905R76103
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
230 S DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
JULY 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT
Part II Organic Solids Reuse Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District,
Dane County, Wisconsin
-------
ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PLAN
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Letter of Transmittal
Acknowledgements i
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 SCOPE OF STUDY 1-1
1.2 HISTORY OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT NINE SPRINGS
TREATMENT WORKS 1-2
1.3 PAST REPORTS ON SLUDGE DISPOSAL 1-3
Chapter 2 REVIEW OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED 2-1
2. 1 GREELEY AND HANSEN REPORT 2-1
2.2 WESTON REPORT 2-1
2.3 MMSD ADDENDUM TO WESTON REPORT 2-2
2.4 MMSD DECISION 2-3
Chapter 3 LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
STATE OF THE ART 3-1
3.1 GENERAL 3-1
3.2 EXISTING SYSTEMS 3-2
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago (MMSD) 3-2
West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Authority,
Great Britain 3-5
Los Angeles County Sanitary District
Composting System 3-8
City of Boulder, Colorado 3-9
Metropolitan Denver Sewage District No. 1 3-9
City of Salem, Oregon 3-10
Other Locations 3-10
3.3 RESEARCH AND REPORTS 3-11
University of Wisconsin Research 3-11
Other Major Reports 3-12
3.4 SUMMARY 3-12
Chapter 4 TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE
CHARACTERIZATION 4-1
4. 1 CHARACTER OF SLUDGE PRESENTLY PRODUCED 4-1
Sampling and Analysis Procedures 4-1
-------
Page
Chapter 4 (Continued)
Results of Analysis 4-2
Discussion of Results 4-3
4.2 CHARACTER OF SLUDGE PRODUCED IN THE FUTURE 4-4
Quality of Sludge 4-5
Quantity of Sludge 4-5
Implications of a Future Phosphorus Removal
Requirement 4-6
Summary 4-7
Chapter 5 SLUDGE LAGOON STUDY 5-1
5.1 BACKGROUND 5-1
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF LAGOONS AND DEPOSITS 5-2
Field Work Methodologies 5-2
Results of Field Work 5-6
5.3 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF FIELD SAMPLES 5-7
Characterization of Lagoon Sludge 5-7
Discussion of Results 5-7
Leaching of Lagoon Constituents 5-10
Summary 5-13
5.4 LAGOON EMBANKMENT EVALUATION 5-13
Conclusions 5-13
Recommendations 5-14
Later Investigations 5-14
5.5 LAGOON ABANDONMENT 5-14
Option 1—Storage of Treatment Plant Sludge 5-15
Option 2—Removal of Lagoon Sludge 5-15
Option 3—Lagoon Supernatant Removal 5-18
Option 4—Stabilization of Lagoon Dikes 5-22
5.6 ALTERNATIVE ABANDONMENT PROGRAMS 5-23
Abandonment Program 1 5-24
Abandonment Program 2 5-24
Abandonment Program 3 5-26
Comparison of Lagoon Abandonment Programs 5-27
5.7 RECOMMENDED LAGOON ABANDONMENT PROGRAM 5-27
General Description 5-27
Implementation 5-28
5.8 SUMMARY 5-30
Chapter 6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE
OF SLUDGE 6-1
6.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 6-1
Agriculture 6-1
Climate 6-2
Ground Water 6-2
Land Use 6-4
6.2 REGULATIONS 6-6
Local Regulations 6-6
in
-------
Page
Chapter 6 (Continued)
State Regulations 6-6
Federal Regulations 6-8
6.3 SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE DEVELOPMENT 6-9
Soil Suitability for Sludge Application 6-9
Crop Suitability for Sludge Application 6-14
Annual Sludge Application Limits 6-15
Total Sludge Application Limits 6-17
Summary of Sludge Application Rates 6-20
6.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE 6-22
Fertilizer Market 6-22
Farm Community Acceptance of Sludge Reuse 6-23
Land Ownership 6-23
Sludge Application Periods 6-25
Soil Wetting Effect of Sludge 6-26
Odors 6-27
Insects 6-27
Weeds 6-27
Public Health Aspects 6-28
Sludge Drying Considerations ' 6-29
Nitrogen Losses During Application 6-30
6.5 SLUDGE APPLICATION SITE INVESTIGATION 6-30
Land Requirement for Sludge Reuse 6-30
Site Suitability Criteria 6-31
Land Available for Sludge Reuse 6-32
6.6 SUMMARY 6-33
Chapter 7 SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS 7-1
7.1 CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM SELECTION 7-1
Program Criteria 7-1
Reuse Programs Eliminated 7-2
7.2 ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS 7-2
Reuse Program 1—Market All Sludge 7-3
Reuse Program 2--Lease Land for Sludge
Application 7-5
Reuse Program 3—Combination Sludge Marketing
and Land Leasing 7-7
7.3 SLUDGE HANDLING CONTINGENCY PLAN 7-7
7.4 PRESENT METHOD OF SLUDGE REUSE 7-8
7.5 FUTURE SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES CONSIDERED 7-9
Transport Facilities 7-10
Sludge Storage Facilities 7-12
Sludge Application Methods 7-14
Comparison of Sludge Application Methods 7-24
7.6 COMPARISON OF SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS 7-26
Farmer Acceptance 7-26
Cost Comparison 7-26
Recommended Sludge Reuse Program 7-27
IV
-------
Page
Chapter 8 RECOMMENDED SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM 8-1
8.1 REUSE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 8-1
8.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 8-1
Program Manager 8-2
Initial Interview and Site Screening 8-2
Sludge Application Rate Determination 8-3
Recordkeeping 8-4
8.3 MONITORING PROGRAM 8-4
Sludge Monitoring 8-4
Soil Monitoring 8-4
Crop Monitoring 8-6
Ground-Water Monitoring 8-6
Records and Data Review 8-7
Monitoring Program Costs 8-7
8.4 MARKETING PROGRAM 8-7
8.5 SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES 8-9
Sludge Application Equipment 8-12
Sludge Transportation Facilities 8-12
8.6 REUSE PROGRAM COST 8-13
Construction Cost 8-13
Program Operation Requirements 8-14
Sludge User Fee 8-17
Program Cost Summary 8-17
Chapter 9 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOM-
MENDATIONS 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2 REVIEW OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 9-1
9.3 LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE STATE OF THE ART 9-2
9.4 TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION 9-2
9.5 SLUDGE LAGOON STUDY 9-3
9.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE OF SLUDGE 9-4
9.7 SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS CONSIDERED 9-4
9.8 RECOMMENDED SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM 9-7
9.9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 9-9
REFERENCES R-1
APPENDIX A SLUDGE LAGOON CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILES A-1
APPENDIX B COST ESTIMATING AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES
FOR SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM PLANNING B-1
APPENDIX C SOIL PROPERTIES AND SUITABILITY FOR
SLUDGE APPLICATION C-1
APPENDIX D SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOLS D-1
APPENDIX E MONITORING PROGRAM E-1
v
-------
TABLES
Page
Chapter 3
TABLE 3-1
TABLE 3-2
Chapter 4
TABLE 4-1
TABLE 4-2
TABLE 4-3
TABLE 4-4.
Chapter 5
TABLE 5-1
TABLE 5-2
TABLE 5-3
Chapter 6
TABLE 6-1
TABLE 6-2
TABLE 6-3
TABLE 6-4
THREE BASIC CATEGORIES FOR WASTE
ORGANICS APPLICATION TO LAND
OTHER SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
CHARACTERIZATION OF TREATMENT
PLANT ORGANIC SOLIDS
SUMMARY OF NITROGEN ANALYSIS OF
MMSD DIGESTED SLUDGE
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED TREATMENT
PLANT ORGANIC SOLIDS QUALITY
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED TREATMENT
PLANT ORGANIC SOLIDS QUANTITY
CHARACTERIZATION OF LAGOON SLUDGE
SUMMARY LAGOON ORGANIC SOLIDS
CHARACTER AND QUANTITY
COMPARISON OF LAGOON ABANDON-
MENT PROGRAMS
NORMAL STUDY AREA TEMPERATURE
AND PRECIPITATION
CROP PLANTING AND HARVESTING DATES
AND RESTRICTIONS FOR SLUDGE REUSE
ANNUAL FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL SLUDGE APPLICATION BASED
ON IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA
3-1
3-11
4-2
4-3
4-7
4-8
5-9
5-13
5-28
6-2
6-14
6-15
6-19
VI
-------
Page
Chapter 6 (Continued)
TABLE 6-5
TABLE 6-6
TABLE 6-7
Chapter 7
TABLE 7-1
Chapter 8
TABLE 8-1
TABLE 8-2
TABLE 8-3
TABLE 8-4
Appendix B
TABLE B-1
TABLE B-2
TABLE B-3
TABLE B-4
TABLE B-5
TABLE B-6
TREATMENT PLANT ORGANIC SOLIDS
ANNUAL AND TOTAL APPLICATION
RATES ACCORDING TO SOIL CLASS
AND CROP TYPE
LAGOON ORGANIC SOLIDS ANNUAL
AND TOTAL APPLICATION RATES
ACCORDING TO SOIL CLASS AND CROP
TYPE
ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF
SLUDGE USE ON PRIVATE FARMLAND
COMPARISON OF SLUDGE APPLICATION
METHODS
ESTIMATED INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
COST SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM
ESTIMATED INITIAL ANNUAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
EXAMPLE SLUDGE USE FEES
PROGRAM COST SUMMARY
NEW LAGOON COST DETERMINATION
LAGOON SLUDGE REMOVAL COST
DETERMINATION
REHABILITATE WEST HALF OF
LAGOON 1 COST DETERMINATION
LAGOON SUPERNATANT TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
LAND LEASE COST DETERMINATION
TRUCK TRANSPORTATION COST
DETERMINATION
6-21
6-21
6-26
7-21
8-13
8-17
8-19
8-20
B-4
B-5
B-5
B-6
B-6
vn
-------
Appendix B (Continued)
TABLE B-7
TABLE B-8
TABLE B-9
TABLE B-10
TABLE B-11
TABLE B-12
TABLE B-13
TABLE B-14
Appendix C
TABLE O1
Appendix D
TABLE D-1
TABLE D-2
TABLE D-3
TABLE D-4
TABLE D-5
TABLE D-6
TABLE D-7
TABLE D-8
PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION
DETERMINATION
SMALL ON-FARM LAGOON COST
DETERMINATION
SPRINKLER APPLICATION COST
DETERMINATION
OIL INJECTION COST
DETERMINATION
TRUCK SLUDGE SPREADER COST
DETERMINATION
TRACTOR SLUDGE SPREADING COST
DETERMINATION
MONITORING PROGRAM COST
DETERMINATION
SLUDGE REUSE PRQGRAM YEAR-BY-
YEAR COST ESTIMATE
SOIL PROPERTIES AND SUITABILITY
FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
SLUDGE USER AND FIELD
IDENTIFICATION
SITE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST
SOIL MONITORING DATA
CROP MONITORING DATA
GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA
SLUDGE APPLICATION RECORDS
ANNUAL RECORD
TOTAL SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE
WORKSHEET
Page
B-7
B-7
B-7
B-8
B-8
B-9
B-9
B-10
C-1
D-3
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-13
viii
-------
Appendix D (Continued)
TABLE 0^9
Appendix E
TABLE E-1
TABLE E-2
TABLE E-3
TABLE E-4
TABLE E-5
ANNUAL SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE
WORKSHEET
SLUDGE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
REFERENCES
SOIL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
REFERENCES
SUGGESTED MAXIMUM TOLERANCE
LEVELS FOR VARIOUS ELEMENTS
IN SUCCULENT PLANT TISSUE
SUGGESTED PLANT PARTS FOR
SAMPLING
PLANT TISSUE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
REFERENCES
Page
D-17
E-3
E-6
E-7
E-7
E-8
IX
-------
FIGURES
Page
Chapter 5
FIGURE 5-1
FIGURE 5-2
FIGURE 5-3
FIGURE 5-4
FIGURE 5-5
FIGURE 5-6
FIGURE 5-7
Chapter 6
FIGURE 6-1
FIGURE 6-2
FIGURE 6-3
FIGURE 6-4
FIGURE 6-5
Chapter 7
FIGURE 7-1
SLUDGE LAGOON FAILURE ZONES
AND SAMPLING STATIONS
CORING APPARATUS
SLUDGE DEPTHS
LAGOON 1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
DEPTH PROFILE
LAGOON 2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
DEPTH PROFILE
IMPACT OF LAGOON SUPERNATANT
ON AMMONIA CONTENT OF TREATMENT
PLANT INFLUENT
AMMONIA REMOVAL AND RECOVERY
PROCESS (ARRP)
GROUND-WATER PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
AND FLOW DIRECTIONS
ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE
APPLICATION RATES FOR DIFFERENT
AVAILABLE NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS
ANNUAL LAGOON SLUDGE APPLICATION
RATES FOR DIFFERENT AVAILABLE
NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS
GENERAL SOIL MAP
LAND USE
ON-FARM LAGOON DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
5-3
5-5
5-8
5-11
5-12
5-19
5-21
6-5
6-16
6-17
6-34
6-35
7-13
-------
Chapter 7 (Continued)
FIGURE 7-2
FIGURE 7-3
Chapter 8
FIGURE 8-1
FIGURE 8-2
FIGURE 8-3
Chapter 9
FIGURE 9-1
Appendix A
FIGURE A-1
FIGURE A-2
FIGURE A-2
FIGURE A-4
FIGURE A-5
FIGURE A-6
Appendix D
FIGURE D-1
FLEXIBLE HOSE SLUDGE SUPPLY
SYSTEM WITH SUBSURFACE INJECTOR
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF TRACTOR
SPREADER DEVICE
SLUDGE DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
SITE PLAN
REUSE PROGRAM SITE PLAN
REUSE PROGRAM STAFF REQUIREMENTS
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTA-
TION SCHEDULE
LAGOON 1 CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
LAGOON 1 CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
LAGOON 1 CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
LAGOON 1 CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
LAGOON 1 CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
LAGOON 1 CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MAP OF SLUDGE USER'S LAND
Page
7-18
7-23
8-10
8-11
8-16
9-11
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
XI
-------
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
Chapter
5 TYPICAL SLUDGE CORE 5-2
5 COLLECTING SAMPLE FROM PEAT SAMPLER 5-4
5 MUD CAT ON NINE SPRINGS LAGOON 5-17
7 LAGOON CLEAN-OUT OPERATION AND TRUCK-
LOADING FACILITY 7-10
7 HAND MOVEABLE BIG GUN SPRINKLER 7-15
7 PORTABLE SLUDGE PUMP 7-15
7 DEEP-SIX INJECTOR 7-17
7 ON-FARM LAGOON, SPRINKLER APPLICATION,
AND SOIL INJECTION 7-19
7 BIG WHEELS SLUDGE SPREADER TRUCK 7-20
7 TRUCK SPREADERS AND TANKER TRAILERS 7-21
7 TRACTOR SPREADER AND NURSE TANK SUPPLY 7-22
xn
-------
1.1 SCOPE OF STUDY
12 HISTORY OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT
NINE SPRINGS TREATMENT WORKS
1.3 PAST REPORTS ON SLUDGE DISPOSAL
INTRODUCTION
1
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is in partial fulfillment of an agreement dated
28 January 1975 between the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD) and CH2M HILL to furnish engineering services
to MMSD for an Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) Facilities
Plan and an Organic Solids (sludge) Reuse Program for the
Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works. Described herein are
the investigation of alternatives and the recommended Sludge
Reuse Program. The AWT Facilities Plan by CH2M HILL is
reported separately. Another engineering consultant, O'Brien
and Gere, has been retained by MMSD to develop the long-term
wastewater discharge strategy. These studies are in compli-
ance with Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(WPDES) Permit No. WI-0024597 received by MMSD on 27 September
1974. The permit requires completion of a facilities plan
prior to further work on advanced treatment, sludge disposal,
and final effluent disposal.
This report on sludge reuse precedes completion of the
discharge strategy and facilities plans so that the recom-
mended reuse plan can be more quickly implemented. Therefore,
certain estimates of the character and quantity of sludge to
be reused had to be made for this report. The reuse program
is flexible so that it can be modified upon completion of
new facilities or changes in the treatment plant operation
to allow for different organic solids character and quantity.
1.1 SCOPE OF STUDY
The work tasks required to prepare this report consisted of
the following:
• Review and analyze previous efforts related to
organic solids disposal.
• Determine present character and volume of sludge
and estimate future character and volume of sludge.
• Review local, state, and Federal regulations
regarding distribution and application of sludge
on land.
1-1
-------
• Perform a study of potential sludge application
sites including a soils survey, a ground-water
survey, and a review of current farming practices.
• Determine permissible organic solids loading
rates.
• Determine the probable extent of public and farm
community participation or concern in an agricul-
tural reuse program.
• Evaluate alternative reuse programs based on
potential sites for facilities and application,
ownership of sites, timing of organic solids
application, methods of distribution and applica-
tion, and management of application sites.
• Recommend a reuse program.
• Develop a public information and/or marketing
program.
• Outline a monitoring program which will assure the
success and safety of the reuse program.
1.2 HISTORY OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT NINE SPRINGS
TREATMENT WORKS
The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District initiated the
practice of recycling sludge about 40 years ago. From the
early 1930's until World War II, the digested sludge produced
at the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works was dewatered on
sand drying beds and sold or given to the public for fertil-
izing lawns and gardens. This recycling program was stopped
at the beginning of World War II because the manpower required
to continually load and clean the drying beds was no longer
avai lable.
In 1942 the District constructed a 45-acre sludge disposal
lagoon east of the Nine Springs Works. This disposal system
was relatively easy to maintain and resulted in low sludge
handling costs over the next 25 years. When the original
lagoon began approaching capacity in the 1960's, a second,
85-acre lagoon was constructed just east of the first lagoon.
The lagoon disposal system continued without problems until
April 1970 when a portion of the dike enclosing the second
lagoon broke. The resultant spill of approximately
85,000,000 gallons of lagoon supernatant into Nine Springs
1-2
-------
Creek was cited as the cause of a large fish kill. The
State of Wisconsin brought suit against the District for the
fish kill. The suit was settled when the District paid for
damages and entered into a stipulation assuring timely work
to achieve a more reliable sludge disposal method. The
District repaired the dike system and installed a pump and
pipeline to return supernatant from the east lagoon to the
plant for treatment. This was done to lower the water level
in the lagoons and to help prevent further dike failures.
The dikes have since been continuously maintained and raised
as needed.
In November 1973 another section of the second lagoon dike
began to fail. Extensive repair efforts prevented any large
supernatant spills. The decision was made in late December
1973 to discontinue using the second lagoon unless the first
lagoon filled to a level of potential failure. In order to
allow for continued use of the first lagoon, the District
began dredging sludge from it to make room for the
180,000 gallons of sludge discharged from the treatment
plant each day. This then began the existing system of
using the first lagoon for sludge storage and settling out
the solids. The supernatant is returned to the plant for
treatment and eventual discharge to Badfish Creek. The
solids are periodically dredged from the lagoon bottom and
hauled by truck to land of requesting farmers for recycle as
fertilizer and soil conditioner.
1.3 PAST REPORTS ON SLUDGE DISPOSAL
The 1970 lagoon dike failure prompted MMSD to seek more
reliable methods of sludge disposal. An investigation by
Warzyn Engineering and Service Company, Inc., showed that
the lagoon dikes were built on peat and silt with very
little bearing strength and would require extensive repair
to prevent further failures. In March 1971 Creeley and
Hansen Engineers finished a Report ori Sewage Treatment-
Additions to the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works which
included possible courses of action for sludge handling and
disposal. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) reviewed the report and issued a pollution abatement
order which, among other things, required that MMSD provide
for the satisfactory disposal of sludge from the Nine Springs
Sewage Works and that the operation shall include provision
for the abandonment of the present method of disposal of
liquid sludge in the Nine Springs Marsh.
1-3
-------
In a report to DNR in January 1972 the District outlined
actions taken to arrive at an acceptable sludge disposal
solution and indicated the methods under consideration and
their associated costs. DNR replied that the following
sludge disposal methods would be acceptable: (a) spreading
of liquid digested sludge on farmland, (b) composting,
(c) vacuum filtration of digested sludge and disposal of
cake on land, and (d) vacuum filtration of undigested sludge
followed by incineration. During 1972 the District corre-
sponded with the City of Madison regarding composting the
City's solid waste with the District's sludge. Difficulty
in coordinating with the various organizations and
communities affected inhibited further investigation of this
alternative.
The District consulted the U. S. Soil Conservation Service
as to suitable areas for disposal of liquid sludge on lands
in Dane County. In July 1972 MMSD received a letter report
describing nine possible disposal sites. The nine sites
were selected on the basis of the soil's ability to filter
describing nine possible disposal sites. The nine sites
were selected on the basis of the soil's ability to filter
the leachate. In June 1973 MMSD retained Roy F. Weston,
Inc., Environmental Scientists and Engineers, to conduct a
study of appropriate methods for sludge handling and disposal.
The Weston report recommended that the District pursue
liquid digested sludge application on farmland as the method
of disposal. The District staff prepared an addendum to the
Weston report which examined several treatment and disposal
alternatives not considered in the Weston report. A more
detailed discussion of the alternatives considered in the
Greeley and Hansen and Weston reports is contained in Chapter 2
Several proposals from commercial firms have been made to
MMSD for disposal of their sludge since the first dike break
in 1970. These include the Livingston Irrigation and Chemical
Company, BuhlerBros., Ltd., Browning-Ferris Industries,
Inc., and Enviro-Systems of Wisconsin. The proposals were
studied by the District and were either rejected or not
acted upon.
-------
2.1 GREELEY AND HANSEN REPORT
2.2 WESTON REPORT
2.3 MMSD ADDENDUM TO WESTON REPORT
2.4 MMSD DECISION
REVIEW OF SLUDGE
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
-------
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternative methods of sludge disposal have been studied in
detail by Greeley and Hansen, Engineers, and Roy F. Weston,
Inc., Environmental Scientists and Engineers.
2.1 GREELEY AND HANSEN REPORT
The Greeley and Hansen March 1971 Report on Sewage Treatment
Additions to the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works includes
a description of five alternative sludge handling and disposal
methods. The alternatives consist of the following: (A)
spread dried digested sludge on land; (B) incinerate digested
sludge; (C) incinerate raw sludge; (D) heat treat and land-
fill digested sludge; (E) apply liquid digested sludge to
land. Economic analysis of these five alternatives indicated
that Alternative E, liquid sludge application to land with
25-mile pipeline transport was the most cost effective. The
cost estimated for Alternative E treatment, disposal, and
transportation was about $23.00 per ton dry solids. The
costs for Alternative E with rail transportation was esti-
mated somewhat higher at about $30.00 per ton dry solids.
The estimated costs for the other alternatives including
25-mile truck transport, were as follows: (A) spread dried
digested sludge on land, $66.00 per ton dry solids; (B) incin-
erate digested sludge, $82 .00 per ton; (C) incinerate raw
sludge, $75.00 per ton; and (D) heat treat and landfill
digested sludge, $91.00 per dry ton. These costs were based
upon an Engineering News Record (ENR) Cost Index of 1450 and
a sewage flow of 57 million gallons per day (mgd) .
2.2 WESTON REPORT
The Weston report. Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works
Sludge Disposal Study, investigated several sludge disposal
methods. Subsurface placement disposal was rejected because
DNR stated that they would not approve of the method. The
alternative of continued lagoon disposal was eliminated
because of the recent lagoon dike failure and because it
would not receive support of public officials. Marketing
for land application of dried sludge in a form like Milorganite
was rejected because of lack of a suitable market.
2-1
-------
incineration was also investigated in the Weston report.
Sludge dewatering, chemical addition, or use of supplemental
fuel to support combustion were considered necessary for
incineration. Mechanical dewatering was investigated, but
the moisture content of the cakes was so high that the heat
value of the cake was not adequate to support combustion.
Chemical additions, used to help achieve lower moisture in
mechanical dewatering, consumed so much heat in the recal-
cination process that again the sludge would not support
combustion. Sandbed drying and lagooning could be used to
dewater the sludge, but would not meet the requirement of
continuous sludge feed to an incinerator. It was therefore
determined that incineration could not be used without
supplemental fuel. The alternative of incineration was
abandoned because of the limited future fuel supply.
Three remaining alternatives for sludge disposal, sanitary
landfill, land application of liquid sludge, and land appli-
cation of compost, were found to be suitable and were analyzed
on the basis of costs. The estimated 1975 costs per ton dry
solids for a disposal rate of 10,676 tons per year were as
follows: Sanitary landfill system, $95.00; land application
of sludge-solid waste compost, $196.00; land application of
sludge-wood chip compost, $140,00; and land application of
liquid sludge system, $63.00. The alternative of land
application of liquid digested sludge was found to be most
economical and was recommended for implementation.
2.3 MMSD ADDENDUM TO WESTON REPORT
The MMSD staff prepared an addendum to the Weston report in
April 1974 which included additional sludge disposal alter-
natives. Seven alternatives were selected for further
study, three of which were eliminated. Alternatives 1B and
1C which included heat treatment of thickened raw sludge
followed by thickening, mechanical dewatering, and trucking
to land trench were both eliminated because of the poor
quality of thickener overflow and vacuum centrate following
the heat treatment process. Alternative 2B, anaerobic
digestion of sludge, followed by trucking to a lagoon and
land irrigation, was eliminated because of the high cost of
trucking the sludge.
Four remaining MMSD proposed alternatives and their estimated
costs per ton dry solids are as follows:
• Alternative 1A--Chemical conditioning of thickened
raw sludge followed by trucking to land trench,
$50.00.
2-2
-------
• Alternative 2A—Anaerobic digestion of thickened
raw sludge, followed by pipeline transport to a
lagoon and land irrigation, $41.00.
• Alternative 3A—Anaerobic digestion of thickened
raw sludge followed by chemical conditioning,
centrifugation, trucking to a mixing site, mixing
with milled refuse, and landfill disposal, $79.00.
• Alternative 3B—Anaerobic digestion of thickened
raw sludge followed by chemical conditioning,
centrifugation, trucking to disposal site, and
land spreading, $60.00.
Alternative 2A was found to be the least costly.
2.4 MMSD DECISION
The three aforementioned studies on methods of disposal of
sludge from the MMSD Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works all
came to the same conclusion: Land application of liquid
digested sludge is the most economical and acceptable method
for sludge disposal. In June 1974 the MMSD Commission
resolved that liquid digested sludge from the Nine Springs
Treatment Works be handled through the process of application
on land. This report therefore deals solely with land
application as the disposal method. The other methods—
incineration, composting, mechanical dewatering—were found
to be technically unfeasible or less economical.
2-3
-------
3.1 GENERAL
3.2 EXISTING SYSTEMS
33 RESEARCH AND REPORTS
3.4 SUMMARY
LAND APPLICATION OF
SLUDGE STATE OF THE ART
3
-------
s:
Chapter 3
LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
STATE OF THE ART
METHOD
3.1 GENERAL
In reviewing what has been done throughout this country and
in Great Britain on the reuse of organic solids (sludge)
three basic levels of reuse came to light—fertilization,
high-rate fertilization and disposal. Table 3-1 illustrates
these three basic reuse levels.
The reuse of organic materials for "fertilization" as shown
on Table 3-1 utilizes low loading rates (less than 20 tons
dried material per acre per year) depending on sludge
characteristics, soil, and crop grown. The objective is the
maximization of crop production by full use of the nutrients
present in the organic materials. Almost any soil suitable
for high-rate agricultural production is suitable for this
type of operation. The key feature of this system is that a
balance between the nutrients added and the nutrients removed
with the crops is maintained. Only the amount of organic
material required to maximize crop production is applied.
TABLE 3-1
THREE BASIC CATEGORIES FOR WASTE
ORGANICS APPLICATION TO LAND
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
LOADING RATES
MAXIMUM
ANNUAL ACCUMULATION
OBJECTIVE
SUITABLE
SOILS
IMPACT ON QUALITY
SOIL WATER
FERTILIZER
HIGH-RATE
FERTILIZER
DISPOSAL
(LANDFILL)
Less than 1-20 tons/ 100-1,000 tons/ac.
ac depending on prevent excess
waste organics accumulation of
characteristic, soil heavy metals or
and crop grown. other pollutants
in soil
Less than 5 to more 400-1,000 tons/ac.
than 75 tons/ac. to prevent toxic
accumulations of
pollutants in the
soil
5 to several Several hundred
hundred tons/ac. to 1,000 or more
tons/ac.
Maximize crop pro-
duction by use of
fertilizer value to
supply part or all
of primary and/or
micro nutrients
Apply organics to
cropped soil Main-
tain crop while
maximizing organics
applications
To dispose of
organics by incor-
poration in soil
A crop may or may
not be grown
between applications
Any soil which is
suitable for high
agricultural produc-
tion
Generally fine-
textured soils with
a high capacity to
adsorb or precipi-
tate large quantities
of heavy metals or
other pollutants
Generally fine-
textured soils with
a high capacity to
adsorb or precipitate
large quantities of
heavy metals or
other pollutants.
Improves soil fertility
and organics improve
sod structure No
detrimental effects.
May reduce soil use-
fulness for some
crops or uses soil
that woufd probably
be improved at
lighter loadings
Accumulation of
pollutants in soil
must be monitored.
Soil usefulness will
likely be greatly
reduced Accumula-
tion of pollutants
in soil should be
monitored
With a well-managed
system, there would
be no harmful effect
on ground water or
surface water
Possibly would result
in excess nitrogen
which could be leach-
ed to ground water
Proper management
of surface runoff
would protect surface
waters
Excess nitrogen
could be leached to
ground water Proper
management would
minimize potential
for pollution from
other materials.
3-1
-------
The "high-rate fertilizer" system uses higher loading rates
(up to 75 tons per acre per year). The objective is to
maximize the amount of organic materials applied with crop
production secondary in importance. Soils suitable for this
type of operation should be fine textured with a high capac-
ity to absorb or precipitate large quantities of heavy
metals. Eventually, continued unbalanced applications of
organic materials may reduce the soil's usefulness to grow
certain crops because of accumulations of heavy metals or
salts. The application of the nitrogen contained in the
organic materials would not be balanced by crop removal or
natural denitrification, and accumulation of nitrogen in the
soil would probably occur. Nitrogen compounds could even-
tually reach the ground water or surface system if proper
precautions are not taken.
The third general method of operation involves "disposal" at
very high loading rates (up to several hundred tons of
organic materials applied per acre per year) . The objective
Is to dispose of as much organic material as possible by
incorporation into the soil with little or no emphasis on
crop production. Fine textured soils will precipitate large
quantities of heavy metals or other pollutants and are
suitable for this type of operation. The end result of
continued operation using the "disposal" method is the
potential impairment of the soil due to accumulation of
salts, heavy metals, and nitrates in the soil. Leaching of
nitrates, salts, and heavy metals from the soil into the
ground water or carrying of these materials into the surface
water regime are a potential hazard that must be designed
for.
3.2 EXISTING SYSTEMS
This review of the "State of the Art" was not intended to be
all inclusive, for to do so would require a voluminous
compilation of material. Pertinent examples of the general
types of systems presently in operation are presented.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSD)
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSD)
operates two organic solids sites utilizing land disposal
and/or incorporation techniques. At Arcola, Illinois, a
subcontracted system is operated by SEMCO (Soil Enrichment
Materials Company) . In Fulton County, Illinois, MSD oper-
ates an ambitious reclamation project to reclaim abandoned
strip mined land for agricultural production.
3-2
-------
SEMCO Project-Arcola. SEMCO (Soil Enrichment Materials
Company) is under contract with MSD to clean out several of
the District's existing sludge storage lagoons. The State
of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction
over the operation and has issued a permit allowing appli-
cation of 150 dry tons of organic material per acre per year
to the land.
For several years up through 1974, SEMCO used about 300 acres
of owned and leased land for organic solids application. In
1973, they grew corn on 34 acres. The remainder of the site
was used solely for application of organics with no cropping.
In 1974, they grew corn and soybeans on about half of the
site and applied organics on the remaining half.
SEMCO has recently started selling the organics to farmers
and hauling it to them in trucks which also spread the
material. This method was begun because the site at Arcola
could not be enlarged.
The organic materials were incorporated into the top 14 inches
of the soil and spread by a tractor drawing an incorporation
mechanism. There had been public objections to application
of the organics by sprinkler irrigation because of wind
carry of the spray and odor problems. Because of public
objections, subsurface application has become the dominant
method of application.
The Illinois EPA has required construction of a berm around
the field to provide protection from the 100-year flood.
Runoff from precipitation and snowmelt is allowed to collect
behind the berm and stand for evaporation and percolation.
Because of the high application rates on the Arcola site and
the lack of continuous cropping of the majority of the area,
this site could be classified as a "disposal" site. Continued
monitoring of heavy metals buildup, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and coliform counts are presently being undertaken on the
Arcola site. As operating experience is obtained, these
data will be useful in judging the potential for pollution
of the ground water and the surrounding environment from
this type operation. The effects of the SEMCO operation on
the environment outside of the site appears to be minimal.
Fulton County Site. The Fulton County project site is owned
and operated by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago. The site is an abandoned strip mine encompassing
almost 750 acres. It is necessary to note that all this
3-3
-------
land was acquired without the need to obtain a conditional
land-use permit. The obtaining of such permits can become a
major political stumbling block to the implementation of
organic solids systems. Fulton County had no solids waste
ordinance at the time of land acquisition. They now have
such an ordinance along with all the traditional land-use
restrictions machinery and are currently negotiating with
the District on the location of additional storage basins.
The operation begins by barging the liquid organic material
200 miles down the Illinois River from the treatment plant
to the unloading docks in Fulton County. From there, it is
pumped overland about 11 miles through a pipeline to the
project site near Canton, Illinois, where it is stored in
four large lagoons. The total capacity of these lagoons is
approximately 8 million cubic yards. The lagoons encompass
an area of 260 acres at an average depth of 32 feet.
From the lagoons, the organic material is distributed to the
various fields through an overland piping system. In the
past, the material was applied to land using mainly self-
propelled big gun sprinklers. Presently, the main method of
sludge application is by tractor-drawn moldboard or chisel
plows. These soil incorporation systems are fed
3.5-4.0 percent solids content sludge by a flexible hose
which is dragged behind the plow. Sprinkler application is
now used only on certain sites which have adequate buffer
areas.
The surface runoff from the site is collected, and if not
detrimental to the receiving stream, it is discharged. If
the runoff is found to be detrimental, it is reapplied to
the fields.
The organic materials are spread by the Sanitary District
personnel as previously described. The farming operations
are all accomplished by contract. The contracted farmer
plants, cultivates, applies herbicides, and harvests and
crops for a price determined through competitive bidding.
The crop belongs to the District. Bidding interest has been
low, but the MSD personnel indicated that they have been
able to count on at least two bidders for each contract.
The cost of the farming operations appears to be about
double the going rate in the area. The reason is believed
to be the presence of the contract document with its long
list of legalities and specifications. Despite this markup,
the value of the crop has been paying for the farming opera-
tions.
3-4
-------
The Fulton County project currently has a permit to apply
75 tons of dry organics per acre for the first year, 60 tons
per acre the second year, and so on down to 20 tons per acre
during the fifth year. After this period, the permit will
be reviewed. To this date, they have only been able to
apply 5 tons per acre due to equipment limitations. They
will apply heavier loadings when they are capable.
The most significant observation made during our visits to
the Fulton County operation was the apparent lack of concern
over what we have come to consider in our studies as heavy
loadings. The crop grown on the project site is corn, and
only the grain portion of the corn is removed from the
field. The stalk and all the other foliage are left in the
field and thus the nitrogen contained therein is recycled
back to the soil. The net removal of nitrogen from the site
is much less than the amount applied each year.
The Fulton County operation can be classified as a "high-
rate fertilizer" system. The main objective is to maximize
organics application with the cropping of the site being
somewhat secondary to this end. MSD has recently come under
pressure from the U.S. EPA to change this operation because
of odor problems.
West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Authority, Great Britain
The West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Authority in Rickmans-
worth, Great Britain (HERTS) was visited to determine how
their program, which has been widely publicized by the EPA,
has actually operated.
The HERTS treatment works serves a total population of
550,000 plus several industries which produce a waste equiva-
lent to about 700,000 people. Total flow of the plant is
about 35 mgd (US). The plant provides secondary treatment
utilizing the activated sludge process. Waste activated
sludge and primary sludge are anaerobically digested and
hauled as a liquid to consenting farmers. They have more
requests for the organic materials than they can satisfy.
Several years ago, the HERTS Authority purchased 1,200 acres
of land for the purpose of "demonstrating the value of the
sludge as a fertilizer." The land was operated as a farm,
but the farmers never really accepted the system. They
viewed it as a disposal operation and would not accept the
use of the organic materials on their private farmlands.
3-5
-------
About 6 years ago, the Authority hired a marketing manager
whose job was to develop a market for organic materials. To
accomplish this task, he made several major changes in the
Authority's operation. The changes made were all in the
area of improving public relations. The Drainage Authority's
management acknowledges these changes as the key element to
their present success.
The changes made in the Drainage Authority's operation were
as follows:
1. The organic materials were given a name. The
name, "HYDIG," was established and enabled the
Authority to use a name other than "sewage sludge"
or "waste organic materials" in all of their
literature. Everyone in the vicinity of the
Authority's operation knows what HYDIG is, but
they are not reminded so blatantly that the material
is "sewage sludge." HYDIG is a much less descrip-
tive and more acceptable name for the product.
2. The public and the farmers were told explicitly
what HYDIG is. HERTS has published a pamphlet
describing in very basic language the operation of
the treatment plant, the origin and treatment of
HYDIG, the fertilizer value of HYDIG, and some
documentation on its benefit as a fertilizer.
3. A strong monitoring program was instituted. A
policy was developed by which organics would not
be applied to any land until samples of soil were
analyzed for heavy metals content. Once the soil
data are recorded, organics are applied according
to a predetermined program. A sample of the
organics is also analyzed prior to application to
the farmer's land.
The basis of control is the "zinc equivalent"
wherein the metals concentrations are related by
their relative toxicity to the toxicity of zinc.
The British admit that they are not sure they are
recording the correct data or if the data will be
of use in the future. They are sure, however,
that it is important to the farmer to know that
someone is watching over his land to make sure it
is not damaged.
3-6
-------
4. The farmer is given the quantity of material that
he wants when he wants it and where he wants it.
The British have gone out of their way to please
the farmer. In addition to trucking and spreading
the materials, they also provide free spraying, if
desired. Portable pumps and irrigation equipment
are used during the winter when the fields are too
wet to get a truck on the land.
5. The image of the truck driver was changed. The
truck drivers are first and foremost the ambass-
adors of the Authority. The public and farmers
see more of the drivers than any other individuals.
The drivers travel about 100-120 miles per day in
about eight trips. They spread organics, lay
pipe, or do anything else to speed up the operation.
They take samples as required and also keep a log
of all activities. They also must keep their
trucks clean. It was noted that it takes a great
deal of supervision to maintain a crew of drivers
that will adhere to this code of conduct. While
good conduct was lavishly recognized, bad conduct
resulted in immediate dismissal.
With the foregoing public relations program, the Authority
has been able to dispose of their entire supply of organic
materials on public farmlands.
The HERTS Authority currently operates a fleet of 22 tank
trucks ranging in size from 1,200 U. S. gallons to 6,000
U. S. gallons. They also have two portable pumps and asso-
ciated irrigation equipment. In the summer, about 85 percent
of the organics is truck spread and 15 percent is spray
irrigated. In the winter, about 85 percent is spray irrigated
and 15 percent is truck spread. They currently deliver to
about 70 farmers who own an average of 100 acres each, or a
total of 7,000 acres. Standard application rates are about
12,000 U. S. gallons of 4 percent organic material per acre
per year. This is quivalent to a dry solids loading of
about 2.0 tons per acre per year. This is considerably
lower than the 20-75-ton loading at the Chicago Fulton
County site. The HERTS Authority now puts organics on their
own land only for the purpose of maintaining current research
programs.
