon be forthcoming.
Evaluations and predictions of the system's ability to renovate wastewater on
the long term must be based upon more than drainage water quality analysis.
Measurements of impacts in the soil profile (as well as in the aeration cells,
storage lagoons, and drainage ground and surface water) is vital. Overestimations
of the ability of land treatment systems to renovate wastewater are probable un-
less the quality of the wastewater percolate from the unsaturated zone in the soil
is measured just above the water table. Specific rates of application of waste-
waters of given quality to soils with different crops must be tied in with resul-
tant water percolate quality.
Collectively, the results of these separate evaluations should be assembled,
and with the aid of modelling, be used to develop a management program for system
optimization. Such a model, that could be used with the proper inputs to suggest
management alternatives under a range of precipitation, evapotranspiration, waste-
water quality, and soil and crop conditions, would be most useful to consulting
engineers.
23
-------
Leo Walsh, Chairman, Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
The information obtained at Muskegon County should be written up and pub-
lished, even though studies conducted there have not been set up in a way to iden-
tify many of the underlying fundamental principles. Because some of these prin-
ciples have not yet been sufficiently identified, it will be difficult to trans-
late some of the Muskegon results to other potential land treatment systems.
Additional study will be needed to facilitate this translation. For example
fundamental information is needed in the Muskegon project which relates nutrient
concentration in the unsaturated soil zone to the amount of wastewater nutrient
applied, the uptake by the crop of the nutrient in question, and the crop yield
By using these relationships, you should be able to optimize yields and minimize
nitrogen losses in the drainage water.
There are still real possibilities to reduce nitrogen losses by modifying the
cropping program. For instance, there ought to be a way to establish crop growth
in ^e fall of the year and, thus, intercept nitrogen that otherwise would be
leached. If by double cropping you could get rye or some other grass established
in the corn in the fall, you would do a tremendous job of recovering nitrogen
applied in the fall and in the early spring. This plant absorbed nitrogen could
then be recycled back through the system as organic nitrogen which would be re-
leased to the corn during the following growing season.
The compatibility of wastewater with the land part of the treatment system
must be determined. A suitable balance of sodium, calcium, and magnesium must be
maintained in the wastewater to avoid possible soil salinity problems
24
-------
Charles Sorber, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering and Director,
Center for Applied Research and Technology, University of Texas,
San Antonio, TX
There has been little research at Muskegon which is directly related to
health effects. Health effects research is needed at Muskegon on the safety of
the wastewater grown food products for animal consumption from a potential path-
ogen (viral), organic, and heavy metal contaminant viewpoint. What is the life
expectancy of the Muskegon system for removing these contaminants? Are migra-
tory waterfowl adversely affected by the Muskegon system?
Not all health effects research can or should be conducted at one location.
Nonetheless it is vitally important to develop sensitive quantitative detection
techniques for virus. It is also extremely important to study the health effects
of aerosols both with respect to spray irrigation systems as well as with conven-
tional treatment systems. Epidemiological work, associated with wastewater treat-
ment, is also very important and fortunately is underway at a few selected loca-
tions.
A small-scale study on aerosols was conducted at Muskegon when determining
the system to choose for irrigation. Some of the monitoring information now be-
ing developed as well as the pre-design aerosol study will provide some answers
valuable in evaluating health effects. It is very significant that the system
has been designed to minimize adverse health effects through downward pointing
low pressure spray nozzles and through ground water control and under drainage.
I wish to commend Muskegon County and EPA Region V for the significant accomplish-
ment of getting this system fully operational.
Ralph Scott, Chief, Wood Products Staff, Corvallis Field Station of Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
There should be a detailed cooperative examination and documentation by
Muskegon County, the U.S. Geological Survey, and Michigan State University to ex-
plain relationships among amounts of wastewater applied, cropping, soil type, and
ground and surface water quality. Documentation of current studies and carefully
planned additional studies are needed to show how effective wastewater treatment
can be achieved with minimal input of energy. Prospective industrial and domes-
tic municipal wastewater should not be accepted by the Muskegon County System
unless determined compatible by experimental tests.
Examples are given of poor judgment and bad operation of land wastewater
disposal systems that resulted in severely polluted ground and surface waters.
These examples show that time is required for the effectiveness of land disposal/
treatment to become apparent. While these mismanaged systems yielded apparent
solutions to wastewater problems in the short run, they failed miserably in the
long run as the system equilibrated.
25
-------
Clifford Risley, Jr. - Summary
Because of legislative deadlines and lack of information on land treatment,
construction grant money for wastewater treatment is going almost entirely for
construction of conventional systems. While land treatment systems like we've
seen at Muskegon may not be the answer for wastewater treatment to everyone's
problem, it might be the answer to problems of many communities. These communi-
ties will not be building land treatment systems if we don't do the research now
to establish the viability of the land treatment alternative.
This conference has been excellent, particularly the critique session
Stressing a few of the points made: (A) We need to document the data that has
been obtained thus far, (B) We need to learn more about the levels to which crop
roots can deplete nutrients like nitrogen from percolating wastewater in the root
zone, (C) We need to learn more about treatment processes occurring during aera-
tion and storage, (D) We need to establish more clearly possible health hazards
involved in the operation of the Muskegon System and the use of the crops grown
here, and (E) We need to be more concerned with the compatibility of industrial
wastes with land treatment.
I want to thank the people of Muskegon for hosting this session for their
marvelous job and to my staff who did a great deal of the work in putting this
meeting together.
26
-------
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
MODERATOR
Curtis Harlin*
I would like to extend my personal welcome to you to this conference on
the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System.
There has been much said about this system and much printed in recent
years. Some of it may be not quite accurate. We have an opportunity today and
tomorrow to hear directly from those that have been involved with the program
from the start; what the Muskegon County System is, what it has done, and what
it is doing.
I'd like now to introduce Dr. Charles Greene, President of Muskegon Community
College.
* Chief, Water Quality Control Research Program, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, USEPA Ada, Oklahoma 74820
27
-------
WELCOME BY MUSKEGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Charles M. Greene*
Good morning to all of you. It's too bad that the sun is not shining in
this warm environment up here this morning. But, I can guarantee that before
you leave town you will witness lots of sunshine, if not in the sky, at least
in the warmth of the hearts of the residents of this area.
It's a real pleasure for me to be here to welcome you this morning to
Muskegon County and to particularly Muskegon Community College. I do this
because there's a real kinship between this college and the Muskegon County
Wastewater Management System.
The kinship, of course, is unique in that both the Wastewater Management
System and this College serve the entire district of Western Michigan that's
called Muskegon County. It's one of the two very rare total land mass service
agencies that the residents of this area support.
There are some other reasons for this kinship that I think are equally
important. It was with great pride that I received notice that the Marketing
Club of this College had received a National First Place Award, in competition
with 400 other colleges and universities across the nation in an organization
called the Distributive Education Clubs of America. Our club did come in first.
It came in first because of a very unique marketing and informational campaign
about the Wastewater Management System. I wish you could have been at the
County when we had life size billboards with our little logo theme "Willie
Wastewater" and a dozen or two catchy little slogans and ideas to acquaint
county residents with the idea that "Willie Wastewater - the Wastewater Manage-
ment System" was going to clean up the environment in our area.
There are other reasons for this kinship in this area; the very respected
Chairman of this meeting this morning, Dr. Demirjian, also serves on the facul-
ty of this college as a Professor instructing in the area of Environmental
Chemistry. With his assistance and drawing upon his broad experience, the
faculty and the staff of this college have been able to develop a new associate
degree program, which opened two weeks ago. This program in Chemical Techno-
logy was introduced to meet the growing and challenging needs of the chemical
industries in our community and in the Management System itself.
Additionally, it gives me great pride to let you in on what we feel is the
greatest boon that the Wastewater Management System has brought to this college.
The heaviest concentration of chemical technicians employed at the Wastewater
Management site received their basic instruction right at this college. There
are many reasons for our feeling of kinship, the feeling of mutual cooperation
* President, Muskegon Community College, Muskegon, Michigan 49442
28
-------
between the college and the dramatic system of water pollution control that
you are to review here, today and tomorrow.
I've watched very carefully the development of this system and I've agon-
ized with its authors over the magnitude of the early problems. As is any
community, it's not easy for one from an outside agency or an outside group,
and I came here from Florida about the same time that this system was develop-
ing, to move an area that is well developed into a new threshhold. But this
was accomplished in this area with great pride.
Frankly we were overjoyed last year as the Muskegon County Board of Comm-
issioners and the Board of Public Works took over the management of the system
and put Dr. Demirjian in charge as its director and manager. He has dramati-
cally reversed the operational efficiency of the crop production and cost re-
duction. It's a real tribute to tell you of the great leadership, the great
imagination and the great talent of the man in charge, and the men that direct-
ly report to Dr. Demirjian. So, to Dr. Demirjian, the County Board Chairman
Herman Ivory, to John Jurkas and to all in the County government who brought
this dramatic transition to pass, my most sincere congratulations. To the
distinguished Curtis Harlin, the Chief of our EPA Water Control Research pro-
gram, and to each of you in attendance here today and at the Wastewater Site
tomorrow, a most gracious welcome to Muskegon Community College. We consider
it most appropriate that you should convene here. We also feel that it's a
distinct privilege to have this assembly on our campus.
You notice this morning that our parking lots are rather confusing; that
construction is going on. To give you an idea of how important the growing
areas of Western Michigan are, there are two significant projects: the con-
struction here at the college representing growth, we have nearly tripled our
enrollment in the last five years, and the dramatic construction of a mall in
downtown blending selected older buildings with newer buildings.
Muskegon, Muskegon County, this College, and the leadership of this commu-
nity is committed to the fact that we will just not be another growing commu-
ity. We will become the leading growing community in the nation. We're very
pleased because of the work of the Wastewater Management System. It gave us
the initial thrust to start the growth and development in this area.
We're glad you're here; I hope your stay will be as comfortable as possi-
ble. I hope you will enjoy our hospitality and our food. I certainly hope you
enjoy the Bob Hope Show tonight. I found out that before I came here, he actu-
ally was here and raised money for the development of our library back in the
60's. So we have a kinship somewhere with him also.
I hope you have a marvelous two days. If the sun doesn't shine on the
environment, I'm sure that the sunshine in the hearts and warmth in the welcomes
of the people of Muskegon County will make you feel right at home. Thank you
very much.
29
-------
WELCOME BY MUSKEGON COUNTY
John Jurkas*
Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Department of Public Works I'd like
to welcome you to Muskegon County. We hope that your stay here will be an enjoy-
able one. We are honored to co-sponsor this conference composed of so many dis-
tinguished panelists.
The county is also pleased that this review and evaluation by the nation's
top scientists is being conducted of our wastewater treatment facility As with
most experimental systems, the project had experienced some problems in the past
Most of these problems today are resolved.
Today the system is operating effectively and economically. Dr. Demirjian's
efforts in managing and directing the wastewater system have been very instru-
mental in attaining these goals. I trust that the conference will be informative
successful, and beneficial to all of us, and that our experiences here will en-
courage others to enter into the field of land treatment facilities such as we
have here in Muskegon County.
_ I'd now like to introduce Herman Ivory, the Chairman of our Board of Comm-
issioners.
Herman Ivory*
Good morning to everyone. Thank you Mr. Jurkas for the introduction. Wel-
come to all out-of-town guests and welcome to our in-town guests. I'm going to
be brief this morning, because we have other people who will be speaking later.
I have assigned the task of trying to explain the intricate role of Muskegon
County in the development of the system to Mr. John Halmond. What I'd like to
do this morning is try to introduce a few people I have spotted in the audience
and say just a little about the system.
Mr. Gordon Skipper who is sitting up high is an ex-commissioner who started
from Day One". I'd also like to introduce to you Mr. Bill Wrase of S.D. Warren.
The S.D. Warren paper mill is the system's largest user. I know Mr. Wrase is
here. Would you stand, Bill?
Now just a few remarks about the system. I was fortunate or either unfor-
tunate depending on how you look at it to be with the group on "Day One" when
* Chairman, Department of Public Works, Muskegon, Michigan
**Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Muskegon County, Michigan
30
-------
we conceived the idea that we would have a system. From the political stand-
point it was dynamite. We had people in favor and people opposed to developing
such a system. At one time we had a lot more opposed than in favor, but for-
tunately this comjunity was such that they were able to stay together as a Comm-
ission and have 13 political entities working together to make the system go.
I will not say anything further about the system; I will leave that for Mr.
Halmond, except that a great deal of bi-partisan, bi-everything effort was in-
volved in getting it going. I noted that as a Representative from the House,
Representative Vander Jagt is here now. Would you stand please? I think you
also know Bud Nagelvoort, senior staff assistant for Mr. Vander Jagt. Everyone
knows that our Democratically controlled Board of Commissioners got an awful lot
of support from Representative Vander Jagt, who is Republican. Significantly
we are all from Muskegon County and we worked hard together.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM MUSKEGON COUNTY
Tony Derezinski*
One of the many aspects which went into creating the system we have today,
of course, is the political aspect. This political aspect has to be appreciated
in order to get the full impact of what has been done and what will be done in
the future.
One of the most happy surprises I had a few years ago was when I was sta-
tioned in Vietnam. I picked up a copy of the Saturday Review and lo and behold,
I found an article about my home county, Muskegon County, Michigan, on the Musk-
egon Wastewater Management System. One of the main things this very interesting
article pointed out was the fact of cooperation.
The cooperation was on two different levels: First of all, the project was
a bi-partisan effort involving both a Democratically oriented County Board of
Commissioners and a Republican Congressman representing our District in Washing-
ton getting together for progress for our community which needed a jolt in the
arm to get moving again. Secondly, there was cooperation among all levels of
government in order to get this project going. We had involvement in the County,
subcounty (cities and townships), State, and Federal levels. The county sub-
groups had to work together as a cohesive unit to seek Federal and State support
and funding. This was no easy task because frequently these units of government
do not cooperate and see their differences and values quite at odds with each
other. But all of them realized that this project was sorely needed to handle
a very real pollution problem and to handle in the future a very real economic
problem of a community that was in a transitional phase and needed something
like this to set it off.
* State Senator for 33rd District, Capital Building, Lansing, Michigan 48933
31
-------
Functional consolidation in this way was begun in Muskegon County The
county being the vehicle and the townships and the cities being contractual
agents working together in a bi-partisan spirit to get the project off the ground
I certainly cannot take credit for any of this since I've only been in office for
about nine months, but having been an observer, particularly living out in one of
the townships in which the system is located, I can certainly say from that view-
point that I'm extremely proud of being a resident of an area which pulled to-
gether like it did to put this project together and to reap the benefits that it
will give us in the future.
Welcome to Muskegon County. I'm glad you all could make it and I think you
will find that you are going to have an extremely informative session on a pro-
ject which is a real landmark not only for the county, but for the state and I
think for the country as a whole. Thank you very much.
32
-------
COUNTY ROLE IN MUSKEGON PROJECT
John Halmond*
Let me begin by saying that it's a:joy and a pleasure for me to ^be here
today. Now you've never attended any meeting where a speaker said, "I wish
I weren't here; I can think of ten other places I would rather be." But when
I tell you it's a joy and a pleasure for me to be here, I sincerely mean that,
because to me this means a turning of a chapter, the closing of an old chap-
ter, and the opening of a new. I
I was particularly hoping that all the members of the old County Board of
Commissioners, the regular original board, would be here today, to savor what I
would like to term victory, if I may, after all the blows that fell upon the mem-
bers of the Department of Public Works, all the criticism that was heaped upon us.
It seems like today is the ending of that, and the beginning of a new chapter.
I'd like to talk today about the dream that couldn't come true. I would
like to break that down into five different areas; why there was a dream, what
that dream was, why it couldn't come true, how it was accomplished, and the
hoped for results.
To begin with: Why the dream?
The County Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission recognized
the fact in the late 1960's that the county's lakes and streams were becoming
polluted. Perhaps our most valuable potential asset, our clean water in Mona
Lake and Muskegon Lake, was being turned from an asset into a liability. We
had three municipalities that were directly discharging their primary wastes
into these lakes and five major industries that were dumping directly into
these lakes.
These lakes should have been attracting tourists. They should have been
working for us. The tourists should have been using these for fishing, swim-
ming, water skiing, boating, and etc.
The polluted conditions of our lakes were causing old industries to move
out and certainly discouraging any new industries from moving in. This aggra-
vated an already"serious unemployment condition. It contributed to something
even worse - to the fact that people in this area began to lose faith and a
great bulk of the citizens began to bad-mouth Muskegon County.
Now there's no one, no organization, no governmental group that can move
forward if it's lost confidence and lost faith. That's the place we found our-
selves in.
* Member, Board of County Commissioners, Muskegon County, Michigan 49441
33
-------
Why couldn't vt be^ done?
Firstly, this area had a long history of provincialism. Several attempts
had been made at political consolidation and consolidation of services, all of
which had failed. There was a lack of trust; there was great deal of mis-
trust.
Secondly, this project was too new. It was different. Nothing of it's
kind had ever been tried on at this size before. Because it was different,
there's always that human tendency to resist change.
Lastly, if it were to be done it would have to be done by the County.
Now county government in Michigan is notorious for its sterility. County
government is an odd form of government with no real legislative, executive,
or judicial powers. Members of County Boards of Supervisors traditionally
came from various units, and they represented those units. They had little
interest in the overall welfare of the total area. I know very well, because
I sat on the old County Board of Supervisors. We used a caucus before each
meeting; the mayors of all the small cities and the area supervisors would
get together and would gang up on Muskegon City and Muskegon Heights. We'd
see that there'd be no progress; we were certain of that. Supervisors were
expected to make a few little noises every two years during elections and then
fade into the background. This was the form of government upon whom the re-
sponsibility fell to explore the unknown and do the impossible.
Even if all these things could have been overcome, we didn't have any
money. The County was broke. It was in the red. In order to get these add-
itional monies to build the project, they insisted that we first have plans.
But those plans cost money. We had no money. How would like to be an elected
official in a governmental unit that's already broke and then have to go out
and spend money you don't have for plans for a project that may never mater-
ialize? I don't know whether we were foolish or whether we had courage. I
like to think the latter. The plans were ordered and paid for.
How was this project accomplished?
The Planning Commission and the County Board reviewed various methods and
techniques of wastewater treatment. They were convinced that land treatment
would be the most efficient, the most economical, and most closely achieve the
established objectives. Land was available at a reasonable price. It's esti-
mated cost was about $300 per acre. The soil was sandy and well suited for
land treatment. The land was marginal, mostly scrub oak. The population den-
sity was low, requiring a minimum of relocation. The distance of transmission
was relatively short. I don't believe there's any place more than 10 miles.
The land was flat which minimized the run-off and in addition the site could be
used for multiple purposes such as recreation, power plants, landfill, etc.
It would be impossible to even begin to list all of the people who are
responsible for this project. I always shudder when anyone does begin to give
credit because there's always the possibility that they'll pass up someone that
34
-------
the fact that I'm only going to list some of the people who were responsible, I'm
going to take a stab at it. Certainly, the Planning Commission; the labor lead-
ers, who played a prominent role; businessmen and industrialists; and the County
Administrator. We were fortunate that we had a man who just did not believe that
there was anything that couldn't be done--he'd try anything and the more difficult
it was, the harder he would throw himself into it; the Director of the DPW and
Harry Knudsen, the Corporate Counsel. Harry was continually plowing new ground;
no county had ever done anything like this before, and the legal ramifications
would just boggle your mind. There were Dr. Bauer; Dr. Schaefer; and Rod Ditmer,
who was the planner of the system at that time. I'm listing here only a few. I
would like to go back and maybe pick three or four people without whose efforts,
I believe, would have meant the total project collapse. They are Guy Vander Jagt,
Bud Nagelvoort, who gave unselfishly of his time, and Curley Raap, the original
chairman of the County Board of Commissioners. Curley had the courage and the
leadership to make the total team hold together and no matter how hard the hour
might seem he still had the courage to encourage us to move forward. As I men-
tioned earlier, Harry Knudsen; without him the project never would have come off.
It was decided that we would purchase some 10,000 acres of land. We adver-
tised for bids from various companies to acquire the land. We came up with the
idea of a flat fee plus a bonus if a specific percentage of the land was acquired
within a certain time. This was necessary if we were to get the land in a hurry
so the contractors could begin work. A special firm was hired to make appraisals
of each and every parcel that was to be acquired. Firms were hired to conduct
title research, as were firms for relocation.
The DPW board members, and Gordon Skipper is in the audience and he'll re-
member very well, sat in the courthouse many nights until midnight going over
each and every individual purchase. They listened to complaints of those people
who thought they were not being treated well, and resolved those complaints.
This resulted in a minimum of condemnation procedures. It's almost unbelievable
that we could acquire this much land yet had to go to condemnation so seldom.
The corporate counsel, the members of the DPW board, and the county administrator
spent endless hours talking to the 13 governmental units. Not only did we have
to convince them in some cases to become a part of the program. In some instan-
ces we had to purchase land from them. I won't really begin to try to talk about
all of the problems that were involved here, just a few more. Roads had to be
closed, Indian burial grounds had to be avoided, constitutional court cases had
to be fought, zoning changes were necessary, utility easements had to be reloca-
ted and legislators had to be convinced to give us quick take authority. All
these problems were resolved and the project moved on.
what is i_t we_ hope for and expect from this project?
We're hoping that we can retain our old industries. We're hoping that we
can attract new industries that have peculiar wastewater problems. We're hoping
as a result of this that employment will accelerate. We're hoping that when we
clean up our lakes and streams tourist dollars will flow into this area. We're
hoping that we can sell the crops from the farm and that those dollars will roll
in; keeping in mind that we're talking about foreign dollars. If we can bring
35
-------
in a million dollars that's rolled over seven times and that's $7 million new in
Muskegon County. We're hoping that the farm activities will attract other farming
activities that will parallel what we're doing there. We're hoping also for a
power plant, so necessary if industry is to grow, as well as the recreational ex-
periences for citizens and tourists. Among the last thinqs but certainly among
the most important, we're hoping for a return in the pride of those who live in
Muskegon County. And most importantly, we're hoping that the spirit, of coopera-
tion that exists between the 13 governmental units will continue in many other
areas.
Thank you.
36
-------
REGION V ROLE IN THE MUSKEGON PROJECT
Valdas V. Adamkus*
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to express the appreciation
of the Environmental Protection Agency for the gracious hospitality of
Muskegon'County, our host, and co-sponsor of this meeting with the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.
Our appreciation extends also to each of you who have come here today
for a review of initial experiences with the Muskegon County Wastewater
Management Studies. This review will explore the opportunities to coopera-
tively enhance our knowledge by the continuing evaluation of this large land
treatment facility. Your contributions to this discussion will provide
valuable insights to guide future activities of this nature.
Continuing availability of adequate suitable water resources is a
necessity for the future sustenance and development of the nation and the
quality of the lives of its people. The primary responsibility for preser-
vation of water resources lies in the hands of the individual states. The
Environmental Protection Agency is commissioned with oversight of the pro-
tection and preservation of the quality of the country's water resources.
Region V views this aspect of the mission of the Agency with particular
clarity because we have within our responsibility the Great Lakes, the
world's largest fresh water resource.
The Great Lakes represent a primary source of water for the people and
the industrial communities of eight states; six of which together constitute
the area served by Region V. These lakes are of immeasureable value because
of the aesthetic satisfaction and recreational opportunities which they so
abundantly provide for us. Our concern for protection and preservation of
the Great Lakes is also reinforced because the United States shares the use
of this water with our neighbors, the people of Canada. The conservation of
this priceless water resource is therefore a matter of significance to the
nation as a whole.
Lake Michigan, among the Great Lakes, lies entirely within the boundar-
ies of the United States and its domestic shoreline is shared by four states.
Due to the head water relationship of Lake Michigan to the Lower Great Lakes,
it is particularly sensitive to the adverse effects of man's misuse. By
virtue of this fact, water quality of Lake Michigan may have a profound
impact on the water quality in the other Great Lakes. For this reason Lake
Michigan has a special claim on the attention, efforts, and the resources of
Region V.
In 1968 serious concerns were developing regarding the deterioration of
* Deputy Regional Administrator, Region V, U.S. EPA, Chicago, Illinois 60604
37
-------
the water quality of Lake Michigan as a result of discharges, of inadequately
treated wastewaters by communities and industries within the Lake Michigan
ESS"65? nf ?•! sSt?s.of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wis-
rnnf™ Federa Quality Administration (a predecessor of EPA) convened a
conference to consider means by which the trend of this deterioration could
" ThiS Uke Michigan E"^cement Conference concluded
3 commitment on the Part of each of the conferees,
wth
that-
?y Dec.ember 1972> the respective states should require municipal-
i±r«IeS ^^^V^ ec
-------
project value of about $44 million.
Also concurrently the Federal Water Quality Administration awarded to Muske-
gon County a grant of about $1.5 million representing 75% of the costs of a $1.95
million study to evaluate and document the performance of the system, once it was
placed into operation. The FWQA also reserved additional funds for this purpose
to be applied for at a later date.
With its formation in December 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency be-
came the custodian of this Federal commitment to water protection of the surface
waters of the Great Lakes.
The signing of United States and Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
in April 1972, and the enactment of the landmark Federal Water Quality Act Amend-
ments in October 1972, highlighted the potential of land treatment systems to
achieve stringent water quality protection objectives. This event also placed
significant new and increased responsibilities on EPA and on the states of the
Great Lakes Basin for the protection and preservation of the Great Lakes resource.
These new responsibilities had special significance for the state of Michi-
gan (surrounded on the three sides of Great Lakes waters). To meet the goals of
the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference a high degree of wastewater renovation
would be required. A rapidly emerging interest arose in Michigan concerning the
potential for high level treatment of wastewater by application and use on land.
To assist Michigan and their neighboring states in obtaining data upon which to
evaluate land treatment's potential, Region V awarded a grant of $250,000 in de-
monstration funds to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in November of
1972. These funds provided for the conduct of additional studies valued at $690,
000 on the Muskegon County System with particular emphasis on the long term im-
pact of this large system upon the quality of surface water resources and soils.
The Muskegon project has focused intense national, as well as Regional, in-
terest on the total management and reuse of wastewater with the recovery of nu-
trient resources by the use of treated wastewaters for agricultural irrigation.
In May 1973, Region V established a Wastewater Management Office for the Muskegon
project to provide resident coordination of the several agency sponsored research
activities in progress here and to make available to all interested parties a
readily accessible single source of reliable information regarding this effort.
This conference is a direct outgrow of this commitment of Region V.
Much remains to be learned regarding the potential of land treatment systems
for effective wastewater management, both in Region V and elsewhere. The Muske-
gon Project represents a unique site for the study of very large land treatment
systems in particular. The efforts of the sponsors of this conference represent
a most essential core of studies to better understand the design and management
of such large systems elsewhere.
Region V offers its encouragement and its assistance to the fullest extent
to other federal and state agencies and to other institutions having an interest
in the cooperative activities to enhance the scope and value of studies of the
39
-------
Muskegon County, Michigan Wastewater Management System You've comP a innn ^
^
international
Thank you very much.
40
-------
CONFERENCE PERSPECTIVE
Clifford Risley, Jr.*
This conference was developed as an opportunity to gather together those
persons who have been deeply involved in research and in studies of the land
application of municipal wastes.
Our purpose in doing this was for the participants to gain an apprecia-
tion for the status of the Muskegon Wastewater Treatment System and to stim-
ulate an exchange of information as to how the experience with this system
relates to the experiences of each of the participants in their own research
endeavors.
When I speak of participants, I'm referring not only to those who may
have a formal place on the program, but to all of you here. This meeting was
not widely publicized. We did not want to bring in all of those who might
have some casual interest in the project. This meeting was by invitation to
each one of you, to seek your attendance because of your own related interest in
land application of wastewater. We want all of you to participate and would
appreciate your comments, ideas, and suggestions during the meeting. We also
encourage your continued interest and commentaries subsequent to this meeting.
This meeting was not for the purpose of exhibiting a completed research
product. It is rather a working meeting, intended to stimulate a thoughtful
critical re-examination of the direction of the system operations, particular-
ly the research programs which were based on the experience of one full year
of successful operation and observations.
During the meeting, we want to highlight the tentative conclusions, the
unusual experiences and observations. We want to subject them to critical
comment and scrutiny. We want to compare them with other experiences for
reasonableness. We want to determine, if possible, whether our data collec-
tion is being keyed to properly document the aspects of the system that you
are interested in and that are needed to establish the validity of this form
of land treatment as a viable alternative for wastewater renovation.
The meeting must be participatory. Ample opportunities will be provided
throughout the rest of the session for audience comments, questions, and
exchanges with technical speakers.
The research on the Muskegon system has been progressively oriented
toward documentation of the performance of the overall system and each of its
major treatment components. The research has been directed toward estimating
Director, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Region V, Chicago,
Illinois 60604
41
-------
the long term impacts of the system on the surface waters and the soil resources
aLred tow H9H^ht th it faCt^ and t0 P°int °Ut that the research h*s not been
geared toward defining the mechanisms of treatment which occur throughoUrthe
system, i.e., it has not been geared toward pure research.
We make this point because these purer areas of research must now be pursued.
Your guidance is essential since many of you are pursuing this type of study to
identify mechanisms in the treatment processes in soils. We want to program de-
liberate studies to optimize long-term system performance and to streamline the
management philosophies for the system, in addition to performance evaluation.
... fj]6 you're here, we want you to experience first-hand the magnitude of
this full-scale land treatment system. Today we will be talking about it and to-
morrow you will see it. I must emphasize that the system must be visited to be
fully understood and appreciated. We will talk about three eight-acre biological
treatment lagoons, two 850 acre storage lagoons, 6,000 acres of irrigated farm-
land, and 11,000 acres of total managed land, but I'm afraid to most of you these
are rather incomprehensive terms. Indeed they will be until you really get out
on the site and take a closer look.
You've already heard an excellent historical resume by Commissioner John
Halmond. You've already heard of EPA's interest and inputs from Val Adamkus. We
want you also to hear from the man who designed the system, what he has learned
in following through with the construction of the system, and the implications
from this for future design. We want you to hear from those who are operating
the system; what their start-up experiences were; what their operating experien-
ces are now, in terms of efficiency, water quality, manpower, and energy require-
ments; and the costs of the system. We will also hear from Michigan State Univ-
ersity on what they have found in terms of physical, chemical, and biological
changes in the soil resulting from the wastewater application. We will also hear
from the University of Michigan on their lake monitoring and modeling studies
concerning the impact of the Muskegon Wastewater Treatment System on surface
water and sediment quality.
This meeting will afford an opportunity for you to evaluate the interest of
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Department of Agricul-
ture, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Department of Interior, the Food and Drug Administration, the Army Corps of En-
gineers, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to the Musk-
egon Project and to their other studies on the land application of wastewater.
I hope that each of you will read the information we mailed prior to this
meeting. It outlined our experiences to date and identified some problems and
questions which we have already raised about this system and about the future
of land application systems. From all of this effort, prior to and during the
next two days, we hope to stimulate your thoughts and your suggestions as to
how we should redirect our efforts. We need your help in identifying the high-
est priority areas of needed research at Muskegon and the longer term research
needs for land treatment systems here and elsewhere.
42
-------
Overall, we would like to foster ways in which we can all work more con-
structively together to accomplish more effective research.
Thank you. I hope that all the presentations you hear will help set the
stage for obtaining critical suggestions and concerns from each of you.
43
-------
REVIEW OF SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
William J. Bauer*
Introduction
The Muskegon County wastewater irrigation project, largest in the United
States, started operations in May of 1973. Design had begun in July of 1970
and construction contracts were awarded in May of 1971. Bonds were sold in
August of 1971 for the local share of the construction cost, and approximately
10,000 acres of land were acquired during the following 12 months.
Although the first water was turned into the system in May of 1973, the
irrigation system was not completed until August of 1974, too late for a com-
plete crop year. The year 1975 is thus the first year with a completed irri-
tation system.
This paper discusses particular experiences with operations of the system
during the start-up period and relates them to the original design considera-
tions. For example, the 8" sloping soil cement lining of the storage lagoons
was a deliberate departure from conventional practice of constructing soil
cement wave protection on earth embankments, being very much less expensive
than the conventional approach. During the first year, some ice and wave dam-
age was experienced. The cost of repairs was about $50,000, or about 3% of
the original construction cost. The second year cost of repairs was very much
less. Reasons for the damaged portions appear to lie in substandard workman-
ship in those portions. On the whole, the 8" soil cement lining appears to have
been a good choice for this type service, and the continued experience with it
will strengthen support for the design criteria for this type of wave protec-
tion for earth embankments in general.
Problems with failures in insulation of buried electrical cables, with
failures (mostly during construction) of asbestos cement pressure pipes, prob-
lems with clogging of nozzles, and similar difficulties are also discussed with
reference to the original design criteria and assumptions.
The operating costs of the system are compared to the forecast costs as
contained in the design documents, and the differences analyzed. Comparisons
with costs of operating conventional treatment systems are also made. The
Muskegon County system appears to be offering an unprecedentedly high degree of
treatment for an unprecedentedly low price.
The reliability of the system in producing high quality effluent in spite
of mechanical and electrical difficulties, the speed with which the entire
system was put into operation, and the additional treatment capacity which it
*
President, W.J. Bauer Consulting Engineers, Chicago, Illinois 60606
44
-------
appears to have over and above its design capacity are also discussed.
The paper concludes that the project has demonstrated a remarkable degree
of achievement of its goals, and gives promise of further improvements in
performance and operating economy.
This condensation is developed from notes collected in anticipation of
writing a paper on the Muskegon County project after the first two years of
operation. It takes the form of a checklist of subjects and brief remarks
about each-
Design Flows
The design flow for the first year of operation of the main part was esti-
mated to average 28.5 MGD, and this is very nearly the actual experience.
The design average capacity of 42 MGD appears ample at present. The design
flow for the Whitehall system was 1.4 MGD and the initial flows were much
smaller than this prior to the connection of Whitehall Leather Co. With this
connection, the flows have been less than the 1.4 MGD, leaving allowance for
the future connection of Montague when the sewer system for that city is com-
plete.
Design Water Quality
Biological oxygen demand of the incoming waste is somewhat less than
assumed in the design, resulting in a lesser demand for aeration. The only
unexpectedly troublesome problem was in the mercaptan odors from the paper mill
which are delivered to the site with the wastewater and which under certain at-
mospheric conditions are detectable outside of the treatment site. Chlorina-
tion of the paper mill waste was tried on an experimental basis during the _
summer of 1975 to oxidize the mercaptans at times when the atmospheric condi-
tions at the site would be conducive to detection of these odors by neighbors
of the treatment site.
Infiltration and Inflow
Peak flows into the system have not been any larger than expected even
during periods of wet weather, in spite of the presence of combined sewers in
some part of the area served. To date, the main pumping station has not ex-
ceeded about 50% of its design capacity during peak inflow periods.
Pumping Stations; Package Type
Prefabricated pumping stations installed underground were used for all
stations except the Main Station C, which has a capacity of about 90 MGD. The
largest of the prefabricated stations, Station D, has a capacity of about 28
MGD and has required the installation of additional cooling facilities to make
it comfortable for service personnel. Minor modifications to the electrical
features of these stations have been made in the first two years of operation.
45
-------
Main Pumping Station C.
This 90 MGD station costing about $1.6 million was put into operation in
May of 1973. Start-up problems included trouble with check valves slamming
and with operation of the flow recorder. The check valves were selected so
as to minimize the problems of slamming, but in spite of this, additional
equipment was required in the form of dampening devices to limit the speed of
closure. The flow meter was examined many times by the manufacturer in
attempts to get it to operate satisfactorily, but continued to give erratic
results. No more than two of the four pumps of this station have been re-
quired to keep up with inflow, which allows plenty of capacity for future in-
crease inflows.
Main Force Main
In addition to many miles of smaller force mains and sewers which were
involved in the collection system for the project, the 66" force main 11 miles
in length was an integral part of the construction project. This main has
functioned in the manner intended, and it would be possible to use operating
records to calculate and evaluate the hydraulic performance of this reinforced
concrete pressure pipe. Such analyses should be made at regular intervals to
detect the rate of aging and gradual increase in friction factor which the de-
sign assumed would occur.
Outlet from Force Main
The outlet from the force main discharges into an open flume which in
turn discharges into the aerated lagoons. The open arrangement permitted easy
release of gases contained in the inflow. The presence of mercaptans in the
flow at this point was generally obvious to any person who visited this portion
of the project. Some consideration of covering this inlet was given for the
purpose of minimizing the concentration of this odor at this point. In the
opinion of the writer, this move will not diminish the amount of the gas which
is released into the atmosphere, but will only diffuse it over a larger area
in the vicinity of the aerated lagoons.
