• :.ir ;;^.;|p3--^
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
                                                                                   * **•!**
                                                           "'' '

       *'  '-
       f U»$. Environmental Protection Agency


jf his (booklet jwas writtje
 f.s^arl=nd DeveH
                                                                       jinator, t|«4nstruc
                                                                      | rou|ps wiffri^ Region
                                                                      iWlJJiigantlt^ Univeiri
                                                                      ip|||i jgan fr| g ratef u 1 1;
                                                                       rqrri the 'iMN Muskeg
n by John M. Walker, Office
»pment, U.S. Environmental
sgion  V with the assistance of
)r rhati^ni and t fltergovern-
)ffi|e of the Great Lakes Coor-
3n ©rants Branch, and other
'. Their important contri-
>ooperation of Muskegon
'Vafer Resources Commission,
sity, and the University of
r acknowledged. Much of the
Dounty System was obtained
on County Report for the
;red by Y.A. Demirjian and
 '&'••*** ^  •*
                                                 fa? >

          Muskegon County has innovatively transformed a
          comprehensive idea for utilizing and renovating
          wastewater by land treatment into a very cost effective
          operational system. Their land treatment system
          has nearly eliminated industrial and municipal pollu-
          tants from the 27 million gallons of wastewater treated
          each day, thereby protecting the County's lakes and
          streams as well as Lake Michigan. It has utilized waste-
          water as water and fertilizer to grow over a quarter
          million bushels of corn In 1975 on previously unproduc-
          tive land, thereby reducing operating costs. This suc-
          cessful wastewater system is also serving as a focal
          point In the County's efforts to revitalize their econo-
          my. This booklet has been prepared for both urban and
          industrial communities that face wastewater and
          economic problems and that might benefit from the
          Muskegon County experience.

          The citizens, industries, consultants, and leaders
          of Muskegon, along with officials and groups through-
          out the state of Michigan have to be extremely proud of
          their cooperative accomplishments. Their efforts to
          achieve these difficult goals have required great
          courage, patience, and skill. The U.S. Environmental
          Protection Agency is very happy that it has been able
          to contribute.

          We hope that Muskegon's success with waste-
          water utilization, renovation,and community revitali-
          zation will continue and that it will serve as a valuable
          example and information base for other communities
          in dealing with their wastewater problems. The En-
          vironmental Protection Agency is continuing its sup-
          port of evaluational and operational studies on the
          Muskegon County System to gain essential informa-
          tion for planning, implementing, and operating other
          proposed systems.
                                       George Alexander, Jr.
                                       Regional Administrator
                                            USEPA Region V
                                             September 1976

$/1000 GALLONS

Your Problem
           Nearly every community is faced with the problem
           of cleaning its dirty water. Surface and ground waters
           are being polluted by discharges of poorly treated
           wastewater. Communities without sewers are finding
           that their individual septic tanks and cesspool systems
           are causing groundwater pollution. Communities with
           sewers are finding that their existing wastewater
           treatment systems are overloaded and inadequate
           to meet the requirements of Public Law 92-500, the
           Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
           of 1972, for providing increasingly greater degrees of
           wastewater treatment. Needed residential, commercial,
           and industrial development is being restricted because
           existing treatment systems lack the capacity to handle
           the  additional volumes  and  because traditional treat-
           ment processes cannot cope with the increasingly
           complex character of the wastes of modern urban-
           industrial activity.

           Costs for wastewater treatment are skyrocketing.
           While appreciable fractions of the capital costs for
           local wastewater treatment facilities can be funded
           with federal dollars through the Environmental Pro-
           tection Agency, it is your income tax that increases
           to pay the bills. In addition, your local taxes and
           sewer user charges increase to pay all of the operating
           costs and your local share of the capital costs. Sewer
           user charges have routinely increased between 200
           and 500% over the past 10 years.

           Many of the complex new advanced waste treat-
           ment systems being built today consume large amounts
           of both energy and resources and in some instances
           are just too costly to operate.

Muskegon  County's Problem
                                Before the Wastewater System
                                  S. D. Warren, a division of Scott Paper
                                Company in Muskegon County, recog-
                                nized the need to overcome this environ-
                                mentally objectionable discharge of par-
                                tially treated wastewater into Muske-
                                gon Lake. Faced also with several other
difficulties in the late 1960's, the decid-
ing factor in the plant's remaining
in operation was the promise of joining
Muskegon County in obtaining an en-
vironmentally acceptable, cost attrac-
tive, land treatment solution.
                  (see also page 34).