The cost to the Authority for utilizing their organic mater-
ials in this manner is about $3.25 per ton of dry solids.
This includes all costs from the time the material leaves
3-7
-------
the secondary digester until it is on the fields (including
the cost of management) . This compares to $12.50 per ton
for estuarine or ocean disposal, which is the major means of
disposal in Great Britain.
The HERTS application is a most notable example of the
"fertilizer" category of organics application shown in
Table 3-1. The organic material is utilized mainly as a
source of fertilizer for growing crops, and the growth of
crops is optimized by the individual farmers. The disposal
of organic material by the farmers is a secondary considera-
tion with maximizing of crop production being primary in
their minds.
Los Angeles County Sanitary District Composting System
Representatives of CH2M HILL visited the Los Angeles County
Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility in Willmington, California,
where air drying and composting of organic materials is
presently practiced.
The plant is a 350-mgd primary plant with single-stage
anaerobic digestion. No solids-liquid separation takes
place in the digesters, and the digested sludge is centri-
fuged in solid bowl centrifuges. Centrifuged sludge at
approximately 70 percent moisture is applied to the com-
posting system.
Approximately 100-120 tons of dry solids per day are com-
posted by constant turning in long windrows approximately
4.5 feet high. The final product is approximately 30 per-
cent moisture. Temperatures of 140°-150°F are reached
within the windrow during the composting and curing operation
which takes approximately 20 days in the summer and 40 days
in the winter.
The composting operation is extremely dependent on having
dry weather for successful operation. If prolonged periods
of rainfall occur, the entire composting operation must be
stopped and the organic material removed and buried.
During such periods, strong odors can occur. During normal
operation, the process is relatively odor free.
The composted end product is sold to a fertilizer company
located on county land adjacent to the composting operation.
The fertilizer company bags the compost without additives
and sells it for home garden use. They are able to market
all of the composted organic material that is produced by
this plant and are currently allocating it to selected
customers.
3-8
-------
City of Boulder, Colorado
James L. Smith, Associate Professor of Agricultural Engi-
neering at the Colorado State University in Fort Collins,
Colorado, has been working with the City of Boulder, Colorado,
to develop a system of subsurface injection for their organic
materials. The subsurface injection system developed by
Smith requires relative low power inputs and mixes the
sludge with the top layers of the soil (at depths as shallow
as 3-5 inches). With this type of injection plow,
1,000-1,500 gallons per minute of 4-5 percent solid material
can be injected below the surface of the soil,
One significant result achieved by Smith's work is the fact
that the injector can be used to achieve high loading rates
at low cost. Several of his test plots have received a
total of nine injections of organic material; an application
rate of 280,000 gallons per acre. The average solids con-
tent of this material was 3.8 percent and resulted in a
loading rate of 45 dry tons per acre. Most of the plots
were injected weekly during October and November.
Smith anticipates that because of the high performance
characteristics of this machine, it would be possible to
inject organic material during wet weather or with snow on
the ground and still obtain satisfactory results. The
injector has been operated successfully when the ground was
frozen 2 inches deep.
At Boulder, the organic material is delivered to the operating
tractor and plow through a buried pipeline to various connec-
tion points throughout the injection field. A 660-foot
6-inch-diameter rubber hose connects the plow to the distri-
bution points.
Metropolitan Denver Sewage District No. 1
In early 1971, the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal
District No. 1 made a commitment to develop a long-term
beneficial sludge reuse system to replace an interim sludge
recycle system at the Lowry Bombing Range. An investigation
of alternative systems indicated that agricultural reuse of
anaerobically digested wastewater treatment plant sludge is
the most economically and environmentally desirable solids
handling system for the District. Digested sludge used as
fertilizer has shown strong indications of being a valuable
resource. In a preliminary marketing effort, the District
has already located some potential users for its digested
sludge.
3-9
-------
Design has now begun on an agricultural reuse system which
is expected to begin operation in early 1977. The proposed
site of this new agricultural reuse system will be located
approximately 25 miles east of the Central Plant and will
initially encompass 2,000 acres. The site will serve as a
sludge drying and distribution center. Sludge treatment
will be accomplished by anaerobic digestion at the Central
Plant in Commerce City. The liquid sludge will then be
delivered from the plant to the distribution site through a
system of force mains and a booster pumping station. The
drying and distribution site will include approximately
600 acres of drying basins for open air drying of the sludge,
a storage area for stockpiling the dried material prior to
distribution to the users, an area of subsurface injection
of the sludge, demonstration plots, and miscellaneous site
facilities necessary for operation and maintenance. The
sludge material will be available for agricultural reuse in
both dry and liquid form. The dried sludge produced by the
open air drying process will be stored at the distribution
center for marketing. The liquid sludge will be distributed
to the farmers from the Central Plant, the booster pump
station, or the distribution center.
City of Salem, Oregon
A fertilizer rate reuse program has recently been started at
Salem, Oregon. This program was patterned after the HYDIC
system used in England. The sludge has been given a trade
name, BIOCRO, a brochure has been prepared and distributed
which describes BIOGRO and the reuse program, and a public
relations manager has been appointed. The City has been
truck hauling and applying 45,000-60,000 gallons of sludge
to farmland each day. The program has been an immediate
success with more than 20 farmers requesting sludge for
their land.
Other Locations
Table 3-2 briefly describes several other selected sludge
reuse programs.
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-2
OTHER SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
LOCATION METHODS
Springfield, Illinois Sprinkler application on 66 acres Began in 1965
Ottawa, Illinois Surface irrigation on 37 acres Reclamation
of silfca sand site
Shawnee National Forest, Land application on 190 acres Reclamation
Illinois of barren strip-mined land
Blue Plains, D C Plow or disk sludge into soil Trench in up to
500 tons per acre Presently 240 wet tons per
day are being processed into dried pellitized
fertilizer for sale Land application for
reclamation, soil conditioner, or fertilizer at various
places using different methods since 1938
San Diego, California Reclamation of Mission Bay Park began in 1951.
St Mary's, Pennsylvania Hauled in 1,500 gallon capacity trucks, applied
with portable irrigation system. Used, on farmland.
Piqua, Ohio Hauled and applied on 380 acres with 5,000
gallon capacity tanker
Montgomery County, Ohio Liquid sludge hauled and applied with 3,800
and 6,300 gallon capacity trucks Filter cake
also used Sludge applied on county and private farms
Kankankee, Illinois Apply liquid sludge on 8,000 acre ranch
Began in 1965
England About 40% of municipal treatment works
recycle sludge to land
Marshall, Missouri Switched from drying beds to liquid sludge
recycle in early 1950's Used on farmland
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Sludge is mechanically dried, bagged, and
marketed as fertilizer and soil conditioner
Marketed under trade name of "Milorganite"
Grand Rapids, Michigan Sludge is mechanically dried and marketed
as a fertilizer and soil conditioner
Marketed under trade name of "Rapidgro"
Operated since 1932.
28 Cities in Southeast Recycled on land as soil conditioner and
fertilizer in towns in Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.
3.3 RESEARCH AND REPORTS
University of Wisconsin Research
The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, has been actively involved in research
on land application of sludges for several years. Their
research has shown that rye, corn, and sorghum-sudan yields
increased with moderate sludge applications (Kelling, et al,
1974) . Up to 20 cm of liquid digested sewage sludge were
applied with no detrimental effect on yields. They did
notice that where sludge or water is spread by tank truck on
established alfalfa, crown survival through the winter and
yields were markedly reduced. They also found that liquid
sludge provides residual fertility and its greatest benefit
may be improvement of the long-term fertility status of
soils.
3-11
-------
Research on phytotoxic effects of heavy metals in sludge was
reported by Cunningham in 1974. This, as most of the research
reported on by the University of Wisconsin, was performed at
Arlington and Janesville, Wisconsin. These studies indi-
cated that the cadmium application should be limited to
2 pounds Cd per acre each year and 20 pounds Cd per acre
over the life of the site. Ryan and others in 1973 and 1975
reported on nitrogen transformations and availability in
sludge-amended soils.
Other Major Reports
The current sludge handling technology is covered in many
publications. Among the more recent are the Proceedings of
the Second National Conference on Municipal Sludge Manage-
ment and Disposal which was held in August 1975, and the
Process Design Manual for Sewage Sludge Treatment and Disposal
(EPA, 1974). Burd in 1968 reported on the status of the
sludge handling art.
3.4 SUMMARY
Several important principles can be derived from the "State
of the Art" review reported herein. If a true recycle
system is to be established and the organic materials truly
utilized for beneficial purposes, then it becomes evident
that cooperation of the local farming community is essential.
Experience of the HERTS Authority in Great Britain emphasizes
that the importance of a well-managed distribution operation
cannot be overstated.
3-12
-------
4.1 CHARACTER OF SLUDGE PRESENTLY PRODUCED
4.2 CHARACTER OF SLUDGE PRODUCED
IN THE FUTURE
TREATMENT PLANT
SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION
-------
Chapter 1
TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION
The Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works' sludge character
and quantity were required for the basis of the land applica-
tion rates. The existing sludge characteristics were deter-
mined by sampling and analyzing the digested sludge produced
by the Nine Springs Works. The future sludge character may
change due to changes in the sewage input or because of
changes in the operation or equipment of the treatment
works. Since this study precedes the final results of the
advanced waste treatment study, the expected changes in the
sludge character and volume had to be estimated for the
treatment alternatives considered.
4.1 CHARACTER OF SLUDGE PRESENTLY PRODUCED
The character of the sludge produced under the existing
conditions was determined by a sampling and chemical analysis
program and by comparison to data supplied by MMSD.
Sampling and Analysis Procedures
Analyses were performed on grab samples collected at the
digested sludge inlet pipe to the small lagoon.
The sampling procedures and analytical tests performed on
both the treatment plant sludge and lagoon deposit samples
collected during the study were in accordance with the
following publications:
• EPA: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes (1974).
• APHA, AWWA, WPCF: Standard Methods (1971).
• Roberts, S., Vodraska, R. V., Kauffman, M. D., and
Gardner, E. H.: Methods of Soil Analysis Used in
the Soil Testing Laboratory at Oregon State Univer-
sity (Special Report No. 321, April 1971). Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Oregon State Univer-
sity, Corvallis.
4-1
-------
• EPA: Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical
Methods: Chemistry Laboratory Manual—Bottom
Sediments (December 1969).
The treatment plant sludge samples were analyzed for the
following constituents: total solids, total volatile solids,
total soluble salts, pH, potassium, iron, zinc, copper,
titanium, lead, barium, chromium, manganese, nickel, tin,
cadmium, molybdenum, cobalt, aluminum, arsenic, boron,
selenium, mercury, sulfate, alkalinity, calcium, magnesium,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and total phospho-
rus.
Results of Analysis
The results of the analysis performed for this study and in
the recent past by Warf Institute for MMSD are shown in
Table 4-1. Because there was some question about the validity
of the analysis for nitrogen, extra analyses were performed
by CH2M HILL and MMSD. These results are shown with results
of analysis by the University of Wisconsin Soils Laboratory
in Table 4-2.
TABLE 4-1
CHARACTERIZATION OF TREATMENT PLANT ORGANIC SOLIDS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
I3)
PARAMETER
Total Solidt, %<31
Total Volatile Solids, %
Total Soluble Salti (EC), itmhos/cm
PH
Potassium, mg/kg
Iron, mg/kg
Zinc, mg/kg
Copper, mg/kg
Titanium, mg/kg
Lead, mg/kg
Barium, mg/kg
Chromium) mg/kg
Manganese, mg/kg
Nickel, mg/kg
Tin, mg/kg
Cadmium, mg/kg
Molybdenum, mg/kg
Cobalt, mg/kg
Aluminum, mg/kg
Arsenic, mg/kg
Boron (hot water soluble), mg/kg
Selenium, mg/kg
Mercury, mg/kg
S04-S (soluble), mg/kg
Alkalinity a CaCOj pH 4.5, mg/kg
Alkalinity as CaCOj pH 4.2, mg/kg
Calcium, mg/kg
Magnesium, mg/kg
Total Phosphorus, mg/kg
CH2M HILL WARF INSTITUTE
2-21-75 3-10-75 4-11-75 4-30-74 5-22-74 5-31-74 6-6-74 6-14-74
2.3
1.6
6.380
8.11
9,100
10.800
1.600
500
<90
640
1,820
290
200
270
2.2
1.6
7,220
8.12
9,100
6,800
2,200
570
<90
380
1,000
100
170
60
2.92 2.41 2.21 2.28
1.88
2.5
1.6
7,840
8.11
4,820
8,950
1,910 2,192 2,448 3,032 2,877 2,712
605
<40
40
2,640
14
4.0
<4
6.2
470
5,800
6.300
13.400
6,600
6,000
160
<20
3,100
394
< 4
6.5
200
6.100
6,600
62.300
7,400
9.100
175
600
312
198
SO.S
60.3
500
4.8
77,900
12,900
26,800
188
245
177
246
55 45.6 54.3 61.4
37.7 62.2 63.3 87.7
234
53.2
69
10.3
10.7
17.2
19.3
17.6
AVERAGE
2.34
1.6
7.150
8.11
7,670
8,850
2,370
525
<90
286
1,140
234
189
81
<10
73
<10
30
2,870
14
300
<4
11 6
335
5.950
6,450
51,200
8,970
13,970
TYPICAL
DIGESTED
SLUDGES12
4-6
12.000 - 19,000
8,000 - 78,000
490 - 12.200
140 - 10,000
40 - 4,600
530 - 1.340
50 - 32,000
180 - 1,130
15 - 1,700
5 - 400
3,600 - 12,000
150 - 750
0.6 - 31
42,000 -180,000
8.000 - 12.000
27,000 - 61,000
(1) Results are shown on dry weight basis, except as noted,
lot various sampling dates.
(2) As reported by Konrad and Klemert.
(3) Percent of sample volume.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY OF NITROGEN ANALYSIS111 OF MMSD DIGESTED SLUDGE
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
TOTAL
ANALVZED NITROGEN AMMONIA ORGANIC
DATE BY |%) (%> (%)
5-1674 U of W Soils Lab 82 39 4 3I2!
5-23-74 U of W Soils Lab 91 48 4312'
5-30-74 U of W Soils Lab 93 49 4412'
6-06-74 U of W Soils Lab 9.6 52 4512'
6-20-74 U of W Soils Lab 90 43 4 7l21
6-27-74 U of W Soils Lab 93 4.6 4.8l2'
2-21-75 CH2M HILL 11.4 6.9 45
3-10-75 CH2M HILL 14.8 79 69
4-11-75 CH2M HILL 123 6.6 §7
6-29-75 CH2M HILL 12.1 6.3 6.8
6-03-75 MMSD 104 5.7 47
Average MMSD Digested Sludge 10 5 5.5 50
Average MMSD Lagoon Sludge 59 12 47
Typical Digested Sludge 5.0 1 6 3.4
(1)
Unless otherwise noted all samples were analyzed on
a wet weight and reported on dry weight basis
12) These samples were oven dried before analysis for
total nitrogen Therefore the results are only an
estimate of the organic nitrogen. The total
nitrogen content is the sum of the ammonia plus
an estimate of the organic.
The sludge analysis also indicated a high level of cadmium.
Therefore, in an attempt to find major cadmium sources,
effluent samples from five service area industries, Ray-O-
Vac, Ohio Medical Labs, Kipp Corporation, Mautz Paint
Company, and Northern Plating, were collected and analyzed.
This survey did not find any significant single source of
cadmium. Of an estimated cadmium inflow to the plant of
about 2.9 pounds per day, less than 0.15 pound per day could
be attributed to the five sampled industries.
Discussion of Results
Most of the sludge constituents, with the exception of
ammonia nitrogen and solids content, are within or near the
range of values for typical digested sludges, The high
ammonia nitrogen may be creating a problem of ammonia tox-
icity in the digesters. Under normal operating conditions,
which should be achieved in future modifications to the
treatment plant, the ammonia nitrogen content is expected to
be nearer to the typical 1.6 percent. Lagoon aging of the
sludge for a few months has also been shown to be effective
in reducing the nitrogen content to normal levels. The high
nitrogen content of the sludge, while being a benefit to the
farmer, creates a problem for the District in that more
farmland would be required for sludge application.
-------
The solids content is lower than typical for digested sewage
sludge. This low solids content results in about twice as
much liquid to be handled as would be required with a
typical 4- to 6-percent solids sludge.
The cadmium to zinc ratio of the treatment plant sludge
averages 3.1 percent. This may present a problem for land
application of the sludge because of a possible health
hazard. This problem is discussed further in Chapter 6.
Possible sources of the relatively high cadmium content
include the electroplating industries, pigments and chemi-
cals, alloys, and automobile radiators and batteries. The
District should perform an industrial waste survey to identify
the point sources and require that cadmium be removed before
discharging to sewers.
4.2 CHARACTER OF SLUDGE PRODUCED IN THE FUTURE
The character of the sludge produced in the future will
depend on the discharge strategy ultimately selected for the
project. Several discharge strategies have been considered
for this project which require a wide range of effluent
qualities and, therefore, a wide range of degrees of treat-
ment. Since the quality and quantity of sludge produced is
dependent on the degree of treatment, it is necessary to
define what levels of treatment are being considered so that
the impact on the reuse program can be assessed.
At this time, several discharge strategy alternatives have
been eliminated. Those remaining for detailed study require
the following effluent qualities or degrees of treatment.
• Effluent I: Less than 30 mg/l of BOD and suspended
solids; less than 2.0 mg/l ammonia nitrogen.
• Effluent II: Less than 10 mg/l of BOD and suspended
solids; less than 0.2 mg/l of ammonia nitrogen.
• Effluent III (for industrial reuse): Less than
100 mg/l of total hardness; less than 1,000 mg/l
of total dissolved solids; less than 0.2 mg/l
ammonia nitrogen.
The qualities required for Effluents I and II can be accom-
plished with conventional biological treatment processes.
The quality required for Effluent III will require a lime
softening treatment of the effluent from a biological treat-
ment process. A discussion follows on how these effluent
4-4
-------
quality requirements will affect the future quality and
quantity of sludge produced at the Nine Springs Works.
Quality of Sludge
Organic Sludges. The quality of the organic sludges is
expected to improve with the anticipated modifications and
expansions required to meet the effluent qualities under
consideration. The current high ammonia content and low
solids concentration may be improved by a modification of
the digester operation. This is currently under study as a
part of the AWT study. If this study fails to find an
acceptable solution, another solution would be to age the
sludge by lagoon storage. Aging the sludge would accomplish
two things; first, a portion of the ammonia will be lost by
volatilization and second, the sludge will go through a
natural freeze-thaw cycle which has proven to be effective
in improving the settleability and dewaterability of the
sludge.
Lime Softening Sludges. As stated earlier, Effluent III
will require lime softening of a high quality effluent to
make it acceptable for industrial reuse. This process will
produce large quantities of lime sludge in addition to the
organic sludges if this effluent is required. We again will
recommend that these sludges be handled separately. Depending
on the quality of the lime sludge, it may be suitable for
land application to maintain a proper pH in the soil. If
the lime sludge is of poor quality, we will recommend
landfill as the ultimate method of disposal. In the event
industrial reuse is selected as the recommended discharge
strategy, we will investigate the ultimate disposal methods
in more detail.
Quantity of Sludge
The quantity of organic sludges is, for most cases, expected
to increase with the implementation of the proposed modi-
fications and expansions to the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment
Works.
The 1974 level of sludge production was estimated, based
upon MMSD data, to be about 5,350 tons dry solids per year.
This is expected to increase in proportion to the volume of
flow treated until 1977 when the Fifth Addition goes on
line. The sludge production is then expected to increase
markedly to about 6,000 tons dry solids per year due to more
effective BOD removal. The sludge production is again
4-5
-------
expected to increase in direct proportion to the volume
treated until 1981 when the advanced waste treatment (AWT)
facilities are expected to go on line. The sludge production
with AWT will depend upon the level of treatment provided
and the treatment process selected.
There are currently several processes under consideration to
produce the levels of treatment required. One of these
processes will eliminate the need to digest and recycle
secondary waste activated sludge. It is a biophysical
treatment process* which utilizes activated carbon in the
aeration basin to absorb nonbiodegradable organics. During
the process of regenerating the spent carbon, the waste
activated sludge is converted (destroyed) to an inert ash.
This ash can then be handled separately and placed in a
landfill or it may be returned to the head of the plant and
handled with the primary sludge. If this process is selected,
there will be a significant reduction of organic sludge to
handle as there will be no waste secondary sludge. Only
primary sludge would then be available for anaerobic diges-
tion and land application.
Implications of a Future Phosphorus Removal Requirement
At the present time, the discharge strategies being con-
sidered in detail do not require phosphorus removal. However,
in the event future effluent quality requirements demand
phosphorus removal, we would recommend that a chemical
treatment system be employed. The effect of a chemical
phosphorus removal system on the quantity and quality of
sludge produced will depend upon the specific process employed
which, in turn, will depend upon the phosphorus removal
requirement.
The two most common phosphorus removal systems employed
today are:
1. Addition of alum or ferric chloride to the acti-
vated sludge aeration basins and
2. Addition of alum, ferric chloride, or lime in a
separate tertiary treatment system.
At the present time, these systems also appear to be the
most promising alternatives for future phosphorus removal at
Nine Springs.
*Developed and marketed by Zimpro, Inc.
4-6
-------
The addition of alum or ferric chloride to the activated
sludge system will result in the production of a combined
biological-chemical sludge. Experience with anaerobic
digestion of combined biological-chemical sludges has shown
that the digestion process is generally not impaired.
Achievement of 80-90 percent phosphorus removal at the Nine
Springs plant, however, would increase the quantity of
digested solids requiring disposal by 50 percent or more.
More important, the quality of organic solids would be
severely impaired by the presence of a high concentration of
aluminum or iron. Based upon irrigation water quality
criteria discussed in Section 6.3, these biological-chemical
sludges would not be suitable for land application.
Tertiary chemical treatment for phosphorus removal with
alum, ferric chloride, or lime would result in production of
a chemical sludge. We would recommend that such purely
chemical sludges be handled separately from the organic
solids. As stated earlier, lime sludge may be suitable for
land application to acid soils to maintain a proper soil pH.
Chemical sludge resulting from the addition of alum or
ferric chloride would have few beneficial qualities for land
application. Consequently, dewatering and landfill would be
appropriate for alum and iron sludges and for lime sludge
which could not be land applied.
Summary
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED TREATMENT PLANT
ORGANIC SOLIDS QUALITY
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
PARAMETER111
Total Solids, %
Nitrogen, %
Phosphorus, mg/kg
Potassium, mg/kg
Cadmium, mg/kg
Zinc, mg/kg
Copper, mg/kg
Nickel, mg/kg
EXISTING
2.3
10.5
13,970
7,670
73
2,370
525
81
5TH ADDITION
ON LINE
1977
2.3
10.5
13,970
7,670
50(3I
2,370
525
81
AWT
ON LINE
1981
5<2>
5(2)
13,970
7.670
20I3I
2,370
525
81
Tables 4-3 and 4-4
summarize the qua-
lity and quantity of
the treatment plant
sludge (organic
solids) to be used
for the remainder of
the report.
11) All results, except total solids are reported
on dry weight basis.
(2) Improved quality expected due to
modifications in plant operation
(3) Improved quality expected due to
source removal program
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-4
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED TREATMENT PLANT
ORGANIC SOLIDS QUANTITY")
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL II LEVEL III
YEAR 30/30(21 10/10 10/10 10/10
WITH WITH UIME
• IOPHVSICAL. SOFTENING
1981 5,870 6,730 2,890 6,730
+Lime Sludge
1990 6,560 7,500 3,230 7,500
+Lime Sludge
2000 7,460 8,520 3,660 ' 8,520
+Lime Sludge
(11 Tons of dry solids per year.
(2) Indicates an effluent with 30 mg/l of BOD and
30 mg/l of suspended solids.
The solids content is expected to be increased to about
5 percent and the high nitrogen content is expected to be
reduced to a more typical 5 percent with the addition of AWT
facilities in 1981 or by lagoon aging. A program to find
the major cadmium point sources and remove or reduce them
should be implemented as soon as possible. If successful,
the cadmium should be reduced to at least 20 mg/kg. This
would reduce the cadmium to zinc ratio to less than 1 percent.
The quantities of sludge expected for the various effluent
qualities and processes are shown in Table 4-4. We have
used the quantities indicated by Effluent II without bio-
physical sludge processing in preparing the remainder of
this report.
4-8
-------
5.1 BACKGROUND
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF LAGOONS AND DEPOSITS
53 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF FIELD SAMPLES
5.4 LAGOON EMBANKMENT EVALUATION
5.5 LAGOON ABANDONMENT
5.6 ALTERNATIVE ABANDONMENT PROGRAMS
5.7 RECOMMENDED LAGOON ABANDONMENT
PROGRAM
5.8 SUMMARY
SLUDGE LAGOON STUDY
5
-------
Chapter 5
SLUDGE LAGOON STUDY
5.1 BACKGROUND
The sludge disposal lagoons at the MMSD Nine Springs Sewage
Treatment Works are located just east of the treatment plant
as shown on Figure 5-1. There are two lagoons, one approxi-
mately 45 acres in size, and one approximately 85 acres.
The smaller west lagoon (Lagoon 1) was constructed in about
1942, while the dikes for the larger east lagoon (Lagoon 2)
were installed in 1967.
The dikes were constructed on the westerly edge of an exten-
sive grass-sedge marsh area. The underlying surficial soils
are primarily peat and organic silts. These soils have low
bearing capacity, and consequently the dike sections of
Lagoon 2 have failed twice since their construction. The
two areas of embankment failure are shown on Figure 5-1.
The first failure, along the north dike in April 1970,
resulted in a supernatant spill of approximately 85 million
gallons and a large fish kill. The second failure, along
the south dike in November 1973, was contained with a major
fill hauling effort; A program of maintaining the lagoon
dikes, of pumping lagoon supernatant back to the treatment
plant, and of hauling sludge from the lagoon to farmland has
been initiated by MMSD in an effort to prevent future dike
failures.
As a result of the 1970 dike failure, WDNR required that
MMSD abandon the present method of sludge disposal and take
measures to prevent the recurrence of discharges to the
state waters. This order initiated several studies, most
notably those by Greeley and Hansen Engineers and Roy F.
Weston, Inc., which resulted in the recommendations to
dispose of the sludge on land. To complement the sludge
reuse program, CH2M HILL's study was to include evaluation
of the lagoon problem. As background for this, a lagoon
sampling program was used to provide an assessment of the
environmental impacts of lagoon abandonment alternatives and
of the suitability of the lagoon solids for reuse on land.
Also, the lagoon dikes were investigated to determine their
condition and need for stabilization.
5-1
-------
5.2 DESCRIPTION OF LAGOONS AND DEPOSITS
The lagoon deposits were characterized by sampling and
analysis at 48 locations in the two lagoons. The field
program tasks consisted of (1) determining physical dimen-
sions of each lagoon for sludge deposit quantification, and
(2) collecting samples for physical and chemical charac-
terization of the lagoon deposits and bed material. A
preliminary field study revealed the lagoon bed material to
consist of a peat layer overlying a marl layer.
Field Work Methodologies
A systematic sampling station grid network was established
in each lagoon to provide sufficient areal coverage and
detailed characterization of the two lagoons and their
deposits. Eighteen stations were located in a rectangular
pattern in Lagoon 1, and 30 stations were similarly located
in Lagoon 2. Location of each sampling station is shown on
Figure 5-1.
TYPICAL SLUDGE CORE
5-2
-------
The field sampling was performed in March 1975 while the
lagoons were frozen. Sampling consisted of boring through
the ice with an ice auger and measuring the ice thickness.
Ice samples were collected at selected stations and placed
in plastic containers. Sludge samples were then obtained by
coring with clear plastic pipes fitted with an adjustable
rubber stopper attached to a nylon cord as shown on
Figure 5-2. With the stopper end of the pipe touching the
sludge surface, the pipe was slowly pushed into the sludge
until a solid bottom was felt. The stopper was kept at the
surface of the lagoon by the taut line as the pipe was
pushed down. This created a vacuum for recovering the
liquid sludge in the pipe. When the more resistant lagoon
bottom was reached, a measurement of the empty portion of
pipe was made and subtracted from its length (8 feet) to
yield the depth of the sludge layer. The pipe was then
pushed into the bottom to obtain a peat bottom plug, and the
additional length of pipe pushed into the peat was measured
and recorded. The core was then retrieved, capped, and
numbered. With the core in an upright position, measurement
and identification of the layered masses (peat, sludge,
marl) were then made.
At stations where a peat plug could not be obtained due to
the solidness of the sludge, the location of the peat mass
was determined with a commercial peat sampler.
COLLECTING SAMPLE FROM PEAT SAMPLER
At selected stations, peat and marl samples were taken with
the peat sampler. Peat samples were taken at 3-foot inter-
vals until the marl layer was reached. Samples were placed
5-4
-------
2" O.D. PIPE
EYEBOLT
NUT
ADJUSTING NUT
NYLON CORD
WASHER
RUBBER STOPPER
FOR SUCTION
WASHER
S9166.0
FIGURE 5-2
CORING APPARATUS
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
in plastic containers as shown in photo. Background samples
were taken from the nearby swamp by shovelling with the ice
auger and with the peat sampler.
All sludge cores were frozen in the upright position and
packed in insulated crates with dry ice for air freight
delivery to the laboratory. Ice, peat, and marl samples
were frozen and shipped with the sludge cores for analysis.
Results of Field Work
Depth of Sludge. The sludge depths in Lagoon 1 decreased
from west to east and ranged from 2-7.1 feet as shown on
Figure 5-3. This may be attributed to the contour and slope
of the bed and the settling of solids near the sludge
discharge pipe on the west dike wall. Cores taken from
Stations 1 through 4 had the consistency of a dry paste as
opposed to sludge cores of lesser viscosity taken progres-
sively eastward. In general, the vertical profile of the
lagoon consisted of an ice-soil mass mixed with shallow
rooted vegetation approximately 1 foot thick, the sludge
layer, 2-7 feet thick, and a peat bed at least 5 feet thick
overlying a marl layer. Peat and soil layers were entrapped
between the sludge layer at Stations 2 and 10.
The sludge depths in Lagoon 2 ranged from 3.9 feet to
17.2 feet, as shown on Figure 5-3. However, the 17-foot
depth occurred only at Station 48 and was the result of
dredging the peat bed for dike reinforcement at the south-
east corner several years ago. The sludge samples from
Lagoon 2 were less viscous than those taken from Lagoon 1.
A 1- to 4-foot-thick layer of peat mixed with sludge overlays
the peat bed at Stations 32, 36, 39, and 42. The vertical
profile was similar to that of Lagoon 1, and layers of a
peat-sludge mixture were entrapped within the sludge at
Stations 32, 36, 39, 42, and 44.
Volume of Lagoon Deposits. The lagoon volumes were calcu-
lated with the aid of a computer using the sludge depth data
and the aerial photographs for dimensions and by making
assumptions of the sludge depths along the dike walls. The
results indicate Lagoon 1 has a sludge volume of over
449,000 cubic yards (90,700,000 gallons) and Lagoon 2 over
594,000 cubic yards (120 million gallons).
The average percent dry solids analyses were 12.9 and 8.2
for Lagoons 1 and 2, respectively. This is calculated to
48,700 dry tons of sludge in Lagoon 1 and 41,000 dry tons of
sludge in Lagoon 2, for a combined total of 89,700 dry tons
of sludge material.
5-6
-------
5.3 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF FIELD SAMPLES
In addition to physically describing the lagoon contents,
several chemical analyses were performed to characterize the
quality of the lagoon contents and to determine if any of
the constituents of the lagoon sludge were leaching from the
lagoon and entering the ground water.
Fourteen lagoon sludge samples were evenly divided and
analyzed in two different CH2M HILL laboratories for mercury,
copper, and zinc. The analytical results were cross-checked
as part of a quality assurance program. There was close
agreement between the laboratories' results.
Characterization of Lagoon Sludge
To characterize the sludge in each lagoon, several selected
cores were composited and analyzed for zinc, copper, cadmium,
nickel, mercury, potassium, total phosphate phosphorus,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and total soluble
salts. The remaining cores from both lagoons were composited
and analyzed for total solids. The analysis of each sample
was performed on the "as received" sample, and the results
were reported on a dry weight basis. A summary of the
results is presented in Table 5-1.
Discussion of Results
The lagoon deposits analyses vary significantly only in
respect to percent of solids. Lagoon 1 has an average
solids content of 12.9 percent while Lagoon 2 has 8.9 per-
cent. Since Lagoon 1 is closer to the discharge pipe and
has been used for 25 years longer so the higher average
solids content was expected. The solids contents measured
for the two lagoons agrees well with the 10-percent average
solids content estimated in the Weston report.
The ammonia nitrogen content of the lagoon sludge is much
lower than that of the treatment plant sludge. This can be
explained by the fact that ammonia is lost by volatilization
from the lagoon surface.
The cadmium to zinc ratio of the lagoon sludge is about
1.3 percent. This is slightly over the of 1.0 percent
recommended in the Federal Guidelines for sludge applied to
agricultural land. The cadmium to zinc ratio is also signi-
ficantly lower in the lagoon than in the treatment plant
sludge. Increased industrial discharge of cadmium in recent
years would explain why the treatment plant sludge has
higher cadmium content.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-1
CHARACTERIZATION OF LAGOON SLUDGE"1
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
STATION
LAGOON 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MIN.
MAX
MEAN
LAGOON 2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
MIN.
MAX.
MEAN
AVERAGE
DEPTH
OF
SLUDGE
(ft)
69
7 1
7 1
65
6.0
52
6 1
55
67
20
5.5
5.9
53
54
57
53
6.1
51
20
7 1
574
3.9
48
49
4.8
5.5
52
5.7
47
4,6
4.2
5.4
5.9
4.2
4.6
4.3
5.6
4.3
4.5
5.0
2.7
4.7
50
4.4
40
4.5
62
5.1
9.0
4.0
17.2
2.7
17.2
530
MJLILK> UUIM 1 bIM 1
TOTAL VOLATILE
SOLIDS SOLIDS
1%) (%)
194
18.3 98
24 1
192
14 1
11 6
3,1
132
138
83
82
7.4
98
11.8
16.0
10.8
12.9
10.2
3 1
24 1
1290 98
97
86
9.3
12.7
10.3
9.0
7.2
8.9
7.8
11 8
6.7
5.9
10.0
77
8.2
4.5
87
7.5
8.0
9.9
4.2
5.0
57
10.5
7.0
4.6
10.8
6.8
107
4.2
12.7
8.20
^
TOTAL
N
(%)
4.46
594
755
274
6.20
3.86
9.23
274
9.23
5.71
8.66
4.36
6.07
4.16
6.91
6 16
4.16
8.66
5.98
•H1MAKT
NH4
N
(%)
1.14
1.22
1.85
0.81
1.80
1 27
103
0.81
185
1 30
1 36
075
1.88
1.15
1.81
0.50
0.50
1.88
1.16
NUlHItl
TOTAL
P
(%)
1 39
1.59
2.67
1 39
2.67
1 88
0.73
1.41
0.73
1.41
1.07
MTS
TOTAL
K
(%)
0 12
0.12
0.20
0.12
0.20
0.15
0.07
016
0.31
0.07
0.31
0.18
CHARACTER
OF
LAGOON
SLUDGE
552
1055 98
584
1.23
1 4R
0 165
HEAVY METALS
Zn Cu Cd Ni
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
0 12 3,200 470
0.12 2,145 476
0.20 3,456 490
0.12 2,145 470
0.20 3,456 490
0.15 2,934 479
2,012
541
30
37.5
39.1
30.0
39.1
35.5
33.3
50
60.3
60.1
50.0
60.3
56.8
55.5
(mg/kg)
21.0
21.7
19.4
19.4
21.7
20.7
17.3
TOTAL
SOLUBLE
SALTS
at EC
(^mhos/cm)
2,670
4,010
4,430
2,670
4,430
3,703
3,590
2,080
259
459
25.3
50.7
26.9
2,740
4,730
2,012 259
2,080 541
2,046 420
2,490
25.3
33.3
29.3
32.4
50.7
55.5
53.1
17.3
26.9
22.1
21 4
2,740
4,730
3,687
(1) Analyses performed on an as-received composite of
entire core and results reported on a dry weight basis.
Exceptions are cores 2 and 36, in which the listed values
are an average for several individual segments
(2) Percent of sample volume
5-9
-------
Leaching of Lagoon Constituents
The presence of the sludge lagoon represents a potential
threat of ground-water contamination. To determine if this
threat is real, several core samples were selected for
detailed chemical profile tests. The sludge cores selected
were from Station 2 in Lagoon 1 and Station 36 in Lagoon 2.
Each of these sludge cores was then segmented into 4.5-inch
sections for analysis. In addition to the sludge samples,
deeper grab samples of peat and marl were collected with the
peat sampler at Stations 2 and 36 and also at the background
Stations N-1 and N-2 located in the uncontaminated marsh
north of the lagoons. Each of these samples was then ana-
lyzed for several selected chemical constituents, and the
results were plotted as a function of depth. Concentration
profile plots for four selected constituents for Lagoon 1
are presented on Figure 5-4. The profile plots for Lagoon 2
are presented on Figure 5-5. Additional plots for Lagoon 1
are included in Appendix A. The lagoon deposits were ana-
lyzed for tin, molybdenum, cobalt, and selenium, but none
were detected.
The results of these plots indicate that there is little or
no leaching of the sludge constituents past the first 1 foot
of the peat-soil layer. The concentration of constituents
typically reach a peak about midway through the sludge
blanket. The concentration is then rapidly reduced and
approaches the background concentration about 6 inches to
1 foot below the peat-sludge interface.
The potential for leaching of lagoon constituents through
the dikes was also evaluated. Hydrogeologic investigations
by Stephenson and Hennings (1972) indicate that seepage
losses through the dikes may be on the order of 0.001 to
0.01 cubic foot per second (cfs) on the perimeter of Lagoon 2.
This seepage water is very much diluted in the estimated
annual average flow in Nine Springs Creek of about 5.8 cfs.
The factor of dilution will be about 1 part seepage water in
600-6,000 parts watershed drainage water.
The District's program of monitoring the streams around the
lagoons also indicates that leaching of polluted water
through the dikes is not a problem. Two water quality
sampling stations have been established on Nine Springs
Creek; one upstream from the lagoons, the other downstream.
Monitoring of the ammonia content of the stream indicates
that there is no significant increase in ammonia as the
stream passes the lagoons.
5-10
-------
10 20 30 40
TOTAL SOLIDS (Percent)
50
500
1000
COPPER CONCENTRATION,
mg/kg (ppm)
TOTAL SOLIDS
COPPER
500
1000
1500
POTASSIUM CONCENTRATION,
mg/kg (ppm)
POTASSIUM
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS (EC)
JUmhos/cm
TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS (EC)
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
° CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
S9166.0
FIGURE 5-4
LAGOON 1
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
(39.2)
5 10 15 20
TOTAL SOLIDS (Percent)
25
'" _p _ J£^4^aU-44-a*$
%;K*V -. '
0 200 400 600 800
COPPER CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
TOTAL SOLIDS
COPPER
0 600 1200 1800 2400
POTASSIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS (EC) jUmhos/cm
POTASSIUM
TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS (EC)
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 36 FROM UAGOON 2
o CONTROL SAMPLE N-1 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
.89166.0
FIGURE 5-5
LAGOON 2
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
Summary
TABLE 5-2
SUMMARY LAGOON ORGANIC SOLIDS
CHARACTER AND QUANTITY*
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
PARAMETER CONTENT
Quantity, tons dry solids 89.700
Total Solids. %' 10.55
Nitrogen, % 5.34
Phosphorus, mg/kg 14,800
Potassium, mg/kg 1,650
Cadmium, mg/kg 32.4
Zinc, mg/kg 2,490
Copper, mg/kg 450
Nickel, mg/kg 55
Table 5-2 summarizes the
lagoon deposits character and
volume. The quantity may have
changed slightly since it was
measured in March 1975 because
sludge has been continuously
discharged into the lagoons
and the District has also
hauled some sludge to farmers.
