UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PLAN
PROPOSED BY
THE MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
Prepared By The
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
APPROVED BY:
GEORGE R. ALEXANDER, JR.
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
SEPTEMBER 1976
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PLAN
PROPOSED BY
THE MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
Prepared By The
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
APPROVED BY:
GEORGE R. ALEXANDER, JR-.
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
SEPTEMBER 1976
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I
Summary Sheet
I. Background
A. Existing Water Quality Facilities and Agencies
B. Existing Problems
1. Background 1-1
2. History of the Sludge Disposal Program 1-1
C. Proposed Solution 1-2
II. Existing Environment
A. Natural Environment
1. Atmosphere
Temperature, Precipitation, Snowfall, Winds 2-1
Severe climatological Events 2-1
2. Land
Topography 2-1
Geology 2-1
Soils 2-3
Wetlands and Water/Land Interfaces 2-3
3. Water
Water Quantity and Location 2-3
Water Quality 2-4
4. Natural Vegetation and Wildlife
Habitat 2-4
Wildlife 2-5
5. Sensitive Natural Areas 2-6
B. Man-made Environment
1. Air
Air Quality 2-6
Noise 2-6
Odor 2-6
2. Land Use
Existing Land Uses 2-6
Proposed Land Uses and Development Trends 2-13
3. Water Quality and Quantity
Problem 2-15
Uses 2-15
Management 2-15
4. Summary of Sensitive Man-made Resources
Historical and Archeological Sites 2-15
Recreation and Open Space Areas 2-19
Agricultural Land 2-19
Energy Resources 2-19
III. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
A. Lagoon Abandonment Program Alternatives 3-1
B. Future Sludge Handling and Disposal Alternatives
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT.
1. Greeley and Hansen Reports 3-2
2. Weston Report 3-2
Land Application of Sludge 3-2
Sanitary landfill of sludge-railled refuse mixture 3-2
Land Application of Compost 3-2
Sludge Treatment Alternatives Considered in the
Weston Report 3-3
3. MMSD Addendum 3-4
Alternative lA-Land Trenching of Dewatered Sludge 3-4
Alternative 2A-Land Application of Liquid Sludge 3-5
Alternative 3A-Landfilling of Sludge/Milled Refuse
Mixture 3-6
Alternative 3B-Land Application of Dewatered Sludge 3-8
4. CH2M Hill Study 3-8
5. Reuse Level Alternatives 3-9
6. Reuse Program Alternatives 3-9
7. Transportation Method Alternatives 3-9
8. Intermediate Storage F acility Alternatives 3-9
9. Application Method Alternatives 3-9
10. No Action Alternative 3-10
11. Other Considerations in Developing the Proposed Plan 3-10
IV. Description of the Proposed Actions
A. Sludge Treatment Facilities 4-1
1. Gravity Sludge Thickener I mprovements 4-1
2. Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners 4-1
3. Sludge Digester Improvements 4-1
B. Cost of the Organic Solids Reuse Program 4-1
V. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Actions
A. Sludge Lagoon Abandonment Program 5-1
B. Construction and Operation of Expanded Solids
Treatment Facilities 5-1
C. Construction of Solids Handling Facilities = 5-2
D. Operation of the Organic Solids Reuse Program 5-2
1. Seasonal Sludge Storage in an Existing Lagoon 5-2
2. Sludge Transfer and I ntermediate Storage 5-2
3. Sludge Application to Privately-owned
Agricultural Land 5-2
a. General Discussion 5-2
b. Issues Not Considered in the Facilities
Plan or Environmental Assessment or
Miich Require Further Discussion 5-3
PCB Monitoring 5-3
Nitrogen 5-3
Heavy Metal Considerations-Cadmium 5-3
Economic Effects 5-4
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT.
VI. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity 6-1
VTI. Federal/State Agency and Public Participation 7-1
Appendices
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2
Table Page
2-1 Climatological Data, Madison, Wisconsin 2-2
2-2 Dane County, Natural Areas and Areas of
Scientific Interest 2-7-10
2-3 Rock County, Natural Areas and Areas of
Sientific Interest 2-11-12
2-4 Industrial Point Sources of Pollution, Lower
Rock River Basin 2-16-18
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
(X) Draft
( ) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, Chicago
1. (X) Administrative Action
( ) Legislative Action
2. Description of the Action
The analysis of alternatives indicates that the sludge management needs of
the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District service area would most adequately
be met by abandoning the present system of lagoon disposal of liquid anaerobically
digested sludge and adopting a system of land disposal of liquid anaerobically-
digested sludge on privately-owned agricultural land. The program would involve
marketing the sludge to farmers at their request.
3. Environmental Impact
a. Water
The abandonment of lagoon disposal of sludge at Nine Springs sewage treatment
plant will eliminate the threat of lagoon dike failure and resultant toxic spills
of the lagoon contents into Nine Springs Creek and the adjacent wetlands. As long
as the proposed land disposal program is strictly managed and operated as planned,
there will be no significant effect on water quality and quantity.
D* Air quality
As long as the precautions which have been outlined in the facilities plan
and environmental assessment are taken, potential odor problems will be minimized.
Dust generated from construction of solids treatment and handling facilities will
cause a temporary change in ambient conditions.
c. Land Use
The only significant effect on land use which is expected to result from the
proposed plan is the beneficial one which is the eventual return of the abandoned
sludge lagoons to a wetland condition.
d. Soils and Biota
Possible impacts on the soils and plant and animal life of the study area
could result from the build-up of materials contained in the sludge to levels
which may be toxic to normal life functions. This potential effect will be
minimized because MMSD's plan proposes to limit annual application rates and
total allowable loadings to levels which would provide for protection of the
soils and plant and animal life of the area while at the same time obtaining
the maximum soil amendment value to be gained from land application of the
sludge.
-------
Cadmium levels and the ratio of cadmium to zinc in MMSD sludge are
higher than the United States Department of Agriculture would recommend
for sludge being applied to privately-owned land. MMSD's conservative
application rates and their proposed cadmium source control program should
minimize the potential for build-up of cadmium to toxic levels.
e. General Concern
Since the potential adverse impacts of MMSD's proposed organic solids
reuse plan can be minimized or avoided only if MMSD's proposed management
and marketing programs are strictly carried out, it is imperative that MMSD
strictly adhere to their plan.
4. Alternatives Considered
a) Ultimate disposal alternatives
1) Land application of dewatered sludge;
2) Land application of liquid digested sludge;
3) Land application of compost;
4) Landfill of sludge/milled refuse mixture;
5) Landfill of digested sludge;
6) Subsurface placement of sludge;
7) Incinerate raw sludge;
8) Incinerate digested sludge;
9) Lagoon storage - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.
b) Transportation Method Alternatives
1) Rail transport;
2) Truck transport;
3) Pipeline transport.
c) Application Method Alternatives
1) Sprinkler gun;
2) Subsurface injection;
3) Truck or tractor drawn spreader.
d) Sludge Reuse Program Alternatives
1) Sludge supplied by MMSD at farmer's request;
2) MMSD leases privately-owned land for sludge application;
3) Combination of 1) and 2).
5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
By the implementation of the proposed actions the only irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of resources would be for the capital, labor and
energy used in construction of the facilities and the operation and maintenance
costs of the entire program including labor and energy.
11
-------
6. Federal, State, and Local Agencies Notified of this Action
Federal
Senator William Proxmire
Senator Gaylord Nelson
Representative Robert William Kastenmeier
Council on Environmental Quality
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District
United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
United States Department of Interior
United States Department of Labor
Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission
Water Resource Council
State
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
State Historical Society
Wisconsin Bureau of Planning and Budget
Wisconsin Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Wisconsin Department of Local Affairs and Development
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Office of the Governor
Local
University of Wisconsin, Department of Soil Science
Rock County Department of Environmental Protection
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
Rock Valley Metropolitan Council
Dane County Regional Planning Commission
City of Madison Planning Department
Dane County Health Department, Board of Supervisors
111
-------
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
A. Existing Water Quality Facilities and Agencies
The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) which was organized under
Wisconsin Statutes in 1930 is a metropolitan sewerage district with the
responsibility for the transmission, treatment and discharge of wastewaters
from the City of Madison, Wisconsin and its surrounding areas. The MMSD
presently serves a total of three cities, five villages and twenty-six
municipal customers located within ten townships. The MMSD includes approxi-
mately 142 square miles and is located entirely within Dane County.
The 36.5 MGD of wastewaters currently generated within the District receives
secondary treatment at the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Plant which is
located on the southern edge of the City of Madison. Its location is shown
on Figure 1-2 of the environmental assessment for this plan which is attached
as a portion of Part II of this environmental impact statement (EIS).
B. Existing Problem
1. Background
On December 31, 1975, MMSD was awarded a Step 1 Grant (Grant No. C550826-01,-02)
from this agency to prepare a facilities plan which would meet the requirements
of Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Permit No. WI-0025411. The facilities plan was
to include documentation to determine the cost-effective construction of advanced
waste treatment facilities and disposal of the effluent, and handling and disposal
of sludge from the treatment facilities.
In July 1975 the facilities planning effort was segmented into two portions,
1) advanced waste treatment and effluent discharge (Grant No. C55U826-01) and solids
2) handling and disposal (Grant No. C550826-02). This segmentation was done because
of the need to expedite the solids handling portion of the study.
This EIS covers only the segment of MMSD's overall facilities planning effort
concerned with solids handling and disposal. Advanced waste treatment and effluent
discharge issues will be considered in a separate EIS.
The firms contracted by MMSD who were responsible for preparation of the docu-
ments in Part II of this EIS were: 1) CH2M Hill, who had primary responsibility
for preparation of the organic solids reuse plan; and 2) O'Brien and Gere Engineers,
Inc., Syracuse, New York, who were responsible for preparation of the environmental
assessment for the plan.
2. History of the Sludge Disposal Program
Since the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant was put into operation in
the early 1930's the problem of disposing of the sludge produced during wastewater
treatment has been present. From the 1930's until 1942, the sludge produced was
dried on sand beds and utilized as a fertilizer for lawns, gardens, and flower beds.
Small amounts were ground and bagged. With the outbreak of World War II the manpower
required to operate and maintain this system was no longer available.
1-1
-------
In 1942, Lagoon 1 was constructed and the sludge produced at the plant was
diverted to it for storage. This lagoon has been in continuous use since that
tiire. As the capacity of the original lagoon was reached, a second lagoon
(Lagoon 2) was constructed immediately to the east of Lagoon 1 in 1968. The
total lagoons area is approximately 145 acres.
In April 1970, portions of the dike of Lagoon 2 failed, allowing lagoon
supernatant to flow into Nine Springs Creek and thence into the Yahara River
just upstream of Lake Waubesa. An additional dike failure occurred in November
1973, but spillage was negligible at that tine. As a result of the first failure,
MMSD paid $20,000 in damages and entered into an agreement with WDNR stipulating
that an alternative method of sludge disposal was to be implemented by MMSD as
soon as practicable.
A number of studies were then initiated which investigated the alternatives
for sludge disposal and the stability of the lagoon dikes. A major finding of
these reports (Warzyn Engineering and Service Co., Inc., 1970; CH2M-Hill Engineers,
Inc., 1975) concluded that the dikes of Lagoon 2 were quite unstable and were
subject to probable failures in the future. Other reports (Greeley and Hansen
Engineers, 1971; Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1974) evaluated and concluded that sludge
reduction and disposal methods such as incineration, heat treating, mechanical
dewatering and landfilling were not feasible. The staff of MMSD prepared an
addendum to the Weston report evaluating other sludge handling and disposal
alternatives not considered in the Weston Report. For a number of reasons,
including the physical and chemical characteristics of the MMSD sludge and high
energy requirements, these methods were eliminated from further consideration.
The recommended method of sludge disposal was land application of the sludge to
utilize its nutrient value as a fertilizer substitute.