                            Weeds in White Lake Adversely
                            Affected Recreation
Near the end of the 1960's, citizens and community
leaders in Muskegon County were becoming increas-
ingly aware of very serious problems in their com-
munity. Each of the many independent communities
in Muskegon County were trying to deal separately
with their own municipal and industrial wastewaters
in small overburdened treatment facilities. Several of
the main industries and principal communities in
Muskegon County were discharging their wastewater
directly into the lakes with inadequate treatment.
The County's three main recreational lakes were being
polluted. Depending upon the specific lake, there was
visible direct pollution, periods of foul odor, severe
algal blooms, and/or loss of open water surface to
weeds. Swimming and boating in the lakes was un-
pleasant and becoming unsafe.

Along with their surface and wastewater problems,
older industries were leaving or closing rather than
rebuilding. New industries and businesses were not
coming to Muskegon. The frustrations and strains of
these complex overlapping problems were causing
residents to lose hope and pride in their communities.

                                        Muskegon County's Solution

                                                   Community leaders and their planners in Muskegon
                                                   County began to come to grips with the seriousness of
                                                   their many problems in 1969. Interestingly, a common
                                                   denominator of most problems was dirty water - sewage
                                                   and dirty streams, rivers, and lakes.

                                                   This very important step of recognizing and defining
                                                   the problem was the first of many difficult tasks in im-
                                                   plementing a solution. Enormous political difficulties
                                                   were involved in uniting the many Independent com-
                                                   munities within the County toward development
                                                   of a common wastewater treatment system. Authori-
                                                   ties, including those at the State level and in the
                                                   Federal Water Quality Administration (a predecessor
                                                   of EPA) had to be convinced that their Idea for waste-
                                                   water utilization and renovation by spray irrigation
                                                   and crop production on sandy, unproductive soil was
                                                   worthy of funding and support. There were no ade-
                                                   quately studied large scale similar operations in the
                                                   world to use as a basis for predicting possible success.
                                                   This made the task of designing and building a spray
                                                   irrigation system that would reliably handle over 43
                                                   million gallons per day (MOD) of wastewater and
                                                   provide efficient treatment while conserving the
                                                   integrity and developing the quality of the soil, very


Muskegon County's  Solution
                                                  The Costs. .Their combined efforts have resulted
                                                  in a land treatment system which is yielding very
                                                  cost effective treatment and utilization of wastewater.
                                                  Construction costs were approximately $44 million
                                                  with approximately 45% of the funding from Federal
                                                  sources (See Detail A).

                                                  The 1975 total cost for treatment, including collec-
                                                  tion, transmission, aeration, land treatment, deprecia-
                                                  tion, amortization, and debt retirement, was 240/
                                                  1000 gallons of wastewater. This cost is charged to
                                                  users via a 170/1000 gallon operational and a 4.50/
                                                  1000 gallon debt retirment fee (220/1000 gallon user
                                                  charge) and acreage charges. A  detailed presentation
                                                  of operating costs is given in Detail B.

                                                  Muskegon County's 220/1000 gallon sewer user
                                                  charge is the lowest of any of the several systems
                                                  surveyed regardless of the level  of treatment given
                                                  to the wastewater, with the exception of the large
                                                  Detroit system. The Detroit system charges 160/1000
                                                  gallons and provides only primary treatment to a
                                                  majority of its wastewater.

^ wr.'   Js*^ F* frT—1V .   ^ "I-"  ..''vs-* w~*-«*''tV ^-AX
                                                                                                               ,'^   -  %^'   h ^^t    j,^    ,  -* --    £?"£,,  • ^     '*££ ^  '''fi^""'  -/; §'!% "    ^tf,    -f^-   , %"/;  ':%&^  '^'")^°-f~"  -i ^  ^  ^^  ^;N ^ 'QL^  t''^'^"-^   O^


 j OHIO    Toledo
         Michigan is one of the Great Lakes States. Under
         Section 208 of Public Law 92-500 the Great Lakes
         States are planning management of their watershed
         basins. Watershed management is planned at sub-
         state regional levels. Taking each regional manage-
         ment plan together the water quality of the overall
         Great Lakes basin is affected.

Muskegon County, Michigan (population 160,000),
which lies directly along the Lake Michigan Coast,
began its plan prior to PL 92-500. Data on its ex-
periences are needed for section 208 planning ac-
tivities in the Great Lakes States and elsewhere in
the country.

The County Wide system has two separate wastewater
treatment areas, a 10,500 acre site near Muskegon
and a 600 acre site near Whitehall. Renovated water
from the Whitehall site goes through the White River
on its way to White Lake and Lake Michigan. Reno-
vated water from the main Muskegon site goes in
part through Mosquito Creek into Muskegon Lake
and in part  through Big Black Creek into Mona Lake
before emptying into Lake Michigan.

