l$\n\
• :.ir ;;^.;|p3--^
Do not WEED. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
* **•!**
"'' '
'••^•pif
*' '-
f U»$. Environmental Protection Agency
MCD-34
-------
P:
Pfi!
ii
'.In
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
iasaff.
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? >
-------
Foreword
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
-------
SKYROCKETING WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS
USER CHARGE
$/1000 GALLONS
1966
1970
1974
-------
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
difficult.
8
-------
-------
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.
10
-------
^ wr.' Js*^ F* frT—1V . ^ "I-" ..''vs-* w~*-«*''tV ^-AX
,'^ - %^' h ^^t j,^ , -* -- £?"£,, • ^ '*££ ^ '''fi^""' -/; §'!% " ^tf, -f^- , %"/; ':%&^ '^'")^°-f~" -i ^ ^ ^^ ^;N ^ 'QL^ t''^'^"-^ O^
11
-------
MICHIGAN
j OHIO Toledo
WISCONSIN
ILLINOIS"
Chicago
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.
12
-------
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.
I
N
Municipalities
Wastewater Sites
13
-------
Sludge in Aeration Cell
Screening Wastewater Before
Irrigation
Aeration
14
-------
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
system.
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.)
15
-------
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
16
-------
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.
17
-------
81.
-------
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.
19
-------
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).
20
-------
-------
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.
22
-------
Installation-Note nylon sand screen
wrapping.
Drainage Tile
23
-------
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
area.
24
-------
Monitoring Effectiveness of Aeration
Cells and Soil-Crop Filter
25
-------
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
28
-------
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
29
-------
Raw Sewage Influent
Crop - Soil Renovated Effluent
30
-------
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.
31
-------
»,
»»#******
•' '*+'' \f,." ,
~;> r;s ,;
tuV i x
.- A' * - r.*
ewpapuadsns »//
WSqB9JBSlUi
-ojotwi/osAq
-------
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.
33
-------
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).
34
-------
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.
35
-------
-------
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
37
-------
DETAIL C
MUSKEGON SITE LAND USES ( 10,850 acres )
Aeration,Settling,Outlet,Lagoon,Chlorination & Other Buildings
40
-------
MUSKEGON WASTEWATER TREATMENT SITE
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.
Tonkey
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
41
-------
42
-------
DETAIL G
WASTEWATER NUTRIENTS ADDED TO SOILS
Element
N
p* *
K +
Na+
Ca+
Sprayed
wastewater
cone.
ppm
4-7
1-3
6-11
140
60
Nutrients in
75-inch (season)
effluent sprayed
Ibs/acre
68-119
17-51
102-187
2400
1000
Nutrients for
100 bu/acre
com grain
Ibs/acre
85*
15
20
*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
Category
Full-Time
Collection & Tranmission
Aeration & Storage
Irrigation & Drainage
Farming
Laboratory & Monitoring
Administrative
TOTAL
Manpower
9
3
7
8
9
4
40
Part-Time
Janitorial
Seasonal
TOTAL
2
up to 8
10
43
-------
*
-------
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
Survey.
45
-------
REPORTS AVAILABLE LATE 1976
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.
46
-------
REPORTS AVAILABLE
FROM OTHER SOURCES
Author Unlisted
A Water Resources Policy Study Program for Muske-
gon County, Michigan, Muskegon Metropolitan
Planning Commission, (J.R. Sheaffer, Consultant),
1968.
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.
47
-------
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
1973.
48
-------
Acknowledgements
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
49
-------
MICHIGAN STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MUSKEGON COUNTY
Donald Pierce
Maurice Richmond (dec.)
WASTEWA TER STAFF
Y. Ara Demirjian
David Kendrick
Mike Smith
Frank E. Sturgell
Timothy R. Westman
COUNTY
Frank Bednarek
Harry Knudsen
Ralph Precious
Robert Zettell
FORMER
RodT. Dittmer
George W. Hall
Pat Lubisher
David Marsh
Dennis Molnar
John Postlewait
Lynn Richardson
Fred Swafford
Arthur Snow
Raymond Wells
COMMISSIONERS
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
FORMER COMMISSIONERS
Juane A. Baker
Michael E. Kobza
Clark H. Rager
F. Charles Raap
Gordon B. Skipper
Murton J. Vandermolen
Harold M. Workman
CONGRESSIONAL
Congressman Guy Vander Jagt
Bud C. Nagelvoort
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF Paul A. Blakeslee
NATURAL RESOURCES
50
Richard Emerson
William D. Marks
Thomas Hoogerhyde
Arthur E. Slaughter
Howard Tanner
William G. Turney
Thomas P. Wasbotten
FORMER
Ralph W. Purdy
John Vogt
V,
230 South — 6Q60H
Chicago* IllJ-n^
->U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-750-802
-------
------- |