'All results, except quantity and total solids.
are reported on a dry weight basis.
5.
LAGOON EMBANKMENT EVALUATION
In July 1975, we presented a special report to MMSD entitled
Geotechnical Evaluation of Sludge Lagoon Embankments. This
report included a detailed discussion of the lagoon history
and physical conditions, past embankment failures, and past
geotechnical investigations. The existing condition of the
dikes was visually inspected by a geotechnical engineer from
CH2M HILL in April 1975. Based upon this inspection and the
results of previous investigations, a stability analysis was
performed. Alternatives for embankment stabilization were
prepared when it became evident that more dike failures were
imminent. Listed below are the major conclusions and recom-
mendations of the special report.
Conclusions
Relative to the sludge lagoon embankments, CH2M HILL's
visual inspection and evaluation of record information led
to the following conclusions:
• Certain reaches of the sludge lagoon embankments
are unstable.
• Failures and possible damaging spills are imminent,
and in the case of the south dike of Lagoon 2,
incipient.
• Regardless of the disposition of the sludge in the
lagoons, the unstable reaches must be repaired as
soon as possible.
5-13
-------
• The present method of sludge removal by dragline
from the dikes contributes to embankment stability
problems by removing counterweight (surcharge)
material.
Recommendati ons
CH2M HILL recommended that the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District take the following action:
* Stabilize the south dike of Lagoon 2 and portions
of the north and west dikes of Lagoon 2 as soon as
possible.
• Stabilize the reaches recommended by replacing the
existing dikes with embankments constructed by
corduroy and berm techniques.
• Terminate the present method of sludge removal as
soon as possible.
• Continue to return supernatant to the plant to
maintain freeboard.
• Adopt a schedule which would result in the dikes
being stabilized by July 1976.
In their meeting of 8 September 1975, the District accepted
the findings of the special report and decided to proceed
with the recommended dike stabilization program.
Later Investigations
In early 1976 test borings performed in the dike stabili-
zation program were used to provide data for detailed evalua-
tion of Lagoon 1 dikes. Engineering analysis using measured
soil strengths and compressibility indicated that the dikes
surrounding the westerly half of Lagoon 1 possess an adequate
factor of safety against failure and could continue to be
used as a sludge storage facility.
5.5 LAGOON ABANDONMENT
A program is required for abandoning the current method of
sludge disposal so that no lagoon contents will spill into
waters of the State. There are four general abandonment
options available.
5-14
-------
1. Treatment plant sludge; continue discharge to
existing lagoons or discontinue discharge and
bui Id new lagoons .
2. Lagoon sludge; remove and apply to farmland or
leave in lagoons.
3. Lagoon supernatant; remove and return to treatment
plant or leave in lagoons.
4. Lagoon dikes; stabilize and maintain or leave as
they are.
The four general abandonment options were each examined
separately. The cost estimating and calculating procedures
used in comparing lagoon abandonment alternatives and in
planning this sludge reuse program are discussed in Appen-
dix B.
Option 1—Storage of Treatment Plant Sludge
The advantage of continuing discharge of treatment plant
sludge to the existing lagoons is that the facilities, the
pipeline and lagoons, already exist. If discharge to the
existing lagoons is discontinued, a new lagoon must be built
for sludge storage. Both options are viable, but continuing
discharge to the existing lagoons would be less costly than
building anew lagoon. Also, it would be difficult to
obtain a site for a large sludge storage facility. As will
be shown later in this report, the required seasonal sludge
storage capacity will be about 150 acre-feet. The estimated
cost to construct and acquire land for this lagoon is
$607,000. The detailed cost estimate for the new
150-acre-foot capacity sludge lagoon is presented in Table 1
of Appendix B.
Option 2—Removal of Lagoon Sludge
Two major factors regarding removal of the lagoon sludge are
removal methods and effects of leaving the sludge in the
lagoons.
Lagoon Sludge Removal. Several alternative sludge removal
methods, including those used by the District, were investi-
gated for technical feasibility, reliability, and costs. In
1973 and 1974, the District used a crane dragline to remove
lagoon solids for use on farmland when the lagoon began to
fi II to danger of dike fai lure. One dragline kept four
trucks busy and was able to remove about 100 dry tons of
lagoon deposits per day. This method of dragline cleaning
5-15
-------
costs about $3.55 per dry ton as determined by MMSD for
1974. Two problems with this method make it infeasible for
future use. First, we noted that the dragline bucket sinks
below the sludge and picks up peat from the lagoon bottom.
While this accomplishes storage volume recovery, it does not
fully accomplish sludge removal. Second, the operator is
able to swing the bucket out into the lagoon only 50-75 feet.
After once or twice around Lagoon 1 in 1974, the draglined
strip had filled with mostly treatment plant sludge because
the higher solids content sludge from the center of the
lagoons failed to flow toward the dikes. In order to con-
tinue this method of sludge removal, about 7.8 miles of
finger dikes, placed about 125 feet apart, would be required
to clean both lagoons. At an estimated $5.00 per lineal
foot, the finger dike construction would cost approximately
$205,000. Another problem with this method is that sludge
removal by dragline from the dikes contributes to embankment
stability problems by removing counterweight (surcharge)
material.
In August 1975, the District began using a small Sauerman
type dragline to drag sludge toward the dikes. This type of
dragline allowed the District to reach farther and minimize
dike stability problems. The sludge was then removed by
clamshell and loaded onto trucks. This method of dragging
the heavier solids toward the dikes appeared to be working
satisfactorily. They were able to increase their reach to
about 300 feet but still not enough to reach the middle of
the lagoons.
As an alternative to the dragline methods presently used, we
corresponded with Sauerman Bros, of Bellwood, Illinois, who
build large slackline cableway dragscrapers. This equipment
would operate from large stationary towers and drag lagoon
deposits toward the tower where it would be deposited at a
pump or conveyor. Due to the instability of the lagoon area
soils, considerable expense would be required to install
equipment of this type capable of cleaning the entire lagoon.
The cost of the extra foundation work alone would be an
estimated $50,000. The total cost of such a system would be
between $300,000 to $400,000. Experience with the small
dragline presently used indicates that the bucket tends to
sink through the liquid sludge to the bottom of the lagoon,
picking up some peat while leaving the more liquid sludge.
Another factor which also makes this type of equipment
infeasible is that it tends to remove dike counterweight
material, contributing to embankment instability. Due to
the high cost and poor technical feasibility, this system is
not suitable for the Nine Springs Lagoons.
5-16
-------
Use of stationary sludge or mud pumps in place of dragline
was also considered but felt to be unsatisfactory because
the high solids content deposits will not flow toward the
pump, and consequently, the pump would soon deplete its
source and have to be moved.
Other methods of lagoon deposits removal which were con-
sidered were by helicopter and by dewatering the lagoon. A
helicopter operation with bucket, as used to scoop water
from lakes and dump onto wildfires, was abandoned as being
too expensive. Dewatering by pumping with a pump located on
the dikes and then going in with loaders on pads to clean
out the remainder was also abandoned as being unproven.
MUD CAT ON NINE SPRINGS LAGOON
A small portable dredge which would slurry the sludge prior
to pumping is felt to be the most feasible method of cleaning
the lagoons. Mud Cat, manufactured by National Car Rental,
is a small floating dredge which is self-propelled and can
move into sludge to be pumped. A Mud Cat demonstration was
held on the Nine Springs Lagoons on 4 September 1975. The
machine demonstrated that it could pick up and pump 3 percent
solids sludge at a rate of 2,200 gallons per minute or
10 percent solids sludge at 700 gallons per minute. At a
pumping rate of 700 gallons per minute and operating effi-
ciency of 70 percent, about 900 8-hour days would be required
to remove the 210 million gallons of lagoon deposits. The
Mud Cat will require about 2 feet of liquid to float on for
maneuverability. Therefore, after removing sludge for a
time, water may need to be left in the lagoons to provide
flotation and improve discharge pipe maneuverability.
5-17
-------
The cost of cleaning the lagoons with a small floating
dredge like Mud Cat is estimated to be about $3.90 per ton
of dry solids or a present worth of $270,000. This includes
the capital costs of a dredge like Mud Cat, the pipeline to
a wet well, and a wet well. This does not include trans-
portation and land application of the sludge. The life of
the machine is expected to be 10 years. It is estimated
that it would remove an average of 10,000 tons of sludge per
year for 9 years. An extra year of operation was included
in the cost estimate to be used in slurrying the sludge and
to assist in weed mat removal. The cost estimates also
include the expense of applying a herbicide which would slow
weed growth and allow easier sludge removal. The development
of the cost estimates for lagoon sludge removal is detailed
in Appendix B, Table 2.
Other Considerations for Option 2. If the lagoons are
cleaned, the marsh could be allowed to return to its natural
state, and the threat of sludge spilling into the lakes
would be eliminated. If the sludge is left in the lagoons,
there would be no cost of removing the sludge, but since
supernatant and rainfall are expected to accumulate, there
would be the cost of returning this supernatant to the
treatment plant until it becomes nontoxic to fish. To
determine how long supernatant would have to be returned and
treated before it becomes nontoxic, a brief analysis was
made of the time required to dilute the ammonia-nitrogen
content of the lagoon supernatant with rainwater to the
level of 1.0 mg/l. This dilution analysis indicated that it
would take several hundred years. The reason for such a
long time is that ammonia nitrogen is continually mineralized
from the very large reservoir of organic nitrogen in the
sludge. Based upon this estimate, supernatant would have to
be pumped back every year. At the end of the planning
period of this study, the year 2000, very little improvement
would have been accomplished to the present lagoon situation.
The lagoons would still exist as a threat to the lakes, and
the supernatant quality will have improved very little.
Option 3--Lagoon Supernatant Removal
As stated earlier, it is anticipated that supernatant from
rain, snowfall, and sludge will accumulate in the lagoons.
If left to accumulate, the supernatant will overtop the
dikes. Since it is toxic to fish, it must not be allowed to
spill, but rather it must be returned to the treatment plant
for BOD and ammonia removal before discharge. At the present
time, the impact of the supernatant on the treatment process
5-18
-------
and the effluent is minimal. However, when the treatment
plant is upgraded to meet more stringent effluent standards,
the impact on the treatment process and effluent could be
significant.
Based on the discharge strategies currently under considera-
tion, it is highly probable that ammonia removal facilities
will be required to meet the required effluent quality. If
this is required, the ammonia content of the supernatant
will have the most impact on the treatment process design.
Under the present operation of the lagoons, sludge and
supernatant accumulate over the winter months. During this
period, there is minimal supernatant return due to ice cover
and there is also an increase in ammonia concentration also
due to ice cover.
12.000
FIGURE 5-6
IMPACT OF LAGOON SUPERNATANT ON
AMMONIA CONTENT OF
TREATMENT PLANT INFLUENT
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
In the spring, shortly after
thaw, there is an urgent need
to pump the supernatant back
to the plant to avoid a spill
of supernatant over the dikes.
This pumping results in a
large flow ( 2 mgd) of super-
natant, very high in ammonia
( 250 mg/l), back to the
plant during April of each
year. As the season pro-
gresses, the flow and concen-
tration diminish very quickly;
however, the ammonia load to
the plant during April adds
another 65 percent to the
design ammonia load for the
treatment plant based on the
domestic contributions during
1980. The impact of the
supernatant ammonia load on
the plant design is illus-
trated on Figure 5-6.
As shown previously, if the
sludge is not removed from the
lagoons, the supernatant must
be returned and treated for
more than TOO years. If the
sludge is removed, the super-
natant must be handled for
about 10-15 years.
5-19
-------
Cost of Treating Supernatant. Several alternatives are
available for the removal of ammonia from the lagoon super-
natant. Due to the relatively small volume and high strength,
it can be effectively treated in a separate unit process.
This would relieve the treatment plant of a major seasonal
recycle load. On the other hand, if compatible, the super-
natant can be returned to the treatment plant and be treated
within the available capacity of the plant. The selected
mode of treatment is dependent on which one provides the
least cost of operation.
To provide a cost estimate for separate treatment, the
Ammonia Removal and Recovery Process (ARRP) was selected.
The ARRP is an ammonia stripping absorption process in which
ammonia is recovered as a byproduct that can be used as an
ammonia-based fertilizer. The ARRP has recently been applied
to only small, concentrated streams of ammonia such as
anaerobic digester supernatant and the ammonia-rich brine
produced in ion-exchange regeneration. The ARRP is sche-
matically shown on Figure 5-7.
A major factor to consider in the design of such a process
is that if the sludge is not removed, there will be extra
freeboard on the lagoons to store the supernatant. The
supernatant treatment facilities must then be sized to
handle the very high peak ammonia concentration and flow
rate which occurs when the lagoons thaw in the spring as
shown on Figure 5-6. If sludge is removed from the lagoons,
freeboard will become available, and the supernatant treat-
ment facilities can be sized to handle a smaller load over a
longer duration. For this analysis, both cases were evalu-
ated.
The estimated present worth to construct and operate the
treatment facilities for the high peak load for 20 years is
$3,872,000. If some sludge is removed by 1981 so that
freeboard storage area is available, and if all sludge could
be removed, the facilities would have to treat lagoon super-
natant at a lower flow rate for only about 10 years. The
present worth in this case is estimated to be about
$1,469,000. The detailed costs of treating the supernatant
with the ARRP are presented in Table B-4 of Appendix B .
Cost estimates for treatment of the supernatant within the
plant were based on year-round nitrification utilizing the
rotating biological contactors. To achieve year-round
nitrification, it is necessary to design the nitrification
process to operate during the critical low temperature
winter months since the growth of nitrifying organisms is
5-20
-------
HIGH pH
INFLUENT
-FAN (TYP.)
RECYCLE I
(OPTIONAL)-^
I
I
I
/AMMONIA fl>T\.
/ LADEN GAS HO \
/ y STREAM U^ » \
'(. 1 *
A A A
STRIPPING
UNIT
DUCTING (TYP.)
ABSORPTION
UNIT
GAS STREAM WITH
AMMONIA REMOVED
EFFLUENT
b]
VED/
-RECYCLED
ABSORBENT
LIQUID
ff:
LJ—*-A
ACID AND WATER MAKEUP
AMMONIUM SALT
BLOWDOWN (LIQUID
OR SOLID). OR
DISCHARGE TO STEAM
STRIPPER FOR AMMONIA
GAS REMOVAL AND
RECOVERY
FIGURE 5-7
AMMONIA REMOVAL AND
RECOVERY PROCESS (ARRP)
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
S9166.0
-------
very temperature sensitive. At low temperatures, the growth
rate of nitrifiers is reduced substantially below that
observed at high temperatures. This requires additional
treatment capacity during the winter to accumulate the
volume of organisms required to achieve nitrification.
Therefore, since the system must achieve wintertime nitrifi-
cation, there is, in effect, additional unused capacity
during the warmer spring and summer months.
As shown on Figure 5-6, the supernatant is typically returned
to the plant during the spring months of April, May, and
June. Based on the temperature of the wastewater during
this period and the volume and strength of the supernatant,
it has been determined that the supernatant ammonia can be
treated within the unused warm weather capacity of the
proposed nitrification facility. This mode of operation
would not require any additional construction costs, but
there will be some operation and maintenance costs. These
costs include power to supply air to satisfy the oxygen
demands of the additional BOD and ammonia, power to pump the
supernatant back to the plant, maintenance of the pump, and
labor ot operate and maintain the pumping system. The
annual cost to treat supernatant in this manner is estimated
to be $33,800 per year as shown in Table B-4 of Appendix B.
The present worth of this annual cost over 10 years is
$250,000. If no lagoon sludge is removed, this cost would
probably occur over the next 100 years, in which case the
present worth would be $600,000. Based on the preceding
analysis and the cost comparison shown in Table B-4, it
appears most cost-effective to continue returning lagoon
supernatant to the treatment plant.
Option ^--Stabilization of Lagoon Dikes
As stated earlier, we have recommended stabilization of the
existing dikes. These recommendations are based on findings
of our special report to the commissioners, Geotechnical
Evaluation of Sludge Lagoon Embankments. In developing our
recommendations, we considered the options of doing nothing
which might result in an accidental spill on breaching the
dikes and causing a spill. Under these options, it was
presumed that it would be more economical to replant a fish
kill than to invest large sums of money in embankment
stabilization or lagoon cleanout. However, if the sludge
was released, it would introduce oxygen-depleting organics,
taste and odor producing constituents, toxic substances and
heavy metal ions, release tremendous amounts of nutrients,
increase the color and turbidity, increase suspended and
dissolved solids, and introduce potentially pathogenic
wastes to the receiving waters. The environmental conse-
quences would be manifested by the deposition of sludge beds
5-22
-------
in streams, the stimulation of excessive growths of weeds
and algae, particularly attached algae, deterioration of
water quality, the killing and prohibition of the existence
of certain species offish and aquatic life, and the devalu-
ation of the aesthetic and recreational values of the affected
waters.
Causing or allowing the lagoon deposits to enter the streams
and lakes would also be contrary to the purpose and success
of the present diversion of sewage effluent and wastes
around the Madison lakes to retard lake degradation. Allowing
the lagoon deposits to enter the lakes and streams would
eliminate the past accomplishments in improving the water
quality of the lower Madison lakes. In the event of a
spill, replanting fish alone will not be sufficient in
restoring any ecological balance. The excessive algae
growth will become so luxuriant that chemical treatment and
mechanical aquatic plant harvesting would be necessitated.
And finally, the public's displeasure over the condition of
a polluted Lake Waubesa and Kegonsa may bring legal action
against the parties reponsible.
Based upon the preceding analysis and the dike investigations
presented in the special report, the dikes should be stabi-
lized as soon as possible to prevent continued failures.
5.6 ALTERNATIVE ABANDONMENT PROGRAMS
Based on the foregoing examination of the options available,
the following abandonment programs were considered to be
environmentally sound and were investigated and compared to
select the most feasible.
1. Discontinue discharging sludge to lagoon and build
a new lagoon, do not remove the sludge, return
supernatant until it becomes nontoxic.
2. Discontinue discharging sludge to lagoon and build
a new lagoon, remove sludge, return supernatant
until it becomes nontoxic.
3. Continue discharging sludge to a portion of existing
lagoon, remove sludge, return supernatant.
Common requirements of each alternative abandonment program
are that the dikes be maintained or stabilized and super-
natant be returned. Dike stabilization has been implemented,
and the cost and effects will be the same for each alterna-
tive.
5-23
-------
Abandonment Program 1
Abandonment Program 1 consists of discontinuing discharge of
sludge to the lagoons, leaving the sludge in the lagoons,
and returning the supernatant for treatment.
The main advantage of this alternative stems from the stipu-
lation that the sludge would not be removed from the lagoons.
This would save the expense of handling the sludge and the
need to find land on which to apply it.
However, this abandonment program has several disadvantages.
A new storage lagoon would be needed. This would require
major construction and acquisition of land, which is a major
problem in itself. People simply do not want a "sewage
lagoon" located near them and would oppose and delay construc-
tion. The concept of farmers accepting sludge for agricul-
tural reuse requires favorable farm community attitudes
which may be lost in areas near a new large sludge lagoon.
Another disadvantage of Abandonment Program 1 is that the
sludge filled lagoons will continue to be a source of odor
and will remain a potential source of contaminants to the
surrounding swamp and waterways.
Lagoon Abandonment Program 1 will have three major costs.
One will be the direct cost of stabilizing and maintaining
the dikes. This will be a continual periodic cost lasting
for the more than 100 years estimated necessary for the
lagoons to naturally return to an environmentally safe
condition. Another major expense would be the cost of
returning the supernatant to the treatment plant and making
it safe for discharge. The construction and operation of
supernatant treatment facilities for 20 years has an esti-
mated present worth of $430,000 as shown in discussion of
Option 3. A major indirect expense would be the cost of
land acquisition for and construction of a new storage
lagoon. This was estimated to cost $607,000.
Abandonment Program 2
Abandonment Program 2 consists of discontinuing discharge of
sludge to the lagoons, removing the sludge, and returning
the supernatant for treatment.
Removing sludge from the lagoons will cause some temporary
environmental disturbances, but these will be outweighed by
the overall improvement of the lagoon situation.
The major environmental disturbances from the sludge removal
action would be noise, dust, and odors. The lagoons' appear-
ance now approaches that of the surrounding marsh in summer
5-24
-------
with lush plant growth in the lagoons and on the dikes.
Removal of the sludge would change the lagoon appearance
back to that of a sludge lagoon with the black liquid sludge
readily apparent. After the cleanout operation was completed
and the lagoons left to return to a natural state, they
would again take the appearance of the surrounding marsh.
Removing sludge from the lagoons will lessen the degree, and
may even eliminate potential environmental hazards presently
existing from the lagoon deposits.
In abiding by the MMSD Commission's resolution to dispose of
sludge on land, the sludge removed from the lagoons should
be applied to land. It would be most practical to remove
sludge from the lagoons at the same rate at which it could
be applied to farmland rather than all at once. This would
eliminate intermediate handling and construction of another
large lagoon for the lagoon deposits; however, a small
lagoon will be required for seasonal storage of the treatment
plant sludge as in Abandonment Program 1.
The allowable rates of land application of sludge are
discussed in Chapter 6. The annual lagoon sludge application
rate is about 3.0 tons dry solids per acre. The total
allowable sludge application can be about 120 tons sludge
per acre. If a single parcel of land is to accept all of
the sludge at a rate of 3.0 tons per acre per year, the
application would have to be spread out over 40 years. This
is not a suitable method due to the long time requirement.
If all of the sludge were removed in 1 year and applied to
land at the rate of 3.0 tons per acre, 30,000 acres of land
would be required. This also is not suitable since it would
be infeasible to obtain the use of such a large amount of
land and not practical to gear up for such a large sludge
handling operation for a single year.
The time frame for removal of the sludge from the lagoons
depends upon the amount of land available for sludge applica-
tion. An analysis of farmer acceptance of sludge is included
in Chapter 6. Based upon that analysis, it is expected that
enough farmers will want sludge that the District could
empty the lagoons in 8-14 years. Net removal of sludge from
the lagoons cannot begin until more than enough land becomes
available for reuse of the treatment plant sludge. Due to
the expected gradual farmer acceptance of sludge reuse,
1-3 years may be required before a full lagoon cleanout
operation could be started. With the above time frames for
lagoon cleanout, the sludge removal method must be capable
of removing between 7,000-14,000 dry tons per year. A rate
of 10,000 dry tons per year, for 9 years, was used as a
basis of comparing the lagoon abandonment programs .
5-25
-------
After the lagoon is cleaned out, the annual precipitation
into the lagoon may accumulate. This supernatant should be
monitored, and if found to be of good quality, be allowed to
drain into the marsh. If not of good quality, it should be
collected and pumped back to the treatment plant. Achieving
good quality supernatant depends upon how well the sludge is
cleaned from the lagoon and how much of the precipitation
and nutrients weeds will use.
The time expected for the supernatant to become nontoxic is,
in any case, much less than if the lagoons were not cleaned
out; and when it does become nontoxic, the treatment plant
will be relieved of a major contaminant recycle stream.
Several factors must be investigated at the time the lagoons
are emptied to determine the supernatant quality required
for drainage into the marsh. This would include a determin-
ation of the amount of runoff from the lagoon area and the
effect of various water quality parameters on the creek and
lake environment. A preliminary analysis indicates that a
supernatant with 8 mg/l of ammonia could be discharged to
Nine Springs Creek with a resultant increase in the present
average ammonia concentration from 0.5-0.6 mg/l. If the
creek ammonia concentration is allowed to be increased to
1.0 mg/l, the supernatant ammonia concentration could be
38 mg/l.
Lagoon Abandonment Program 2 will have the major costs of
stabilizing and maintaining the dikes for 10-15 years, the
cost of removing the sludge from the lagoons, $270,000; the
problems and costs of building a new treatment plant sludge
storage lagoon, $607,000; and the cost of returning the
supernatant to the plant and treating it for 10 years,
$210,000. The cost of transporting and applying the sludge
to farmland must also be considered. At an estimated $25.00
per dry ton, this would be $2,250,000.
Abandonment Program 3
Abandonment Program 3 consists of continuing discharge of
sludge to the lagoons, removing sludge from the lagoons, and
returning the supernatant for treatment.
This program is different from Program 2 only in that MMSD
would use the west half of Lagoon 1 for seasonal storage and
aging of the treatment plant sludge. This would eliminate
the need to construct another storage lagoon. The sludge in
the remaining half of Lagoon 1 and all of Lagoon 2 would be
removed.
5-26
-------
The environmental impacts at Nine Springs Marsh of this
abandonment program would be greater than for Program 2,
because a portion of the area would continue to be used for
seasonal sludge storage. However, the overall environmental
impacts will be the same because Program 2 will require
construction of a similarly sized lagoon elsewhere. Also,
the time period for cleaning the lagoons would be the same
as for Program 2. A major economic advantage of this program
over Programs 1 and 2 is that the District would not need to
construct a new lagoon to store the treatment plant sludge
in periods when it cannot be applied to land.
A Mud Cat or similar device, as described earlier, is also
recommended for lagoon sludge removal in this program. It
would be required to handle the treatment plant sludge in
addition to the lagoon deposits. The major cost items of
Program 3 would be dike stabilization and maintenance,
lagoon sludge removal, $270,000; construction of a dike
across Lagoon 1 to form the seasonal storage lagoon,
$234,000; supernatant return and treatment, $211,000; and
transporation and land application of the sludge,
$2,250,000. The costs and basis for construction of a
seasonal storage lagoon in Lagoon 1 are given in Table B-3
of Appendix B.
Comparison of Lagoon Abandonment Programs
Table 5-3 lists a comparison of the three abandonment pro-
grams. They are compared on the basis of potential for
sludge spill and environmental damage and dike stabilization
and maintenance requirements. They are also compared on the
basis of the costs of providing sludge storage, removing
sludge from the lagoons, reusing the sludge, and returning
and treating the supernatant. Based on the economic compar-
ison, Program 1 would be best because it has the lowest
cost, followed by Program 3, and with Program 2 having the
greatest cost. However, Program 1 has a lasting potential
for severe environmental degradation in the event of a dike
failure. Also, the costs of continually maintaining the
dikes, which were not included in Table 5-3 because they
could not be reasonably estimated, could reduce or eliminate
the economic advantage of Program 1. Therefore, Lagoon
Abandonment Program 3 is recommended for implementation.
5.7 RECOMMENDED LAGOON ABANDONMENT PROGRAM
General Description
The recommended program consists of removing all sludge from
Lagoon 2 and from approximately the east half of Lagoon 1.
Treatment plant sludge will be discharged to the west
5-27
-------
TABLE 5-3
COMPARISON OF LAGOON ABANDONMENT PROGRAMS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
PROGRAM 1
Description Discontinue sludge
discharge to lagoons,
do not remove sludge,
return supernatant. -
Potential for Sludge Lasting Potential
Spill and Environ-
mental Damage
PROGRAM 2
Discontinue sludge
discharge to lagoons,
remove sludge, return
supernatant.
None after lagoons
emptied.
PROGRAM 3
Continue sludge discharge
to lagoon, remove sludge,
return supernatant
None after lagoons
emptied.
Dike Stabilization For over 100 years
and Maintenances
Seasonal Sludge Build new lagoon
Storage
Construction Cost '" $ 607,000
Land Acquisition 23,000
Cost")
Sludge Removal None removed
Cost'1' 0
Sludge Reuse Not reused
Cost"' 0
Return and Treat For over 100 years
Supernatant
Cost"' $ 430,000
Less Value of Sludge'2' 0
Total Present Worth111 $1,060,000
Total Comparative $ 92,500
Annual Cost'3'
For about 15 years
Build new lagoon
$ 607,000
23,000
Remove all
$ 270,000
Applied to land
$2,250,000
For about 10 years
$ 211,000
$1 .350,000
$2,011.000
$ 175500
For about 15 years
Use west half of Lagoon 1
after about 1984
S 136,000
0
Remove all
$ 270,000
Applied to land
$2,250,000
For about 10 years
$ 211.000
$1,350,000
$1,517,000
$ 132.000
ID These costs are the present worth on January 1,
1976 of capital, operation, and maintenance costs
incurred during the study period.
(2) Value of sludge is $15.00 per dry ton.
(3) Total present worth amortized over the study period.
half of Lagoon 1 when required for storage. All of the
treatment plant sludge may be aged in the lagoons before
agricultural reuse. The lagoon sludge and treatment plant
sludge will be removed and applied to farmland as required
to meet farmer demand. The supernatant in the lagoons will
be returned to the Nine Springs Plant for treatment and
discharge whenever it begins to accumulate to an unsafe
depth. The lagoon dikes will be stabilized in the ongoing
rehabilitation program. The dikes must be maintained for
about 15 years or as long as there is sludge or toxic
supernatant in the lagoons.
Implementation
Sludge Removal. Lagoon 2 should be cleaned first because
its dikes are the most unstable. Some sludge should also be
removed from Lagoon 1 each year to keep from overtopping the
dikes. It is likely that there will not be a net removal of
sludge from the lagoons in at least the first year, and
possibly the first 3 years, because the market for sludge
5-28
-------
will take some time to develop. The first years should be
utilized to break up or remove the thick mat of weeds which
now covers the lagoons, A herbicide could be used to slow
or stop weed growth on the lagoons to make weed mat removal
easier. This should be done on small areas so that the weed
mat is removed or broken up before the weeds can become
reestablished. The herbicide could be applied from the
floating dredge, from a small boat, or from the dikes. The
herbicide manufacturer's recommended procedures for use
should be followed closely to prevent damage to the marsh
surrounding the lagoons. The sludge removal dredge with
weed-cutter attachment could chew up and slurry the weed
mat. The contents should also be slurried; otherwise, the
more liquid portion would be removed first, leaving behind
the heavier consistency sludge. If a Mud Cat type of dredge
is used, it may be necessary to leave water in the lagoons
to provide flotation and increase its mobility when the
lagoons are nearly cleaned.
Supernatant Handling. The District must continue removing
supernatant when they can. Once some freeboard is obtained
by sludge removal, the supernatant return could be spread
out over spring through fall, rather than at a high peak
rate after the spring lagoon ice thaw. After several years
of sludge removal, the supernatant might possibly be mixed
in with the lagoon deposits and handled with the sludge
applied to farmland.
Equipment Requirements. We recommend that MMSD purchase one
standard Model MC-10 Mud Cat, or equivalent, to remove
sludge from the lagoon. One machine operating about 100 days
per year could remove 10,000 tons of lagoon sludge. This
would leave at least another 100 days per year to handle
treatment plant sludge. During peak sludge use periods, two
or three 8-hour shifts may be required each day.
Several appurtenances which should be purchased with the
dredge are float-supported pipeline, a small rowboat to
provide transportation to the dredge, and pipeline to trans-
port the sludge to a wet well. A wet well should be con-
structed with its top no higher than the dike top into which
the dredge can discharge the sludge. The wet well should be
low so that the dredge pumping rate would not be reduced.
The sludge would be pumped into a loading dock, into trucks,
or through a pipeline to farmland from the wet well. Two
men will be required for the lagoon cleanout operation: one
to operate the dredge and the other to move the pipe and
guide cables.
5-29
-------
Seasonal Sludge Storage Lagoon. A dike should be constructed
across Lagoon 1 to form a storage area in the west half with
a capacity of about 150 acre-feet. The remainder of Lagoon 1
would be allowed to return to a natural state like the
surrounding marsh. This work should not be done until
Lagoon 1 is partially empty in order to minimize construction
problems. Also, Lagoon 1 can serve as the seasonal sludge
storage area until the dike is built in about 1984. The
storage capacity requirement should be refined at that time,
based upon experience of operating the sludge reuse program.
Detailed investigations of the embankment foundation should
also be performed at that time as the basis for designing
and building the new dike section.
Lagoon Cleanout Schedule. An estimated total of about
10 years will be required to remove all the sludge from the
lagoons. This allows 1 year for weed mat removal and 9 years
to remove the estimated 89,700 dry tons of sludge at a rate
of 10,000 dry tons per year. A major unpredictable variable
which could change the time required is the farm community
demand for sludge.
Program Cost. The estimated total present worth to remove
the sludge from the lagoons and apply it to land, and to
provide seasonal storage for the treatment plant sludge is
$1,517,000. This estimate includes the following: con-
struction of a dike across Lagoon 1, removal of sludge from
the lagoon, agricultural reuse of the sludge, treatment of
the supernatant, and the value of the sludge as a fertilizer.
On a unit basis, the cost is about $16.90 per dry ton.
Accomplishments. This abandonment program would end the
disposal of sludge in the Nine Springs Marsh and protect the
streams and lakes from a sludge spill. The estimated
89,700 tons of lagoon sludge, estimated to have a fertilizer
value of about $15.00 per ton, or $1.35 million total, would
be made available for agricultural reuse. Also, most of the
existing lagoon area would be returned to a natural condi-
tion, and seasonal treatment plant sludge storage would be
provided. We believe this plan will meet the WDNR directives
asking for abandonment of the present method of sludge
disposal.
5.8 SUMMARY
The quantity and quality of the sludge in the Nine Springs
Lagoons were determined by extensive field sampling and
laboratory analyses. The depth of sludge in the 135 acres
of lagoons ranges generally from 2-7.1 feet in Lagoon 1 and
3.9-6.2 feet in Lagoon 2. The percent dry solids content
5-30
-------
averages 12.9 and 8.2 in Lagoons 1 and 2, respectively. The
total sludge quantity in the lagoons was calculated to be
89,700 dry tons.
The quality of the lagoon sludge, as shown in Table 5-1,
indicates its suitability for agricultural reuse. The
sludge sampling investigation included gathering samples of
the underlying peat and marl to determine leaching of sludge
constituents and indicated that there is little or no
leaching past the first 1 foot of the peat-soil layer.
The condition of the lagoon embankments was studied in
detail and a special report was presented to MMSD which
concluded that failures and possible sludge spills are
imminent and recommended that the dikes be stabilized. The
District has proceeded with the recommended dike stabiliza-
tion program.
A program for abandonment of the present method of sludge
disposal in the Nine Springs Lagoons was prepared as required
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The
recommended program consists of removing all sludge from
Lagoon 2 and from approximately the east half of Lagoon 1.
The west half of Lagoon 1 will be used for seasonal storage
of the treatment plant sludge. The estimated present worth
to remove the sludge from the lagoons and to provide seasonal
storage for the treatment plant sludge is $1,517,000, or
about $16.90 per dry ton.
5-31
-------
6.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
6.2 REGULATIONS
6.3 SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE DEVELOPMENT
6.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE
6.5 SLUDGE APPLICATION SITE INVESTIGATION
6.6 SUMMARY
CONSIDERATIONS FOR
AGRICULTURAL REUSE OF SLUDGE
-------
Chapter 6
CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE OF SLUDGE
This chapter discusses the study area, regulations regarding
land application of sludge, sludge application rates, appli-
cation sites, and other considerations for agricultural
reuse of sludge. All of these factors must be investigated
to ensure that the reuse program is acceptable to the public,
that it is environmentally safe, and that the sludge will be
successfully recycled into agriculture.
6.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
A study area consisting of the land within a 10-mile radius
of the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works was delineated as
a basis for discussion. This study area is located within
Dane County, mostly south of Madison. It consists of about
91,000 acres of farmland and could accept all of the MMSD
sludge for many years to come.
Agriculture
The major crops grown in the study area are field corn,
40,000 acres; small grains (including oats, barley, and
wheat), 5,600 acres; and alfalfa, 15,000 acres. The field
corn consists of about 75 percent grain corn and 25 percent
silage corn. Other crops commonly grown include soybeans,
potatoes, tobacco, processing peas, sweet corn, hay other
than alfalfa, and pasture or greenchop grass and legumes.
There are approximately 550 farms in the study area, covering
91,000 acres or about 165 acres each (Wisconsin Statistical
Reporting Service, 1974}.
Dane County ranks high in agricultural production in Wiscon-
sin. In 1973 Dane County led production in grain corn,
silage corn, alfalfa hay; and was a major producer of pro-
cessing peas, livestock and dairy products. Dane County's
outstanding agricultural production is further emphasized by
Wisconsin's No. 1 nationwide ranking in production of dairy
cattle, milk, cheese, corn silage, all hay, and green peas
for processing (Walters 1974). The grain crops are fed to
the farmer's own cattle or sold on grain markets. The dairy
cattle are increasingly kept on feedlots. Forage is either
in the form of dried hay or greenchop rather than pasture.
The weather and prices paid for crops play a very important
part in determining the types and amounts of crops planted.
A late wet spring, for instance, may cause substitution of
the types of crops planted.
6-1
-------
Climate
TABLE 6-1
NORMAL STUDY AREA TEMPERATURE
AND PRECIPITATION'
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
TEMPERATURE PRECIPITATION
(inches)
1 40
1 13
1.84
257
334
395
358
337
332
221
2 14
1 31
30 16
Wisconsin, Truax Field, gathered and reported by
U S Department of Commerce Weather Bureau
MONTH
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
YEAR
Data are sti
( Fl
17.5
195
29.1
444
56.1
661
71 1
695
61 0
499
340
22 1
450
jndard normals
The study area climate is
typically midwestern with most
of the precipitation coming in
summer when crops need it
most. The area climate is
also affected by the Great
Lakes (Wisconsin Statistical
Reporting Service 1967) . Few
areas are irrigated and most
rely on natural precipitation
to supply the crop water
requirements. Many areas
suffer some minor effects of
drought most years, but the
advantages of irrigation do
not offset the cost. The
monthly normal temperature and
precipitation are listed in
Table 6-1.
The summer months are charac-
terized as being hot and muggy
with frequent thunderstorms,
whereas winters are cold and
relatively dry. Normally, the
ground is frozen from mid-December through mid-March, with
the frost depth reaching below 20 inches at times. The
ground is often snow covered from December through mid-March
(Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service 1970) .
Ground Water
Geology. The strata from which Dane County obtains its
ground-water supply are sandstones, dolomites, and shales of
Cambrian and Ordovician ages and sand and gravel deposits of
Quaternary age. The Cambrian rocks, which are the major
source of water and the overlying dolomite of the Prairie du
Chien Group of Ordovician age, were deposited in a shallow
sea environment. Following a long period of emergence,
erosion, and then submergence, the remaining rocks of
Ordovician age were deposited. Subsequent uplift and
erosion has left an irregular bedrock surface having a
maximum relief of about 1,000 feet.
In the more recent Pleistocene time, glaciers moved across
the eastern two-thirds of the county from northeast to
southwest, transporting large quantities of rock debris
6-2
-------
frozen in the ice. This unconsolidated material (drift) was
dumped on the land surface by the melting glaciers, and thus
formed the present day surface that contains glacial features
and that is poorly drained.
Glacial drift covers most of the bedrock except in the
westerly one-third of Dane County. In this area, glacial
outwash deposits and Recent alluvia! deposits occur in the
valleys. In addition, this area is thinly blanketed by
loess (Cline 1965).
Occurrence. Ground water occurs under water-table and
artesian conditions in Dane County. Glacial till partially
confines ground water in many places in the eastern two-
thirds of the county, whereas water-table conditions prevail
in the western part of the county. Ground water in the
sandstones of Cambrian age generally is partially confined.
Permeability of rocks and movement of ground water in Dane
County are generally greater parallel to than perpendicular
to the rock's bedding. Rock strata having low permeability—
such as clay, shale, and dolomite—retard the vertical
movement of water. Rock fractures or joints provide paths
for ground-water movement in the less permeable rocks or
zones.