                       Wastewater Sites

    Sludge in Aeration Cell
                                                                Screening Wastewater Before

                              Wastewater Irrigation on Com
                 Renovated Wastewater - by Crop and Soil

The System .The Muskegon County Wastewater
Management System is comprised of two separate
systems of similar design. One system is large (42
MGD wastewater treatment design capacity) and one
is small (1.4 MGD). The small separate system was
built as an economical alternative to a long expensive
sewer connection. This booklet describes only the large

The system consists of collection, transmission,
aeration, storage, irrigation, soil, crop, and drainage
components. The system treated 27 MGD of waste-
water in 1975,60% of which was industrial flow, leav-
ing a reserve capacity of 15 MGD for serving additional
residential and industrial development. (Acreage
requirements of various portions of the system are
shown in Detail C.)

                                                     Wastewater Collection and Transmission. Waste-
                                                     water is collected via connector sewers and ten lift
                                                     stations which deliver wastewater to a central pump-
                                                     ing station. The wastewater is pumped from the
                                                     central lift station, eleven miles, through a 66-inch
                                                     diameter pipe line to the land treatment site.
                                   —  Collection Transmission
                                   	  Tributary Drainage
                                                                         •  Lift Stations

                                                                            Central Pumping Station

                                                                            Drainage Outfalls

Aeration and Storage. After reaching the treatment
site, wastewater can be aerated in each of three 8-acre
42-million-gallon capacity aeration cells. There are six
50-horsepower mixers and twelve 60-horsepower aera-
tors in each cell. Research and operating experience
justified reducing the amount of aeration needed and
cut electrical energy used drastically. The aeration
mode most often used at this time is treatment with
8 aerators in cell 1 followed by treatment with 4 aera-
tors in cell 2. With the current 27 MGD flow, the aver-
age retention time is about 1.5 days in each cell.
After aeration in winter, the water flows into the stor-
age lagoons. During the summer, the aerated water
may either be sent into storage or retained briefly
in an 8-acre solids settling cell before application
on land through the irrigation system. There are two
storage lagoons, each 850 acres in size, with a com-
bined storage capacity of 5 billion gallons.

Final Disinfection.  Before water is irrigated onto
the land, it enters a discharge cell. Prior to entering
irrigation ditches that supply the water to pumping
stations,  the water is chlorinated as necessary to meet
health standards.


 Irrigation and Farming. The pretreated wastewater
 is distributed to center pivot irrigation rigs via buried
 asbestos cement pipes (Detail D). The operating pres-
 sure is from 30 to 70 psi depending upon location in
 the system. The rigs were especially designed for
 spraying wastewater with downward pointing low pres-
 sure nozzles. There are 54 center pivot irrigation rigs
 located in circular fields of 35 to 140 acres. The soils are
 mostly sandy (Detail D).

 During the 1975 season, 4500 of the 5400 irrigated
acres were planted with corn and irrigated with  up to
4 inches per week of wastewater. The other 900 acres
were fallow or in rye grass. Total wastewater applied
to the 5400 acres varied from none to over 100 inches
per field during 1975 (Detail D). Irrigation was perform-
ed from mid-April to mid-November with time out for
cultivating, planting, and harvesting the corn crop.
Thus far corn has been the main crop. Corn planted in
1975 yielded an average 60 bushels per acre (31  to
90 bushels per acre, Detail E), which was nearly
equal to the 65 bushel  per acre average corn grain
yield in Muskegon County on operating farmland.
The average corn grain yield on 4700 acres in 1974
 (the initial year of operation) was 28 bushels/acre.
The corn has been marketed through normal channels.

The 1974 and 1975 average grain yields of 28 and 60
bushels per acre are indeed remarkable considering
the following: (1) the Muskegon system was new and
untried; (2) the primary purpose of the system is
wastewater renovation; (3) incomplete installation of
irrigation equipment and  many operational diffi-
culties with the new irrigation system have caused
interruptions particularly in 1974 (Detail F); and,
 (4) most soils at the site are very poor, will not yield
more than a few bushels per acre of corn grain with-
out irrigation and nutrients, and normally only support
scrub oak and other forest species.

                                                     Recycling-Resource Recovery .The irrigation -
                                                     soil - cropping phase of the wastewater treatment
                                                     system is providing not only what is often called
                                                     tertiary or advanced wastewater treatment (AWT), but
                                                     also utilized nutrients in the wastewater for growing
                                                     a corn crop. The sale of corn reduced the 1.9 million
                                                     dollar operating cost for wastewater treatment during
                                                     1975 by about one-third (Detail B). Over $100,000
                                                     worth of  nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from
                                                     the wastewater was utilized in 1975 to improve the
                                                     soil and grow food.