Aerated Lagoons
The electric power required for the satisfactory operation of the aerated
lagoons is a great deal less than that supplied in the design. The reason for
this is the provision for future increases in flows to the system, and also
provision for higher concentrations of B.O.D. of the incoming waste.
The system is functioning at about 70% of design flow rate, and the B.O.D.
is about 70% of the concentration assumed in the design. Based upon these
factors alone, about 50% of the installed horsepower should suffice, less the
allowance in the design for spare capacity. Actually, about 1/3 of the in-
stalled horsepower has been found to be sufficient for the actual conditions
encountered. Thus, the aerated lagoons appear to have a treatment capacity
considerably in excess of the design value.
46
-------
Solids accumulation in the aerated lagoons has not appeared to develop in
the first two years of operation, at least to an extent which would interfere
with the operation. With the reduced horsepower being used, it is expected
that more accumulation of solids would result. Observation of this aspect of
operations should be continued.
From time to time a foam problem has developed on the aerated lagoons,
arising from the lignins which are present in the waste in rather high con-
centrations. However, this problem has been confined to the site of the pro-
ject, and there appears to be no need to take any further steps to control it.
Storage Lagoons
The storage lagoons were designed to leak at a limited rate, with the
leakage being intercepted and pumped back to the lagoons. This aspect func-
tioned as designed, with the leakage rate appearing to remain essentially con-
stant with time. Leakage rate of course varied with elevation of water in the
lagoon. The effect of the passage of the water through the soil beneath the
storage lagoon constitutes a treatment process in itself, and is a fruitful
area of further research. Although this aspect of the project was not counted
on in the original design as part of the treatment capacity of the system, it
is inherently a treatment process and effectively increases the treatment ca-
pacity of the system by about 20 MGD.
Solids build up in the lagoons was estimated for design purposes to re-
quire dredging after, say, 10 years or so. Experience to date indicates that
dredging will not be required for much longer than 10 years.
The wave protecting slopes around the lagoons were constructed of soil
cement at an average cost of $2.50 per square yard, the total cost for appro-
ximately 630,000 sq. yds. being roughly $1.5 million. If Portland cement con-
crete had been used, the cost would have been about $10 per square yard, or
approximately $4.5 million more. The interest on this difference in cost would
have been far greater than the typical annual cost of maintenance of the soil
cement, which is estimated to be less than $50,000 per year. Actual experience
to date shows an average of perhaps $30,000 per year.
The 8" slab on 4:1 slope was a deliberate departure from conventional
practice which uses stair-stepped horizontal slabs, one place on top of the
other up the slope of the embankment. This arrangement averages several feet
in thickness and is much more expensive than the 8" sloping slab. Successful
performance of the more economical design has implications for wave protection
on earth embankments of all types.
Irrigation Canals
Very inexpensive canals were used to carry the wastewater from the lagoon
area to the irrigation pumping station. These were lined with plastic, with
the plastic being covered with sand to hold it down. One canal about 4,000
feet long leads to the north pumping station, and one about 9,000 feet long
leads to the south pumping station.
47
-------
The design velocity in these canals was to be sufficiently low so that
the movement of the sand was limited to very fine particles which would not
cause any problem in either the pumping station or in the nozzles Under the
conditions during the first start-up year, however, pressures to discharge as
much water as possible through the canals (to use up the unusually large vol-
ume of water stored for much longer than the design period) produced veloci-
ties which caused more sand to move than was anticipated, and some nozzle
clogging resulted. Also, the vegetation and other debris along the open
canals entered them and caused some nozzle plugging. Careful maintenance and
cleaning of the canals and of the space along the canal is required to mini-
mize this problem.
Enclosure of the irrigation flows in pipes would have been very expensive
not only m terms of original cost, but also in terms of additional energy
costs in operation. The use of the canals saved money in both counts, and is
justifiable from that point of view regardless of the additional maintenance
labor required to keep the system clean and orderly.
Two spillways were installed, one on each of the two irrigation canals, to
afford automatic protection to the canal in the event the pumping station would
be shut down while flow to the canal was being released. These were to have
been constructed at the time of the original construction work, but were over-
looked in the development of the construction plans.
Irrigation Pumping Stations
These outdoor type pumping stations, each about 2500 horsepower, have been
functioning adequately since they were started. Some trouble with lightning
was experienced, which required some repairs at one of the stations. The de-
sign pressure head at these stations is about 75 pounds per square inch. The
required pressure at the pivot of each irrigation machine is about 25 psi, in-
cluding the elevation head, and including the nozzle pressure of 10 psi. This
leaves about 50 psi for the friction head to the most remote point in the sys-
tem. As compared to conventional irrigation nozzles, the use of the 10 psi
nozzle instead of typically 75 psi nozzle saves about 2000 horsepower during
the operation of the irrigation system at maximum capacity. This can be an
impressive saving in energy cost.
Pressure Pipelines to Irrigation Rigs
Considerable difficulty was experienced during construction with failure of
the pressure pipes. These were constructed of asbestos cement and were bedded
in the natural sand soils of the area. Most of these failures occurred during
the time the construction contractor was attempting to make pressure tests. Some
of the failures occurred at pressure as low as 20 psi, although each piece of
pipe was tested at the factory at 300 psi. The design calculations showed no
surge pressures which could account for such failures, and a field measurement
of a pressure surge produced by a deliberate closing of a valve as rapidly as the
operator would permit confirmed this analysis. The cost of replacement of the
pipe was borne by the construction contractor prior to acceptance of the pipe
system by the County. A few breaks are continuing to occur, and are repaired
48
-------
with spare pipe kept on the site for this purpose. The cause of the problem
is not as yet understood. Certainly the bedding condition was idea.1 for any
pipe, being consistently fine sand throughout the site. There is no large
difference in elevation throughout the site which could produce large flow
reversals in the event of power failure. There are no valves which close
rapidly enough to produce excessive pressure surges. The system was designed
with a calculated maximum combination of ambient plus surge pressure of 190
psi. The shut-off pressure of the pumps is about 125 psi, and the planned
operating pressure at the pumping station is approximately 75 psi. Proof of
the cause of this problem is still being sought at the present time. In the
meantime, the system is continuing to operate, and the few additional breaks
which occur are repaired as they arise.
Buried Electrical Cable
A large number of failures of the buried electrical cable occurred at
places where the insulation was ruptured. Apparently the insulation was dam-
aged during installation. Replacements and repairs were made prior to the
1975 irrigation season.
Irrigation Rigs
The irrigation rigs of the center pivot type were specified to be more
rugged and durable than the conventional ones of similar size which are
commonly used in farming. The reason was the very large number of operating
hours per year as compared to the ordinary use on the farm, the ratio of the
two being on the order of 10 to 1. To date, the greatest problem has been in
the clogging of the nozzles. The original design considered the possibility
of using comminuters or equivalent for the elimination of larger objects in
flow furnished to the nozzles, but this approach was ruled out in the interests
of keeping the system as simple as possible. Comminuters or screens would also
require maintenance if they were to perform the function intended, and it was
believed that the same effort expended in keeping the canal banks clean and
neat would accomplish the same or better result.
Different types of tires were tried, and the rubber tire of a particular
type was found to be most satisfactory for the sand areas. In a portion of the
project where muck soils overly sand, limitations on irrigation amounts was
found to be the best solution to the problem of excessive rutting.
Clearing of Trees
There was considerable controversy over the tree clearing operation during
construction. One of the concerns was whether burning of the cleared trees
would be permitted. Once the air pollution control officials had been con-
vinced that burning could be accomplished without exceeding accepted limits,
burning was permitted. Meanwhile, considerable clearing had been accomplished
at extra cost through the stockpiling of cleared trees in non-farmed areas.
These stacks of cleared trees still remain at the site, and are not an aesthe-
tic attraction. Because of the large size of the project, burning of trees in
49
-------
the project area would have caused only tolerable concentrations of pollutants
at the boundary of the site. This was the basis uoon which officials eventu-
ally approved burning.
The other controversy revolved around the question of grubbing of the
roots and other buried vegetation. The specifications called for grubbing
only under dikes and other structures. The major portion of the cleared area
was intended for farming, and no grubbing was called for there. Once the
farming operations began, the roots and other buried vegetation which remained
in the cleared area caused damage to cultivating equipment. The concept of
the design was to plant the area mainly without cultivation, using techniques
to control weeds which did not require general cultivation. The nature of the
sandy soils also facilitated this approach. It was reasoned that the roots
and other buried vegetation would rot under these conditions and would add to
the humus of the soil. This will eventually happen, and the problems of cul-
tivating, if cultivating is still to be used, will decrease with time.
Underdrajnage
The underdrainage system appears to be functioning as designed, except
for certain wet spots in the area south of Apple Avenue where muck soils pre-
vent the water from getting into the drained sand beneath. These local prob-
lems required some local ditching and other remedial measures to drain off
the excess water. The basic idea would be to channel off the water retained
on the muck soils into sandy infiltration basins.
The quality of the water coming out of the drains is equal to that ex-
pected, being drinkable quality. As it then enters open ditches and moves to
the points of discharge back into the natural channels, the water picks up poll-
uting materials common to natural streams from the air and the sides and bottom
of the ditch, such as insects, birds, animals, and plant debris. Thus the water
is not as pure when it reaches the point of discharge into the natural streams
as it was when it left the drain pipes.
The direction of movement of the groundwater is toward the project site
in accordance with the design objectives. The monitoring of quality of the
groundwater shows either no change or else a slight improvement as a result of
the operation of the project.
Overall System Performance
The water quality objectives of the system have been accomplished in
actual operation from the time the system was first put into operation. This
is true even though the system was not as yet complete when the water was first
turned into it, and even though a number of start up problems were experienced.
The reason, of course, is that the system is inherently simple and fail-safe.
Some aspects of the performance of the system proved to surpass design
expectations. Among these are the following:
50
-------
1. The treatment effect of the long-term storage in the storage lagoons,
which involves the percolation of the stored water through the sand un-
derlying the lagoons and over to the interception ditch from which it
was pumped back into the storage lagoons. This process also apparently
includes some extensive denitrification within the storage lagoon itself,
as a great deal of the nitrogen entering the lagoon appears to be lost in
it. Although this is adverse to the idea of growing crops, if the treat-
ment capacity of the storage lagoons themselves is utilized as part of
the system, and only the water which is received during the growing sea-
son is used for irrigation, then the entire system can be operated in
two phases:
a) Winter storage and treatment in the storage lagoons of all water which
comes to the site during the non-growing season. This would be foll-
owed by direct discharge of this water to the outlet channels of the
project once it had attained the desired water quality.
b) Irrigation of all of the wastewater received at the site during the
growing season with minimal storage between the aerated lagoons and
the actual application to the land. This would provide maximum con-
centration of nutrients in the water actually applied to growing crops.
Operation of the system in this manner would give an effective capacity
of perhaps 60 to 70 MGD as compared to the design value of 42 MGD. Jhe_
hydraulic capacity of the system to deliver the wastewater to the site is
about 90 MGD, providing for the ability to take some variation in flow
above and below an average flow of 60 to 70 MGD.
2. The problem of removing solids from the bottom of the storage lagoons
appears to be much less than anticipated. Apparently the solids are be-
ing carried out with the irrigation water and are being applied on the
land. Surveys of the bottoms of the lagoons cannot account for the
difference between solids coming in and solids going out with the final
effluent.
One aspect of the performance, which proved to be worse than expected, is
the matter of dissolved iron in that portion of the final effluent coming from
the drainage pipes south of Apple Avenue. The natural iron in this soil, which
was so long saturated with water because of the naturally poor drainage in the
area, is now leaching out and coloring the effluent. The iron concentration in
this effluent is much greater than the iron concentration in the influent. How
long this condition will continue is a matter of conjecture, but it is expected
eventually to diminish to more desirable levels.
Time for Construction
The time required for the construction of the project—including the time
required for the purchase and acquisition of over 10,000 acres of land—was about
3 years. The project was put into operation about one year before final comple-
tion of'construction because of the ability to store the water for a year or so.
By contrast, the Salt Creek Plant of the Metropolitan Sanitary District, now
51
-------
called the John Egan Water Reclamation Plant, started to be constructed about the
same time as the Muskegon County project, and is still not in operation. It
appears that the simplicity of land treatment projects permits them to become op-
erative much sooner than conventional advanced treatment plants, even when large
amounts of land must be purchased.
Reliability
The performance of the system has proven to be very reliable. Other
types of systems have down times or times when the inflow exceeds the treat-
ment capacity when the quality of water discharged to waterways does not meet
the desired standards. It is the practice of our profession to accept such
lapses of performance as being inevitable. Yet the Muskegon County system is
showing that they need not be, and that fail-safe systems can be achieved and
at an economical cost.
Costs
The costs of the Muskegon County system were not greatly different from
those expected prior to the taking of construction bids except for the follow-
ing:
1. Land costs were considerably greater, as land selling for $170 per
acre at the start of the project (based on private transactions prior
to the start of the project) cost an average of about $500 per acre
by the time the County acquired it. The great rise in average cost
was, of course, a natural consequence of the law of supply and demand.
Once the County desired the land, the price went up.
2. In addition to the cost of the land, there was a $1 million cost of
relocating the residents of the land to new locations. This cost had
not been anticipated in the original plan. Although funded nearly
100% with federal funds, the cost was a real cost. But it did provide
corresponding benefits to those relocated. In general, every family
moved into better housing as a result of the project.
3. The cost of clearing of the land was considerably more than antici-
pated in the original engineer's estimate. The total clearing cost
was about $2 million, perhaps 20% of which arose because of the ini-
tial prohibition of the state against burning. Later this position
was reversed and burning was permitted, but the major cost had been
incurred by that time. This worked out to be about $500 per acre for
the 4,000 acres cleared.
The operating costs (before any credit for revenue from the farm) were
considerably greater than anticipated, primarily because of the great rise in
costs of electricity. Offsetting this, however, was a rise in the value of the
farm crops and the hope of having farm income equal or exceed total operating
costs appears to be realistic according to results of the 1975 operating year.
Thus, the County system may be the first to achieve 1985 effluent standards at
zero cost to users of the system insofar as operating costs are concerned.
52
-------
Charges to users during the first operating year were $85 per million gallons
for actual operating costs, which was the figure projected from design calcula-
tions. During the second year, the rate was increased to $170 per million gallons,
the increase in charges being necessary to provide for much increased cost of
electrical power, for reimbursement to the County general fund for previous sub-
sidies from that fund, to build an operating cash reserve, and for a number of
other reasons.
Results of the year 1975 are forecast presently to be about $1.4 million
for actual operating costs offset by a revenue from crop sales of about $1
million. The net cost per million gallons treated would then be $40 per mil-
lion gallons. Actual charges to users would be more than this to provide for
the aforementioned reimbursement to the County General Fund and also to build
up the operating cash reserve.
It is the goal of the County to achieve a net zero operating cost wherein
the income from crops and other products of the system would completely offset
the actual operating costs. This appears to be entirely a reasonable goal
based upon the operating experience with the system to date.
It is also the goal of the County to have new industrial developments
establish themselves in the County, and the demonstrated large reserve capacity
of the system to accept additional wastewater flows is a factor in being able
to attract such new industry. The low cost of such treatment is another
attraction to such industry.
By comparison, the cost of conventional treatment which does not produce
salable commodities is continuing to rise with inflation, with costs in excess
of $200 per million gallons being the general experience for the operating
costs of advanced wastewater treatment plants comparable in size to the Muske-
gon system.
Summary and Conclusions
These remarks have been made from the standpoint of the design engineer
who has followed the development of the system from the time it was conceived
to the present time. It is interesting to note that the system grew out of a
desire to do something about the depressed economic conditions in the Muskegon
area, and not primarily out of a desire to solve a pollution problem. Only
after a definition of the concrete goals of the community showed that a waste-
water project which produced salable products was probably the most practical
way to begin a solution to the area's economic problem was the land irrigation
system proposed. The ability of the system to achieve reliable advanced waste-
water treatment was in many ways a fallout from the principal objectives of a
new industrial base, and more tourism.
The use of wastewater enterprises as springboards for launching economic
development of an area is of course not a new idea, but the concept of using
them as instruments to achieve even broader community plans is relatively novel.
This paper has completely ignored this aspect of the project, simply because of
limitations of time and space. It should be fully told elsewhere.
53
-------
Insofar as the technical aspects of the project are concerned, I have pre-
sently only a cursory summary statement. It is my hope that additional tech-
nical papers will be written, each on one particular aspect of the project
such as the soil cement lining of the storage lagoons, for example. The im-
plications of this design, which is a deliberate departure from previous prac-
tice, have a bearing upon not only storage lagoons of wastewater irrigation
projects but also upon such facilities for power plant cooling, hydroelectric
developments, and for any other purpose for which earth embankments requiring
wave protection might be desired.
The study of the biological and chemical processes which are taking place
in the water and soil of the Muskegon project could of course occupy teams of
scientists for life times. Like every other aspect of our universe, the amount
to be learned is far beyond the ability of any man to comprehend and always
will be. Fortunately, failure to understand the mechanics of a process does
not inhibit mankind from making beneficial use of it. We don't have a complete
understanding of any of the technical processes we use; we simply operate em-
pirically. The same is true of the land treatment system.
As far as future research is concerned, I believe that more effort should
be concentrated on systems which use water as the primary resting place of such
unwanted materials as heavy metals, for example. I believe that less is known
about such systems than is already known about systems in which the land is
used as the primary resting place of such materials. Sometimes our fascination
with the novel features of an unusual project like the one in Muskegon County
can divert our research effort from where it is really needed. As the majority
of wastewater is discharged into lakes and streams, it is there that the major
thrust of research should be concentrated, particularly with regard to the
question of ultimate disposal of unwanted materials like cadmium, for example.
Recommendations
If I were to tackle another project like the one in Muskegon, would I do
anything differently because of my experience with it? Certainly, I would, as
the foregoing paper indicates. The overall concept I would not change at all:
to design a system which could produce an income and thus reduce or even elim-
inate operating costs, and which could serve as a springboard for other econo-
mic development.
A few particular matters which I would approach differently in designing
another project of this type can be mentioned briefly:
1. I would argue much harder and I trust more effectively for omitting
the chlorination prior to land application. Certainly it is not good
practice to chlorinate wastewater prior to any biological treatment
step, such as a trickling filter or an aeration tank. Why then is it
good practice to chlorinate prior to the land application, which is
also a biological process which takes place in the soil? The argument
that chlorination reduces the hazards from aerosols, if valid, should
also be applied to trickling filters or aeration tanks. Obviously, it
54
-------
will never be so applied, but if any hazards exist, they would be more
pronounced with the raw wastes being handled in the trickling filter or
in the aeration tank than with the treated effluent being handled in the
irrigation system. I believe the use of chlorine prior to irrigation is
wasteful, unnecessary, and may also be contributing to the development
of chlorine resistant organisms.
2. I would establish more completely at the outset of the project the basis
for permitting the burning of cleared trees, using the permissible con-
centrations of particulate matter at the perimeter of the project site
as a criterion. Burning would lower costs and result in a, site with a
much more attractive appearance.
3. I would encourage the viewpoint that the project site was actually a
large conservation area, not only with respect to water and nutrients,
but also with respect to wildlife of all types. I would encourage
thinking which would contemplate limited hunting and fishing within the
project boundaries, and would include this in the design of the project,
and would officially designate it by signs and on maps as Conservation
Area.
4. I would include the effect of the percolation through the sand bottoms of
the storage lagoons as one of the treatment processes, and would thereby
secure increased treatment capacity at a lowe unit cost. Whereas this
approach would not have been possible with the Muskegon project initial-
ly, now that it can actually be observed in operation one can develop
design criteria which can achieve cost savings in all future projects of
this type.
5. I would design into the system more measuring devices for evaluating
performances of various elements, such as pressure pipes, electrical un-
derground cables, etc., and would require the installation contractor to
make and report more comprehensive tests of such systems as a part of
his construction contract.
Acknowledgments
The Muskegon County Wastewater Management System No. 1 was designed and the
construction work inspected by Bauer Engineering, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. The
funds for construction came in part from grants of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and from the Water Resources Commission of the State of Michigan.
The officials of the County of Muskegon demonstrated during the inception of
the project, throughout its construction, and are continuing to demonstrate a de-
gree of leadership and initiative which is remarkable in local government. With-
out the courage and commitment of many of these persons, a project so different
from the ordinary and so large in size would not have been possible. In many re-
spects the project has been controversial. Political courage in such a climate
is rare today, and I cannot close a paper such as this without calling it to the
attention of the reader. I am grateful for having played a role of the design
engineer in the company of such men.
55
-------
PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICS OF THE SYSTEM
Yervant A. Demirji'an*
manaJnn 1! f, ^^^ an overview of our system and will cover our basis for
managing the Wastewater System effectively, efficiently, and economically Any
er ^ a5 Muskeon>s ^uires extn
,
Pj? J? ^ a5 Muske9on>s ^quires extensive monitoring for imle-
of effective management. A new large-scale land treatment system, that
bl sh i?r10 y Untne "? Muske9on's> ™st als° conduct research to esta-
imnnrta "nder dlfferent potential operational modes. The most
important factor in the development of our management program has been our ability
to conduct and make prompt use of research studies and monitoring observations.
tPm J^, fstewater treatment operations in Muskegon are called a Management Sys-
tem because we are bringing together such a range of diversified disciplines. The
wiSSLJ^ + 3 Conventional wastewater collection system, a modified form of
wastewater pretreatment, and storage. The system also includes a large-scale ag-
ricultural operation involving land management, use of especially designed irri-
gation equipment, and large volume marketing. The agricultural part of this oper-
tJ obtain* * LnHna9ed n0t£n}Lt0 ?3ke USe °f ""trients and water from wastewater
virip * M u good y°P yield (thereby reducing operational costs), but also to pro-
vide a high qua ity renovated wastewater effluent. It also involves a County-wide
Sfn. r^allzl"9 its economy. By providing inexpensive effective treat-
ment for wastewater, older industries should be retained and new industries attrac-
h TA u cleamr]gjuP Tts surface streams and lakes recreational opportunities
R««J h6 f Panded and attracted. This system furthermore is an EPA Demonstration-
Research study in which the efficiency of this system is carefully evaluated,
effective management is developed, the impact on the quality of ground and surface
i^ determined how wel1 the County is realizing its socio-economic goals
Most wastewater from the County is derived from its most densely populated
region which lies between Muskegon and Mona Lakes (Figure 1). Currently, a total
ot tl million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater is diverted to the main Muske-
gon treatment site. A much smaller site is situated about 20 minutes north.
This small site treats wastewater from several of the communities and industries
surrounding White Lake. At present it has an average flow treatment capacity of
about 1 MGD with 150 acres under irrigation. There are still significant areas
of the County not connected to either treatment systems. I am not going to talk
very much about this small project, unless there are any specific questions. My
talk will be mainly concerned with the large project, which many of you will see
on the tour tomorrow.
The collection system leads from many small pumping stations through a main
* ^*^' ^^^ C°Unty Wastewater Management System, Muskegon,
Michigan
56
-------
Figure 1. Muskegon County showing densely populated areas and the small
Whitehall and large Muskegon wastewater treatment sites.
1
N
57
-------
pumping station eastward about 10 to 11 miles to the main Muskegon treatment site
Upon entering this site, wastewater undergoes biological treatment (Figure 2 )
After aeration, the effluent water normally goes into storage. If we decide to
irrigate the water onto land directly during high demand periods in the summer,
we can direct the aerated water through a settling pond into an outlet lagoon
By circumventing the storage there is less of a reduction in wastewater nutri-
ents. This higher nutrient content can beneficially help satisfy crop fertili-
zer needs. Whether storage is utilized or not, water always goes into the 14
acre outlet lagoon prior to chlorination and irrigation.
The overall size of the Muskegon site is 11,000 acres. About one-half is
irrigated with wastewater and the rest is for storage of wastewater, buildings
buffer zones, industrial development, and some minor expansion. There are two
storage lagoons, each with an approximate 3 billion gallon storage capacity and
a total combined surface area of 1700 acres. There are 54 circular fields with
sizes ranging from 35 to 140 acres that are irrigated with wastewater via center
pivot rigs.
After being sprayed onto the land, water is drained from these irrigated
soils by three different procedures. First of all, there is an extensive system
of perforated plastic drainage tile in many of the fields. The lateral tiles are
mostly spaced 500 feet apart and are approximately 5 feet below the soil surface
On the western side of the site, where the groundwater is deeper, pumps have been
installed for drainage. At the upper end of the site, where the groundwater is
deeper, water drains naturally through the soil into the Mosquito Creek Basin
In the south we have drain tile, which because of the soil type, is ineffective
at its current 500 foot spacing. The water being drained there is pumped into
the receiving stream, Black Creek. About one-third of the flow of renovated
wastewater goes into Black Creek, which in turn goes into Mona Lake and finally
into Lake Michigan. In the north, Mosquito Creek is the collecting stream that
receives the other two-thirds of the renovated wastewater from the site. Mos-
quito Creek discharges into the Muskegon River, then Muskegon Lake, and finally
into Lake Michigan.
I would now like to review a number of studies that have helped develop the
system and improve its management. First, there were a series of pre-construc-
tion studies which involved evaluations of the irrigation machines. These inclu-
ded studies on wind draft, aerosol distribution, water distribution, and mechan-
ical performance. As a result of these studies, specifications were prepared
and the resultant rigs installed. These rigs featured downward pointing nozzles,
low pressure operation, and wide rubber tires for transversing the fields at
Muskegon. Several aspects of this study have recently been undergoing restudy
and refinement. A report on this work is in the process of being written for
submission to EPA.
There also have been a series of studies dealing with the operation and
management of the aeration cells and storage lagoons. By carefully balancing ae-
ration and storage, we have drastically reduced the energy consumed for aeration.
When we first started, we didn't have the experience to know how much BOD we
could load into the storage lagoons. It was recommended that we not load the
58
-------
Figure 2. Muskegon County Wastewater Treatment System schematics.
Irrigation Pressure Pipe Distribution
Soil Permeability
X. Y.Z Aeration - biological treatment cells
S Settling cell
D Discharge cell
C Chlormation
8 Irrigation pumping stations
i -55 O Center pivot irrigated fields
Solid waste landfill.
Rubicon sand 5-10 in./hr.
Roscommon sand 10in./hr\
AuGressand 10in./hr.
Granby loamy sand 2.5-10 in./hr.
Tonkey
Wastewater Application, 1975
75-100 inches
lOO-125 inches
--- Drainage tile
• Drainage wells
* Drainage ditches
•*• Seepage pumping stations
••—' Storm runoff control berms
Creek by-pass ditch
Lagoon seepage ditch
59
-------
storage lagoons past 20 pounds of BOD per acre. We were running the three aeration
cells at full blast. Through experimentation, however, we found that you could
load the storage lagoons with greater than 20 pounds BOD per acre without causing
malodor. Furthermore, we were obtaining additional reduction in BOD in the storage
lagoons during retention. We have been loading the storage lagoons with BOD for
some time at a higher rate and they are still handling it well.
As a result of our ability to overload the storage lagoons with BOD, we re-
duced our aeration from running three cells full blast in series to an operation
involving only two cells in series in partial operation. In effect, we are opera-
ting with the equivalent of only one cell's electrical consumption. Thus, the re-
duced electrical energy required for aeration this year cost about $200,000 less
than last year.
We monitor this system at many different points. We monitor groundwater in
300 wells. Some are sampled every six months and others every three months. We
have not seen a decrease in groundwater quality. Over 200 of the groundwater wells
are situated around the storage lagoon. The rest are around the perimeter of the
site. Our analysis of the water quality data on the perimeter wells show us that
we are maintaining an inward flux of groundwater flow into the site. The quality
of the perimeter groundwater has improved compared with preoperation. Our water
quality analysis also indicated that we'are drawing the groundwater towards the
storage lagoons into surrounding lagoon seepage ditches.
The treatment performance studies follow the quality of wastewater from its
receipt into the aeration cells all the way to its discharge after being sprayed
on the land and drained into Mosquito and Black Creeks. Table 1 shows the average
level of contaminants in the wastewater at different stages throughout the treat-
ment process. It is interesting to note the average BOD and COD levels of the
incoming raw sewage. COD is over 2 times as high as BOD. This is because we
serve a highly industrialized area. The industrial contribution to the total eff-
luent if 60 to 65% with the remainder being domestic. The nitrogen level is low
because a large volume of the daily wastewater flow is from a paper mill. Heavy
metals are low in the wastewater with the exception of iron.
You can see the efficiency of treatment of the wastewater for BOD and COD in
Table 1. By the time the wastewater flows through the system there is a drop in
BOD of over 98%. COD also drops dramatically from 550 ppm down to 30 to 40 ppm.
The bulk of the reduction in COD and BOD occurs during aeration and storage.
Table 1 also shows what is happening to nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus.
The total nitrogen concentration was depleted from close to 15 ppm in the influ-
ent to only 2.5 ppm at the discharge point. Twenty-five percent of the removal
occurred during storage. The potassium levels are coming down as well as the
phosphorus. Phosphate levels are dramatically reduced with 97% less phosphate
(0.05 ppm) present in the discharged effluent. The changes in the other waste-
water contaminants through treatment are also shown in Table 1.
Figure 3 shows a comparison of treatment effectiveness of a conventional
secondary treatment plant versus the Muskegon System. BOD levels in the treated
60
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF
Parameter
BOD ppm
DO ppm
Temp. °C
PH
1974
Discharge From
Influent Cell 1 Cell 2
220
0
24
7.5
Sp COND umhos 1300
TS ppm
TVS ppm
SS ppm
COD ppm
TOC ppm
NH* ppm
NOj/NOp ppm
P0$- ppm
SO2,' ppm
Cl" ppm
Na ppm
Ca
Mg
K
Fe
Zn
Mn
Color units
1050
500
325
550
140
9.0
0.0 .
6.5
85
175
150
70
16
11
1.25
0.9
0.25
105
1
24
7.5
1100
950
400
250
350
75
6
0.07
5
100
170
150
70
16
11
0.75
0.5
0.25
65
2
20
7.6
1100
1000
380
250
325
70
4
0.1
5
100
170
150
70
16
11
0.75
0.5
0.25
TREATMENT
PERFORMANCE
Average Results
Storage Lagoon
East West
20
3
1-26
7.6
1200
750
300
20
140
30
2.5
2.5
5
95
160
145
65
16
11
1.0
0.25
0.25
Turbidity
Jackson Units
Total Coli
Fecal Coli
(colonies/100 ml)
(colonies/100 ml )
Fecal Strep (colonies/100 ml)
5
8.5
1-26
8.2
750
550
200
10
70
20
0.2
0.8
0.7
70
90
85
60
16
6
0.7
0.15
0.08
100
2.8
0-1.3xl05
0-2400
0-2300
Mosquito
Drain Tiles Creek
2.2
2-9
-
7
600
-
-
-
-
5
0.40
2.8
0.05
140
50
40
70
25
2.8
4.0
0.06
0.15
20-150
0.1-50
10-1000
0- 440
2- 700
2
9.5
1-5
7.2
750
375
160
10
30
10
0.45
1.9
0.1
80
60
40
60
20
5
0.08
0.1
0.08
130
4.5
40-1.5x10^
1-1500
7-5500
Black
Creek
2
1.6
12
6.8
800
700
150
30
25
10
0.5
1.4
0.05
320
18
7
no
40
2.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
-------
Ul UJ
S^ H-
CO IO
=3 >-
ac co
o >-
•-• DC
Z O LO
O LU >-
<_> CO CO
LU
O)
(/I
c >>
O (/>
01
^b
(/> fO
3 -a
o
<4- U
O CD
43 C
^i O •—
U_ t/> 03
•r- C
S- O
O Ol
O >
c
Q_
Q_
CD
00
•=3-
O
O
o
ex!
T
o
CXI
LO
Q
O
CQ
UD
C3
OO
62
-------
effluent have been reduced to about 50 ppm in the secondary treatment compared
with three or four ppm at Muskegon. Nitrogen at Muskegon is only about 2 to 3 ppm
compared with 10 to 12 ppm by secondary treatment, and phosphorus levels are over
10 ppm compared with much less than 1 ppm at Muskegon.
Table 2 shows the percentage of pollutants removed as the wastewater passes
through this treatment system. Sixty-five percent of the BOD is removed during
aeration. Even when the three aeration cells were running at full blast, only 80%
of the BOD was removed. Through storage, 95% of the BOD was removed with only an
additional 3% being removed by the time of discharge. Similarly for suspended
solids, you will see the efficient removal; however, a lesser percentage was re-
moved during aeration compared with a greater percentage removal during storage.
We expected some solids accumulation in both the aeration cells and the storage
lagoon. We found one or two feet of solids accumulating in the bottom of the aera-
tion cells while there has been negligible accumulation of solids in the storage
lagoons.
Nitrogen removals at different stages are also shown in Table 2 with 79% re-
moval of the inorganic nitrogen at the point of treated effluent discharge. There
was virtually no removal of phosphorus during aeration, 41% was removed through
storage, while 99% was removed at the point of discharge. The crop-soil part of
the system was essential for removing the bulk of the wastewater phosphorus.
Table 3 compares the expected removal of pollutants based upon the system de-
sign with amounts that must be removed to meet NPDES discharge limits and with
amounts the system is actually discharging. The comparison shows that the system
is meeting NPDES discharge limits for all parameters except fecal coliform. This
is thought to be due to contamination from waterfowl. Erosion along the drainage
ditches has filled in around culverts, slowed the flow, and raised the level of
water making it attractive for waterfowl. We are working to remove this eroded
sediment to alleviate this problem. The system is also achieving design expecta-
tions except for suspended solids. The elevated level of suspended solids results
from iron leaching down through the soils out into the drain tiles. As the pH of
the soil stabilizes, we expect iron leaching to subside.
Table 4 shows the loading per day throughout treatment. You see the phos-
phate loading is 330 pounds per day, total kjedlahl nitrogen about 2,700 pounds,
BOD 48,000 pounds, suspended solids 62,000 pounds and total solids 265,000 pounds.
These levels of pollutants are not too different from that found in other treat-
ment systems.
We have calculated the cost per pound of removal of each of these pollutants.
In Table 5 you see that it cost 0.9<£ per Ib. to remove BOD plus suspended solids
during aeration and an additional 0.4<£ per Ib. to remove additional quantities of
BOD and suspended solids plus considerable amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus dur-
ing storage. For completing the removals by the irrigation part of the system it
cost an additional 12<£ per pound. While calculations of this nature tend to ex-
aggerate the cost for the latter treatment step, it is still evident that the
storage phase of the treatment system costs the least. The actual total costs for
these three steps in the treatment process were aeration - $216,000, storage
63
-------
TABLE 2.
BOD
Suspended
Solids
N
P
Parameter
B.O.D.5
Suspended Solids
Total P
Ammonia - N
Nitrate - N
Fecal Coli
% LOADING REMOVAL
Aeration Storage Irrigation
Cel1s Lagoons Soil & Crops
65 95 98
48 96 99
33 66 79
41 99+
TABLE 3.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
System 30 Day
Design NPDES Limit Current Effluent^
4 mg/1 4 mg/1 3.7
4 mg/1 10 mg/1 8
0.5 mg/1 0.5 mg/1 0.009
0.5 mg/1 - o.7
5.0 mg/1 - 1.3
0 200/100 ml 238*
^Results cover irrigation period April through August 1975.
* This Fecal Coliform count is uniform during and off irrigation season.
64
-------
TABLE 4.
LOADING - POUNDS/DAY*
Parameter
Soluble ortho
phosphate - P
Nitrogen
B.O.D.,
Aeration
Lagoon
Influent
330
Aeration
Lagoon
Effluent
450
Storage
Lagoons
330
Outfalls
TKN
NH,
N03
1 Sol
ids
- N
- N
- N
ids
2
1
48
62
265
,570
,980
16
,100
,200
,000
2
1
15
32
213
,430
,370
40
,900
,000
,000
1
2
3
160
,330
680
610
,920
,860
,000
300
160
290
760
4,650
135,000
* February through July 1975, average results, at 28 MGD.
TABLE 5.
UNIT PROCESSING REMOVAL COST
Aeration
Cells
Storage
Lagoons
Irrigation
Soil & Crops
Cost/1bs/28 MGD
Removal
0.9t
BOD
&
Suspended
Solids
plus
0.4$
N
&
P
plus
12*
metals
65
-------
$62,000, and irrigation $250,000 (Table 8). Therefore, we are seriously consider-
ing doing additional studies on the lagoon dynamics or lagoon management to take
greater advantage of this Icwest cost part of the treatment system.