The sludge disposal portion of the facilities plan has evaluated the various
methods presently available to implement a land application program. Consideration
was given to the factors necessary to develop site location and management, environ-
mental factors and program costs. In addition, various methods of sludge treatment
have also been considered. Also, several lagoon abandonment options were evaluated.
3. Proposed Solution
MMSD proposes to abandon the present program of lagoon disposal of liquid
anaerobically digested sludge and to pursue a program of land application of liquid
anaerobically digested sludge to privately-owned agricultural land. The program
involves marketing the sludge to farmers for its fertilizer and soil amendment value
at their request. The total present-worth cost of the organic solids reuse program
is $14,949,000. The applicant is requesting $3,833,000 in Federal and $256,000 in
state grants to fund the project. MMSD's portion of the cost is expected to be
approximately $10,860,000 which represent the operation and maintenance costs and
their share of the construction costs. The Federal and state grant amounts cited
above are tentative in that it remains to be determined by Region V, USEPA and
the State of Wisconsin which costs are actually grant eligible.
1-2
-------
CHAPTER 2
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A. Natural Environment
1. Atmosphere (Climate)
Chapter 6 of the facilities plan and Section 2 of the environmental
assessment present an adequate summary of climatological conditions in the study
area. Some additional information is provided to supplement these sections.
The main source of this supplemental information is the environmental inventory
for the project prepared by the applicant and its consultants.
Temperature, Precipitation, Snowfall, Winds
Table 2-1 is presented to provide a summary of temperature, precipitation,
snowfall and winds data for Madison, Wisconsin.
Severe Climatological Events
No additional information is necessary.
2. Land
Topography
Section 2.03 of the assessment is an adequate summary of topography. The
following information has been extracted from the environmental inventory for the
plan to supplement the discussion of drainage basins.
"There are numerous lakes and wetland areas found in central
and eastern Dane and Rock Counties (WDNR, 1970, 1976). The
Yahara River flows generally southeastward to the Rock River,
closely following its pre-glacial course. Partial damning
of the river valley with moraine left by the receding glaciers
has resulted in the formation of the Madison Lakes (Mendota,
Monona, Wingra, Waubesa, and Kegonsa). There are numerous
wetland areas adjacent to the Yahara River.
"The Rock River also closely follows its pre-glacial course,
flowing generally southward from its headwaters in Dodge County
through Jefferson and Rock Counties. The two major impoundments
on the Rock River, Lakes Koshkonong and Sinissippi were formerly
marsh areas which have been turned into shallow lakes by the
placement of dams across the river channel.
Geology
Section 6.1 of the facilities plan and Section 2.04 of the environmental
assessment provide an adequate discussion of the geology of the project area
and how the geology influences surface and ground water resources.
2-1
-------
<
EH 2
O
H -H
c rd
^ -P
H
Q_|
r)
0
(11
VL/
ft
CM
>
O
^-^
0)
rl
3
-P
rd
rl
0)
Q-i
e
Q)
EH
C
0)
g
X
(d
g
Cn
C
H
rH
H
rd
$>
0)
rl
ft
C
d)
g
fo*
g
c
m
g
c
g
X
rrt
IU
g
C
0)
g
c
rl
g
X
(d
g
inr-^r-mcMCMrHcoujoocN
OOrHrHOCriOOCOOOCTiOO
rH rH rH iH rH rH rH
oo r^ o ro r^ o> CM r^ CM ro vo in
vDinr^-r^t^inr-'^j'inc^inM)
[Sj55|5C/lCO(/lCOCOCOC/i5
J3 £3 13 J2
s s
o>moor^- ooo C-HOOO
OOVDCTirH OOO OCM-'*oncM
OOOOOOrHOOOOO
LO 1^** ^5* ^H ^O LO t»^j1 P^* ^H LO *^J* *^*
^J* P**- ^^ r*H f^4 r~\ ^ ' ^J* LO I-O O^ ^D
C^ C^ LO f*** ^D 00 f~^ f^*" O^ IO 00 OO
rH
oorocMroooorHr-r-^r^cri
vDooinvoinooocn^rrH
rHCNn^j'invor^vDin^i'rocM
OrOO^CT»OrHVD>X)inLnrHCM
ncMCM cMronrocMH CM
III 1
T^ooor-rHinooinoovocM
in in c^ oo o^ c^ cj^ CT\ o"* cr> r^* ^o
M
>1 0) ^ rl
>1 rl X) rl 0) QJ
rl Id -P 6 0) X) XI
rd;3,drH cocuxjgg
3MO-ri (U^-irJ-Pocuti)
d XI ^-1 rl K*1 C rH CT* Ol -P ^* O
rd CU rd Qi rOj3j3^(DOOCJ
l~Db-igKCg'~D^':Ii[-'3O2Q
o C
/"\
u
O CO
rH -H
rd
g
1
**
r-
rH
»
rd
-P
rd
Q
(U
£>
H
i i
rd
>_l
fd
p{
I g
/"I
u
CTi CJ
ro
r;
-P
H
u
r?
(d
g
g
rj
in co
CM
i i
o nj
ro 3
C
C
1
id
4J
rd
Q
rH
O
H
tn
O
rH
O
O> 4J
trt
' ro
^* *fH
rH
CJ
rH
rd
U
O
i_^
s
g
o
M-l
c
0)
^1 rX
rd rd
Q) EH
>H rH
C
O
H
-p
TO
t i
W
4J
CO
H
fj
-H
g
d
<
o
H
(1)
O
4J
^
T3
rd
O
rl
C CO CO
rd ri M
Q) (d (0
U d) d)
***) ?"l ?*1
rH m m
(d rH 00
c;
O
P M rl
rd O O
zoo
0) Q)
* ^ ^. i 1 1
C! M-l M-l
rl 0 O
CO
ooo
O -H -H
CO rl rl
-rl Q) Q)
& ft ft
CM ro
CO
>_l
rd
0)
00
CM
1
T3
0)
m
vv
CO
.»
CO
rl
rd
xi\
cu
rj<
rH
1
0
H
-P
0
0)
rl
1
ri
d
tji
c
CO -r)
M rH
rd -H
/11 rrt
CU IU
O
vo )>J
CM (I,
^ v
'd ^3
rl rl
0 O
O O
QJ Q)
rl rl
4H <4H
0 0
^ 'd
o o
H -H
rl rl
Q) 0)
ft ft
^ in
^
C
(d
rH
ft
W
Q)
H
^-)
H
rH
H
0
rd
pL|
0)
H
CO
5^
0)
r*t
0)
rl
g
O
u
CO
-
Q
g
rl
O
rl
O
-P
C
0)
(-*
M
M
rH
rd
-p
c
0)
c
o
iH
H
^
G
W
g
0
M
m
'd
(D
^j
u
rd
rl
J->
X
W
2-2
-------
Soils
Sections 6.3 and 6.5 and Figure 6-4 (general soil map) of the facilities
plan and Section 2.05 and Table 2-2 of the environmental assessment present
sufficient information related to soils. Section 6.3 discusses soils from
the standpoint of suitability for sludge application. Figure 6-4, Section
6.5, Section 2.05 and Table 2-2 provide a display and discussion of the location
and characteristics of various soil types. The information presented is of
necessity of a general nature. More detailed soils series data would be required
for detailed agricultural management or construction design work when specific
project sites are under consideration.
Wetlands and Water/Land Interfaces
Section 2.10 B of the environmental assessment presents a summary of wetlands
in the study area. This summary does not give an idea of the amount of wetlands
within Dane County. The environmental inventory for the study lists 16 priority,
No. 1, 19 priority No. 2, and 12 priority No. 3 wetland areas in Dane County and
their location and inportance. However, the acreage of each area is not listed.
Figure 6-4 in the facilities plan shows the general location of wetlands within
the study area. The various wetland priority types are not distinguished on the
figure. The wetlands shown on the figure fall primarily within the areas designated
as "few of the soils suitable for application" or secondarily within the areas
designated as "some soils suitable for sludge application".
Related to flood hazards, the environmental setting description, Section 2.03
and Table 2-3 include flow value data, however, no discussion is presented on flood
hazard areas. Section 2.06 of the environmental inventory for the facilities plan
does indicate that in respect to flooding in the lower Rock River basin (includes
Yahara River basin):
"Flood flows are relatively low due to the small relief of the basin, as well
as the storage capacity provided by the many lakes, reservoirs and wetlands.
Flooding in headwater areas is generally limited to low-lying agricultural or
undeveloped land adjoining waterways, although some springtime flooding of low-lying
residences near the Madison Lake and Lake Koshkonong does occur. Substantive flood
potential does exist in the cities of Janesville and Beloit where commercial and
residential construction has taken place on the floodplain."
Although they have not been included in this report, there are flood hazard
maps available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Insurance Administration for portions of the study area. These delineate
the approximate area of a 100 year flood. In addition, the United States Geological
Survey published a series of flood prone area maps. These maps also delineate the
approximate area of a 100 year flood. They are available for certain portions of
the study area.
3. Water
Water Quantity and Location
Section 6 of the facilities plan and Section 2.06 of the environmental assessment
provide an adequate discussion of ground water resources.
2-3
-------
The discussion of surface water quantity in Section 2.06 of the environmental
assessment is sufficient.
Water Cjual i ty
Section 6 of the facilities plan and Section 2.06 of the environmental assess-
ment present sufficient information on groundwater quality. Section 2.6 and Table
2-4 of the environmental assessment adequately summarize surface water quality
conditions. Additional monitoring information is included in backup appendices to
the facilities plan. They have not been included because of their voluminous nature.
As a point of clarification, Table 2-4 presents two sets of monitoring data. The
1955-1958 data was for a period prior to MMSD's diversion of their effluent into
Badfish Creek. The 1972-1975 data is post-diversion.
4. Natural Vegetation and jjildlife
Habitat
Section 2.07 I of the environmental assessment is a summary of existing vegeta-
tion in the study area. Some clarification and supplementation of this section is
necessary. Additional species information is included in backup appendices to the
facilities plan.
One plant species which possibly occurs within the study area has been included
as a proposed endangered species on the proposed list of "Endangered and Threatened
Plant Species of the United States" published in the Federal Register on June 16,
1976. Lespedeza leptostachya (bushclover) is expected to occur on dry prairies in
the study area.
Related to the discussions of aquatic vegetation some clarification is required.
The discussion refers to an Appendix D which was described as including the results
of an algal survey of Badfish Creek. This appendix was not, however, attached to
the environmental assessment. The survey referred to was a survey of fish and algae
of the Badfish Creek (main stem and and Rutland Branch) and Yahara River conducted
in 1975 by John Magnuson and Gary Herbst from the University of Wisconsin. From
their survey of fish and algae they concluded that:
1) in relation to Badfish Creek a) Badfish Creek is most severely polluted
upstream of Cooksville, b) limited recovery occurs in the lower regions of the
stream, c) water quality of Badfish Creek is inferior to both the Rutland Branch
and the Yahara River;
2) the fish found in the Yahara River appear unaffected by Badfish Creek;
3) diatom species abundance and diversity in the Yahara River is reduced down-
stream of the mouth of Badfish Creek (indicating therefore, that the algal flora of
the Yahara River is influenced by the Badfish Creek);
4) the Rutland Branch (of the Badfish Creek) is a pristine stream;
5) further detailed investigations of the fish fauna are warranted.
2-4
-------
Wildlife
Section 2.07 of the environmental assessment summarizes wildlife in the study
area. Additional backup information is included in the environmental inventory
to the facilities plan. However that information is voluminous in nature and has
therefore not been reproduced in this report. Section 2.07 is adequate with some
clarification and supplementation. Section 2.07 F refers to Appendix E and Section
2.07 G refers to Appendix D. Those appendices were not attached to the environmental
assessment. However, they are included as backup information to the comprehensive
facilities plan.
The investigation of the macroinvertebrate found of Badfish Creek referred to
in Section 2.07 F of the environmental assessment was completed by William L.
