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 ------- ------- |