Obviously, our primary purpose is to renovate wastewater. Our belief has been
that wastewater renovation by soils and crop utilization will be greater if our
crop yield is greater, i.e., efficient management of wastewater application and
supplemental use of fertilization, as needed, should result in better wastewater
renovation and incidentally greater crop yields whose sale reduces the cost of
operation.
Our studies on treatment performance and agricultural management and produc-
tivity have been very valuable to us in determining permissible rates of waste-
water application and in establishing supplemental fertilization practices to op-
timize corn production and wastewater renovation. In one set of experiments run
in the field on Circle 55 (Table 6), we started with one inch per week of waste-
water effluent with and without supplemental fertilizer. Similarly, our treat-
ments were 2 1/2 and 4 inches per week of wastewater effluent from storage with
and without supplemental fertilizer added. The study was run for 16 weeks, during
which time the crop grew and matured.
Our results indicated that application of 4 inches of wastewater effluent per
week was adequate, and at this rate of application supplemental addition of pota-
ssium fertilizer was not necessary. Hence our practice this year has been to ap-
ply, where soil drainage conditions permitted, three to four inches per week of
wastewater effluent without supplemental potassium.
That initial study was run, assuming the wastewater nitrogen levels would be
higher than they currently are. Based on current wastewater nitrogen levels then,
we calculated that about 40% of the total nitrogen requirement would have to be
supplied as supplemental nitrogen. We ran a study in Circles 3 and 11 to study
the effectiveness of supplemental additions of nitrogen to increase crop yield
and to cause greater efficiency of nutrient removal (hence wastewater renovation).
Both Circles 3 and 11 are of similar soil type and each is about TOO acres in
size. Our conclusions from this research are, as we had expected, that supple-
mental nitrogen is required for healthy crops and healthy crops mean high quality
renovation of wastewater and increased yields.
From our observations, studies, and consultations with our Farm Advisor, we
decided to inject nitrogen fertilizer into the effluent wastewater in the irriga-
tion channel just prior to spraying the fields. The amounts injected are based
on crop needs, as indicated by calculation and by tissue tests, with allowances
being made for nitrogen already present in the wastewater. This nitrogen was in-
jected daily in small amounts (3 to 5 Ibs.) to just satisfy crop needs. In this
manner we have used less fertilizer. Less labor and equipment is required to
apply this injected fertilizer than by spreading it in solid form as before. This
practice has resulted in better utilization of the added nitrogen and wastewater
nutrients by our corn crops.
We have had a problem with sand, weeds, and other debris getting into our
irrigation system and plugging the nozzles. Our crops have suffered considerably
66
-------
Table 6.
Wastewater Total Wastewater Total Added Nutrients
Treatment Applied
inches/week
1
1+ fert*
2.5
2.5+ fert*
4.0
4.0+ fert*
inches
16
16
40
40
64
64
N
--
14
14
36
36
58
58
P
pounds/acre --
5
5
13
13
21
21
K
35
160
87
212
139
264
Corn Yield
bu/acre
74
44
65
85
84
90
* 125 pounds per acre K
-------
where the nozzles have been plugged and where they therefore received no waste-
water. Considerable labor has been required to continually clean out the nozzles
We have run trials with different types of screens to see if we could alleviate
the nozzle plugging problem. Our plans now are to install a sump in the irriga-
tion channel to trap sand and to install manually changed screens in the irriga-
tion channel just before the water enters the pumps. We plan to make these modi-
fications at one of the two irrigation pumping stations next year and follow up
at the other in 1977 if this procedure proves effective. Step-wise modifications
of this nature are proving very wise for us and are being accomplished with our
own personnel at minimal cost.
Now just before going into detail on the costs of building and operating our
system, I'd like to mention the socio-economic study, which studies the economic
impact and the social impact of the system on our local community. This study was
undertaken by Bauer Engineering and currently is being continued by Keifer and
Associates. This work is scheduled for completion in 1977 and will not be dis-
cussed further at this meeting.
Table 7 shows a construction cost summary. The whole system cost approxi-
mately $44 million, which is equivalent to a development cost of about $1 per
gallon of wastewater treatment capacity. These costs included expenditures for
collection and transmission.
We have also determined how much each phase of the treatment system costs.
These direct costs are shown in Table 8. These do not include costs of trans-
mission of the wastewater from downtown here to the site and also do not include
the cost of drainage pumping. The aeration pumps cost about $216,000 to operate
last year, the storage lagoons approximately $62,000, and the irrigation circles
about $250,000.
Table 9 shows the estimated 1975 budget presented to the County Board of
Public Works in January 1975 to estimate the users' rate. As you see, the total
operational cost was estimated at $2.2 million. Deducting the revenue expected
from sales of crops and from EPA for the Research and Development project, this
cost was reduced to about $1.45 million (Table 10). Additional components of the
user charge are shown in Table 11 and the actual 1975 user charge was $220 per
million gallons treated. The very important thing to note in these calculations
is the very significant reduction in operating costs resulting from the sale of
crops which in fact helped renovate the wastewater. As a result, tertiary treat-
ment of wastewater is being achieved at very low dollar and resource cost".
In concluding my discussion, this year has been very good for us. Past ex-
periences have taught us how to manage and operate this system efficiently and
economically. Research development, and monitoring programs have been very valua-
ble to us in achieving these results. As I mentioned before, we have developed a
very effective system of nitrogen application with a few pounds being applied each
day by fertigation. This has cut out considerable needs for equipment and labor
which previously were required to add these materials directly onto the land. We
have learned to save energy by less aeration, balanced by greater BOD reduction
through the natural storage process. We hope that we can learn more about utili-
68
-------
TABLE 7.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR MUSKEGON WASTEWATER SYSTEM*
Component Millions of dollars
Collection $ 5.2
Transmission 6.8
Pre-Application Treatment—Aeration 3.1
Storage (5 billion gallons) 5.2
Land & Relocation
Purchase 5.4
Relocation 1.2
Clearing 1.9
Distribution—Irrigation 4.1
Recovery—Drainage 3.7
Interest & Engineering 3.8
Other 2.3
TOTAL MUSKEGON SITE 42.7
TOTAL WHITEHALL SITE 0.8
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 43.5
NON-CAPITALIZED COSTS 1.0
TOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT COSTS $44.5
* Muskegon County paid $16 million of the development
costs, the State of Michigan $8.4 million, and U.S.
EPA $20.1 million. The county issued $16 million
worth of bonds to cover its needed capital outlay.
The 1975 bond repayment was $1.2 million ($0.3 million
capital and $0.9 million interest). Final repayment
is due in 1997. Land acquisition costs were not
eligible for federal funding at the time the grant was
awarded, however, relocation allowances were. Approx-
imately 190 families and 4 businesses were relocated.
69
-------
TABLE 8.
FORECAST OF TOTAL PROCESSING REMOVAL COSTS
Salaries & Fringe
Public Utilities
Other
Subtotal
Laboratory
Administration
Total
Aeration
Cells
$ 1,371
157,890
1,190
160,451
36,005
17,106
$213.562
Storage
Lagoons
$ 7,324
-
30,480
37,804
18,002
5,830
•Cfil fi^fi
Irrigation
Circles
$ 54,192
114,140
12,720
181,052
36,005
32,835
-------
TABLE 10.
1975 USER RATE
Total 0 & M Cost $2,206,460
Revenues
Crop Sales - $555,000 (est.)
R & D Refund - 155,000
Services - 35.000
$745,000 - 745,000
$1,461,460
Gallonage Fee - $1,461,460 f-
10,220 MG = $143/MG
TABLE 11.
1975 USER RATE COMPONENTS
Gallonage Fee per MG
1975 Operating Budget $143.00
Operating Deficit of
Prior Years 8.00
1975 Depreciation (machinery
& equipment only) 11.50
Working Capital Requirements 5.00
Interest on Deficit 2.50
$170.00/MG
71
-------
zing the treatment capacity of the storage lagoons, perhaps even next year going
direct to the storage lagoon part of the year without any aeration of the waste-
water.
We have not had any adverse problems this year. Our pipelines have been hold-
ing with only six or seven breaks this year compared with over 100 last year We
have had few problems with electrical cables as compared with last year and our
dike repair problems have been minor. As you will see tomorrow, we are having a
very good crop yield, perhaps double that which we obtained in 1974. Thank you.
Q. How much problem have you had with accumulation of solids in the storage
lagoons? Is it a relatively small problem compared with that in the
aeration cells?
R. (Dr. Demirjian) No question about that, but we are generating 62,200
pounds of suspended solids per day of which 32,000 pounds per day are go-
ing into the storage lagoons. In the storage lagoons there is a delta
formation of solids which is formed around the entry of the flow into
the storage lagoon. This varies in depth of about a foot near the influ-
ent pipe to less than 1/2 inch about 50 yards away. As you go further
out, you barely see any solids accumulated there as yet. From our cal-
culations based on the amounts of solids present, we expect at least 15
to 20 years time to pass before we would even need to consider dredging
sludge or solids out of the storage lagoons. Next season we will be
draining the different aeration cells and using sludge pumps to remove
the accumulated solids. We will characterize the sludge, which we then
hope to apply on surrounding land.
Q. Do your operational costs, shown earlier, include any estimated costs for
dredging later on?
R. (Dr. Demirjian) No, because dredging will not be required for at least
15 to 20 years. Those operational costs do, however, include dike re-
pairs.
72
-------
PROGRAM CHALLENGES
John M. Walker*
The transformation of such a large previously untried land spray irriga-
tion system for wastewater treatment from an idea into a successful operation in
only five years is a remarkable achievement. Studies on this full-scale system
have shown that it has gone far in accomplishing its goals of surface water pro-
tection by diverting and purifying wastewater before discharge and cost reduction
of wastewater treatment by utilizing the water and pollutants to improve land and
grow food. Challenges and opportunities now exist for strengthening these stu-
dies to optimize management and system performance, to achieve effective low cost
and long term wastewater renovation, and to verify that lagooning and land spray-
ing is a viable alternative on a large scale for advanced treatment of wastewater.
A real challenge exists to adequately perform research on an operational
system this large. Research and operational needs are not always in harmony,
e.g., the overriding priority of treating wastewater effectively each day im-
poses demands on time and resources and causes operational compromises that can
compete with research. Operational goals generally result in a restricted bud-
get to yield good performance at least possible cost. While research ultimately
has the same goal of providing a better way of doing something at less cost, re-
search itself costs money and it may first of all lead to a better but more
costly solution, especially during the initial phases of study. The Muskegon
experience has been an excellent example of practically oriented research being
used to improve operations. These practical studies must now be documented so
that this and other systems can more fully benefit. Time and resources must be
allotted for research, in addition to that allocated for operations, so that
this documentation and expanded study and evaluation are possible.
The wastewater treatment components of the Muskegon System include aera-
tion, storage, irrigation, crops, and soils. Management of these treatment
components directly determines the ability to treat a given wastewater and in
turn determines the impact of the system on surface waters and the residential,
recreational, and industrial attractiveness of the area. The important need
and opportunity for expanded research and evaluation of these components is
indicated.
Wastewater
In Muskegon, there are two land wastewater treatment systems, similar in
design with similar sandy soils, but different in size and with wastewater of
Muskegon Research Coordinator for USEPA Region V, East Lansing, Michigan
48824
73
-------
different characteristics. The large Muskegon site is designed to treat 42
MGD and the small Whitehall site 1.4 MGD. The wastewater at the Muskegon site
is similar in BOD content (220 vs 250 ppm) to that at Whitehall but contains
about three times less total suspended solids (300 vs 1100 ppm) and total nitro-
gen (14 vs 40 ppm), largely as a result of different industrial sewage input.
Different management (aerating, lagooning, irrigating, and/or cropping) is re-
quired to renovate wastewater with such widely differing nitrogen content, and a
unique opportunity exists to establish and verify effective means of managing
the renovation of these two wastewaters.
Additional industries are being invited to join the Muskegon County waste-
water system. It is important to know whether wastewaters from these chemical
industries will be compatible with land treatment. Many of these liquid wastes
contain organic compounds and other exotic materials that may or may not be re-
moved by the crop-soil treatment system. Furthermore, there could be an imbal-
ance of the nutrients, such that new equilibriums in the soil system would be
established that might be unfavorable for crop growth. These possibilities
need considerable study.
The Whitehall system will generate considerable amounts of sludge. The
Muskegon system will also generate some sludge. We know that many sludges,
when added to sandy soils like those at Muskegon, can benefit crop growth, but
that heavy metals in sludges and excessive quantities of nitrogen can cause
problems. If the Muskegon County or other sludges were applied to the waste-
water irrigated lands at Muskegon, either as a liquid or dewatered solid, how
will the soils' and crops' ability to renovate wastewater be affected?
Aeration
Aeration requires energy. With three identical treatment cells, the effec-
tiveness of three different aerational modes could be studied simultaneously.
It is essential to know the minimum aeration necessary to adequately eliminate
problems with odor and minimize health risks.
Storage
Appreciable reduction in the toxicity and problems with biological and
chemical wastewater contaminants occurs in storage. These processes could be
studied in the two paired 850 acre storage lagoons. Water with different levels
of pretreatment could be directed into the separate lagoons as part of the study.
Utilizing treatment that is possible during storage could reduce appreciably the
amount of land required for spray irrigation and/or alter the rate of irrigation
on land and associated cropping practices.
Irrigation, Water Hydraulic Balance, and Water Quality Balance
To date there have been no studies on irrigation circles or smaller land
units at Muskegon tying together directly the degree of wastewater renovation
possible with any given combination of soil; crop; and type, rate, and quantity
74
-------
of wastewater irrigated. While a water hydraulic modeling study by the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey may help establish a badly needed region-wide understanding of
water hydraulic balance, water quality balance can only be grossly estimated from
monitored water qualities and soil ionic contents at different points in the sys-
tem. The degree of renovation by the crop-soil filter, compared with the amount
of apparent renovation by dilution with groundwater, is unknown. Monitoring of
drainage water from a given circle has not been accomplished because more than
one circle is tied into each of the currently accessible drainage lines.
Crop and Soil
Different crops singularly and in combinations have markedly different
abilities to utilize nutrients in soil and water and hence to renovate waste-
water. It is also believed that crops at different levels of nutrient suffi-
ciency will deplete nutrients from soil and water to different degrees. Neither
of these points have been adequately documented, particularly with respect to
irrigation with a given type, quantity, and rate of wastewater.
While crops like corn offer a good cash return and can be very efficient
in stripping nitrogen from wastewater, the efficient stripping only occurs
during about 2 months of a 6-7 month irrigation season. How can the crop-soil
system be managed to remove nitrogen from the wastewater throughout the season?
Soils have differing abilities to retain materials in wastewater like or-
ganic compounds (not needed by crops) and phosphorus (added over and above the
crops' needs). Techniques exist for determining the abilities of soils for re-
taining phosphorus, but the studies have not been adequately performed. Tech-
niques for determining retention in soils and ultimate distribution of various
organic compounds (that might have come from irrigated wastewater) by soil
microorganisms and other chemical and physical reactions have not been applied
to the Muskegon System.
Wildlife
There is a unique opportunity here to determine the effects of a large
land treatment system on wildlife through their possible absorption and bio-
magnification of organic compounds, metals, and pathogenic microorganisms from
wastewaters. Can hunting be managed on a system of this nature without hunters
abusing or destroying parts of the irrigation system? Can the wildlife they
take be eaten with safety?
Health
There also is the important need to study the effects of a system like
Muskegon's on the health of people operating the site and on people adjacent to
the site. It is important to know a lot more about viruses than is currently
known. Is chlorination necessary during land treatment? Chlorination of secon-.
dary effluent prior to discharge during conventional treatment is marginally
beneficial and possibly harmful. If there is no chlorination of wastewater
prior to its application on land, appreciable savings in cost will result.
Likewise, if only minimal size buffer strips of land are required to minimize
75
-------
contact with the land treatment site, then again appreciable cost savings can be
realized. 3
How safe for consumption from a microbiological, heavy metal, and exotic
organic standpoint are foods produced with irrigated wastewater? Must foods
be grown for consumption initially only by animals other than humans? Can
vegetables like peas, beans, and sweet corn (which offers even a greater poten-
tial cash return then field corn) be grown and safely be used for human food
after canning and/or freezing?
Other
Opportunities also exist for identification and verification of the socio-
economic impacts of the Muskegon system. A 5-year study is underway on this
important subject for EPA and Muskegon County, but will not be discussed at this
conference. The factors leading to acceptance of this system by the public in
Muskegon County must also be identified and documented. As you know, many other
seemingly environmentally and economically desirable systems have failed due to
lack of public acceptance.
Will we meet the challenge of answering these questions? Answers to these
questions depend upon the funding and talent available for solving these prob-
lems. We welcome your participation at this conference in helping us determine
the need and methods of evaluating this system, and we will welcome your parti-
cipation in the future with the evaluation of this system. Thank you.
76
-------
SOIL MONITORING - MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Boyd G. Ellis*
This paper will summarize the research accomplished to date on soil monitor-
ing at the Muskegon Wastewater Treatment site. But before discussing this phase
of the work I would like to list some other studies that have been conducted at
Michigan State University which may be of importance even though they were not
funded by this project. Research, discussed in the following four theses, were
either conducted using soils from Muskegon or are directly related to land treat-
ment of wastewater:
1. Srisen, Manoowetaya. 1974. Adsorption ofPhosphorus by Five Michigan
Soils under Anaerobic Conditions. PhD Thesis. Michigan State University.
2. Traynor, Mary Frances. 1974. Effects Upon Growth and Nutrient Composi-
tion of Corn (Zea Mays) Plants Grown on Two Different Textured Michigan
Soils Contaminated with Nickel and Cadmium. M.S. Thesis. Michigan State
University.
3. Schueneman, Thomas Joseph. 1974. Plant Response to and Soil Immobili-
zation of Increasing Levels of Zn+2 and Cr+3 Applied to a Catena of
Sandy Soils. PhD Thesis. Michigan State University.
4. Shah, D. B. 1975. Removal of P and N from Waste Water Spray Irrigation
of Land. PhD Thesis. Michigan State University.
The first thesis is a discussion and study of the effect of anaerobic condi-
tions on ability of soils to adsorb phosphorus. Hopefully, the soils on the Musk-
egon site will not become anaerobic; however, some changes in their ability to
adsorb phosphorus will occur if they do. The next two theses concern the effects
of heavy metals on crop quality and yield. Although the sludge produced at Muske-
gon is expected to be low in heavy metals, the sludge at Whitehall may be suffi-
ciently high in Cr to be troublesome if applied to land. The fourth thesis dev-
elops, through methods of systems science combined with soil chemistry, models
describing the adsorption and movement of phosphorus and nitrogen in soils. The
phos phorus model is functional and can be used to predict the life of land treat-
ment systems for given phosphorus inputs.
There are many facets to a waste treatment system such as the one at Muske-
gon. As pointed out in Figure 1, the land irrigation system is one portion of
the total system. It must be viewed as a component of the treatment system and
not just as an agricultural production system. The success of this portion of
* Professor of Soil Chemistry, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
77
-------
TREATMENT
a
LAGOON
Figure 1. Diagram of how land treatment is a part of a waste treatment
system.
-------
the system is dependent upon the soil chemistry, physical properties, biochemical
reactions and living organisms. By monitoring these processes in the soil, it is
hoped that we can learn how the system is working. This monitoring also permits
evaluation of the success of the soil portion of the treatment system and serves
as an early warning, should portions of the system become overloaded.
The following areas have been studied in the soil monitoring phase:
Table 1. SCOPE OF MSU WORK
Soil Nutrient Monitoring
Total - C, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Pb, Hg
"Available" - NH4, N03, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Pb, Hg, pH
Physical Properties
Infiltration Rate
Mechanical Composition
Water Characteristics
Bulk Density
Pore Space
Pesticide and Organic Analysis
Herbicides, Insecticides and Industrial Organics
( 20 chemicals) in Wastewaters, Soils and Site Drainage
Microbiological and Insecticides
Before going further, I would like to point out to my soils friends that we
do have four different major soil types that will appear in tables later. They
range from a Rubicon sand, which is a very sandy, well-drained soil, to the Gran-
by sand, which before the site was constructed had a high water table. The prop-
erties of these two soils are quite different.
What happens in the soil of a land treatment system is a reflection in part
of the wastewater and its constituents applied. Table 2 was calculated from data
on the constituents present in irrigated wastewater. I borrowed this data from
the County to reflect how the amount of wastewater added to the soil governs in
part the ability of soil to adequately provide renovation. I selected a base
point after 8 inches of effluent have been applied to the different soils for com-
parison purposes. During that eight inches, the estimate is that about 8 pounds
of nitrogen, about three pounds of total phosphorus, 20 pounds of potassium, Ml
pounds of calcium, 30 pounds of magnesium, and 260 pounds of sodium were aPP'ied
per acre. If we calculate from this, the quantity in 60 inches of effluent (maybe
a year's application), we are getting about 60 pounds of total N, 23 pounds or
total phosphorus and about 2000 pounds of sodium.
79
-------
Table 2. Estimated Loading in 8 and 60 Inches
of Effluent1
Parameter
Total N
Total P
K
Ca
Mg
Na
Quantity in Effluent
8 inches 60
Ibs/acre
8.2
3.1
20
111
30
260
inches
62
23
150
830
225
1950
Data from Muskegon County.
80
-------
Table 3. Nitrate and ammonium content of soils as influenced by application
of eight inches of wastewater.
Soil
Type
Rubicon
Roscommon
Au Gres
Granby
Depth
inches
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
NH,
Bg1
5
4
2
10
9
3
5
3
2
39
11
1
A8"2
6
4
2
3
3
0.3
4
3
0.3
3
2
1
NO,
1
Bg1
ppm
3
2
0.8
6
7
1
4
2
1
34
19
1
A8"2
4
2
1.4
2
2
1
6
5
2
8
11
2
1
Bg is the background level determined by three sampling periods over two
and one-half years. Each value is then an average of 8 sites times three
sampling periods.
2A8" is for a sample collected after application of 8 inches of effluent.
Each value is an average of 8 sites.
81
-------
Now turning to soil nitrogen data before and after only minimal application
of wastewater (Table 3, we see that the only significant thing is that both
ammonium and nitrate levels are quite low, both in the Bg column (which is the
background data collected over two and a half years) and in the A8" column (after
8 inches of effluent have been applied). Some change has occurred in the Granby
soil. Prior to spreading effluent, the soil contained about 39 ppm ammonium and
about 34 ppm nitrate in the surface. This soil type was poorly drained with a
high organic matter content. Consequently, it was initially well supplied with
nitrogen. The high surface nitrogen content, however, rapidly came to a new
equilibrium once it was drained and operated as a wastewater renovation system.
The new equilibrium was established at a much lower level of ammonium and nitrate.
I suspect that some of that nitrogen must have gone down the drain during those
phases of starting the system on the Granby soil.
Phosphorus and potassium data are shown in Table 4. The only thing that
this table really points out is that there is no real difference between phos-
phorus in background, and after 8 inches of application, and 3 pounds per acre
wasn't enough to cause a difference. The Granby soil appears to have lost some
potassium in the surface.
Now turning to the calcium, magnesium and sodium balance, you may remember
that Dr. Demirjian pointed out that this land was very low in sodium. He and I
would agree that this will be short-lived. There is an exchange process going
on, whereby sodium is being absorbed by the soil and calcium is either being re-
leased or in some cases it too is being absorbed. The Rubicon sand is absorbing
some calcium and the Granby soil is losing calcium. (See Table 5). Sodium is
accumulating in these soils and we are going to come to a new equilibrium be-
tween sodium, calcium and magnesium in a fairly short period of time. Consider-
ing the amount of sodium being applied, this will probably occur within two to
three years. After this new equilibrium is reached, we are going to start losing
sodium through the system, and probably the amount lost will be similar to the
amount applied. This is something we have to learn to live with. We must learn
to manage a crop that tolerates these levels of sodium.
Data given to you in a handout (as also given in Table 6) shows chemical
change after 1 year's application of wastewater effluent. After a year's opera-
tion, the nitrate nitrogen was higher than it was initially. I think the signi-
ficant thing to point out is that as you look down in the profile, you can see
that nitrogen has, in fact, moved. For example, at the 30 to 36 inch depth and
the 90 to 96 inch depth the background level of nitrate nitrogen was 0.6 ppm and
after approximately one year's application of wastewater the level was 6.2 ppm
nitrogen, certainly a significant increase. It is important that this signifi-
cant increase was at the 90 to 96 depth. These samples were taken in June, and
remember that effluent was applied without a crop growing. This means that we
have to learn to manage and balance the amount of nitrogen applied with crop and
soil conditions to get adequate nitrate removal.
I would also like to point out in Table 6 that there really was no signifi-
cant change in the phosphorus after one year of effluent application, even though
crops were not present. As long as the phosphorus content in the sprayed waste-
82
-------
Table 4. Phosphorus and potassium content of soils as influenced by
application of eight inches of wastewater.
Soil
Type
Rubicon
Roscommon
Au Gres
Granby
Depth
inches
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
Bg1
26
24
11
10
8
8
11
7
9
18
8
6
P
A8"2
28
23
16
15
11
7
18
9
11
28
16
9
B91
ppm
21
13
5
33
17
6
32
21
7
84
37
6
K
A8"2
32
21
6
25
19
8
33
16
6
57
37
8
1
Bg is the background level determined by three sampling periods over two
and one-half years. Each value is then an average of 8 sites times three
sampling periods.
2A8" is for a sample collected after application of 8 inches of effluent.
Each value is an average of 8 sites.
83
-------
Table 5. Exchangeable base content of soils as influenced by
application of eight inches of wastewater.
00
Soil
Type
Rubicon
Roscommon
Au Gres
Granby
Depth
inches
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
0-6
6-12
114-120
Ca
B91
82
47
73
419
237
129
310
209
175
1968
1918
343
A8"2
137
84
68
300
340
196
408
233
283
943
942
578
B91
8
5
6
78
44
24
49
37
16
208
186
100
Mg
A8"2
ppm
18
15
11
45
43
26
40
22
17
135
132
47
Na
B91
11
9
9
11
9
10
15
13
9
21
21
7
A8"2
20
11
6
30
22
12
37
14
8
88
50
13
2
Bg is the background level determined by three sampling periods over two and one-half years.
Each value is then an average of 8 sites times .three sampling periods.
l
A8" is for a sample collected after application of 8 inches of effluent. Each value is an
average of 8 sites.
-------
Table 6. Nitrate and phosphorus content of circle 5 soil after
one year's application of wastewater.
RUBICON
Depth
inches
0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
30-36
90-96
108-114
B1
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
N03-N
A2
ppm
9.6
8.6
1.5
1.3
6.3
6.0
1.3
B1
30
20
25
35
23
19
8
P
A2
23
17
22
33
30
18
18
B is background which is an average of three samplings
over a two and one-half year period.
o
A is after application of wastewater for one year.
85
-------
water remains low and application rates are not too high, crop removal will prob-
ably prevent excessive phosphorus buildup and movement into groundwater.
There are other things that we could point out from our soil data. We feel
that we can make predictions from our knowledge of the soil systems ahead of
time -- for example, about the movement of iron that Dr. Bauer discussed. I had,
in fact, talked to Dr. Demirjian about this before the irrigation rigs were even'
put on that area. We predicted that south of Apple Avenue the Granby soil would
pass iron through its profile once it was drained. The iron is moving through
the profile into the drainage water because of low subsoil pH. The Granby soil
will continue to lose iron for a period of time until the pH of the subsoil comes
up to a level that will precipitate the iron. Just how long that will be, I don't
know for sure. I haven't tried to predict this from our data, but I would sus-
pect that it will stop within two or three years.
In closing my part of this discussion, I would like to emphasize that we
have collected base-line data prior to the operation of this site. Therefore,
we have a good solid core of background data with which to make comparisons and
upon which to base predictions for future performance. We also have soil per-
formance information after one year's operation. It is important that we learn
to model the soil so that if a new industry would come to use the system, with
the effect of doubling the phosphorus input, we could predict what this will do
to the effective life of the system. I think the modelling program is on line
for doing this. Coupled with the modelling program at the University of Michi-
gan we could also predict what this would do to waterways during the operation.
And now my colleague Dr. Erickson will continue this discussion.
86
-------
PROPOSED CROP WATER TREATMENT STUDIES
A. Earl Erickson*
Dr. Ellis has discussed the soil system where wastewater percolates through
and undergoes various physical, chemical and biological reactions before it leaves
the soil as drainage water. The system he has described, however, does not in-
clude a very important part -- the crop plant growing on the surface of the soil.
The plant is a very important part of the system in that (1) it removes nutrients
from the system and recycles them and (2) the sale of crops helps defray the costs
of treatment. It is our belief that the crop-soil-effluent system needs study in
order to optimize both of these goals.
Soils have very limited abilities to retain nitrogen. If wastewater is irri-
gated onto land at moderate rates (as at Muskegon) without a crop-plant that is
harvested, the bulk of the nitrogen applied in the wastewater will eventually leak
into the drainage water as nitrate nitrogen. With continuous wastewater applica-
tion other nutrients will also eventually satisfy the capacity of the soil to sorb
them and will eventually leak from the system. However, if a crop is grown and
harvested nutrients are removed and recycled, better quality effluent is produced,
and the life of the soil system is extended.
Yields of crops are very important as they control the amount of nitrogen re-
moved. The first year yields of corn at the Muskegon Wastewater Facility were 28
bushel's/acre which would have harvested 23 pounds/acre of nitrogen and 4.2 pounds
of phosphorus. This year the projected 60 bushels yield will remove 50 pounds of
nitrogen and 9 pounds of phosphorus. Sixty inches of wastewater with 4.6 ppm N
and 1.7 ppm P contains 62 pounds of nitrogen and 23 pounds of phosphorus per acre.
From these calculations and from the following discussions it is apparent that
supplemental nitrogen will be required. Not all of the added nitrogen in the
wastewater will be available to crops, since it is applied but not retained in the
soil during much of the season when crops are not present or too small to ade-
quately use the amounts being applied. The phosphorus present in the 60-inch
application of wastewater would be sufficient phosphorus for a yield of 150 bush-
els/acre.
As mentioned above, harvesting nitrogen with a corn crop alone has the com-
plication that the corn plant harvests most of its nitrogen in six or seven weeks
in July and August, while wastewater is applied over 35 weeks. Over twenty weeks
of wastewater nitrogen is free to leach from the soil. A possible solution to
this would be to grow a cover-crop which will harvest the nitrogen during the
other part of the year and release the nitrogen to the corn when it it required.
This could have the two-fold effect of better wastewater renovation and less
* Professor of Soil Physics, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
87
-------
nitrogen fertilizer required for the corn. An example of such a system would be
a one-year rotation of corn-rye. Rye would be planted in the corn^n AugSst It
would remove nutrients during the Fall and Spring. Corn would be no-till planted
in the herbicide killed rye in May. The rye would release its nutrients into the
system through the summer and the cycle would be repeated.
There may be other cover-crops that would be better than rye. There may be
better crops than corn. Alfalfa might do better in polishing the effluent There
are many of these sorts of questions which must be answered in order to develop a
cropping system which will optimize nutrient removal. The Muskegon Wastewater
Facility is where these answers are needed and where they should be found.
There will also be sludges to be disposed of at Muskegon. The question is
whether they can be disposed of on the sandy soil of the facility with the high
water application without contaminating the environment. This should also be
researched.
We are proposing a new research project to find these answers. The research
V!rnu-!eu ?? be.,studned would include high and low nutrient wastewaters as found
at Whitehall and Muskegon respectively, different types of the sandy soils on the
project, different cash crops, different cover crops and different cropping sys-
tems. The proposal will require the establishment of a research farm with larger
than the usual agronomic plots so that percolating water and drainage water can
be isolated and released to the individually treated plots. The soils would be
sampled with depth and time and the water would be sampled during the year with
suction lysimeters and/or shallow wells. In this way the various crop-soil-eff-
luent systems will be evaluated. These evaluations would allow the development
of systems which would optimize the treatment of wastewater and production of
crops and answer the questions regarding disposal and recycling nutrients from
sludge.
Q. What problem do you expect with heavy metal accumulation in soils,
leaching through soils, and uptake by crops?
R. (Boyd Ellis) Background levels of heavy metals at the Muskegon site are
very low. Heavy metals coming to the site in the wastewater are also
very low in concentration. We would expect that any heavy metals added
to the soils in the wastewater will be readily absorbed in the surface
layers. We expect and would predict very little leakage of heavy metals
through the system. Iron is an exception, because it obviously leaches
from subsoils that are quite acid. This is not iron being applied in
the wastewater, rather it is iron that is native to the soil. Iron leaks
out because of a low soil pH. This problem should correct itself in a
few years.
The only other heavy metal of possible concern is chromium at the White-
hall site. Chromium there arises from tannery wastewater. In some early
studies we applied a soluble chromium (Cr+3) to soil from the Muskegon
site. This form of chromium was very toxic to crop growth. In fact, we
could kill most plants when we reached 400 ppm in the soil. There are
-------
some studies where sewage sludges have been applied to soils which are
high in chromium. In these studies it took a much greater addition than
400 ppm to be toxic to plants. While there is some reason for concern
about chromium, most studies elsewhere have not shown it to be much of a
problem. Furthermore in our studies we found that high chromium killed
the plant, and hence there was no edible portion containing chromium. I
therefore don't think it is much of a health hazard from that standpoint.
While some additional study of this potential problem might be desirable,
I understand that much of the chromium in the wastewater from the tannery
is now being recovered before discharge. The potential for a problem
with chromium, therefore, is lessened accordingly.
Q: Do heavy metals at Muskegon pose a threat to the food chain?
R: (Boyd Ellis) Dr. Knezek is the expert on heavy metals in our Department
and I am sure he will correct me if I get out of line. There are certain
heavy metals that we are concerned about in the food chain. We are con-
cerned perhaps first and foremost about cadmium. As far as I know, cad
mi urn is very low in the incoming effluent here, and so for this specific
site cadmium should not be a problem. I would caution, however, against
generalizing this to other sites, because cadmium is something that you
must monitor and understand in each specific site. If it is high, you
cannot tolerate cadmium in the food chain.
Other metals are of much less concern in the food chain. Zinc can be
tolerated at moderately high levels and in fact is often lacking in the
diet. Copper also can be tolerated in the food chain up to moderate
levels. While nickel can be more of a problem than copper or zinc, its
levels are quite low in both of the Muskegon and Whitehall systems.
Chromium should not be a problem in the food chain because its level in
the wastewater has been reduced and it is not in a form readily available
to crops. If it were available and present in large quantity in the
soil, the plant would be killed before the levels of chromium within it
became excessive.
Q: Are there other materials in the wastewater that can pose a hazard to
the environment?
R: (Boyd Ellis) I mentioned just in passing that we are analyzing for more
than twenty organics, including herbicides, insecticides, and industrial
organics. Dr. Wolcott is the expert in this field and Art will also
correct me if I am wrong. The background levels of these materials were
extremely low on the site. The only compounds that were detected were
dieldrin and DDT species, in very low quantities and in one of the sandy
soils. There are a few organics coming to the site in the wastewater
occasionally at high levels. These materials may also be detected leav-
ing the site, particularly when wastewater has been applied in large
quantities over a short time period. We really do not know the potential
harm arising from these organics which may move through the system.
There is some indication that there is an increasing ability of the
89
-------
storage lagoons and soils to degrade these organics. Where the levels
of some organics being monitored are in the parts per trillion range it
is very difficult to know the validity of the results. We recommend add-
itional study.
Q: How much of the program that you talked about is actually funded and on-
going? How much of it is proposed that you would like to get funded?
R: (Boyd Ellis) Everything that I talked about is and has been funded and
on-going. All of this work has been funded in part by EPA except for the
four cooperative studies that I mentioned by different graduate students.
These were carried out at Michigan State University under various other
funding arrangements. The soil monitoring program will terminate, unless
extended, as of December 31st this year. Any research beyond that date
would come under proposed new funding.
We are proposing to continue the monitoring with some change in the
approach. We believe that certain analyses can be reduced and that cer-
tain new approaches in the monitoring program can be more effective in
determining the changes in the soil brought about by the addition of
wastewater. The program that Dr. Erickson spoke about is largely new
proposed research. This important research largely hinges around learn-
ing how to manage nitrogen, wastewater application, and cropping most
effectively to optimize yield and renovate the wastewater.
90
-------
LAKE MONITORING - UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
John M. Armstrong*
Thank you, Steve. It is a pleasure to be here again in Muskegon County.
We have come here quite often in carrying out our monitoring program. We have
prepared a handout that is available in the lobby to all of you. There should
be enough for everybody in this room. Essentially the handout describes the
highlights of our project to date. A page or two also talks about what we pro-
pose to do in the future as Boyd Ellis has done for Michigan State. I am not
going to show you reams of data on slides, rather I am going to describe very
quickly where we are.