Hilsenhoff and Thomas S. Karl of the Department of Entomology, University of
Wisconsin, Madison in 1975. Their conclusions were that:
1. Effluent from the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District's
treatment plant has severely altered the macroinvertebrate
fauna of Badfish Creek. This fauna in 1975 was characteristic
of that which is normally found in moderately large streams
severely polluted by organic wastes.
2. Faunal alteration was caused by a greatly increased volume
of water flowing through the stream and by increased nutrient
and BCD loads. The BCD creates a depression of dissolved
oxygen levels, especially in the summer, which severely
restricts the macroinvertebrate fauna that can exist in
Badfish Creek. The increased nutrient loads that promote
abnormal amounts of plant growth and abnormally high
concentrations of certain ions may also be contributing
factors in limiting the fauna.
3. Faunal alteration is most severe in the upstream areas of
Badfish Creek, with some indications of recovery in down-
stream sections.
4. The macroinvertebrate fauna of the Yahara River was distinctly
altered by waters from Badfish Creek during spring and early
summer of 1975, but in late summer and fall alteration of
the fauna was insignificant.
Table 2-6 in the environmental assessment is taken after "Surface Water Resources
of Dane County", 1961, WDNR, "Surface Water Resources of Rock County", 1970, WDNR
and "Wisconsin Mapped Lakes", Clarkson Map Company. More recent sampling was com-
pleted for Badfish Creek and the Yahara River in 1975 by John Magnuson and Gary
Herbst from the University of Wisconsin. That survey showed additional species
existing in the Yahara River such as bluegill, crappie, and white bass. Their
Badfish Creek survey data show some trout and bluegills living there in addition
to those shown on the table. Refer back to the section on habitat for a discussion
of the general conclusions of their study.
2-5
-------
5. Sensitive Natural Areas
Section 2.10 of the environmental assessment summarizes sensitive natural areas.
As indicated in this section there are many sensitive natural areas and areas of
scientific interest within the project area which should be given special considera-
tion when planning any specific project action. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 have been
extracted from the environmental inventory for the study and are included here
to provide additional information on sensitive areas which should be protected.
B. Man-made Environment
1. Air
Air Quality
Section 2.08 of the environmental assessment is an adequate discussion of
air quality.
Noise
There has been no discussion of noise levels in the project area in the
environmental assessment. In 1970, the Madison Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) had registrations of 494 motor vehicles per 1000 population and 1_6
motor cycles per 1000 population. A recent USEPA publication used this index
of vehicle registration as an index of noise population with the Madison SMSA
ranking 19th and 37th lowest, respectively, for these two categories among 83
SMSA's with population between 200,000 and 500,000. In both cases Madison ranked
in the quieter half of those towns of its size surveyed. This kind of an analysis
could be somewhat misleading considering the study area includes both urban and
rural areas which would by their nature have different noise sources and levels.
However, no better information is available.
Odor
The environmental assessment does not present an adequate picture
of potential odor problems created by the proposed project and how they should
be mitigated. Since the majority of the project area is agricultural land, it
would be expected that the types of odor sources in these areas would be typical
of agricultural areas. In addition, Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Plant has been
reported as an odor source to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; however,
no action orders have been issued to MMSD. The potential for odor problems would
be minimized or eliminated by implementation of the facilities plan proposed by
MMSD.
2. Land Use
Existing Land Uses
Section 6.1 and 6.5 and Figure 6.5 of the facilities plan and Section 2.09 and
Table 2-10 of the environmental assessment present a general summary of existing
land uses. Figure 6.5 shows the types of areas which have uses incompatible with
an agricultural reuse plan and should therefore be avoided. Some correction and
supplementation of these sections is needed.
2-6
-------
H
-P
O
cr>
r--
o
0)
co
u
H
-P
CO
s
CN
I
CM
H
H
-P
(0
U
en
H ii-i i_q N 0)
in O M -H
3 T3 O M-l
8
CO
S I
o
u
a>
a-
CN
0)
-H
CO
-H
-P
CO
2-7
-------
I
CNJ
f>J
3 I I
CO
s«
?8
5 tn
8 1
5 b
5-t on
a sti
^ -*a
vo
r}« .
O CO
^8
> (0
CN H
ro U
O CU
TJI ^j
0)
^^
IS,
a w
S'S
4J Q
5Q
5
j«j o
^ >i
a-0
si
J8
5>-
QJ
en
ag
5
CM
>?
s
g
&
s
si
xi
a
i
«
s
-5
t
£
CO J-l
.a'
Si1
1
rH
H 4J
in o o o m in
CN r~ o ro ro "tj1
o
n
ro
3 i
.s s
&
a a
oo
CQ
o
CM
(N
Cfl
(1)
(N
(N
2-8
-------
co
VD
II
% &
CO O
H -H tfl
I -0 &
H-l
O
cu
-H
I
(0
-------
1
XI
LJ m
a p
(d O
H-
o
I
to 0
H-.H
XI *H
«
g
3
O
CO
8
(0
£
J8
3*
ids
s
CO
-0 3
*u
M-l CD
o o
JH H
%
.s
:*
-s
£
nj T3 m 4J
^8 °^ g
O O -H I
H T3 -H 10 C
CO rH 4J W C =
CU CD O O Q) CQ
S «9 $ ^ -H f"
9 43 W Oj g &4J
5 S § (1) -P 0) nj
CO D fa rM CO OA ft
WJ
si
XI
4-1
w
"
21 N
-S .
fei
m
a
%t/
4J ft}
to g
^
$$
si
s
s
(1)
H
5
I «
9)
IM
s
!
is
H
3
m .
»2
3 w
Q E
CO
CQ
H,
VO
O
-P
CN
CN
H
(0
0)
ra
0)
IT)
in
m
CN
CD
5
CO
0)
(1)
N
fi
CO
N
i
CQ
CN
&
&
i
CO
s
M-l
c
H
8
CO
CO
(D
CO
(N
ro
m
m
m
IT)
ro
n
00
-------
oo
(N
H
S
VJ
a
(0
I
i i
8
o
H
(0
+ w
-a
en
S £
§
H -H
4J -P
H
H
'y
8
4-1
Cn
I 8
H -H
1 i
T3 8
i I
8
S
CO CO iH
£ 8
n
H
S
H X
851
S
U
w
y
O
CN +
O O
O O
in no
O
oo
I
I
I
H Qj
8
S
CO
oo
CO
CO CO
o
in
flj *rj
di CO
Id
i-H
CO
CO
8
s «
i a
0)
-H
S
s
CO
CO
!«
1
ni >4
a 1
CO
r^ oo
CTi O iH CN 00 ^
2-11
-------
W
a)
g -H
O 4J
tn -H
h CO CO
o
U)
* fr
-H
rH
u
s
m
00
0)
-H
A!
0)
CTi
w
o
(N
8
0)
CNJ
CN
(N
ro
CN
8
1
id
CO
en
2-12
-------
Two corrections of the text of Section 2.09 of the assessment should be noted.
The figure 345,715 given for the population in the MMSD planning area in the year
2000 should be 345,215. The figure 2,040 acres given for the amount of additional
acres of land for development (commercial, residential, and manufacturing) demanded
by the year 2000 should be changed to 4,049 acres of additional land. (Personal
communication with O'Brien and Gere Engineers staff).
Land use around the existing plant and sludge lagoon site was one item not
discussed in the environmental assessment. It should have been at least briefly
considered in this portion of the plan since this plan proposes a modification
of the existing sludge lagoon use and expansion of sludge treatment facilities.
The following information was taken from a portion of the advanced waste treat-
ment and discharge segment of the facilities plan related to plant siting.
"The plant site is bound on the northeast, east, and southeast
by undeveloped property. On the east side is a wetland, in
public ownership, of 800-900 acres. Industrially-zoned pro-
perty to the northeast can be expected to develop in the future,
while land to the east and southeast has limited development
potential. Property immediately south of the plant is a
mobile home subdivision. The area farther south and to the
southeast is under cultivation. An undeveloped parcel of
land lies immediately west of the plant, with an apartment
complex and residential subdivisions beyond to the west.
Land to the northwest is undeveloped, and an industrial
complex lies to the north."
"Zoning ordinances are administered by the respective jurisdic-
tions within the vicinity of the plant and sludge lagoons; the
City of Madison, the City of Monona, and Dane County. Land
adjoining the treatment plant on the north is zoned industrial;
the lands to the west are zoned manufacturing, agricultural,
conservancy, and residential. The areas to the east and south
of the plant are zoned manufacturing, agricultural and planned
residential development."
"Existing zoning is compatible with the present operation of the
Nine Springs plant, but a mix of uses, including residential,
has developed near the plant. Any nearby residential development
can be considered a potential source of opposition to the further
expansion of the plant."
Proposed Land Uses and Development Trends
The facilities plan and environmental assessment include only a minimal amount
of discussion of proposed land uses and development trends for either the plan
area in general or for the vicinity of the treatment plant and sludge lagoons
specifically. To provide a better picture of future land use and development
trends for the general study area the following information was extracted from
the environmental inventory for the study.
"Definite statements cannot be made regarding future land
use trends. The lack of strong, uniform land use planning
implementation programs (personal communication, Mary Louise
2-13
-------
Syroon, Dane County Board Chairman), and uncertain factors such
as future birth rates and economic development, prohibit a
clear estimation of future land use requirements. There is
also no assurance that the trends noted in the past decade are
indicative of long range land use patterns. However, based on
the data available for the 1964 to 1973 period, some general
land use trends seem apparent.
"Agricultural land use will probably continue to decline for
a number of reasons. Increased production per acre of farm
land will probably require that less land will be needed to
produce the crops needed to feed increased future populations.
Also, present economic conditions have led to a decreasing
number of farms in operation.
"Dane County farms have decreased only slightly from 3,950 in
1972 to 3,940 in 1973, while the total land area has remained
constant at 660,600 acres (Wisconsin Legislative Bureau, 1975).
"These figures all indicate a steady decline in both the total
number of farms in operation and in the total number of acres
devoted to agricultural practices on a state wide basis. Dane
and Rock Counties do not seem to be affected as greatly.
"Population increases will require that additional lands be
developed for housing, commercial establishments, services,
utilities, etc. It is also anticipated that increased demand
for recreation facilities will result in an increase of acreage
devoted to this purpose."
One of the assumptions made by Dane County Regional Planning Commission in pre-
paring their forecasts for area socioeconomic development is that an increasing
proportion of future population increases will be located outside the Central
Madison) Urban Services Area.
Related to land use plans and zoning for the area in proximity to the Nine
Springs treatment plant (including sludge lagoons) some potential for conflicts
appear to exist. As stated in a portion of the comprehensive facilities plan
related to plant siting:
".... At the present time, existing zoning does not represent
any serious conflicts with maintenance, operation and
possible expansion of the treatment plant. Zones considered
incompatible are fully developed, i.e., R-l (the apartment
complex) and PHD (the mobile home subdivision).
"There is reason for concern, however, when the comprehensive
land use plan is compared to existing zoning. Existing
zoning does not totally reflect proposed land use patterns
in the area, and the land use plan is the guiding reference
in approving zone changes. Under the proposed plan, areas
to the southwest, south, and southeast currently zoned
agricultural could conceivably be altered to permit low-
2-14
-------
density or medium-density residential development. This
would result in further encroachment of residential dev-
lopment around the plant."
3. Water quality and quantity
Problem
Section 2.06 discusses surface and groundwater quality and quantity considera-
tions. General reference is made to the types of pollution sources (point and
nonpoint) affecting the area. Specific reference is made to the municipal point
source discharges. However, no reference is made to industrial discharges. In
the general area considered for sludge application the environmental inventory
for the study shows eleven industrial point sources of pollution. These industries,
the receiving waters into which they discharge, and the quantity and quality of
their discharges are listed on Table 2-4 extracted from the environmental inventory
for the study.
The most critical water quality problem most directly applicable to this organic
solids reuse study is related to the storage lagoon problems which MMSD has experi-
enced at Nine Springs sewage treatment plant. Those problems are summarized in
Section 1.2 of the facilities plan and Section 1.04 E of the environmental assessment.