Vertical movement of water through the St. Peter Sandstone
is generally good, except in the basal part where shale and
poorly sorted material retard the movement of water. In
places where the St. Peter Sandstone rests directly on the
Cambrian rocks, circulation of ground water between the two
units is more rapid than in places where the Prairie du
Chien Group is present.
Circulation of water through the Plattevilie-Galena unit is
poor and occurs principally through fractures and solution
channels.
The outwash and alluvium are generally excellent sources of
ground water and yield small to large quantities of water.
Ground-water movement through outwash and alluvium is gen-
erally good as well as the circulation between the outwash
and alluvium and adjacent bedrock.
Ground water moves through the principal aquifers from areas
of recharge to points of discharge, such as springs, streams,
lakes, wells, and drainage ditches. The direction of ground-
water movement in the deep aquifers is shown by arrows on
Figure 6-1. The arrows run normal to lines of equal ele-
6-3
-------
vation on the piezometric surface, which is the surface to
which water will rise if the aquifer below the confining
layer is tapped. Locally, where there are no confining
layers, the piezometric surface is representative of the
water table surface.
The direction of ground-water movement is nearly coincident
with the direction of surface drainage. Generally, this
will indicate a gain in streamflow due to ground-water
seepage into the stream. Conversely, when the direction of
ground-water movement runs across the surface drainage there
will be a loss from stream flow.
Ground-water movement under natural conditions is extremely
slow. As shown on Figure 6-1, the effective velocity of
ground-water movement within the deeper aquifers ranges
between about 0.04 feet per day and 3.1 feet per day, the
difference in velocity being attributable to differences in
rock permeabilities and hydraulic gradient.
Quality. The ground water in Dane County is for the most '
part of excellent chemical quality. Generally, the ground
water quality is poor only where man has added a pollutant.
One report (Holt and Skinner 1973) listed the results of
water quality measurements taken in many municipal and
private wells. Of 106 wells tested for dissolved solids,
only six were above the 500 mg/l limit for drinking water
recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS). Of
84 wells tested for nitrate, three had levels above 45 mg/l
which is the safe limit suggested by the USPHS. The source
of the high concentration of nitrogen appears to be local-
ized contamination from feedlots and other manure sources
(Water Resources Task Group 1971) . Improper wastewater and
sludge disposal and excess fertilizer applications may also
cause a buildup of ground-water nitrate. Since the study
area ground water is generally safe for drinking, the sludge
reuse program must be designed to protect the ground water
from contamination.
Land Use
The majority of the land in the study area is used for
agriculture. However, the area is being encroached upon by
many housing developments, with some developments approach-
ing a quarter section in size. The area also contains, or
is bordered by, the villages of Oregon, Stoughton, McFarland,
Brooklyn, and Verona. There are several large marshes in
the study area which can be used only for wildlife and
recreation.
6-4
-------
6.2 REGULATIONS
Local, state, and Federal regulations regarding distribution
and application to land of liquid sewage sludge were investi-
gated to ensure that the recommended reuse program conforms
to all applicable requirements and guidelines.
Local Regulations
Applicable local regulatory agencies in the study area were
contacted for regulations regarding land application of
sludge. The agencies and persons contacted consisted of the
following: Dane County Regional Planning Commission, Dane
County Zoning Administrator, City of Madison Environmental
Health Public Health Department, City of Madison City Plan-
ning, City of Monona Clerk, Village of Verona Clerk, Village
of Brooklyn Clerk, Village of Belleville Clerk, Village of
Oregon Clerk, City of Stoughton Clerk, Village of Cottage
Grove Clerk, and City of Middleton Clerk. This investigation
indicated that the various agencies would rely on the state
requirements for sludge application to land.
State Regulations
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has
recently prepared "Guidelines for the Application of Waste-
water Sludge to Agricultural Land in Wisconsin," Technical
Bulletin No. 88, dated 1975. This report provides working
guidelines which may be revised as new information becomes
available in the future. This report is one of the most
comprehensive of its kind in the United States. It will be
used to assist WDNR personnel in granting discharge permits.
The WDNR guidelines contain detailed explanations of methods
to determine acceptable annual and total sludge application
rates. It also contains guidelines for program management
and operation and site selection. The following list is a
summary of recommendations from the WDNR guidelines:
• Raw sludge should not be applied to agricultural
land.
• Sludges should be applied to soils consistent with
the nitrogen needs of the crops being grown.
• At least 2 feet and preferably greater than 4 feet
of soil should exist between the sludge application
zone and bedrock, any impermeable layer, or the
water table.
6-6
-------
Sludge should not be applied to soil in the year
the area is used for any root crops or other
vegetables which are consumed uncooked.
If sludge is surface applied to sloping land,
runoff should be minimized by use of contour
strips, terraces and border areas. Also, runoff
can be reduced by injection or immediate incorpor-
ation of the sludge.
Pasture land (or crops which are harvested green)
should not be used for milk cow feeding for 2 months
following sludge application. Other animals
should not graze pasture land or be fed greenchop
material for at least 2 weeks after sludge applica-
tion.
Metal loadings must be kept within acceptable
limits to minimize the potential of crop damage or
food chain accumulation. The soil pH must be
maintained at 6.5 or greater.
Application systems must be such that they minimize
the runoff potential and odor problems while
remaining cost-effective.
Sludge application sites should be at least 500
feet from the nearest residence. If the sludge is
injected or incorporated into the soil, a reduction
in this distance may be possible.
Site management must be such that nutrient defi-
ciency and soil acidity problems do not occur,
public access is limited, and crop yields are
maximized.
Site monitoring should be the responsibility of
the municipality. If sludge additions consistent
with nitrogen requirements are used, monitoring
needs include only sludge and plant analyses as
well as routine soil testing. If higher rates, on
dedicated land, are used, comprehensive ground-
water monitoring must be included.
To ensure adequate protection of water supplies,
the sludge application site should be a minimum of
1,000 feet from the nearest public water supply
well and 500 feet from the nearest private water
supply well.
6-7
-------
The last list item which recommends a 500-foot radius (18
acres) buffer area around all private water supply wells may
be too stringent. In the study area, where most farm homes
will have a private well, this requirement alone will prevent
sludge application on about 15 percent of the area. This
will also create an inconvenience for the farmer in that he
would need to use an alternate fertilizer method in the
large buffer area. Section NR 112.07 (k) of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code on Well Construction and Pump Installa-
tion Standards and Related Information, by WDNR, requires
200 feet between any well and any sludge disposal area if
that well is used to supply ground water for human consump-
tion or for preparation of food products. We have recommended
a 200-foot buffer radius and periodic ground-water monitoring
for nitrates.
Federal Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is
completing a supplement to be entitled, "Municipal Sludge
Management: Environmental Factors" to the Federal Guidelines:
Design, Operation, and Maintenance ofWastewater Treatment
Facilities, which includes guidelines for land application
of sludge. The U.S. EPA guidelines, which must be used by
Federal grant applicants, are summarized in the following
list:
• The sludge nutrient value, heavy metals and other
constituents which may economically recycle or
cause environmental damage should be determined.
• The site soils should be tested for cation exchange
capacity (C.E.C.), pH, and background heavy metals.
• The soils and ground-water conditions should be
investigated at each site.
• Sludge must be stabilized before land application.
• Pathogen reduction may be required in some projects.
• The suitability of the crop for sludge amended
soils must be determined.
» The project should be designed so that ground
water will be protected from pollution.
• Surface water runoff must be controlled.
6-8
-------
* The annual application rate must be such that the
amount of plant available nitrogen added is not
greater than twice the nitrogen requirement of the
crop.
* The grant applicant must show the capability to
manage and operate the system.
• The grant applicant must develop and implement a
monitoring program. The monitoring data must be
periodically reviewed.
• The sludge heavy metal additions calculated as
zinc equivalent must not exceed 10 percent of the
CEC of the unsludged soil.
" The soil pH must be maintained at 6.5 or greater
for a period of at least 2 years after sludge
application.
• Sludge having a cadmium content greater than
1 percent of its zinc content should not be applied
to cropland except under certain specified con-
ditions.
*• Special precautions should be taken when sludge is
applied to pasture.
• The facility plans should be reviewed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
• Products in the human food chain grown on sludge
amended land should be monitored for heavy metals,
persistent organics, and pathogens.
6.3 SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE DEVELOPMENT
Three major factors are required to determine sludge appli-
cation rates. These are the sludge characteristics, the
soil suitability for sludge application, and the types of
crops grown. The character of the treatment plant sludge
and the lagoon deposits were reported in Chapters 4 and 5.
Soil Suitability for Sludge Application
Seven soil parameters; erosion hazard, depth to ground
water, depth to bedrock, flood hazard, soil texture, soil
permeability, and cation exchange capacity were investigated
6-9
-------
to determine soil suitability for sludge application. Each
parameter was given a point rating. The ratings were then
combined to classify each soil series and phase. The source
of information was the interim soil survey for Dane County
titled, Soil Interpretations, A Guide to Land Use and Conser-
vation Planning, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
1970.
Erosion Hazard. Soil erosion is a potential source of
pollution through runoff and sediment loading of surface
waterways. Soil credibility was evaluated and each soil
assigned an erosion hazard of none, slight, moderate, or
severe from values calculated from known K (soil erodibility
factor) and T (permissible soil loss, ton per acre per
year) . The K and T factors are listed for each soil in the
interim soil survey. The Universal Soil Loss equation was
used to calculate the estimated soil loss in tons per acre
per year. In addition to the known K value, this equation
considers the variables (L) length of slope, (S) slope
gradient, (C) cropping management, (P) erosion protection
practices, and (R) rainfall index where A (soil loss) = K x
LxSxCxPxR. Values for L, S, C, P, and R were taken
from USDA Handbook 282 and information supplied by the State
SCS Agronomist in Madison.
The estimated soil loss in tons per acre per year was calcu-
lated by assuming several values for each variable. These A
values were compared to the individual T (permissible soil
loss) value for each soil. Each soil was assigned an erosion
hazard classification point rating according to the following:
No erosion hazard 1.00
Slight erosion hazard .90
Moderate erosion hazard .80
Severe erosion hazard .60
Slopes greater than 12% were given a zero (unsuitable)
rating. A particular soil may show more than one erosion
hazard rating as a result of a difference in management
conditions.
Depth to Ground Water. A fluctuating water table may cause
a flushing action on the chemical constituents and increase
weathering within the soil profile. Any soil with a seasonal
high-water table within 3 feet of the surface was eliminated
by a zero rating due to possible ground-water contamination
from nitrates and soluble salts. The DNR guidelines suggest
at least 2 feet and preferably 4 feet to ground water.
Three feet is used here because the soils are mapped for
either 3 or 5 feet rather than 4 feet. Setting the limit at
6-10
-------
5 feet would be too restrictive for the study area. The
soils were evaluated and given a point rating for depth to
ground water as follows:
>5 feet 1.00
3-5 feet .70
<3 feet 0
Depth to Bedrock. The soil has a finite capacity to absorb
heavy metals, store nutrients for plant uptake, and hold
pathogens until they are biologically inert. The deeper the
soil, the greater the soil mass for removal of possible
pollutants. Shallow soils over bedrock, or other imperme-
able layer, have a seriously reduced ability to remove
possible sources of pollution; therefore, any soil with
bedrock within 3.5 feet of the surface was eliminated by a
zero rating. All other soils were evaluated and given a
point rating according to the depth to bedrock as follows:
>5 feet 1.00
3.5-5 feet .45
<3.5 feet 0
The DNR guidelines suggest at least 2 feet and preferably
4 feet to bedrock or other impermeable layer. This depth is
mapped mostly according to 20, 40, or 60 inches in Dane
County. Therefore, 40 inches, 3.5 feet, was used as the
cutoff point.
Flood Hazard. Soils that are subject to frequent flooding
were eliminated due to possible pollution hazards. Pathogens,
heavy metals, and sediments may be introduced into surface
waters from soils that are flooded. A point rating was
assigned according to the flood frequency as follows:
None 1.00
Rare (less than once in
20 years) .80
Occasional (less than once
in 5 years) .40
Frequent (more than once
in 5 years) 0
Soil Texture and Permeability. Texture and permeability are
two closely related soil characteristics that must be con-
sidered in an evaluation of the soil. Both characteristics
are important in determining the movement of moisture and
nutrients into and through the soil profile. With sludge
applications on sandy soils, there is concern about the
6-11
-------
rapid movement of nitrates and other potential pollutants
into the ground water. With fine-textured soils, there is
concern about slow water movement and the possibility of
surface runoff or ponding.
The soil textures are grouped in accordance with USDA Soil
Taxonomy textural classes with the control section generally
from 10-40 inches. Contrasting textural classes within the
control section are indicated. Soil textures were evaluated
and given a point rating as follows:
Fine loamy or fine silty .90-1.00
Loamy .70-1.00
Fine (clayey) .80- .95
Coarse loamy or coarse
silty .70- .90
Sandy (sands) .65- ,85
Sandy (skeletal) .50- .70
A variable point rating has been established because in
certain textural classes, particle size percentages are
grouped within a specified range; i.e., coarse loamy contains
less than 18 percent clay and more than 15 percent sand.
Soil permeabilities are listed by USDA permeability classes
in inches per hour. Soil permeabilities were evaluated and
given a point rating according to the following:
Slow (0.06-0.2 in.hr) .80
Moderately Slow (0.2-0.6 in./hr) .95
Moderate (0.6-2.0 9n./hr) 1.00
Moderately Rapid (2.0-6.0 in./hr) .95
Rapid (6.0-2.0 in./hr) .85
Cation Exchange Capacity. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is
a measure of the soil's ability to exchange and adsorb
cations, thereby reducing the cation mobility within the
soil. This soil characteristic is important in determining
the heavy metal loading rates for each soil.
Cation exchange information was obtained from USDA-SCS Soil
Survey Investigations Report No. 17, Wisconsin; No. 19,
Illinois; and No. 18, Indiana. CEC information from soils
in adjoining states is assumed to be valid for the same
series mapped in Wisconsin. Additional pertinent infor-
mation was provided by Dr. Leo Walsh of the University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
6-12
-------
Soils were grouped by soil taxonomic classification so that
similar soils could be assigned comparable CEC when no other
information was available. Soils were evaluated and given a
point rating according to their CEC as follows:
>16 meq/100 grams 1.00
10-16 meq/100 grams .80
6-10 meq/100 grams .60
4-6 meq/100 grams .40
<4 meq/100 grams .20
Computations. A numerical rating from 0 to 1.00 was computed
for each soil series and phase by multiplying all individual
item points together. The suitability classification for
sludge application was prepared based on the following
numerical rating system:
Class 1 .66-1.00
Class 2 .35- .65
Class 3 .01- .34
Class 4 0
Class 1 soils are the most suitable for sludge application.
Class 2 soils are suitable with minor limitations. Class 3
soils should be used only if enough Class 1 and 2 soil areas
are not available. Class 4 soils are not suitable for
sludge application.
Summary of Suitability Classes. The properties and suit-
ability for sludge application of the Dane County soils are
summarized in Appendix C. Class 1 soils have ground water
at a depth of more than 5 feet, bedrock at 5 feet or more,
no flood hazard, and a cation exchange capacity equal to or
greater than 15 meq/100 grams.
Many of the Class 2 soils are the steeper phases of the
Class 1 soils with at least one additional major limitation.
Most of these soils have a combination of limitations which
are not severe enough to place them in a lower class. All
of the Class 2 soils have bedrock at greater than 5 feet
depth and ground water at greater than 3 feet depth.
The Class 3 soils often represent steeper phases of Class 1
and 2 soils with additional major limitations. All but four
of the Class 3 soils have bedrock at greater than 5 feet.
The four that have bedrock at 3.5 to 5 feet have ground
water at greater than 5 feet.
6-13
-------
Class 4 soils have major limitations making them unsuitable
for sludge application. Any soil factor evaluated with a
zero rating places the soil into Class 4.
A comparison of this suitability classification with the
Wisconsin DNR guidelines shows the following: Class 1 and
Class 2 are equivalent to soils having slight limitations;
Class 3 soils are similar to soils with moderate
limitations; and Class 4 soils correspond to soils having
moderate to severe limitations. This soil suitability
classification system is very restrictive. Of over 200 soil
series and phases investigated, only 83 were placed in
suitability Classes 1 and 2.
Crop Suitability for Sludge Application
Dane County crops were studied to determine their annual
nitrogen fertilizer requirement, cultural practices, and
their use. The annual nitrogen requirement is important in
determining the annual sludge application rate. The crop
type and use is important in determining the allowable
method, time, and total quantity of sludge application. The
planting and harvesting dates and restrictions for sludge
use on common Dane County crops are shown in Table 6-2.
TABLE 6-2
CROP PLANTING AND HARVESTING DATES AND
RESTRICTIONS FOR SLUDGE REUSE
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
HARVESTED
late Sept.-Nov.
Aug.-Sept.
Aug.
rmd-July-early Aug. General
CROP
Grain Cprn
Silage Corn
Small Grams
Spring
Winter
Soybeans
Sweet Corn
Processing Peas
Tobacco
Vegetables cooked
before consumption
Vegetables eaten
raw
Alfalfa
Forage Grasses
• General restrictions apply to all crops and
include no application 1 month before harvest,
during pollination, or within 2 weeks of
planting
PLANTED
May
May
Apr.
Sept.
May
May
Apr.
May
Apr -June
Oct.-mid-Nov.
Aug.-Sept.
late June
July-Sept
July-Sept
Apr -June July-Sept
Perennial
SLUDGE REUSE RESTRICTIONS
General*
No foliage application within 2 months before
harvest.
General
General
No foliage application, no application within
2 months before harvest. Reduce total
application by one-fourth
No application after planting. Reduce total
application by one-fourth
No application after planting Reduce total
application by one-fourth
No application before harvest in calendar year
crop is grown Reduce total application by
one-fourth for general crop, by one-half for
leaf vegetables
No application within 3 years before crop is
grown Reduce total application by one-fourth
for genera] crops, by one-half for leaf vegetables
No application within 2 months before harvesting
for lactatmg cow feed, 2 weeks required for
nonlactating animal feed No application in
fall while soil is wet
No application within 2 months before grazing
or harvesting for lactatmg cows, 2 weeks for
nonlactating animals.
6-14
-------
TABLE 6-3
ANNUAL FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS
(pounds of element per acre)
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
CROP
Grain Corn
Silage Corn
Oats
Barley
Rye
Wheat
Sorghum
Soybeans
Alfalfa
Pasture
Processing Peas
Sweet Corn
Tobacco
Potatoes
Other Vegetables
NITROGE!
125
175
35
35
35
35
100
5'
0'
75
5"
75
too
160
100-200
NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM
35
35
20
20
20
20
40
20
35
25
20
35
40
85
15-60
40
40
50
50
50
50
160
50
400
50
50
40
75
160
130-250
Fertilizer requirements for
crops grown in the study are
shown in Table 6-3. These
values are based upon general
literature and discussions
with local agricultural exten-
sion personnel. The fertili-
zer requirements vary from
field to field and from year
to year in a single field
depending upon natural soil
fertility, past cropping and
fertilizer applications, and
crop management. The ferti-
lizer values in Table 6-3 are
meant only to be used as a
basis of determining general
study area sludge application
rates.
Annual Sludge Application
Limits
In general, the annual sludge
application rates will be
limited by the nitrogen appli-
cation rate. If the amount of
applied nitrogen that becomes available to crops is greater
than that which the crop can use, the excess could be leached
into the ground water where it could be a health hazard.
Ideally, the applied nitrogen which becomes available to the
crop should equal the crop nitrogen requirement. Not all of
the nitrogen in the sludge is available to crops in the year
it is applied. Most nitrogen used by crops is in the nitrate
form. Since the nitrogen in the sludge is mainly in the
ammonia and organic forms, it must be converted or miner-
alized into the nitrate form which crops can use.
Ammonia nitrogen is rapidly mineralized. It is estimated
that about 90 percent of the applied ammonia nitrogen which
is not lost by volatilization will become available in the
year applied. The remainder should become available in the
second year. The amount of ammonia nitrogen lost by volati-
zation to the atmosphere will depend upon the method of
application to land.
The organic nitrogen requires a longer period for minerali-
zation. It is estimated that about 20 percent of the applied
organic nitrogen will become available to plants in the year
'Legumes can get most of their nitrogen from the air,
but they will also use soil nitrogen when readily
available.
NOTE. The crops are listed with their planting and
harvest dates and restrictions for sludge reuse
in Table 6-2. The local crop management
practices were determined by discussions with
Dane County Agricultural Extension personnel
and local farmers.
6-15
-------
it is applied. In the second year, 6 percent of the
remaining organic nitrogen should become available. In the
third year, about 4 percent will become available. In the
fourth year and each year thereafter, about 2 percent of the
remaining soil organic nitrogen should become available to
plants. These organic nitrogen mineralization rates are
based upon University of Wisconsin research (Walsh 1975) .
The annual sludge application rates will vary for the treat-
ment plant and lagoon sludges because the nitrogen contents,
especially ammonia nitrogen, are different. The annual
application rates required to achieve a certain amount of
available nitrogen must be reduced to allow for the miner-
alization of organic nitrogen applied in previous years.
The yearly decrease in the treatment plant and lagoon sludge
annual application rates are shown on Figures 6-2 and
6-3. The treatment plant sludge annual application rates
could change considerably depending upon future plant oper-
ation.
FIGURE 6-2
ANNUAL TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE
APPLICATION RATES FOR DIFFERENT
AVAILABLE NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
The annual sludge application rate for Class 3 soils should
be reduced by one-third because the soils in this class are
generally less capable of supporting crops which could
utilize a full nitrogen application. These less suitable
soils also may have shallow depths to ground water and
bedrock. Reducing the annual sludge application is recom-
mended as an added precaution against ground-water pol-
lution.
6-16
-------
FIGURE 6-3
ANNUAL LAGOON SLUDGE
APPLICATION RATES FOR DIFFERENT
AVAILABLE NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
The WDNR guidelines for sludge reuse recommends limiting the
annual cadmium (Cd) application to 2 pounds per acre per year.
For the treatment plant sludge, the annual application is
limited by Cd to 14 tons per acre per year. Cadmium limits
the lagoon sludge annual application to 31 tons/acre/year.
Nitrogen will control the annual sludge application rates
because it is more limiting than cadmium.
Total Sludge Application Limits
The limits set for total sludge application are based upon
constituents which accumulate in the soil. Heavy metals
will generally be the limiting constituents.
6-17
-------
Heavy Metals. Heavy metals have been shown to be phytotoxic
to crops when applied to soil in large amounts. Heavy
metals, when accumulated in plants, may also be toxic to
humans and animals (Page 1974). If the metals are retained
in the soil, unavailable for uptake by roots, they will not
be a problem. The mechanisms which cause soil retention of
heavy metals are numerous, complex, and interrelated. The
sludge application rates recommended are conservative, based
upon the best information currently available.
Several empirical methods have been used to estimate total
safe metal loadings. The "zinc equivalent" method, developed
in England and recommended by U.S. EPA and WDNR guidelines,
limits the total metal loading calculated as "zinc equiva-
lent" to 10 percent of the soil cation exchange capacity.
This limits the combined zinc, copper, and nickel additions
below phytotoxic levels. The equation used to compute total
allowable sludge application is
T . . . _ 32,700 x CEC
I ota i siuage
Total sludge - tons dry solids/acre
CEC - cation exchange capacity of the unsludged soil
in meq/100 g
ppm - mg/kg dry wt. of sludge
The calculated allowable total application rates for the
treatment plant and lagoon sludges both equal about 140 tons
for Class 1 soils, 90 tons for Class 2 soils, and 60 tons
dry solids per acre for the Class 3 soils. These were
computed using CEC's of 15, 10, and 6 meq/100 g, respectively.
The WDNR guidelines suggest limiting the total cadmium
application to less than 20 pounds per acre because of
potential health hazards. This is based in part upon the
research performed by the University of Wisconsin. For the
treatment plant sludge, this equals about 137 tons of sludge
per acre. For the lagoon sludge, this equals 308 tons of
sludge per acre.
There are other heavy metals which may also be of concern.
As yet no .standards have been developed for these based upon
sludge application. The University of California, however,
has developed guidelines for irrigation water quality criteria
(Ayers and Branson 1975) . Using this, the allowable loading
rates were computed for metals other than zinc, copper,
nickel, and cadmium. This method bases the total loading
rate for individual heavy metals on the amount which would
be applied with 3 acre- feet per acre of irrigation water
6-18
-------
each year for 20 years at the limiting quality criteria.
Table 6-4 lists the sludge application limits imposed by
metals other than Zn, Cu, Ni, and Cd. According to this
method, iron may be a problem with lagoon sludge applica-
tions over 120 tons dry solids per acre.
ELEMENT
Alumtnum
Arsenic
Boron
Chromium
Cobalt
TABLE 6-4
TOTAL SLUDGE APPLICATION BASED ON
IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
MAOISOM METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
CONCENTRATION IN SLUDGE WATER QUALTIY CRITERIA SLUDGE APPLICATION LIMIT
QUANTITY TREATMENT
TREATMENT CONCEN. IN
PLANT LAGOONS TRATION 60 AC.-FT.
ling/kg) (mg/kgl (mg/ll (Ib/ac)
Manganese
2,870
14
300
231
30
8,850
286
189
5,850
11
200
20
75
200
NO
13,980
520
350
2.0
1 0
50
200
100
100
3,260
326
326
163
816
3,260
1,630
1,630
PLANT
SLUDGE
(ton/ac)
570
11,600
543
348
13,600
184
2,850
4,310
LAGOON
SLUDGE
(ton/ac)
279
14,800
2.170
408
1,570
ND means not detectable
Mercury was investigated individually because it accumulates
in animals and can be toxic. Plants are not very sensitive
to mercury and exclude it at the soil-root interface.
Therefore, at the low sludge application rates we have
recommended it should not accumulate in the plants or be
magnified in the food chain.
Phosphorus. Ground water is usually protected from phos-
phorus contamination because soil has a very high degree of
retention capacity for phosphorus. However, the phosphorus
fixating capacity is limited and must not be exceeded.
Methods for estimating the phosphorus sorption capacity are
now being developed. When perfected, these procedures could
be used for site evaluation (Ellis 1973 and Schneider and
Erickson 1972). Meanwhile, the total phosphorus applica-
tion should be limited to about 5,000 pounds per acre, or
180 dry tons sludge per acre.
Salts. The dissolved salts in the sludge should not cause
salinity problems to crops. The major study area field
crops, corn, grain, and alfalfa are tolerant of soil satur-
ation extract salt content (ECe) of about 3.3, 4.7, and 2.0
mmhos/cm of salt, respectively (Ayers and Branson 1975).
More than 26 tons per acre of treatment plant sludge and 230
6-19
-------
230 tons per acre lagoon sludge would be required to
increase the ECe of the soil by even 1 mmho/cm. The total
salts in the sludge will not contribute to soil salinity
since over time, some salts will be precipitated, others
will be removed by crops, and still others will be leached
below the root zone. Ammonium salts, for example, will be
nitrified and over a period of time be consumed by plants or
be lost by leaching or denitrification. If it is assumed
that half of the applied salts do not contribute to soil
salinity and that the soil is now low in salts, over 170
tons of sludge could be added over a period of several years
with no detrimental accumulation of salts in the soil. Salt
accumulation in soils is easily monitored and therefore
controlled with good sludge reuse management.
Total Sludge Application Rates Summary. The total sludge
application rates based upon the zinc equivalent, cadmium,
water quality, phosphorus, and salts were compared to deter-
mine recommended rates. The total recommended treatment
plant sludge application is 140 tons per acre for Class 1
soils. This corresponds to the limits set by both the zinc
equivalent and cadmium criteria. The recommended total for
lagoon sludge on Class 1 soils is 120 tons per acre. This
is due to the iron limitation as determined by the irrigation
water quality criteria. The water quality criteria were
determined for the arid west where the soils are seldom, if
ever, flushed out by excess water moving through the soil as
they are in the midwest. Therefore, the irrigation water
quality criteria are very conservative for Madison. The
total recommended sludge application for the Class 2 soils
is 90 tons per acre as determined by the zinc equivalent
method. The total recommended sludge application limit for
the soil Class 3 should be 60 tons per acre as determined by
the zinc equivalent method.
The total sludge applications should be reduced by at least
one-quarter for all direct human consumption vegetables such
as processing peas and sweet corn. The total loading should
be reduced for land which will be used for leaf vegetables,
such as lettuce, by one-half because cadmium tends to
accumulate in the leaves.
Summary of Sludge Application Rates
The annual and total sludge application rates according to
soil class and crop type are shown in Tables 6-5 and 6-6
for the treatment plant sludge and the lagoon sludge, respec-
tively.
6-20
-------
(2) 12)
VEGETABLES
TABLE 6-5
TREATMENT PLANT ORGANIC SOLIDS ANNUAL AND
TOTAL APPLICATION RATES Ml ACCORDING TO
SOIL CLASS AND CROP TYPE
(tons dry JcJidt per acre)
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ANNUAL AVAILABLE NITROGEN REQUIREMENT (Ib/ac)
35 50 75 75 100 125 150 175 200
SOIL VCUCI«OI.M PROCESSING SMALL
CLASS LEAF ROOT SOYBEANS PEAS GRAINS
SWEET GRAIN
FORAGE GRASS CORN TOBACCO CORN
SILAGE
CORN
1 (2I/70 (3I/1Q5 0.05/140 0.05/105 03/140 04/140
06/140
0.6/105 09/105 11/140 13/140 1.5/140 17/140 21/140
2 12I/4S I3>70 005/90 005/70 03/90 0.4/90
0.6/90
0.6/70 09/90 11/90 13/90 15/90 17/90 21/90
2730 I3745 003/60 003/45 0.2/60 0.3/60
04/60
04/45 06/45 0.7/60 0.9/60 10/60 11/60 14/60
NONE NONE NONE
NONE NONE NONE
NONE
NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE
(1) Application rates shown as annual/total, annual rate shown for first year applicaton,
Rates shown are for sludge which has not been aged.
(2) Wide variation m annual nitrogen requirements.
{3) Waste organics should not be applied in year crop is grown.
TABLE 6-6
LAGOON ORGANIC SOLIDS ANNUAL AND TOTAL APPLICATION RATES'"
ACCORDING TO SOIL CLASS AND CROP TYPE
(toni dry wlidi per icre)
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SOIL
VEGETABLES
ANNUAL AVAILABLE NITROGEN REQUIREMENT (Ib/ac)
35
PROCESSING SMALL
50
CLASS LEAF ROOT SOYBEANS
'BO
"/90 01/120
PEAS
0.1/90
GRAINS
09/120 1.3/120
75
75
100
SWEET GRAIN
FORAGE GRASS CORN TOBACCO CORN
176
SILAGE
CORN
200
250
1 9/120
1 9/90
25/120 31/120 3.7/150 44/120 50'120 62120
745 IJ'/70 01/90
0 1/70
0.9/90 1.3/90
1.9/90
1.9/70 2.5/90 3.1/90 3.7/90 44/90 50/90 6.2/90
"/30 ' ,'45 0.06/60
0 06/45 0.6/60 0.9/60
1 3/60
1.3/45
1.7/60 2.1/60 2.5/60 29/60 3360 4.1'60
NONE NONE NONE
NONE
NONE NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE NONE
NONE NONE
NONE
(1) Appltcaton rates shown as annual/total, annual rate shown for first year application
(2) Wide variation in annual nitrogen requirements.
(3) Sludge should not be applied in year crop is grown.
6-21
-------
The application rate values shown in Tables 6-5 and 6-6 are
presented as an estimate and should not be used until
verified in the field. The CEC of the unsludged soil and
the other factors used to determine the soil classification
should be checked on each site before sludge is applied.
The annual application rates will vary because the cropping
patterns will change and because soil organic matter will
also change, depending upon site management. The total
application rate will be determined by monitoring each site.
The sludge character, which has a direct influence upon
application rates, may change and must be monitored also.
The loading rate tables presented will be used as the basis
of land requirements for this report.
6.H OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE
Fertilizer Market
The fertilizer market situation will have great impact upon
how willing the farm community is to accept sludge as a
substitute for commercial fertilizers. The fertilizer
industry has recently experienced a shortage of the natural
resources and energy necessary to produce fertilizers while
the demand for fertilizer has grown tremendously in certain
areas of the country. These factors have resulted in greatly
increased prices for nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers all
across the United States.
In Wisconsin, about 594,000 tons of fertilizer mixtures and
materials were used in the year ended June 30, 1965. By
1972, seven years later, fertilizer use had grown to 942,000
tons per year. About 11,300 tons of natural organic ferti-
lizers were sold in 1972 (Crop Reporting Board, USDA 1973) .
With the high prices of fertilizers, farmers have reduced
their use of commercial fertilizer somewhat and have begun
to use available natural organic sources. As long as the
fertilizer prices stay high, the farm community is expected
to use natural organics, including sludge, as lower cost
nutrient sources. The decreased use of fertilizer has
resulted in some increase in fertilizer producers' inven-
tories in the last year. Supply should not be as great a
problem in the next few years as it has been in the recent
past (Chemical Week, August 1975) , but natural resources and
energy shortages are expected to keep prices high.
Reuse of sludge should have little impact on the commercial
fertilizer market in the Madison area. It is estimated that
the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works sludge could supply
6-22
-------
only about 3 percent of the study area nitrogen requirement.
This should assure a high demand because of the apparent
limited supply.
Farm Community Acceptance of Sludge Reuse
It was necessary to estimate the number of farmers which
will want to use sludge to determine if a program based upon
farmers wanting sludge will succeed. Two public meetings,
to which the farm community was invited, were held to deter-
mine their interest in the program. These meetings were
also used to inform the farmers about the requirements of
sludge reuse and to show them how sludge can be used and
applied and how the program could operate. Feedback from
the farmers was used in developing the reuse program wher-
ever possible.
Eighteen farmers, representing about 3,000 acres, who attended
the meetings and returned questionnaires, all said they
would use sludge. Several want it as soon as they can get
it. Based upon MMSD records on those who have already used
sludge and the results of a MMSD letter and questionnaire
sent to farmers on 2 August 1974, there are now about 26
farmers, representing about 5,000 acres, who apparently are
willing to use sludge. The District has also been approached
by several other farmers in the area who want sludge. Based
upon the preceding, the District already has a strong poten-
tial market for sludge reuse represented by more than 5,000
acres of land.
Land Ownership
The farmland in the study area is presently about 80 percent
owner operated and 20 percent leased. The trend is toward
fewer, larger landowners and operators. Small farms simply
are not large enough for most efficient and economical
operation. Many small farms (less than 100 acres) are
leased to persons operating combined areas of over 100 acres.
The cost of farmland in the study area has been rising
rapidly in the last year. It now varies from about $700 per
acre for medium to poor land several miles from cities up to
$2,500 per acre in areas under pressure of subdivision and
land speculation. This cost includes the value of improve-
ments such as the farmhouse, barns, and fencing. The cost
of leasing or renting farmland is normally about $50 per
acre per year.
Public ownership of the land required for sludge application
would be a distinct advantage to the District because it
6-23
-------
would then be assured of a place to apply the sludge. The
land availability would not be affected by public attitudes
or variations in the economy as could happen if the sludge
is applied on privately controlled farmland. However,
private ownership has several advantages which, in this
case, outweigh public ownership.
Acquisition of several hundred or thousand acres of land by
the District would be a major institutional and economic
problem. Many families would need to be displaced from land
that in many cases may have been in the family for genera-
tions. Long and expensive condemnation proceedings would
most likely be required if MMSD were to attempt to purchase
any large land areas for sludge application. Neighbors to a
large sludge application site would most likely complain
about environmental conditions, whereas relatively small,
widespread sludge reuse areas in private ownership would
cause much less concern by neighbors to the sites.
Other problems of public ownership are that a public insti-
tution would become engaged in the production of crops for
competitive markets, and the land could be removed from the
tax rolls. The adverse effects of these factors could be
minimized if the farming operation were leased to a local
farmer and if the District elected to make a payment in lieu
of taxes.
The cost to the District to own and operate an application
site would be very high; about $1,250 to $1,600 per acre or
$21 to $26 per dry ton of sludge applied. This is the
present worth cost of owning and operating an application
site for 20 years. The analysis considered the cost of the
land; taxes or payment in lieu of; cost of condemnation;
potential revenue from the crops; the salvage value at the
end of the 20-year operating period, and the potential
savings in transporting, applying and monitoring the sludge
at a District-owned site.
A similar analysis was performed for the marketing alterna-
tive (see Section 7.2}. The estimated cost to the District
to operate this type of program is expected to range from
$500 to $1,200 per acre, or $8 to $20 per dry ton of sludge
applied. The high range assumes no revenue from the sale of
sludge, and the low range assumes receiving revenue equal to
one-half its value as a commercial fertilizer.
6-24
-------
Sludge Application Periods
Several factors will control the periods during which sludge
can be applied to land. These include cultural practices,
crop growth stages, weather, application equipment capabil-
ities, and animal and human health protection.
Cultural Practices. Sludge application should not interfere
with cultural practices. Certain practices must generally
be performed at specific times to maximize crop production
and to minimize farming expenses. Sludge application should
be scheduled around seedbed preparation, planting, harvest,
and fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide application. These
cultural practices vary from crop to crop and year to year.
Crop Growth Stages. Crops go through several growth stages
where sludge application could be detrimental. Liquid
sludge is high in soluble salts which may inhibit seed
germination. Therefore, sludge must not, in general, be
applied within 2 weeks before or after planting. If the
soil is dry, the required buffer period may be more than
2 weeks to allow sufficient time for the soluble salts to
dissipate before planting. Sludge should not be applied to
crop foliage within 2 weeks before or after the pollination
period to prevent washing off pollen or disturbing pollen-
carrying insects. Application on growing plants could
result in injury to the leaves. Application in fall could
result in less efficient nitrogen use due to denitrification
or nitrate leaching.
Weather. The weather in Dane County is a significant factor
which must be considered in sludge application. The climate
is typically midwestern with much of the precipitation
falling during the summer. Sludge should not be applied
onto saturated or frozen sloping ground because subsequent
precipitation or thawing could cause surface runoff. The
ground is generally frozen from about mid-December to mid-
March.
Equipment. The time of sludge application will be limited
to that which the application equipment can effectively
operate without causing rutting or excessive soil compaction.
Heavy equipment such as trucks or farm tractors are not
usable while the ground is wet and soft. Subsurface injec-
tion is not usable in wet, hard, or frozen soil.
Health. To protect the public and animal health in use of
the crop, sludge must be applied so that it will not contam-
inate the harvested portions of the crop. In general,
6-25
-------
sludge must not be applied within 1 month before harvest.
Rains will wash sludge from the crop but cannot always be
depended upon. Sludge must not be applied to pasture or
forage crops within 2 months before the crop is grazed or
harvested. The major method of dairy cow feeding in the
study area is greenchopping and hauling it to feedlots.
This is performed about every 5 weeks, so sludge application
on greenchop land will not be permitted during the summer
months. Crazing animals should not be allowed on pasture
until the sludge is removed from the plant by rain or other
method; this can be determined visually. The minimum time
between sludge application and feeding should be 2 weeks for
general livestock. Sludge should not be applied to land
used to grow vegetables within the calendar year before
harvest.
TABLE e-? The foregoing factors affecting the
ESTIMATED MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF time of sludge application were
SLUDGE USE ON PRIVATE FARMLAND considered for each croo arown in
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT «-UII3IUCICU IUI CCH-I I Ul U|~> y I UW I 1 1 1 I
the study area. Based on the
PERCENTOF period of sludge application for
MONTH ANNUAL TOTAL each crop , and the relatJ ve amount
J™,'^ I of sludge applied to each crop, an
"«* o overall monthly distribution of
M^V" ^5 sludge application on private
June 10 farmland was determined and is
A^ust 5 shown in Table 6-7.