                                                     Calculations and experience has shown that if,
                                                     for example, 3 inches of wastewater were applied
                                                     each week over a 6-month season, an adequate amount
                                                     of phosphorus and potassium is available for the corn
                                                     crop (Detail G). However, the level of nitrogen would
                                                     not be adequate because of the low nitrogen level
                                                     present in the wastewater and because soils do not
                                                     retain much nitrogen. In addition the nitrogen is util-
                                                     ized by corn primarily only during 2 months of the
                                                     6-month irrigation period. The nitrogen fertilizer,
                                                     therefore, was injected into the wastewater daily
                                                     during the active part of the corn growing season to
                                                     increase corn growth and yield and to stimulate in-
                                                     creased removal of phosphorus, potassium, and other
                                                     wastewater nutrients. From 0-89 pounds per acre of
                                                     nitrogen fertilizer was added to the different irrigated
                                                     fields, depending upon the amount of wastewater
                                                     applied and corn crop's needs (Detail E).


                                                      Drainage. Before construction, the groundwater
                                                     table was very close to the soil surface in many of the
                                                     fields. Tile drainage or drainage wells were installed
                                                     and the water table lowered. The drainage network
                                                     (Detail D) now collects the sprayed renovated waste-
                                                     water after it has percolated through the crop soil filter
                                                     and discharges it into the receiving stream. The
                                                     drainage network, along with interception ditches
                                                     around the storage lagoon, is designed to protect
                                                     the quality of the groundwater. Another interesting
                                                     aspect of the design of the site drainage system
                                                     was the bypassing of all drainage from lands upstream,
                                                     and construction of berms to prevent storm water
                                                     run-off from the site.

Installation-Note nylon sand screen
                                                                                                    Drainage Tile

 Monitoring .There is an extensive monitoring
 system. Monitoring results are used to determine
 the efficiency of treatment and to assure operation
 that avoids the degradation of ground and surface
 water. Samples are taken for chemical and biological
 analyses once or twice daily at each step of the treat-
 ment process. Groundwater is sampled monthly to
 twice yearly from the over 300 wells for analysis.
 Finally, the surface water quality is examined in lakes
 and streams at some distance from the treatment
 site, but still under the influence of the wastewater
 treatment system. Monitoring has shown no signifi-
 cant effect on the ground and surface waters of the

Monitoring Effectiveness of Aeration
Cells and Soil-Crop Filter

Determining Effects of
Wastewater System
on Lake Quality
                                                           Operations, Management, and Research and De-
                                                           velopment . The entire system is being operated by
                                                           40 full-time persons and an additional part-time labor
                                                           force of up to 10 workers (Detail H). Some of their job
                                                           activity is associated with the Muskegon EPA Re-
                                                           search and Development Grant. It is essential for large
                                                           operations of this nature to have laboratory and de-
                                                           velopment study capabilities.

                                                           The success of this operation has depended and will
                                                           continue to depend heavily on expert management
                                                           which in turn is based on sound business, farming,
                                                           engineering, and scientific skills.

                                                           Management has benefited  from the creation of a
                                                           Farm Advisory Board made  up of Agricultural Experts
                                                           from Michigan State University and from a Research
                                                           Advisory Board made up of experts within EPA. As
                                                           a direct result of good management, directly assisted
                                                           by research and development efforts, progressive
                                                           improvements have been achieved and operational
                                                           problems (inherent not only  in any system, but also
                                                           in a large previously untried system of this nature) have
                                                           been overcome at very modest cost.
                         Measuring Stream Elevation

                                                      Irrigation Rig Adjustment

                                  Examples of these coopertive management-research
                                  efforts are: (1) Studies and steps undertaken to elimi-
                                  nate problems with underground electrical cable and
                                  irrigation mains to irrigation rigs; (2) Economic step-
                                  wise modifications of the system to reduce problems
                                  with irrigation rig nozzle plugging and to overcome
                                  occasional odor problems from industrially discharged
                                  flows at the site; (3) Studies and steps undertaken
                                  to improve drainage in a number of inadequately
                                  drained fields; and (4) Significant reduction in energy
                                  consumption based on studies of aeration cell opera-
                                  tion. Other examples of improvements, resulting from
                                  good management, are: Reduction in the full-time
                                  labor force from over 60 to 40; acquisition and updating
                                  of equipment for more efficient farming and self-
                                  maintenance of nearly every phase of the system;
                                  and hedging to insure and improve cash revenues
                                  from the 1975 corn crop.
Gauging Stream Volume and Flow

                                                                    Raw Sewage Influent
                                                                   Crop - Soil Renovated Effluent

Treatment Performance. Wastewater is being ren-
ovated to the degree shown in the adjacent table and
figure and in Detail I. Examination of this information
shows that the goal of providing clean, high quality
renovated water is being met by the Muskegon County
Wastewater System, and the goal of capturing and
utilizing valuable plant nutrients is being accomplished.