As Steve pointed out, our project deals mainly with the impact of the dis-
charge from the wastewater system on the aquatic environment. What changes have
or will occur in the aquatic environment because of the new wastewater system are
the things we would like to determine. Our purpose is not to evaluate the waste-
water treatment system itself; although if one used it correctly, an evaluation
could be done since the lakes and the streams themselves are a part of the new
systems and do indeed reflect the effectiveness of the plant. Rather, our pur-
pose is to examine and determine the impact that the wastewater system will have
through its discharge on the aquatic environment. So the major emphasis is to
look at the surface waters in the County.
Before I go on, I would like to say that I have two of my colleagues with me:
Professor Raymond Canale, who is also going to speak at this conference, and Dr.
Peter Meier from the School of Public Health. A large number of persons have
been involved in this project.
We have been under contract from the Water Resources Commission since May of
1972 to carry out a series of system monitoring efforts. We have been conduc-
ting a number of various studies during the course of the project which ends in
December of this year. In this period we have been sampling some 24 stations in
the three major drainage basins that have been impacted or affected or might be
affected by the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System. We sample on the
average of twice monthly. We sample all year round, twice a month at these 24
stations. The bulk of them are on the three lakes - Muskegon, Mona, and White.
We also sample the streams that run through the site and discharge into the three
lakes.
The results of our limnological monitoring program have permitted what we
think is a very complete evaluation of the water quality in the lakes over the
* Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
91
-------
three-year period. This program has shown that prior to diversion, all three
lakes were eutrophic still are, and highly so. All the lakes become stratified
during the summer and experience extensive periods when the hypolimnion of the
waters are devoid of oxygen.
Because the diversion of wastes from the previous discharge points to the
new land treatment site began only recently, there is nothing solid to prove
about the effect of the system. So we really look at 1975 as the first year of
sampling in which the treatment system was in some normal model of operation.
Our sampling operations were conducted primarily from boats. In addition
we are making some aerial surveys of aquatic weeds. Professor Canale will talk
more about this.
All three lakes are high in all the nutrients, which result in frequent sum-
mer blooms in the green and blue-green algae. We have run some intensive bio-
assays that Professor Canale is going to talk about which indicate that during
the spring and fall the algae in White Lake are phosphorus limited and in the
summer they are nitrogen limited. Our studies on phytoplankton have revealed no
major changes in species in any of the lakes and no major changes in any of the
organisms that we have been identifying and following. The dominance of some of
those algal species that we have looked at have indicated, of course, a high and
advanced state of eutrophication. As I stated previously there were no statis-
tical ly significant changes noted during the course of the three year monitoring
program, which is not surprising considering the size and the volume of these
lakes and the very short time that diversion has been underway, e.g., diversion
of waste to the wastewater treatment site.
In addition to the routine monitoring that we carried out on the lakes, we
have done some special studies to determine how the wastewater system might in-
fluence the distribution of aquatic macrophytes and how the presence of macro-
phytes might affect recovery of the lakes. It is not clear yet what impact the
nutrient diversion or the waste diversion program will have on the distribution
of macrophytes in the lake because of their abilities to absorb nutrients direct-
ly from previously nutrient and pollutant rich sediments. Furthermore, distribu-
tion of these macrophytes is also affected by the depth of water in the lake and
the turbidity of overlying waters. Professor Canale will talk a little bit more
about the macrophyte experiments.
We have also investigated the interaction between the sediments and the over-
lying waters, looked at establishing profiles of phosphorus, ammonium chloride,
iron, and other chemical species to determine how these interactions might affect
recovery of the lakes. This work has primarily been carried out in White Lake.
In these studies we found that the overlying waters are very low in oxygen during
certain periods of the year. Coupled with other findings this suggests signifi-
cant upward transport of nutrients by diffusion. As you know lake sediments can
absorb oxygen and release phosphorus at very high rates. In some experiments
that we have done, the rate of oxygen uptake observed for White Lake was enough
to deplete all of the oxygen from the hypolimnion in about 16 days. We are just
beginning to understand these important sediment interactions and we need to
92
-------
continue these process experiments.
In addition to our limnological monitoring and special studies, we have been
developing mathematical modeling techniques for processes occuring in the lakes.
The model will take into account the changes in material balance on the lake from
the diversion and existing biological processes. By modeling we hope to predict
what might be expected in terms of effects and performance of these three lakes
as a result of the diversion. We believe that we have made significant progress
in development of the model, that we now have an excellent understanding of the
lakes, and that we are now in a good position to begin the evaluation phase of
the program. We have submitted a three-year proposal to the DNR and to the EPA
for possible continuation of this work.
We have conducted what is, in the textbook sense, a classical limnologic
quality survey of the region. We are now ready to examine more closely and be-
gin to measure through a continued monitoring program, some of the changes that
are going to result from the continued and hopefully permanent diversion of
wastes through the new system. We feel that we have completed the first phase
here and are ready to go on. Our current contract terminates in December. Our
field program will probably wind down sometime in November unless there is some
continuation of funding.
We propose, as a three-year effort, to essentially continue the station mon-
itoring that we have carried out for the last three years. We are suggesting
some streamlining of data collection in terms of stations. We are proposing some
slightly different analytical techniques, but in essence we propose a continuance
of a very basic, classic monitoring program, i.e., we have learned some things
about how to do essentially the same program a little better. The lake modeling
work will continue under the present format. We are going to refine and "tune"
the models and make more accurate estimates as time goes on as to the long-term
recovery times for these lakes. Of course, the ultimate objective is to be able
to make some predictions or have a better understanding about this concept in
general as it applies to the water quality concerns of lakes that receive sub-
stantial discharge of wastes.
We have also proposed a look at the waste treatment system itself - to look
at it as a system and to begin building some type of a materials balance through
the entire system. I think this would be closely tied to what the Michigan State
people have gotten into. Perhaps this would result in the development of a com-
puter simulation model of the waste treatment system and an examination of some
of the optimal strategies that might be used to operate the lagoons and the farm-
ing operations with respect to the different objectives. There is one major ob-
jective, that is to meet the water quality standards and to preserve the quality
of the aquatic environment. There are some other objectives like maximizing the
profit from the crops that are important. There are some interesting studies
that we have proposed in our program that would tie in nicely to the examination
of the objectives.
So, that is very quickly where we are, and where we would like to go. We
have some findings that now indicate some of the nutrient limiting conditions
93
-------
that seem to exist. We need to look at those conditions very thoroughly in the
next three years. It is my feeling that three years is probably the very mini-
mum amount of time that one can spend in continuing monitoring to obtain any
feel of the impact that this large system will have on the three lakes and their
aquatic communities. We are talking about a system that changes very, very slow-
ly, at least in the initial time period. I think that in order to establish
those rates of change, we need to continue to look as closely as we have been.
I would like to turn it over to Professor Canale.
94
-------
MODELLING STUDIES - UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Raymond P. Canale*
As has been mentioned earlier the purpose of our project is to evaluate the
impact of the irrigation system on the surface waters of the county. To determine
this impact we have established sampling stations upstream and downstream from
the point of discharge of the spray site and on the lakes which we monitor rou-
tinely.
I would like to tell you something about the characteristics of the three
lakes in Muskegon County which are affected by the Wastewater System. They are
all eutrophic. They all experience depleted oxygen conditions in the summertime
in the bottom waters. Very high water concentrations of both phosphorus and ni-
trogen were measured in lakes during some parts of the year in 1973 and 1974. At
other times contents were lower. When you consider the amount of nutrients that
algae and other aquatic plants require, you can estimate that Mona Lake would be
phosphorus limited and Muskegon Lake would be nitrogen limited. White Lake is on
the borderline, maybe nitrogen, maybe phosphorus limited. Some of our laboratory
work has demonstrated that nitrogen limits the aquatic plants in the summertime
in White Lake and phosphorus limits them in the fall and spring. The typical
summer chlorophyll values found are extremely high, being approximately the same
as what you might expect in the western basin of Lake Erie. The productivity
rates are again quite high.
Our chief new interest, of course, is the 1975 data. Concentrating on White
Lake, we have had nearly a full year diversion of wastewater by the system at
Whitehall. Thus far we have gone over data obtained up until late May. There
is very little indication at this point that we have substantially reduced the
phosphorus going to that lake. We need to decide now whether the phosphorus
coming into the lake is from the spray site or whether it is from other nonpoint
sources upstream of the treatment site.
As we begin to receive more of the data, which we have obtained up until
now (September), we will be able to compare nutrient balances. These balances
will be of data obtained on the site, where the spray discharge enters the river
and at upstream and downstream points. Until we make these more detailed com-
parisons, our conclusions presented at this meeting must be considered as prelim-
inary.
Some preliminary data on the other lakes indicate more or less the same kind
of behavior. Nitrogen in 1975 appeared to be higher than in 1973 and 1974. We
are again not sure why. what we are sure of is that we just haven't had enough
time to document convincing changes in either the streams or the lakes in rela-
* Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
95
-------
tion to the treatment system.
As has been mentioned earlier, aquatic macrophytes are a definite problem
These macrophytes interfere markedly with recreational activity, such as swim-'
ming, fishing, and boating Our scuba divers have harvested these macrophytes in
order to determine their biomass and establish more fully their surface area
which covers about 20% of White Lake.
obtain their nutrients largely from the sediment and are
p **+ I9 ln the l!ke', Stretcnin9 °"r imagination, you might imagine that
fnn ST hS^6m ""S^6^6 "utrients *n the water and decrease phytoplank-
ton. The turbidity would thereby be reduced whereby the light available to the
macrophytes would be increased. This might increase the macrophyte problem in
e '
The macrophyte survey was done in 1974. Water was high that year, and of
course, there is a possibility that low water conditions would make the situation
even more serious.
I think that it is important that we continue to study the nutrient require-
ments of the algae and macrophytes in White Lake, both from water and from sedi-
ments. The extent that macrophytes are limited by light should be established
on a quantitative basis, so we will be able to determine what is going to happen
in regard to macrophyte population. n
-------
light and temperature. We have come up with models for evaluating the amount of
exchange between the hypolimnion and the epilimnion, the top waters and the
bottom waters. We need to evaluate the release rates and the potential for
nutrients in the sediments.
Our next step will be to synthesize these submodels into a comprehensive
picture and to verify this model. If that is possible we should be able to eval-
uate alternative restorative actions which might be required. For example, it may
be necessary to dredge the sediments if we are going to get full utility of these
waters. It might be necessary to aerate the hypolimnion in order to control the
effects of the sediments. I believe this kind of model will give us the predic-
tive capability for assessing the need for doing these kinds of additional mea-
sures.
Perhaps I can indicate more clearly how the model and associated experiments,
e.g., on sediment interactions, will help us gain an understanding of what is go-
ing on in the lakes and the desired predictive capacity. I will take the example
of observed phosphorus in White Lake in 1974 as compared with simply calculated
phosphorus levels based on tributary loadings alone. On this basis the model
adequately predicts phosphorus levels in the beginning of the year but the pre-
diction becomes progressively worse in the epilimnion and particularly the hypo-
limnion later in the year. In the late summer there is an increase of about 20
mg P/l over and above that which can be accounted for based on loadings.
Part of the explanation is that phosphorus is being absorbed by the algae in
the epilimnion and then sinks with the algae into the hypolimnion as the season
progresses. Another part of the explanation lies in the fact that phosphorus is
being released by bottom sediments. We have been able to substantiate this
through the kinds of research that has taken place in our laboratory.
I think that these kinds of experiments, coupled with our modeling, will
eventually give us the capability to predict what kinds of lakes are going to be
most responsive to nutrient control, what the extent of recovery might be, the
rate of recovery, and finally to predict any other restorative measures in addi-
tion to wastewater diversion which might be required.
I will be happy to answer any questions now that I can. I guess John is
also open for some questions. Are there any questions?
Q. Would these proposed experiments be more valuable to us in eight or ten
years than now?
R. It would be best if we could conduct the studies for the next 20 years.
It turns out that the actual documentation of recovery of lakes, follow-
ing any kind of control measures, is extremely limited. We just don't
have information on the recovery of lakes following some kind of treat-
ment system. However, I think if you skip taking measurements for ten
years, you've got to lose the continuity that you require. You are go-
ing to lose the continuity in that the levels of the lakes change along
with changes in other confounding factors that we can't anticipate right
97
-------
now. I think you really need that continuity to do the job.
Q. Do you think the lakes will really change very rapidly?
R. I don't think you will see rapid change with sediments, but I think it
is an open question as to whether these sediments are going to delay
recovery or not. Taking a simplified approach, the washout rates or
exchange of water in White Lake at least occurs about seven or eight
times a year. From that kind of analysis, you would expect very rapid
response and you haven't seen it. Perhaps therefore the sediments are
delaying changes in water quality after wastewater nutrient diversion.
Q. Are aquatic macrophytes in any way helpful?
R. A variety of fish use macrophytes as a refuge from predation and that
would be one of the main beneficial uses. On the other hand there are
tremendous obvious damages to sailboating, motorboating, swimming and
other recreational activities, so in my judgment they would represent
a net negative impact.
98
-------
SURFACE WATER STUDIES AND ROLE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Paul Blakeslee*
The Muskegon County Project originated at a time when primary responsibil-
ity for program review rested within the Municipal Wastewater Division of the
Michigan Department of Public Health. In 1973, our Division was transferred
to the Department of Natural Resources. Through the review period and contin-
uing today, we have tried to take a balanced look at both the environmental and
natural resources effects, and health effects of wastewater related projects.
The review of the Muskegon County Project at the time of project development
was truly a team effort. You heard much discussion this morning about the peo-
ple that played major roles in the initiation of the project, there were also
many, many people that played major roles in the review activity.
I noticed an EPA booklet on the table in the lobby this morning, and we
have copies back in the office, which dealt with Evaluation of Land Application
Systems. Many of the people that were involved in preparation of that document
were also involved in the review of this facility and many of the concepts that
have been incorporated in the Muskegon Project are now being incorporated in
other facility designs.
Part of obtaining the right answer to any problem is learning what ques-
tions need to be asked. Back in 1969 and '70, we learned an awful lot about
questions. We are here today talking about some of the answers to questions
that we will still be looking for in 1975, '76, and '77. We hope that the
overall objective of this conference, to stimulate documentation and further
investigations to obtain these answers, will be achieved.
One of the key elements in our initial involvement in the project as a re-
view agent and the really primary perspective from which we looked at the pro-
ject was that it is the wastewater treatment facility for the entire Muskegon
Metro area. It is also a large farm operation. It is also a research facility.
But, from day 1, we have to expect it to perform as the wastewater treatment
system for the community. We have to balance this fact, on a continuing basis,
with many of the other possibilities for use of the system. Examples of poten-
tial conflict include multiple site use, cropping for economic return versus op-
timization of performance, even operation of system components under stress con-
ditions for research purposes. These all have to be balanced against an over-
riding perspective, from our point of view, that this is the wastewater system
to serve the community.
One of those key elements was avoidance of ground water impact off-site.
The facility was designed and is operated in essence to provide inward migration
* Regional Engineer, Municipal Wastewater Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan 48926
99
-------
of ground waters so we are not affecting off-site individual's uses of potable
water supplies. The monitoring network, that was installed and is in use today
is intended to assure that that concept is fulfilled in the day-to-day operation
of the system.
A part of this concern, with regard to groundwater impact and health rela-
ted impacts, led to decisions to exlude residences from the project area, rather
than permitting an intermix. It will be necessary to take a much more detailed
look at some of the judgments that were made before we can reverse any of those
kinds of decisions, e.g. to permit direct use of privately owned lands for waste-
water renovation.
We similarly have concern in some areas with regard to exposure of a gener-
ally unsuspecting public to a wastewater facility such as the Muskegon facility.
We recognize that we have created a man-made environment here which has many
potential uses. We're wanting to look at concrete proposals for these uses to
make sure that they are well founded and properly controlled. We do not want
to permit greater public access without a good hard look to start with.
The selection of wastewater application methods and site isolation criter-
ia were considered with respect to potential movement of aerosolized wastewater
particles off-site during irrigation. Downward directed low pressure spray
application methods were developed which have helped minimize aerosol formation
and droplet migration off-site. I am sure there is much more that can be done
to look at both the effectiveness of the system that has been developed here
and also at alternative methods of application, some of which require less
energy. DNR has a keen interest in the results of these ongoing research
studies.
I did not come prepared to talk in much detail about DNR's part of the
three-way research project involving Michigan State University, the University of
Michigan and ourselves. Our involvement somewhat parallels the work done by the
University of Michigan in looking at the impact of the system on the streams and
lakes downstream from the site.
In addition to learning about the impact of the system on the surface waters
from our studies and those of the University of Michigan, we want to know many of
the things that Dr. Ellis and Dr. Erickson were discussing here in terms of the
actual project itself. Can the anticipated high levels of performance of the
crop-soil filter be sustained? Over what time period can we achieve these re-
sults? What can we do to optimize? What can we do to extend useful life of the
system?
These are all things that each of us involved with wastewater treatment need
answers to, whether as treatment authorities, regulators, researchers, or other
people involved in developing these kinds of concepts. What are the costs of
each of these kinds of improvements in the technology? What do we give up in
terms of resources? What do we gain in terms of resources? What is the overall
balance? Only the continuing study of what we are seeking here today is going to
100
-------
give us those answers.
I must throw out another word of caution here. There is a risk involved in
the wholesale translation of concepts from one research environment to another.
I think you all recognize this. It can lead to disaster when information is
picked up at one site and plugged in at another site without asking some of the
real searching questions.
One painful example comes to mind. A Michigan community decided to install
a land application for wastewater treatment to protect a highly eutrophic down-
stream lake. This facility was constructed in essence to utilize the living
filter concept. Based on another system, it was assumed that the soils at the
new facility would be sufficiently permeable to accept large quantities of waste-
water. Unfortunately it readily became apparent in 1974, the first year of op-
eration, that the soils were not very permeable, and the lake in essence re-
ceived inadequately filtered raw sewage wastewater. Someone had picked up infor-
mation, plugged it in at another location, and forgot to ask the necessary sear-
ching questions, in this case about soil permeability. That community bought
and paid for a system they hoped would work. It isn't quite the same success
story that we are seeing here. It's those kinds of concerns that we are involv-
ed in as a review agency.
Going beyond the research and review aspects, we are involved in a day-to-
day, month-to-month ongoing operation of wastewater treatment facilities. We
are attempting to work with the Muskegon project to assure that everything is
moving smoothly. We receive ongoing operational performance information from
the County on a month-to-month basis. We are asking the County to provide us
with very detailed information because of the uniqueness of this system and our
hope that we can translate experiences from here with realism to other facili-
ties and other proposals.
I have been rather general in my comments. I will take any specific ques-
tions you might have.
101
-------
HYDRAULIC MODELING - U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
William B. Fleck*
I notice that we are quite a bit behind the Lansing lunch hour and I think
even behind the Chicago lunch hour; therefore, I shall be brief in describing
the role of the U.S. Geological Survey, particularly that of the Water Resources
uivisi on, and our relation to the Wastewater Management System.
We are working on a cooperative project with the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, more specifically the Michigan Geological Survey. The pro-
ject is funded for a period of not quite two years in length. It started early
last year and will be completed, hopefully, some time early this coming year.
Hydrologically, the system that we have here is rather unique in that very
little work has been done in the past on such a complete operation. We, in the
Geological Survey, are particularly interested in the effect that the operation
will have on the ground-water flow system; both on the regional system and on
the flow within the 10,000 acres of the Muskegon Management System.
We felt that to do this best, we needed to develop a model, a digital model,
that could simulate the ground-water flow complex within the area. The area is
complicated because of miles and miles of under-drains that flow into ditches,
then discharge to the natural drainage system.
We're thinking in terms of a small scale model that will simulate the aqui-
fers in an area that is approximately 35 or 36 miles in length, extending from
Newago and Sparta on the east to Lake Michigan on the west. After we have de-
veloped a model that somewhat accurately simulates the regional pattern, we then
plan to develop models that encompass smaller areas, perhaps a few of the irri-
gation circles in the south, a circle or two in the north, and then to superim-
pose these models on the regional model.
We also have, along the way, been measuring the water levels in some 96
observation wells in the area; most of the wells were installed as part of the
management system. We have installed others where we thought there was a
shortage of wells.
We have also installed five stream-gaging stations to obtain data on the
amount of water that is being discharged from the area -- both ground-water
runoff and surface runoff into the ditches and water that is being discharged
by the under-drains. In order to work the model properly, we need to know what
the entire flow system is. We have developed what we believe is a reasonable
model of the geometric and the hydrological parameters of the aquifers in the area.
* Hydrologist, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Okemos,
Michigan 48864.
102
-------
We are essentially talking about two principal aquifers. The water-table
aquifer which underlies the area is very shallow, ranging from about 10 feet be-
low land surface and extending to depths of perhaps 80 to 90 feel below land
surface at a maximum. At much greater depths, there is a sandstone bedrock
aquifer that is rarely used for water supply in the area. However, the aquifer
is used extensively in much of the State, particularly in the southern part of
the Lower Peninsula. We believe at this point that we have a good model of this
aquifer. I was hopeful that we could have some initial answers from our study
which would demonstrate what we are going to do; however, we are still having
minor problems with our numerical schemes.
One of the objectives of developing a model of the area is to be able to
apply stresses, such as spraying two inches, four inches, or more water on the
area and then determine how much ground-water outflow there may be (or may not
be, as Dr. Demirjian has suggested) from the area. Incidently, our preliminary
data indicates that what he (Dr. Demirjian) said about the west side of the
lagoon is, in fact, correct; there is a ground-water divide developing just to
the west of the lagoon perhaps 700 feet from the seepage ditches. The principal
objectives, then, are to see what happens both locally and regionally to the
ground-water system.
The possible next step, although not part of the current project, would be
to develop a transport model. In order to do this one needs the ground-water
model to couple to a quality or transport model. Some of the work that has been
done by others, such as the chemical information obtained by Michigan State Uni-
versity, will be used to explain what is happening to some quality parameters
once effluent water reaches the ground-water flow system. This very quickly
then brings us to lunch, unless there are some questions.
Q. (Question was not recorded, but evidently concerned the types of aqui-
fers located within the area.)
R. The principal aquifer system in the area is the water-table aquifer.
The gradient of the water-table is, as you would guess, principally
toward Lake Michigan. Locally there is a steep gradient toward Mosquito
Creek. The drift thickness is on the order of two hundred to four
thousand feet over the regional area that I was talking about, 35 miles
east-west by 18 miles north-south. Under the drift there is the Mar-
shall Sandstone which is a very good aquifer in much of the State.
There is some water obtained from this aquifer somewhat to the south of
the wastewater site. Although the water in the Marshall Sandstone in
this area is sometimes a little saline, it is nevertheless a productive
aquifer. I think that it needs to be part of the total picture when we
are making regional models, because some of our ground-water flow is
there. For example, there is some upward movement of water from the
Marshall Sandstone through the confining beds into the water-table aqui-
fer west of the management site. So, that quickly is the picture of the
aquifers. Is that what you are asking about?
Q. (Not recorded.)
103
-------
R. I'll answer this question then we will adjourn for further questions
after lunch. We do monitor the amount of effluent that is being dis-
charged from the under drains or ditches to the surface ditch at the
outfall. We also have a gage that monitors discharge to Black Creek,
excluding what's being pumped from the seepage ditch to Black Creek.
I don't have the discharge figures with me, but we have been measuring
about 25 cfs from the outfall.
Q. The reason I asked the previous question is that you probably are get-
ting a dilution of the effluent by drawing into clean water from off-
site and mixing with the outflow from the site and therefore you're
getting a better picture of the wastewater renovation with lower nutri-
ent content than you might expect otherwise. In other words, you may
be solving a pollutant problem by diluting it again.
104
-------
OTHER CONCERNED AGENCIES
WASTE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN U.S. EPA
William A. Rosenkranz*
Thank you Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to visit the project again
and learn of its successful performance during the current season.
During the earlier sessions we have had speakers discuss the history, de-
sign, and operation of the system, and now I would like to discuss briefly
certain projects of the EPA Land Treatment Program as it relates to the
Muskegon Project.
Historically, the EPA research on land application of municipal wastewater
predates the Agency by a number of years. In Fiscal Year 1969, the program
consisted of two in-house projects conducted by the Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory at a funding level of $116,800. We have now com-
pleted sixteen (16) projects. In Fiscal Year 1975, the program had increased
in scope to include seven (7) active in-house projects and nineteen (19) extra-
mural projects with a total funding level of a little over $3,000,000. It is
important to note however, that of this $3,000,000 (+) some $2,300,000 was ob-
tained through supplemental funding. Current projections for Fiscal Year 1976
call for expenditures of $360,000 for in-house and $549,000 for extramural
projects or a total base program of $909,000. At the projected level we can
expect little more than maintaining the integrity of our existing program
affording no opportunity for new starts.
For the purpose of simplification, the land application program can be
discussed in four broad areas: "crop irrigation, infiltration-percolation,
overland-flow and more basic research applicable to more than one category."
In spite of the long history of cropland irrigation with municipal eff-
luents (primarily in the southwest) there is still an obvious lack of quanti-
tative data to delineate the balance between the beneficial and adverse influ-
ence on the local environment. One group of projects places emphasis on appli-
cation rates, crop responses, soil changes, and ground-water quality changes
while the other (such as the Muskegon project) are designed to demonstrate crop
irrigation approaches in geographic areas where historical information is
scarce or non-existent.
Research and demonstration activities in the infiltration-percolation area
have primarily involved the more adequate evaluation of treatment effectiveness
through "better management" as opposed to the earlier practice of simply dis-
Director, Division Waste Management Research, Office of Research and Devel-
opment, USEPA, Washington, D.C. 20460
105
-------
posing of the wastewater. Projects to date have been centered largely in the
water-short southwestern states although two projects have been funded in the
north central region (Minnesota and Wisconsin). In addition, the first of
several studies to make comprehensive evaluation of existing infiltration-per-
colation facilities has been started at Lake George, New York.
Overland-flow treatment of municipal wastewater, although a newly devel-
oping technology, promises to be a viable treatment method, based on studies
completed to date at the Kerr Laboratory, from other municipal systems and
from industrial experience. It differs from the irrigation and infiltration-
percolation methods in that the systems are designed with a planned discharge.
In this sense it is more directly comparable to conventional treatment methods.
The more basic research has focused on the special aspects of phosphorus
retention in soils, denitrification, biodegradation of organics and climatol-
ogy. Each of these aspects are oriented toward a more rational cost-effective
design practice useful over a broader geographic range.
In addition to the work described, EPA through interagency agreements,
committees and informal arrangements, cooperates in a total National land treat-
ment research and development effort. This cooperative effort is extremely
important since it is an attempt to avoid duplication and to maximize research
in this period of reduced monetary support.
As a result of research of numerous organizations coupled with a need for
an alternative to the more conventional treatment systems for municipal waste-
water, there has been an increased employment of land treatment of wastewaters
in recent years. Cost-effectiveness evaluations required under the EPA Con-
struction Grant program must include consideration of soil treatment systems.
One of the primary objectives of the research and development effort is to
provide the information on soil treatment systems necessary for use in cost-
effectiveness evaluations required for the EPA Construction Grant projects.
Although much progress has been made in the more rational design of land
treatment systems, more adequate evaluation of systems such as at Muskegon are
necessary. In this manner, more cost-effective design criteria and operating
modes can be developed. Additional emphasis should be placed on resolution
of health related issues, odor control, long-term ecological effects, and
social acceptance. The latter is important for resolution of problems asso-
ciated with site selection and availability.
Thank you.
106
-------
HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS RESEARCH IN U.S. EPA
Roy Albert*
INTRODUCTION
I am pleased to have been invited to speak to you today on the health re-
search program of the Environmental Protection Agency as it relates to waste-
water treatment and disposal. Essentially, the Agency's program is "mission-
oriented", that is, it is designed primarily to provide a scientific foundation
for health-related environmental action.
Since a great deal of the effort to protect our environment ultimately
pertains to protecting human health, the health effects portion of the research
and development program can be viewed as a fundamental component of EPA's over-
all effort. Much of the Agency's authorizing legislation relates to health
protection.
Health Research Programs
To provide the health intelligence required for issuing permits, guidelines
and criteria, or for promulgating standards, information on exposure-dose-effect
relationships is required. We also use such information to evaluate the poten-
tial health impact of options for pollution control. In promulgating standards,
we want to insure that the standard is placed on the continuum and that the
margin of safety is adequate, so that health is fully protected but that overly
stringent or costly controls are not required.
Turning more specifically to our programs, I shall indicate the general
kinds of wastewater research areas and their respective activities. The pro-
grams are a mix of both extra- and intramural work, and for the purposes of this
discussion, I will not draw a distinction as such since the extramural portions
are managed by the labs. Although EPA's research labs are located across the
country, practically all the health labs are located in conjunction with the
laboratories in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Most of our water research labs are either located in Cincinnati or cur-
rently report to the Cincinnati laboratory. The program at present is essen-
tially categorized as "Water Supply Research" and "Water Quality Research."
Today, I will limit my remarks to "Water Quality." I might note that the total
water program is large, and in this discussion I shall also limit my comments to
activities specifically related to health.
* Former, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Health and Ecological
Effects, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Current, Special Assistant for Health Effects, Office of Health and Ecological
Effects, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
107
-------
Water Quality Research
In the water quality portion of the program, our health research is direc-
ted toward developing criteria for the safe treatment and disposal of waste-
waters and sludges and criteria for fresh and marine recreational waters.
A. Wastewater and Sludges
EPA's research effort on the health effects associated with wastewater and
sludge is a relatively new program activity beginning only in FY-74 with fund-
ing of $200,000. In FY-75, funds had increased to about $500,000 while FY-76
funds amount to about $1,180,000 with the monies roughly split between waste-
water and sludge research. The research in this area most specifically relates
to your concerns with the Muskegon project. The program deals primarily with
the health implications of land applications of wastewaters and sludges. It
should be noted that epidemiological information on the potential health impacts
of installing land treatment facilities is limited but expanding.
The disposal of sewage sludge presents potential impacts on man's health.
The problems encountered include odor and the exposure to chemicals and infec-
tious organisms inhaled via aerosols with resultant potential systemic problems
and eye and dermal irritation. Aerosol inhalation results from spraying and
land application of sewage and sludge and from wastewater treatment plants and
can be controlled through appropriate protective measures such as landscape or
vegetation screens and covers over aerosolization tanks. Infectious organisms
and chemicals present in the sewage and sludge themselves are more difficult to
control directly as these agents can be concentrated. The chemicals do not pre-
sent an immediate hazard to man but may be an indirect hazard by leaching into
water or by volatilizing into air. In either case, the chemicals may persist
and create a hazard through later aerosol dust and contact exposure. The dis-
posal of sewage and sludge and its impact on microbiologic disease is being in-
vestigated to ascertain if workers are affected by the concentrated material and
whether the populations surrounding treatment areas are susceptible to illnesses
caused by the microbiologic agents in this medium. A program has been initiated
to determine the dispersion of pathogens and toxic chemicals in aerosols from
conventional wastewater treatment plants.
B. Wastewater and Sludge Research - Importance of Data to EPA Operations and
New Initiatives
At present there is insufficient health information for the development and
defense of criteria necessary to insure the protection of human health from the
disposal of wastewater and sludges. There continues to be an increase in land
treatment and disposal plus disposal of wastes into waters. Additionally, there
have been increases in the number and size of sewage treatment plants. Along
with the requirements of regulatory procedures, these growth patterns point out
the need for increasing the research efforts to determine the posible adverse
health effects associated with land treatment and disposal of wastewater and
sludges. Research is required to further elucidate pathogen dispersion, espe-
cially of viruses in aerosols formed by spray irrigation of sludges and waste-
waters; to determine the persistence and transport of pathogens and toxic sub-
108
-------
stances in the soil of land applicator sites and on to the food chain; and to
assess more fully the health of populations residing in locales where land dis-
posal of wastewater and sludges is carried out.
The health effects research program has planned investigations to meet
needs in this area. These ongoing activities include laboratory and field in-
vestigations on the potential of bacterial and viral survival and movement at
land reclamation sites utilizing sewage sludge; studies on the health effects
associated with exposure to land sites using treated wastewater effluent; mon-
itoring and epidemiological studies of the health implications of aerosols pro-
duced by spray irrigation of treated sewage effluents; studies on the potential
of contaminants present in sludge applied to land entering the human food chain;
and laboratory and field investigations to develop an acceptable methodology for
sampling and analyzing sludge for biological, organic, and inorganic chemical
content.
C. Marine and Fresh Recreational Waters
Other research in the water quality area include studies to assess the
health implications of pollution of marine and fresh recreational waters. Every
year thousands of persons develop acute illnesses of the gastrointestinal tract
and ear, nose and throat as a result of recreational activities in marine
waters. Although some microbes are known to be in the marine waters, the etio-
logic agents and any critical concentrations are unknown at present. Epidemio-
logic-microbiologic studies are being conducted to define any causal relation-
ships and, ultimately, to develop water quality criteria based on human health
considerations. Accompanying such efforts is a program to develop methods to
ascertain numbers of micro-organisms and to quantitate a candidate chemical
indicator (coprostenol).
Paralleling the work on marine water, a program is underway to assess the
quality of fresh recreational waters. Epidemiologic-microbiologic studies are
aimed at detailing the association between incidence of acute disease and the
presence of microbiologic indicators. Such data would provide a basis for water
quality criteria for fresh recreational water.
D. Fresh and Marine Water Research - Importance of Data to EPA Operations and
New Initiatives
As in the area of wastewater and sludge research, additional studies are
required to more clearly define the effects of waste disposal in water. Re-
search is required and is planned to determine pathogen concentrations which may
occur in primary contact marine waters without jeopardizing human health; to
develop valid microbiological criteria for shellfish growing waters as hepatitis
has been shown to be epidemiologically related to consumption of oysters from
contaminated beds; and to correlate human health effects to select indices of
pollution in primary contact fresh recreational waters.
Other planned investigations in the marine and fresh recreational water
area include cataloging all U.S. beaches according to microbiologic quality and
continuing current studies in the etiology of amoebic meningoencephalitis which
109
-------
is believed to be acquired following swimming in fresh or brackish waters.
Availability of EPA Health Research Data
While our research information is, of course, frequently published in the
open literature, it is also channeled into guidelines and criteria documents
for regulatory actions. As noted earlier, EPA health research on wastewater
and sludges is a relatively new activity and, at this time, data are not read-
ily available. Scientific and technical assessment reports are periodically
prepared for non-regulated pollutants, and they attempt to indicate where re-
search information is limited. These reports, as in the case of the guideline
and criteria documents, cover the technical literature from both EPA and non-
LPA research.
Summary
In summary, I would say that EPA's health research program is diverse, com-
bining a spectrum of expertise in the biological sciences, and addressing a mul-
titude of environmental concerns with research on wastewater and sludge health
ettects being an area of growing concern with expanding research activity Per-
haps one of our biggest dilemmas is maintaining diversity; that is, planning and
conducting the program to allow flexibility. We find that as research continues
both within and outside the Agency, new and varied environmental problems con-
stantly emerge which require our attention. We want to be able to address these
emerging issues, as well as the known problems, as fully as possible so that
rational decisions can be made to protect our environment and ultimately, our
public health. J
110
-------
AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER IN THE UNITED STATES AND WATER
PROGRAMS OPERATIONS*
Bel ford Seabrook** <
Introduction
When one talks about land application of wastewater, it is generally assum-
ed that the wastewater needing treatment would come from municipal and/or indus-
trial sources. However, a significant amount of wastewater in the United States
comes from highway runoff and street storm drains. A lesser amount comes from
animal feed lots and agricultural land. In total, the wastewater, runoff wastes
and debris from highway, street and farm sources undoubtedly exceed the waste-
water from municipal and industrial sources. In spite of the enormous quantities
of non-municipal wastewater, little is being done in this situation for several
reasons. The principal reason is that the problem of non-municipal wastewater
does not quality for the EPA construction grants program because the facilities
for treating such wastewater, to the extent that treatment facilities exist, are
for the most part not publicly owned. Another reason is the relatively high
cost of treating wastewater from non-municipal sources.
Land treatment for many of these wastes should be considered more carefully.
Records of experience and research studies show that:
1. land treatment of wastewaters is not new;
2. land treatment is a significant factor in past and current management
of wastewater;
3. the use of land treatment is evolving from a disposal concept to a con-
cept of treatment, utilization and reuse;
4. land treatment methods, where appropriate, can play a significant role
in future wastewater management plans; and
5. land treatment can be cost effective.