September 10
10 Soi I Wetting Effect of S ludge
December 0
The time required for soil to dry
is important to a farmer who is
waiting to plant his crops in the spring. The amount of water
applied with a 3-ton-solids per acre sludge application is
about 0.5 inch depth. This amount of moisture is not a
significant problem in drying the soil. However, if the
sludge is spread on the surface and not then incorporated
into the soil, a film may form which can delay soil drying
time considerably. University of Wisconsin researchers have
noticed that the time for a soil to dry with sludge applied
can be about twice as long as required where an equivalent
amount of water was applied. Therefore, whenever soil
wetness could be a problem, the sludge should be incorporated
into the soil directly after spreading or at least harrowed
and broken up when dried sludge film forms.
6-26
-------
Odors
Well-digested liquid sewage sludge wiII emit a faint tar-
like odor immediately after application which is not objec-
tionable to most people and which dissipates rapidly. When
air dried, sludge has an earthy odor. The odors caused by
well-digested sludge can be minimized or made undetectable
by subsurface application or incorporation into the soil.
Incompletely digested sludge or sludge from an upset digester,
however, can be very malodorous and should not be applied to
land. It should first be stored or treated to reduce the
odor.
The odors experienced by passersby or neighbors to the land
application site should be less than the magnitude of odor
caused by manure spreading. The fact that it is sewage
sludge, though, may cause them to imagine that the odor is
stronger or more offensive than manure. Where complaints
have been received, or could be in the future, such as near
major roads or subdivisions, the sludge odor should be
minimized by applying only by subsurface methods or when it
can be incorporated into the soil within 2 days. The wind
direction while surface applying should also be considered
and application be made only white adverse effect would be
minimized.
Insects
Flies and other nuisance insects can be a problem if careful
management is not used. Sludge which has been lagooned will
have fewer insect problems because it is more stabilized
than fresh digested sludge. Insects should not be a problem
where good housekeeping is practiced. Sludge handling
equipment should be kept clean, and spillage onto roads,
into ditches, etc., must not be allowed. Liquid sludge
should not be allowed to drain into low wet spots in fields
as insects will breed in ponded areas. Incorporation into
the soil during or soon after application will prevent
insect problems.
Weeds
Most weed seeds will not survive the sludge digestion process.
Tomatoes and melons are the most common exception and will
sprout in sludge applied to fields. These plants can easily
be controlled by herbicides or cultivation and generally are
not considered a problem by farmers. Plants normally con-
sidered to be noxious weeds by farmers do not enter the
6-27
-------
sludge with the sewage because they are not part of the
waste normally put into sewers. Sludge which is stored in
open lagoons will collect weed seeds just as farmland does
by natural processes. These weed seeds should be minimized
by controlling weed growth around lagoons.
Farmers who have used MMSD sludge report that they need to
apply more herbicide than normal to sludged land. This is
because the sludge additions add organic matter to the soil
which buffers the effect of herbicides and, consequently,
more herbicide must be applied. Also, the lagoon sludge
contains many weed seeds. Some farmers report that 10-
20 percent more herbicide is required.
Public Health Aspects
Sludge reuse on agricultural land must be done with caution
because digestion does not remove all pathogens. Research
on Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works digested sludge
(Oliver 1975) showed viruses to be present. Bacteria,
protozoans, and intestinal worms are also found in processed
sludges (Burge 1974). Anaerobic digestion, which is presently
used at Nine Springs, has been shown to be very effective in
reducing pathogens (MSDC Chicago 1974; Malina et al. 1974;
Ewing and Dick 1970; and Dean and Smith 1973). Prolonged
storage of sludge, such as the lagoon solids have received,
has also been shown to be an effective method for pathogen
reduction (MSDC Chicago 1974). Pathogens which are applied
with sludge to land are readily removed by soil through the
mechanics of filtration and sorption-inactivation and by die
off. Pathogens usually do not move more than a few feet in
soil unless the soil is very coarse textured or contains
cracks or channels.
The question still to be answered by research is not whether
or not there are pathogens in sludge, but rather, what
levels are required to constitute a health haazard. There
have been no cases reported of a health hazard being traced
to digested sewage sludge (Ewing and Dick 1970). Sludge can
be disinfected by pasteurization, composting, heat drying,
and lime treatment. These procedures are all expensive, but
if required as a means to protect public health, should be
investigated and utilized. The following list of criteria,
if adhered to, should prevent any health hazard:
• Sludge must be stabilized by anaerobic digestion
or equivalent before being applied to agricultural
land.
6-28
-------
• The depth of soil between zone of sludge appli-
cation and bedrock should be at least 2 feet and
preferably 4 feet.
• Sludge should not be applied to soil in the year
the area is used for any root crops or other
vegetables which are cooked or processed. Sludge-
treated land should not be used for human food
crops to be eaten raw until 3 years after sludge
application.
• If sludge is surface applied to sloping land,
runoff to streams or lakes should be prevented by
use of contour strips, terraces, or border areas.
• Pasture land and harvested forage should not be
used for milk cow feeding for 2 months following
sludge application. Other animals should not
graze pasture land or be fed greenchop material
for at least 2 weeks after sludge application.
• Public access must be limited in areas of sludge
application.
Heavy metals in the food chain are another potential public
health problem that must be controlled. Cadmium, in parti-
cular, is mobile in the soil and not excluded by plants.
Therefore, it can enter the food chain. Cadmium can accum-
ulate in the human body and has deleterious effects on the
kidneys and liver (Page and Bingham 1973). Public health
problems can be prevented by limiting the cadmium application
rate and monitoring crop tissue for cadmium content.
In this reuse program the cadmium application rate will be
limited to 2 pounds per acre per year and 20 pounds per acre
total over the life of the site. These limits are as recom-
mended in the DNR guidelines and are based upon research at
the University of Wisconsin (Kenneyetal. 1975). Also,
crop tissue will be monitored to detect increases in cadmium
and other trace elements.
Sludge Drying Considerations
Drying the digested sludge was studied but found unfeasible
as a means to reduce the volume of sludge to be handled.
Mechanical drying, as the Weston report discussed, is not
feasible because of the poor dewatering characteristics of
the Nine Springs Treatment Works sludge.
6-29
-------
Nebiker (1967) has performed research on open air drying of
sludge. He notes that the rate of drying would initially be
approximately equal to the evaporation from a free water
surface. After a certain solids content is reached, the
free water surface in the sludge will be lost, and drying
wi II slow greatly.
On an annual basis, the evaporation exceeds the precipitation
by only about 5 inches. During May through October, the net
evaporation is about 15 inches. Application to drying beds
on a year-round basis would not be feasible due to the small
amount of drying which could be achieved. About 100 acres
of drying bed area and 6 months sludge storage capacity
would be required. Due to the extensive facilities required
and the fact that one heavy rainstorm late in the summer
could rewet all the sludge, air drying is considered infeas-
ible.
Nitrogen Losses During Application
Research reported by Ryan and Keeney (1975) indicates that
when wastewater sludge is surface applied, between 11-60 per-
cent of the applied ammonia nitrogen can be lost by volatili-
zation. The amount lost depends on the type of soil, the
rate of application, and the length of time before the
sludge is incorporated into the soil. When surface applica-
tion methods are used, the sludge application rate should be
adjusted upward to account for ammonia losses. The WDNR
guidelines suggest using an average 50 percent ammonia loss.
6.5 SLUDGE APPLICATION SITE INVESTIGATION
The study area was investigated to determine how much farm-
land is suitable for sludge reuse and where it is located.
This was then compared to the amount of land required to
determine the potential for success of a sludge reuse program.
Land Requirement for Sludge Reuse
The amount of land required was estimated based upon an
average sludge application of 3 tons dry solids per acre per
year. In the first year of the reuse program, it is expected
that only the amount of sludge produced by the treatment
plant, about 5,800 tons, could be used on farmland. The
lagoon weed mat removal program, other startup problems, and
arranging for farmers to use sludge is expected to prevent
large-scale use of sludge in the first year. The land
requirement for the first year will therefore be about 1,930
acres. In succeeding years much more land will be required
6-30
-------
to accept an estimated 10,000 tons of lagoon sludge each
year, plus the annual treatment plant production. The land
requirement is expected to be between 5,200 and 5,700 acres
until the lagoon is emptied. After the lagoon is emptied,
about 1986, only the treatment plant sludge will need dis-
posing. The land requirement is then expected to be from
2,400 to 3,000 acres each year.
If the same farmland is used every year, the amount of
sludge applied would not exceed about 72 tons of sludge by
the year 2000. This is well below total application limits
for the Class 1 and 2 soils. It is most likely that many
different parcels of land will have sludge applied rather
than the same land every year.
Site Suitability Criteria
Previous sections of this report have explained many of the
requirements for safe agricultural reuse of sludge. Those
requirements and several others relating to site suitability
are listed below:
• Sludge should not be applied within 1,000 feet of
public water supply wells or within 200 feet from
private water supply wells.
• Sludge should not be applied anywhere that it
could be carried by runoff to surface waters. A
buffer strip of at least 300 feet is recommended
unless it can be shown by site inspection that a
specific site has characteristics which would
allow a lower limit (between 300 and 100 feet)
without runoff or contamination problems.
« Sludge should not be used where it would endanger
rare and endangered plants or animals.
• Sludge application should be limited to sites
which are actively farmed.
• Sludge application sites should be at least 500
feet from concentrated population areas, urban and
suburban housing tracts, rural subdivisions,
commercial areas, recreation spots, or schools if
the sludge is surface-applied. If it is subsur-
face injected, the buffer shall be a minimum of
300 feet.
6-31
-------
• Sludge may not be applied within 300 feet of rural
homes and gardens unless the District first contacts
affected residents, explains the proqram, and
obtains their permission to apply sludge closer.
The minimum buffer distance may be 200 feet if the
sludge is surface applied or 100 feet if subsurface
injected. Sludge must not be applied where it
could be carried by runoff onto the farmstead.
• Sludge lagoons, sprinkler application systems, and
other unsightly facilities or operations shall be
located so as to be screened from major public
view.
• Sites subject to occasional or frequent flooding,
more than once in 20 years, are not suitable for
sludge application. Areas subject to rare flooding,
less than once in 20 years, will have the require-
ment that sludge be applied and mixed into the
soil at least 2 months before any potential flood
season.
• Sludge application sites must have depth to season-
ally high ground-water table of at least 3 feet
and preferably 5 feet.
• Sludge application sites must have depth to bedrock
or other impermeable layer of at least 3.5 feet
and preferably 5 feet. Areas with bedrock less
than 5 feet shall be used only if better sites are
not available.
• Sites with both bedrock and ground-water depths
less than 5 feet are not suitable for sludge
application.
• Sites with slopes greater than 12 percent are not
suitable for sludge application unless special
measures are taken to prevent erosion.
• All District-owned sites and facilities should be
located within Dane County.
Land Available for Sludge Reuse
Soil suitability and land use are the two major factors of
land availability for sludge reuse. These two factors were
mapped to determine their extent.
6-32
-------
Soils. The soils in the study area were mapped by sludge
application suitability class on the detailed soils maps of
Dane County. The detailed maps were used as the basis of
determining amounts and locations of suitable soils. Due to
the size and detail of the detailed soils maps, they could
not be incorporated into this report. Therefore, a more
general soil suitability map was prepared. This general map
of soil suitability for sludge application appears on Fig-
ure 6-4. The general soils map groups are comprised of the
following soil classes. General Soil Group A is about 75
percent Class 1 and up to 25 percent Classes 2,3, and 4.
General Soil Group B is about 75 percent Classes 2 and 3
with up to 25 percent of Classes 1 and 4. General Soil
Group C is about 75 percent Class 4 soils and up to 25
percent of Classes 1,2, and 3. The general soil map is
meant for illustrative purposes only. The detailed soil
survey maps must be used when looking at individual farms.
Land Use. Areas of land unsuited for sludge reuse including
cities, population centers, recreational areas, schools,
subdivisions, commercial, and industrial areas, are shown on
Figure 6-5. These areas must be avoided for sludge reuse as
much as possible. Figure 6-5 also indicates the locations
and densities of rural homes. Areas with many clustered
homes should also be avoided.
The soils and land use maps were overlain together to deter-
mine the amount of land suitable for sludge reuse. About
40,000 acres, or 44 percent of the 91,000 acres of cropland,
in the study area can be used for sludge reuse. In comparing
this to the highest expected land requirement of less than
6,000 acres, it is apparent that more than enough land is
available in the study area.
6.6 SUMMARY
This chapter has discussed the many factors related to
agricultural reuse of sludge. A study area consisting of
the land within a 10-mile radius of the Nine Springs Sewage
Treatment Works was delineated as a basis for discussion.
The study area contains about 91,000 acres of very produc-
tive farmland. Its soils, land use, and ground-water condi-
tions were investigated for their suitability for sludge
reuse. Based upon the site investigations, it was determined
that about 44 percent of the study area, or 40,000 acres, is
suitable for sludge application. Farmers representing more
than 5,000 acres of farmland have already shown a strong
interest in having sludge applied to their land. The amount
of farmland available for sludge reuse is expected to increase
rapidly after the reuse program is started.
6-33
-------
The amount of land required for reuse of all the Nine Springs
Sewage Treatment Works sludge will be between 5,200 and
5,700 acres until the lagoons are emptied. Thereafter, only
about 2,400 to 3,000 acres will be needed each year. The
land area requirement is based upon recommended annual and
total sludge application rates which were developed in this
chapter. The sludge application rates were set to guard
agahist potentially harmful overapplication of crop nutrients
and heavy metals.
This chapter also included criteria for determining the
suitability of particular sites for sludge application and
site management necessary to protect the surrounding
environment.
6-36
-------
7.1 CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM SELECTION
7.2 ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
73 SLUDGE HANDLING CONTINGENCY PLAN
7.4 PRESENT METHOD OF SLUDGE REUSE
7.5 FUTURE SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES CONSIDERED
7.6 COMPARISON OF SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
7
-------
Chapter 7
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
An organized program will be required to ensure successful
and safe sludge reuse. The program must outline procedures
for management and for distribution and land application of
sludge. Management considerations include the application
rate categories of fertilizer rate, high-rate fertilizer,
and disposal. For distribution and application, the reuse
program considerations include District-owned land, land
leased by District, and farmer-owned and controlled land.
7. 1 CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM SELECTION
Program Criteria
To choose between the many possible alternative systems for
recycling sludge, it is necessary to first determine criteria
which the reuse program must meet. The criteria are as
follows:
• The program must be able to handle all of the
annual treatment plant sludge production plus the
sludge to be removed from the lagoons.
• The program must recycle the sludge back into
agriculture.
• The program must be flexible.
• The program must be acceptable to the farm com-
munity.
• There must be no pollution of ground or surface
waters.
• There must be minimum detriment to other environ-
mental factors.
• The program must be cost effective.
7-1
-------
• Reuse Program 1—Market all sludge to farmers.
fc Reuse Program 2--Lease land for short periods for
sludge application.
* Reuse Program 3—Combination marketing and land
leasing.
Reuse Program 1--Market All Sludge
Description. The District would make sludge available to
area farmers as they request it for fertilizer rate applica-
tion to their farmland. A public relations program would be
developed to aid in marketing the sludge. The farmer would
have complete control over his land. He would contact MMSD
when he wanted sludge, then he and a District representative
would determine the suitable time, location, and application
rates for sludge application.
Facilities Requirements. In this program, sludge demand is
expected to be high during April and May and again in Septem-
ber through November, whereas the supply of sludge is uniform
each month. Therefore, facilities for sludge storage and
high seasonal sludge distribution and application will be
required.
The storage requirement for Program 1 was calculated based
upon the monthly use shown in Table 6-7 and upon the esti-
mated uniform sludge production each month. The calculated
storage capacity required is 33.4 percent of annual treatment
plant production. The recommended design storage capacity
is 75 percent of annual production (150 acre-feet) to allow
5 months extra capacity in case adverse weather delays or
prevents spring sludge use. The sludge would be stored in
Nine Springs Lagoon 1, in small on-farm lagoons,, or at
distribution centers. Lagoon 2 will be abandoned as recom-
mended in Chapter 5. The storage facilities would be filled
during the winter months of no sludge use and the midsummer
months of expected low sludge use. All storage should be
emptied by about November each year.
In addition to providing some seasonal sludge storage, on-
farm lagoons would relieve some of the peak season distribu-
tion requirements. The District would need to obtain a
commitment from the farmer to accept sludge for several
years before helping to build a small lagoon. A 3-5 acre-
foot-capacity lagoon would be required to hold enough sludge
for application to 100 acres.
7-3
-------
The sludge handling facilities should be sized to distribute
and apply, in 1 month, 35 percent of the amount of sludge
used in the year. This is based upon Table 6-7 which indi-
cates that the peak month use will be about 30 percent of
annual use. An extra 5 percent was added for contingency.
If the distribution and application system fails to meet
demand for even one season, many farmers may stop using
sludge because they may feel they cannot rely on the system
to meet their needs.
Distribution centers could be used after strong sludge reuse
market areas develop. These would serve as a central point
from which sludge would be supplied to surrounding farmers.
Sludge would be pumped via pipeline from the Nine Springs
Works as used or be stored at the distribution center until
used. The advantage of using a pipeline is that, in general,
it will be more economical to transport the sludge longer
distances by pipeline than by truck. The distribution
center could also be used for research, demonstration, and
monitoring. The storage capacity at a distribution center
would depend upon the size of the market served from it.
Strong interest has been shown for a sludge distribution
center in the Cottage Grove area. The area around Oregon
may also be suitable for a distribution point. The District
should wait until a strong market is developed in an area
before locating distribution centers. Potentially strong
market areas cannot be determined with enough reliability to
select sites at this time.
The land application sites would be located wherever a
farmer wanted sludge applied, as limited by the site selec-
tion criteria. Farms nearer to the Nine Springs plant
should be given first preference as this will reduce the
District's transportation costs.
Program Management. The District must appoint a person to
manage the sludge reuse program. Duties of this manager
would include scheduling distribution and application,
answering farmers' questions, reviewing requested sites and
application rates, directing the monitoring program, and
marketing sludge for reuse. This person should be capable
of talking to farmers in their terms, be familiar with the
local agriculture, and be enthusiastic about the project.
Marketing Program. In order for the concept of farmers
asking for sludge to become reality, the District must
develop a strong community involvement program. This has
already been started by the District staff and has been
7-4
-------
continued with the farm community meetings which were a part
of this planning study. This should be continued by the use
of educational programs sponsored by MMSD.
The public's view of the sludge reuse facilities and opera-
tion must be carefully maintained by the District. For
instance, the truck drivers should be considered as ambassa-
dors of the District because they are in everyday contact
with the farmers and rural public. Clean trucks and cour-
teous, helpful operators can be very important in achieving
a successful program.
Another marketing concept that should be used is an attrac-
tive informational brochure which would explain to the
public what sludge is, how it is beneficial to agriculture,
and how farmers can contact MMSD and arrange to get sludge
applied on their land. Also, the sludge should be given a
trade name such as HYDIC or BIOCRO. This would eliminate
the need for calling it sewage sludge, which admittedly is a
negative term. The farm community knows that it is sludge,
but they need not be continually reminded.
Monitoring Program. The District must implement a program
to monitor the effects of sludge reuse for two reasons:
(1) it is required by State and Federal regulations and,
just as important, (2) the farmers will feel more confident
using sludge if they are assured that someone competent is
guarding their soil and crop production.
Reuse Program 2—Lease Land for Sludge Application
Description. In this program, the District would lease or
rent land from farmers for sludge application. Since sludge
would be applied during the growing season, no crops would
be grown that year. The lease cost, therefore, would have
to offset the net returns the farmer would have otherwise
received from a crop plus the fixed costs of equipment and
land ownership.
The amount of leased land and consequently the program cost
could be reduced by applying enough sludge to satisfy the
crop nutrient requirements for more than 1 year. U. S. EPA
guidelines limit available nitrogen application to twice the
crop nitrogen requirement in a single year. Only heavy,
moderate to slow permeability soils are suitable for this
program because they would not allow the excess nitrogen to
be leached below the root zone in the first year. The cost
of leasing land for this program is estimated to be $38.60
per acre or $5.68 per dry ton of sludge applied where
7-5
-------
2 years of sludge is applied in 1 year. The basis of the
land lease cost is shown in Table B-5. The lease cost would
be reviewed each year to allow for different farming costs
and crop sale values.
Two purposes for obtaining leases for the land are (1) the
District would be assured of land for sludge application for
some period in advance, and (2) sludge application could be
scheduled evenly throughout the summer, thereby reducing
peak handling requirements. The farmer would benefit from
knowing he would not be hurt by crop failure, fertilizer
would be applied onto his land, and he would not need to
farm the land for one season. Depending upon the interest
in this program, the leases could be procured by competitive
bidding or by the program manager approaching individual
landowners with the program.
Facilities Required. The facilities would be set up to
supply sludge to land according to a schedule set up by the
District. If weather permits, sludge would be applied
evenly over the 8-month period, April through November.
This results in 12.5 percent of the annual sludge reused
being applied in each month. The handling facilities should
be sized to handle an extra 5 percent to allow for contin-
gency .
The total storage capacity should be designed for 75 percent
of annual treatment plant sludge production. This is based
on the same estimates as used for Reuse Program 1. Workable
storage locations would be in the Nine Springs Lagoon 1 and
at one or more central distribution points as described for
Reuse Program 1.
In a leased land program, it is likely that the application
sites would be smaller and more widely scattered than as in
Reuse Program 1 because an actively farming landowner would
be reluctant to lease all of his land to NAMSD for 1 year.
Rather, he would likely lease a small portion 1 year, a
different portion the next year, etc.
Program Management. As in Reuse Program 1, the District
should appoint a program manager. His duties would include
finding and arranging land leases in addition to scheduling
sludge handling, talking to farmers, reviewing sites and
on-farm management, directing monitoring, and marketing the
sludge.
7-6
-------
Marketing and Monitoring Programs. The District will need
to both market the sludge and monitor the reuse as in Reuse
Program 1. The success of this program depends upon making
farmers aware of the program, how it works, and showing them
the benefits. The program must be monitored to satisfy
regulatory agency requirements and, more important, to show
the farmer that MMSD cares about their crops and land.
Reuse Program 3—Combination Sludge Marketing and Land
Leasing
This program would be set up to market sludge to farmers for
use on their land as in Reuse Program 1, plus it would
include provisions for MMSD leasing land as in Program 2.
MMSD-leased land would be used to apply sludge during the
low-use months of July and August. This would spread the
application period out more evenly over the year and thus
reduce peak sludge handling requirements. The amount of
land leased versus that kept in private management would
depend upon the farm community.
The sludge storage capacity, the program management, and the
marketing and monitoring programs would be the same as
described for Reuse Programs 1 and 2. The capacity of the
sludge distribution and application facilities would be
between the estimated requirements for Reuse Programs 1 and
2.
7.3 SLUDGE HANDLING CONTINGENCY PLAN
A contingency plan must be available for sludge handling in
the event that the sludge reuse market is suddenly lost. A
marked decrease in the number of farmers requesting sludge
could be caused by a reduction in the price of commercial
fertilizer, a publicity scare, or a change in the sludge
character. If a problem does develop, the District's first
effort should be to find the cause of the problem and correct
it. In the case of lower commercial fertilizer prices, the
District must simply make sludge reuse more economically
attractive by lowering or cutting out any cost to the farmer,
or maybe even paying them to take sludge.
A continuing public relations and educational program must
be used to prevent the farmers from being frightened of
sludge reuse by unfounded claims. If the sludge character
changes, making it undesirable for agricultural reuse, the
reason for the change should be found and corrected. If,
for instance, a particularly high toxic metal concentration
occurs in the sludge, the source should be found and removed.
7-7
-------
In the event that it is not possible to prevent loss of the
sludge market, an alternative temporary sludge handling and
disposal method should be available. The sludge handling
alternative should be able to handle the sludge for about
3 years until the sludge market can be restored or until
another disposal method could be developed. Possible alter-
native temporary programs would be to (1) have several
thousand acres of District-owned or option-to-control land
available for sludge application, (2) have facilities for
incineration or dewatering and landfill available for sludge
disposal, or (3) have capacity to store sludge for 3 years.
The first and second alternatives are not feasible because
of the high cost and impracticability. The third alternative
is recommended: store the sludge until a permanent solution
can be found. The west half of the Lagoon 1 storage area
will have capacity to store 75 percent of 1 year's sludge
production at 2.3 percent solids. With concentration to
10 percent solids, as is currently achieved after a freeze-
thaw cycle, this storage area could hold 3 years' treatment
plant sludge production. Also, the dikes surrounding the
east half of Lagoon 1 should be left intact, except as
required to allow drainage, after the sludge is removed.
This area would then, with minor rehabilitation, be suitable
for storage of an additional 3 years' sludge production in
an emergency. The Mud Cat and supernatant return and treat-
ment facilities will be available to concentrate the lagoon
solids.
If loss of a sludge reuse market is to occur, it will most
likely happen in the first years of the program before
sludge reuse becomes a common, well-accepted practice.
After many years of sludge reuse, the chance of losing the
sludge market would be very remote. Sludge marketing is a
vital element of the sludge reuse program, and all should be
done, especially by way of public education, to assure the
program's success.
7.4 PRESENT METHOD OF SLUDGE REUSE
The present method of sludge reuse is a form of Reuse Pro-
gram 1. The farmers, upon hearing that MMSD had sludge to
dispose of, asked for it, and the District hauled and applied
it for them. The present program includes monitoring of
streams near sludge application sites.
7-8
-------
The present method of handling and disposing of the anaerobic-
ally digested sludge produced at the Nine Springs Treatment
Plant consists of two steps. First, the sludge is piped
from the digesters to Lagoon 1. The average rate for the
last 4 months of 1974 was 184,000 gallons per day. A drag-
line is then used to remove sludge from the lagoons. The
sludge is put into trucks which haul it to nearby farms
where it is dumped into piles. The piles are then spread by
a grader.
In 1974-6,682 tons of sludge were removed from the lagoons
and hauled to farmland or on-site stockpile. Sludge was
hauled for 29 days between 23 January and 4 March and for
another 37 days between 21 October and 31 December. Sludge
was also hauled until early February 1975 and again in the
fall. The application rates during 1974 ranged from 2.8 dry
tons to 28.2 dry tons per acre.
The District estimated that the cost of the dragline and
trucking operation in 1974 was $9.06 per dry ton. To this
we added an estimate of the cost of spreading, supervision,
and sampling and testing. This produced an estimated total
cost for sludge reuse in 1974 of about $11 per dry ton.
The District takes care while loading sludge into the trucks
so that none will spill onto roads. There are some problems,
though, with the present method of sludge disposal. It was
noted on one farm in February 1975 that large frozen pieces
of sludge lay on top of the frozen soil. When the spring
thaw came, this sludge was apparently washed down a draw
past several homes toward Lake Waubesa. This caused some
complaints from residents located between the fields and the
lake. Also, the sludge application rates used on some
fields are considerably higher than required to meet the
nitrogen requirements of the crops.
7.5 FUTURE SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES CONSIDERED
The sludge handling facilities, namely the transport, storage,
and application methods, and their costs must be determined
in order to select the best sludge reuse program. All
sludge handling facilities were compared using a 3.0 dry
tons per acre application of 5 percent solids sludge. This
is equivalent to a liquid application of 14,400 gallons per
acre or 0.53 acre-inch of liquid per acre.
7-9
-------
Transport Facilities
The two most feasible methods of transporting the liquid
sludge are by pipeline and tanker truck. Rail transpor-
tation may be feasible in some instances, but was not
studied in detail here.
LAGOON CLEAN-OUT OPERATION AND TRUCK-
LOADING FACILITY
The source of sludge at the Nine Springs Works will be a
transfer-loading-pumping facility to which both the lagoon
and digester sludge will be pumped or drained to. The
digester sludge will normally be routed through the lagoon
for storage, and because lagoon aging and/or dewatering may
be desirable or necessary before land application of the
sludge.
Truck Transport. Trucks with closed tanks would be used to
prevent sludge spillage. They would be filled by either
pumping directly into the tank or by first pumping to a
loading dock and then discharging into the truck tank. The
trucks could be filled at the Nine Springs site or at a
7-10
-------
remote loading dock fed by a pipeline. The tanker trucks
would transport the liquid sludge to fields or temporary
storage facilities for eventual land application by other
equipment. Special on-off road trucks which can transport
and apply sludge have also been developed; in this report
they are considered in the sludge application methods discus-
sions.
Many of the county and town roads in the study area are
posted with reduced load limits in spring because of soft
conditions resulting from thawing of the ground. This
occurs mostly in March through May and has to be considered
in studying truck transport of sludge. The trucks should be
equipped with aluminum tanks and any other cost effective
weight reducing designs. The tank capacity should be limited
to 5,000 gallons maximum. If the trucks are kept on Class A
county roads or better, 6,000-gallon tanks could be used.
The cost for 5-mile transport with a 5,000-gallon tanker
truck is estimated to be $2.69 per dry ton-mile. One truck
could haul about 50,000 gallons per 8-hour day. See
Table B-6 for the cost and capacity development. The cost
of a loading dock capable of holding three truckloads of
liquid sludge is about $50,000.
Pipeline Transport. A 5-mile transportation distance was
also used in considering a pipeline to make the costs
comparable to truck transportation. The pipeline transport
cost development is given in Table B-7 and is for a
500-gallon-per-minute capacity system. The cost is estimated
to be $1.57 per dry ton-mile. This system would include a
pump station and buried pipeline. The cost could change,
depending upon the designed capacity, pipeline route, and
discharge point elevation. A higher-capacity system will
generally have a lower per ton-mile cost, whereas a lower
capacity system will normally be more costly. The 500-gpm
system capacity used here is about four times as great as
the average sewage treatment plant output. This excess
capacity will be required during peak sludge use periods and
to handle the lagoon sludge.
Pipeline transportation has the advantage of being more cost
effective than truck transportation. Also, if possible, it
should be routed to serve some farmers along its length. A
major disadvantage of a pipeline is that it can serve only
areas which it passes over or borders on, and its use at all
depends upon the market area served by it. The end point
and location of the pipeline cannot be determined until a
reliable market for sludge large enough to make a pipeline
cost effective is developed.
7-11
-------
Sludge Storage Facilities
Intermediate sludge storage facilities may be useful between
the transportation and application systems to increase the
efficiency of those systems. For instance, small on-farm
storage ponds, which would be filled by tanker truck during
the offseason, could supply sludge for land application
when needed. This would reduce the peak period sludge
transportation requirement. Another intermediate sludge
handling system would be to use portable nurse tanks in
fields to provide a continuous supply of sludge to the
application equipment. The nurse tanks would be intermit-
tently filled by tanker trucks.
Storage of the treatment plant sludge will be provided in
Lagoon 1 as recommended in Chapter 5 of this report.
On-Farm Storage Lagoons. A lagoon with about 4.5 acre-feet
of storage capacity would be required to hold enough 5 per-
cent solids sludge for application to 100 acres. This is
about the size that would be required by most farmers. On
large farms with several hundred acres, several lagoons
would be placed in different locations to serve separate
fields.
The on-farm lagoons should be located away from shallow
ground water and bedrock, out of frequent public view, where
they could be reached by tanker truck or pipeline source,
and where they could effectively serve the fields. A quali-
fied District representative would perform the necessary
site investigations and select a lagoon site that would
conform to District requirements and be acceptable to the
landowner and WDNR. Figure 7-1 shows the design consider-
ations for an on-farm lagoon. The lagoons must be designed
to ensure that they would not leak and have stable dikes.
The lagoons should be built by the District to assure proper
construction. Concrete ramps and other necessary appurte-
nances would be provided so that the lagoons can be maintained.
The sludge solids will probably settle out in the lagoons
after some time as experience has shown in the Nine Springs
Lagoons. Therefore, the sludge may require slurrying before
removal for application to land. The District should supply
a portable slurrying pump, as commonly available for manure
pits, to slurry the lagooned sludge. One such pump can
slurry the sludge in a pond within 1 day's time and therefore
be able to handle all of the small on-farm lagoons. District
ownership of the slurry pump and the pumps to remove sludge
7-12
-------
190'
CONCRETE
RAMP
10' TOP
WIDTH (TYP.)
h
f
V
i 2' FREEBOARD
GATE
'_)
FENCE
(ALL AROUND)
CLAY LINER MAY
BE REQUIRED ON
SANDY SOILS
S9166.0
FIGURE 7-1
ON-FARM
LAGOON DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
from the lagoons would assure District involvement in the
application of the sludge.
The District would need to obtain a commitment from a farmer
to accept sludge for many years before constructing a lagoon
or any permanent facility on the farmer's land. The ques-
tion as to whether farmers would accept such an arrangement
was asked by questionnaire at the 2 October 1975 meeting
with the farm community. Four out of six respondents to the
question said they would. The other farmers at the meeting
showed positive interest in such an arrangement but did not
state so on a questionnaire. After the farmers have used
sludge for a few years, it is expected that many more will
want permanent facilities on their land. They would benefit
from permanent facilities by being assured of sludge on a
priority basis and possibly at less cost than other farmers.
As shown in Table B-8, the cost of a small 4. 5-acre-foot
capacity on-farm lagoon has been estimated to be $8,500 for
average site conditions.
Nurse Tank. A nurse tank could be used to provide a contin-
uous supply of sludge to application equipment where a
pipeline or lagoon source is not located close by. This
nurse tank could be the trailer from a tractor-trailer
tanker truck or a very large capacity tank on wheels. The
very large nurse tank could have a capacity of over
15,000 gallons when filled and would be towed to the field
empty. It would be filled by tanker truck, whereas an empty
trailer tank would be exchanged for a full trailer when
empty. The estimated cost of either type of nurse tank
would be about $15,000.
Sludge Application Methods
Four methods of liquid sludge application were investigated:
sprinkler application, soil injection, truck spreading, and
tractor spreading. These were studied to determine their
cost, ground coverage rate, effects on the fields, and
farmer and public acceptance.
Sprinkler Application. Big gun sprinklers are required
rather than the smaller sprinkler systems in order to spray
the large sized particles in sludge. Big gun sprinkler
systems have been used successfully for sludge application.
The system would consist of a source which could provide a
continuous supply of sludge such as an on-farm lagoon, nurse
tank, or main sludge pipeline. An on-farm lagoon or nurse
7-14
-------
HAND MOVEABLE BIG GUN SPRINKLER
PORTABLE SLUDGE PUMP
7-15
-------
tank would require a portable pump. The pipeline from the
source to the sprinkler could be either hand-move irrigation
pipe or a permanent buried lateral.
A major advantage of the sprinkler method over other appli-
cation methods is that the system could be used on growing
grain crops and while the soil is too soft for heavy equip-
ment. A hand-movable sprinkler was used for this analysis,
but a self-propelled big gun system could also be used.
Other advantages of a big gun sprinkler system are that it
will cause little or no soil compaction, it is suitable on
soft soils, and continuous feed is possible. Continuous
feed allows much more efficient operation of the application
equipment than a system where the equipment must travel
across the field to fill up, then return to where it was
working for a short period until it empties again.
Two major disadvantages of this system are its adverse
visual impact and soil sealing effect. This system could
not be used close to roads or homes where easi ly seen by the
public. The sight of black sludge being sprayed several
hundred feet across a field is certain to cause complaints.
These complaints would be for imagined or real odors and/or
wind-carried aerosols. Also, when sludge is sprayed onto
soil, it will form a thin crust or seal when it dries. This
seal is a problem in that it slows soil drying and could
cause excessive rainfall runoff and washoff of sludge in a
rainstorm. The sludge film should be broken up by soil
incorporation or harrowing as soon as possible after applica-
tion.
A big gun sprinkler application system, as shown in
Table B-9, could cover about 6.0 acres per 8-hour day. The
cost is estimated to be about $3.56 per ton dry solids. The
farmer could provide the labor to operate the system.
Soil Injection. Many types of soil or subsurface injection
systems have been developed and used. A commercially avail-
able system developed at Colorado State University was used
in this discussion because it is designed to mix the sludge
with the soil better and has a faster application rate than
most other systems.
7-16
-------
DEEP-SIX INJECTOR
Flexible hose supply systems, which were originally per-
fected for traveling big gun sprinklers, have been adapted
to provide a continuous supply to sludge application sys-
tems. A soil injection system works very efficiently with
this type of supply line. Up to 15 acres can be covered
with a single hookup with a typical 660-foot-long flexible
hose as shown on Figure 7-2. The sludge source could again
be an on-farm lagoon, nurse tank, or pipeline. A pump would
be required if a lagoon or nurse tank source is used. Hand-
movable irrigation pipe or a permanent buried pipeline could
be used to carry sludge from the source to the flexible hose
feed line. A method to anchor the pipeline where the flex-
ible hose is attached would be required with movable pipe.
Injectors till the soil and therefore need a tractor with
considerable power to pull them. A 40-hp crawler tractor or
60-hp wheel tractor will generally be required to pull a
five- or seven-sweep injector. It is assumed that the
District would need to provide the tractor and injector for
the farmer to use. The equipment could be transported to
the field on a1 loboy trailer. The farmer could operate the
soil injection application equipment after some instruction.
Many farmers would not allow someone unfamiliar with farming
to operate this type of equipment on their land.
7-17
-------
750'
SOURCE:
PIPELINE
LAGOON, OR
NURSE TANK
PERMANENT OR HAND
MOVEABLE PIPELINE
S9166.0
FIGURE 7-2
FLEXIBLE HOSE SLUDGE SUPPLY SYSTEM
WITH SUBSURFACE INJECTOR
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
ON-FARM LAGOON, SPRINKLER APPLICATION,
AND SOIL INJECTION
Soil injection is the best application method in terms of
effects on the environment and the public. The sludge is
placed beneath the soil surface and would not be visible to
the public. Subsoil placement also prevents the loss of any
nutrients and washing of the sludge from the surface. It
will be permissible to use soil injection closer to housing
and other such developed areas than would be allowed with
other sludge application methods. Subsurface injection
cannot be used on cropped land because the injector sweeps
would cut the crop roots and tear out plants.
A subsurface injection system can cover about 9 acres in an
8-hour day. The cost would be about $5.93 per ton solids.
The land coverage rate and costs are developed in Table B-10.
Truck Spreader. This system would consist of a truck capable
of hauling a 1,500- to 2,500-gallon tank of liquid sludge in
the fields. The sludge is spread across a 10- to 30-foot-
wide strip behind the truck by pumping at low pressure
7-19
-------
against a deflector plate or through a large nozzle. Two or
three passes may be required to apply one-half inch of
liquid sludge without causing it to run off and pond. The
truck can empty itself in a matter of a few minutes, which
requires that it spend a great deal of time traveling back
and forth across the field to be filled. Some commercially
available units are also capable of traveling on the highway
to transport the sludge. A 1,600-gallon capacity Big Wheels
brand liquid sludge spreader truck as demonstrated at the
Nine Springs Works on 30 May 1975 was used as the basis of
the costs and capacity development.
BIG WHEELS SLUDGE SPREADER TRUCK
The major advantage of truck spreading is that it is not
restricted to any field or portion of a field. This flexi-
bility would allow a single truck to quickly serve any
portion of a farmer's land or several different fields in a
single day. The truck spreader would require special
operating skills and therefore should be operated by MMSD
personnel.
Truck spreading has several disadvantages related to its
effects on soils. Special high flotation tires are required
to minimize soil compaction. Even with these special tires,
the truck cannot be used on wet, soft soils or on steep
7-20
-------
hillsides. The tires, being quite wide, would do much
damage to crops such as corn or grain. The trucks would be
most suitable for sludge application in the fall after crop
harvest while the soil is dry.