                                      •' '*+'' \f,."  ,
                                      ~;> r;s ,;
                                        tuV i     x
                                      .-  A' * - r.*
                ewpapuadsns  »//



Outlook and Life Expectancy. The corn yield is
expected to improve as the remaining debris from
land clearing is removed, nozzle plugging is reduced,
nitrogen fertilizer injection is made more timely, and
other improvements are made (again based on research
and development.as well as good management).

In view of the very favorable cost experiences at
Muskegon and the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500)
requirements, a careful reexamination of the compara-
tive economics of land treatment versus other waste-
water treatment systems is needed. Economic studies
on system management alternatives are needed for
still more favorable operation of the land treatment
system at Muskegon.

Any wastewater treatment system has limitations
and the Muskegon County Wastewater System is
no exception. Operated, however, in it's present
mode (with adequately pre-treated wastewater of
similar composition and irrigated with similar quanti-
ties and rates) most of the cropped soils at
Muskegon are expected to adequately remove waste-
water contaminants like phosphorus for at least 50
years. If after 50 years, the land were saturated with
phosphorus and would no  longer be able to provide
adequate phosphorus removal, many other uses for
the land will be possible. Additional research and
development activity should more clearly be able to
predict the life expectancy of all parts of the system
for handling and treating all wastewater constituents,
not only under the current mode of operation but also
under different modes of operation using wastewater
of different characteristics.

                                              After the wastewater system
                                                Establishment of the cost effective
                                              land treatment system in Muskegon
                                              County has permitted a complete
                                              diversion of S.D. Warren's wastewater
                                              from Muskegon Lake, purification of
the wastewater, improvement of the
lake for recreation, and helped retain
this needed industry in the County
(see also page 6).

Your Solution
          The solution to your community's dirty water prob-
          lem will not be easy. The successful Muskegon
          County Wastewater Management System is an im-
          portant treatment alternative for your community's
          consideration. Since the soils, climate, land availability,
          wastewater characteristics, and economic situation
          differ in each locality, your community must carefully
          assess the potential benefits of utilizing this system
          or related types of land treatment for solving your
          wastewater problem. Expert assistance in making this
          assessment is available in your State government's
          Departments of Environment and Agriculture, and
          Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of
          Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

          Funds for assisting in planning and building ap-
          propriate systems for treating your community's
          wastewater are available through your state from the
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Implementing
          cost effective wastewater treatment is a very difficult
          but rewarding task, as Muskegon County's treatment
          system experience so clearly has emphasized. This
          task can only be accomplished by the cooperative
          efforts of all parties.


Technical and Economic Detail
               This section contains information in greater detaii on
               the Muskegon system Including:

                 A. Capital Costs
                 B. Operating Costs
                 C. Land Usage
                 D.1.  Irrigation System
                   2.  Soils
                   3.  Wastewater Application
                   4.  Drainage System
                 E.Crop Yields
                 F. Planning and Construction Timetable
                 G. Wastewater Nutrient Application
                 H. Labor
                 I. Treatment Performance

                                                                                           DETAIL C
                                     MUSKEGON SITE LAND USES (  10,850 acres )
              Aeration,Settling,Outlet,Lagoon,Chlorination & Other Buildings

                                                                                                                               DETAIL D
            Irrigation Pressure Pipe Distribution-
                                                                                      Soil Permeablilty
X,Y,Z Aeration - biological treatment cells
    S Sett I ing eel I
    D Discharge cell
    C Chlorination
    a Irrigation pumping stations
1-55O Center pivot irrigated fields
      Solid waste landfill.
                                                                  \J Rubicon sand  5-10 in./hr.

                                                                  (7) Roscommon sand  10in./hr>

                                                                  (_) AuGressand   10in./hr.

                                                                  dJUJ) Granby loamy sand 2.5-10 in./hr.