Existing Land Treatment Systems with Long Experience
Some of the long time examples of successful operation of land treatment
systems for wastewater effluents are:
* Mr. Seabrook's address did not get transcribed. Much of his talk, however, is
contained in this edited version of his presentation at the Symposium on Waste-
water Treatment and Disposal Technology in Argentina in June 1976, sponsored
by the Pan American Health Organization.
**Sanitary Engineer-Consultant, Office of Water Programs Operations, USEPA,
Washington, D.C. 20460
111
-------
1880 - Wyoming, USA
1891 - California, USA
1895 - Berlin, Germany
1896 - Melbourne, Australia
1902 - Mexico City, Mexico
In the early stages, land application of wastewater effluents was a disposal
operation. It became a treatment and reuse technique when the water became use-
ful and important in irrigating crops and orchards that otherwise could not be
grown in water short areas. The use of treated wastewater from municipal and in-
dustrial sources for irrigation has been practiced for many years in various
countries on a limited scale. Interest in renovated wastewater for irrigation
water is now on the increase and its use is now being considered by many parks
golf courses, and other facilities in water short regions. Reuse of treated
wastewater is also being practiced by certain industries.
We must keep the priorities clearly in mind when handling wastewater. Un-
fortunately the wastewater priorities for a farmer are not the same as for water
pollution control administrators. For water pollution control, the first prior-
ity is what to do with the water. Should it be used for agriculture, or reused
for industry, or renovated and discharged to underground aquifers? Regardless
of the fact that water is needed for crops, crops do not need water every day
whereas wastewater is produced every day, including the holidays during the
wintertime.
Public Acceptance is the Limiting Factor. Public acceptance is the primary
factor limiting the use of soil treatment systems for wastewater. The term
disposal should be avoided unless you actually mean what the lexicographer de-
fines the word disposal to be, that is, distribution, discarding, or throwing
away- Disposal" often connotes an undesirable effect in the minds oFthe—
public. Instead, it is suggested that the terms, land application, land treat-
ment» or soil treatment might be more appropriate in most instances where some
useful benefit is being achieved. Although a rose may be just as sweet by any
other name, the public does not always think so.
Much is known about the beneficial uses of wastewater, such as crop irriga-
tion in arid zones, removal of N (nitrogen) and P (phosphorus), strip mine re-
clamation, and reuse by industry. Some of the unknown factors are the adverse
health effects, public speculation about potential health hazards, and the full
costs of land application, that is, the legal and social costs contrasted with
the economic value of the beneficial uses.
EPA Wastewater Effluent Limitations. The EPA effluent limitations for pub-
licly owned treatment works, as published in the U.S. Federal Register, [9],
para. 133.102, set a monthly average water quality limit of 30 mg/liter of BOD
and SS for discharge into surface streams from secondary treatment works. In
the case of land treatment systems, it is proposed to require groundwater under
the system to meet the U.S. public health drinking water quality standards in
cases where the groundwater will be used as a drinking water supply [22] The
records from land treatment systems with long experience indicate that the qual-
112
-------
ity of the effluent in almost all instances is vastly better than the monthly
average water quality limit of 30 mg/1 of BOD and SS for the effluent from sec-
ondary treatment works.
Important Factors - Design & Operation. There are two important factors
that apply equally in conventional non-land treatment facilities and in land
treatment facilities. These are design and operation. There are other important
factors, of course, but these are the two most important. The same can be said
about pianos and airplanes. People seem to understand the importance of these
two factors, that is, design and operation, in the case of pianos, airplanes and
conventional sewage treatment plants, but these factors are equally important in
the case of land treatment systems.
Discussion of Land Treatment Techniques
The land treatment techniques for renovating municipal and industrial waste-
waters are not sewage spreading, sewage farming, disposal of partially treated
effluents on land or even the utilization of effluents for irrigation of crops.
Many proponents of wastewater recycling contribute to confusion by attempt-
ing to analogize between land treatment and one or more methods of disposal or
utilization. While wastewater disposal and utilization projects may provide
some information which can be extrapolated or interpolated or used to predict
the performance of land treatment systems, they are not directly comparable and
continued and expanded evaluation of bonafide land treatment systems such as
Muskegon's are essential.
There are many examples world-wide where raw sewage has been continuously
and successfully applied on particular sites for periods approaching 75 to over
100 years. The crops grown vary from strictly forage for animals to vegetables
for direct human consupmtion. Other than obnoxious odors, there have been few
reported adverse changes in the local environments resulting from well managed
sewage farm operations. These are excellent examples of the tremendous capacity
of soils to attenuate gross amounts of pollutants when properly managed. Proper
management is a prerequisite of success because raw municipal sewage may contain
from less than 100 ppm (parts per million) of BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) to
as much as 500 to 600 ppm, depending on industrial and stormwater discharges and
infiltration of groundwater into sewers. It is not uncommon for the BOD content
to vary over this range of values in a 24 hour period. Such wide variations
cause difficulties in adjusting rates of application on land areas without crea-
ting problems. Sewage farms have been continuously operated for long periods of
time by dedicated attention to detailed management schemes and their success must
be judged in terms of what they were designed to do. They were not designed to
renovate wastewater for unrestricted reuse. Crop and soil management practices
are usually given little weight where the main purpose of irrigation is disposal
of the effluent.
In water short regions, there are many examples where sewage effluent has
been used to irrigate crops, parks, and golf courses at rates just sufficient to
maintain good growth of vegetables. Effluents from secondary treatment plants
113
-------
or lagoons contain only a small fraction of the BOD originally present in raw
sewage and can be applied on land by ordinary methods of irrigation. In secon-
dary treatment plants or lagoons, large quantities of oxygen are supplied in pri-
mary effluents to stimulate the growth of aerobic microorganisms. The aerobic
microorganisms assimilate and decompose soluble and suspended organic substances.
By the removal of dead and living microbial cells by sedimentation, 80 to 90 per-
cent of the BOD originally contained in sewage is also removed. Thus, from se-
wage having an average BOD load of 200 ppm, secondary effluents will contain 20
to 40 ppm of BOD.
On the other hand, effluents from secondary treatment facilities usually
contain about 80 percent of the nitrogen, 70 percent of the phosphorus, 90 per-
cent of the potassium, and 20 to 40 percent of the trace elements which were
present in the original sewage. Because of its content of nutrients, when sec-
ondary effluents are discharged into streams, excessive growth of aquatic plants
is often the end result. The annual excessive growth of aquatic plants and the
oxygen consuming processes of residue decay often lead to a deterioration of
stream water quality.
Therefore, many people have proposed that soils and their biological systems
be used to provide tertiary treatment and nutrient removal. Advocates of the use
of land treatment systems for renovating wastewaters point to numerous examples
where crop plants have responded more favorably to the use of sewage effluent for
supplemental irrigation than to equivalent amounts of irrigation water from other
sources. However, the main objective in each case was to utilize the wastewater
to grow the agricultural crops. Thus, findings from these projects are used to
justify the land treatment system for renovating wastewater. Where crops are
used in land treatment systems to provide maximum nutrient removal from the
wastewater however, the aim is to apply as much wastewater as possible without
decreasing plant growth.
Three Major Land Treatment Methods plus Combinations. The three distinct
methods of land treatment are:(1) overland flow, (2) rapid infiltration, and
(3) crop irrigation or slow-rate infiltration.
An overland flow land treatment system is used for soils with very low in-
filtration and/or percolation capacities. Wastewater renovation by the overland
flow systems requires the filtering action of a close growing vegetation, gener-
ally adaptable grasses, and the controlled flow of a thin film of wastewater over
the soil surface to maximize re-activity between the wastewater pollutants and
soil microbiological and physical/chemical processes at the soil/water interface.
Rapid infiltration/percolation systems are used where deep permeable soil
materials are available. The rapid infiltration/percolation basins renovate a
few to several hundred feet of water per year by proper management. Proper man-
agement implies alternating flooding and drying periods to manipulate the soil
microbiological mass, promoting nitrification and denitrification processes and
the decomposition of organic materials filtered out of the wastewater at the soil
surface. Degrading accumulated organic materials by aerobic microorganisms dur-
ing the drying cycle facilitates restoration of the water infiltration capacity
of the soil filter. Sometimes, grass is grown in the basins to aid in maintain-
114
-------
ing infiltration capacities during the flooding cycle.
The crop irrigation land treatment system may embody various methods of ap-
plying treated effluents by spray applications or flooding on land through fur-
rows or borders. The crop irrigation treatment method is variously called: (2)
irrigation treatment system, (3) living filter system, (4) slow rate infiltration
system, and (5) low rate system. Since the main objective is to renovate waste-
water for reuse, maximum amounts of wastewater are applied that are consistent
with maximum crop yields.
In addition to the three methods of land treatment, a combination of these
methods may be used. For example, one might use the overland flow method to
treat the wastewater if you have an impervious soil, producing a surface dis-
charge. The effluent from the overland flow treatment system might then be con-
veyed to an underground aquifer by rapid infiltration. Any of these treatment
methods can be used when the sewage effluent is applied with "spray irrigation"
or with "flood irrigation". Usually the energy requirement for flood irrigation
is substantially less than for spray irrigation.
Spray Irrigation is not a Land Treatment Method. While on the subject of
definitions, "spray irrigation" is not a land treatment method, rather it is a
means of applying water to the land. The water can be pure water or wastewater.
Another method of land application is flood irrigation. Ridge and furrow irri-
gation is a variation of flood irrigation in furrows.
Survey of 100 Existing Land Treatment Facilities.
In 1972, the Research Foundation of the American Public Works Association
conducted an on-site field survey of approximately 100 facilities in all clima-
tic zones in the United States where community or industrial wastewaters are be-
ing applied to the land. The report is entitled, Survey of Facilities Using
Land Application of Wastewater. [1]. There are many hundreds of land applica-
tion systems in use in the United States, but the 100 facilities surveyed were
relatively large, long-established operations. These were selected to obtain
as much information as possible on the operating experience of those using this
technique. The municipal systems were predominantly located in the western and
southwestern portions of the United States, and the industrial systems were gen-
erally sited in the northeastern region, because this is where the majority are
in service.
Highlights
The following highlights from the APWA field Survey are presented to give a
composite picture of the observations made during the land application site visits:
1. Communities generally use their land application system on a continuous
basis. Food processing plants, the predominant industrial users of the
system, generally use discharge-to-land systems for three to eight
months per year;
2. Ground cover utilized for municipal systems is divided between grass and
crops. Industries generally use grass cover;
115
-------
3. Land application systems are generally used on a daily basis, seven days
per week;
4. Application rates for crop irrigation are very low in terms of inches
of water per week. Two inches or less was commonly used. (Two inches
per week equals 54,000 gallons per acre per week);
5. Many types of soils were used, although sand, loam and silt were the
most common classification given. Two systems using applications over
many feet of sand were applying up to 8 inches per day once a week, and
one system on clay was applying a daily rate of 0.1 inch;
6. Most operating agencies, municipal and industrial, are planning to
either expand or continue their application installations. The few
examples of systems which had been abandoned were due to either the de-
sire to make a higher use of the land, or because of reported overload-
ing and incompetent operation of the land application facilities;
7. Industries surveyed generally treat their total waste flow by land app-
lication. Practices of municipalities varied from less than 25 percent,
to all the wastewaters discharged;
8. Secondary treatment is generally, but not always, provided by municipal-
ities prior to land application, oftentimes accompanied by lagooning.
Industries, using this technique frequently treated their process wastes
by screening only;
9. Spray irrigation is the most frequently used (57 facilities) method of
application, although most municipalities use more than one method.
Ridge-and-furrow irrigation is used at 23 facilities, and flooding irri-
gation by 34 systems. Industry generally used spray irrigation;
10. Land use zoning for land application sites is predominantly classified
as farming, with some residential zoning in contiguous areas;
11. Wastewater generally is transported to the application site by pressure
lines, although a number of municipalities are able to utilize ditches
or gravity flow pipelines;
12. Many municipal land application facilities have been in use for several
years -- more than half for over 15 years. Industrial systems generally
have been in use for a lesser period of time;
13. Renovated wastewater is seldom collected by under drains; rather, eva-
poration, plant transpiration, and groundwater recharge take up the flow;
14. Land application facilities generally do not make appreciable efforts
to preclude public access. Residences are frequently located adjacent
to land'application sites. No special effort is made to seclude land
application areas from recreational facilities and from those who use
these leisure sites;
15. Monitoring of groundwater quality, soil uptake of contaminants, crop up-
take of wastewater components, and surface water impacts is not carried
' out with any consistency.
Survey Conclusions
The following conclusions are based upon the field investigations of 67 mu-
nicipal and 20 industrial facilities which yielded usable data as well as infor-
mation from more than 300 questionnaires, a bibliographic review, and numerous
foreign contacts.
116
-------
Note: At the time the report was prepared, EPA had not adopted a
definition of secondary treatment: Thus, the term "secon-
dary treatment" is used throughout the APWA report to con-
note treatment beyond that normally given by primary treat-
ment and not that defined by present regulations [9].
1. Land application of wastewaters from community and industrial process-
ing sources is practiced successfully and extensively in the United States and
in many countries throughout the world. Facilities investigated handled from
less than 0.5 mgd', providing service for sixty days per year, to more than 570
mgd applied on a year round basis.
2. Various degrees of municipal sewage pretreatment are practiced prior to
land application.
3. Under proper conditions, land application of wastewater is a workable
alternative to advanced or tertiary treatment of municipal wastes. Successful
operations now in use generally rely upon conventional treatment processes to
pretreat sanitary wastes equivalent to secondary treatment. Prior to applica-
tion to land areas, industrial wastewaters, on the other hand, often receive no
conventional treatment, other than screening.
4. Land application of wastewaters is practiced for several specific rea-
sons. Among the major reasons are: To provide for supplemental irrigation
water; the desirability of augmenting groundwater sources; excessive distances
to suitable bodies of receiving waters or extraordinary cost to construct facil-
ities to reach suitable disposal sites; economic feasibility, as contrasted with
the cost of construction and operation of advanced or tertiary treatment facil-
ities; and inability of conventional treatment facilities to handle difficult-
to-treat wastes.
5. Land application of wastewaters can be considered as a part of a water
reuse cycle. Land application is not land disposal inasmuch as wastes are not
placed inertly and left on land areas; rather, they become a part of a dynamic
system of utilization and conversion of the liquid and the nutrient components
contained therein. (This requires caution in application of non-amenable waste-
waters which cannot become a part of this recycle-reuse process.)
6. Present land application facilities generally are not "stressing" the
system. Even where efforts were being made to use land as the only point of
disposal, application rates were generally conservative, and the soil-piant com-
ponents of the system were not stressed to limits of assimilation or used to
their capacities, thus providing a large factor of safety.
7. Small communities and food processing industries will probably continue
to be the principal users of land treatment of effluents for the near future.
The ability to assemble the necessary land at proper prices and without adverse
effect on local land use practices, tend to favor the use of land application
systems for such smaller installation. However, stringent requirements on dis-
charge of effluents to receiving waters, energy shortages, favorable experiences
such as here at Muskegon, and/or a number of other conceivable economic-environ-
mental factors could make land application feasible and workable for larger comm-
unities or other wastewater sources.
8. A variety of beneficial uses are being made of wastewater effluents.
Uses include irrigation of parks, golf courses, cemeteries, college grounds,
street trees, highway median strips, sports grounds, ornamental fountains and
artificial lakes. Wastewater effluents are also used to irrigate many types of
117
-------
alfalfa> corn, sorghum, citrus trees, grapes, and cot-
ta^on rDreven™ t° T ^T 1^r19?ted in man* areas' Groundwater augmen-
tation to prevent salt water intrusion is being practiced. In Mexico a widP
variety of truck garden crops have long been irrigated with effluent ?rojs an
is^ed * fr°m b°th the nUtrie"tS 9nd the i^reased amount of wate? which
w^tP^tpf! i^e* yaHety °f Pot?ntial opportunities for land application of
t?«Misted in Item IF* C0mmunities that are not currently using the opportuni-
10. The sale of effluent for beneficial use has been generally unsuccessful.
from I'vaH^vSnfUH-OP-rv10n °V land aPPlicati°n system requires the inputs
from a variety of disciplines. For many systems, the services of a geologist
and environmental engineer are required. For systems designed to augment the
™?l!!SSU«fCrOP Water rerTentS * supplemental irrigation, the advice and
guidance of an agronomist and soils specialist will be needed. For larger sys-
be ™SCr£ tf b?h;vioral scientists, as well as medical health personnel may
meanTof treatment' '" 6Valuating and sec^ing acceptance of this alternative
ry.pa!f: °Perat1on of land application facilities can be accomplished without
creating a nuisance or downgrading the adjacent environment. The survey indica-
l^rlnf "h"1^0^^ ° the facilities were conducted by well trained personnel,
aware of the need for careful operation of the systems. Training, supervision
^adequate mom tonng or pertinent factors are necessary to ensure that sys-
tems will not be overstressed. If ponding on the land is not allowed, odors
w ™ \ K a Pr°Elem: The nazard of creating other adverse effects on the en-
vironment by discharging treated effluent on land is minimal
13. Environmental analysis of the effects of land application facilities
reflects a general improvement of the environment rather than impairment of the
indigenous ecology. Many facilities were observed where the effluent provided
the only irrigation water available. Land values for sites with a right to such
wastewaters were greater than that of adjacent land because crop and forest
growth was enhanced, and use of potable water supplies reduced. Farming and
recreation potentials exist, as well as improved habitat, for wildlife.
Treatment of wastewater prior to land application has generally been dic-
tated by the desire to use the best practical means consistent with available
technology and to minimize any adverse effects upon the environment. Land appli-
cation of wastewater by eliminating direct discharges of effluent into receiving
waters could be regarded as satisfying the ultimate national policy goal of
"zero discharge" of pollutants.
No instances of health hazards were reported from any existing facilities,
although the State of Delaware indicated concern over possible virus transmission.
14. Local public opinion -- objection of becoming the major recipients of
somebody else's waste — could be a major limiting factor in the development of
large land application systems at distances from wastewater sources. Psycholo-
gical concern over distasteful characteristics of effluents can result in dis-
trust of the ability of public agencies to operate, control and manage such sys-
tems .
118
-------
15. Monitoring of land application facilities and effects has been minimal
and mostly inadequate. Few states have taken an active role in requiring use of
monitoring facilities, apparently because there was no direct discharge of efflu-
ents to receiving waters.'
16. Energy requirements for land application systems require careful consi-
deration. Energy requirements associated with land application techniques for
tertiary treatment may be substantially less than other means of treatment and
effluent management. This factor deserves further evaluation.
17. The nature and quantity of receiving waters must be carefully evaluated
prior to diverting effluent to land application. Few existing systems were found
that used underdrains to collect the renovated effluent. Rather, the groundwater
aquifers received the flow. If a land application area is adjacent to the re-
ceiving waters, much of the groundwater may serve to augment the flow into the
receiving waters by a gradual seepage into the drainage basin. Elimination of
direct wastewater discharges to a stream could unbalance the flow regimen asso-
ciated with downstream beneficial uses, inhibit desirable dilution of waste dis-
charges, interfere with the tempering of thermal water discharges, and permit
the intrusion of saline waters into normally freshwater zones. The impact of
effluent diversion into land areas with respect to the basic principle of ripa-
rian water rights must be considered where irrigation is planned as an alterna-
tive to discharge into surface waters in some areas.
18. When wastewater is discharged to land and this method is used as a means
of advanced treatment by natural means, the land must receive priority for this
use over other optional land uses. The needs of crop production, recreation and
other benefits can be in conflict with the utilization of a land application sys-
tem for the treatment of wastewaters. For instance, the planting, cultivation
and harvesting of crops and the use of recreation facilities may interfere with
continuous application of wastewater onto land areas. The need for the system
to either utilize all of the flow or provide sufficient retention storage for
needed periods of non-operation must be considered. The objective of providing
adequate treatment of the effluent cannot be sacrificed for other needs and uses
of the land; proper handling of the wastewater must be the first priority.
19. Choice of ground cover can play an important role in the success of a
land application system. Properly managed ground cover is important in main-
taining an open soil surface that will permit infiltration and remove nutrients
like phosphorus and nitrogen. If crops are not harvested, nutrients will not be
removed unless lost by denitrification processes that occur during overland flow.
20. Land application facilities that have been used for many years are avail-
able for the study of long-term effects of such use. Specific evaluation of
established systems in the various climatic zones would appear to be more fruit-
ful than new research installations for determining long-term effects upon soil,
vegetation, groundwater, and the indigenous ecology, or on the health of site
workers and adjacent residents. However, evaluations of these established sys-
tems are often limited in value by the inability to define past practices, to ob-
tain satisfactory controls, to have the necessary variety of treatments, and the
fact that many operations were for disposal rather than treatment of wastewater.
Consequently, careful evaluation of carefully designed large operational systems
such as Muskegon's here are particularly needed and important.
21. Observations in the field and surveys of land application systems did
not reveal the existence of specific health hazards and disclosed very little
119
-------
^^^^^^ssss^^s-
.
residues '^ °r miStS """ C°ntaCtS W1'th sanita^ and indus?rial
do include references describing possible health hazards which 2?fanJf!ShS
study and these potential problem areas should certainly not be ?gno?ed j?f
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Construction Grants Program
ss
wastewaters that discharge into municipal teatment systems
Public Law 84-660 The basic law which authorized U.S. Government grants
for publicly owned mumcipal sewage treatment works is the Federal Water Pol In
~ SS «S
nf Ih ,V<0nrental Protection A9en<^ was formed on December 4 ?970' by an
Con9ress> and these water pollution control activities
3Ct1v1t1es fr°m Oth^ U'S' Government agencies .
LAW 92-500 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
I9/^ (PL 92-500) the legislative history of the Act, and the regulations which
have been issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act, provide the sta-
tutory basis for consTderation and funding of land application systems in the
aonl r,e? n° mU?iCiPal WaStrter" The ratl'°nale and 9°als w?thin wh c land
of Jhe let. ^ are c°^dered are contained in the following sections
Section 208 - Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Section 201 - Facilities Planning
Section 304 - Best Practicable Treatment Technology (BPT)
Section 212 - Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Among other things, the 1972 Act (1) increased the amount of the Federal construc
?J?nnK 5V5 EEr "nVf-the ell'9ible COSts of mun1ci'Pal treatment works
(2) provided for the first time that Federal grant funds could be used for land
acquisition costs in land treatment systems if the land was "an integral part of
the treatment process," and (3) required that all alternative treatment systems
and techniques must be evaluated and only the most cost-effective alternative
could be built if Federal grants were used. Under PL 84-660 the equipment and
120
-------
hardware used in land treatment systems were eligible for Federal construction
grants, but the land acquisition costs were not eligible.
Summary of EPA Requirements for Land Treatment Systems
There are two basic documents containing EPA requirements for land treatment
systems. These are the guidelines and a document entitled, "Alternative Waste-
water Management Techniques for Best Practicable Treatment," or "BPT" for short
[22].
The cost-effectiveness guidelines are Appendix "A" to the EPA construction
grants regulations. They require the grant applicant to evaluate three alterna-
tives for each project. The alternatives to be considered are: First, treatment
and discharge; second, land treatment; and third, reuse, such as for industrial
process water. The cost-effectiveness guidelines describe how to conduct an en-
gineering economic study for a project and evaluate these three alternatives.
The guidelines are based on a planning period of 20 years at an interest rate
determined by the U.S. Water Resource Council. The current interest rate is 6
1/8 percent. The guidelines are based on the total cost, that is, capital cost
plus operation and maintenance cost, in addition to cost factors such as social
and environmental concerns. Further details concerning cost-effectiveness anal-
ysis are found in the references [15, 23].
The second document, which is usually called "BPT," sets the criteria for
the alternative wastewater management techniques. For wastewater treatment and
discharge to surface waters, the basic criteria are secondary treatment plus
whatever additional treatment is required to meet water quality objectives. For
land treatment, the primary goal is to protect the groundwater, and in this re-
gard three separate criteria have been established. First, where the groundwater
is used as a drinking water supply, the aquifer must continue to meet the chemi-
ical, biological and pesticide criteria in the drinking water standards. Note
here that we are talking about the groundwater and are not saying that the water
must meet drinking water standards before it is applied to land. The second
category is where the groundwater has a potential to be used as drinking water
even though it may not be used for that purpose at the present time. In this
case, the chemical and pesticide standards apply, but the biological standards
do not apply. Lastly, there is a general category of groundwaters which are not
now being used as drinking water and would clearly never be used as drinking
water. In those cases, the ten EPA Regional Administrators, working with the
State and grant applicant will develop the criteria for the system.
Where a land treatment system discharges to surface waters such as where
there are underdrains, then the requirements for wastewater treatment and dis-
charge to surface waters must be met. For reuse systems in which the water is
ultimately either applied to the land or returned to surface waters, the appro-
priate criteria for treatment and discharge or groundwater protection must be met.
The EPA Construction Grants Program provides funds for both land treatment
and conventional treatment systems. It does not make grants for "land disposal"
systems. This may seem to you to be a distinction without a difference, but I
121
-------
assure you there is a vast difference between "disposal" and "treatment."
Some Key Issues Under Public Law 92-500
I would now like to turn to some key issues that arise out of these land
treatment requirements under the sewage treatment works construction grants pro-
gram for publicly owned facilities.
]- Isn't EPA inconsistent to require drinking water standards for land
treatment, but only secondary treatment for discharges to the rivers
and streams? ~~
There is no doubt that we have different requirements for different
cases. In the case of surface waters, we are dealing with a fairly dy-
namic situation and typically, in an effluent limited segment where the
secondary treatment requirement governs, we are dealing with some dilu-
tion effect. Where this is not the case, water quality standards re-
quire effluent limitations more stringent than secondary treatment.
Groundwater seems to be significantly different. There is little mix-
ing, and movement is extremely slow, many times in months and years.
As a result, we have to be much more careful to protect groundwater
drinking water supplies. Another important factor is that groundwater
is usually obtained from wells for drinking water. Only minimum treat-
ment, typically only chlorination, is given before consumption. This
is in contrast to surface water which usually receives chemical treat-
ment and rapid sand filtration.
2- Don't most States require secondary treatment before land application?
It looks like about half the States do require "secondary treatment" be-
fore land application. I think, however, a clear distinction must be
made between the term "secondary treatment" as those States are using
it, and the same term as defined by the EPA under PL 92-500. Having
heard many States discuss their requirements, at State conferences, I
think what they really mean is some form of biological treatment follow-
ing plain sedimentation. They do not mean a 30 day average BOD of 30
rng/1 and suspended solids of 30 mg/1. Most land treatment systems have
a storage pond of a considerable capacity as an essential part of the
system. As a result, what we find in practice is that the required bio-
logical treatment is accomplished in the storage pond before land appli-
cation.
3- Does EPA require land treatment to be considered for every grant project?
YES. However, the degree of consideration obviously will vary depending
on the type of project. This requires a great deal of judgment on the
part of the grant applicant. Where sewage treatment is involved, we
expect land treatment to be considered in some detail. Conversely,
there are other projects where land treatment is not a suitable alter-
native, and this can be rapidly determined. Let me repeat, however, for
every project we expect the land treatment alternative to be considered.
122
-------
For example, where there is an interceptor sewer for connection to an
existing regional sewage treatment system, an alternative to the inter-
ceptor may be establishing a small land treatment system rather than a
regional consolidation.
4. Do land treatment projects require a permit?
If the land treatment system results in a discharge to surface waters
such as where there is an underdrain system, then a permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System is required. However,
if there is no discharge to navigable waters, then a permit is not re-
quired by EPA. Of course, many States do require permits for land app-
lication of wastewaters. Even in those States which do not require a
permit from the State Health Department, there may be a requirement in
view of legally established water rights to obtain a permit for land
application of the wastewater.
5. What parts of a land treatment system are grant eligible?
PL 92-500 is specific that the cost of land which will be an integral
part of the treatment process is grant eligible. In a Program Guidance
Memorandum, EPA has defined this as the land used in the treatment pro-
cess, that is, the land which is actually wetted during the treatment,
and has broadened this to include buffer zones and small non-wetted
areas between spray circles. However, the land under access roads and
storage ponds is not grant eligible. The construction of access roads
and storage ponds, as distinct from the land acquisition cost, is grant
eligible.
6. what about the fact that land treatment provides a higher degree of
pollutant removal and treatment of wastewater than conventional treat-
ment such as activated sludge? Should that enter into cost-effective-
ness?
As EPA has defined cost-effectiveness, the answer is NO. As I mentioned
before, there is provision in the cost-effectiveness guidelines to con-
sider non-quantifiable benefits such as social and environmental factors.
Fundamentally, however, the cost-effectiveness approach is to determine
the least total cost alternatives for achieving the water quality ob-
jectives. The logic of doing more costly projects because it results
in more benefit does not hold up when carried to the extreme. For in-
stance, evaporation in condensing, the wastewater would remove substan-
tially more pollutants although at a tremendous cost. This does seem a
reasonable approach to pollution control.
I hope that this presentation has given you an insight into the way the EPA
Office of Water Programs views the role of land treatment of wastewater in the
United States water pollution control programs. Since land treatment will play
an increasing role in treating our wastewater, evaluations of systems like this
large prototype spray irrigation-land treatment system at Muskegon is extremely
important.
123
-------
REFERENCES
1. SURVEY OF FACILITIES USING LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER, Prepared by Ameri-
can Public Works Association, July 1973, No. EPA-430/9-73-006, Office of
Water Program Operations, EPA; GPO Stock No. 5501-0666; NTIS No. PB-227-351.
2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE BY LAND APPLICATION, in two volumes. Prepared
by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., August 1973. No. EPA-660/2-73-006b, Office of Re-
search & Development, EPA; GPO Stock No. 5501-00674 - Vol. II; NTIS No PB-
225-941 - Vol. II.
3. PROCEEDINGS OF JOINT CONFERENCE ON RECYCLING MUNICIPAL SLUDGES AND EFFLUENTS
ON LAND. Held at the University of Illinois, July 9-13, 1973. NTIS No. PB-
227-184.
4. LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE EFFLUENTS AND SLUDGES: SELECTED ABSTRACTS. June
1974. No. EPA-660/2-74-042, Office of Research & Development, EPA; GPO Stock
No. 5501-00890; NTIS No. PB-235-386.
5. WATER RENOVATION. By Dr. Thomas D. Hinesly, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois 61801.
6. LAND TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER - AN OVERVIEW OF METHODS. By Richard E. Thomas,
EPA, NERC, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
7. EXPERIENCES WITH LANDSPREADING OF MUNICIPAL EFFLUENTS. By Richard E. Thomas,
EPA, NERC, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
8. FATE OF MATERIALS. By Richard E. Thomas, EPA, NERC, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
9. "Secondary Treatment Information" (40 CFR 133) published in the U.S. FEDERAL
REGISTER on August 17, 1973.
10. LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER IN AUSTRALIA, THE WERRIBEE FARM SYSTEM, MEL-
BOURNE, VICTORIA. May 1975. No. EPA-430/9-75-017, Office of Water Program
Operations, EPA.
11. USE OF CLIMATIC DATA IN DESIGN OF SOILS TREATMENT SYSTEMS. June 1975. No.
EPA-660/2-75-018, Office of Research & Development, EPA.
12. NUTRIENT REMOVAL FROM CANNERY WASTES BY SPRAY IRRIGATION OF GRASSLAND. Novem-
ber 1969, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. NTIS No. PB-189-774.
13. FEASIBILITY OF OVERLAND FLOW FOR TREATMENT OF RAW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER. Decem-
ber 1974. No. EPA-660/2-74-087, Office of Research & Development, EPA.
14. EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS, Technical Bulletin. March 1975. No.
EPA-430/9-75-001, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA.
124
-------
15. COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY LAND APPLICATION, Technical Report. June
1975. No. EPA-430/9-75-003, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA.
16. FATE AND EFFECTS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN SEWAGE SLUDGE WHEN APPLIED TO AGRICUL-
TURAL LANDS, January 1974. No. EPA-670/2-74-005, Office of Research & Devel-
opment, EPA; NTIS No. PB-231-171.
17. REVIEW OF LANDSPREADING OF LIQUID MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE. June 1975. No.
EPA-670/2-75-049, Office of Research & Development, EPA; GPO Stock No. 055-
001-01024; NTIS No. (not yet assigned).
18. 1972 CONFERENCE ON RECYCLING TREATED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER THROUGH FOREST AND
CROPLAND. March 1974. No. EPA-660/2-74-003, Office of Research & Develop-
ment, EPA; GPO Stock No. 055-001-00807; NTIS No. PB-236-313.
19. RENOVATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT FOR REUSE AS A WATER RESOURCE. February
1974 (work at Penn State, 1963-1969). No. EPA-660/3-74-016, Office of Re-
search & Development, EPA; GPO Stock No. 055-001-00806; NTIS No. PB-234-176.
20. STUDY OF CURRENT AND PROPOSED PRACTICES IN ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. January
1974. No. EPA-430/9-74-003, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA; GPO
Stock No. 055-001-00730.
21. METHODS AND PRACTICES FOR CONTROLLING WATER POLLUTION FROM AGRICULTURAL NON-
POINT SOURCES. October 1973. No. EPA-430/9-73-015, Office of Water Program
Operations, EPA; GPO Stock No. 055-001-00697.
22. ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE TREATMENT.
October 1975. No. EPA-430/9-75-013, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA.
23. COST-EFFECTIVE COMPARISON OF LAND APPLICATION AND ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREAT-
MENT. November 1975. No. EPA-430/9-75-016, Office of Water Program Opera-
tions, EPA.
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460
GPO - U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20460
NTIS - National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, Virginia 22151
125
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, EXTENSION SERVICE - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Harry G. Geyer*
I was quite pleased with the comments that I heard from the preceding
speakers. I think they addressed something which is rather close to our inter-
est. At the Extension Service our primary responsibility is that of education
That is our total responsibility. We think we have the opportunity to assist
in this type of effort since Extension does constitute a national system that
embodies the technical competencies of land-grant universities and their staffs
throughout the United States which embraces about 16,000 professionals We
fj£? "tll1ze research information from universities, experiment stations and
USDA Agricultural Research Service, as well as that of other Federal agencies,
and private institutions. Our responsibility is to interpret this information
and get it to the appropriate audience, be it Federal or local decision makers
to enable them to make rational decisions. Since we are affiliated with the
Department of Agriculture we are interested also in a system that will enhance
the efficiency of agricultural production. We are therefore interested in the
aspects of land utilization or wastewater treatment through the land system
that will contribute to efficient agricultural production. We have cooperated
with other agencies in this effort through the EPA, USDA, University Committee
to address this subject at a conference held at Urbana, Illinois. We addressed
various parameters that we felt needed attention which would give us needed in-
formation to assist decision makers at the local and national level. The Ex-
tension Service at Michigan State hosted a conference on this very subject for
the purpose of broadening understanding of Extension personnel at the regional
level. Participants included the Corps of Engineers and EPA.
From an educational standpoint the Muskegon project is one from which we
can learn many things. Perhaps it is most important to learn more about health
safety. If safe, there should be opportunities at Muskegon where privately
owned land could also be utilized for wastewater treatment. We do need more
information on those wastewater borne organisms that are pathogenic as well as
those that are non-pathogenic. There is the need for information that will
enable us to adequately inform those who are concerned with this potential as
a threat to human health, as well as animal health and from an agricultural
standpoint. In agriculture there is concern for the implications to livestock,
especially on the survival data of pathogenic organisms. We know for example
in California, where irrigation is practiced on grazing land, that the inci-
dence of tapeworms in cattle is much higher than it is on non-irrigated land.
Thus, if it were intended to utilize this system on privately owned land,
or if Muskegon were to utilize this land for grazing purposes, I feel there is
sultural and Naturai
126
-------
a need to establish the parameters whereby health safety can be assessed. We
must have this information.
I feel it warrants reiteration that we must know the implications of land
treatment on health safety. There is the need to better understand the factors
which influence survival and infectivity of the various species of these organ-
isms such as chlorination and ultraviolet radiation. There is a need for infor-
mation that will show economic advantages or disadvantages for using municipal
wastewater. To what extent will it reduce the need for commercial fertilizers?
As long as the recipient, user, or decision maker has questions to which
we do not have answers, it is going to be rather difficult to convince them to
accept a system that is contrary to currently accepted philosophy. We feel that
this is the type of information we need. We have the capability for transmitt-
ing information, but without factual information, it is difficult to accomplish.