TRUCK SPREADERS AND TANKER TRAILERS
A single truck which would be filled from tankers at the
edge of the field could cover about 4.2 acres per 8-hour
day. The estimated cost of truck spreading in this case
would be about $11.90 per ton solids. The development of
the costs and capacity are shown in Table B-11.
Tractor Spreading. This is a term we have applied to a new
concept in liquid sludge application. It consists of a
tractor which carries or pulls a liquid sludge spreader on a
small trailer. This spreader device consists of an appara-
tus for connecting a flexible feed hose to it, a valve
controlled from the tractor, and a spreader deflector plate
or nozzle for spreading the sludge. The spreader would be
fed by dragging a flexible hose as described for the soil
injection system and shown on Figure 7-2. It spreads sludge
7-21
-------
TRACTOR SPREADER AND NURSE TANK SUPPLY
in a 10- to 30-foot-wide path behind the tractor. This
system has the advantage of being continuously fed by a
flexible hose plus it applies sludge with a relatively
inexpensive uncomplicated piece of equipment. A schematic
diagram of the spreader device is shown on Figure 7-3.
The tractor could be owned and operated by the farmer and
could have low power. The only requirement would be that a
cab be provided to protect the operator from the sludge
spray. Many farmers already have cabs installed on their
tractors. The pump, hose, and spreader device would be
supplied by the District.
This system has the disadvantage of crop damage by the
effect of the hose being dragged across the field, pro-
hibiting its use on crops such as grain or corn. It would
be best suited for fallow or harvested land, although it
could be used on recently mowed or grazed forage crops.
-------
DEFLECTOR PLATE
CONNECTOR
FLEXIBLE
HOSE
.59166.0
FIGURE 7-3
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF
TRACTOR SPREADER DEVICE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
Of the four sludge application methods discussed, tractor
spreading has the fastest ground coverage rate, about
15 acres per day. This high efficiency and the relatively
minor equipment specialization account for the low cost,
estimated to be about $2.44 per ton solids. The basis for
the costs and system capacity is given in Table B-12.
Other Sludge Application Methods. Many other sludge appli-
cation methods are available and have been used success-
fully. No attempt was made to determine the cost of or
investigate all variations in detail since the four described
methods cover the major basic types. Some variations from
the described methods could be used in order to meet the
special needs of MMSD and the local farmers.
One different type of feed system which should be discussed
is the use of a tank trailer pulled by a tractor which would
supply sludge to either a soil injector or spreader. Many
dairy farmers will already own equipment of this type for
manure handling. A trailer tank would have the same dis-
advantage of a truck spreader: the necessity of traveling
back to the source to fill. This method would be most
suitable where the farmer already has the equipment, where a
long time period for application to the field is available,
and on small fields.
Comparison of Sludge Application Methods
The four described sludge application methods are compared
in Table 7-1. The big gun sprinkler system is least suit-
able because of its adverse environmental problems of great
visual impact and odor potential. The restrictions which
would be required for separating distance between the
sprinkler system and houses, roads, water courses, etc.,
also make this method generally unfeasible. The remaining
methods are all acceptable, but each have their own major
advantage. Subsoil injection's advantage is that it places
the sludge out of sight of the sensitive public. Truck
spreading is most mobile and flexible. Tractor spreading is
the most efficient and most economical method.
7-24
-------
TABLE 7-1
COMPARISON OF SLUDGE APPLICATION METHODS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
FACTORS OF
COMPARISON
Soil Compaction
Suitability on Wet on Soft Soil
Suitability on Slopes
Soil Sealing Potential
Suitability on Crops
Corn and Gram
Harvested Forage
Field Efficien
Tied to Sou
Feed Method
Visual Impac
Odor Potenti
Nitrogen Los
Labor Requi
Land Coverage Rate
Cost * *
SLUDGE APPLICATION METHOD
BIG GUN
SPRINKLER
None
Suitable
Suitable
Moderate
Suitable
Suitable
Medium (66%)
Yes"
Continuous
Yes
Yes
Highest
Medium (0.08 man-day/Ac)
Low (6 Ac/day)
Low ($3.56/ton)
SOIL
INJECTION
None
Moderately Suitable
Suitable
None
Not Suitable
Not Suitable
High (80%)
Yes
Continuous Possible
None
None
None
High 10.11 man-day/Ac)
Medium (9 Ac/day)
Medium (S593/ton)
TRUCK
SPREADING
Minor m Fall
High in Spring
Not Suitable
Least Suitable
Moderate
Not Suitable
Suitable
Very Low (18%)
No
Intermittent
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Very High (0 24
Low (4 Ac/day)
High(S11 90/ton|
TRACTOR
SPREADING
Minor
Moderately Suitable
Suitable
Moderate
Not Suitable
Suitable
Medium (64%)
Yes
Continuous Required
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
man-day/Ac) Low (007 man-day/Ac)
High (15 Ac/day)
Low ($2.44/ton)
'Field efficiency is the time actually spent applying sludge
divided by the time in the workday.
"Cost per ton for 5% solids content liquid sludge applied at,
rate of 14,400 gallons/acre or 3 dry tpns/acre.
The four sludge application methods were explained to the
farmers at the 2 October 1975 public meeting. Results from six
farmers who completed the questionnaire on which method they
would prefer indicated that truck spreading was most pre-
ferred and tractor spreading was second most preferred.
These results are not conclusive enough to base a recom-
mendation on because of the few respondents and because the
farmers have actually seen only truck spreading in opera-
tion. It is expected that initially truck spreading will be
most acceptable to the farmers because it is flexible and
does not require their labor. After the farmers have seen
the advantages of soil injection and tractor spreading,
though, many should accept those methods also. From the
District's point of view, it may be best to first use mainly
trucks, even though the cost would be higher, in order to
build a market for sludge reuse. After a market is estab-
lished and some permanent on-farm facilities are arranged,
then the District should promote the less costly tractor
spreading and more environmentally acceptable soil injection
methods.
It is recommended that in the first year of operation, MMSD
purchase equipment for one soil injection system and one
tractor spreading system and enough truck spreaders to
7-25
-------
handle land application of most of the sludge. The soi I
injector and tractor spreader systems would primarily be
used for demonstrations in the first year. The combined
systems' capacity should be sized to handle the amount of
sludge produced by the treatment plant. Net recovery of
sludge from the lagoons is not expected to be possible until
the market for sludge grows in the second and third years.
Then, as farmers begin to accept the soil injection and
tractor spreading methods, these types of equipment should
be purchased to match the increasing total sludge handling
requirements. The District should by then have received
commitments from some farmers and have constructed some
permanent on-farm facilities. The permanent on-farm facil-
ities, such as small lagoons and pipelines across fields,
are desirable for most efficient soil injection and tractor
spreader operations.
7.6 COMPARISON OF SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS
Farmer Acceptance
The farmers at the second farm community meeting were asked
by questionnaire which type of reuse program they would
prefer: Program 1, sludge supplied by MMSD at the farmer's
request; Program 2, lease land to MMSD for 1 year; or Pro-
gram 3, combination of Programs 1 and 2. Five out of six
respondents preferred Reuse Program 1. One farmer indicated
he would prefer Program 3. Sludge Reuse Program 2 apparently
is not acceptable to the farmers and therefore was not
considered further in this study.
Reuse Program 1 has been shown by the questionnaire and by
the interest in the existing sludge reuse program to be most
acceptable to the farmers. Reuse Program 3 will apparently
be acceptable to only a very few farmers. These few farmers
would most likely consider leasing only a part of their land
to the District for sludge application.
Cost Comparison
The only major cost differences between Reuse Programs 1 and
3 are the cost of leasing land for sludge application and
the cost of the sludge handling system. The cost of leasing
land would occur only in Program 3. To realize the cost
saving feature of Program 3, that of providing a lower
capacity sludge handling system, requires a large amount of
land available for leasing every year. Indications are that
few farmers will want to lease their land for sludge applica-
tion. Therefore, the sludge handling system would have to
7-26
-------
be designed for the same capacity in Program 3 as in Program 1.
Since Program 3 has the added expense of leasing land, but
no offsetting cost saving. Reuse Program 1 will be more cost
effective.
Recommended Sludge Reuse Program
Sludge Reuse Program 1, market all sludge to farmers, is the
best apparent program based upon farmer acceptance, relia-
bility, and costs.
Program 2, leasing land for sludge application, is not
suitable because it would not be acceptable to enough farmers.
Reuse Program 3, combination of Programs 1 and 2, is not
cost effective compared to Program 1. However, the concept
of leasing land from farmers should not be completely abandoned,
Even though it would cost extra to lease land for sludge
application, this may become necessary if the sludge supply
greatly exceeds the demand.
7-27
-------
8.1 REUSE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
8.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
8.3 MONITORING PROGRAM
8.4 MARKETING PROGRAM
8.5 SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES
8.6 REUSE PROGRAM COST
RECOMMENDED Q
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM O
-------
Chapter 8
RECOMMENDED SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM
The recommended sludge reuse program, its management, opera-
tion, and costs are described in this chapter.
8. 1 REUSE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The initial reuse program should consist of marketing liquid
anaerobically digested sludge to farmers near the Nine
Springs Sewage Treatment Works. The District should manage
the program and provide for distribution and application of
the sludge to land. The sludge will be stabilized by anaero-
bic digestion to make it acceptable for land application.
The sludge from both the existing lagoons and from the
treatment plant will be disposed of by this program. The
lagoons will be abandoned for sludge disposal as described
in Chapter 5.
Seasonal storage of the treatment plant sludge will be
provided in the west side of Lagoon 1. The sludge now in
the existing large lagoons will be removed and applied to
farmland. This will allow the lagoons, which have been a
threat to the environment of the marsh and downstream
waterways, to return to a natural and safe condition.
The sludge will be transported to farmland initially by
tanker trucks and possibly later by pipeline. The sludge
will be applied to farmland by three main methods: truck
spreader, soil injector, and tractor spreader. The District
will be responsible for managing and monitoring the sludge
reuse program. The District will maintain control over
sludge reuse to ensure that the requirements for site
location, application rates and methods, and site management
as described in this report will be followed. The District
control of sludge reuse will be in the form of site inspec-
tions, site monitoring, and control of sludge handling
facilities.
8.2 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The reuse program operation and methods of reuse must be
managed by MMSD to ensure orderly, efficient operation and
environmentally acceptable land application. The major
components of program management will be a program manager,
8-1
-------
initial farmer interview and site inspection, rate determin-
ation, sludge application, and recordkeeping.
Program Manager
The District should appoint a person to manage the sludge
reuse program. The reuse program manager will be respon-
sible for overseeing the required sludge handling facilities,
developing and maintaining a market for the sludge, sched-
uling sludge distribution and application, farmer contact,
performing site inspection, and directing the monitoring
program. This will require a full-time position for the
program. The program manager must be able to relate to the
farmers, be familiar with Dane County agriculture, and be
enthusiastic about the program.
The manager must keep abreast of the latest technology of
sludge reuse in agriculture in order to make needed changes
in the reuse program. He should review the monitoring data
to detect potential problems. When an apparent or potential
problem develops, the program manager must be able to remedy
it or know whom to ask for assistance.
Initial Interview and Site Screening
When a farmer first contacts the District and requests that
sludge be applied to his land, the program manager should
set up an informal interview. At this interview, the farmer
will indicate his land location on a suitability map devel-
oped from the soil suitability classification for sludge
reuse which is contained in Appendix C. The program manager
will determine from the map how suitable the farmer's land
is for sludge reuse. If the farmer's land is suitable, the
next step will be to open a set of records under the
farmer's name. These records must include the farmer's
name, address, phone number, and field locations. The
farmer's fields should be outlined on small Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) maps, and each
field should be denoted by a field number. Thereafter, each
field can be referred to by farmer's name and field number.
The ASCS field maps should be used by the program manager
when he checks the site conditions. Examples of record
sheets and field map are given in Appendix D.
After the initial interview and before sludge is applied to
the farmer's land, the program manager should walk over each
field on which sludge will be applied to visually check the
site and surrounding conditions. He should determine buffer
widths and areas requiring special management for erosion
5-2
-------
control and mark these on the file copy of the ASCS map. He
should also determine the location of all water supply wells
on and within 500 feet of the site. These wells should also
be denoted on the ASCS map and this information used for
ground-water monitoring. In determining buffer widths, the
program manager should also contact all residents bordering
the sludge application site to explain the sludge reuse
methods and to ask their permission to apply sludge within
200 feet of their home or garden. The program manager will
use a checklist to be sure that the site meets all criteria
for sludge application. An example checklist is contained
in Appendix D.
During the initial interview and site inspection, the program
manager should explain to the farmer the importance of using
careful management and the reasons for the buffer areas of
no sludge application. An ASCS map showing buffer areas and
other areas of special concern should be given to the farmer
so that he can plan his farming and fertilizing operations.
If possible, the interview and site inspection should be
performed a few months before sludge is needed and should
cover all the farmer's land, not just the portion using
sludge that year.
Sludge Application Rate Determination
Tables 6-5 and 6-6 gave suggested total and annual sludge
application rates based upon certain assumptions which were
explained in Section 6.3. In the sludge reuse program, the
application rates should be determined according to each
field condition and its management. Before sludge is applied
the first time, the soil should be tested for cation exchange
capacity (CEC) and background heavy metals. The CEC of the
unsludged soil and the zinc equivalent method will be used
to determine the total allowable sludge application rate as
shown in Appendix D. As explained in Chapter 6, the total
application limits determined by this method are very conser-
vative. Before the preliminary total application rate
limits are reached, in 30-60 years, more research results
should be available to better determine allowable rates.
On sites which have had sludge applied in the past, the
total application limits should be checked against the
amount already applied. If the application rate is excessive,
no additional sludge should be applied to those sites.
The annual sludge application rates should be based upon
results of the University of Wisconsin Soil Testing and
Fertilizer Recommendation program. This annual soil sampling
8-3
-------
program will be required as part of the soil monitoring
program which will be explained later in this chapter. The
fertilizer rate recommendations from the University of
Wisconsin Extension program will be used in determining the
sludge application rate. Example computations of annual
sludge application rates are given in Appendix D.
Recordkeeping
The District should keep records of the dates, locations,
and rates of sludge application on every field. The date of
sludge application can be used with sludge monitoring data
to determine the characteristics of the sludge applied to
the land. The location should be denoted by farmer name and
field number. The rate of sludge application in tons dry
solids per acre should also be recorded. This must be done
carefully so that the total amount of sludge applied to each
field can be determined long after the data are recorded.
An accumulated total of sludge applied to every field should
also be kept to determine when the total limit is reached.
A sludge application record sheet similar to that shown in
Appendix D should be used for each field. Copies of the
record sheets should be made available to the farmer.
The monitoring program records will be discussed in
Section 8.3.
8.3 MONITORING PROGRAM
The sludge reuse program should be monitored to protect the
environment, to provide farmer confidence in the program,
and to comply with regulatory agency requirements. The
program should include monitoring of the sludge, soils,
crops, and ground water. The monitoring program is explained
in detail in Appendix E. A summary of the monitoring program
is given here.
Sludge Monitoring
The objective of sludge monitoring is to define the quality
of the sludge, and from this the allowable loading rates
will be determined.
A detailed characterization of the existing Nine Springs
lagoon sludge has been determined as a part of this study.
The results of this characterization revealed that the
quality of the lagoon sludge was relatively uniform through-
out the lagoons with the exception of the nitrogen and
solids content. Therefore, only the total solids and ammonia
8-4
-------
and organic nitrogen need to be continually monitored in the
existing lagoons to determine application rates. Normally,
total Kjeldahl and ammonia nitrogen are measured and organic
nitrogen is computed as the difference between the two.
These should be measured daily in composite samples collected
as the sludge is removed from the lagoons for application to
land.
The quality of the sludge taken from the digesters, storage
lagoon, and on-farm lagoons may change from time to time.
Therefore, extra analyses must be performed on these sludges.
Daily composite samples should be obtained at these sources
whenever sludge is taken directly from them for land applica-
tion. These daily composite samples should also be analyzed
for solids content and ammonia and organic nitrogen. The
digester sludge should be monitored on a monthly grab
sample basis for solids content, ammonia and organic nitrogen,
total phosphorus, potassium, cadmium, zinc, copper, and
nickel. Quarterly grab samples should also be taken from
the digesters and storage lagoon for a complete characteriza-
tion. The complete characterization should include the
following: ammonia and organic nitrogen, total phosphorus,
potassium, total solids, total volatile solids, total soluble
salts, pH, iron zinc, copper, titanium, lead, barium, chro-
mium, manganese, nickel, tin, cadmium, molybdenum, cobalt,
aluminum, arsenic, boron, selenium, mercury, sulfate, alka-
linity, calcium, magnesium, and sodium. Techniques for
sludge sampling and analysis are discussed in Appendix E.
Soil Monitoring
The soil monitoring program should consist of two parts.
One will be to make use of the University of Wisconsin Agri-
cultural Extension soil testing, fertilizer recommendations,
and lime recommendations program. Another part will be to
determine background levels of sludge constituents which may
accumulate in the soil and to determine the factors used in
computing the total allowable sludge application rate.
The extension program consists of gathering soil samples
every year before the crop is fertilized and planted. The
extension service or their selected laboratories then
analyze the samples for available phosphorus, potassium,
organic carbon, and pH. They then make a recommendation for
fertilizer and lime application based upon the test results,
soil type, immediate past cultural practices, and crop to be
grown. As part of the MMSD sludge reuse program, the fertili-
zer and lime recommendations will be used to determine the
sludge application rate and will be required before each
8-5
-------
sludge application. MMSD should perform the soil sampling
and deliver the soil samples for testing.
The background level soil monitoring samples should be
collected before sludge is applied the first time. The
results of the first analysis will be recorded as background
levels and kept on file. All of the soil monitoring results
should be provided to the farmer as a service to aid in
determining basic soil fertility. The initial soil samples
should be analyzed for CEC, electrical conductivity, exchange-
able calcium, magnesium and sodium, total iron, aluminum,
zinc, copper, nickel, cadmium, molybdenum, mercury and
manganese, and boron. Techniques for sampling and testing
are discussed in Appendix E.
Crop Monitoring
The final effect of application to the land of the various
constituents in the sludge is on the plants grown on the
land. Plant tissue analysis will provide the most sensitive
and accurate assessment of these effects. Regular monitoring
by tissue analysis of the crops grown on the sludge applica-
tion sites will be used, along with the soils, sludge, and
ground-water monitoring, to determine the effects realized
by the sludge applications. The first crop sampling should
be performed during the first crop season following the
first sludge application. Thereafter, crop sampling will be
performed in the crop season following every third sludge
application. The plant tissue samples should be analyzed
for boron, cadmium, copper, manganese, mercury, nickel,
zinc, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, selenium,
and vanadium. Techniques for sampling and testing are
discussed in Appendix E.
Ground-Water Monitoring
The ground-water monitoring program should consist of sampling
and analyzing the water from all wells or other ground-water
supplies on or within 500 feet of all sludge application
sites. An initial sample should be collected before the
first sludge application to establish background levels of
particular indicator and health problem sludge constituents.
The constituents monitored in the initial samples should
consist of MBAS, nitrate-nitrogen, total dissolved solids
(TDS), coliform, mercury, and arsenic. The main purpose of
the background testing is to protect MMSD and the farmer
against claims of ground-water degradation. Nitrate nitrogen
and TDS content of all wells or other ground-water sources
should also be measured every third year as a general indica-
tor of sludge constituents reaching the ground water.
8-6
-------
Techniques for sampling and testing of ground water are
discussed in Appendix E.
Records and Data Review
Collecting the data must not become the final step of the
monitoring program. Rather, the data must be reviewed
thoroughly each year to determine the effects of sludge
reuse and to be able to detect where problems may be develop-
ing. Suggested procedures to ensure adequate review of the
data are as follows:
• Tabulate or graph data when it is developed in a
form such that it can be quickly scanned to deter-
mine trends.
• Obtain University of Wisconsin Agricultural Exten-
sion review of soils and crop monitoring data.
• Prepare an annual report for the District Engineer
on the monitoring program which summarizes signi-
ficant differences or trends in constituents
measured.
• Provide copy of monitoring data report to WDNR for
their review.
• Provide copies of monitoring data to each sludge
user.
Monitoring Program Costs
The costs of each element of the monitoring program are
shown in Table B-13 in Appendix B. The costs will be at
their highest in the first few years of the reuse program
when most of the background soil and ground-water samples
will be analyzed. Also, after the existing lagoons are
emptied, the quantity of sludge available for reuse and
consequently the monitoring requirements will both decrease.
8.4 MARKETING PROGRAM
The District should work to develop a large reliable market
of farmers who want sludge applied to their land. Tools
which have been used successfully to market sludge are an
informational brochure, meetings with farmers, demonstration
plots, and the designation of a trade name.
8-7
-------
An attractive brochure which would inform the farmers on
what the product is, what its benefits to them would be, and
how they can obtain it should be prepared and distributed to
all farmers in the study area. An example is the BIOGRO
brochure which has proven highly successful.
The District should conduct a meeting in the winter of every
year to which all sludge users and prospective users are
invited. The meetings can be used to obtain farmers' sugges-
tions for better operation, to explain the program, and to
present new information. Farmers who have had sludge
applied to their land and are pleased with the results could
be asked to help the marketing effort by written or stated
endorsement of sludge use.
Interested farmer cooperations could assist in marketing
sludge by informing their members of the program, sponsoring
meetings, etc. Some cooperatives now have equipment suitable
for sludge application. Cooperative participation in the
reuse program should be allowed and encouraged to the extent
that MMSD can still maintain the control necessary to ensure
acceptable reuse methods.
The District should use demonstration plots to show the
effect of sludge application. One demonstration site should
be located near the Nine Springs Works which the program
manager can readily show to prospective sludge users. Other
plots should be set up in more distant areas where sludge is
used. The District should attempt to set up the demonstra-
tion plots on land of sludge users. Several farmers have
already offered to provide land for such plots. The demon-
stration plots should consist of an area with no fertilizer,
an area with sludge applied, and an area with commercial
fertilizer applied. The plots should be visible from fre-
quently traveled roads, and signs could be used to bring
attention to the plots. The plots need not necessarily be
set up in a scientific manner to prove effects with extensive
data, but rather just to demonstrate the general effect of
sludge use. The University of Wisconsin Extension should be
asked to cooperate in this program because county agents are
quite experienced in setting up demonstration plots.
The general public's image of the sludge reuse facilities
and operation should be enhanced and maintained. The sludge
should be given a trade name and logo such as HYDIG or
BIOGRO. It would be used on sludge handling equipment and
all promotional literature. This name would avoid the need
to call it sewage sludge, which admittedly is a negative
term.
8-8
-------
The public image of the program will also be influenced by
the program staff. The sludge handling field men and their
equipment will be in closest, most frequent contact with the
farmers and rural public. They must therefore be courteous
and helpful and keep the trucks and other sludge handling
equipment clean.
Many of the foregoing elements of a successful marketing
program have already been initiated as a part of this study.
This work should be expanded and continued. In summary, the
essential elements are:
• Public informational meetings.
• Use of a trade name.
• Use of an informational brochure for distribution.
• Maintenance of public image.
• Annual progress meetings with the farmers.
8.5 SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES
Sludge handling will include storage, transportation, distri-
bution, and land application. The number and types of
facilities required are difficult to estimate because of the
possible differences in size and location of the sludge
market. This discussion of facilities requirements is based
upon our best estimate of the development of an orderly
sludge reuse program. Plot plans of the major facilities
are shown on Figures 8-1 and 8-2.
The major sludge storage will be provided in the west half
of Lagoon 1 as described in Chapter 5.
The sludge distribution and land application facilities must
have capacity for the peak handling requirement. This peak
is expected to be about 35 percent of the amount of sludge
handled in a year and is expected to occur in April, before
corn planting. The amount and kind of sludge handling
equipment will increase and change as the market for sludge
grows. The amount of land to which sludge will be applied
each year is estimated as follows: first year, 2,000 acres;
second through tenth years, 5,000-6,000 acres; and after the
lagoons are emptied, 2,500-3,000 acres.
8-9
-------
FENCE LINE OF
EXPANDED
PLANT SITE
SLUDGE LAGOON NO. 1
DIKE ROAD
(GRAVELED)
DREDGE ACCESS
RAMP(PAVED)
TO SUPERNATANT
TREATMENT FACILITIES
AT TREATMENT PLANT
DREDGE DOCK
SLUDGE PUMP STATION,
TOILET & SHOWER
TRUCK
PARKING
AREA
(PAVED)
EXISTING
TREES TO
REMAIN
SLUDGE LOADING
DOCK
SUPERNATANT
WET WELL
TANKER TRUCK
SUPERNATANT
RETURN
PIPELINE
BADGER ROAD
^39166.0
100
200
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 8-1
SLUDGE DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
SITE PLAN
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
C'HJM
MHILL
-------
Sludge Application Equipment
Truck spreaders should be used as the main method of sludge
application in the first few years because the farmers will
more readily accept them and because they allow the most
flexible operation. Four truck spreaders can handle most of
the first year's peak month sludge application requirement.
One soil injector and one tractor spreader should also be
available in the first year to help meet the peak sludge
handling requirements and to demonstrate the economy of
these sludge application methods. Soil injection should be
used on fields where runoff could be a problem and near
incompatible land use areas such as subdivisions, schools,
parks, etc.
As the sludge use increases in the second and third years,
soil injection and tractor spreader systems should be added
to match the increases. A total of two soil injectors, two
tractor spreaders, and four truck spreaders will be required
for sludge application between the third and tenth years of
the program.
After the lagoons are emptied, the sludge application system
could be reduced to one tractor spreader, one soil injector,
and one truck spreader. The tractor spreader could handle
about half of the acreage by itself. The soil injection
system could handle about one-third of the acreage and would
be used primarily near developments where the sludge reuse
management requires subsoil application of the sludge. The
truck spreader could handle the remainder of the sludge
application requirement.
Sludge Transportation Facilities
Transportation of the sludge to farmland during the first
2 or 3 years will be totally by tank truck. Six tanker
trucks will be required during the peak sludge application
period in the first year. The number of trucks could remain
at six in the second and third years of the reuse program if
several on-farm lagoons are constructed to help level off
the peak period sludge transportation requirement. It is
estimated that by the fifth year of the reuse program, about
20 small on-farm lagoons would be accepted by farmers. A
pipeline should not be installed until a strong market can
be identified in a particular area. By the fifth year of
the reuse program, a large market area should be developed
to make pipeline transport feasible. Several farmers in the
Cottage Grove area have already shown strong interest and
have suggested a distribution site in their area. This area
8-12
-------
would be especially well suited as a central sludge distri-
bution point if a strong market exists because it is some-
what remote from the Nine Springs Treatment Works. With
pipeline transporation, it is assumed that the number of
tanker trucks could be reduced to four.
8.6 REUSE PROGRAM COST
Construction Cost
Reuse Program. The initial construction cost requirements
for the sludge reuse program are presented in Table 8-1.
Additional capital expenditures will be required as the
program grows to install additional facilities such as the
dike across Lagoon 1, on-farm storage lagoons, sludge
transmission pipeline, and additional application equipment.
A year-by-year listing of the anticipated capital costs is
presented in Table B-14. The basis of the cost estimates
are presented in Appendix B.
TABLE 8-1
ESTIMATED INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ITEM
REUSE PROGRAM
Lagoon Sludge Removal Equipment
Sludge Distribution Equipment
(6 tanker trucks 1 sludge loading dock
2 nurse tanks. 1 slurry pump)
Sludge Application Equipment
(4 truck spreaders, 1 soil injector, 1 tractor spreader)
SUBTOTAL REUSE PROGRAM
UPGRADING AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING
SOLIDS HANDLING SYSTEM
Upgrading
Gravity Thickener Upgrading
Digester Upgrading
Supernatant Pretreatment System
Expansion
Gravity Thickeners
Flotation Thickeners
Sludge Blenders
Digester and Control Building
Utility Tunnel
SUBTOTAL SOLIDS HANDLING SYSTEM
TOTAL INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Estimated Total Initial Construction Cost
Less Federal Grant (75%)
Less State Grant (5%)
NET COST TO MMSD
ESTIMATED"
COST
S 130,000
457,000
312,000
S 899,000
S 5,000
425,000
2,370,000
110,000
650 000
55000
1,740,000
220,000
55,575,000
S6 474 000
4 855 000
324 000
S 1 295 000
"Engineering, Administration Legal dud
Fiscal, and Contingencies included
8-13
-------
Upgrading and Expansion of Existing Solids Handling System.
Chapter 4 of the Wastewater Treatment Plan discussed
the need to upgrade the solids handling system of the existing
treatment plant. In Chapters 8 and 9, we discussed the need
to expand the solids handling system to handle the increase
in solids production resulting from various levels of advanced
treatment. Since the solids handling system is an integral
part of the reuse program, we also discussed the desirability
of implementing the upgrading and expansion of the system at
the same time the reuse program is implemented. With this
plan, the sludge handling and disposal problems of the
existing plant can be resolved on a shorter schedule than if
they were implemented separately.
The initial construction cost requirements for the upgrading
and expansion of the system are presented in Table 8-1.
The costs for expansion are based on the assumption that
Effluent II will be required to meet the future discharge
strategy and that a biological nitrification process will be
used to produce an Effluent II. As the load to the treatment
plant increases in later years, additional construction will
be necessary. These costs are summarized in Appendix F of
the Wastewater Treatment Plan.
Program Operation Requirements
Personnel Requirements. Due to the scope of the proposed
reuse program, there will be a need for substantial staff
increases to manage, operate, and monitor the program. One
full-time position will be required to perform the duties
described for the program manager. A full-time position of
clerical help will also be required to support the manager.
The lagoon cleanout program will normally require two men during
the 6-9 months' period of lagoon sludge removal. These two
men should both be trained to operate the dredge. During
some peak sludge reuse periods, two 8-hour shifts may be
required each day. The two experienced dredge operators
could then work the different shifts with the help of a less
experienced man to handle the floating pipeline and guide
cables.
Ten to 14 men will be required for 6-9 months each year to
operate the sludge distribution and land application equip-
ment. The number will depend upon the amount of sludge
reused and the kinds of facilities used each year. There
should be one man for each tanker truck and sludge spreader
truck. The truck loading facilities should be designed so
that the truck drivers can load the trucks and thereby
8-14
-------
eliminate the need of an extra man at the loading facility.
All the sludge application equipment except for the truck
spreader can be operated by the farmer or his hired help.
The District, however, should have up to four men available
to operate any of the sludge application equipment for
farmers who do not supply the labor.
One or two men, depending upon the rate of sludge handling,
will be required to perform miscellaneous chores such as
transporting sludge application equipment to farms, opera-
ting the on-farm lagoon sludge slurrying pumps, and per-
forming general maintenance of equipment. This will also be
seasonal work lasting 6-9 months a year.
The monitoring program will require one to two people to
collect samples, perform the laboratory analysis, and
assemble and record the data. A detailed breakdown of the
total staff requirements is given on Figure 8-3.
It is apparent from the foregoing that much of the sludge
reuse program staff requirements will be seasonal. The
number will vary from a minimum of three or four full-time
positions (program manager, clerical assistant, and labora-
tory technician[s]) to a possible maximum of about 24 posi-
tions during the peak sludge reuse season (four full-time
positions, four lagoon cleanout equipment operators, six
tanker truck operators, four tractor spreader and soil
injector operators, four truck spreader operators, and two
miscellaneous helpers). Off-season equipment maintenance
and filling on-farm lagoons should be used to keep part of
the seasonal labor force employed year round. The job
descriptions should be carefully written so that off-season
maintenance and related work can be done by part of the
summer sludge handling work force. The District should also
draw on available summer labor whenever possible as many
students would be available for seasonal employment.
A summary of the initial operation and maintenance costs is
presented in Table 8-2. The average cost of labor, $15,300
per year, is based on current union scale with allowances
for inflation and includes a 25-percent allowance for pay-
roll overhead and insurance. The program manager labor cost
is assumed to be about $17,000 per year.
The staff required to operate the expanded solids handling
facilities will also need to be increased. The current
staff assigned to these facilities consists of five men.
After the facilities are completed, it is estimated that the
staff requirements will increase to six men. A summary of
these requirements is also presented in Table 8-2.
8-15
-------
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
LAGOON CLEANOUT
SLUDGE DISTRIBUTION
SLUDGE APPLICATION
MONITORING PROGRAM
MISCELLAENOUS
INITIAL"
LAGOONS EMPTY'
INITIAL
LAGOONS EMPTY
INITIAL
LAGOONS EMPTY
INITIAL
LAGOONS EMPTY
INITIAL
LAGOONS EMPTY
INITIAL
LAGOONS EMPTY
NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES
2
2
4
Q
-6
2
4*8
1-5
2
t
2
« 2
LEGEND
FULLTIME
ItflMI SEASONAL
' "YT.3^ SEASONAL AND VARIABLE
"INITIAL" REFERS TO FIRST
8-10 YEARS WHEN LAGOON
SLUDGE IS BEING APPLIED TO
LAND
.59166.0
FIGURE 8-3
REUSE PROGRAM
STAFF REQUIREMENTS
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
TABLE 8-2
ESTIMATED INITIAL ANNUAL OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ESTIMATED*
ITEM COST
REUSE PROGRAM
Labor (4 full time, 16 part time) $178.000
Fuel 20,000
Equipment Maintenance 20,000
Monitoring Program (labor included above) 27,000
SUBTOTAL REUSE PROGRAM $245,000
EXPANDED SOLIDS HANDLING SYSTEM
Labor {6 full time) $115,000
Power 54,000
Chemicals 74,000
Chemical Recovery -55,000
Equipment Maintenance 88,000
Lime Sludge Landfill 25,000
SUBTOTAL SOLIDS HANDLING PROGRAM $301,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATION AND $546.000
MAINTENANCE COSTS
'Contingencies included.
Operation and Maintenance Costs. A summary of operation and
maintenance costs for the reuse program and the solids
handling facility is presented in Table 8-2. A detailed
breakdown of operation and maintenance costs for the various
elements of the reuse program and the basis for those costs
are presented in Appendix B of this report. The costs
presented for the solids handling system were developed from
costs presented in Appendix F of the Wastewater Treatment
Plan.
Sludge User Fee
The question of whether or not to charge for the sludge and
the amount of a fee is difficult to answer. If the sludge
is given away, this may imply that the material is bad.
Conversely, too high a charge may discourage use of the
sludge. Based upon the present high interest in the reuse
of sludge shown by the area farmers, we feel that a charge
will be acceptable and recommend that a fee be assessed the
sludge users. The primary objectives of charging a fee are
to control the supply and demand for the sludge and control
the type and location of sludge users. To determine the
charges for sludge users, several criteria must be con-
sidered .
• The cost of sludge must be appreciably less than
the cost of commercial fertilizers to create a
demand for the sludge.
8-17
-------
• Since transport cost is a function of distance,
the cost should be higher for those farther from
the sludge source.
• The cost schedules must be flexible in order to
provide control of sludge supply and demand.
• Special considerations should be available to
farmers who make a commitment to MMSD to accept
sludge for long periods or agree to permanent on-
farm facilities.
To meet all of the above criteria, we recommend that the
following initial sludge user fees be established:
• Assess a one-time flat fee to cover the cost of
the site inspection and recordkeeping.
• Assess a fee for the cost of the annual soil
sampling and analysis.
• Establish a maximum distance from the plant or
distribution center beyond which an extra fee will
be assessed on a ton-mile basis for sludge trans-
portation. No transportation fee would be assessed
to farmers within the maximum distance limit. The
distance can be varied to control sludge supply
and demand.
Special considerations for farmers who make a commitment to
MMSD for sludge reuse could consist of a priority rating for
sludge and application equipment or free delivery in an area
outside of the free delivery radius.
The suggested one-time flat fee for site inspection is $200
for parcels up to 200 acres. Two hundred dollars is the
estimated cost for the initial interview, site inspection,
and opening a set of records. If the parcel is larger than
200 acres, the fee should be increased by $0.25 per acre.
No charge should be made if the site is found to be unsuit-
able for sludge reuse.
The annual cost to the District of soil sampling and analysis
will be about $100 for a 200-acre field. We recommend that
this cost be passed on to the farmer at a fixed rate of
$0.50 per acre each year.
The recommended charge for supplying sludge beyond a speci-
fied free delivery radius from the sludge supply is $1 .50 per
8-18
-------
ton-mile. This rate is approximately equal to the pipeline
transport cost estimate.
Table 8-3 shows the sludge user fees for different circum-
stances. The initial flat fee and soil monitoring cost is
very minor compared to the fertilizer value of the sludge.
The delivery fee will add considerably to the cost of sludge
use, but will still be much less than the value of the
sludge. As with any marketed product, the sludge users
should be told what to expect in return for the fee paid.
In this case, it will be the complete program services of
site inspection, soil testing, product delivery, etc.
TABLE 8-3
EXAMPLE SLUDGE USE FEES
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SIZE OF LAND PARCEL
FEE
ITEMS
One-time Flat Fee
Annual Soil Monitoring
WITHIN FREE DELIVERY RADIUS
Total Cost First Year
Cost Each Succeeding Year
5 MILES OUTSIDE OF FREE
DELIVERY RADIUS
Transport FeeH)
Total Cost First Year
Cost Each Succeeding Year
VALUE OF SLUDGED)
40
ACRES
80
ACRES
$200 $ 200
S 20 $ 40
$ 220 $ 240
$ 20 $ 40
$ 900 $1,800
$1,120 $2,040
S 920 $1,840
160
ACRES
S 200
$ 80
$ 280
$ 80
$3,600
$3,880
$3,680
500
ACRES
$ 275
S 250
S 525
$ 250
1,000
ACRES
$ 400
$ 600
$ 900
$ 500
$11,250 $22,500
$11,775 $23,400
$11,500 $23,000
$1,800 $3,600 $7,200 $22,500 $46,000
(1) Based upon application rate of 3 tons/acre.
12) Value of sludge as fertilizer is (bout $15.00/ton or $45.00/acre.
We recommend that the free delivery radius be set at
12 miles the first year. This will include several large
farmers in the Cottage Grove area who have shown a strong
interest in sludge use at the meetings. The sludge user
fees should be reevaluated every few years to ensure that
the objectives of charging fees are met or to change the
objectives. It should be possible to shorten the free
delivery distance to 10 miles or maybe even 7 miles within a
few years. Reducing the free delivery radius will likely
upset users accustomed to free delivery. Therefore, the
users should be informed from the outset that the distance
may be reduced. Also, a full year advance notice should be
given to affected users. The reuse program costs are based
upon reducing the free delivery distance to 5 miles from the
Nine Springs Works or distribution points by the sixth year
of the reuse program.
8-19
-------
Program Cost Summary
The estimated initial costs for the expanded solids handling
system and sludge reuse program are summarized in Table 8-4.
Also summarized are the cost effects of receiving Federal
grants and the effect of the annual revenue from sludge user
fees.
TABLE 8-4
PROGRAM COST SUMMARY
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ITEM
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Annual Debt Service, 7% for 20 years
NET CONSTRUCTION COST, with grants
Annual Debt Service, 7% for 20 years
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
LESS ANNUAL REVENUE
TOTAL ANNUAL COST, without grants
Cost per Dry Ton Leaving System*
TOTAL ANNUAL COST TO DISTRICT, with grants
Cost per Dry Ton Leaving System*
EXPANDED
SOLIDS
HANDLING
SYSTEM
$5,575,000
526,000
$1,115,000
105,000
$ 301,000
-
$ 827,000
50.10
$ 406,000
2460
REUSE
PROGRAM
$899,000
85,000
$180,000
17,000
$245,000
$5,000
$325,000
1970
$257,000
1560
TOTAL
SYSTEM
$6,474,000
611,000
$1,295,000
122,000
$ 546,000
$5,000
$1,152,000
6980
$ 663,000
40.20
* 16,500 tons solids per year
Based on this summary, the initial annual net cost to the
District for the proposed reuse program is $266,000 per
year. The expansion of the solids handling system will add
another $433,000 per year, bringing the total annual cost of
the entire solids handling and disposal system to $699,000
per year. It has been estimated that the District is cur-
rently spending $272,000 per year for solids handling and
disposal. Of this, about $180,000 per year is spent on the
current sludge reuse program.