Uses
The discussion of water uses in Section 2.06 of the environmental assessment
is sufficient for the level of detail of this report. Additional information is
available in backup appendices to the comprehensive facilities plan.
Management
Sections 2.06 and 2.12 of the environmental assessmental adequately summarize
water management programs in force in the study area.
4. Summary of Sensitive Man-made Resources
Historical and Archeological Sites
Section 2.16 is an adequate discussion of historical and archeological sites.
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was contacted related to the
potential impacts that the proposed actions in the MMSD facilities plan could have
on historical and archeological sites. The letter of response from the SHPO is
included in Appendix A.
Related to the impact of the organic solids reuse plan segment of MMSD's
facilities plan it was indicated in the letter that "... the application of sludge
to agricultural lands will have no effect on any historical or archeological sites."
No reference was made in the letter to potential impacts resulting from construction
of the expanded sludge treatment facilities, per se. However, because the expanded
sludge treatment facilities will be constructed on a portion of the already disturbed
treatment plant site no request was made to survey the site.
2-15
-------
col
CN
CN
O
O
in
oo
o
o
o
tn
o
CN
CN
O
O
O O
<£> CN
00
O
O CN
O
r-
CN
o
CO
o
rH
CN
o
in
O
CTi
CN
OO
o
00
o
o
CN
o
VD
o
o
CN
o
o
O
in
ro
o
o
o
ro
o
o
B
rd^ rd
s l£
L I 1
r~f ^1
g fa
QJ
CT<
rd
id
>
<
rH
00
00
CO
\s
M
ft
[--
rH
§
2S
fa S!
o PQ rd
co pi H oJ
"* W W rC K>
CN g H CO
£H OH
rH
O
O O
CN 0
^r
^ o
m o
QJ ol
1 1
x fd
B si
§
Q !>H
rH
O
0
1
1
rd
|
>
B ol
^-^
K
in
00 O
rH O
0 0
0 rH
CN O
0 O
rd
I "i
S >H
"U B QJ
K --H
PH
n
o
o
0
m
0
o
0
QJ
1
^
y
«
Q
rH
0
O
in
o
0
>
A
b
i
^
r^
CN
O
a
I
^
P^
Q
^ji
(Ti O
0 0
O O
m
o o
rH 0
0 O
fd
a
m oj
>i >
O Pi
cr\ m
M O
*
0 O
rH 00
^J1 O
o o
M
S
X
K
B
a ^
O -rl
4-1 K
0)
S
*&
9S
Q)
H
0
-P
aS
B ^-^
I!
$
rd
CO
£
H
0
-P
co -
11
0)
0
[ 1
I
rd
1
ft
rH
B
0)
0)
cn
C/l K
ti
§
I
o
CO
1
C rH O
O O 3 CO
U CO rrj -H «
0 'S ^ 2 I
-i-t fn >^ fo
fa
w
CO
H -H
<§
C/l
CO
VA ri
-rH O
1 I
§
v rB fiT 8
Q) O rH CO fd
1-^1 '^ °
3 -H p fd M
CO
C C
O O
CO CO
rH -H
CO
0)
H
o
cn
H
H CO
'S '^
(DM
CN ro
m us
2-16
oo
CTl
CN
-------
CO
COl VD
00
in
i-H
ro
CM
CM
o
CM
CM
CM
o
o
rH
CM
CM
O
0
0
rH
ro
in
OO
CTi
*
UD
in
m
CTi
ro
o
CTl
in
r- CM
rH ^*
00
rH rH
in
ro
o
o
VD
o
CM
0
o
rH
iH
0
o
00
OO
CM
0
O
00
0
o
OO
CO
in
OO
5
O
ro
ro
CM
CM
o
o
00
O
O
fO
0)
2
1
a!
0
o
o
o
in in
0 0
^D VX3
O O
O
O
O
O
O
rH
O
CM
O
rH
O
rH
O
CM
rH
O
rH
O
OO
O
CM
O
CM
rH
O
VD
CM
O
VD
O
O
00
O
0
cr>
ro
0
-------
tp
^
0
H
ti
.5
6
CO CO
o
o
S LO
o
CN
0
o
0
0
m
o
8
3
QJ
CM
in 01
CO
ro
O
o
^
"0
4->
C
8
^
CN
w
EH
VO ^f
0) 01 o r-
p
2
k
cu
4J
rH
fa
Ol O O rH
U O O O
fii
(X) CTl
r^ O1 CD t
ro o o rH
(U
CU O O O
fc.
d 1
x $
U)
&
-p
d
H
CU
K
: g g
(l tl
U O CU O
p > -p
i $ u "g u
Q) Q
-P ,*4 C ffi W
*H O ro CO
li i§ co B 18
CQ
0)
O
^
8
&
rH
(d
1
S3
m
o
-P
8,
a
-5
§
-H
^
^
g
H
-P
-P
w
tO
u
a;
0)
o
CTl
CN
O
ro
rH
n
2-18
-------
Recreation and Open Space Areas
The discussion of recreational areas and activities in Section 2.13 of the
environmental assessment is an adequate summary of these subjects. A list of parks
in the area was included in the environmental inventory but has not been incorporated
into this report.
Agricultural Land
Chapter 6 (Section 6.1 and 6.4) of the facilities plan and the previous discus-
sion of land use in this chapter together provide sufficient information on the
agricultural economy and trends in agriculture in the study area.
Energy Resources
Energy uses by MMSD are adequately discussed in Section 2.14 of the environ-
mental assessment. Other present or projected electrical power, natural gas and
heating oil needs in the study area were not identified. "The Upper Mississippi
River Comprehensive Basin Study" published in 1970 predicts a substantial increase
in energy requirements in the basin between 1970 and the year 2000. The figures
cited for Power Supply Area 13 which includes Dane County show that energy require-
ments will increase from 9,690 million kwh in 1970 to 50,560 million kwh in the
year 2000. While these predictions may have changed somewhat since 1970, it can
be expected that there will be an increasing demand for energy as the population
increases.
2-19
-------
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The organic solids reuse plan and the environmental assessment are accurate
as far as they go in their presentation of how Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District systematically evaluated the various alternatives and arrived at their
proposed plan. However, some supplementation and clarification of what is pre-
sented in these two reports is required to allow the public to fully understand
how various alternatives were eliminated from consideration. In some cases these
reports compare the alternatives on the basis of economics when in reality MMSD
and its consultants took other factors into account in addition to monetary costs.
There is some additional information related to various alternatives which has
not been considered in eliminating certain alternatives. Sludge treatment
alternatives were discussed only briefly in the facilities plan, and environmental
assessment. Instead of repeating what has been presented in the facilities plan
and environmental assessment, this section will reference the sections of the
facilities plan and environmental assessment which provide the information necessary
to understanding how alternatives were evaluated and eliminated and supplement,
clarify, or summarize this information where necessary.
The proposed plan includes a proposed lagoon abandonment program as well as a
proposed plan for future sludge handling and disposal. Therefore, the alternatives
discussion is broken up into those two categories.
A. Lagoon Abandonment Program Alternatives
Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the facilities plan and Sections 1.04 and 1.05 of the
environmental assessment give an adequate history of sludge lagoon problems at
Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Plant. They show why MMSD was forced to cease their
previous program of lagoon disposal of sludge and adopt a course of action to stop
the threat of lagoon dike failure.
Chapter 5 of the facilities plan adequately discusses how the various alternative
lagoon abandonment options were evaluated in selecting the proposed plan. Appendix
B, Tables B-l - B-4 of the facilities plan compare costs for the various alternatives.
It appears that MMSD has systematically and adequately considered all reasonable
and feasible alternatives to lagoon abandonment and lagoon sludge disposal.
B- Future Sludge Handling and Disposal Alternatives
This category includes the alternative methods of treating, transporting and
disposing of sludge produced by MMSD in the future.
As indicated in Sections 2.1 - 2.4 of the facilities plan and Section 3.01 of
the environmental assessment, MMSD has had several studies done related to sludge
treating, transport, and disposal. The results of the reports are summarized in the
above-referenced sections. From the information presented in these sections it would
appear that feasible alternatives were screened solely on the basis of monetary costs.
Although monetary cost was certainly the overriding concern in the screening of
alternatives, the various reports did include consideration of other factors in the
screening process. The following discussion of the various reports is meant to
supplement and evaluate what has been presented in the referenced sections of the
facilities plan and environmental assessment.
3-1
-------
1. Greeley and Hansen Reports
The discussion presented in Section 2.1 of the facilities plan and Section
3.01 of the environmental assessment is accurate. The alternatives include
consideration of handling and disposal of sludge. It should be realized that
alternatives A-D assume 25-mile truck transport of sludge and alternative E
(liquid sludge application) assumes 25-mile pipeline or rail transport. The
current proposed plan includes immediate truck and potential future pipeline
transport of liquid sludge. It would appear that on the basis of monetary
costs no comparisons could be made of the proposed immediate plan of truck
transport of liquid sludge with the alternatives in the Greeley and Hansen
report since the assumed modes and distance of transport presented vary.
However, Appendix B to the facilities plan compares the costs for various
modes of transport so that comparisons can be drawn.
2. Weston Report
This report was discussed in Section 2.2 of the facilities plan and
Section 3.01 of the environmental assessment. These sections present an
adequate discussion of how lagoon disposal, land application of dried sludge,
incineration of sludge and subsurface placement or trenching were-eliminated
from consideration on the basis of monetary costs. However, the discussion
of how the three remaining alternatives (land application of liquid sludge,
sanitary landfill of a sludge-milled refuse mixture and land application of
compost) were compared only includes information on monetary costs. The
Weston report had also compared these three alternatives on a non-monetary
basis. Some additional factors considered related to these alternatives
were:
Land application of sludge - In addition to the cheaper dollar cost of
this alternative the report gave a shorter implementation time and retrieval
of the fertilizer value of sludge as advantages. This alternative requires
lagooning over the winter months. The report also indicated that virus
survival, odor, heavy metals and runoff could be problems. However, with
adequate control they are surmountable difficulties.
Sanitary landfill of sludge-milled refuse mixture - With this alternative
the report indicated that sludge dewatering would be required and would probably
provide a centrifuge effluent return of unacceptable quality. Cover material
would probably be required in this alternative. The availability of a reliable
source of milled refuse was considered questionable.
Land application of compost - According to the Weston report, some of the
advantages of composting are: 1) Composting would return a valuable resource
to the soil; and 2) Composting the Nine Springs sludge with wood chips or
milled refuse would present additional dewatering benefits considering the
poor dewatering characterics of the sludge. After consideration of mechanical
composting as an alternative, the Weston report concluded that it would be
difficult or impossible to achieve the optimum moisture content which would
promote effective growth of the aerobic organisms necessary to achieve composting.
In addition, it was felt that the effluent from the centrifuge dewatering system
could potentially impact on the balance of the treatment system. Open windrow
3-2
-------
composting such as has been tested at Beltsville, Maryland was also considered
in the Weston report. It was felt that this type of composting could only be
accomplished during summer months because of the low nighttime temperatures
common to winter in Madison. It would be difficult to achieve an acceptable
dewatered state as with mechanical composting. The problems with centrate quality
affecting treatment balance would also be the same. A negative concern related
to composting in general was the doubt of finding reliable sources of wood chips
or milled refuse.