127
-------
AGRICULTURAL ^SEARCH SERVICE - U.S. DEPARTMENT
Jesse Lunin*
n
MarvlanH th^t h 91? basis there is a National Program Staff at Beltsville,
Ss WlEh this tlnP^0"515-11^ of^oP'ns and coordinating nation pro-
trams. With this type of organizational structure, ARS is uniquely equipped to
work on programs of regional and national significance. We have the Si lit?
^ts o a°nT? mulft!d!sciPli'?^y approaches to problems with Include soif c en-
inrf\'J ? ^e^ists engineers, hydrologists, chemists, etc. In addition, we
cooperative nrnpr?lth ?* ^ A9ricultu™l Experiment Stations and have many
e?a? lapnHp? JS h' h H1S° ^ Slm11ar co°Peration with many State and Fed-
eral agencies. We have had excellent results with these cooperative efforts.
Phoen?xr I^7,LPrcJeCt J6311"9 Wlth mun1ci'Pal waste management was initiated in
and Jlp'Hp1™ 2 • ^6arS ag0' The C0st of water there 1s extremely high
an -.firm? emand,1s 1"cref,s^n9 ^Pidly- The groundwater table is also dropping at
JdTJtS JIT W!ter Conservation Laboratory at Phoenix, ArizonI ?J-
th f Ky °" ^e renovatlon of municipal wastewater using rapid infiltra-
thI?U9 -?arnS Jesi9"ed to recharge groundwater. Their studies demonstrated
aae Pfffupnt'^J Syf ?h WaS °lng 3n accePtable J°b °f renovating secondary sew-
age effluent and at the same time, adequately recharging the groundwater. Based
™?H • Sil5 +• studies, the city of Phoenix has constructed a much larger
rapid infiltration system for tertiary treatment of a significant portion of their
municipal wastewaters.
In the latter part of 1971, the Blue Plains sewage plant in Washington, D.C.
was faced with the problem of upgrading their sewage treatment facilities and dis-
posing of large quantities of sludge. Other municipalities were facing similar
sludge disposal problems with increasing environmental constraints. Recognizing
land app ication as a viable alternative, a multidisciplinary team was establish-
ed at Beltsville, Maryland to develop environmentally safe practices for sludge
disposal, and to develop guidelines and methods for beneficial use of sludge as
amen Thl'S 9r°UP 1S n°W 3 P3rt °f the B1ol°9ica1 Waste Management
Initial endeavors were directed towards developing and evaluating a trench
method for disposal. Field tests have subsequently confirmed that under most
Research Service-National
128
-------
conditions, this is a very satisfactory procedure. Other studies were initiated
dealing with surface applications of both liquid and partially dewatered sludge.
Results indicated that a good approach to surface application would be to compost
the sludge. Initially the project involved composting digested sludge. When raw
sludge was inadvertently shipped for a couple of weeks, intolerable odors devel-
oped. A challenge was given to develop a composting process for raw sludge in
which no objectionable odors would be developed. With support from EPA and the
Maryland Environmental Services, they proceeded and developed a process which has
already been put into use by two municipalities; Bangor, ME, and Durham, NH. Re-
search is continuing to refine the process for more effective pathogen control
and cost reduction. Besides the composting work, other studies are directed to-
ward control of heavy metals, nutrient benefit to crops, effects of sludge on
physical properties of soil, sludge nitrogen transformation, and survival and
movement of pathogens in sludge-amended soils.
There is another ARS municipal waste management project headquartered at St.
Paul, Minnesota. This project initially was developed to investigate land appli-
cation of sludge for beneficial crop production with emphasis on heavy metal pro-
blems, plant nutrient relationships, effects on soil physical properties, and
overall environmental aspects. Many studies have been initiated to determine
effects on crop yields and crop quality. Perhaps the most unique project is one
designed to demonstrate safe, efficient, and practical methods for land applica-
tion of sludge on sloping terrain in harmony with agricultural usage while con-
trolling pollution of surface and groundwaters through a program of total water
management. This is a complete watershed system on a 16-hectare watershed terr-
aced with grassed backs!ope terraces having separate surface tile inlets. Sludge
storage and application facilities are provided. Drainage is stored in a runoff
reservoir to monitor and control potential pollution. It is designed to collect
information on specific practices for land application of sewage sludge so that
safe management guidelines can be developed for various soil, crop, and climatic
situations in northern climates.
Another project at St. Paul, Minnesota is designed to develop agricultural
practices for maximum nitrogen removal of sewage effluents. Using well-instru-
mented plots, corn and forage grasses are being tested under several irrigation
regimes to evaluate nitrogen balances. Emphasis is being placed on efficient
soil and crop management for maximum renovation under high wastewater application
rates. This effort is supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
At Morgantown, West Virginia, an ARS project is using sludge as an amendment
in the reclamation of strip-mine soils. Here, sludge not only provides an im-
proved substrate for establishing vegetative growth but also tends to minimize
potential pollution hazards through improved water management. Results to date
show that sludge application to an extremely acid strip-mine spoil greatly in-
creased forage yield, even greater than that achieved by chemical fertilizers.
The ARS is also involved with land application of other types of waste. At
Kimberly, Idaho the use of infiltration basins were adapted to the disposal of
waste waters from potato processing plants. More recently, similar approaches are
being developed for the renovation of beet sugar processing wastewaters. We also
129
-------
have studies dealing with land application of liquid and solid wastes from feed-
lots and other animal and poultry production enterprises. There are many factors
in common involved in the development of these various waste management systems.
I-,,™ hi aHmea"s of. ^eping abreast of current research, the Department of Agricul-
ture has developed the Current Research Information System (CRIS). It is possible
to get a computer printout of research in any area given the appropriate key words
When one requests a printout of work related to land application of wastes he
gets a rather enormous stack of material. It makes me wonder whether there is an
adequate job of coordinating this tremendous effort. While we have been working
closely with our colleagues in the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and
with other agencies such as EPA and the Corps of Engineers, I believe we can do a
better job in cooperating and coordinating our efforts.
,K *Llu*enMng,t0 the conversations here today, many questions have been raised
about this Muskegon system. Land application of wastewater is still not a well-
accepted practice in the U.S. A lot of people are raising questions - citizens,
Sata S oivrfh^J a"thon'tie*' and regulatory groups. They all need research
data to give them the background they need for determining the merits of land
treatment and to help them develop guidelines for building and operating systems
SM Wlljhbe effective and environmentally, economically, and politically accep-
table. There is a definite need for complete evaluation of these systems. The
ARS has participated and will continue to participate in such studies to the ex-
tent of its resources.
Before closing, I would just like to make another couple of observations
First, an earlier speaker talked about modeling. Modeling is getting to be very
popular now and I think there is a place for modeling. However, I think we need
to look at it very cautiously. There is no universal model that will apply to a
big system like an agricultural watershed. When working with models, there is a
need to develop scientific questions for which we seek definite answers. We have
to ask the right questions. We have to be able to define the problems. In order
to develop a model, you need to be able to understand the system and describe it
mathematically Once you do this, then it is important to have some good experi-
menta data with which to test and refine that model. Modeling must be tied in
closely with experimentation. Unless you have good experimental data to test
then the computer output has little meaning. I think there is a need for model-
ing because it is obvious that you can't study all phases of large agricultural
watersheds under all of the conditions that a model can help to simulate.
Second, there are a number of research endeavors at Muskegon. It is impor-
tant that they be drawn together to tell the entire story. Data are needed from
the laboratory, the greenhouse, small field plots, large field plots, water qual-
ity studies, etc. Until this information is all integrated to generate knowledge
of the system from the input sewage to the outflow drainage water and the receiv-
ing streams, you have not finished the job. Just because nitrogen has moved in
the soil down the root zone, it doesn't constitute a hazard unless it moves out
into the aquifer or surface waters in excessive quantities. Significant progress
has been made in the development of land application systems for waste management
but many gaps in knowledge still exist. We must continue to stress our research
efforts.
130
-------
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Joseph T. Callahan*
Some of the things that I have heard this afternoon are encouraging in
that a positive attitude has been expressed toward the use of the land to
clean up wastewater.
From my reading newspapers and talking to people, I get the impression
that most members of our society believe that the use of waste products to
utilize the nitrogen and phosphorus is a new concept.
They have forgotten that commercial fertilizers as we know them today
are a relatively new product. I can remember as a boy in New Hampshire
watching the manure wagon going out to the fields in the winter and in the
early spring.
I once spent five years living in an economy where all of the waste pro-
ducts of the people were carried out to the fields, in what we called honey
buckets, to fertilize crops. I lived through five growing seasons, and remem-
ber that one knows when the growing season arrives as long as one has a nose.
I believe that populations that subsist on food fertilized with raw night
soil would make a marvelous study group to determine the types and numbers of
pathogenic organisms. The consumption of uncooked vegetables results in
intestinal parasites. The population accepts this and routinely takes some
type of medicine. The use of wastes is an effective use of a resource, and
it saves energy. I really think that what is happening at Muskegon will pro-
vide good data and information for other places that want to consider waste-
water reclamation as a way of solving a problem.
Others also have been assisting in the solution to the wastewater problem.
For example, experiments at Pennsylvania State University, the ARS at Belts-
ville, a private farm in Pennsylvania, and the farms of the Campbell Soup
Company are restoring wastewater on the land. These are all projects that
have shown positive results that can be applied to other places.
Our groundwater model study was explained by Bill Fleck before lunch.
The model of the groundwater system describes how the normal system works,
and what the impact will be from the additional water. It attempts to trace
the added irrigation water applied to the crops through the soil to the ground-
water system and the drainage water. From the model we should be able to an-
swer the questions, will a groundwater mound be created, and what will be the
rate and direction of movement? In this study, we have built a model based
Regional Hydrologist, Northeastern Region, U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia 22092
131
-------
*»""*' bUt ^'"tlng data
For more than 80 years the Geological Survey has been engaged in studies
of the streams of the United States, the groundwater systems and the chem-
istry of groundwater. It is only in the last 15 years that we have had the
resources to do basic research into the physics of water movement, a basic
question when we think about wastewater treatment.
Our hydrologists have learned to describe mathematically how a molecule
of water will move through the soil and zone of aeration to the water table,
and through the aquifer systems to areas of discharge. They have developed
the different types of models to describe the relationship of the water in
the stream to the water that is underground. They have been studying the
chemistry of the waters. What we are doing here is a culmination of that,
and the integration of all that past work by many specialists, and is a part
of our nationwide cooperative program with local governments. Fifty percent
of the funds is local and the other 50 percent comes from the Federal budget.
Beyond modeling the present system to the point where one can predict
what will happen to water, an important question is how much can be put on
the land? How rapidly will it move out through the drain tiles to the
ditches? Beyond physical movement our interest would be in determining the
movement of various ions through the system. We have successfully modeled
the movement of the chloride ions in a groundwater system at Brunswick
beorgia. We think we have a valid model there and in some other of our on-
going studies. For example, on Long Island we are studying deep-well disposal
of treated sewage effluent. We are doing a similar study in Florida. Also
in Florida, we have studied the possible deep storage of fresh water in a sa-
line water aquifer. A fresh water bubble in salt water was created that consis-
ted of secondary treated waste. In Virginia, we stored fresh surface water in
a salt-water bearing sand. In the process we met a number of problems At
Norfolk, Virginia, the surface water was not compatible with certain ions that
were in clay in the sand aquifer in minor amounts. The chemical reaction that
was taking place was causing the clay to plug the aquifer so that after a while
water could not move. On Long Island in the study of sewage effluent storage
we tracked the movement of the ions to determine direction and rate of movement
In New Jersey, we are studying the chemistry of water where land treatment of
wastes is being tried. In the High Plains of Texas work related to Muskegon
irrigation is our artificial recharge project that has been underway for about
eight years. The studies concern the rate and volume of recharge to the sur-
face and to pits, and the problems involved.
I think that in the long term this study and other studies are important
because we not only conserve water for additional use, but the processes being
studied improve the quality of the water and the entire environment. So, per-
sonally and professionally, I would encourage those people who are working here
and who have been working elsewhere to continue their good work. I think thev
have done very well.
Thank you.
132
-------
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Clyde R. Odin*
I am happy to be here this afternoon to share some thoughts with you regar-
ding the Wastewater Management System at Muskegon and related aspects of fish
and wildlife and the environment.
To the best of my knowledge very few evaluation studies have been made by
Fish and Wildlife people on the type of wastewater system which you have at
Muskegon.
This afternoon I would like to address some items which may be of interest
to you. These include: Comments on the program of the Great Lakes Area Office,
Division of Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, and some impacts
that a treatment system like this one could have on fish and wildlife and the
environment.
The Division of Ecological Services headquarters is in Twin Cities, Minne-
sota. Five field offices under the North Central Region Office include: a
field office at Minneapolis, Minnesota; Lebanon, Ohio; Green Bay, Wisconsin;
Rock Island, Illinois; and East Lansing, Michigan. The East Lansing office was
established in 1972.
The authority for the functions of the Division of Ecological Services lies
in numerous pieces of Federal legislation. Several principal laws include:
1. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958;
2. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (PL-566);
3. National Environmental Policy Act;
4. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956.
We study and comment on environmental and fish and wildlife aspects of:
1. The Winter Navigation Extension Program - CE-DD;
2. Section 10 permits - CE-Buffalo and Detroit Districts;
3. NPDES Permits;
4. Evaluation of harbor development projects;
5. The confined spoil program;
6. Watersheds - PL-566 projects;
7. Investigations and comment on power plants;
8. Western End of Lake Erie Estuarine Study;
9. Great Lakes Connecting Channels Follow-up Study;
10. Comprehensive Studies such as the Maumee "Level B" and;
11.. Review of EIS.
* Area Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lansing, Michigan
133
-------
cedent whlch it may be setting for future wastewater managemen
Man has finally realized that the watercourses, lakes, and seas of this
planet can no longer be regarded as unlimited dumping grounds for our wastes
We have watched our rivers become flowing sewers emptying Into degraded lates
??mi?,H Pnftt0 °Urtail thl'S P°llutio" h*ve, until recently, been9extreme?y
wasle^tP^S/aW ST96 1S 5Umped dl>ectly 1nto the mter and most other
wastewater receives only secondary treatment.
quality problem and as
hep a<. natural resource conservation, projects such as
nificnce Muske9°n take on important national and even international sig-
rea.nn^hil^nLo!0!09!^1 Syl^m f°r the treatme"t of wastewater seems to be a
reasonable answer to the problem. Coastal marshes and estuaries have been shown
SJSnTr end°.US Val"able f°r ^ste assimilation and their worth as tertiary
treatment systems has been calculated at tens of thousands of dollars per acre
Similar economic benefits seem to be demonstrated at the Muskegon Project with
systeJT lncrease ln agricultural production through the spray irrigation
Since the Muskegon Wastewater Management System will result in the improve-
ment of water quality, its primary value to fish and wildlife will be to the
aquatic environment of the receiving waters. Incorporation of tertiary treat-
ment of wastewater can only be expected to benefit fish and other aquatic life
whose life support systems are directly dependent on adequate water quality.
Fish and wildlife are environmental indicators and what is good for fish and
wildlife is good for people.
The treatment project itself will also impact on the fish and wildlife re-
source. As has already been discovered, the area can become quite attractive to
waterfowl. A water supply, available food, and lack of disturbance could make
treatment projects mini-game refuges. Last fall approximately 40,000 ducks and
geese were observed on the Muskegon treatment area during the peak of the migra-
llm' u Vau treatment systems, such as this one at Muskegon, are constructed
throughout the country their combined impacts could be quite significant.
While the incorporation of management techniques could benefit waterfowl
there are also problems and questions that will arise. Studies should be con-
ducted on the effects these systems may have on waterfowl. Will they possibly
pose problems by short stopping birds during their fall migrations? Will there
be any danger of transmission of pathogens or toxic substance through the food
chain? Will crop depredation become a problem? Concentrations of waterfowl
during the hunting season can also be expected to precipitate problems. Con-
trolled hunting may be part of the answer to the problem, since this would pre-
chide a large build up of birds yet provide an important recreational opportun-
134
-------
Not only will treatment facilities be attractive areas for migratory wild-
life; many species of wildlife common to the area will be affected by the
facility.
The system of circular spray irrigation^has substantial amounts of habitat
edge, and again food and water are readily available. Some problems could be
expected here since wildlife populations could explode within the confines of
the treatment facility. Again a controlled hunting program deserves consider-
ation.
It becomes apparent that there will be a tremendous potential for multiple
use planning for wastewater management projects. This type of benefit has been
realized at Woodland, California, where land is leased for agriculture in the
summer and for duck hunting in the fall.
Ironically some of the benefits the facility may have to fish and wildlife
may also create problems for utilization of the resource. The construction of
numerous facilities of this kind may benefit the resource base (that is, in-
crease in total wildlife numbers) but at the same time, decrease its availabil-
ity to the sportsman. The elimination of hunting on thousands of acres which
could be utilized for wastewater management will result in increased pressure on
already overcrowded public hunting areas. This is a problem which would be of
great concern to Fish and Wildlife Managers.
From an ecological standpoint, the spray irrigation method of wastewater
management promises to be one of the better systems yet undertaken. However,
there are environmental costs and problems associated with facility construction
and operation. The large acreage required for the irrigation rigs must be
cleared; service road construction as well as the installation of drains and
collection pipes requires further habitat disruptions. Wildlife habitat is also
lost in areas required for lagoon construction. The wildlife dependent on the
habitat removed will probably be lost, assuming that adjacent lands are at their
maximum carrying capacity.
Mitigation of habitat loss might be achieved by providing wildlife food
patches and cover areas to replace the habitat destroyed during project con-
struction Plants selected should serve a variety of wildlife needs and, ot
course, be suitable for use in the specific soil and climate of the area Lands
adjoining the irrigation areas could be managed for wildlife. The benefits ot
habitat interspersion should be easily achieved on these sites.
In summary, our agency commends the efforts here at Muskegon. We believe
that improvement of water quality is paramount to the protection and enhancement
of our nation's fish and wildlife resource. Wastewater management systems, such
as the one here at Muskegon, offer potential for fish and wildlife management and
enhancement; however, they also pose ecological and sociological problems. Add-
itional study and monitoring is needed to more adequately describe these prob-
lems, but it appears that with proper planning multiple use objectives can be
realized.
135
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Dr. Howard Tanner*
approach to an evaluation of reuse and recycling systems such as the Musk
't'jisfsn? ?„ ?/'"""?? b:°;°9ist •«' • >» S^ SbiMftS
P n 1n the creek •
„
+h M- u- r P 1n the creek • J have some eight years experience with
the Michigan State experimental sewage effluent recycling project where f ml
clearly and strongly an advocate of a similar system. Now I come to you as a
Lse are
rpntH some.9en?ral comments. First, reuse and nondisposal con-
Sh broader tL th^fl * ^T' manaS^ent, and maintenance) are obviously
much broader than the simple one of water and sewage treatment as we usually
'
priaL way Un° ' ' °W6Ver' C6rany are an
th0 M that.mu(rh °f the ri9°r of judgment and critiques being applied to
the Muskegon project and similar projects are not in a similar way applied to
this oroiS dlj;°;a .^natives of sewage treatment. I ask, as Veva?uate
this project that it always be placed in clear relationship to other alterna-
?nrrp;UiL riTef 1n addlti°n ^o the traditional cost benefit ration, that the
increasing cost of energy should be recognized, and that we view all sewaqe
treatment approaches in terms of energy resource costs. I am convinced that
reuse | systems of all kinds will have more favorable cost benefits in light of
today s increasing energy costs. I would hope, in reviewing the Muskegon pro-
ject, that goals would be stated and restated (e.g. of research, demonstration.
management, and socio-economic impact) and that we keep these goals well in mind.
I apologize for offering comments with not having been here for the full
program, nor am I able to stay for the rest of the program. However, I have yet
to hear any comments concerning calculation of what I call a mass balance
Certainly now or soon you should be able to speak in terms of quantities, 'in
terms of quantities out and quantities retained. Then when you say out, you
should be able to document what you mean by out, in terms of values and" prob-
* Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan 48926
136
-------
lems, if any, the out flowing materials are creating.
Something that I find disturbing and maybe unavoidable, although I hope
not, is the concept that every such site has a finite life expectancy. I really
believe that we should have as our goal management of the site to preserve its
useability in food production in perpetuity and that any less ambitious goal is
unappropriate. Not only should we preserve it, we should calculate how to en-
hance it. I sometimes see that missing or contradicted. I think that we ought
to make enhancement and perpetual useability of the land for production a more
clearly stated part of the Muskegon project. We speak of ourselves as ingenious
people and, I presume on the basis of record, maybe we are. I personally be-
lieve that we do have significant ingenuity and many ingenious ideas.
One element that is required as you look at an opportunity to apply your
ingenuity is the element of control. Once control is lost, once "it" trickles
out the end of the last pipe, I don't care how ingenious you are, you simply
have no longer any opportunities. One thing that the Muskegon Project does is
to establish a measure of control on the wastewater over a longer period of time
than in more conventional treatment systems. This control is essential in any
designing of new and ingenious ways to bring about the reconversion of waste
back into productive systems.
We must logically expect that certain materials, previously allowed in par-
ticular waste streams, are going to have to be reduced and/or excluded. Recog-
nizing that in this waste stream, reuse is dependent upon biological activity,
those materials that would inhibit biological activity will be those eliminated
or reduced. I expect that these materials will be identified and controlled,
resulting perhaps in a change in habits of industry and housewives. I suggest
that heavy metals and boron are examples of materials that will have to be low-
ered before being accepted by the treatment system.
I was asked to respond in some way to how the Muskegon System and other
very large land "consumptive users" would be received by the State Department
of Natural Resources. I must respond to that question with other questions.
For example, if we take a system of a number of acres, 500 to 1,000, 10,000 or
whatever, and begin to use it as a site for application of wastewater, what
other uses will remain permissable? Production of food? What about recreation,
hiking, and mushroom picking? What about hunting rabbits, deer, pheasants, and
migratory waterfowl? If you ask my agency how can such systems be fitted onto
public land, I must immediately come back with those kinds of questions. If you
want 500 acres of the Allegan State Forest, we have to know what other uses will
be displaced or not displaced. Another speaker earlier spoke to the desirabil-
ity of establishing a land treatment system where we can use private lands.
Under the proper circumstances farmers would not have to yield their land into
public ownership and yet receive wastewater nutrients and water. I would whole-
heartedly concur.
I share the observation that a lot of speculative opposition to land treat-
ment has developed based on a lack of information. I understand that a substan-
tial argument existed within my agency and within Public Health about the pro-
137
-------
duction of minnows in sewage lagoons, about whether or not as a state agency we
ought to be moving minnows from the sewage lagoons to a state fish hatchery for
consumption by muskies, which would be released in the public waters in two or
three years and later caught by members of the public. I am not an M D , but I
suggest most respectfully that that is stretching it quite a long way in express-
ing concern for public welfare.
When we look at what we may or what we can permanently allow in terms of
the use of products produced from these kinds of systems, it always hinges on
the question of viruses. Heavy metals, persistent organics, and other concerns
may also occasionally be expressed. When they question how other users may use
an area, again the question of virus seems to be paramount. When we talk about
ownership, whether land must be acquired by the state agency, municipality, or
the county, or whether it might conceivably remain under private ownership,
again the question of viruses strikes very hard. The cost of the project in
terms of the size and buffer zone, i.e., the amount of buffer that has to be
acquired, again appears to hinge upon a concern about the transmission of virus-
es. There are instances where I would like to be permissive. I am constrained
by the lack of information on what was reasonable in terms of protection of
people from viruses. I have, at this meeting and at others, heard very, very
little about the development of additional information on the potential for
virus transmission in such systems. I urge that you hit that subject and hit
it hard.
I would offer some observations pertinent to the review of proposed conven-
tional wastewater treatment systems relative to land treatment systems like
Muskegon's. I continue to see a substantial dependence upon chlorine. My
friends in the field of virology point out repeatedly that there is substantial
evidence that chlorination, as presently practiced in traditional sewage treat-
ment systems, is not effective in the elimination of viruses.
I would make the observation that most engineering design consultants are
locked into traditional technology. I don't condemn them for this. I merely
make the observation that they are locked into the conventional system by their
experience and by the training of people that they have hired. They are direct-
ing the choices for form of treatment from senior positions and also obviously
by profit motives. They are afraid that new experiences might plunge us into
solutions with strange new areas of competence, and in the unfamiliar situation
the opportunity to make mistakes and lose money would develop. I don't know
what to do about this, but I feel that I have to make this observation. Again,
going back, I admit that this point has been made by others; I merely restate it.
We have much to gain in terms of public acceptance. But many of the prob-
lems that we face are not technical. They are not biological. They are not
engineering. They are not mathematical. They are social. They are political.
They are economic. Some of them are psychological. This question of land own-
ership: If you are going to really see a proliferation of land treatment systems,
we have to develop opportunities for leaving land in agriculture and in private
ownership. The past experience of the Corps of Engineers in the Thumb Area of
Michigan was in my opinion condemned to failure from the start by the suggestion
138
-------
that the most productive lands that we know in the state of Michigan would have
to be acquired by the City of Detroit.
In working down now to a close I implore that you don't let us still be
crying in the wilderness of the unknown a few years from now. Make sure we do
learn by this experience, but don't freeze the model. This Muskegon model is a
good model, but each system, each set of soils, each set of people, each set of
opportunities is going to require a specific fit. Grasp the concept, not the
model. Grasp the concept of biologically reincorporating these materials back
into the productive and profitable biological systems that we now manage.
I am sure that as we begin to maximize these systems, the Muskegon system
and others like it, that we will see the incorporation of solar or waste heat
from industry and production of electricity. I recognize that Michigan receives
solar energy of a rather low grade variety. It is not an Arizona or Southern
California variety of solar energy. There aren't very many engineering and
mechanical systems that are capable of using this low grade kind of solar energy
productively. A biological system, however, needs to receive only a ten degree
rise in heat to double its productive rate.
It is disturbing to me that as an Agency Head I have been able to do little
or nothing about furthering recycling systems. There has been very substantial
pressure in our State Legislature from the Governor, etc., to approach full
speed ahead with sewage construction grant programs as a billion and a half dol-
lar construction effort. I understand that and accept it, but nevertheless, I
have to bemoan that this hurried application, this hurried speed-up of projects
leaves almost no room for opting for new and nonconventional systems. The only
way we can move this rapidly is to lift off the shelf existing plans and concepts
and translate those into the construction schedule. I don't say that there is
anything that we can do about it. I recognize it as an opportunity that we have
lost. We did not have the design criteria to do otherwise. I want, as head of
the DNR, to have Michigan be in the lead in every appropriate instance toward
resource reuse.
I would close by saying that I pledge to you that we will do the best we
can to make whatever constraints we must apply most reasonable, to be most gen-
erous and still consistent with prudent behavior and public protection. I hope
that Muskegon will provide many of these answers. I thank you very much.
139
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Donald Isleib*
The Michigan Department of Agriculture views the advent of projects like
the Muskegon project from our perspective of advocate for two separate and diff-
erent groups of people of the state. We have a major role in consumer protec-
tion. Three-quarters of our budget and people are devoted entirely to the bus-
iness of protecting the public food supply. We additionally have a responsibil-
ity to stimulate and nurture the practice of agriculture in our state, to en-
courage and stimulate the business and success of food producers in any way that
we can. There has been a great deal said very recently about the divergent
points of view of these two groups, consumers and food producers, which would
seem to put them at odds. We feel that we don't have to enter that argument in
Michigan. 3
We are a food deficit state, in terms of the adequacy of what we produce in
Michigan to feed Michigan consumers. We are about 50 percent food deficit
Therefore we feel that we can be effective advocates for both consumers and pro-
ducers, especially in view of their mutual dependency.
We are a regulatory agency. We have very strong ties to the Food and Drug
Administration and the USDA in terms of our consumer protection activities.
We are authorized by federal and state law to be the agency which regulates
the quality of dairy products entirely. We are subject to surveys conducted by
federal agencies to insure that we perform adequately, but we bear responsibility
for regulating this industry in its entirety. In the area of meat inspection, we
share the activity with USDA. This includes assurance of sanitation of the es-
tablishments which convert live animals to meat, and in the analysis of meat and
meat products themselves to see that they are clean and wholesome as offered to
the consumer. In the area of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, we have
a major effort in being sure that these are up to the standards which are large-
ly prescribed by federal agencies.
Michigan law requires that this agency adopt the standards that are set by
FDA, EPA and the other federal regulatory agencies for residues, contaminants,
and whatever else may occur in foods, such as preservatives, colors, food addi-
tives of any kind, whether advertent or inadvertent. The only exceptions to
these, standards are if we have clear evidence, based on our judgment as to its
technical acceptability, of a need for different than federal standards. Our
experience has been that we can adopt only more protective standards and not less
protective standards. We are not really well equipped to develop standards diff-
erent from those of the federal government. We have largely refrained from doing
ajKrn °epUty Director' M1chi9an Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan
^O .7 I O
140
-------
so except under mandate of one sort or another.
I might point out that it is very important that we identify the difference
between designed additions of materials to food and incidental additions of
materials to food. In the case of designed additions, there is a great body of
evidence which is assembled by the Food and Drug Administration or the EPA, de-
pending on the nature of the additive to food. A more immediate problem and one
certainly more difficult to deal with, is the occurrence of accidental or envi-
ronmental additions; those that occur in food not by design but by accident.
They may be environmental features, contaminants, or naturally occurring ele-
ments which are simply entrained in the whole process of food production. They
may be industrial or man-made chemicals, or pesticides, or any one of an array
of materials which can be identified in food and for which there may or not ever
have been an appropriate testing procedure to determine the acceptability of a
given level of residue in food. I say this because it seems that the things that
have been most difficult for us as a regulatory agency and for the public as in-
formed consumers to accept are those inadvertent additions.
It would seem that when we talk about recycling or regeneration of resour-
ces, we think in terms of food produced in a system like Muskegon's, which im-
plicitly may be something less than absolutely pure.
The agriculture environment is not an aseptic environment. It is not a to-
tally sanitary environment. It certainly does not have the capability to exclude
any element at will which one might hope or choose would not appear in food.
The contaminants that give us trouble and earn the characterization of
chair-bound bureaucrats, who are intransigent from moving from pre-adopted posi-
tions, are those things that appear in food inadvertently. Nobody knows what
the consequences of these contaminants may be, although at times the public has
a pre-conceived idea as to what the consequences might be. Whether that public
is well-informed, or influenced by an opinionated minority, we do have to cope
with the problem of how to rationalize our confidence that the occurrence of a
contaminant in food at regulatory levels adopted on the basis of informed opin-
ion is not contrary to the public interest.
Therefore I hope that the designers and operators of this system and others
like it will share with us the obligation to acquire the evidence necessary for
conscientious regulatory performance.
Until now we have had to extrapolate, interpolate, extend and do all kinds
of things which I think are rather innovative, to establish techniques of con-
taminant surveillance in food production. In the future, we are going to have
to obtain more data as the basis for significant decisions.
By way of explanation for those of you who are visiting us here today and
are not Michigan residents, we have a kind of unique site up in one of our mid-
northern counties, a graveyard. It ivasn't there a year ago. It is presently
40 acres in extent. Its occupants are 22 or 25 thousand dairy and beef animals
that have been destroyed because they were contaminated with an industrial chem-
141
-------
ical that inadvertently got into the food chain. That doesn't include the mill-
ion and a half chickens destroyed or the 25,000 animals that are still standing
alive on Michigan farms which are also known to be contaminated.
The controversy that this kind of experience creates in the public mind (in
those who are asked to accept somewhat arbitrary although basically well-founded
conclusions) as to the acceptability of any contaminant in their food, boggles
the mind. It appears likely that our decisions will be adjudicated in court, in
every kind of court, the court of public opinion as well as the various circuit
and appellate courts in the state.
In contrast to this recent experience, we do hope that we can generate in-
formation that will help us to establish that the products produced from the
agriculture endeavor on sites such as this one at Muskegon are acceptable. We
need knowledge not only related to crops, but also to animal products produced
from these crops.
We know, of course, that fat soluble contaminants tend to accumulate in an-
imals even though they may be present at very, very low levels that are totally
innocuous in feed. The case in point is last year's experience. Other experi-
ence with chlorinated fat soluble pesticides and other industrial compounds is
replete.
I might point out that our regulatory philosophy, which we share with the
federal food regulators, is that 'food has to be acceptable at its point of ori-
gin. We share this with our pollution control and waste treatment friends who
have adopted the idea that dilution cannot be used as the answer to pollution.
We cannot make clean grain out of rat feces-infested grain by mixing it with
other clean grain. We cannot make clean milk out of contaminated milk by dilu-
ting it with clean milk. We have to apply the criteria that we apply at the
point of origin of food.
I have no qualms that the acceptability of agricultural products from the
Muskegon system can be demonstrated. This system represents a very refreshing
and appropriate application of resource management. In our role as regulators
and stimulators of agriculture we are excited about the prospect that society's
waste can be a resource with utility to the farm community. I share with Dr.
Tanner the hope that lessons learned here, and data accumulated here can be ex-
tended so that it need not apply only to lands in the public domain and owned by
the public for this single purpose. That perhaps with appropriate insights and
technology and appropriate guidelines for utilization, private individuals may
also share in the utilization of this resource. We have done some surveying in
our department with a view toward assembling the information necessary to support
progress in this direction.
As I mentioned earlier, the Michigan Department of Agriculture is a regula-
tory agency, and we don't have any budget appropriated for any research function.
If we need to know the answer to some question we conduct a survey, and sometimes
the surveys are imaginative to the point of bordering on research. As an illu-
stration, we have conducted surveys of both elemental and organic chemical con-
142
-------
taminants in food. This includes crops and animal products produced where waste
discharges have been involved.
We expect to keep ourselves informed and we expect to contribute to the
accumulation of these data. We do have good analytical capabilities. Because
of our need to know we think it appropriate that we participate as surveyors.
We certainly expect at some future date to respond to inquiries which will be
directed to us regarding the quality of food produced on a site like this, be-
cause we have the role of food regulation in the state.
Despite our philosophical confidence in the quality of crops from such sites,
I think that we do need those critical books of data, at least to confirm our
judgment. In our experience, at least some of the public is very jaundiced about
putting its faith in the judgments of its employees. I hope that we can merit
their approval of our regulatory decisions.
I can tell you that the staff of our department is as eager as anybody to
see this and counterpart systems succeed and be adopted in their appropriate var-
iations by other communities in other locations. We will help to achieve this
success as our resources permit us to be involved. We can't play a lead role,
but we will certainly help. I really don't think that there is anything more
than that I can say, except that if there are any questions, I will be glad to
answer them.
143
-------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Lt. Colonel Donald Morelli*
I will address the Corps' interest in the Muskegon project, but first let
me try to position myself and the people that are with me today in our structure
so that you can have that for future reference. The Civil Works Director" the
Chief of Engineers, and the Corps of Engineers have been traditionally the Di-
rectorate which was involved in navigation and flood control throughout the nav-
igable waters of the United States, and that has been their historical role I
think you are all in one way or another familiar with that.
of th^rhlnnHn^Vh6 °1r?ct°rat? in the Muskegon project is an indication
of the change in that historical role which is taking place in the Corns of
s?™"6'?™ I 6 Abl9?T J1S?1on Wlth1n that Doctorate is the PlanniK mvi-
Harv affTror ?JS-Stant Chl!f °f that Division> ™d I ^ght add the only mll-
oSr a Lt rnlnnpf Tn %Tntl£ created position, although there was a previous
h£l* H h • K dS and before him a Lt" Colonel Dan Ludwig; I have in-
herited their jobs as part of the job that I have. So now you know where I fH.
are awSre of™^ C°°rdlnat°r for the Urban Stud1es p™gram, which some of you
. .,The Engineering Division is a sister division in that Directorate. A part
of the Engineering Division is the Engineering Management and Urban Studies
Branch which is interested in the technical aspects of the kind of work done
here at Muskegon Mr. Noel Urban, appropriately named, for urban studies inter-
est, _is here and if you have any technical questions, he can answer them. With
him is Lt. Bob Bastian, who is the land treatment man in his office and Dr
Harlan McKim from the Cold Regions Research Laboratory in New Hampshire. Dr
Me Kim is the program director for all the research and development money for'
land treatment in the Corps of Engineers.
There are three places where we are interested in the Muskegon project-
Firstly, as you know, we run our own Army posts and installations. We are look-
ing at this system as a model for an inexpensive way to do the land treatment on
our Army posts. Secondly, we have application for a Muskegon type system in the
recreation areas which are run by the Corps at the many Corps recreation facil-
ities around the United States. We have also been called in the past, the pol-
luters of local environments. We wish to stop that. Thirdly, we need informa-
tion on land treatment in our Urban Studies Program. You may not be familiar
with this Urban Studies Program. In 1971, at the direction of Congress, we
Former Assistant Chief, Planning Division, Civil Works Program, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, D.C. 20314. Replaced by Colonel Ted E. Bishop.