Program costs are also often summarized in terms of cost per
dry ton of sludge leaving the treatment plant. This allows
one to compare proposed costs to other projects with a
similar system and also allows comparison with other methods
of solids handling and disposal. The District's program
will initially handle and dispose of all the treatment plant
sludge production and also dispose of accumulated lagoon
sludge. Over the next 8-10 years, it is expected that an
average of 16,500 dry tons of digested sludge will be applied
to farmland each year. Based on this quantity, the estimated
total unit cost for solids handling and disposal will be
$69.80 per dry ton. Of this, about $19.70 per dry ton is
attributable to the reuse program alone. This reuse program
8-20
-------
unit cost is based upon the initial construction and equip-
ment purchase costs and average operation and maintenance
costs during the period of lagoon sludge removal. As shown
in Table B-14, the average cost of sludge reuse through the
year 2000 will be about $31.70 per ton solids. This is
higher due to the several construction and equipment purchase
costs which will occur after the first year of the program.
Also, the quantity of sludge recycled each year will decrease
after the lagoons are emptied.
8-21
-------
9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.2 REVIEW OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
93 LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE STATE OF THE ART
9.4 TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION
9.5 SLUDGE LAGOON STUDY
9.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE OF SLUDGE
9.7 SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS CONSIDERED
9.8 RECOMMENDED SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM
9.9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
Chapter 9
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of the findings and conclusions of this report on
sludge reuse is presented here, chapter by chapter.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), in compli-
ance with Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit No. WI-0024597, must prepare a facilities plan for
advanced waste treatment, sludge disposal, and effluent
disposal. This report is an investigation of sludge
disposal. The objective is to develop a plan for abandoning
sludge disposal in the existing lagoons and implementing
agricultural reuse of sludge produced in the future. MMSD
has been disposing of sludge by discharge to lagoons in the
Nine Springs Marsh during the past 33 years. In 1970 a
lagoon dike failure prompted the District to seek a more
reliable sludge disposal method.
9.2 REVIEW OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Major studies of sludge disposal were performed for MMSD by
Creeley and Hansen Engineers and by Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
Environmental Scientists and Engineers. Alternatives inves-
tigated by Creeley and Hansen Engineers included the fol-
lowing: A. Spread dried digested sludge on land, B. Incin-
erate digested sludge, C. Incinerate raw sludge, D. Heat
treat and landfill digested sludge, and E. Apply liquid
digested sludge to land. They determined that Alternative E
would be the most cost effective.
The 1974 Weston study investigated several methods of sludge
treatment and disposal. Their evaluations and testing
indicated that dewatering the sludge for incineration would
be costly to accomplish. Sanitary landfill, land appli-
cation of liquid sludge, and land application of compost
were found to be suitable methods and were analyzed on the
basis of costs. Of these, a system for land application of
liquid sludge was determined to be most cost effective.
The MMSD staff prepared an addendum to the Weston report
which included additional sludge disposal alternatives. Of
9-1
-------
seven alternatives investigated, anaerobic digestion of
thickened raw sludge followed by pipeline transportation to
a lagoon and land irrigation was found to be most economical.
In June 1974, based upon the aforementioned studies, the
MMSD Commission resolved that liquid digested sludge from
the Nine Springs Treatment Works would be handled through
the process of application on land.
9.3 LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE STATE OF THE ART
In reviewing various sludge reuse projects in this country
and in Great Britain, several basic practices were deter-
mined. Sludge has been applied at what can be described as
fertilization, high-rate fertilization, and disposal rates.
The fertilization application rate allows the most beneficial
use of sludge nutrients. It is also evident that the coopera-
tion of the local farming community is essential for a
successful sludge recycle system. Experience of the Herts
Authority in Great Britain emphasizes the importance of a
well-managed distribution operation and a strong marketing
program.
9.4 TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE CHARACTERIZATION
The quality and quantity of sludge produced at the Nine
Springs Works were determined as a basis of the facilities
planning study. The sludge presently produced in the diges-
ters was analyzed to characterize its condition. Estimates
of the future sludge quality and quantity were also made
based upon the sludge handling methods being investigated in
the Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) facilities plan study.
The quantity of sludge expected from the treatment plant is
as follows: The sludge production in 1976 will be approxi-
mately 5,800 dry tons. In 1977 when the Fifth Addition to
the treatment plant goes on line, the sludge production is
expected to increase to about 6,000 dry tons per year. The
sludge quantity is then expected to increase in proportion
to the influent flow volume until 1981 when the AWT facil-
ities are expected to go on line. With the addition of AWT,
the sludge quantity will again increase to about 6,700 dry
tons and will continue to increase gradually to about
8,500 tons dry per year in 2000. Level II treatment, an
effluent with 10 mg/l of biochemical oxygen demand and
10 mg/l suspended solids, was used as the basis of this
planning study. The character and quantity of sludge pro-
duced in other levels of treatment were discussed in
Section 4.2.
9-2
-------
The sludge quality is summarized in Table 4-3. The solids
content, which is now 2.3 percent, is expected to be increased
to about 5 percent; and the nitrogen content, now 10.5 per-
cent, is expected to be reduced to about 5 percent with the
addition of AWT facilities or by lagoon aging. The cadmium
content of the treatment plant sludge is currently high
compared to the zinc content. A program to find and reduce
the major cadmium point sources has been started and should
be continued.
9.5 SLUDGE LAGOON STUDY
The quantity and quality of the sludge in the Nine Springs
Lagoons were determined by extensive field sampling and
laboratory analyses. The depth of sludge in the 135 acres
of lagoons varies from 2 feet to 7.1 feet in Lagoon 1 and
3.9 feet to 6.2 feet in Lagoon 2. The percent dry solids
content averages 12.9 and 8.2 in Lagoons 1 and 2, respec-
tively. The total sludge quantity in the lagoons is approxi-
mately 89,700 dry tons.
The quality of the lagoon sludge, as shown in Table 5-1,
indicates its suitability for agricultural reuse. The
sludge sampling investigation included gathering samples of
the underlying peat and marl to determine leaching of sludge
constitutents and indicated that there is little or no
leaching past the first foot of the peat-soil layer. A
hydrogeologic investigation of the lagoon area and monitoring
of water quality in Nine Springs Creek indicate only minor
leaching occurs through the dikes.
The condition of the lagoon embankments was studied in
detail, and a special report was presented to MMSD which
concluded that failures and possible sludge spills are
imminent and recommended that certain portions of the dikes
be stabilized. The District has proceeded with the recommended
dike stabilization program.
A program for abandonment of the present method of sludge
disposal in the Nine Springs Lagoons was prepared as required
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The
recommended program consists of removing all sludge from
Lagoon 2 and from approximately the east half of Lagoon 1.
The west half of Lagoon 1 will continue to be used for
seasonal storage of the treatment plant sludge.
9-3
-------
9.6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL REUSE OF SLUDGE
A study area consisting of the land within a 10-mile radius
of the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works was delineated as
a basis for discussion of agricultural reuse of sludge. The
study area contains about 91,000 acres of very productive
farmland. Its soils, land use, and ground-water conditions
were investigated for their suitability for sludge reuse.
Based upon the site investigations, it was determined that
about 40,000 acres is suitable for sludge application.
Farmers representing more than 5,000 acres of farmland have
already shown a strong interest in having sludge applied to
their land. The amount of farmland available for sludge
reuse is expected to increase rapidly after the reuse program
is started.
The amount of land required for reuse of all the Nine Springs
Sewage Treatment Works sludge will be between 5,200 and
5,700 acres until the lagoons are emptied. Thereafter,
about 2,400 to 3,000 acres will be needed each year. The
land area required is based upon recommended annual and
total sludge application rates which are shown in
Tables 6-5 and 6-6. The sludge application rates were
established to prevent potentially harmful overapplication
of crop nutrients and heavy metals.
Chapter 6 also included criteria for determining the suit-
ability of particular sites for sludge application and the
site management necessary to protect the surrounding environ-
ment.
9.7 SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAMS CONSIDERED
Several alternatives were developed and then compared to
select a cost-effective, reliable, and farm-community-
supported sludge reuse program. The programs eliminated
from detailed consideration included the following:
• MMSD ownership and operation of a site for recycle
of all the treatment plant and lagoon sludge.
• High-rate fertilizer and disposal methods of
sludge application to'the land.
District ownership and operation of a site for recycle of
all the treatment plant and lagoon sludge was eliminated
because it was concluded, based on previous experience with
the approach, that it would not be acceptable to the farm
community. This program would require the purchase of
9-4
-------
several thousand acres of Dane County farmland and reloca-
tion of many farming and rural families, which would be very
expensive and politically difficult, if not impossible to
implement. The high-rate fertilization and disposal applica-
tion rates were eliminated from consideration because they
would result in environmental degradation and wasting of
valuable nutrients.
Three alternative reuse programs were selected for further
study. They are:
• Program 1—Market all sludge to farmers.
• Program 2--Lease land for short periods for sludge
application.
• Program 3—Combination of marketing and land
leasing.
In Reuse Program 1, the District would make sludge available
to area farmers as they request it for fertilizer rate
application to their farmland. A public relations program
would be developed to aid in marketing the sludge. The
farmer would have complete control over his land. He would
contact MMSD when he wanted sludge, then he and a District
representative would determine the suitable time, location,
and application rates for sludge application. MMSD would be
responsible for monitoring and managing the program.
In Reuse Program 2, the District would lease or rent land
from farmers for sludge application. Since sludge would be
applied during the growing season, no crops would be grown
that year. The lease cost, therefore, would have to offset
the net returns the farmer would have otherwise received
from a crop plus the fixed costs of equipment and land
ownership. Two purposes for obtaining leases for the land
are: (1) assuring the District of land for sludge appli-
cation for some period in advance, and (2) scheduling of
sludge application evenly throughout the summer, thereby
reducing peak handling requirements. The farmer would
benefit from knowing he would not be hurt by crop failure,
fertilizer would be applied onto his land, and he would not
need to farm the land for one season.
Sludge Reuse Program 3 would be set up to market sludge to
farmers for use on their land as in Reuse Program 1, plus it
would include provisions for MMSD leasing land as in Pro-
gram 2. MMSD-leased land would be used to apply sludge
during the low-use months of July and August. This would
9-5
-------
spread the application period out more evenly over the year
and thus reduce peak sludge handling requirements.
Sludge Reuse Program 1, market all sludge to farmers, was
determined to be the best apparent program based upon farmer
acceptance, reliability, and costs. Program 2, leasing land
for sludge application, is not suitable because it would not
be acceptable to enough farmers. Reuse Program 3, a combina-
tion of Programs 1 and 2, is not cost effective when compared
to Program 1 but could be employed in some special cases.
In the event the sludge reuse market is lost, a contingency
plan must be available for sludge handling. Alternative
plans considered included:
• Acquisition of several thousand acres of District-
owned or option-to-control land available for
sludge application.
• Have facilities for incineration or dewatering and
landfill available for sludge disposal.
• Retain capacity to store sludge until a permanent
solution can be found.
The first and second alternatives are not feasible because
of the high cost and impracticability. The third alternative
is recommended: store the sludge until a permanent solution
can be found. The west half of the Lagoon 1 storage area
will have capacity to store 75 percent of 1 year's sludge
production at 2.3 percent solids. With concentration to
10 percent solids, as is currently achieved after a freeze-
thaw cycle, this storage area could hold 3 years' treatment
plant sludge production. Also, the dikes surrounding the
east half of Lagoon 1 should be left intact, except as
required to allow drainage, after the sludge is removed.
This area would then, with minor rehabilitation, be suitable
for storage of an additional 3 years' sludge production in
an emergency.
If loss of a sludge reuse market is to occur, it will most
likely happen in the first years of the program before
sludge reuse becomes a common, well-accepted practice.
After many years of sludge reuse, the chance of losing the
sludge market would be very remote. Sludge marketing is a
vital element of the sludge reuse program and all should be
done, especially by way of public education, to assure the
program's success.
9-6
-------
Sludge distribution and application methods were also inves-
tigated. Tanker truck and pipeline were determined to be
the most feasible transportation methods. A pipeline would
be constructed after a market for sludge develops in an area
large enough to make the investment in a pipeline cost
effective compared to truck transportation. Other facilities
which would be included in the distribution system would be
small on-farm storage lagoons and nurse tanks.
Methods considered for sludge application included sprinkler
application, soil injection, truck spreading, and tractor
spreading. The big gun sprinkler system is least suitable
because of its adverse environmental impact caused by visi-
bility and odor potential. The remaining methods are all
acceptable, but each have their own major advantage. Subsoil
injection's advantage is that it places the sludge out of
sight of the public. Truck spreading is most mobile and
flexible. Tractor spreading is the quickest and most econom-
ical method.
9.8 RECOMMENDED SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM
The major components of the recommended sludge reuse program
are program mangement, monitoring, marketing, and sludge
handling. The reuse program operation and methods of reuse
must be managed by MMSD to ensure orderly, efficient opera-
tion and environmentally acceptable land application. The
major components of program management are a program manager,
initial interview with the farmer and site screening, rate
determination, sludge application, and recordkeeping. The
District must appoint a person to manage the sludge reuse
program.
The sludge reuse program must be monitored to protect the
environment and to provide farmer confidence in the program.
The program includes monitoring of the sludge, soils,
crops, and ground water. The monitoring program is explained
in detail in Appendix E.
The District must work to develop a large reliable market of
farmers who want sludge applied to their land. Tools which
have been used successfully to market sludge are an informa-
tional brochure, meetings with farmers, demonstration plots,
and the designation of a trade name.
In addition, it is necessary to upgrade the solids handling
system of the existing treatment plant. In Chapters 8 and 9
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant report, we discussed the
need to expand the solids handling system to handle the
9-7
-------
increase in solids production resulting from various levels
of advanced treatment. Since the solids handling system is
an integral part of the reuse program, we also discussed the
desirability of implementing the upgrading and expansion of
the system at the same time the reuse program is implemented.
With this plan, the sludge handling and disposal problems of
the existing plant can be resolved on a shorter schedule
than if they were implemented separately.
It is expected that the District can obtain regulatory
agency acceptance and begin the recommended sludge reuse
program in early 1977. As soon as the program is accepted,
the District should begin to set up the required facilities.
For the first year, 1978, four truck spreaders, one soil
injection system, one tractor spreader system, six tanker
trucks, one loading dock, and two nurse tanks are recommended,
It is estimated that about five on-farm lagoons can be
arranged and built each year during the second through fifth
years of the program. Another set of soil injector and
tractor spreader systems will probably be required in about
the third year of the program. After the existing lagoons
are emptied, in about 1987, the District will probably need
only one truck spreader, one soil injector, and one tractor
spreader. These items will probably need to be replaced in
1987 and 1997. We estimate that it will be feasible to
build a pipeline and remote loading dock in about 1982.
Also, the existing lagoons should be emptied enough by about
1984 to allow construction of a dike across Lagoon 1 for the
seasonal storage lagoon.
We recommend that sludge users be assessed a fee to provide
control of the supply and demand of the sludge. The fee
structure should include a one-time flat fee to cover the
cost of the site inspection and record keep ing, a fee for the
cost of the annual soil sampling and analysis, and a trans-
portation fee based on haul distance from a distribution
center. Also, the fee should be considerably less than the
cost of commercial fertilizer to encourage the use of sludge.
The total average annual costs for the lagoon abandonment
and sludge reuse program is estimated to be $350,000 per
year for the next 20 years. It is expected that the District
will receive up to 75 percent Federal grants to assist in
the construction of the required facilities. If this occurs,
the total average annual cost will drop to an estimated
$212,000 per year. For the average residential customer,
this will amount to an annual charge of about $1.85 per year
or about 15 cents per month. This, of course, is the cost
of only the sludge reuse program. This does not
9-8
-------
5. Implementation of an industrial waste survey
to locate sources of heavy metals, partic-
ularly cadmium.
6. Revision of the sewer service ordinance to
require users to pretreat their wastes for
the removal of heavy metals.
Separate the construction of the proposed new
solids handling facilities from the proposed
advanced waste treatment addition and combine them
with the implementation of the sludge reuse pro-
gram.
Adopt the implementation schedule shown on
Figure 9-1. A condensation of the required action
items is as follows:
1. Adopt and submit plan and EAS
to WDNR and DCRPC June 1976
2. Authorize appropriate engineer-
ing to assist District in imple-
menting selected elements of
sludge reuse program June 1976
3. Authorize final design engineer-
ing of program facilities subject
to DNR and EPA approval March 1977
4. Advertise for Bids November 1977
5. Award Contracts January 1978
6. Start up Sludge Reuse
Program August 1978
7. Start up New Solids Handling
Program November 1979
9-10
-------
include the cost of sludge handling prior to digestion,
sludge digestion, and the treatment of wastewater itself.
In 1975 the District spent a total of $172,000 for sludge
application to farmland. For the average residential cus-
tomer, this amounted to about $1.15 per year, or about
10 cents per month of their current bill for sewer service.
The proposed program will, therefore, require an increase of
about $0.70 per year or 6 cents per month. Based on this
minimal increase, we believe the proposed project is feasible
and well within the financial capabilities of the community.
9.9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Based upon the findings and conclusions of this report, we
recommend that the Commissioners of the Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District:
• Adopt the findings of this report.
• Submit the report to the appropriate agencies as
part of the Facility Plan for the Madison Metro-
politan Sewerage District.
• Proceed with the existing sludge disposal program
until final acceptance of the proposed program.
• Authorize appropriate engineering to assist the
District in proceeding with selected elements of
the proposed sludge reuse program prior to final
regulatory agency acceptance of this report. The
elements selected will serve to upgrade the existing
program without any significant capital investment.
The elements include:
1. Appointment of a full-time sludge reuse
manager.
2. Implementation of the program management
tools outlined in Appendix D as present
equipment will allow.
3. Implementation of a sludge, soil, ground-
water, and crop monitoring program, as out-
lined in Appendix E.
4. Development of appropriate marketing tools
necessary to launch a strong marketing program.
9-9
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation.
1971. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
andWastewater. 13th Edition, New York: American
Public Health Association, Inc.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1975. Agricul-
tural Machinery Management Data. ASAE D230.2.
Ayers, Roberts., and Roy L. Branson. 1975. Guidelines for
Interpretation of Water Quality for Agricuture.
University of California Cooperative Extension.
Black, C. A., Ed. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis, Number 9
in the series Agronomy, two parts. Madison, Wis-
consin: American Society of Agronomy, Inc.
Bouchard, Aristide. 1973. Determination of Mercury After
Room Temperature Digestion by Flameless Atomic
Absorption. Atomic Absorption Newsletter,
12, 5.
Bower. C. A. and L. V. Wilcox. 1965. Soluble Salts. In
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and
Microbiological Properties. Editor-in-Chief,
C. A. Black. No. 9 in the series Agronomy.
Burd, R. S. 1968. A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal.
Water Pollution Control Research Series Publication
No. WP-20-4. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, U.S. Department of Interior,
Surge, W. D. 1974. Pathogen Considerations. In Factors
Involved in Land Application of Agricultural and
Municipal Wastes. ARS, USDA.
Caldwell, James S.; Raymond J. Lishka; and Earl F. McFarrenn.
November 1973. Evaluation of a Low-Cost Arsenic
and Selenium Determination at Microgram-per-Liter
Levels. Water Technology Quality.
R-1
-------
Chapman, H. D. 1965. Cation-Exchange Capacity. In
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and
Microbiological Properties. Editor-in-Chief,
C. A. Black. No. 9 in the series Agronomy.
Chapman, Homer D., and Parker F. Pratt. August 1961.
Methods of Analysis for Soils, Plants, and Waters.
University of California, Division of Agricultural
Sciences.
Chapman, Homer D., Ed. 1966. Diagnostic Criteria for
Plants and Soils. Riverside: University of
California, Division of Agricultural Sciences.
Chemical Week. 13 August 1975. Fertilizer Shipments
Decline.
CH2M HILL. 1975. Geotechnical Evaluation of Sludge Lagoon
Embankments. Special report for MMSD.
Cline, Denzel R. 1965. Geology and Ground-Water Resources
of Dane County, Wisconsin. Water Supply Paper 1779-U.
USGS and University of Wisconsin Geological and
Natural History Survey.
Cliver, D. O. Virus Association With Wastewater Sludges. To
be published in the November 1975 issue of Environ-
mental Letters.
Crop Reporting Board, USDA. 1973. Commercial Fertilizers,
Consumption in the United States Year Ended June 30,
1972.
Cunningham, J. D. 1974. The Phytotoxic Effects of Heavy Metals
in Sewage Sludge. Masters Thesis, University of
Wisconsin.
Dean, R. B.,andJ. E. Smith, Jr. 1973. The Properties of
Sludges. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference
on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on
Land. Champaign, Illinois.
Ellis, B. C. 1973. The Soil as a Chemical Filter. In
Recycling Treated Municipal Waste Water and Sludge
Through Forest and Cropland. Sopper, W. E. and
L. T. Kardos editors. Penn. State Press.
R-2
-------
Ellis, RoscoeJr.; John J. Hamway; George Holmgren; Dennis R.
Keeney; and O. W. Bidwell. 1975. Sampling and
Analysis of Soils, Plants, Wastewaters, and Sludge.
North Central Regional Publication 230.
EPA Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods.
1969. Chemistry Laboratory Manual—Bottom Sediments.
EPA National Environmental Research Center. 1974. Methods
of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
Epstein, Rains, and Menis. 1975. Canadian Journal of
Spectroscopy, 20, 1.
Ewing, B. B.,andR. I.Dick. 1970. Disposal of Sludge on
Land. In Water Qualify Improvement by Physical
and Chemical Processes. University of Texas
Press, Austin, Texas.
Greeley and Hanson, Engineers. 1971. Report on Sewage Treat-
ment Additions to the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment
Works for MMSD.
Holt, C. L. R., Jr., and E. L. Skinner. 1973. Ground Water
Quality in Wisconsin Through 1972. University of
Wisconsin Extension, Information Circular Number 22.
Issac, R. A., and J. D. Kerber. 1971. Instrumental Methods
for Analysis of Soils and Plant Tissue, pp 17-37.
Edited by L. M. Walsh. Soil Science Society of
America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin.
Keeney, Dennis R.; Kwang W. Lee; and Leo M. Walsh. 1975.
Guidelines for the Application of Wastewater
Sludge to Agricultural Land in Wisconsin. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin
No. 88.
Kelling, K. A.; A. E. Peterson; J. A. Ryan; L. M. Walsh; and
D. R. Keeney. 1974. Crop Response to Liquid
Digested Sewage Sludge. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Land for Waste Manage-
ment, Ottawa, Canada.
Konrad, J. G., and S. J. Kleinert. 1974. Surveys of Toxic
Metals in Wisconsin: Removal of Metals From Waste
Waters by Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants.
Technical Bulletin No. 74, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
R-3
-------
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Staff. 1974. Addendum
to Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study for Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District.
. 1975. Chronological Report on Nine Springs Sewage
Treatment Plant Sludge Disposal.
Malina, J. F., Jr.; K. R. Ranganathon; B. E. D. Moore; and
B. P. Sagik. 1974. Poliovirus Inactivation by
Activated Sludge. In Virus Survival in Water and
Wastewater Systems. Center for Res. in Water
Resources, University of Texas.
Melsted, S. W. 1973. Soil-Plant Relationship, Some Practical
Considerations in Waste Management. Proceedings
of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign,
Illinois, pp 121-128.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. 1974.
U.S. EPA notice of intent to issue a policy state-
ment of acceptable methods for the utilization or
disposal of sludge from publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants.
Nebiker, John H. 1967. Drying of Wastewater Sludge in the
Open Air. Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. 39(4): 608-626.
Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in
Sewage Sludge When Applied to Agricultural Lands,
A Literature Review Study. For Office of Research
and Development, U.S. EPA.
Page, A. L., and F. T. Bingham. 1973. Cadmium Residues in
The Environment. Residues Rev. 48:1-44.
Pratt, P. F. 1965. Sodium. In Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties.
Editor-in-Chief, C. A. Black. No. 9 in the series
Agronomy.
Roberts, S.; R. V. Vodraska; M. D. Kauffman; and E. H.
Gardner. 1971. Methods of Soil Analysis Used in
the Soil Testing Laboratory at Oregon State Uni-
versity Special Report No. 321. Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State University,
Corvallis.
R-4
-------
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Environmental Scientists and Engineers.
1974. Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study for MMSD.
Ryan, J. A., and D. R. Keeney. 1975. Ammonia Volatilization
from Surface-Applied Wastewater Sludge. In
Journal WPCF. 47(2): 386-393.
Ryan, J. A.; D. R. Keeney; and L. M. Walsh. 1973. Nitrogen
Transformations and Availability of an Anaerobically
Digested Sewage Sludge in Soil. In J. Environ.
Quality. 2(4): 489-492.
Schneider, I. F., and A. E. Erickson. 1972. Soil Limitations
for Disposal of Municipal Waste Waters. Research
Report 195, Michigan State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Schulte, E. E.; C. C. Olsen; and J. J. Gensen. Revised 1975.
Wisconsin Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Pro-
cedures. Soils Department, University of Wis-
consin, Madison.
Schulte, E. E.; L. M. Walsh; and H. B. Pionke. 1968.
Sampling Soils for Testing. Circular 664. Univer-
sity Extension, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Soil Conservation Service. 1967. Soil Survey Lob oratory Data
and Descriptions for Some Soils of Wisconsin.
Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 17.
. Soil Survey Laboratory Data and Descriptions for
Some Soils of Indiana. Soil Survey Investigations
Report No. 18.
Soil Survey Laboratory Data and Descriptions for Some
Soils of Illinois. Soil Survey Investigations
Report No. 19.
. 1970. Soil Interpretations, A Guide to Land Use and
Conservation Planning;. (Interim Dane County Soil
Survey.)
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 1972. Meteorological Data For
the Current Year at Truax Field, Madison, Wisconsin.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
R-5
-------
. 1975. Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental
Factors supplement to the Federal Guidelines:
Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-water
Treatment Facilities. In process of completion.
. Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods.
1969. Chemistry Laboratory Manual—Bottom Sedi-
ments .
. Office of Research and Development. August 1975.
Proceedings Second National Conference on Municipal
Sludge Management and Disposal.
. Technology Transfer. 1974. Process Design Manual
for Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards.
Publication 956.
University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences.
December 1973. Advances and Innovations in Pro-
cedures for Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis.
Statewide Conference.
Ure, A. M., and C. A. Shand. 1974. The Determination of
Mercury in Soils and Related Materials by Cold-
Vapour Atomic Absorption Spectrometry. Analytica
ChimicaActa, 72.
Walsh, L. M. 1975. Mineralization of Organic Nitrogen in
Digested Sludge When Applied to Soils. Unpublished
report.
Walsh, Leo, and James Beatin, Eds. 1974. Soil Testing and
Plant Analysts. Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Walters, H. M., Agricultural Statistician in Charge, Wisconsin
Statistical Reporting Service, 1974 Wisconsin
Agricultural Statistics.
Warzyn Engineering and Service Company, Inc. 1970. Sludge
Dike Investigation, Nine Springs Plant, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Water Resources Task Group. 1971. Planning For Dane County
Water Resources Development and Management. For
Dane County Regional Planning Commission.
R-6
-------
Wischmeier, Walter H. 1965. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion
Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains.
Agriculture Handbook No. 282. USDA, SCS.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Environ-
mental Standards. 1975. Wisconsin Well Construc-
tion and Pump Installation Standards and Related
Information. In Wisconsin Administrative Code.
4th Edition.
Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service. 1967. Wisconsin
Weather Causes, Variations and Effects.
. 1970. Snow and Frost in Wisconsin.
. 1974 Wisconsin Assessor Farm Statistics for Dane
County, Wisconsin.
R-7
-------
SLUDGE LAGOON A
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILES A
-------
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
TOTAL KJELOAHL -
NITROGEN CONCENTRATION,
mg/kg (ppm)
6,000
12,000
18,000
NH
4 - N CONCENTRATION,
mg/kg (ppm)
TOTAL KJEDAHL - NITROGEN
NH4- N
10,000 20,000
PO.-P CONCENTRATION,
mg/kg (ppm)
0 4 8 12 16
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS (Percent)
P04-P
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
o CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
FIGURE A-1
S9166.0
LAGOON 1
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
O 12
200
400
600
S04 - S SOLUBLE
CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
so4-s
Q 12
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
ALKALINITY mg/kg (ppm) AS
CaCOs TO pH 4.2
ALKALINITY
PH
12,000 24,000 36,000
ALKALINITY mg/kg (ppm) AS
CaCO3 TO pH 4.5
ALKALINITY
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
o CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
S9166.0
FIGURE A-2
LAGOON 1
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
ZINC CONCENTRATION mg/kg (ppm)
0 20 40 60 80 100
NICKEL CONCENTRATION mg/kg (ppm)
ZINC
NICKEL
0 10 20 30 40 50
CADMIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
CADMIUM
0 10 20 30 40
MERCURY CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
MERCURY
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
o CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
S9166.0
FIGURE A-3
LAGOON 1
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
1 v Sh 4±£L.idl&ht j* ^*t ,-Jh 8 mSli ii. X M
*
50 100 200
BORON CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
BORON
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
BARIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
BARIUM
0 50,000 100,000 150,000
CALCIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
CALCIUM
0 5,000 10,000
MAGNESIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
MAGNESIUM
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
o CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
S9166.0
FIGURE A-4
LAGOON 1
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
2 -• '• "•;;''-^""""^"-«**f»s»?*fcjiiiiiiiti';--
!OII tt 6 •.jr^-:^'-°f'^^;'^;-''-'.-v-;:/;V^:'!X:>
° :•&%": %'=S"S '^A-'v/rf-^vfiJv'v
„ o :$J !•:•£; •: P+T^?"Iv^'o"™^:5
u. 8
O
0 12,"; vft "v^/v'-A '':£''•• "";C'"-:t-. K -?5'"-
0 100 200 300 400 500
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
CHROMIUM
u. g -f "•',', 'ff kf-A'J ».T'"/'.-\ J*-->-'l'.^ i:>S --v. -iL:?;'^1
:AT i i|iii|ll;l|§llSirfli0
H 10 ^ft:»;&f;^4,S«a^.?^c;r^^..>«sifKi>«;:
• B.
Ill
...t Q
^Wc^v'iw^^ ^r; i"*i»'V"S^ VF^ JSp.'';'L'!f3 '"T *'!;i;''4's'j^-i'|j*i^'^i,ii:!(;'^^ 'Jfs^p^rt,*1^
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
MANGANESE CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
MANGANESE
0 50 100 150
TITANIUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
TITANIUM
12 '
0 5 10 15
ARSENIC CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
ARSENIC
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
o CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
.59166.0
FIGURE A-5
LAGOON 1
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000
IRON CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
IRON
0 3000 6000 9000
ALUMINUM CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
ALUMINUM
0 200 400 600 800 1000
LEAD CONCENTRATION, mg/kg (ppm)
LEAD
LEGEND
• CORE SAMPLE NUMBER 2 FROM LAGOON 1
° CONTROL SAMPLE N-2 TAKEN OUTSIDE LAGOON
S9166.0
FIGURE A-6
LAGOON 1
CHEMICAL DEPTH PROFILE
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
COST ESTIMATING AND
CALCULATION PROCEDURES n
FOR SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM PLANNING D
-------
Appendix B
COST ESTIMATING AND CALCULATION PROCEDURES FOR
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM PLANNING
B.I BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
Following are the basic assumptions used in preparing cost
estimates for the MMSD Sludge Reuse Plan. These assumptions
represent a consensus of opinions of MMSD, Dane County
Regional Planning Commission, O'Brien and Gere, and CH2M
HILL.
Planning Period
The planning period is for 1976 through 2000. All costs
were referenced to January 1, 1976.
Interest Rate
The interest rate (discount rate) was 7.0 percent. This
rate was established through consultation with representa-
tives of Region V EPA and the WDNR.
Method of Analysis
The present worth (present value) analysis was used for the
purpose of comparing (ranking) alternatives. In this analysis,
all the project costs for each alternative were scheduled as
they might occur in the future. Each cost was then discounted
to a common point in time: January 1, 1976. The sum of
these discounted costs, or their present value, was used to
determine the relative order of the alternatives. This
procedure conforms with the EPA's guidelines for cost-
effective analysis which are stipulated for all wastewater
management projects qualifying for Federal grant funding.
Inflation
The rate of inflation for energy costs is expected to exceed
that of the general price level, during the planning period,
by 2 percent. For that reason, costs for electrical power
were escalated 2 percent per year. Inflation was not included
in other costs because they are expected to parallel the
general price level.
B-1
-------
B.2COST ESTIMATES
Construction cost data were obtained from our files and from
equipment suppliers. The operation and maintenance costs
were estimated from unit prices. These unit prices are
shown with the cost development of each item. Phased con-
struction was used wherever practicable. For this sludge
reuse program, the time for additions is dependent upon the
demand for sludge, so this had to be estimated based upon an
assumed market growth. The salvage value of equipment and
structures at the end of the planning period were computed
using straight-line depreciation over their remaining service
lives. The totals were then converted from current dollars
to present-worth values. The useful lives of equipment and
structures were based upon manufacturers' claims, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers Machinery Management Data,
and California planning guidelines.
The following overhead allowances were applied to all esti-
mated costs:
CAPITAL COSTS
Engineering 12%
Administration 0.5%
Legal and Fiscal 2.5%
Contingencies 15%
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Contingencies 15%
B.3TOTAL PRESENT WORTH CALCULATION
The procedure for calculating the total present worth of the
alternatives conformed basically with guidelines established
by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on
August 19, 1974. The procedure consists of the following
steps:
1. Estimate the cost of initial capital expenditures
for construction, including overhead costs, in
terms of current prices (January 1976 dollars) .
2. Estimate the cost and timing of future capital
expenditures, in terms of current prices.
3. Estimate the annual OSM costs for the first year
of operation, in current prices.
B-2
-------
H. Compute the present worth of the estimated capital
expenditures, using the single-payment present-
worth factor (SPPWF) for the appropriate time
period. For all capital expenditures, assign the
cost anticipated to be spent during a particular
year to the beginning of the year.
For Costs on Elapsed SPPWF
January 1 Years @ 7.0%
1976 0 1.0000
1980 4 0.7629
1985 9 0.5439
1990 14 0.3878
1995 19 0.2765
2000 24 0.1971
5. Compute the present worth of the estimated O&M
costs by multiplying each year's O&M cost by its
respective single payment present worth factor or
by computing the present worth factor for a uni-
form series or a gradient series as the particular
case requires.
6. Calculate the salvage values of the capital costs,
and convert the sum of the salvage values to a
present-worth value.
7. Calculate the total present worth of the alter-
natives. This was done by subtracting the present-
worth salvage value from the present-worth sum of
capital and O&M costs.
B-3
-------
TABLE B-1
TABLE B-2
NEW LAGOON COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
LAGOON SLUDGE REMOVAL COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
LAGOON DESCRIPTION:
Capecity
Depth
Surface Area
Dike Section
Earth Fill Required
Land Area Required
BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COST
EQUIPMENT
1 Large Dozer
Tractor and Compactor
Blade and Loader
5 Trucks
Total
Construction would require an estimated 112
working days.
COST ESTIMATE
Construction
Materials
Land 26 ac it $700/ac
Subtotal
Overhead and Contingency
Allowances (30%)
Total Cost
150 acre-feet
7 feet
about 23 acres
10 feet top width
2.1 side slopes
10 feet total height
3 feet freeboard
45,000 cu.yds.
26 acres
COST
$ 500/day
750/day
500/day
1.280/day 15 mile haul,
400 cu.yd.May)
S3,000/day
$336,000
113,000
18,000
$467,000
140,000
$607,000
BASIS:
Use Small Floating Dredge (such as Mud Cat)
Pumping Rate 700 gpm in 10% solids
Operating Efficiency 70%
Sludge Removal Capacity 100 tons/8 hr day
Days per Year 100 days
Amount of Sludge to Remove 89,700 tons
Rate of Removal 10,000 tons^Yea' (9 Years)
Time Spent in Weed Removal and Slurrymg Sludge - 1 Year
Life of Machine - 10 Years
Sludge Pumped to Wet Well, Capacity - 17,000 gallons
INITIAL COSTS:
Small Floating Dredge with Accessories and Pipeline S 85,000
Wet Well 14,000
Herbicide Application 1,000
Total $100,000
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%) 30,000
Total Initial Costs $130,000
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
Fuel $ 3.90/hr
Grease, Filters, Lubrication, Hydraulic Oil .45
Insurance 1.56
Labor - 2 men at $7 33/ht 14.66
Miscellaneous 1.43
Total $ 22.00/hr
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%) 3.30
Total O&M $ 25.30/hr
or $ 20,000/yr
PRESENT WORTH
O&M = (20.000) (7 024)
Initial Costs
Total Present Worth
ANNUAL COST
Capital $130,000 x (erf = 14238)
O&M
Total Annual Cost $ 39,000
COST PER DRY TON
$39,000 - 10,000 tons = $3.90/dry ton
$140,000
130,000
$270,000
$ 19,000
20,000
B-H
-------
TABLE B-3
TABLE B-4
REHABILITATE WEST HALF OF LAGOON 1
COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
BASIS:
LAGOON SUPERNATANT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ALTERNATIVES
A B
Construct 1,100 feet long dike across Lagoon 1 to form a 150 acre
feet capacity storage area using corduroy and berm technique.
Dike Height - 10 feet
Top Width • 10 feet
Side Slopes - 3 1
Fill Volume • 12.000 cu.yds.
BASIS OF CONSTRUCTION COST
EQUIPMENT COST
Crane $ SOO/day
4 Trucks 1,000
Loader 500
Miscellaneous 400
S 2,400/day
Construction would require an estimated 50
working days
COST ESTIMATE
Construction $120,000
Material 35,000
Miscellaneous Costs 25,000
Subtotal 1180,000
Overhead and Contingency 54,000
Allowances (30%)
Total Cost in 1984 $234,000
PRESENT WORTH
PW = 234,000(pwf = .5820) $136,000
DESCRIPTION
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 11980)
ARRP Module.
Clarifierj
Lime System
Subtotal
Overhead and Contingency Allowances {30%}
Total Initial Costs
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS (flnt year)
Labor
Power
Para
Lime
Acid
Sludge Disposal
Byproduct Recovery
Net O&M Costs
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%)
Total O&M
PRESENT WORTH
Capital Costs (pwf =• 0.7131
O&M
Total Present Worth
ANNUAL COST
Capital Icrf - 0.08719)
O&M
Total Annual Cost
NO *I.UDOC ftCMOVC
NBMOVAL. AHNP ILUDOK ARHP
TMKATMCNT FOR TMBATMENT
$1,876,000 S 500,000
90,000 35,000
50,000 25,000
$2,015,000 $ 560,000
606,000 168,000
$2,620,000 $ 728,000
$ 13,000/yr $ 13,000/yr
15.000 4,000
56,000 16,000
60,000 60,000
26,000 26,000
66,000 66,000
-49.000 -49,000
$ 187,000/yr $ 135.000/yr
28,000 20,000
$ 2t5,000/yr $ 155,000/yr
$1366,000
3,150.000
$5,018,000
$ 163,000
215.000
$ 378,000
$ 519,000
1,090.000
$1,609,000
$ 45,000
155,000
S 200,000
None
$ 1,500/yr
23,500
1,000
$26,000/yr
7300
S33JBOO/yr
250.000
$250,000
$33300
$33300
*lf no sludge is removed the supernatant
would have to be treated for over 100 yean
at a present worth of $600.000.