The Weston report was prepared based on initial test results at Beltsville,
Maryland. More recent experiences by the United States Department of Agriculture
at Beltsville and subsequent experiences at Bangor, Maine vary from the discussion
of windrow composting presented in the Weston report. The experience at Bangor,
Maine (personal communication, USDA Laboratory, Bangor, Maine) has been that
adequate windrow composting can be achieved year-round with proper controls. Also,
the costs associated with composting would be lower than those cited in the Weston
report. The cost of composting is less than the $140/dry ton cited in the Weston
report. Estimated cost figures cited in a paper by Epstein and Wilson related to
the sludge composting project at Beltsville, Maryland are $30/dry ton at a 40/dry
ton/day plant receiving dewatered sludge. Personal communication with Dan Kowaseco,
USDA Beltsville, Maryland indicated that the estimated cost would be in the range
of $30-$60/ dry ton. This estimated cost does not include haul costs or any revenue
resulting from sale of the product. This would still be higher than Madison's
proposed plan. The Weston report also indicated that the highest practical and
economical level of solids which could be attained at Nine Springs STP was around
12% and that this was below the level necessary to achieve composting. In recent
tests at Beltsville, Maryland composting has been achieved using sludges with as
low as 5% solids. The results of the tests have not yet, however, been published.
(Personal communication, Dan Kowaseco, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland).
The Weston report did not consider additional benefits of composting which have
been experienced at Beltsville, Maryland. These include better kill-off of pathogens
and fewer potential odor problems. The recent experiences at Beltsville have shown
that composting can produce a soil amendment product which could either be sold to
offset the processing cost or used with the municipality for a variety of purposes,
decreasing the amount of inorganic fertilizers which would otherwise be purchased.
Related to the composting alternative for MMSD it would appear that certain
problems discussed in the Weston report such as finding a reliable source of wood
chips and finding a market for the product would still offset the benefits to be
gained from using composting. If the proposed farm market for liquid sludge does
not develop as anticipated, it may be possible to reconsider composting as an alter-
native backup program.
Sludge treatment alternatives considered in the Weston report - The selection
of sludge treatment alternatives was based on the need to produce sludges of a
quality which would be suitable for the alternative methods of suitable ultimate
disposal. Various combinations of processes were considered for each of the major
sludge handling systems (Sanitary Landfill System, Land Application of Compost System
and Land Application of Liquid Sludge System). The proposed system of land appli-
cation of liquid sludge incorporated the process of blending of primary and secondary
sludges, gravity thickening, and anaerobic digestion.
3-3
-------
3. MMSD Addendum
Section 2.3 of the facilities plan and Section 3.01 of the environmental
assessment discuss this report. The report analyzed several sludge treatment
and disposal alternatives on the basis of costs and environmental impacts. The
system proposed in the report as most cost-effective includes thickening and
anaerobic digestion followed by pipeline transport and land application of liquid
sludge. The evaluation of how three of the alternative systems were eliminated
in a preliminary screening was adequately discussed. However/ the evaluation
of the four remaining alternatives was not sufficiently detailed. The following
evaluation of these alternatives was excerpted from the MMSD Addendum to supplement
the information in the facilities plan and environmental assessment. The costs
of the four alternatives considered in the final screening in MMSD's Addendum
is presented in Appendix B.
Alternative 1A - Land Trenching of Dewatered Sludge
Advantages
This option does not require digestion of the sludge.
Elimination of a unit operation eliminates operational
and control problems associated with that unit operation.
The operation would be continuous, without the need for
lengthy sludge storage which has the potential for odor
problems. There would be very little visible evidence of
sludge disposal at the final disposal site. A relatively
small land area would be required to handle the sludge in
this manner. If a farm were purchased by MMSD for the
purpose of trench disposal, the farmer could continue
to work the undisturbed property with minimal interference
due to the sludge disposal. Odor problems at the disposal
site would be minimal.
Implementation time for this system would be short and
primarily dependent on the delivery time for the dewatering
equipment. The final disposal site could be switched easily
because of the small area required per year and the fact that
the dewatered sludge would be transported by truck.
Disadvantages
The main disadvantage of the trenching option is the
inability to predict whether the land used for disposal
would be stable enough to be brought back into useful
crop production. The dewatered sludge at 16% solids content
is still pliable and may not readily lose enough of its
remaining moisture to the surrounding earth or the atmosphere
to stabilize. If the dewatered sludge would not stabilize,
productive land may be lost.
A site with suitable geological characteristics would
have to be found to prevent uncontrolled discharge of pollu-
tants to the surrounding groundwater. The trenches might
have to be lined with an impermeable membrane prior to
3-4
-------
sludge placement or drain tiles might be required to catch
any downward movement of leachate. This leachate may have
to be treated, probably by spraying it back on productive
land.
The sludge dewatering step would produce a recycle stream
which must enter the secondary treatment system. The recycle
stream would use some plant capacity and may also have a
harmful effect on the effluent discharged from the secondary
plant. The 1990 loading from this recycle stream would equal
3.5 per cent of the anticipated 1990 BCD load, 3.9 per cent
of the anticipated 1990 suspended solids load and 3.3 per
cent of the anticipated 1990 ammonia nitrogen load in the
secondary treatment plant. The suspended solids in the
recycle stream would be very fine in nature and may accumu-
late in the secondary treatment system. Chemicals which may
become increasingly expensive and hard to get must be used
for conditioning prior to dewatering.
Elimination of the digestion step would eliminate
production of methane gas now used to heat buildings and run
specific equipment at the treatment plant.
Another disadvantage of this option would be the loss
of the fertilizer value in the sludge because of the manner
of disposition. The nutrients in the sludge may be discharged
to the groundwater as a pollutant rather than recovered as a
resource. Frozen ground may make winter trenching difficult.
Alternative 2A Land Application of Liquid Sludge
Advantages
This disposal option utilizes the high fertilizer value in
the sludge. Crop uptake of the nutrients would turn a problem
into a benefit. Very little land would be permanently taken
out of useful crop production. The same site could be contin-
ually used with no loss in aesthetic or economic value during
or beyond the design period.
The implementation time of this system could be short relative
to the other alternatives. With this system, it would also be
easy to slowly reduce the sludge volume in the existing lagoon
if this action were necessary. There would be limited expansion
necessary at the existing Nine Springs Treatment Works. No
recycle stream, with the associated problem of BOD , SS and
NH-N removal, would be returned to the secondary treatment
plant. There would be no dependence on chemicals for sludge
conditioning or no worry about fines buildup in the secondary
treatment system.
3-5
-------
Disadvantages
The major disadvantage associated with this option is the
expected difficulty in locating and purchasing or leasing the
large land areas required for controlled successful land irriga-
tion of sludge. If the land were not purchased or leased, there
would be difficulty in coordination with local farmers for land
use.
The necessity for a temporary sludge storage lagoon could
lead to an odor problem if proper controls were not maintained.
The land application of sludge may result in a musty odor which
could be offensive to some individuals. A buffer area would have
to be provided around the land used for storage and application.
Possible virus survival is also of concern. With increased
digestion capacity, more complete digestion should minimize
the potential odor and virus problems.
Aeration of the lagoons would help prevent odors. The
sludge lagoon would be storing sludge primarily during the
winter months when odors are not normally a problem. In
summer the lagoons would be used as a transfer point and
would not hold large volumes of sludge, therefore minimizing
potential odor problems. New efforts directed at reducing
odor problems would have to be implemented.
For this option it may also be necessary to line the
final disposal site with drain tiles, collect the leached
water and return it to the surface for crop irrigation.
Careful control of runoff would be necessary along with
adjacent stream monitoring.
Laying a pipeline to a specific point severely limits
the location of the final disposal site. The permanence
of a pipeline, along with the time and money associated
with construction of a such a line, tend to make this option
inflexible. It would be difficult to justify abandoning
or severely altering this system once it was operational.
The entire application and cropping procedures would
require agricultural management expertise which would have
to be acquired by MMSD.
Alternative 3A - Landfilling of Sludge/Milled Refuse Mixture
Advantages
This alternative would take advantage of the expertise
available in the operation of traditional sanitary landfill
operations. It would utilize the absorptive capacity of
existing refuse to act as a dewatering agent for the sludge.
It would be necessary to dewater the sludge but not to a
high degree.
3-6
-------
Site control could be insured from experience gained in
the solid waste handling field. There should be no odor
problem associated with this operation if proper cover
techniques were used.
The land requirements would not be excessive. There
would also be minimal sludge storage requirements which
could result in potential odor problems. Also, with this
option, it would be easy to reduce the volume of sludge
in the existing lagoons by gradual inclusion in the mixing
process if more milled solid waste were to become available.
Disadvantages
Land utilized as the final disposal site could be
recovered as cropland or for some other use but, may have
some limitations. Once the landfill has been placed and
the original site filled, a new site must be located.
The necessity of dewatering produces a recycle stream
which must be treated and may have a harmful effect on the
effluent from the secondary treatment plant. The 1990
loading from this recycle stream would equal 1.0 per cent
of the anticipated 1990 BOD load, 1.5 per cent of the
anticipated 1990 suspended solids load and 13.5 per cent
of the anticipated 1990 anroonia nitrogen load in the
secondary treatment plant. The suspended solids in the
recycle stream would be very fine in nature and may
accumulate in the secondary treatment system. Chemicals
which may become increasingly expensive and hard to get
must be used for conditioning prior to dewatering.
This option involves rehandling the sludge several
times, once before mixing and once after mixing. Again,
the fertilizer value associated with the sludge is lost
in the landfill.
This option is dependent on obtaining a certain quantity
of milled refuse from the City- If that refuse were not
available or very high in moisture content, sludge disposal
would be impaired.
This option limits the potential resource recovery from
the milled refuse unless it were used in a compost operation.
Sludge/milled refuse in a landfill would generate leachate
which would have to be collected and treated. The nutrients
associated with the sludge would be a potential groundwater
pollutant.
3-7
-------
Alternative 3B - Land Application of Dewatered Sludge
Advantages
The major advantage of this option is the use of the
fertilizer value associated with the sludge. Nutrient
uptake would be accomplished by crop production. No land
would be taken out of farm use. The same site could be
used in future years with no physical or economic loss.
No storage lagoons are necessary. The sludge could be
stockpiled on the land on which it would be eventually spread.
Odor problems associated with the dewatered completely di-
gested sludge should be minimal. Spreading of the sludge
could probably be accomplished with normal farm equipment.
The necessary nutrient loading could be provided with one
pass over the land.
Disadvantages
Hauling the dewatered sludge to rural farmland may result
in some objection from the local residents. The same large
amounts of purchased or leased land is required as in the
liquid sludge application alternative. If the land were not
purchased or leased, coordination with the local farmers
might be difficult. Virus survival may again be a question
not to be overlooked.
The sticky character of the dewatered sludge due to the
polymer addition may make it very difficult to spread or plow
under evenly. These problems would result in poor acceptance
by farmers. This problem might possibly be reduced by lowering
the polymer dose to the centrifuge such that the centrate stream
character degrades but the sludge cake solids content does not
appreciably change. The centrate stream might then be air
floated or recentrifuged to clean up the centrate.
This option involves treatment of a recycle stream. This
stream would use part of the planned secondary expansion and
could degrade the treatment plant effluent. The percentages
of anticipated 1990 BOD , SS and NH-N loading attributable to
the recycle stream are the same as for Alternative 3A. Again
there would be a dependence on chemicals for conditioning.
4. CH2M Hill Study
The aforementioned studies all came to the same basic conclusion, that the most
cost-effective method of sludge management for MMSD is land disposal of liquid
digested sludge. Therefore, MMSD resolved to pursue that method of disposal.
The firm of CH2M Hill was hired by MMSD subsequent to the aforementioned studies
to further evaluate the sludge treatment processes which would be employed prior
to land application. They compared aerobic vs. anaerobic digestion and determined
that anaerobic digestion should be utilized for primary and secondary sludges due
to the higher power consumption requirements and requirements for separate land
3-8
-------
application required for aerabic digestion. They also compared various type thick-
eners (gravity, air flotation, centrifuge, and centrifugal screen concentrators)
and determined that a two-stage thickening process first employing gravity thickening
and then air flotation thickening would be least costly. The system of land appli-
cation of liquid sludge which they propose includes gravity and air flotation
thickening and anaerobic digestion prior to disposal.
5. Reuse level alternatives
Section 3.1 and Table 3-1 of the facilities plan give a complete suimtary of
the three reuse categories, (fertilization, high rate fertilization and disposal)
including loading rates, objectives, suitable soils and impact on soil and water.