Current Second Brigade Commander, USATC Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473.
T44
-------
looked at the possibility of land treatment in six areas of the United States.
These were called Wastewater Pilot Studies. We have finished all six and they
are presently in my office being put together to send forward to Congress.
Then they will also be sent to the governors of the states involved for their
use.
Our Urban Studies Program evolved from the formation of the Wastewater
Pilot Studies in 1972. We recognized there was more to an urban area than just
its wastewater management. This was the most significant problem at the time
and to a great extent still is. Our Urban Studies consider flood control, flood
plain management, wastewater management, water supply, harbor and waterway de-
velopment, beach and channel stabilization, lake protection, and recreation.
The most significant thing to me on my visit here was covered in the intro-
duction. As a soldier I am accustomed to the philosophy of a hero. I didn't
think I would find any heroes when I came to Muskegon, but I sure did. The
people who got this project off the ground, the political, governmental and
commercial and community people who put it together are, in fact, heroes. I am
very interested in how that took place.
Our District Engineers in the Urban Studies Program are supposed to be the
catalysts that bring together all these diverse organizations and groups in any
urban area to achieve the same kind of results for all these things I just
listed in one comprehensive program within three years. I think aside from the
technical aspects of the project, I am vitally interested in the people who
were the heroes here. How they came about putting all these diverse interests
together. I plan to take some of their experiences back and have our Institute
of Water Resources look into that a little more.
I will end with that, and thank you very much for inviting me. If you have
any questions, the other gentlemen, whom I mentioned, will be here and they can
help you out. Thank you very much.
145
-------
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
George L. Braude*
The Food and Drug Administration has responsibility for the safety of
food and for the protection of the human and animal food chain from contami-
nation. The Bureau of Foods of this agency and the Technology Office I
belong to are both regulatory and research oriented. As Don Isleib has
stated, the FDA conducts surveys on dietary intakes and contaminants in our
diets, and may establish rules, regulations, or tolerance for contaminants,
including the ones potentially derived from the use of sludge on land. A
number of potential problem areas can be visualized for an operation such as
Muskegon's, and I would like to summarize my thinking regarding each one of
these areas.
First, there are the heavy metals, a widely publicized issue. My own
belief is that the heavy metal problem may be much more acute where sewage
sludge is used, as opposed to a Muskegon effluent/wastewater type of situation.
For one thing, cadmium levels in the Muskegon sewage are relatively low. In
addition, a given amount of contaminant is spread over a much larger land area
than normally used for sludge application, so that fewer pounds per acre are
applied. The potential for plant uptake and food chain contamination is thus
reduced. There are, of course, circumstances such as high pollution areas,
or cities in which cadmium, lead or some other metal may be a problem. In
addition, difficulties may be experienced when sludge, which has accumulated
in holding basins, is applied to land, and on a much smaller acreage than is
practiced with wastewater.
The Food and Drug Administration is conducting a number of surveys on the
dietary intakes of adults and selected population groups. This includes the
well-known Market Basket Surveys, as well as other surveys orientated towards
specific heavy metals or pesticides. The latest survey shows that the cadmium
intake of the average adult in the U.S. is about 70 micrograms per day. This
is just about the same quantity which the World Health Organization (WHO) has
designated as the maximum safe dietary intake of cadmium. (WHO has provided
weekly intake limits, which I have converted to a daily basis for comparison).
We have no knowledge of the effects on people who do not have average dietary
habits or cadmium intakes, or are old, very young or ill. For this reason,
the agency is concerned about any increase in cadmium levels in the food chain.
As stated, hazards from land application are largely related to sludge, but
in planning wastewater systems such as Muskegon's and those in other areas,
cadmium uptake by crops must be considered.
Lead in the U.S. diet is also approaching a critical level and an in-
crease, especially for infants, would be of concern. There is relatively good
Chief, Chemical Industry Practices Branch, Division of Chemical Technology,
Bureau of Foods, Washington, D.C. 20204
146
-------
evidence that when this metal is applied to land with sludge which is high in
phosphorus and/or sulfide, plants do not take up lead through their root
systems and translocate it to edible parts. However, direct physical contam-
ination of crops and ingestion by grazing animals is of definite concern. We
are also interested in dietary intakes of mercury, arsenic and selenium, but
little is known about the effects of use of sewage containing these metals on
the food chain.
The other area of interest and concern is microbiology. I am not know-
ledgeable in this field, but FDA microbiologists feel that the use of any
form of sewage on crops in the human and animal food chains could cause prob-
lems, and that care has to be exercised in the pretreatment of sewage and in
its use. For a situation such as Muskegon's, the degree of aeration and res-
idence time of the sewage are important parameters. So is the potential
problem of the by-passing or short circuiting of treatment systems. The
degree of chlorination, and its effects on the survival of pathogens, espec-
ially viruses, is another area of interest and concern.
Ascaris ova, or worm eggs, are known to survive for years on land, with
life expectancies ranging up to seven years, according to the literature.
Many people, especially in foreign countries, have contracted the disease
which has then spread throughout an area. There are indications that ascaris
ova are also prevalent in many U.S. sewages, and I don't think that the U.S.
population would tolerate being exposed to these pathogens in their foods.
Other pathogens such as salmonella are also known to be prevalent in
sewage, as are T.B. and a variety of viruses. Contamination of the food chain
by any of these materials could be a real hazard. This is the reason our
microbiologists feel that, where sewage and sludge are applied to land, crops
which are eaten raw should not be grown for at least 3 years after the last
application. Crops which would be cooked, but which would be taken raw into
the kitchen, and placed on a kitchen table cutting board, etc., may also re-
sult in contamination of, say, bread or salads. These are some of the guide-
lines which have been under consideration. Admittedly, there is only limited
information on the direct correlation between sewage-borne contaminants and
food-borne diseases, which may be partly due to the difficulty of epidemio-
logical studies in this area.
Another major type of contaminant is widely distributed and perhaps more
prevalent in Muskegon sewage than in some other areas. These are industrial
and environmental organic pollutants or contaminants. It is my understanding
that about 60% of the flow for the Muskegon project comes from industrial
sources. It is also established that plant effluents are usually monitored
for such things as BOD, COD, suspended solids, etc. Very rarely have these
plant effluents been analyzed or monitored for specific organic compounds,
which may or may not be harmful or toxic, and which may or may not accumulate
in the human and animal food chains. Examples are, for instance, the chlori-
nated phenols, chlorinated benzenes, polychlorinated biphenyls and similar
materials. These may go through industrial and municipal sewage treatment
systems largely unchanged, or only partly modified, and may be taken up and
contaminate the food chain.
147
-------
In some instances, these materials are formed during chlorination within
a plant, such as in a paper mill, or of the effluent. Our primary concern in
this area will be for direct physical contamination of crops, to which the
sewage would be applied, and for domestic animals, especially cattle, which
are allowed to graze on pastures or fed fodder contaminated with these mater-
ials. Potential accumulation and biomagm'fication in the fatty tissues of
animals appear probable.
A joint project sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency deals with these issues. It involves the
analysis of tissues of cattle which were allowed to graze on pastures treated
with Denver sewage sludge for several years. Studies will involve heavy
metals as well as organic contaminants.
A major difficulty in attempting to define what type of organic material
gets into the food chain is that analytical methodology which is normally used
to detect known contaminants may not be directly applicable, and would have to
be modified to determine the presence of some of the other contaminants. This
is especially so if we are talking about slightly water-soluble substances,
though such materials have less potential for being biomagnified in fatty
tissues of animals than less water-soluble compounds. Nevertheless, it may
require sophisticated techniques to find and identify these chemicals, some
of which may be carcinogenic.
In summary, the risks and hazards involved in use of sewage on land and
crops in the human food chain have to remain a continuing concern. Starting
with the planning phase and continuing through the day-by-day operation of the
system, persons responsible should be aware of the hazards and conduct opera-
tions in such ways as to minimize risks. To achieve this, the system has to
be operating properly to prevent microbiological and other contamination. In
addition, crop selection is of primary importance. Field corn, for instance,
is a good example of a relatively desirable crop, provided the grain obtained
is properly processed. With overhead sprays, such as in Muskegon, there is
the potential of direct physical contamination, especially microbiological.
The drying of corn at elevated temperatures seems to be a desirable way of
killing pathogens present, provided the temperature and times are selected
properly. The other extreme, of course, would be to attempt to use crops
such as strawberries, or leafy vegetables such as lettuce, where we know that
serious microbiological contamination will result, and the potential for
direct chemical contamination to enter the food chain is also quite real. The
non-leafy vegetables are probably in the middle, but are also considered to be
an unacceptable risk at this time. So the answer is to conduct operations and
select those parameters which will make the system a real asset, and not a
potential hazard.
148
-------
CRITIQUES
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICS
Charles E. Pound*
As I traveled over the site this morning, and as I heard the speakers yes-
terday, I am duly impressed with the immensity of this program, size of the pro-
ject, and the effort that went into making it a success. However, in listening
to various people who have been involved in the past discuss parts of this pro-
gram, I get conflicting ideas about the planning of the project. Of course,
this depends upon their particular vantage point, but it results in some confu-
sion as I've tried to evaluate the system. So with the diversity of planning
concepts and a minimum of available data, some of the thoughts that I have may
not be as germane as I think.
The first thing that enters my mind is, what can we use from this site in
other places? As a practicing engineer, I would like to refer to this system for
certain things. What can I refer to? One of the things that the states are im-
posing in many places is a very rigorous requirement that secondary treatment
precede any type of land application. The level of preapplication treatment
achieved here, at least insofar as federal definition is concerned, is not nece-
ssarily secondary treatment. Yet in this case, you are producing a usable end
product and an acceptable effluent from the land treatment system. Why must we
go to secondary treatment before application? I would like to see this point
stressed in publications and discussions that will result from this project. Em-
phasize the level of preapplication treatment, the discharge quality, the fact
that the method results in a usable end product, and that it is being sold on an
open market. It is something that I can use, and I am sure other engineers can
as they present these programs to communities around the country.
The second point involves reliability of data, such as coliform levels,
etc., that are being measured from the drain tile versus the percolate above the
saturated zone. Are we overly optimistic by measuring and projecting by what is
happening now? Is dilution of effluent by groundwater affecting the results? It
may be that by not monitoring the unsaturated zone above the groundwater we are
facing the time in the near future when the effluent will deteriorate from pre-
sent levels. I do not know the travel time between the most remote point where
water drops and the nearest underdrain. However, with 500 feet between drains,
the travel time may be months or even years. Because of the delay in travel time
for percolating irrigated wastewater through soil, its unknown mixing with ground-
water, the incomplete understanding of the many pollutant absorption and exchange
reactions occurring in the soil, and spraying for only part of the year, it is
* Vice President, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Engineers, Palo Alto, California
94303
149
-------
™%r fpff?11 ^^ ^V^1*1" has come to an equilibrium at which time drain-
age water (effluent) quality measurements will be most meaningful.
Coming from California, I am quite familiar with many areas that are using
gravity-type irrigation systems, either by flooding or row crop. In time, with
and as nearly level as you have here, and with increasing maintenance costs of
spray ngs, you may find it desirable to consider some portions of this land for
potential gravity systems; in other words, take out the spray system, level the
our^LtHhi'itTrf ?hth 9™1ty-type systems, thus reducing power consum tion.
tern JaLJh r •? KV011^ n0t be as 900d' but the ver^ nature °f the sys-
tem means that it would be a less intensive energy consumer.
h iH-InfKrmatl°u abuut the treatment in the aeration cells, settling ponds, and
holding basins has been nteresting. We have heard that something like 25 pe?-
cent of the nitrogen is lost in aeration and settling units, and more is lost
during long-term storage. From what I can understand, the long-term storage,
depending on the length of storage, eventually results in very low nitrogen
levels, 3 mg/1 -N or less. If this is the case, are we really saying that all we
need is long-term storage for nutrient removal? Or, are we saying that this phe-
rZ^hi5 SPeC^ t0 thlS Particular site? The waste here is not necessarily
comparable; in fact is not comparable to other waste streams around the country
WP r™ea i Ve7 9 Proportion of paper mill waste. If it is something that
we can apply elsewhere, possibly to small systems where storage could suffice for
nitrogen reduction down to 3 mg/1 of total nitrogen, we need to know how to de-
sign a system to achieve this goal.
I realize that all the research to date is really directed toward measuring
what is happening, rather than the mechanism of what is happening; this was very
pointedly made yesterday. Mechanisms are still something that we should consider
in terms of research, however. I may be stepping on Chuck Sorber's area of dis-
cussion, but as I understand it, the aerosol studies that were made earlier in
the program were cursory in nature, and were not very conclusive in terms of the
objectives set for them. This is a controversial area in which additional work
should be done, either here or in similar types of systems elsewhere.
The last point that I would like to see followed up on, involves EPA's drink-
ing water standards. They categorize organics into alcohol extractive and chlor-
oform extractive hydrocarbons, and I did not hear the organics categorized in
this manner during discussions yesterday. Rather, very specific insecticides,
pesticides, and whatnot were measured, or maybe I just missed the data. As an
engineer needing to design a system to conform to EPA standards, I can't necessar-
ily utilize such specific information and translate it to another site because
interest there may not include that particular insecticide or pesticide and EPA
standards are in terms of broad categories. What I am really trying to say is
that if information is also collected and reported on broad categories of organ-
ics, we can more easily transfer this information to other places.
With that, I will stop and let someone else have the floor. I do want to
say I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to hear the various esteemed
speakers who presented information, thoughts, and research efforts that either
150
-------
have been done or are being done here at Muskegon. I thank you very much.
Q. (Y. Ara Demirjian) Chuck, you didn't make any remarks about the econo-
mics.
R. (Charles Pound) In terms of economic comparisons, let's first look at
capital costs with secondary treatment as a base. Secondary treatment
usually costs about $1.0 million per mgd of design capacity excluding
collection and transmission. We find this true up to something equal to
or less than the 40 mgd category. Here at Muskegon, we are going beyond
secondary treatment in terms of the effluent quality, because we are
also achieving nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals removal. In this
particular case, we are looking at a cost somewhere in the neighborhood
of $700,000 per mgd of treatment capacity at the time of construction.
exluding collection and transmission facilities. Certainly capital cost
for this type of system is less than we would normally anticipate.
Secondly let's look at operational costs with conventional treatment as
a base. The operational costs are substantially less at Muskegon than
we would expect for conventional types of treatment for two reasons.
First, you have a simpler method of treatment than in most conventional
types of treatment systems. You are not segregating sludge and handling
that as a separate item which generally is an expensive operation. Sec-
ond, you are running your effluent onto an agricultural site and the re-
venue from the crop will more than cover the cost of operation of your
planting and other agricultural activities, including power for irriga-
tion. These two things result in a lower total cost to the community
per gallon of wastewater treated than we would expect with a convention-
al type system.
Q. Do you think you could gravity irrigate with an infiltration rate of 5
to 10 inches per hour?
R. (Charles Pound) I think you probably would have difficulty initially,
because of the very low organic content in the sandy soil, i.e., very
low water holding capacity of the soil. I grew up on a farm consisting
of sand like that; it wasn't very good soil. In fact, it was very poor.
We did, however, gravity irrigate. We didn't have furrows that were as
long as you would like to see in an operation like Muskegon. The farmer
before us open-cut the ditches and put a lot of water very rapidly into
each furrow. We, on the other hand, rotated crops and through this
method built up the organic content of the soil. Further, by plowing or
discing to a depth of no more than 8 to 10 inches, we eventually formed
a "plow-pan" that aided in retarding the percolation of water. We were
then able to irrigate in a much more satisfactory manner but still using
a ridge and furrow type of irrigation.
You have to have slopes that are probably approaching 0.4 percent in or-
der to get the water to reach the other end. I would say that we pro-
bably couldn't go more than 600 to 660 feet, with the furrows on the
151
-------
sandy soils, otherwise we would have most of the water in the front end
of the furrow. The reason I brought it up was because I think that af-
ter having started irrigating with a spray machine and building the soil
by plowing back the organic crop residue, eventually you should build
up enough organic body in the soils so as to reduce permeability and
increase water holding capacity, thereby making furrow irrigation more
feasible. Also furrow irrigation should reduce energy costs.
Q. In you desire to design other land treatment systems, what one or two
high priority items do you need to know that you might get from Muske-
gon? Could you reemphasize this?
R. (Charles Pound) It is very difficult at this time to obtain detailed
information about what is going on at Muskegon about operations, per-
formance, and unit costs of operation of the system. We would like this
information.
Q. Do you feel that this information about Muskegon is available? I mean,
is this something that is known?
R. (Charles Pound) I think it is available. It just isn''t readily avail-
able at this time. I think that effort will have to be made by someone
to make this information available in a usable form. I like the concept
of being able to present to a community the idea that you don't necessar-
ily have to go to high levels of pretreatment before going to the land.
The land in itself can be a treatment process, a unit process, rather
than considering it as a depository for water that has already been sat-
isfactorily treated. This information and this concept being presented
in proper context across the country will be something useful to pro-
fessionals in changing the minds and thinking of people. I think a lack
of such information was one of the things Muskegon County and others
have found as a real obstacle when trying to sell*land treatment as a
viable alternative in their community.
Q. (William Bauer) I think you made an important point in suggesting that
there may be a possibility of going to a ridge and furrow system. I
know that they did compare a number of alternatives for irrigation before
settling upon the center-pivot alternative.
The basic reason for going to center pivot irrigation was probably be-
cause of savings in labor. A ridge and furrow system typically does re-
quire more labor than using the spray rigs. In a 10,000 acre banana
plantation in Honduras, we recommended to the New Orleans steamship com-
pany operators that they install a fixed pipe irrigation system on 2,000
acres of land currently irrigated by ridge and furrow. Even though they
were paying only $.45 an hour for laborers, it would be cheaper for them
to put in a fixed pipe system at a cost of $1,000 an acre.
R. (Charles Pound) I would like to comment further oh that. I am not crit-
icizing the initial design. Had you selected a ridge and furrow design
152
-------
initially, you would have had to remove all of the wood debris so that
you could level the land to a point where you could in fact irrigate with
it. The way it stands, you certainly couldn't do that. I don't know
whether you could even have irrigated very well by ridge and furrow with
that sandy material, as free draining as it was at that time. You al-
most had to start with some other means of distributing the water ini-
tially. It may be something to look at in the future, however, as the
energy and maintenance costs for operating the spray rigs increases.
Q. (William Bauer) Another reason that ridge and furrow irrigation was not
selected, as you pointed out, was the difficulty in obtaining uniform
application in the sandy permeable soil.
R. (Charles Pound) That is correct.
Q. You made a comment in relation to states requiring secondary pretreat-
ment prior to the acceptability of land treatment for use by communities.
Is this your impression in California and places where effluent irriga-
tion is used extensively? What is the attitude of state agencies and
communities in relation to the permissibility of various forms of pre-
treatment that have been given to the effluent prior to its application
on land?
R. (Charles Pound) Unfortunately, California is a rather "mixed bag." In
one system I am working with now, we are irrigating 2,400 acres of crop-
land, all of it by either flooding or by ridge and furrow irrigation.
It is not sand, but a loamy soil. There are stratums of sand below it,
but the upper surface is a loam. There the discharge requirements are
40 mg/1 BOD and 40 mg/1 suspended solids prior to application. Also
included is a 50 MPN per 100 ml coliform requirement on this water be-
fore application, even for gravity application. It is not for the pur-
pose of protecting the crop, but for the purpose of protecting the pub-
lic that may enter the site. You can avoid the disinfection requirement
by fencing so that the public cannot enter the site. The crops are of
feed, seed, and fiber category.
Crops of higher order would require pretreatment of irrigation water to
30 and 30 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids, and then to 20 and 20 mg/1 BOD
and suspended solids, including 23 MPN per 100 ml for coliform. You can
graze dairy cattle on a pasture irrigated with that particular water,
after initial drying. However, this is still a restricted use irriga-
tion water.
If you desire to grow food crops which might be eaten raw, then there is
some conflict between regulatory agencies, but the State Health Depart-
ment recommends secondary treatment (a well oxidized effluent), coagula-
tion, filtration, and disinfection to 2.2 MPN/100 ml before the water can
be used for irrigation.
Q. But is there any consideration of a system as a treatment system itself
153
-------
versus just irrigation of water with minimum standards for irrigation?
R. (Charles Pound) That depends on the engineer, and I think the situation
there is much like it is anywhere else. Most civil engineers tend to
look more favorably at conventional treatment systems because of their
professional training. The irrigation systems simply offer a means of
disposing of the water, particularly where communities were landlocked
and they could not discharge to a continuing, all yearround stream
Sometimes, nearby surface water is an intermittent stream at best, or
else it deadends in a sink. They simply cannot discharge into it.
Therefore it is a matter of convenience, or of necessity really, to put
it on land, and the concept of utilizing the soil as a treatment system
unfortunately has not progressed too far. Thank you very much.
154
-------
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
G. Morgan Powell*
I would like to congratulate the Muskegon County Commissioners for their fore-
sight, fortitude and pioneering effort that went into this project. They certain-
ly can be proud of their system. Based on what I have seen and heard the last two
days, it is my opinion that this is one of the best treatment systems in the world.
To achieve high quality renovated wastewater and do it cost effectively is quite
an accomplishment.
I wrote down some of the things concerning the system that I thought were
important. Chuck Pound and I have discussed the various aspects of the system
over the last 24 hours. To avoid duplication, I will confine my remarks to the
land application portion of the system and the soil-plant system.
My first comment is a summary of my understanding of costs. Starting with
effluent out of the storage lagoons, the irrigated farm/land treatment part of the
system cost the County about $800,000. The $800,000 cost included $340,000 for
farm operations; $80,000 for farm equipment; $150,000 for operations, maintenance,
and power for irrigation systems; and $230,000 for repayment of 25% of costs of
land, irrigation system and drainage system (25% of $2.55 million at 6.5% for 20
years). That cost does not consider the 75% grant money. It is important to re-
alize that the additional cost for repaying the 75% grant share of construction
would have to be added to obtain a more accurate picture of cost to society.
Dr. Demirjian gave figures yesterday, indicating an expected return from
crop sales of $500,000 to $900,000 per year for this year. (Editor's note: Ac-
tual -1975 return was about $700,000) I would expect in the future that they may
well exceed a million dollars for a return. Therefore, the irrigated farm/land
treatment part of the system may be a net moneymaker while simultaneously provi-
ding additional treatment to the wastewater. I think cost effectiveness is some-
thing that we've got to continue to look at in the future.
My next comment regards sampling to determine the effectiveness of the soil-
plant system. I would like to see an accurate picture of what is happening.
Chuck has already mentioned that he would highly recommend that you use a method
of extracting the unsaturated soil water by the use of interception lysimeters.
Dr. Erickson, I believe, also mentioned this yesterday. I recommend use of this
method to measure the percolate as it passes beneath the root zone but before it
reaches the groundwater.
Sampling water in the drain, to determine treatment effectiveness, can be
misleading. This drainage water consists only partly of effluent percolating
Project Manager, Irrigation Division, CH?M Hill, Engineers, Denver, Colorado
80239
155
-------
through adjacent soil. Percolated effluent that reaches the groundwater at a
point midway between two lateral drains, must travel a sweeping flow path much
longer than the 250 feet straight line distance to reach the drains. Following
this flow path may take several years. The actual time depends upon the depth of
the water bearing material and the recharge rate. The drainage water then will
not be representative of the equilibrium treatment condition and certainly will
not accurately reflect seasonal or even annual changes.
Supporting evidence that the drainage water quality does not reflect treat-
ment from applied effluent is that its chloride content is less than one-half of
the content of wastewater applied to the surface. Since chlorides have very
little interaction with the soil-plant system, what we are getting out of the
drain really is groundwater from the site diluted with some percolated effluent.
While I suppose that the non-application of wastewater in winter with its four
months of winter precipitation would tend to perpetrate some dilution, it seems
unlikely that the present 2 to 1 dilution will continue. Measurement of the per-
colate from the unsaturated zone just above the water table is a much more direct
method of determining the actual treatment occurring. I believe that predicting
expected future treatment based on lysimeter data will prove more reliable than
predictions based on drain water quality.
Another reason for measuring the quality of water flowing in the unsaturated
zone with lysimeters is that it can give a fairly accurate picture of the effec-
tiveness of treatment on a daily or weekly basis. It can be an operational tool.
Used properly I think it could be a tremendous aid in scheduling the application
of water and fertilizer on a daily or weekly basis.
In addition to the need to establish a mass balance for BOD and other para-
meters, mentioned by Chuck, we need a mass balance for water and nutrients. We
need to know what is happening to these parameters, where the sinks are, and what
change occurs in the lagoons, treatment cells, soil profiles, etc. We need to do
more to quantify the apparent significant diluting effect of high quality ground-
water inflows to the drain system laterally from around the site or upward from a
deeper aquifer.
We need to know more about the dynamics of nitrogen utilization, retention,
and release in the soil. If nitrogen is being removed and stored in the soil pro-
file now, then over a long time period the rate of storage is going to decline.
It will eventually reach a steady state situation where the nitrogen "in" is equal
to the nitrogen "out" with little change in storage. We need to know if this is
occurring so that early measurements of treatment will not give us misleading data
for long term operations.
I recall that in the early stages of the Flushing Meadows project a 70% ni-
trogen removal was reported. Apparently they were getting tremendous storage of
nitrogen in the soil profile. After the project had been in operation several
years and it had reached a steady state condition, the nitrogen removal efficien-
cy dropped to about 30%. This was a significant change in nitrogen removal, and
data from early stages would indicate nitrogen removal efficiencies more than
double that possible in the long term.
156
-------
You have done some experimenting with different crops at Muskegon. I would
suggest that you continue and expand that work by considering crops like Christmas
trees, pulp wood trees or other tree crops, forage crops (if there is a market)
as well as the grain crops. All of these have applicability to land application
systems. In the future other crops may be equally as good or better than corn
for treatment and revenue. I have seen indications that corn may be a poor ex-
tractor of nitrogen at the low concentrations in the applied water, and other
crops may be more suitable under these conditions.
There is little information available about how to design an operation plan
for the land phase of wastewater treatment systems. As consulting engineers we
need to know how to schedule the wastewater irrigation and fertilizer applications
around the planting, tillage and harvest operations so that both wastewater reno-
vation and utilization can be optimized. A possible study on optimizing opera-
tions was mentioned yesterday. You can't forget that it is going to rain, too,
and you've got to factor that probability into the operation. All of these things
need to be considered in developing an operation plan and establishing loadings
for an evaluation of land application. Such an operation plan can become rather
complex, and computer modeling can be helpful. A model that could be used with
the proper inputs to suggest management alternatives under a wide variety of pre-
cipitation, evapotranspiration and soil conditions would be most helpful to con-
sulting engineers.
Lastly, we need the research results. We need the published results from
this project in our hands, so we can refer specifically to it. I don't intend
to step on anybody's toes, or point the finger at anybody, but where are the re-
sults? The handouts that we received indicate that approximately $200,000 alone
was spent on preconstruction studies. I presume that this money was for the eval-
uation of the center pivot irrigation machines. The irrigation rigs have been in
for a year and a half. Writing the specs, getting bids, delivery and set up of
equipment would have taken six months to a year. Therefore the preconstruction
research must have been finished over two years ago.
As a consulting firm working with designs for land application systems we
have had the need for results of the center pivot evaluation in some of our pro-
jects. The only place we can get any information is from a copy of the specs
that were written as a result of the research. That doesn't tell us the results
of the research itself. We need the backup data to determine applicability to
other areas and form our own conclusions for establishing our designs and speci-
fications. I would ask EPA, you put the money into it, when can we expect the
results from the research projects that are being funded?
The research opportunities are fantastic; nearly unlimited for a project
such as the one here at Muskegon with about 5,000 irrigated acres. Practically
an unlimited water supply is available here at the site. Think how many test
plots and pilot studies we could put in, with this kind of a system. You could
take every scientist in the country and put them here in Muskegon. However, I
don't think that we can even afford to do all the research that has been specifi-
cally mentioned here. The funding is just too limited to pour in the money that
it would take to do all the research that has been mentioned at this one confer-
157
-------
ence, on this one project.
Where to put our research priorities is the question. There are also other
projects which have research opportunities. We must not forget that there are
two other land application alternatives, infiltration/percolation and overland
flow, for which we also have information needs. This need and opportunity was
mentioned yesterday and I emphasize it here for your consideration. I wish we
had another week to spend here, to sit down in a select group and prioritize those
research needs. Unfortunately, we don't have that opportunity. We've got to fi-
gure out some way to get the best answers for the fewest dollars.
_ That concludes the remarks and comments that I have. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity to attend and to have been asked to comment on this system. I repeat that
I think this is one of the best wastewater treatment systems in the world. Musk-
egon County and others who were involved with making this project a reality can be
proud of that.
R. (Y.A. Demirjian): I would like to make a remark at this time about the
research information. We in Muskegon so far have reported on our work
every year. But this has not been in the form of a publication. It has
been difficult to report on a system that really had not operated fully
until this year. We are working on a publication now.
158
-------
AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT
Leo Walsh*
I would first like to say that a day's experience here has not made me an
expert in terms of land application of effluent. We have been doing some work
in Wisconsin on land application of effluent, but the majority of our work has
been on sludge application. As was indicated earlier, many of us are inter-
ested in land disposal systems and I very much appreciate the opportunity to
visit this site and make a few general remarks and observations.
At this point in the program I find that about two-thirds of my talk has
already been covered, but I will try not to repeat too much and highlight some
of those things that I think need emphasis, especially some of the remarks
that Dr. Powell made.
First, I would like to emphasize that this kind of demonstration-research
project is not set-up in a way that we can identify very many of the underlying
fundamental principles, so it is difficult to translate these results to other
sites in other areas. A couple of the speakers yesterday made a point of the
hazards of translating some of these experiences directly; I would like to re-
emphasize that.
There seems to be a lack of published information on some of the things
that have gone on in this project. For example, someone indicated that they had
data on the effect of rate of effluent on crop yields. Perhaps it is available
somewhere, but it hasn't come to my attention. Many of us are looking at this
project as the one to really demonstrate the feasibility of using irrigation
systems to dispose of effluent on land. Therefore, I think we should work a
little harder in terms of getting out interim reports or other published infor-
mation as quickly as possible.
In terms of translating the data, we must recognize that this is a unique
site We have climatic and soil conditions and cropping opportunities here
which are unique. As a result it would be difficult to directly translate
these results to other areas, except to a very limited extent.
The soil characteristics are, in particular, a critical component of any
kind of system such as the one we have seen in the last few days. Small diff-
erences in soil type or soil texture markedly change the infiltration rate and
the percolation rate, and this in turn determines the amount of effluent that
you can apply. Unless you are on the very sandy soils as we have at this site,
you are going to have horrendous problems if you attempt to apply amounts of
effluent which greatly exceed the amount of evapotranspiration. In fact, as you
* Chairman, Department of Soil Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706
159
-------
fheDosib 11U 12ain Soils.^Pica1 1" the Midwest, you move
trom the possibility of applying four or five feet of effluent annually to oer-
-; t0Then inChf\a rate that Closely approxLtes the evPap0-
t. These soil characteristics then do play a vital role
°
cirfa WH hM6 many ?1ffe?ent ^P65 of C™PS tfna^ "* can consider. We could con-
fn??lSUhle Cr°PPing Wlth Winter annuals or winter P^ennials in some cases!
followed by a regular annual crop. Also, we could consider long term perenn-
ials such as forages or trees, as Dr. Powell indicated.
We have quite different effluent characteristics at this site than we do
°f VieW the most i-Portlnt of thes are s
are s
-i i low nitrogen content of the effluent - most other treatment
'
nnc
Ca??o ra n^ n6 ^T* Th hl'9her 1n nitr0gen than that used here (2)
the ™J™ ™H 11 vary depending upon the kind of water that is being used n
suDDlv Tf , inJ'nf UntneS ?at m!9ht ** aM™g cat^ons to the Pub1^ water
er? nihPr «m sodium enters the system through industry, water soften-
nH^tS ™l- ST^6S' a Sa lmty Prob1em mi'9ht develop. You must have an appro-
SP nnL ? ? ?**+ S°^m *nd the Other cat^ons ™ order to Preve"t the de-
velopment of salinity in some of our soils.
Innkinn .Thnt^h"63^ °PP°r^nity, we certainly have some possibilities in
looking at both the physical and chemical changes that occur in soils as a re-
p"JL°Lhlg5h rates °f w^er application. Several speakers have already indi-
cated that things like infiltration, percolation, water storage in the root
a?naVp!nU f"Ihy ?re.factors that can be alte^d and likely will be altered
as a result of the land application program. These are long-term considerations
that would not have high immediate priority in terms of research. However
they are items that need to be considered here or elsewhere in terms of the
long-term research needs for land application opportunities.
In the chemical area Dr. Ellis mentioned yesterday that effluent can in-
fluence some of the fundamental chemical properties of the soil. Two chemical
properties which are extremely important are the pH and the redox potential or
oxidation-reduction reactions. The pH is likely going to change in many areas
Use of hard water will, for instance, result in liming that soil. During some
periods of time, reducing conditions probably occur, and with more water and
with tighter soils, we will have longer periods of poor aeratiThese factors
vitally influence release of nutrients, availability of nutrients to plants, and
the solubility of many of the trace metals and other heavy metals. I don't see
any immediate problems with these factors, however, some long-term changes may
occur which may be of concern or academic interest.
In my one day's exposure to this project, I have concluded that the most
pressing and immediate problems revolve around the management of the nitrogen
With nitrogen, some "trade-offs" are going to have to be made. The level of '
160
-------
nitrogen in the water returning to the streams should be as low as possible,
but at the same time the level of N in the irrigation water has to be high
enough to optimize crop yield.
For those of you who aren't soil scientists, I should point out that ade-
quate plant nutrition requires that you have a sufficient quantity of nutrients
in the soil, and that you have a sufficient concentration of the nutrients in
the soil solution. In other words, the water being taken up by the plant must
contain an adequate concentration of the nutrient, in order to have the plant
adequately supplied with the nutrient in question. Nitrogen has always been a
problem because of the fact that it's quickly converted into a Teachable nitrate
form. On these very sandy soils, some leaching of nitrogen probably occurs,
especially when irrigated with high rates of effluent. Leaching is recognized
by everyone as a serious problem, but many scientists would not immediately
envision low concentration of N as being a potential problem.
All of our soil test recommendations and all of our fertilizer experiments
have been based on rate studies. We add differential rates of N, such as zero,
100, 200, and 400 Ibs/A. We generally have had no concern about the concentra-
tion in the soil solution, because of nitrogen fertilizer rates and with the
relatively low amount of water normally used, either through irrigation or pre-
cipitation, concentration is always high enough to adequately feed the plant.
But when you use rates of two, three, four, or five feet of effluent over a
season, you may have the concentration of N low enough to limit plant yields
even though the total N applied would generally be enough to produce an optimum
yield. For instance, you could apply the recommended rate of N, perhaps 100 to
150 pounds/A, in effluent but have it so diluted that the plant would literally
starve for nitrogen. The plant has to expend energy in order to move nitrogen
out of solution and get it into the plant root, especially when the concentra-
tion of N in solution is low. If an application of 2 acre-feet of effluent
containing a relatively low amount of N results in N deficiency, it may appear
that the addition of more effluent, perhaps 4 acre-feet, would improve the sit-
uation since twice as much N would be added. However, this may make it worse
since the extra water may lower the amount of oxygen in the soil and keep the
soil a little cooler. These two factors would actually mitigate against the
uptake of that nutrient by the plant. When you have lower oxygen levels and
cooler temperatures you have to have a higher concentration of nutrient in
order to get it into the plant root in adequate supply. This is a problem that
is going to have to be looked at more closely before you can develop a program
to successfully manage the N for this system.
I think that application of N in the irrigation water has some possibili-
ties and it should cut down on leaching losses. However, a certain minimum con-
centration of N in the water moving through the unsaturated zone will still be
required to get an adequate supply of the N into the plant.
We have some experimental work going on at Hancock, Wisconsin, on a very
sandy soil which is similar to Muskegon soils. In this study, we measure all
the inputs in terms of nitrogen and irrigation waters and we determine water
loss by evapotranspiration and drainage. Also, we measure all nutrient losses
in the drainage water. We are trying to optimize both water use and nitrogen
161
-------
HEALTH EFFECTS
Charles A. Sorber*
At the outset, I would like to commend Muskegon County and the EPA Region V
for two things: First, I was here in 1971, and quite frankly, I had some doubts
that the Muskegon Wastewater Treatment System would ever become fully operation-
al. This has been my first opportunity to return to the site, and I can assure
you that there have been tremendous changes which are attributable, I am sure,
to the dedication of people in Muskegon County and the Region V EPA personnel.