             Wastewater Application, 1975
               WEST          EAST
                 STORAGE LAGOONS
  0-25  inches

 25-50  inches

 50-75  inches

 75-100  inches

100-125  inches
                                                                            Drainage tile
                                                                            Drainage wells
                                                                            Drainage ditches
                                                                            Seepage pumping stations
                                                                            Storm runoff control berms
                                                                            Creek by-pass ditch
                                                                            Lagoon seepage ditch


                          DETAIL G

  p* *

  K +







Nutrients in
75-inch (season)
effluent sprayed





Nutrients for
100 bu/acre
com grain



  *ln addition to wastewater nitrogen (N), supplemental
   liquid N fertilizer was Infected Into the wastewater as
   needed during the active corn growing season.
 * * The phosphorus (P) concentration in the land sprayed
   wastewater has been lust over 1 ppm. A t the Indicated level
   of wastewater application the P applied is about equal to
   crop needs and therefore will not accumulate in the soil. If
   the total P level is 3ppm, a majority of soil at the wastewater
   site should be able to remove the excess P and prevent
   leaching with the renovated wastewater for at least 50 years.
   This assumes that wastewater is sprayed uniformly on the
   soil under the conditions shown,
 + The quantities of potassium (K), sodium (Na), and calcium
   (Ca), In excess of crop needs are not causing problems on
   the sandy soils at Muskegon. Soil monitoring studies by
   Michigan State ifniversity indicate that these wastewater
   elements are reaching an equilibrium with the soil sorptive
   surface and will be passing through into the renovated
   wastewater with little change in concentration but at
   acceptable levels, Studies on other inorganic and organic
   constituents in the wastewater do not indicate any
   anticipated problems under the current mode of operation
   and with the wastewater as itnowexists.
                                                                         DETAIL H
                                                    LABOR MUSKEGON SYSTEM, 1975
                                                    Collection & Tranmission

                                                    Aeration & Storage

                                                    Irrigation & Drainage


                                                    Laboratory & Monitoring












                                                                                            up to 8




Studies and  Reports
           For greater detail on all phases of the Muskegon
           County operations a series of comprehensive reports
           have been prepared by the different groups having
           contributed to the planning and constructing of the
           system and by groups conducting research there.
           The major funding for these research and development
           studies, conducted by Muskegon County, have come
           from the Municipal Environmental Research Center in
           Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Robert S. Kerr Environ-
           mental Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma. The
           research reports are currently under review and/or
           are being prepared for printing. Copies of the research
           reports should be available from the Region V EPA
           office and Ada, Oklahoma, later in 1976.

           Other studies, in addition to those being conducted
           by Muskegon County for EPA, are continuing. A
           five-year study on socio-economics, funded by EPA
           and Muskegon County, is being conducted by Kiefer
           and Associates and should be completed by early
           1978. This study is aimed at determining attitudes of
           people about the system before and after it operated,
           comparing these attitudes with actual performance,
           and attempting to determine effects on the area unique
           to the land treatment system. Soil monitoring and
           soil and crop  management studies are being con-
           ducted  by Michigan State University. EPA Region V
           is supplying a major part of this funding with grants of
           PL 92-500 Section 108 Great Lakes funds through the
           Michigan Water Resources Commission. These studies
           should permit a more adequate prediction of the life
           of the system under its current operational  mode. In
           addition, the  studies will aid in the development of
           improved operational modes for wastewater renova-
           tion. Possible continuation of monitoring and modeling
           studies on lakes draining the Muskegon Basin should
           provide a reliable explanation of the effect of the
           wastewater treatment system on the area's water
           quality. EPA Region V also provided a grant with
           Section 108 Great Lakes Funds for initial lake studies
           by the University of Michigan and the Michigan
           Water Resources Commission. These studies, if con-
           tinued, should provide a valuable information base
           for PL 92-500 Section 208 planning studies which
           attempt to examine and predict effects of alternative
           management of diffuse and point source pollutant
           inputs into regional watersheds and ultimately into
           the Great Lakes.

           A multi-year study is nearing completion on the
           hydraulics of  the Muskegon County System. This
           study is being conducted by the U.S. Geological
           Survey  in cooperation with the Michigan Geological

 From EPA (Region V and Ada, Oklahoma)
           (Expected from other Sources)
                                                 Proceedings of National Conference on Research
                                                 Needs for Muskegon County, September 1975, U.S.
                                                 EPA Region V Section 108 Publication.

                                                 Demirjian, Y. A.  D.R. Kendrick, M.L. Smith,
                                                 and T.T. Westman.  Muskegon County Wastewater
                                                 Management System #1, Progress Report 1968-1975.

                                                 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development.
                                                   Volume I Main Text
                                                   Volume 11 Appendix of Tabular Data

                                                 Evaluation of the Muskegon County Wastewater
                                                 System. U.S. EPA Region V Section 108 Publication.