Section 7.1 is somewhat misleading because it implies that high rate fertilization
and disposal would definitely affect surface and groundwater. Those impacts can
be avoided, however, only with a very strict management program. The selected
reuse program is a fertilization type program.
6. Reuse Program Alternatives
Section 7.2 and 7.6 of the facilities plan adequately discusses how the reuse
program of supplying sludge to farmers at their request was selected as the
proposed reuse plan.
7. Transportation Method Alternatives
Section 3.02 of the environmental assessment adequately discusses the advantages
and disadvantages of the three most feasible methods of sludge transport which are
rail, truck, and pipeline transport. Section 7.5 and Appendix B compare truck and
pipeline transport. As was discussed, although pipeline transport is less expensive
and has other advantages, a pipeline route could not be determined until a reliable
and sufficiently large sludge market develops. Therefore, Madison proposes to use
truck transport in the immediate future until a market develops.
8- Intermediate Storage Facility Alternatives
Section 7.5 of the facilities plan and Section 3.02 of the environmental
assessment adequately discuss the two types of intermediate storage facilities
considered for on-site sludge storage to increase the efficiency of the sludge
transportation and application systems. The additional alternative exists of not
providing for intermediate sludge storage. Not utilizing such facilities would
result in a less efficient system, especially during peak application periods.
9. Application Method Alternatives
Section 7.5 of the facilities plan and Section 3.02 of the environmental
assessment are adequate in their discussion of application methods with one excep-
tion. Since air borne pathogens at sludge irrigation sites has been considered by
some as a potential public health problem, the subject should be discussed.
According to Burge (1974), "The threat of infection to sprinkler irrigation
site workers and to the surrounding communities through exposure to aerosols
containing pathogens has not been completely defined, but experience and
what literature is available seem to indicate that the threat is minimal."
A USEPA - sponsored research project currently being conducted at the Fulton
County, Illinois sludge disposal area of the Metropolitan Sanitary District
3-9
-------
of Greater Chicago is expected to provide some additional information related
to airborne transmission and survival of pathogens in aerosols from big gun
sprinkler irrigation systems. It would appear unlikely that truck spreader
and soil injection systems would present any kind of potential airborne pathogen
problem since the formation of aerosols is not a problem, with those methods.
10- No Action Alternative
The "No Action" alternative is adequately discussed in Section 3.03 of the
environmental assessment.
11. Other Considerations in Developing the Proposed Plan
Existing State and Federal guidelines were followed in formulating the
proposed plan. The Federal guidelines mentioned on page 3-6 of the environmental
assessment will be superceded by a technical bulletin (published in draft form in
the Federal Register on June 3, 1976) when it becomes final. This bulletin is
meant as guidance and does not have the force of a regulation. Where state
guidelines exist, the stricter of the two guidelines, Federal or state, would be
followed in developing a sludge management plan.
3-10
-------
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
Chapter 8 of the facilities plan and Section 4 of the environmental assessment
present an adequate description of the proposed actions with two exceptions.
Construction of additional sludge treatment facilities is now considered part of
the organic solids reuse plan. Therefore, some information on the proposed
treatment facilities is provided. Related to the cost of the proposed system;
some supplementation and correction is required.
A. Sludge Treatment Facilities
Additional facilities are necessary for thickening and digestion of the
additional organic sludges produced by the expanded and upgraded treatment
plant. The Basis of Design for the solids handling facilities and construction
staging is presented in Appendix C.
1- Gravity Sludge Thickener Improvements
The mechanisms on the two original gravity thickeners should be refurbished
and worn parts should be replaced as needed. An additional 55' diameter gravity
thickener may be needed to supplement the two original units. Facilities should
be constructed to facilitate the addition of secondary effluent to the thickeners
in order to reduce odors caused by septic conditions.
2. Dissolved Air Flotation Thickeners
Dissolved air flotation thickeners should be constructed in order to pre-
thicken waste activated sludge prior to digestion.
3. Sludge Digester Improvements
A total of five new digesters (two primary and three secondary digesters)
should be constructed to serve the plant through the year 2000. The units
should be two-stage digesters operating in the mesophilic temperature range.
A new digester control building should also be constructed.
Modifications should be made to the existing digesters including resealing,
replacement of heat exchangers, the addition of gas mixing equipment and the
renovation of the waste gas burners. In addition, MMSD should consider instal-
lation of a supernatant draw-off system and a supernatant treatment system in
order to return supernatant from the secondary digester back to the head end of
the treatment plant. The supernatant draw off systems would be used only on the
secondary digesters (non-mixed tanks).
B. Cost of the Organic Solids Reuse Program
Table 8-1 of the organic solids reuse program is incorrect as shown. Table C-3
in Appendix C is a revised version of Table 8-1. Information on total present
worth of the proposed system was not included in the organic solids reuse plan or
environmental assessment. Table C-4 in Appendix C summarizes the calculation of
the total present worth of the proposed system.
4-1
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
In many cases the environmental effects section of an EIS would compare the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives. For this
plan the information available on the effects of various alternatives was
discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIS and in sections of the facilities plan and
environmental assessment referenced therein. Although the information available
on the environmental affects of system and subsystem alternatives considered
by MMSD is not presented in a great level of detail, we feel that it is adequate
to assess how the most cost-effective sludge management plan was selected. It
remains, then, to ensure that the plan proposed by MMSD is environmentally sound
and should indeed be pursued. The discussion of impacts will therefore relate
strictly to the effects of MMSD's proposed plan and not to the effects of
alternatives.
MMSD's organic solids reuse plan has been developed to be in accordance with
Wisconsin DNR Technical Bulletin No. 88 entitled "Guidelines for the Application
of Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land" and with recommendations of the proposed
USEPA Technical Bulletin on "Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors"
published June 3, 1976, in the Federal Register.
Since, overall, MMSD's plan has been carefully formulated to minimize adverse
environmental effects and the facilities plan and environmental assessment system-
atically discuss the potential effects of the proposed plan in a generally adequate
fashion, we will identify here only those critical impact issues which require
further discussion or have not been mentioned. The discussion of impacts of the
proposed plan is divided into sections which correspond to various segments of the
organic solids reuse plan.
A. Sludge Lagoon Abandonment Program
The impacts resulting from these actions are adequately discussed in the
environmental assessment Sections 5.02 D, 5.02 F, 5.02 K, 5.02 L and 5.02 M. The
effects of transporting of lagoon sludge and applying it to agricultural land will
be considered under "Operation of the Organic Solids Reuse Plan."
B. Construction and Operation of Expanded Solids Treatment Facilities
The construction of the expanded solids treatment facilities is expected to
have a substantial net beneficial impact because the facilities will alleviate
the problems created by overloading the existing facilities. There will be no
significant adverse impact on the site where the facilities will be constructed
because the facilities will be built on a portion of the existing treatment plant
site which has been graded several times. (Personal communication with staff of
MMSD). There will be temporary adverse impacts caused by truck traffic carrying
construction supplies and the operation of construction equipment. The major
impact of truck traffic will be in the immediate area of the construction site
where there will be an increase in traffic volume and therefore an increase in the
required road maintenance, an increase in noise levels and consumption of fuel by
the vehicles. The temporary effects of operation of construction machinery will
be an increase in noise levels, temporary deterioration of air quality and consump-
tion of fuel. Since the construction site is not in a heavily populated area, the
number of persons temporarily affected will be minimized.
5-1
-------
C- Construction of Solids Handling Facilities
The impacts of this action (i.e. constructing loading docks, etc. ) are briefly
but adequately discussed in the environmental assessnent Section 5.03 C.
D. Operation of the Organic Solids Reuse Program
This segment of the plan includes use of one of the existing lagoons for
seasonal sludge storage, sludge transfer and intermediate storage, and marketing
of the liquid anaerobically digested sludge to farmers for application to their
agricultural land as a fertilizer.
1. Seasonal Sludge Storage in an Existing Lagoon
The impacts of use of the western half of Lagoon 1 for seasonal storage
of sludge is accurately discussed in Section 5.02 I of the environmental assess-
ment.
2- Sludge Transfer and Intermediate Storage
The impacts of sludge transfer by trucks and potential storage in on-farm
lagoons is adequately considered in the environmental assessment Sections 5.02 H,
5.02 I, 5.02 L, 5.02 M and 5.03 A.
3. Sludge Application to Privately-owned Agricultural Land
a. General Discussion
Of all segments of the organic solids reuse program this segment has
the potential for the most adverse short-term and long-term effects if the manage-
ment and monitoring programs are not carried out strictly as planned. At the same
time the plan represents substantial benefits to be gained by return of the organic
solids and nutrients contained in the sludge back to the land.
With only minor exception the potential adverse environmental effects
which could result from operation of this sludge marketing and application program
have been considered and the plan has been developed to minimize or eliminate the
potential for those effects. The facilities plan and environmental assessment
present very clearly the environmental considerations which went into development
of the plan.
The critical issues which must be addressed in a sludge management plan
with sludge applied as a fertilizer to privately-owned land include the following:
1) effects on soils, especially potential for accumulation of heavy metals and
nutrients; 2) effects on groundwater and surface water quality; 3) effects on water
quantity; 4) effects on air quality; 5) effects on land use; 6) effects on vegeta-
tion, primarily crops; and 7) effects on public health. These critical issues as
well as some less significant concerns have been addressed in the facilities plan
and environmental assessment. In each case the measures which will be taken to
minimize or eliminate the potential for these effects have also been addressed.
The key to minimizing or eliminating the most significant effects is to insure that
the management program (which includes limiting maximum annual application rates
and total allowable loading rates and controlling time and method of application)
and monitoring program are carried out as planned.
5-2
-------
There is no mechanism by which the Federal government can insure
that the management and monitoring programs will be carried out as planned.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, however, is setting up a
program to regulate sludge disposal activities in Wisconsin which includes
requirements for self-monitoring of sludge disposal activities and reporting
to the State. It is felt that the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
will have the resources and capabilities necessary to carry out their proposed
management and monitoring programs.
b. Issues Not Considered in the Facilities Plan or Environmental
Assessment or Which Require Further Discussion"
PCS Monitoring
The facilities plan and environmental assessment did not consider the
potential problem of PCB's in the sludge. Region V is recommending that MMSD
analyze their sludge for PCB's and include monitoring for PCB's as part of their
monitoring program. Since MMSD has not previously analyzed its sludge for PCB's,
it is not known whether their sludges are contaminated by PCB's and to what level.
PCB's are of concern because of their known toxic effects. Background information
on PCB's in particular is discussed in a July 1975, paper by the USEPA titled
"Statement of Concerns of the Lake Michigan Toxic Substances Committee Related to
Poly chlorinated Biphenyls". The proposed USEPA Technical Bulletin titled "Municipal
Sludge Management: Environmental Factors published in the Federal Register on June 3,
1976, recommends that sludge management programs include monitoring for persistent
organics such as PCB's because of their potential toxic effects.
Nitrogen
Sections 5.02 C, 5.02 D and 5.02 J of the environmental assessment dis-
cuss some problems resulting from excess nitrogen leaching into groundwater and to
surface water if application rates are not based on crop uptake of nitrogen. One
issue related to nitrogen leaching which has not been discussed here is the fact
that through groundwater contamination excessive nitrates in drinking water can
cause human and animal health problems. Excessive accumulation of nitrate will not
be a problem if proper annual application rates based on crop uptake of nutrients
are followed.
Heavy Metal Considerations - Cadmium
Cadmium is a heavy metal which demands special consideration in develop-
ing a sludge land application program because it can be relatively mobile in the
soil and is not excluded by plants (see page 6-29 of the facilities plan). It is
of particular concern in this plan because the level of cadmium in sludge from Nine
Springs Sewage Treatment Plant is relatively high compared to the levels recommended
by the USDA. USDA recommendations related to sludge which is to be applied to
privately owned land are:
If sludge Cd is greater than 25 mgAg the ratio of Cd/Zn must be less
than 0.015. Soil ph should initially be greater than 6.5 and greater
than 6.2 thereafter. Do not apply on land normally cropped to leafy
vegetables.