To be precise, these groups have worked very, very hard during the past four or
five years for this project's success. I am sure that these dedicated people
will continue this level of effort.
Secondly, I think that those same two groups of people should be commended
for this meeting. It certainly has been a very informative meeting and, for
some of us, it has been a very pleasurable experience, also.
I find myself in a very peculiar situation today. My charter is to critique
the land disposal health effects research here at the Muskegon County System. As
you probably have noticed yesterday and today, there has been little, if any,
research conducted which is directly related to health effects. I will admit
that some of the monitoring information that is being developed along with some
of the pre-system design studies and their refinement will provide some of the
answers which will be valuable in evaluating the health effects. Unfortunately,
much of the early information never got used for that purpose, since the main
objective was to get the system going.
In addition, and I think most importantly, when this system was designed
every effort was made (within the knowledge available at that time) to minimize
health effects. This might be exemplified by two things that you have seen: the
nature of the spray trajectory from the center pivot rigs (which is directed
downward as opposed to up or out) and the under drain system that was installed.
Both of these design conditions were intended to minimize health effects from
this particular project.
Some years ago my colleagues and I developed the contention that the health
effects with regard to land application of wastewater could be minimized by pro-
per site selection and proper system design, as long as the system was designed
so that secondary treatment was provided and that adequate disinfection was prac-
ticed. We also pointed out that there were many facets of the problem about
which there was little or no information. Although lack of information should
not preclude the design and operation of spray irrigation systems, there certain-
ly was and continues to be a requirement to conduct research on these potential
* Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering and Director, Center for App-
lied Research and Technology, Universith of Texas, San Antonio, Texas 78285
162
-------
problem areas. This would permit the development of data which could be used to
answer many of those public health questions which will be raised. My heart was
warmed yesterday, as I listened to many speakers say that we need this data now,
because the public is asking these questions either in terms of lawsuits or in
terms of criteria for practical application of this process.
About a year and a half ago we developed a list of research needs as they
applied to different aspects of land treatment and that list is probably just as
valid today as it was then (see Tables 1-3). Unfortunately, some of the things
on this list are not applicable to the Muskegon site because of the design con-
siderations at the site. As we go over this list I will attempt to point out
the areas where active research is underway.
TABLE 1. Public Health and Environmental Research Needs Related to Chemical
Components of Wastewater.
The evaluation of the persistence and translocation of heavy metals in soils at
wastewater land application sites.
The characterization and evaluation of the persistence and translocation of pes-
ticides and trace organic constituents of wastewater (and their metabolites) for
their potential environmental impact.
The comprehensive investigation of possible mechanisms for the removal and/or
conversion of problem inorganic species, especially nitrogen, which may tend to
accumulate in groundwaters.
First on this list in Table 1 is the evaluation of the persistence or trans-
location of heavy metals in soils at wastewater land application sites. There
have been several studies on this, and it has been determined, and I think agreed
to by the scientific community, that heavy metals at concentrations normally
found (and there are exceptions to this rule) in liquid effluents pose no imme-
diate problem at land application sites. By and large, the heavy metals are re-
tained in the upper few inches of the soil. One potential problem was alluded to
yesterday by George Braude as he described the possibility of cadmium and possi-
bly zinc accumulating in the plant tissue and thereby causing long-term problems.
I suspect the one unanswered question in this area (which could be adequately
addressed) is this: "Is there a life expectancy to a particular site based on
heavy metal application and accumulation in the upper levels of the soil?" Again,
that is not an immediate problem. It is something that will develop through the
monitoring programs at sufficient numbers of sites around the country.
You also heard yesterday about the characterization and evaluation of per-
sistence and translocation of pesticides and trace organic constituents in waste-
water, their metabolites and their potential environmental impact. There has
been considerable work done on a limited number of pesticides. In addition,
163
-------
there has been a study sponsored by the Department of the Army at the University
SpsSI^r1; ?h erkel?y' The reSUltS °f that Study ind1cat^d that the selected
pesticides at the normal concentrations found in wastewaters at military instal-
lations (probably higher than normally found in domestic wastewater) did not
appear to pose any problem. Most of the pesticides were hydrolozed or biologi-
cally degraded rather rapidly, and they never seemed to reach the groundwater.
_ The question was raised yesterday about other organic constituents. It was
pointed out then that some of these compounds may be carcinogens. Quite frankly
relatively little work has been done along these lines. Again, I am not too sure
whether it is of immediate concern, but it is certainly something that should be
considered for the long term. This work will probably develop through the ground
water monitoring programs at existing sites.
Today you have heard a discussion on the investigation of the removal of in-
organics, particularly nitrogen from within the soil matrix. Nitrate nitrogen
and sodium movement through the soil and possibly into groundwater are important
from a public health point of view. This problem is really not applicable to the
Muskegon site because of the nature of the design. Contamination of the around
water is not of primary concern due to the under drainage system. I was glad to
hear the data yesterday which indicated that the outlying wells seem to be im-
proving in quality. This is probably due to the direction of flow (drainage) of
some of the ground water to the collection system away from the wells. Thus I
would not anticipate any major ground water impact at the Muskegon site at least
from a public health point of view.
TABLE 2. Public Health and Environmental Research Needs Related to Wildlife
and Cattle
The evaluation of long range effects of land application of wastewater on plant
animal and disease vector ecology. , ;,
The evaluation of the capacity of wildlife, including migratory birds, to carry
infection or infectious agents great distances from the land application site.
The evaluation of the effects of human and animal pathogens and organic and inor-
ganic wastewater .components on domestic food animals raised on feed crops at
wastewater land application sites. ;
Another group of items explores research requirements as they relate to wild-
life and cattle (see Table 2). Research on the ecological effects on animals is
important ,but the specific need depends upon the particular site. The first two
items in Table 2 are important for the long range. Projects are underway or have
been initiated oh this work. ' In the late '60's the Penn State researchers did
some background work on birds and other species at';their original wastewater '
164
-------
spray irrigation site. Now they have developed a new project which will look at
animal ecology on a site which has not been irrigated, but is scheduled for irri-
gation, I am told, at the beginning of next year. I think the potential problem
with migratory birds might be a more realistic area to study here at Muskegon
due to the thousands of these migratory birds attracted to the site.
The last item in Table 2 deals with evaluating how human and animal patho-
gens and organic and inorganic wastewater components can affect domestic food
animals raised on wastewater irrigated feed crops and pastures. Fortunately,
there is a considerable amount of work being done in these areas. Yesterday, Dr.
George Braude described a grazing study being conducted in Denver which is par-
tially funded by FDA. Grazing studies would not be needed at the moment at Mus-
kegon because there is no grazing of animals. Parasites may be the biggest sin-
gle potential problem if you were to graze animals on the site. On the other
hand, it would be important to document the safety of the marketed grain grown
here for animal feed.
TABLE 3. Public Health and Environmental Research Needs Related to Human
Pathogens.
The development of sensitive, quantitative pathogen detection techniques (empha-
sizing viruses) for water, wastewater, soils and spray irrigation aerosols.
The evaluation of the survival, distribution and hazard of aerosolized pathogenic
microorganisms disbursed by spray irrigation equipment.
The conduct of a comprehensive epidemiological investigation at a relatively
large, operating wastewater land application site.
The comprehensive investigation of pathogen survival and transport in soils, with
particular emphasis on viruses.
The investigation of pathogen survival on crops and other vegetation.
This last listing (Table 3) probably has generated the most interest at this
and other meetings. Its area is the public health and environmental research
needs relating to human pathogens. First, it is vitally important to develop
sensitive quantitative pathogen detection techniques with emphasis on detecting
virus in wastewater, soils and spray irrigation aerosols, and drainage water.
There was mention yesterday of this "mystic" term "virus" or "virology" by one of
the speakers. To be certain, environmental virology is not practiced in conven-
tional water and wastewater bacteriologic laboratories, and I think we must recog-
nize that the ability to quantitatively detect human viruses is very, very limit-
ed. There have been tremendous technical strides during the past five or six
years, but the technology has a long way to go. For example, while the hepatitis
virus is'the virus of concern with'regard to wastewater and water, it cannot be
165
-------
isolated, grown, or identified. Therefore, many researchers study model viruses
like polio. This raises questions such as: "Does the model virus (most likely
exogenously added) respond like indigenous viruses, particularly hepatitis?"
Probably not in most cases. Obviously, there is an urgent need for work in this
area. There was a surge of research in this particular area of virus detection
technology in the late '60's and early '70's and, quite frankly, there is very
little going on right now (in terms of money invested in it). There is some re-
search going on, but it is primarily residual research.
The second item listed in Table 3 deals with the evaluation of survival and
distribution and hazard of aerosolized pathogenic microorganisms dispersed by
sprayjrrigation equipment. This area, I think, is probably the most important
pressing problem today. The answers do not exist for some of the important ques-
tions raised. Likewise, the need for the conduct of the comprehensive epidemo-
logical investigation at a relatively large operating wastewater land application
is obvious.
Now let me attempt to appraise you as to the current research activity in
this area, as I understand it. First, there was an attempt here at Muskegon sev-
eral years ago to define the amount of physical aerosol created by the irrigation
equipment that was selected for use in the system. We found out today that this
work was completed and that a report will be forthcoming. Concurrent to that
(1972), the Army Medical Department initiated a project at the Brookhaven Nation-
al Laboratory which was designed to define the quantity of physical aerosol gen-
erated from a variety of spray irrigation equipment. This project looked at cen-
ter pivot rigs with two different kinds of nozzles, both high rise and low rise
solid set systems, and the rain gun. Pressure was varied and testing was done
under various meteorological conditions. The point of that research was to look
at or determine which variables had the greatest impact upon the amount of physi-
cal aerosol generated. In that sense the study was limiting since the amount of
physical aerosol does not consider the biological content or impact of that aero-
sol. The results of that study will soon be published, and sadly to say, there
are people in this room who are going to remind you that I have made that state-
ment for a year and a half. I will not make excuses for the contractor but the
Army Medical Department received a draft copy of the report in April of this
year.
The findings of this study indicate that there are differences in the amount
of aerosol generated by different spray equipment. However, the differences are
not all that great. You might be surprised to know that under most meteorologi-
cal conditions the least amount of aerosol per unit volume applied was generated
by the rain gun. This resulted under test conditions including high pressure,
high volume, and broad distribution of water. The difference in amount of aero-
sol generated by the high pressure rain gun and the low solid set system (which
happened to be the system that generated the most amount of aerosol per volume
applied) was about one and a half to twofold.
In addition to the research on physical aerosol generation, there was ano-
ther study which involved field work on the biological aspects of aerosols gen-
erated at a land disposal site under various meteorological conditions. That
166
-------
work was completed not too long ago and some of the results will be presented at
the Water Pollution Control Federation Annual meeting in October. The report
itself should be available through NTIS within a few months.
A more important development is a recent contract that has been awarded to
Southwest Research Institute and is jointly funded by the Army Medical Department
and EPA. Its purpose is to conduct a comprehensive epidemiological study at a
spray irrigation site. The site selected for this study is Pleasonton, Califor-
nia. This is the study that Dr. Albert alluded to yesterday. This study is a
long study; it is going to take time. Epidemiological work takes a lot of time.
It is going to take at least two years before it can even begin to generate suf-
ficient data that might be meaningful. It is a large study in the sense that it
will not only consider the epidemiology of a test population and a control popu-
lation, but it will attempt quantitative analysis of the wastewater and the aero-
sols for chemical and biological constituents. Hopefully, some kind of correla-
tion can be developed between the physical and biological data and the epidemio-
logical data thereby precluding epidemiological studies elsewhere. This study
may cost as much as $2 million of which a million and a half to a million and
three quarters will go for the epidemiology alone. This is a very expensive pro-
position.
I think it is also important that we know a lot more about pathogen survival
and transport in soils, with viruses in particular. Sufficient information is
not available regarding viruses in soils and viruses on crops and other vegeta-
tion.
As I indicated, probably the most important problem facing land application
today is the aerosol problem. And lest I be accused of picking on spray irriga-
tion alone, I can assure you that I am equally interested in aeration chambers
of activated sludge plants, aerated ponds and trickling filters. I think it is
critical that we have comparative information amongst various types of systems.
I think I will stop there although I could probably go on for about two more
hours. I'll attempt to answer questions at this time.
0 Why do you think there hasn't been more work on the mechanisms for de-
tecting viruses? Is it because nobody has any ideas or what? What is
the bottleneck?
R (Charles Sorber) I think it is like so much else in the research busi-
ness You generate a need. It takes four years to get people interest-
ed Money becomes available and the interest wanes (something is being
done). The researcher gets the money and he goes to work. It may then
take another three or four years for the results to trickle out. The
results get out and everybody looks and says gee, yeah, we really didn t
do enough. We need some more work done, so now we are back to the first
phase of the cycle, generating more interest to generate more money. In
the meantime, you know, the money folks have established other priorities.
The same thing has happened with virus investigation. It took four years
to get EPA to have enough interest to put in the big money. The re-
167
-------
searchers went to work. The results are published-and voids have been
recognized. Back to generating interest. After a few years researchers
have finally gotten some money and Dr. Albert mentioned three studies all
funded within the last nine months.
Q. (Bob Bastian) Chuck, given the conditions of a spray irrigation system
on 10,000 acres or so, a highly aerated wastewater and extensive storage
after which the effluent is to be chlorinated. We are only going to
give you $2 to do any kind of health effects work, where are you going
to spend your $2?
R. (Charles Sorber) I'd do it on the chlorination, if I understand your
conditions. So you say it is going to be chlorinated.
Q. (Bob Bastian) It is being...
R. (Charles Sorber) It is not being chlorinated everywhere, Bob.
Q. (Bob Bastian) I am talking about here. Okay. I am asking where are
you going to spend your $2.
R. (Charles Sorber) I'll spend my $2 on optimizing the chlorination pro-
cess. Is a given count of bacteria an adequate level? Not necessarily.
Cnlonnation is notoriously poor for some of the potential problems we
have been discussing.
Q. Chuck, how much money was spent on aerosol research?
R. (Charles Sorber) About $400,000 over the last three years.
Q. How much?
R. (Charles Sorber) About $400,000 over the last three years. There is
your first $2. I understand your concern. The point is that this type
of work takes a lot of money. This is a real problem. In the study
that is going to be undertaken at Pleasonton, California, they are rais-
ing cattle on the land and I presume they are marketing them. It would
be of value to follow that meat just as far as it will go, right? Nope!
I am sorry to say that the funded study did not consider this fact. It
is not that the funding agencies don't care about cattle raising. They
looked for a site where the project objectives could be realized. It
turns out that there is catte there, but the money is such that if a
cattle study were to be included, it would take a lot more money. I un-
derstand your question; my answer is that the study will not encompass
that area because it was not built into the study, as much as many would
like to have it included.
168
-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTES AND ENERGY CONVERSION
Ralph H. Scott*
Thank you, John. I too wish to take this opportunity to thank the Muske-
gon County group and my fellow workers in EPA for such an excellent program.
Cramming so much information into such a short time, as we have absorbed and
experienced over the last day and a half, took a lot of planning. Being last
on the program finds me with the same problem mentioned earlier by others.
Profound observations that I jotted down yesterday relative to what was being
said have largely been shot down, but not entirely. There are a few observa-
tions left.
Concerning energy conservation, I did not find much in the hand-out mater-
ial or discussions here which dealt with this important subject. I certainly
think that anything written covering the actual operation of this system should
deal in part with energy considerations. Energy research is in this year and
will be for years to come. EPA in fact has a lot of money for energy research.
We are finding that energy research funds can be applied in certain of our pro-
ject areas in the pulp and paper industry. Perhaps energy research funds can
be applied to studies at Muskegon.
We need a true evaluation of the major costs of the Muskegon System. For
example, where are the major energy costs? What may be done to reduce these
costs? I am sure that anybody from any other community looking at a system
such as this is going to be vitally interested. We mentioned earlier the idea
of the Chinese coolie hauling night soil. As soon as we get away from very
simple operations the costs are going to increase. Dr. Demirjian mentioned
that a considerable cost savings was being obtained in the partial operation
of two of the aeration cells to yield adequate treatment. This should be doc-
umented and receive additional study.
In listening to all that was discussed yesterday, I tried to arrive at
some conclusion as to what were the real critical factors in deciding whether
the project would have ultimate success. There was, of course, the initial
design stage and certainly that was a significant undertaking. Evidently this
was satisfactorily accomplished with the only evident problem at present appear-
ing to be the small debris that is continually plugging the spray distribution
systems. The treatment afforded is evidently sufficient. The reserve capacity
of the storage system is evidently sufficient.
I would suggest perhaps, that traveling screens or a fine screen ahead of
the pump stations might help alleviate the nozzle plugging problem. Such
screening can be costly at the rate water is pumped at Muskegon, but in the
Chief, Wood Product Staff, Corvallis Field Station of Industrial Environment-
al Research Laboratory, USEPA Corvallis, Oregon 97330
169
-------
long run such an investment may pay off as far as insuring dependable operation
of the irrigation rigs.
It seems to me that the soil chemistry, the cropping and the crop water
studies, mentioned by Drs. Ellis and Erickson are important as is the ground
water monitoring. Where are these studies headed? Will they be tied in with
the work that the U.S. Geological Survey has been doing? It seems to me that
such a tie in will be critical in deciding whether or not we get a satisfac-
tory, acceptable output from this operation here at Muskegon.
We need to know what is happening to this water. Bill Fleck mentioned
that there is both a shallow ground water aquifer and a deeper sandstone water
aquifer at Muskegon. Will toxic wastewater contaminants like metals, organics,
or high nitrites penetrate into this lower sandstone aquifer? If so, this type
of wastewater treatment system will have an appreciable limitation.
I have been trying to point out areas of the Muskegon system in my cri-
tique that I think might have been better defined. I mentioned already the
matter of water balance. We should be talking in pounds per acre or pounds
per million gallons. These are common terms that are used certainly in all
effluent guidelines considerations. We might as well get used to them, even
though our thinking soon must be in terms of kilograms per cubic meter. In
order to define anything in pounds per million gallons or pounds per thousand
gallons, you have to know the water balance. I heard it mentioned here that
you put a gallon on, you get a gallon out. Obviously the situation is not that
simple. It is quite important, I think, to know what is being applied; the
amount of evapotranspiration. What is taken off in the crop itself, and what
is actually going out the underdrains? Other participants here have suggested
better ways that this balance can be measured and determined and certainly, I
think, those proposals should be followed.
There has been considerable mention of aerosol problems and certainly this
should be considered. One thing that occurred to me while I was out on the
town -- Is there room for an entomologist on this study? Is there an insect
problem? Is this insect problem going to be something that other communities
will be curious about? What is the drift of mosquitos and flies and pest in-
sects that may develop in an area such as this? A small study or a more com-
prehensive study by an entomologist might be worthwhile.
I have heard little mention of the sewage characteristics that make up the
sewage load. What is the industrial waste load? What are the types of indus-
trial wastes? I presume, Mr. Bauer, most of this was defined at one time or
another. Were the wastes characterized as to what they contained? Without
having that background, it is very difficult to comment on it. Obviously, some
things stand out like the chrome wastes from the tannery up at the small irri-
gation site. Obviously, the source of chrome can be controlled. Is it con-
trolled? What are the restraints on the tannery as far as production of chrome
wastes? It isn't necessary that the Wastewater System take everything that
industry wants to throw into it.
Are there pre-treatment restraints on the industry? What knowledge does
170
-------
the Muskegon County Wastewater System have of what those industries are putting
in the system day by day? Is there any monitoring of the industrial effluents
put into the city system? These things all become important because there
generally is a considerable lag in land treatment systems between the time you
overload them and the time they begin to fail. You may eventually begin to
face problems from high sodium. What can we do about getting rid of high so-
dium? Typically your pulping wastes are going to provide high sodium. Your
bleaching operation is going to provide high sodium. Your chemical recovery
end is going to provide high calcium and probably high magnesium. The wastes
themselves contain chlorinated lignins that produce color. Right now the
system is removing this color beautifully. We saw the example this morning.
How long will this continue? You know, the soil is evidently acting as an
exchange resin and is taking out these color bodies and pretty soon maybe it
will begin to return them back as they reach saturation in the soil. You may
be accumulating, at least in the heavier soils, a lot of refractory organics
that currently are not moving out. This in itself can eventually have its
effect.
Now seeing that pulp and paper as well as wood products are my bag, I must
mention a few land treatment experiences that we do have in this industry and
that may offer some information that can be useful to this project.
In the pulp and paper field, we have used irrigation for disposal of pulp-
ing, paper, and combined pulp and paper waste, as well as for disposal of con-
densate, and even steambath condensate from veneer plants. In the lumber in-
dustry wastes from log ponds have also been disposed of on land. You can't
imagine how raunchy some log ponds can get where they prepare wood for saw
mills.
Boise Cascade at Wallula, Washington, produces 8.3 million gallons of
waste per day from a Kraft linerboard plant. They built a primary and a se-
condary system for treatment of their wastes prior to discharge to the Columbia
River. They subsequently shut down the secondary system after developing a
contract with an alfalfa grower and a big vegetable grower in the area to take
this 8.3 million gallons per day of primary treated effluent. Boise Cascade,
however, is using a 20 to 1 dilution with Columbia River water so the growers
are handling something in the neighborhood of 170 million gallons a day for
irrigation. They haven't quite licked the problem of what to do with this
wastewater in the off season. They say that they are going to build lakes with
it. I can believe that when I see it.
Oxford paper of West Carleton, Ohio, is another example of irrigation dis-
posal of pulp and paper wastes.
The Weyerhouser Company at Springfield, Oregon, has used spray irrigation
for condensate disposal when they are limited with what they can do with their
aerated lagoon effluent in the summertime when the flow of the Mackenzie River
is low. They lift the condensate part of the load out of the lagoon and go to
condensate irrigation disposal.
Those of you in soil and crop sciences certainly should have access to
171
-------
Louisiana State University's study of the International Paper Company situation
at Springhill, Louisiana. That I think was a classic study for its time, that
dealt with land irrigation disposal of Kraft waste.
We currently have an interesting project with Simpson Lee Paper Company
at Anderson, California. The project involves an irrigation disposal system
with collecting drains. Its purpose is to let their treated wastes meet the
State and Federal permit requirations when discharged. They haven't been able
to meet these requirements with normal secondary treatment. They are prepared
now to use a 400 acre irrigation system for additional treatment of the secon-
dary effluent when the flow in the Sacramento River lessens and requires that
they reduce their loading. They are going to crop the land, and they will keep
irrigating it during the growing season regardless of whether they need to, to
meet the permit, in order to keep the crops growing.
In still another example, Weston Paper of Terre Haute, Indiana, has irri-
gated neutral sulfide wastes onto land.
Having been associated with waste disposal in the pulp and paper industry
for quite a few years, I can cite a few disastrous instances of irrigation or
soil disposal. I don't think we need to identify the corporations involved.
In one instance a pulp mill producing sulfide wastes ordinarily disposed of
them as a road binder. During a rainy season, their storage lagoon filled and
there was no need for roadbinder. They found instead a very convenient gravel
pit. Can you imagine pumping six or seven percent solids liquor into a gravel
formation? They ended up redrilling about 30 farmers' wells in the neighbor-
hood. They polluted that many wells. A little bit of that stuff goes a long
way.
There was another instance of a mill polluting its own water supply which
I thought was a classic. It is almost like having a mill put their outfall
sewer above their water intake. There was quite a bit of study done on this
too, sesmic surveys and all, before they began operations. Evidently the
interpretation of their pre-design studies were wrong. They pumped their waste
across the river into seepage lagoons and said, "Well, it is going to come back
to the river." It did all right, but a lot of it came right under the riverbed
and into what they found out later was a basin area that was feeding their well
supply. All of the water that they used for paper production and for their
drinking supply came from this well. They totally wiped it out. The last I
heard, five or six years ago, was that they were still making experimental
pumpings and the well was still polluted. So with those precautionary notes,
I think I'll conclude.
Q. (S. Poloncsik) I'd like to open it up for a little general discussion
at this point for Mr. Scott or for any of the other speakers. I might
say one thing in listening to Mr. Scott about the disaster that he talk-
ed about. I think that there is something we need to guard against at
Muskegon in terms of the chemical industry. I think some studies have
been done on this. But I think this is an area that we need to be con-
cerned with. You don't mix certain chemicals that might upset the land
172
-------
treatment operation. If you are getting used to a certain balance of
chemicals, a certain amount of sodium and a certain amount of other
things, and you change that balance, you know, you might wipe the whole
thing out. I think Dr. Demirjian wants to comment on that.
R. (Y.A. Demirjian) You don't take all the wastes from industry as they
might care to give them to you. Pretreatment may be required. We run
tests for compatibility of their expected wastes with our current
wastes and with the crop-soil filter. Industries that want to expand
their chemical processes give us a component sample from their waste.
We proportionally mix it with our wastes and do some compatibility
studies. We take the proportionally mixed wastes and do a greenhouse
study to see the effect on the crop-soil filter. We have used corn,
alfalfa, and other test crops. As a result of our tests, we have asked
them to do certain pretreatment. They are accepting this fact, and
they have hired their own consulting firms to plan and install adequate
pretreatment to comply with our waste acceptance levels.
Q. Mr. Scott, these disposal systems that you mentioned at Boise Cascade
and Simpson-Lee; were they planned disposal systems in the classic
sense, or were they intended to be land treatment systems which you
call disposal?
R. (R. Scott) For the pulp and paper group I would characterize these
systems mostly as disposal systems as differing from systems designed
to produce a treated discharge. For example, pumping the waste liquor
into the gravel pit was just poor judgment. It was a temporary solu-
tion as far as they saw it. I think probably they did discontinue
dumping prior to the time that the well pollutions started to show up.
As I understood it, they only used the gravel pit disposal for a week
or ten days. But in that length of time, they accomplished significant
pollution of the ground water supply. The mill well pollution example,
I think, you could partially determine as treatment in the sense that
they felt it was going to have around 300 yards of sand to pass through
before it returned to the river. No doubt part of it did return to the
river. There were no deep well sampling tests set up that would iden-
tify the fact that a significant amount of these wastes would go under
the river into their well aquifer rather than into the river. The
river was perhaps 100 yards wide at that point.
173
-------
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Clifford Risley, Jr.*
Dr. Howard Tanner in his statement made a strong point that there is in-
tense pressure upon EPA and the states to meet legislated deadlines. These
deadlines require the agencies to make commitments and get the construction
grants obligated. The only way to do this in a short time is to put the con-
struction grant money into conventional waste treatment systems. I think this
should be underscored. This is what is going to keep on happening, and if we
don t do the research now, ten years from now we are still going to be building
conventional waste treatment systems. So, we have to take every opportunity we
can to try to encourage the kind of research and development that is needed.
It would be a little redundant to go through all of the comments but I
thought the critique session was especially good. The comments were excellent.
I will stress a couple of them.
Charles Pound pointed out the fact that the level of treatment at Muskegon
did not meet the definition of secondary treatment before being applied to the
land, but as he says, it works, so why should it meet an arbitrary definition?
I think that was recognition of an excellent point. He also pointed out that,
or asked the question, "Are we saying that nitrogen removal is all we need, or
all we need for nitrogen removal is a long-term storage?" Well, we have evi-
dence of that kind of removal from the large lagoon at Muskegon and I think this
deserves more study. It certainly is an area of research that has been recog-
nized before. Dr. Demirjian himself would like to have more study conducted on
this. I don't think the Muskegon System is "the answer" any more than any other
waste treatment system is the answer to everyone's problem, but it might be the
answer to problems of many communities.
Morgan Powell recommended the extraction of soil water by tensiometers to
measure the nutrient content as it flows past the root zone. This technique may
or may not work but it is very important to know the nutrient content and suit-
able sampling and study should be made. We have been wrestling with measuring
what goes through individual circles because the way our under-drain is design-
ed; we pick up the flow from several circles. Maybe we don't need to study the
entire flow, but if we know what goes on at the root zone, we may well answer
many of our questions.
The point made by several of our critiquers was that we need the research
results. I was particularly interested and somewhat amused by Bob Bastian's
comments on getting out the data, because if we have bugged the Project and the
County on any one thing, it has been where the heck is the data? Give us the
* Director, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Region V, Chicago,
Illinois 60604
174
-------
raw data; give us the polished data; give us the interpreted data. We want it
in all forms and we haven't been getting it out in a manner satisfactory to us.
While there is a lot of truth in what Bob says, that the project has really
only been operating successfully a short time and it may have been difficult
to get good data, I still want the data.
Dr. Leo Walsh pointed out very effectively, I think, the question of man-
agement of nitrogen and the point on the sufficient concentration of nitrogen
in the root zone. This is very perceptive. This emphasizes the point that I
tried to make at the beginning of this conference, that we have been monitoring
this site on treatment performance as a waste treatment system and we are try-
ing to gather data which will have usefulness not only in this overall demon-
stration project, but may prove useful to others of you in your own research
endeavors. We have not been studying the mechanisms of what goes on, but with
a little coaching from you as to what kind of samples we ought to be collect-
ing, what kind of exercises we ought to be making and the application of nitro-
gen et al, I think we can gather the data that will make understanding and ex-
trapolation of the Muskegon experience possible. We want to try different
nitrogen-crop management techniques to make the project more effective. We
invite you, if you can, to further your studies along these lines. We are much
interested in this kind of data. You can see a practical application to it
immediately. We invite others of you to pursue this line of thinking.
Charles Sorber has been one of the most effective researchers in the health
effects area in the country, in my estimation. Ever since this project began
we have been talking about the need to know something about pathogen transport
and virus transport. We had included in our initial plans some pathogen and
virus studies at Muskegon. Dr. Sorber adequately explained why they weren't
done here; there simply wasn't enough money and the priorities for doing other
things seemed to loom higher than the priority to get into this area of research.
Chuck went ahead through the Army and was able to get quite a lot of effort
along these lines underway.
I was very interested in Dr. Sorber's list of research needs. I met with
him several years back, I don't remember if it was two or three years, when he
put out essentially the same list of needs, maybe not in quite the same form.
But these needs were recognized by him and outlined by him a long time ago and
they were recognized by people elsewhere as research items that needed to be
done. As Chuck pointed out, EPA is just now beginning to pick up studies on a
few of these needs. The list of needs still remains.
One thing that Dr. Sorber stimulated which he may not realize is that there
are a number of people around the country, such as several people in my own
office, that have picked up on this and have been working very hard to persuade
the agency to put more money into this area of research. So although we aren't
doing any of this health effects research, Chuck, you certainly have a lot of
boosters around that are working awfully hard and who are making headway in
getting research funds applied.
I was very pleased to hear you come on strong in emphasizing that it wasn't
only land application of waste or spray irrigation that disturbed you, but you
175
-------
were disturbed about the aerosols from aeration basins, from trickling filters
and the like, because we have been hitting this one especially hard. This has
been a real problem in the Chicago area. It has already resulted in the deci-
sion that caused the Northshore Sanitary District to cover their plant. They
probably spent somewhere around $20 to $30 million of extra costs in covering a
waste treatment plant simply because no one could prove whether there was or
was not a health hazard from this.
We are now in the same situation with a new plant at O'Hare Field. The
communities sued both the EPA and the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago
because they couldn't prove that there was or was not a potential health hazard
from this new plant. The sanitary district may well find itself forced to spend
something around $30 million to cover that plant and yet we can't get $5 million
worth of research money to find out the answers to these questions. If we can
answer them with $5 million, we think we can get a good start. But why do we
allow the expenditure of construction grants funds, perhaps unnecessarily in the
order of $30 million that have been expended to cover waste treatment plants,
rather than spending the $5 million on research to get the answers to whether or
not it is needed? If we take the assumption that the research is going to say
that it is needed and then we will spend the $30 million to cover the plant any-
way, then I suggest another situation. If every biological waste treatment
plant, every trickling filter, every aeration basin has to be covered, then the
cost of this is something other than what we had considered to be the cost of
biological waste treatment, then maybe it is not the viable way to go. This
may make land treatment even more the way to go, or maybe it makes physical-
chemical treatment a viable alternative. You see, you put yourself in a differ-
ent economic ball game if we are going to have to cover our waste treatment
plants. So, this has been a strong issue with us and I was glad to see Chuck
come across with the same kind of concern.
Ralph Scott pointed out several omissions in water balance and pointed out
that we must consider the aerosol problem and brought up the point of entomology.
Here again, all these problems have been recognized and we have tried to get
bits of information one way or another.
This brings up a point which I think has been stated, but which I don't
know whether was clearly understood. Basically, the Muskegon research grant
didn't do all the things we felt were necessary. So we had some funds available
through Regional sources which we have determined should be used in support of
this project because of its impact upon the Great Lakes. That is how we got
some research money for Michigan DNR which they then used to contract with Mich-
igan State and with the University of Michigan to do additional work for the
project. This wasn't a basic part of the original Muskegon grant; this was ex-
tra money that we have persuaded people should be spent to study impacts on soil,
groundwater, and surface water.
In connection with Ralph Scott's concerns on industrial wastes, I would
suggest that we have another site at Whitehall with the industrial waste problem.
We don't have any research money for that site. We don't expect to obtain any
funds under resources available to the Region, but it certainly is an interest-
176
-------
ing site and it has an interesting challenge for a sticky industrial waste pro-
blem. So, Ralph, if you know any way of persuading anybody that they should
take a look at another problem, I suggest you take a look at the Whitehall pro-
blem.
Finally, I want to thank the people of Muskegon for hosting this session.
I think they did a marvelous job. They have given us a very fine facility to
hold our meeting. We appreciated the hospitality room and the transportation
and the tickets to the Bob Hope Show. This sort of thing doesn't happen very
often in our research meetings and it certainly flavored this one very nicely
and again, we appreciate it very much.
I also want to to extend a note of strong appreciation to my own staff,
to John Walker, to Steve Poloncsik and to Ralph Christensen because I did them
a real dirty trick. The need for this conference was suggested by Curtis Harlin
at our quarterly Research Advisory Board meeting in July. I suggested that we
should have this meeting this fall. Everybody agreed with me and sa*id great,
this is a good idea and so I said fine, I am going on vacation. And I turned
the responsibility over to John and to Steve and to Ralph and they did all the
work in putting this together. I think that if there is any credit due, along
with Ara Demirjian and the County people, all the credit goes to them. So I
think this was a very excellent conference, I appreciate all of you coming,
and I appreciate all of the inputs we have had. I certainly invite any further
criticism, comments, or suggestions from you and I hope that we have your con-
tinuing interest in this project in the future.
Thank you very much.
177
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-76-006
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Conference on Muskegon County, Michigan
Wastewater System, September 17-18, 1975: A Critical
Review on Evaluations of the System and Identification
5. REPORT DATE
1076
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
of Needed Research
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
John M. Walker and conference participants
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Great Lakes Coordinator
Office of Research and Development
230 South Dearborn-St., Chicago, Illinois 60604
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2BH645
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
11010GFS
GO 0510 4
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Great Lakes Coordinator
Office of Researoh and Development
230 South Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Conference-Progress 1969-75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Compiled by John M. Walker, Muskegon County Projects Coordinator
Clifford Risley, Jr., Project Officer & Director, R&D, Region V, EPA, Chicago
Ralph G. Christensen, Grants Officer, Section 108(a) Coordinator. Region V. EPA.Chicat
16. ABSTRACT
This Review Conference held September 17-18, 1975 was to provide data on the Muskegon
County, Michigan Wastewater Treatment System. The operation of a municipal-industria]
collection system, an aeration system, holding lagoons, and a spray irrigation system
are discussed. Principal investigators of the project outline their progress from
1969-1975. Federal, State, and local government agencies are represented as to their
views of the Wastewater Treatment System. Government officials, consultants and the
academic community are asked for their views on research that they can see is needed
to enhance the value of the project, and help to advance the status of the art in
wastewater treatment on land.
The Conference discussed agricultural engineering and agricultural management of
wastewater utilization, soil monitoring, groundwater monitoring and plant uptake
studies. Lake monitoring, modeling and economic studies are included.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Water Quality Land Use
Land Treatment Cropping
Nutrients
Agricultural Management Wastewater
Municipal Wastewater Renovation
Industrial Wastewater Treatment
Treatment Performance Economics
Spray Trri oaf-inn
13. blSTRIBUTIOWsf ATE~MENT
Document available to the public through;
The National Technical Information Service
Springfield. Virginia 22151
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
178
OUSGPO: 1976 — 750-064/1401 Region 5-1
------- |