                                                   Volume I Overview,  Monitoring, and  Benthos
                                                   Studies, Water Resources Commission of the
                                                   Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

                                                   Volume II Soil Monitoring, Michigan State University

                                                    Volume III Lake Monitoring and Modeling Studies,
                                                    University of Michigan,
                                                 Wastewater Economic Impact Study, Final Working
                                                 Paper. Muskegon County Metropolitan Planning Com-
                                                 mission, September 1974.

                                                 Demirjian, Y. A. The Muskegon County Wastewater
                                                 System. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.

                               Author Unlisted
A Water Resources Policy Study Program for Muske-
gon County, Michigan, Muskegon Metropolitan
Planning Commission, (J.R. Sheaffer, Consultant),

Economic Development Policies and Programs for
the Muskegon County Area, Muskegon County
Planning Commission, Muskegon, Michigan. 1970.

Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for
Muskegon County, Michigan. Wastewater Treatment-
Irrigation System by Muskegon County Board and
Department of Public Works. Water Pollution Control
Research Series 11010 FMY 10-70. September 1970
                                  Bastian, R.K.
Project Status and Research at Muskegon, Michigan,
presented at the Symposium on Land Treatment of
Secondary Effluent, University of Colorado, Colorado
State University, U.S.EPA, Boulder, Colorado, Novem-
ber 1973.

Update Project Status and Research at Muskegon,
Michigan, 1974.
                         Bauer Engineering, Inc.  Muskegon County Michigan Wastewater Management
                                                Demonstration Study of Wastewater Treatment:
                                                Land Irrigation, July 1970.

                                                Operations and Maintenance Manual-Wastewater
                                                Management System, Muskegon County Department
                                                of Public Works, May 1974.

                                                Muskegon: Socio-Economic Environmental Impact
                                                Study Community Goals Framework, February 1973.
                                   Bauer, W. J.
Advances in Land Application of Wastewater and
Sludge - The Fourth Annual Internation Pollution
Engineering Congress, Cleveland, Ohio, October 1975.

Land Treatment Designs, Past and Future-Interna-
tional Conference on Land for Waste Management,
Ottawa, Canada, October 1973.

The Muskegon Story. A National Symposium on Ulti-
mate Disposal of Wastewater and their Residuals.
Sponsored by the Research Triangle Universities, Duke
University, North Carolina State University, and
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in co-
operation with ASCE, AWRA and WPCF, April 1973.

Treatment of Wastes by Contact with Natural Soil
Systems, Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section
of ASCE Camp Lectures on Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal, January 1976.
                Bauer, W. J. and W. A. Cowlishaw The Muskegon County, Michigan Wastewater Manage-
                                                ment System No. 1 and the Chicago Regional Waste-
                                                water Management Plan (prepared for the U.S. Army
                                                Corps of Engineers), Chemurgic Council Conference,
                                                Washington, D.C., May 1972.

                     Bauer, W.J. and D.E. Matschke  Large Wastewater Irrigation Systems: Muskegon
                                                  County, Michigan and Chicago Metropolitan Region,
                                                  presented at Symposium on Land Treatment of
                                                  Wastewater, Pennsylvania State University, State
                                                  College, Pennsylvania, August 1972.

                      Bauer, W.J. and J.R. Sheaffer  Wastewater Management Systems Involving Land
                                                  Treatment, Water Pollution Control Federation, 45th
                                                  Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, October 1972.

                    Bauer, Sheaffer, and McCall Inc.  Overall Economic Development Program, prepared
                                                  for Muskegon County Planning Commission, July 1972.

         Chaiken, E. I., S. Poloncsik, and C.D. Wilson  Muskegon Sprays Sewage Effluents on Land, Civil
                                                  Engineering, May 1973.

       Christensen, L.A., D.G. Lewis, L.W. Libby, and  Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - A Water
       L. J. Connor.                                 Quality Option for Michigan Communities, Michigan
                                                  State University, CRMPA Report #41,1976.

                       Gulp, G.L. and D.J. Hinrichs  A Review of the Operation and Maintenance of the
                                                  Muskegon County Wastewater Management System.
                                                  Culp/Wesner/Culp for Muskegon County, Michigan,
                                                  June 1976.

                                   Demirjian, Y. A. Muskegon County Wastewater Management System,
                                                  Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
                                                  Design Seminars, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer,
                                                  October 1975.

                 Enfield, Carl G. and Lowell E. Leach  Phosphorus Model of Muskegon Wastewater System,
                                                  Journal of the Environmental  Engineering Division,
                                                  ASCE Volume 101, No. 336. Proceedings paper 11775,
                                                  pp. 911-916, December 1975.