5-3
-------
The level of cadmium in MMSD's treatment plant sludge is currently
73 mgAg dry sludge. The Cd/Zn ratio of the sludge is .001. Both of these values
are above USDA's recommendations. Region V, USEPA is recommending that this
sludge management program be implemented even though MMSD sludge has higher
cadmium levels than USDA recommendations. Several factors which should minimize
the effects of applying MMSD sludge on land support our recommendation. These
factors include: 1) application rates which are very conservative, 2) a source
control program which will identify cadmium sources and decrease these levels
significantly, and 3) a monitoring program designed to detect cadmium uptake in
plant tissues. It is essential that MMSD carry out their strict management and
monitoring program as proposed so that effects of cadmium uptake will be minimized.
Related to cadmium uptake by leafy vegetables, there are certain
precautionary measures which MMSD should take. On page 6-20 of the organic solids
reuse plan it is stated that "The total loading should be reduced for land which
will be used for leafy vegetables, by one-half because cadmium tends to accumulate
in the leaves." Because of the relatively high level of cadmuim in MMSD sludge,
it is strongly advised that MMSD follow USDA's recommendation as a precautionary
measure and not apply their sludge to land on which leafy vegetables will be
grown until the source control program has significantly lowered the sludge
cadmium levels.
Economic Effects
Since the sludge will be applied to cropland as fertilizer, it would
appear that this program could potentially impact on the commercial fertilizer
market. In reality, this program will have little impact on the commercial ferti-
lizer market for the reasons stated in Section 6.4 of the facilities plan.
5-4
-------
CHAPTER 6
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Section 5.04 of the environmental assessment adequately discusses this topic
with the exception that it does not discuss the potential for effects on long-
term productivity of the land on which sludge is applied if the buildup of metal
concentrations is not carefully managed and limited as the plan proposes. Proper
program management will insure that total allowable loadings are not exceeded and
the private agricultural land on which the sludge will be applied will be useable
and productive for future generations.
6-1
-------
CHAPTER 7
FEDERAL/STATE AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 6 of the environmental assessment presents a good history of agency
and public participation in the development of this organic solids reuse plan.
7-1
-------
Appendix A
-------
THE STATE] HISTORICAL
SOCIETY OP WISCONSIN
816 STATE STREET / MADISON, WISCONSIN 537 06 / JAMES MORTON SMITH, DIRECTOR
State Historic Preservation Office
June 4, 1976
Mr. Ralph McClurg
O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc.
1304 Buckley Road
Syracuse, New York 13201 SHSW 0279-76
Dear Mr. McClurg:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 25, 1976 concerning
the potential impacts of the MMSD-201 Facilities Planning Study proposed
action on historical and archeological resources (File 1533.002).
Since the existing pipeline route and discharge to Badfish Creek will
be utilized in the future, these actions will have no impact on sites
or structures of historical or archeological significance. Additionally,
the application of sludge to agricultural lands will have no effect on
any historical or archeological sites.
The area designated in Figure 13-4, as the recommended location for
an expanded treatment plant, should be surveyed by an archeologist
to determine if any such sites will be affected by the proposed con-
struction. Dr. Joan Freeman (608/262-9566), State Archeologist and
a member of our staff, will be pleased to help you locate a qualified
person to perform this survey.
Sincerely,
r
Morton Snith
State Historic Preservation Officer
JMS:cm
A-l
-------
Appendix B
-------
TABLE B-l **
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE*
ALTERNATIVE 1A - LAND TRENCHING OF DEWATERED SLUDGE
Thickening Tanks $ O.(l)
Sludge Storage Tanks 0.(2)
Centrifuges 8 @ 46 GPM 1,155,000.
Centrifuge Building 124,000.
Centrate Storage Tank 86,000.
Sludge Cake Storage Tank 0.(3)
Trucks and Associated Equipment 374,000.
Secondary Treatment Plant Requirements 328,000.
Land
Sub-total 2,091,000.
Process Contingencies (8%) 167,000.
Sub-total 2,258,000.
Engineering (7%) 158,000.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $2,416,000.
*The ENR Index used throughout is 2000.
(1) Thickener costs are included in the cost of the proposed Greeley
and Hansen plant expansion.
(2) The existing sludge storage tanks can be used.
(3) All trucks and associated equipment are amortized to $0. over
5 years and included in annual operating cost only.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works
Sludge Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District," prepared by Staff of the Madison
Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison, Wisconsin,
April 1974
B-l
-------
TABLE B-2**
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE*
ALTERNATIVE 2A - LAND APPLICATION OF LIQUID SLUDGE
Thickening Tanks $ O.(l)
Digestion Tanks 2 @ 160,000 cu. ft. each 948,000.
Sludge Transfer Pipeline
Pipe - Purchase and Installation 528,000.
Manholes 13,000.
Pumping Stations w/o Pumps 60,000.
Pumps 56,000.
Sludge Storage Lagoon 620,000.
Sludge Irrigation Equipment 51,000.
Land 2,377,000.
Sub-total 4,653.000.
Process Contingencies (8%) 372,000.
Sub-total 5,025,000.
Engineering (7%) 352,000.
$ 5,377,000.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
(1) Thickener costs are included in the cost of the proposed Greely
and Hansen plant expansion.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works
Sludge Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District," prepared by Staff of the Madison
Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison, Wisconsin,
April 1974
B-2
-------
TABLE B-3**
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE*
ALTERNATIVE 3A - LANDFILLING OF SLUDGE/MILLED REFUSE MIXTURE
Thickening Tanks $ O.(l)
Digestion Tanks 2 @ 160,000 cu. ft. each 948,000.
S torage Tanks 0.(2)
Centrifuges 7 @ 46 GPM 1,012,000.
Centrifuge Building 112,000.
Centrate Storage Tank 86,000.
Sludge Cake Storage Tank 13,000.
Trucks and Associated Equipment 0.(3)
Secondary Treatment Plant Requirements 154,000.
Sludge Receiving and Unloading Area 27,000.
Drum Mixes 1,431,000.(4)
Land M5)
Sub-total 3,783,000.
Process Contingencies (8%) 303,000.
Sub-total 4,086,000.
Engineering (7%) 286,000.
Total Capital Cost $ 4,362,000.
(1) Thickener costs are included in the cost of the proposed Greeley
and Hansen plant expansion.
(2) The existing sludge storage tanks can be used.
(3) All trucks and associated equipment are amortized to $0. over 5 years
and included in annual operating costs only.
(4) A more economical mixer could possibly be designed.
(5) All costs associated with the landfilling operation are considered
operating costs.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works
Sludge Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District," prepared by Staff of the Madison
Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison, Wisconsin,
April 1974
B-3
-------
TABLE B-4**
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE*
ALTERNATIVE 3B - LAND APPLICATION OF DEWATERED SLUDGE
Thickening Tanks $ O.(l)
Digestion Tanks 2 @ 160,000 cu. ft. each 948,000.
Sludge Storage Tanks 0.(2)
Centrifuges 7 @ 46 GPM 1,012,000.
Centrifuge Building 112,000.
Centrate Storage Tank 86,000.
Sludge Cake Storage Tank 18,000.
Trucks and Associated Equipment 0.(3)
Secondary Treatment Plant Requirements 154,000.
Land 2,377,000.
Sub-total 4,707,000.
Process Contingencies (8%) 377,000.
Sub-total 5,084,000.
Engineering (7%) 356,000.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 5,440,000.
(1) Thickener costs are included in the cost of the proposed Greeley
and Hansen plant expansion.
(2) The existing sludge storage tanks can be used.
(3) All trucks and associated equipment are amortized to $0. over
5 years and included in annual operating costs only.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District,"
prepared by Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District Madison, Wisconsin, April 1974
B-4
-------
TABLE B-5**
CAPITAL COST DATA SOURCES
MAJOR UNIT
Digesters
Centrifuges
Pipeline
Pimping Stations
Pumps
Manholes and Valving
Buildings
Storage Tanks
Trucks
Sludge Transportation Trailers
End Loaders, Farm Machinery
Sludge Storage Lagoon
Drum Mixers
Irrigation Equipment
Secondary Treatment Plant
Requirements
DATA SOURCES
Weston Cost Estimate
Weston Cost Estimate
MMSD Staff Estimates
MMSD Staff Estimates
L.W. Allen and ITT Marlow
MMSD Staff Estimates
MMSD Staff Estimates
MMSD Staff Estimates
Verona International Trucks
Fruehauf Trailer Div.,
Fruehauf Corporation
Brooks Industrial Sales
Weston Cost Estimate
Buhler Co. Cost Estimate
and E.P.A. Report (1)
Roberts Irrigation Company
MMSD Staff Estimate and
Greeley and Hansen Projected
Cost Estimate for Plant
Addition
(1) Recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste, by M.L. Drobny, M. E. Hull,
and R. L. Testim, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Laboratories E.P.A.
Contact No. PH 86-67-265.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge Disposal
Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District," prepared by
Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison,
Wisconsin, April 1974
B-5
-------
TABLE B-6**
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 1A - LAND TRENCHING OF DEWATERED SLUDGE
ASSOCIATED OPERATING COSTS
Cost of Thickening and Sludge Storage Absorbed in Present Operation
Polymers $ 150,000.
Labor 30,000.
Power 5,600.
Maintenance 21,400.
Air Blowers 4,900.
Labor, fuel, maintenance, 52,000.
tires, license, taxes, etc.
Amortization of three 20-ton
tri-axle trucks over 5 yrs. 20,500.
Labor 12,000.
Power 3,100.
Ma intenance 1,300.
Amortization of field equip. 7,500.
Payment in lieu of taxes 1,300.
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST $ 309,600.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District,"
prepared by Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District, Madison, Wisconsin, April 1974
B-6
-------
TABLE B-7**
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 2A - LAND APPLICATION OF LIQUID SLUDGE
ASSOCIATED OPERATING COSTS
Cost for Thickening Absorbed in Present Operation
Labor $ 52,000.
Power 2,400.
Maintenance 9,500.
Power 3,200.
Maintenance 2,000.
Maintenance 1,000.
Labor 33,000.
Power 3,800.
Amortization of field equip. 2,300.
Maintenance 6,500.
Payment in lieu of taxes 9,700.
Sub-total 125,400.
Return from leasing land -33,600.
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST $ 91,800.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge Disposal
Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District," prepared by
Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison,
Wisconsin, April 1974
B-7
-------
TABLE B-8**
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 3A - LANDFILLING OF SLUDGE/MILLED REFUSE MIXTURE
ASSOCIATED OPERATING COSTS
Cost for Thickening Absorbed in Present Operation
Labor $ 52,000.
Power 2,400.
Maintenance 9,500.
Use Available Tank 0.
Polymers 77,500.
Labor 24,000.
Power 4,500.
Maintanence 30,000.
Air Blowers 12,600.
Labor, fuel, maintenance,
tires, license, taxes, etc.
to haul sludge portion 54,600.*
Amortization of two 20-ton
capacity trucks over 5 years 13,700.
Labor 12,000.
Power 1,100.
Maintenance 3,000.
Purchase, preparation and
operation 134,400.*
Payment in lieu of taxes 1,700.
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST $ 438,000.
*0nly includes handling & disposal of sludge portion.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge Disposal
Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District," prepared by
Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, Madison
Wisconsin, April 1974
B-8
-------
TABLE B-9*
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATIVE 3B - LAND APPLICATION OF DEWATERED SLUDGE
Cost for Thickening Absorbed in Present Operation
Labor $ 52,000.
Power 2,400.
Maintenance 9,500.
Polymers 77,500.
Labor 24,000.
Power 4,500.
Maintenance 30,000.
Air Blowers 12,600.
Labor, fuel, maintenance,
tires, license, taxes, etc. 54,600.
Amortization of two 20-ton
capacity trucks over 5 years 13,700.
Labor 24,000.
Power 1,300.
Maintenance 1,000.
Amortization of field equip. 4,500.
Payment in lieu of taxes 9,700.
Sub-total 321,300.
Return from leasing land -33,600.
1975 ANNUAL OPERATING COST $ 287,400.
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District,"
prepared by Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District, Madison, Wisconsin, April 1974
B-9
-------
TABLE B-10**
BASIC COST FACTORS FOR CALCULATION OF OPERATING COSTS
Labor:
Power:
Chemicals:
Maintenance:
Recycle Stream Treatment
Air Requirements:
$12,000/operator/year
$8/hr./truck driver
1.2 cent/kw-hr
Altasep 105C - $1.25/lb.
Hercafloc 814.3 - $1.60/lb.
A given percentage of the unit capital
cost or experience.
1200 cu. ft./lb. BOD applied
7500 cu. ft./lb. NH3-N applied
Fuel:
Capital Investment: The portion of the unused
capacity of the planned
expansion which would be
used by the recycle stream.
$0.50/gallon
**Source: "Addendum to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District,"
prepared by Staff of the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District, Madison, Wisconsin, April 1974
B-10
-------
l-l
0
CQ
-
8 So
U EH CO
o
m
o
vo
rH
rH JO
3
EH <2 U
in
r*
cn en
rH C
H
1 rH -P
(0 (0
S i«tf
§ 1§5
g
1
CO
d
r '
2
J2
0 D 4J
fa S 8
1
rj)
.g
rH
(v
ffi
0
ff
O
rH
CO
o
O
VO
oo
in
o
o
VO
o
m
o
0
o
m
CN
CN
nd Trenching
Dewatered
udge
(0 UH I-H
J o co
I
r*j
>
H
4J
a
i-i
4-)
rH
o
o
CO
rH
(Tl
O
O
O
CN
n
C 0
O CO
-iH
3 o
1
CNJ
8
-H
4-)
S
U
0
4->
ndfilling of
udge/Milled
fuse Mixture
«3 rH 0
J CO tf
i
rn
2
-H
4-1
8
H
0
4->
*c
o
o
in
vo
o
0
«*
CO
CN
to-
o
o
o
CO
I"
00
c
nd Applicatio
Dewatered
udge
(0 -»
rH
jn
ft
CQ
H
rH
S
H
M-l
MH
i-H
O
0
w
(0
6
u
a
o
1
4-1
CQ
0
l-l
C
H
CQ
0
"i
rH
O
C
M
^-^
CN
0
l-l
m
>
oo
CO-
l-l
0
Ul
^
ft
'O
rH
£
H
i I
3
8
u
Q.
0
^3
8
oo
S1
H
CQ
S
rH
MH
l-l
3
4-)
0
flj
CQ
8
3
rH
M
^^
oo
0
CQ
0
l-l
0
S
S
rH
rH
H
M-l
"B
(0
rH
l-l
O
S
4-1
1
(Q
l-l
- 0
H 5
rH X
rH -H
'^0
l-l CO
O 3
H [ n I
de any costs
dge/failled re
3 3
c w
jj °
Bg
H
CQ 4-1
o o
Q ft
^-^.
^*
1 *
8
N
H
l-l
(TJ
""O
rH
M-l
O
4J
§
U
0
H
CO
S
o
&
H
TJ
rH
§
-H
U 1
CQ
(C
0
(-1
0
d recovery af
years .
3 m
i-H rH
O U
lo
3 -to-
co O
<*n
m
-^
°§
MH CO
H
TJ 'O
3 £
4-1
CO 0
r^
CQ «H r-
S o en
&MH-
H MH rH
P (0 -H
4J l-l
0 CO ft
trt t^
3 .O ^
rH C
CO T> -H
0 CQ
CQ >H C
* 5? O
I-i ft O
O 0 CQ
S U -H
ftSE
4J _
0 "« C
S 4J O
4J 0 10
(0 -H -H
0 M "b
IH 4-> (8
EH CO £
-H
0 P *
& 4J
HI 0 O
S &>'-<
(D m H
CO '-i -P
0 CO
C7i 0 P
c co
H 0
m to Nine Spr
Metropolitan
litan Sewer ag
'SSI
0 -H U
TJ TJ 4J
Tj M 0
r
8
8
CO
K
«
B-ll
-------
Appendix C
-------
I
-P -P -P
vo
r~
c^
U)
o
H O
I
o o in
o
-------
H
J
o o
oo oo
cri en
o
oo
CTl
o o o
CO CTi OO
(Ti O
Q-iM-l -P
W O
M m in
(C (0
a> -H
u u ro
us to
w iw
o o
o in m
in CN rH
S1
H
x:
CO
H
.Q
ig, overall refui
rH
fO
CD
CQ
1
u
softener
u
fl
rd
.C
4J
H
5
S-l
0)
S1
6
X
CD
4-)
fO
CD
.c
rH
in
mixers
ca
3
a
^
CO
>-J
CD
rH
H
9
r controls,
, diameter 85 ft
4J
<4-l
3
O
O
o
o
diameter 85 ft
.P
ti. i
3
O
O
o
o
.p
IH
m
oo
CD
jj
u
3
O
O
o
o
diameter 85 ft.
> > > > CO
(0
u
CO
U
M
I
-p
04
CN un
CO
o en
2 -H
IH C
i C
X! -P CD
H J(J
> O
(C -H
M
3
4-1
CN
1
CN
CO *O
2|r!
CO
CD CD C5
q C 55
CD CD
J* J^ CO
0 O )-i
H -H 0
J3 XI T3
EH EH C
CD
O O CQ
-H -H
-P -P CD
fQ fO rp
-P -P
O O
3
CO
CN
£
&
Cd
H1
m -H
c
co o
§*
H rj>
4J c ro
S £ ^ in
-H rH O 6 O ^
^do*22^
D1'O CD 53 2 >H >-i v-i 42
CO CD CD CD fn
HSiH U M4J4J-P
CD 4J CO CO CTi CT> O^O
CD C Q Q Q rH
§ U -H -H CO
U
Q Q
-P W -P >H
CO CO S
CD -I-1 CD 6
rn (0 CT> -H
-H 0) -H U
C C C CO
O O O CD
o o u en
CD 35 CD -H
ro
(Ti
3
I
g
0)
IS
EH
03
&
CD
P
U
8
CJ
C-2
-------
TABLE C-3
REVISED TABLE 8-1 OF THE ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PLAN*
ESTIMATED INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
ITEM COST
REUSE PROGRAM
Lagoon Sludge Removal Equipment $ 100,000
Sludge Distribution Equipment
(6 tanker trucks, 1 sludge loading dock,
2 nurse tanks, 1 slurry punp). 351,000
Sludge Application Equipment
(4 truck spreaders, 1 soil injector, 1 tractor spreader) 240,000
Subtotal Reuse Program $ 691,000
SOLIDS TREATMENT FACILITIES
Gravity Thickeners
Refurbishment
Sweetening Equipment
Gravity Thickener No. 5
Flotation Control Building
Flotation Thickeners No. 1 and 2
Anaerobic Digesters
Refurbishment and Upgrading
Digester Control Building No. 2
Digester Utility Tunnel
New Digesters and Equipment**
Supernatant Drawoff Equipment
Subtotal Solids Treatment Facilities
Subtotal Initial Construction Costs
Engineering (12%)
Legal and Fiscal Costs (2.5%)
Administration (0.5%)
Contingency (15%)
Total Initial Construction Costs
Less Federal Grant (75%)
Less State Grant (5%)
NET COST TO MMSD
5,000
15,000
110,000
100,000
550,000
430,000
350,000
220,000
1,390,000
70,000
$ 3,240,000
$ 3,931,000
472,000
98,000
20,000
590,000
$ 5,111,000
3,833,000
256,000
$ 1,022,000
C-3
-------
TABLE C-3 Cont.
*The solids treatment facilities costs were revised to correspond to those
on Table 13-8 of Volume II, Wastewater Treatment Systems. All costs are
in January 1976, dollars.
**Primary Digesters No. 4 and 5 and Secondary Digester No. 3
C-4
-------
TABLE C-4
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PLAN
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
BASIS:
Reuse plan construction and O&M costs were computed by converting the
year-by-year costs in Table B-14 of the organic solids reuse plan to
January 1976, present worths.
Solids treatment construction present worth costs were computed for
the facilities listed in Table 13-8 of Volume II of the comprehensive
facilities plan assuming construction will begin in 1978.
Solids treatment power and other O&M present worth costs were computed
from a fraction of the upgraded secondary treatment and advanced
wastewater treatment costs listed in Table 13-9 of Volume II of the
comprehensive facilities plan.
Engineering, legal and fiscal administrative and contingency costs are
included in the present worth cost estimate.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS:
Solids Treatment
Gravity Thickeners $ 148,000
Flotation Thickeners 738,000
Anaerobic Digesters 2,793,000
Reuse Program
Lagoon Program 250,000
Sludge Distribution 1,100,000
Sludge Application 418,000
Subtotal P.W. of Construction Costs $ 5,447,000
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Solids Treatment
Power $ 3,115,000
Other O&M 4,361,000
Reuse Program
Lagoon Program 130,000
Sludge Distribution 875,000
Sludge Application 385,000
Program Management 336,000
Monitoring Program 360,000
Income _ 60,000
C-5
-------
TABLE C-4 Cont.
Subtotal P.W. of O&M Costs $ 9,502,000
PRESENT WORTH:
Total Present Worth $14,949,000
C-6
-------
Appendix D
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This list includes only those references specifically cited in the text.
Burge, W.D., "Health Aspects of Applying Sewage Wastes to Land", ARS, USDA, 1974.
CH2M Hill, "Organic Solids Reuse Plan" prepared for the Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District, 1976.
Epstein, E. and Wilson, G.B., "Composting Sewage Sludge", Proc. Natl. Conf. on
Muncipal Sludge Management, Information Transfer, Inc., Wash. D.C., 1974.
Hilsenhoff, W. and Karl, T., "Investigation of the Macroinvertebrate Fauna of
Badfish Creek, its Rutland Branch and the Yahara River", prepared for the
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1976 (included in Volume IV of MMSD's
Comprehensive Facilities Plan).
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, "Addendum to Nine Springs Treatment
Works Sludge Disposal Study", 1974.
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, "Comprehensive Facilities Plan",
Volumes I, II, III and IV.
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District - Personal communication with staff.
Magnuson, J. and Herbst G., "Stream Survey of Badfish Creek and the Yahara
River: Fish and Algae", prepared for the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District, 1976 (included in Volume IV of MMSD's Comprehensive Facilities Plan).
O'Brien and Gere, Engineers, Inc., "Environmental Assessment of the Organic
Solids Reuse Plan", prepared for the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bangor,
Maine - Personal communication.
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Beltsville,
Maryland - Personal communication.
United States Department of Agriculture, proposed additions to the USEPA "Proposed
Technical Sludge Management Environmental Factors", proposed for public comment
June 3, 1976.
United States Department of Interior, "Proposed List of Endangered and Threatened
Plant Species of the United States", published in the Federal Register for public
comment June 16, 1976.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Technical Bulletin - Evaluation
of Land Application Systems", 1975.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed Technical Bulletin
Municpal Sludge Management, Environmental Factors", proposed for public
comment June 3, 1976.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Quality of Life Indicators
in U.S. Metropolitan Areas - 1970 A Comprehensive Assessment", Washington, D.C.,
1975.
D-l
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY Cont.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, "Statement of Concerns
of the Lake Michigan Toxic Substances Committee Related to Polychlorinated
Biphenyls", 1975.
"Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study", Volume VI, Appendix M:
Power, 1970.
Weston, Roy P., Inc., "Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge Disposal
Study", prepared for the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District", 1974.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, "Technical Bullentin No. 88 -
Guidelines for the Application of Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land in
Wisconsin", 1975.
GPO 8I4-OO8
D-2
------- |