                                   Forestell, W. L. Sewage Farming Takes a Giant Step Forward, The
                                                  American City, October 1973.

                                 Godfrey, K. A., Jr.  Land Treatment of Municipal Sewage, Civil Engi-
                                                  eering, September 1973.

     Hackett, J. E., T. A. Dumper, and John R. Sheaffer Environmental Characteristics - A Study of Muske-
     & Associates.                                 gon's Physical Characteristics and Their Implications
                                                  Upon Land Development and  Resources Manage-
                                                  ment Opportunities, Muskegon County Metropolitan
                                                  Planning Commission, August 1970.

                                      Lappo, R. L.  Living Filter' Perks up Regional System, Waste-
                                                  water & Wastes Engineering, 13:#6, June 1976.
                                                  Muskegon County  Plan for Managing Wastewater,
                                                  Muskegon, Regional Planning Commission, 1969.

           Pound, C.E., R. W. Crites, and D.A. Griffes Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application,
                                                  U.S. EPA Technical Report #EPA-430/9-75-003,
                                                  June 1975.

                                         Snow, A.  Muskegon County's Bold Agri-Approach to Waste-
                                                   water Disposal, Michigan Contractor and Builder,
                                                   April 1973.

                                       Thomas, R.  Experiences with Land Spreading of Municipal
                                                   Effluents, Proceedings of Rutgers University Confer-
                                                  ence on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents, March

The Muskegon County Wastewater System would
not have been successful without the efforts of the
following persons and their respective agencies.
We sincerely apologize to those who may have been
overlooked in our attempt to acknowledge their efforts
by name.
                                   U. S. EPA  REGION V, CHICAGO
                                             Valdas V. Adamkus
                                             George R. Alexander, Jr.
                                             Eugene I. Chaiken
                                             Ralph G.  Christensen
                                             Stephen Poloncsik
                                             Clifford Risley, Jr.
                                             Robert J. Schneider
                                             John M.Walker
                                             Carl D. Wilson

                                             OTHER EPA

                                             Robert K. Bastian
                                             William Cawley
                                             John Convery
                                             Louis E. Decamp
                                             William C. Galegar
                                             Stanley Greenfield
                                             Curtis C.  Harlin, Jr.
                                             Jack Keeley
                                             Francis T. Mayo
                                             Thomas Murphy
                                             David G. Stephan
                                             Wilson K. Talley
                                             Richard E. Thomas
                                             Thomas Waddel
                       BAUER ENGINEERING William J. Bauer
                                            Paul Bowen
                                            Ronald Crane
                                            Wayne Cowl ishaw
                                            Donald E. Matschke
                                            Fred Roland
                                            John R. Sheaffer

                   U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY T. Ray Cummings
                                            William Fleck
                                            Michael McDonald

               MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ray L. Cook
                                            BoydG. Ellis
                                            Earl A. Erickson
                                            Bernard D. Knezek
                                            Leonard R. Kyle
                                            Leyton V. Nelson
                                            James M. Tiedje
                                            Arthur R. Wolcott

                   UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN John Armstrong
                                            Raymond P. Canale
                                            Peter Meier

                           MUSKEGON COUNTY
Donald Pierce
Maurice Richmond (dec.)

Y. Ara Demirjian
David Kendrick
Mike Smith
Frank E. Sturgell
Timothy R. Westman

Frank Bednarek
Harry Knudsen
Ralph Precious
Robert Zettell

RodT. Dittmer
George W. Hall
Pat Lubisher
David Marsh
Dennis Molnar
John Postlewait
Lynn Richardson
Fred Swafford
Arthur Snow
Raymond Wells

David G. Bringedahl
John Campbell
Alfred Fairchild
Jeff Funkhouser
John Halmond
Herman Ivory
John Jurkas
Donald Nutt
Frank J. Stariha
Brian K. Walsworth
John Wenk
Ms. Michelle Atkinson

Juane A. Baker
Michael E. Kobza
Clark H. Rager
F. Charles Raap
Gordon B.  Skipper
Murton J. Vandermolen
Harold M. Workman
Congressman Guy Vander Jagt
Bud C. Nagelvoort
                    MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF  Paul A. Blakeslee
                    NATURAL RESOURCES
 Richard Emerson
 William D. Marks
 Thomas Hoogerhyde
 Arthur E. Slaughter
 Howard Tanner
 William G. Turney
 Thomas P. Wasbotten

 Ralph W. Purdy
 John Vogt
230 South —      6Q60H
Chicago* IllJ-n^
                                                                             ->U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-750-802