B-5
-------
TABLE B-5
TABLE B-6
LAND LEASE COST DETERMINATION
(Grain Corn)
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
VARIABLE COSTS
MATERIALS:
Fertilizer
125 Ibs N @ 2H
80 Ibs P205 8> 21*
50 Ibs K20 9 84
Corrective
Seed - 1/3 bu/Af
Chemicals
EQUIPMENT:
Machine Operation
Drying - 100 bu S> 15$
LABOR:
4.5 Mrs, @ 3.50
OVERHEAD:
Intent on Operating
Capital - 9% for 6 mo.
Miscellaneous
TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS
S26.2S/AC
16.80
4.00
5.00
13.00
17.50
10.-15
15.00
15.75
5.56
2.00
S131.00/AC
FIXED COSTS
INVESTMENT PER ACRE DEPR. INTEREST TAXES
Lind $700 $66.00 $14.00
Machinery & Equip. 135 $13.50 5.40 1.36
Storige 60 3.00 2.40 .60
TOTAL $895 $16.60 $6330 S16.96
TOTAL FIXED COSTS Idepr., interest and taxes)
NET RETURN
Total Returns - 100 bu 6 $2.50
Total Cost - $131.00 + $96.26
NET RETURN
$ M.25/AC
S2SO.OO/AC
- 227.25/Ac
$ 22,75/Ac
TRUCK TRANSPORTATION COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
BASIS:
5,000 gallon Capacity
5 mile Haul Distance
35 mph Average Haul Speed
15 minutes Fill Time
15 minutes Unload T>me
48 minutes per Load, 10 Loads per day
200 days per Year Operation
10 year Truck Life
2,083 dry tons or 10,000,000 gallons/Year Capacity
INITIAL COSTS
Truck with 5,000 gallon trailer $48,000
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%) 14.400
Total Initial Cott $62,000
ANNUAL OftM
Maintenance $ 2,500
Fuel 2,100
Operator - 200, 8 hr days ® 7.33/hr. 11,700
Total 16,300
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%) 2,400
Total Annual O&M $19,000
PRESENT WORTH FOR 10 YEARS
Initial Costs $62,000
Annual Costs 19,000 (pwf - 7.024 for 10 yrs) 133,000
Total Present Worth $195,000
ANNUAL COST
Initial Cost 62,000 (erf ~ .14238 for 10 yrs) $ 8,800
O&M 19,000
Total Annual Cost $ 28,000
COST PER TON-MILE
$28,000 - 2,083 dry tons, 5 miles » S2.69/dry ton-mile
LEASE COST
Fertilizer value derived from 6.8 tons of applied sludge $ 86,10/Ac
(extra sludge is applied to make up for nitrogen losses)
Cost to farmer to disk field twice in lease year $
LEASE COST = Fixed Costs + Net Return • Fertilizer Value + 2 Disking!
- S38.62/Ac
= $ 5.68/dry ton of applied sludge
5.72/Ac
B-6
-------
TABLE B 7
TABLE B-8
PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SMALL ON-FARM LAGOON COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
BASIS
5 mile Transport Distance
500 gallons/minute Capacity
100 feet Static Head
8" diameter Pipeline - 50 Year Life
90 horsepower Pump Station - 20 Year Life
Operate 120 days or 960 hours per Year to Transport
28,800.000 gallons/Year or 6,000 dry tons)
Energy Required 64,450 kW - hr/year
Power Demand 67 kW
Constructed in 1980
INITIAL COSTS
26,400 feet of 8" pipe @ $1000/lm ft installed $264,000
Values and Miscellaneous Appurtences 15,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition - 42 Acres @ $700/Ac 29,000
2 Maior Highway or Creek Crossings 20,000
Pump Station 15,000
Total $343,000
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%) 103,000
Total Initial Costs (in 1980) $446,000
ANNUAL O&M COSTS
Energy @ 2.9(f/kW-hr 1,900
Maintenance @ 0.6% of Initial Cost 1,900
Total $ 3,800
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%) 600
Total O&M Costs (1976 pries level) $ 4,400
Total O&M in 1981 (with 2%/year energy cost escalation) $ 4,600
PRESENT WORTH
Initial Costs $300,000
O&M 40,000
Total Present Worth in 1976 340,000
ANNUAL COST IN 1981
Initial Costs $ 42,000
O&M 4,600
Total Annual Cost in 1981 $ 47,000
COST PER TON-MILE
$43,000 - 6,000 dry tons, 5 miles « $1 57/dry ton-mile
BASIS:
4.5 Acre-feet volume or 300 tons Solids Capacity
Located on Farmer Owned Land
Dikes with 10 feet Top Width, 3 1 Side Slopes
3,000 yds Balanced Cut and Fill Earthwork
10 feet wide Concrete Ramp to Extend to Bottom of Lagoon
Pad Provided for Portable Pump (does not include pump)
Weed Control and Other Maintenance Performed by Farmer
Fenced
CONSTRUCTION COST
Embankments & $2.00/cu.yd. $6,000
Concrete 500
Total $6,SOO
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%) 2,000
Total with Contingencies $8,500
TABLE B-9
SPRINKLER APPLICATION COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
BASIS:
Effective Land Coverage per Set - 1 Acre
450 gallons/minute Pump Rate
80 pounds/square inch Pressure at Nozzle
4.5 hours/day Operating, the Remainder used in Moving Pipe and
Sprinkler
1 Man could keep Two Sprinklers going - Farm Labor Rate
6 Acres/day Land Coverage
Appurtenances included are Portable Pump, 1,320 feet of Hand Moveable Pipe
45 Horsepower Pump Required
10 year Equipment Life
Will Operate 100 days/year or 800 hrs/year
INITIAL COSTS
Big Gun Sprinkler and Stand
Portable Pump and Engine
Pipeline
Total
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%)
Total Initial Costs
O&M COSTS
Farm Labor $3.SO/hr x V4 Man/Sprinkler
Pump Fuel, Lube, and Maintenance
Total
Overhead and Contingency <§> (15%)
Total O&M
PRESENT WORTH
Initial
O&M 4,600 (pwf = 7.024)
Total Present Worth
ANNUAL COST
Initial 12,700 (erf = 14238)
O&M
Total Annual Cost
COST PER DRY TON
$6,400/1,800 tons = $3 56/dry ton
$ 1,000
5,800
3,000
$ 9,800
2,900
$12,700
$1.75/hr
3.25
$5.00/hr
0.7S
$5.75/hr
$4,600/vr
$12,700
32,300
$45,000
$ 1,800
4,600
$ 6.400
B-7
-------
TABLE B-10
TABLE B-11
SOIL INJECTION COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
TRUCK SLUDGE SPREADER COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
BASIS:
Equipment - Tractor, Injector, 660 feet o< Flexible
Hose, Hand Move Pipeline, and Portable Pump
40 Horsepower Crawler Tractor
10 feet wide, 7 Sweep Iniector
Field Speed 1.25 mph
Can Cover 9 Acres/day
Tractor Life 15 Years
Injector Life 5 Years
Flexible Hose Life 3 Years
Pump and Pipeline Life 10 Years
100 days or 800 hrs/Year Operation
2,700 dry tons/Year Applied
INITIAL COSTS
Tractor $25,000
Iniector 6,000
Flexible Hose 4,500
Pipeline 1,700
Portable Pump 3.800
Total $41,000
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%) 12,000
Total Initial Costs $53,000
O&M COSTS
Farm Labor $3.50/hr
Tractor Fuel, Lube, and Maintenance 2.50
Pump Fuel, Lube and Maintenance 2 00
Total S8.00/hr
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%) 1.20
Total O&M $9.20/hr
or $7,400/vr
PRESENT WORTH
Initial Costs (for a 10 yr period) $ 63,000
O&M 7,400 (pwf = 7 024) 52,000
Total Present Worth $115,000
ANNUAL COST
Initial Costs 63.000 (erf = 142381 $ 9,000
O&M 7,400
Total Annual Cost $ 16,000
COSTfTON
$16,000- 2,700 dry tons = $5.93/dry ton
BASIS:
Equipment — Liquid Sludge Spreader Truck with 1,600 gallon
Tank and High Flotation Tires
2 Passes to Apply Sludge
700 gpm Discharge Rate
12 minutes Required per Load to Travel across Field, Load
Truck, and Unload Truck
Sludge Supply to Spreader Truck at Field
Truck Life 10 Years
4.2 Acre/day Ground Coverage Rate
100 days/Year Operation
1,260 dry tons/Year Applied
INITIAL COSTS
Sludge Spreader Truck and Accessories $42,000
Overhead and Contingency Allowances 130%) 12,600
Total Initial Costs S55.000
O&M COSTS
MMSD Labor $7.33/hr
Fuel, Maintenance, Insurance 0.45/hr
Total $7.78/hr
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%) 1.17
Total O&M $8.95/hr
or $7,200/vr
PRESENT WORTH
Initial Costs
O&M = 7,200 (pwf - 7 024)
Total Present Worth
ANNUAL COST
Initial Cost • 55,000 (erf = .14238)
O&M
Total Annual Cost
COST/TON
$16,000/1,260 dry tons = S11.90/dry ton
$55,000
51.000
$106,000
$ 7,800
7,200
$15,000
B-8
-------
TABLE 8-12
TABLE B-13
TRACTOR SLUDGE SPREADING COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MONITORING PROGRAM COST DETERMINATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
BASIS:
Equipment - Spreader Device, 660 feet of Flexible Hose,
Portable Pump and Engine, Hand Moveable Pipeline,
Tractor assumed to be owned by Farmer and Charged
as an Operating Cost
700 gpm Flow Rate
15 Acres per Hose Attachment
Farmer will Operate Tractor
Continuous Sludge Supply Assumed
30 Horsepower Pump Required
10 Year Spreader Device Life
10 Year Pump and Pipeline Life
3 Year Flexible Hose Life
Ground Coverage Rate 16 Acres/day
4,500 dry tons Applied/Year, 100 days/Year Operation
INITIAL COSTS
Spreader Device'
Flexible Hose
Pump and Pipeline
Total
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (30%)
Total Initial Costs
O&M COSTS
Small Tractor Own and Operating Expenses
Labor, Farmer
Pump Fuel, Maintenance, etc.
Total
Overhead and Contingency Allowances (15%)
Total O&M Costs
PRESENT WORTH
Initial Costs (for 10 yr. period)
O&M $7,400 (pwf = 7.0241
Total Present Worth
ANNUAL COSTS
Initial Costs 26,000 (erf =
O&M
Total Annual Cost
COST/TON
$11,000/4,500 dry tons
.14238)
$244/dry ton
$ 3,700
7.400
$11,000
SLUDGE ANALYSIS
Daily Composits
Monthly Digesters
Quarterly - Digesters
- Storage Lagoon
Total
300 Samples @ $ 20 00
12 Samples <9> $12000
4 Samples @ $26000
4 Samples @ $380.00
SOIL ANALYSIS
Background (average 1 sample/5.5 acres)
Years 1-4 360 Samples @ $ 78 00
Years 5+ 36 Samples » $ 78 00
Annual (cost for analysis by Extension Service)
Average every Year 700 Samples @ $ 1 50
Totals Years 1-4
Years 5+
$ 6,000
$ 1.440
$ 1,040
$ 1,520
$10,000/yr
$28.000
$ 3,000
$29,000/yr
$ 4.000/yr
CROP ANALYSIS (assume 1 sample/35 ac.. 1/3 of fields each year)
$ 2,500
4,500
5,500
$12,500
3300
$16,000
$2.50/hr
3.50
2.00
$8.00
1.20
S9.20/hr
$7,400/yr
$26,000'
52,000
$78,000
Years 1-10 6,000 ac , 57 Samples @ $15200 $ 8,700/yr
Years 10+ 2,000 ac , 19 Samples @ $15200 $ 2,900/yr
GROUND WATER ANALYSIS
Background
Years 1-4 25 Wells @ $ 64 00 $ 1.600
Years 5+ 2 Wells @ S 64 00 $ 100
Subsequent Monitoring (every third year)
Years 5+ 35 Wells @ $ 1 1 50 S 400
Totals Years 1-4
Years 5+
TOTAL MONITORING PROGRAM COST
YEARS
1-4 5-10
Sludge $10.000 $10,000
Soil 29,000 4,000
Crops 8,700 8,700
Ground Water 1.600 500
Sample Collection* 1.000 1,000
Subtotals
Contingency (15%)
Totals
$ 50,000 $24,000
8,000 4,000
$ 58,000/yr $28,000/yr
$ 1,
$
11+
$10,000
4,000
2,900
500
1,000
$18,000
3,000
$21,000/yr
,600/yr
500/yr
'Cost of average 20 man-days/year to collect samples
'Does not include cost of spreader device development, estimated
to be $3,000, which would be applied to the first device built.
B-9
-------
•ffs,
SO) c-i r*» n co co 3
O Ifl O) 00 O O O_
•^iflifltbeoiriiri^'^tf)
(NCNtNCNCNCNCNCNM*
?CN 10 in eo O) co -- comm^rcN
in p o r- « r*. co o «o o> * *7
5 «• CO CO CM CM CN *-' CO CN O
^ ^ *r XT' *
8888
r-T P*." rC CD oo" ao* as
§ §
«S o-
o| «
GC5 W
r^rvf<»r^r^p>~r^ir»if)
S
w
o§o 5 s 8" 5 S 8 R R 8" S S S S 8" B 8 8 8
HW *-mCNrlOJCMCNCSICNC>(*-<-*-'-'-<-<-*-
UJ
< C uj
£ t«i
Z
CM (N CM CM tN f^-
«£
§1
OCt-
h-
sS o
§»g j| CM' CM" CM" CN" CM"
< o " " " " "
cz w
a
3
r— • —'. •
rf 4 o C*J r*»
2S 0 CN If *
'-•-'-CNCNCMCNCNCN CNCN
Q >-
2 »
< *
-1 U
^f "* O)
8 5
8
o.
n n TT
co n en
s s s
r^ fo n n O)
in o o o O)
T — — — in
I I I I I
1 !
§ 8
o o
s s
R
in
w
8
s
S
*< cj
s a »
E o -
5
<
oc I
O*
°
1 *r ' I l ( I i ! I i
° i
> <
oo en
en en
•— CM co *
CD 00 CO CO
OJ O) O) O>
o •-
o) en
o oi
co «*• in
is
B-10
-------
SOIL PROPERTIES AND
SUITABILITY FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
c
-------
"o
"~
VI
,-
6
UJ
1-
1
UJ
S
i
u
UJ
£ wo
2£§S
ill
22s
"
z
>• n
t £
_j
s
<
M
UJ J
Q. (j
g 5 I1
t Q 0
J UJ
i< $ t *
05 j w uJ S
11! 1
t/S UJ — '
UJ C3 ® M
^ S ft O *™
= 3fE IK
Sw= i
£ 0 ° > ||§
a | * . « 1 S . 333 s ££? s?
1 | | f 1 I I 1 1 111 1 111 18
i i i 8 i i i S i SSS 8 888 88
i i i s i i i s i <0° s S^S SJS
S
88S88S888888 8 88888
tototoiouitotoininmintn in intntnuitn
AAAAAAAAA AAA A AAA AA
OOOOOOOOOggg g OOOgg
arf<#»crrfaa«£S!S S jtfjSS
S£Sbgff££oooo o ££Eoo
OOOOOOOOOggg g OOOgg
III 1
^ 5 ^ in ij •- «— in^** ininuj m tn in in inin
trtvie/l en en o o riV AAA A rirtrS AA
1 | I S | i 1 o SSS i-. ocnaocnco
% £2!
1 1 1 g I 1 1 . g-g * g28 £|
Z Z Z in (?) 2 ZinSc7)S
o o o
1 | 1 ^ 1 1 1 C*) fVCO^^ *~(N tN ID •- ^•"S
0 | 0.
r- to en t*.
*— ^ OJ P".
SO ED JJ (O
. in" to" ^ 5 *~ o — 10 ex c> *
oooo^rincn'T-'-^' CN C 1
f i ! I I s i I ! i | i !
l > >
i/iuc/i
S c S
888
00 00 CO
888
u> in ui
AAA
888
. „ „
OOO
Z Z Z
888
***
8SS
HI
z 5i w
~S
CN tO «- p^
d r>i *b •-
CN
I
u.
n r>» ^
CD in m
888
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
£S$
£ £~
(75 "> > £
c/5 en (7i (75 en
s s s s s s
ssa , as
CO 00 00 CO 00
T *7 T i T *7
If) If) U) if) if)
o o O o in m
in in | in m m m
PI P7 o «— ' in in
CN CN (N V O CO
888 8 88
C C C C C C
o o o o o o
Z Z Z Z Z Z
888 8 88
AAA A A A
moo o o
CT> O> CO 1 O> 00
1 £
III ' li
Z tfi t/5 tn 5
^8
^ *f T CM 1 «> T
CO (N (O •— fM (O
-
o j- n
3 O
f 11
Z 0 <
o
D
Z
K
Z
O
u
t:
i
c
« £
5 15
s s,
1 1
o •£
^ *s
III
•g-4
5«i
-------
m
"o
CN
1
isi
>
H
1
UJ
OC
0.
UJ
OC
X
UJ
UJ
O
(J —
X 0
DC H w J
o y z 5 -.
U. E O O cr
>• 52 < S
H O 0 ~
-J UJ
2 c tt *" y
-5 » I 5
5 3^1 t§
LU Qa. z o «
S * -
" -§§
&"i i
OC z
"• 8 §
Jo §
S~~ < -j
s
Ol2
*"
0 O 0
s*
i i
-H £
C/l CO
SS
§§
> >.
= 1
c c
00 00
£ £
— t-
o o
*?' *"?
If) lO
88
II
z z
88
in in
A A
83
H
^jiS
SS 2
,
r>
.a;
re
ID
^
0 OO
ss
•s •?
a a
IT IE
se
S!
"""
88
M fl
O 0
ifj in
c** r*>
V V
88
z z
88
m in
A A
88
•g
s
S S
^0
s
o
00
a
*~°
88
V »
II
55
i/i m
II
3 g
11
00
O 0
O 0
06 c6
in in
in in
C*) CO
88
Is
Z Z
88
in in
A A
gg
II
(/) (A
a
sS£
s
o"
^
-s
4)
I
«
O O O OO
i m 99
1 en o S
-o
«" " S
a: 22
' 1 11
i eg
II
1!
i ^ ^
-O J W W
1 3 II
' > §S
CM CM
i i 55
*• ^
o o o o
in in
in n r>
fN «— Ift uf)
6V -^
8888
u
§c c c
O O O
Z Z 2Z
8 8 88
cc in in in
A A A A
i i 8S
1 ' ti
M C/)
, , ~8
| 1 (O «~fi
cs«b—
to
s
in
s
CM in p-
* " *
I
ra
>
o
W TJ
00 §
>. 0 £
-* E 2
O^5
CC UJ X
"
o o o
88
to w
il
in in
> •>
£ E
S3
3 §
So
to
^ !A
0 O
in in
in if)
88
a,
C C
O Q
zz
88
in in
A A
£S
"S
s %
il
5 5
(N M
£52
00
™
UJ
£1 A
- ^,- - o ^
8 888 8 8 888
» wwto to w to««
| HI || HI
S 555 2 £ 2SS
i §) S S ' ' § S co
III
i >S=r I III
— — ~— O OOQ
w (rtWw -i > _i j -j
'1 111 1 I III
£!££ | §g§
CO 00 00 CO CO 00
1 in in ih ' 6 d> 6
8 888 8 8 888
co *>inin «, co fficco
A AAA A A AAA
0 888 ° S 888
•" 01
? ccc £ 3 ccc
C OOO E U OOO
u. ZZZ u. O ZZZ
0 888 ° ° 888
6 muiifi 6 6 mmm
AAA AAA
, sss , ggs
2 £
S w
•ill . ' ii|
Z w w Z en $
CN M CM CM
1 ^"P"!^ 1 i ^^TcM
OtMtD— ' OCMtD —
m O *-
«- en r*. n
CM — tM f^ rx
in ri
gog
2
Z ui 5
CN tO <-
6 CN (O
CM
00
o>
5
s
6
r- f\t
SLO
cn
TD "a
a. a.
tr tr
5 5
g§
E E
3 S
9t |
0 0
§§
CN CN
ci 6
88
in m
A A
88
Z Z
88
in m
A A
Q in
?
2
H
Z (7j
tN tD
O CN
c
3
t/1
S S. £ ° ° n
800 m m tn
O O CO CO CQ
u a> w
I £ £ "O "D "D
??? Ill-
ss s I I X
ggg g g g
>. > >
(/)(/)(/) > > >.
E 1 S 1|1
222 m m m
ooo in in m
^ ^ ^ (D tD tO
888 888
CD us CD in in in
AAA AAA
888 888
S S S S S S
ZZZ ZZZ
888 888
if) if) in in in m
AAA AAA
O cn oo o o o>
"
? •=
s 1
||l HI
Z yi C/) ZZZ
CN tO •— CN 1C «—
O CM tO O (N (O
0
2 5
Ol ^
E
o 2
c i:
61 a
&
CONTtNUED
8
a
CN
c
re
il
O Q,
o
0 -C
C 5 T5
| * S
E S *
6 " ^
is!
« sS o
C-2
-------
fj)
UJ
_J
CD
H
. t
ij
h*
U
CO
<
UJ
CC
u
a.
UJ
CC
e
X
UJ
H
i
If
(C r- "" 2
£ 1 o ° |
> « 5 -
too
_l „,
ill It
w = ^ gj Q
O IX Z
< < K
SSSo3
L O o O
J^ 3 t ^
UJ M UJ N
= z *
CL o o
- 1 §
8S »•
E
0 J
*~ -J H
£ o S
0 < <
M
£
00
o
o
oc
UJ
£UI
u
M a.
I
} _
II
2™"
CLASS.
{2
z
2
CLASS.
M
H
z
2
-
*
^
M
H
Z
— .
•
S
M
J-
2
CC
1
H
Z
2
|
|
U
a*?
cc
UJ
CO
3
UJ
S
Z
u
s
M
0
'
1
Variable
1
1
8
If 1 S *'
05 O o O
S5 5 S S
O 2 | co S
It
i^cn
rr ^ r
s s * i
-jj i s -3
II 1 3 .1
U. U. -I O U.
88 i S i
T- *-
O) O | O 1
O Q O Q 0
o o o o
in in CM in in
A A V A A
88 8 § §
S S § 3 g'
O O O U U
Z Z Z O O
88 8 S °
in r>
in in in r*S >^
A A A
88 i S i
if ' i '
en (/) Z
tO «— | M |
(N to ci
2 S S 5
,- »- ^ r-
^1
1 11
5 c/i ^ E
OOO O CNCNOOCl 0
Q S Q LO in in Q
*~ *~ *~ "~
"5 "9 "5
s s s & & & s
22 « o: x DC 2
Ii i Ss's I
S E S S S S E
88 ' SSS i
E! > i
» g £ M
°J " *•&* *
II I 111 S
u. Li. u. (n CA (n U
88 i SISS > ,
in in 1 *? *? *? 1 *
«- «- m m in i
00 8 888 8 '
m in i
tn n c
in in i
•-' •-' m in in in in «
A A A A A
88 8 888 ° !
f r- ~- f- t- <
z z cr z z z i :
88 ° 888 ° !
n m
A1™ ~ AAA " J
88 i 888 > 9
•g :
s <
1! 'HI ' .
w tn z z z .
o in
® *~ [N 1 e^ to •— p^ | i
CNJ uS <— cicitb^' (
s <
5 i i S !
i
| a c o i
1 5 £ fS S
OOOO O f»»«~O O ("}i- —
r*- ui en n CN
i) o o o °~ 25 o O o
III « S2 S SSS
Sin"> « 52 ! SSI
HI | || | HI
588. ,88 , SSS
III
tn 10 *- enenen
\ A A A A
! S S i 8 S i ifi 8 S
i. •&
: w tn to to z wi tn
•J(0^5 | ^^S | C«l(O^
bwab- w ,
Hi I i
&J § is
1 1 3 <§
c
s
CN
C
C
w
5 2
s &
H
* "S
0 ^
C ^ -n
S '
E S |
ill
. C c
C-3
-------
o
*
i
2
ui
00
t-
i
!.l!
H ° —
{2
z
t *
m
<
S 2
oc <
sd
P
z
u
CC
3
X
1- '
<
-J
z S
5> 2
- §i
U. E O ° > n
> S g fi
r- Q S *
J _ UJ
— Z o «
1
m
u
UI UJ
v> a.
0 CC
Z ui
Ei
ii
UI
Z
O
o
I
2
i
i
i
u.
1
1
0
in
V
8
Z
8
A
1
t
1
S
1
S 5S
888
222
iii
sss
888
> > >
E E E
3 0 0
SSS
°ss
>
E 6 E
o o o
sss
888
CO 00 00
888
A'A'A'
888
111
Z Z Z
888
in in tn
A A A
sgs
1 1
CO t/]
Z S E
o
O > > > > > >
EE >||| |E
So ^ ooo 38
SS SSSS SS
o o t SSS tf? 1C
en ro OT en en OJ o>
ss
m m l m in in tn m
88 8 888 88
AA1 A A'A'A XA1
88 ° 888 88
Ud) • ttOtO) UV
So s i S g g S
ZZ it ZZZ ZZ
88 ° 888 88
_
A A A A A A A
8£ i SSS gg
t . i.
to to Z to (/i E co
«8 , «8 ,5
f>Jtb-- OCNtD"— tNtO —
00 tN
$ in
o ro m to
> § 1 1
1 | 1 I
i£ SO I
SS3.
888
s S S
|||
sss
888
> > >
E E E
o 3 o
sss
sss
m in in
888
^AA
888
SSS
iii
888
in in in
A A A
SSS
^>
CO .,
if!
Z to (O
O CN CO
1
ingwood
or
o
8
2
1
S
1
>
to
i
LL
1
1
8
A
O
I
U.
o
f)
1
1
s
to
adford
tr
p- *- 3 o
in in rt
sss
III
III
sss
888
e? 1" cT
000
_j -i -i
XXX
iii
U U U
o o o
0 O O
GO CD 00
888
A AA
888
111
Z Z Z
888
(D (C (D
A A A
sss
III
«s
0 tN tD -
8
o
6
a
ss° - *fts
go tf> in m tn
Op 00 CO 00 CO
% £
* S -o -5-0-5
^s & & s- s-
22 c cccc.cc
o o o o o o
q q oq oq cq oo
>
E |
S o
ii ! Iff
U. U. (0 (A CO t>1
Sffi i SiSffi
m m
(N rsi '
S S 8 888
in in
S3
(*) c*i in to co co
A A A A
88 § 888
C C S C C C
O O n O O O
Z Z CC Z Z Z
o o o o o o
D in in m
in m ~ t-i <*i m
A A
SS i S8S
3
Ii 'gig
to to z z z
o
10 *T CN ^ *? "7
fsi CD «- O (N CO
CN v m
C1* tN fN
ra oi
C -X =
E S Z
i so
o o o
888
222
iii
sss
888
> > >
— — —
ill
O O O
o o o
888
in m in
A A A
000
CT CT CT
000
m m m
"""
8g§
.
Ill
z & 5
(N
O CM ID
fN
O
£
a ?! s ° 5 ; °
888 g 88
I
oS « tS cc £ £
2 S 2 S 22
in in in i in in
> > >
E J £
E ">">">.
> > > 3 III
— — *= ^ o o o
sss 1 sss
U- Ii. LL. (J U. U. U.
888; i S§
*"*"*"
r-.r-.rv | O O
888 8 88
O O O O
.- ~- — — (D
Z 5 (/> tn co
CN (N rM
o r* is r-j u> —
m tn m
>
^ E
5s §
oS t
. •> oi T3
O ^3 J( c
Sto i =
O
UJ
D
CONTIN
S
5 ,
O -C
I ^ s
E S 1
HI
n a o
-J to Z
«• J3 0
-------
£ p o Jo °° * ^ ooo to M oi o oii^-in nr*-oo ooo *-in OOOIN otoco o o o o o o CN ^r o r- o EN oo o o
*• 2 £
§ 888 ££ 888 888 888 §38 88 888 888 S £ ' £ S S £ $.3$ S§ 8 S
K a. -- — «-— — _,-- .-,-- _ - ~,-- ~,-,- _ _ _
m
ui ui >» '5j>>'0'c"°'2'o
2 « S £ S II ff £ £ « S «> £ £ £ 2J2222SJ222& 5o 5 & & & & & £ *
oc < 222 into 222 222 222 22 222 222 2 cc l w w to occctr cccc 22
("-Java . ««« tt w «, cy u « .. *££a)EaJoJaJai. . TJ . £ I
"8 "8 "8 '? "8 'S'8'8 "8 "8 "8 "S "8 "8 >>> •g'g "§ "8 "8 "8 "S "8 "8 'S 'S "8 1? °- 'S'S'S "§"5? 19 '
SSE 5S SSS SSS SSS to w to SS 525 SSS S S 22 2 cc S22 S£ 2 2
i § § § ££ § § § 333888 ££££3 888 883 i i i i i i i S £ S gg i <
g —-' ~~~' -'"•-•
u
OC
^^^^^ 1^4 i«cppc???| i § s *? $
<>>> 51 i1 £• ^'i'i'^^^1 00ii««ini^e Ooo >>
u c/ic/jto uiwto c7ic/5c/iiflc/ito o,j_j_ij_j_i_i_j>5 >3tX3t >>^c''
t t airuv fccjai tu"P 2 ., « aj"P t S t "°^ ^ ai
III II III III HE III is 111 III I 1 i I I I 1
k^ U. U. LL LL. LLU.LL LL U. LL LLU.LL U.LLU. UU LLLLLL LLU.IL. U. CO > U. ^ U. 0?
> C3 O
) U O
u J2
d 5 Q O Q O o Q.QQ ininin ininin ininin inin ininin minin i l l I I l in ininin
9 * eo 55 co ft TO to to <5 cDcococncncn oioo^encoootoiencno) mmmm
|g g ' ' ' '
CCH-UJ^^ OOOOOOGOOOOO^OOOOOOJCOOOCO
£ = O^ "5 * ooo in« S5S 5SS in S 2^5 *i*S ' ' 's
?• a S
t Q O
gg 1 888 °° 888 888 888 °°° 88 888 888 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 888 8.8 8 8
L. K in in in in in o
QSI-gJn-K »n^. ooo ^ ^ * "^
515 £ *f* "^ ^ ^ *~ tnmiA v-^^ cpcptp CM (N tN inin cpcoto inmin in in in CN ip cp in ininin A1" ^
5j5p n
into '"THP rtrtn roroco rtrort mm rtrit-i IAU)I9 *" 4? ° ° ° "~ " AAA A*A "~ *~
> * £3§ SS Sg§ £38 £°.S £3S ££ £3§ £3S 3 833 33
52 .-.._-
m
§8| I I * f I I f'8 I * I S
" S ^ - S ^S * - * "2 S ff *H £ f-sfl^-S?-1?. I I ' I l l „.,£« « 1
|*S ?| gfl III IS? If? If gfl gf? g lf| §g
Zcoc/j 2tO ZiocTS Z to to Z S vi Zco(?SZc/)Zco(/)2to2 ZZc/icTS ZZ
tf Vt O O O
5rf^ fsj^j i-virrt C^n -- ....
^(O — ,^ CN«O*- (NCOr-f^
CD r- co
S S g £ 3
s a s. = § S ,
J< -" 'S-nSSO" ~5'
CJ S
-ii «s » i 5 I . °.- 1*'
S3 . f ?! § c 1 I f £ 9§ 5 * " -
2wJ I £«£ § 3 S =
^ i-
C-5
-------
SLUDGE REUSE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOLS
-------
Appendix D
SLUDGE REUSE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TOOLS
This appendix contains examples of tools which should be
used to manage the sludge reuse program. These tools con-
sist of a permanent record, an annual record, and procedures
for determining sludge application rates.
D.I THE PERMANENT RECORD
The permanent record will contain basic identification, a
report on detailed site investigation, and a record of
sludge applications and monitoring data.
Basic Identification
This record will be opened during the initial interview. It
will contain the sludge user's identification, name, address
and phone number, and field identification. An example form
is shown as Table D-1. The field identification will include
a reference number, acreage, and legal description of loca-
tion (i.e., NE1/4 of NW1/4 of Section 21 of Town of Dunn).
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
section maps should also be included which outline the
boundaries and include the reference numbers for all fields.
These same maps will also be marked up with the site inves-
tigator's comments and buffer area notes. A marked up
example ASCS map is included as Figure D-1.
Detailed Site Investigation
Another permanent record will be required which reports the
findings of the site investigation. This form will be used
by the program manager as he walks over each site and will
contain a checklist of factors he should investigate. This
form will also include the field identification, site investi-
gator's name, date of investigation, and restrictions for
sludge application. An example Site Investigation Checklist
is shown as Table D-2.
Record of Data
All of the monitoring data and records of sludge applica-
tions must be kept in the sludge user's permanent file.
Example data forms are shown as Tables D-3 through D-5 for
D-1
-------
the soils, crop, and ground-water monitoring records. An
example form for recording sludge applications is shown as
Table D-6. The zinc equivalent metal loading, as computed
in Section D.3, should also be recorded on this form for use
in determining the total allowable sludge application to the
site. Copies of the Sludge User and Field Identification
Form and marked up ASCS maps should be given to the sludge
users for use in planning their farming operations.
D.2 THE ANNUAL RECORD
A record of the activities on every field receiving sludge
will be prepared and a copy given to the sludge user each
year for his records. The information needed for MMSD's
permanent records will be taken from the annual records.
The annual record will contain the following: the crop
grown; the sludge application rate; the sludge quality data
as applied; and the soil, crop, and ground-water monitoring
data for the year. A form for the Annual Record is shown as
Table D-7.
D.3 TOTAL SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE DETERMINATION
Explanation
As shown in Section 6.3, there are several bases on which to
limit total application. For this sludge reuse program, we
recommend, as an interim guide, the zinc equivalent equation
to calculate maximum sludge loading in relation to metal
toxicity to plants because it is most conservative.
Maximum Sludge Application (tons dry solids/acre) =
32,500 x CEC
(ppm Zn)+2(ppm Cu)+4(ppm Ni)
where CEC represents cation exchange capacity of nonsludged
soil in meq/100g and the sludge metals are expressed in ppm
or mg/kg solids. The 32,500 represents a conversion factor.
The equation is based on the hypotheses that (a) CEC is
related to soil factors controlling metal availability in
soils, and (b) that Cu is 2 times and Ni 4 times as toxic to
plants as Zn. It limits metal additions to 10 percent of
soil CEC. There is to date no experimental evidence to
support or refute this equation, and it must be regarded as
empirical and subject to revision.
The equation is difficult to use because of the inherent
variability of sludges with source and time. The equation,
D-2
-------
TABLE D-1
SLUDGE USER AND FIELD IDENTIFICATION
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
NAME
ADDRESS
SLUDGE USER IDENTIFICATION
PHONE
Z.4/-69/7
2J
. W/SCCMS/fiS
FIELD INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION
REFERENCE
NUMBER
ACREAGE
FIELD LOCATION
£'/z
Z/
e'/z, MEM. */U'/4, aea.
A.
AZ_
'.. 2/ DuM
OTHER COMMENTS:
/25
AGREEMENTS FOR PERMANENT FACILITIES:
/A/
ra
D-3
-------
NOTE:
COMMENTS ON MAP TO BE
BASED ON A FIELD INSPECTION
OF SITE.
.59166.0
FIGURE D-1
MAP OF SLUDGE USER'S LAND
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
MADISON, WISCONSIN
-------
TABLE D-2
SITE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SLUDGE USER NAME .
FIELD REFERENCE NUMBER £)
FIELD CONDITION WHEN INSPECTED.
INSPECTION PERFORMED BY.
DATE OF INSPECTION &~
Place a check mark (V) beside all factors investigated and describe location of particular factors and
problems as applicable. Determine and describe here and on ASCS map location the size of buffer
strips and allowable methods of sludge application. Describe or show on ASCS map the location
of different soil classes.
FACTORS
EROSION
FLOOD HAZARD
WET SPOTS
CITY BOUNDARY
GARDEN AREAS
STREAMS
NEIGHBORS
DISCUSSION OF EACH FACTOR
NAME
LOCATION
CONTACTED
COMMENTS
Joe
/ta/eoss
A/O
AA/ S.
use
(DWELLS OR
(Kl BUFFERS
"A"
US&
LOCATION
D/TCH
WIDTH
50'
COMMENTS
(^SUITABLE APPLICATION METHODS
CLASSES
SAC.
\. VERY SUITABLE
2. SUITABLE
3. SUITABLE W/ LIMITATIONS
4. NOT SUITABLE
BACKGROUND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS:
The following background data has been collected and is on file.
SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS t)ATE ?•*?• 76 _
LOCATION
Au
COMMENTS
GROUND WATER CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DATE
7"
D-5
-------
TABLE D-3
SOJL MONITORING DATA
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SLUDGE USER NAME
FIELD REFERENCE NO.
SOIL BACKGROUND CONDITION
Sample No.
Location
Date
Cation Exchange Capacity
meq/100 g
Electrical Conductivity, ^mho/cm
Calcium, mg/kg
Magnesium, mg/kg
Sodium, mg/kg
Iron, mg/kg
Aluminum, mg/kg
Zinc, mg/kg
Copper, mg/kg
Nickel, mg/kg
Cadmium, mg/kg
Molybdenum, mg/kg
Mercury, mg/kg
Manganese, mg/kg
Boron, mg/kg
5V
S£6 MAP
9-9-96
9
/36
/&>OO
&OO
/OO
/.z
/90
£//
0.0S
G.OZ
<.6/
O.Of
0.0 /
0.OZ
/.0
5-Z
3C£ MAP
9- 9- 76
/Z
/0
/O
/23
/7oo
930
/30
/.4
/&ff
0./J
0.0&
o.oz
<.o/
0.O3
&.OZ
0.0/
/./
ANNUAL SOIL SAMPLING
DATE
wt
1-/S-7?
9 '3-78
SAMPLE
NUMBER
S-A
3-6
S-C
LOCATION
&)Ajpoa/r£. r/e^o s
COMPOS/T£f &££.£> 5
CoMPOStTZ, F/£LO 6
AVAILABLE
PHOSPHORUS
(mg/kg)
34
s/
4z
POTASSIUM
(mg/kg)
/&
/9
29
ORGANIC
CARBON
(%)
2J
2.4
2.9
PH
6.7
&•&
6.0
' ~\
... _j
D-6
-------
O
Z
LU
U
Z
UJ
c
Ul
u.
UJ
OC
UJ
_i
to
oc
£
Q
(C
Q
S
V)
ir
«
<
<
Q
D-7
-------
o
z
o
z
u.
UJ
CC
Q
_l
UJ
d
-------
TABLE D-6
SLUDGE APPLICATION RECORDS
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SLUDGE USER NAME
FIELD REFERENCE NO..
DATE
APPLIED
4-2-77
4.<}'7#
S-2-71
4-8-80
4'/6-8/
/f}-3'8/
SLUDGE
APPLICATION
RATE
(ton/acre)
JV
2.9
/.&
3,0
2.3
/.4
METAL
EQUIVALENTS
CONTENT
(Ibs/acre)
23
22
/*
Z3
2/
//
ACCUMULATED
METAL
CONTENT
(Ibs/acre)
23
4s
59
32
/03
///
CROP
GROWN
£o/ed
Qotd
CATS
C0ZA/
CcKtf
wveAT
NOTES
/6°/£ g£T7£X Y/ILD
W£T SrX/fi/3
W/fi/7£K G0Y££. CKoP
TOTAL ALLOWABLE SLUDGE APPLICATION FOR THIS FIELD.
TOTAL ALLOWABLE METAL EQUIVALENTS LOADING FOR THIS FIELD.
D-9
. tons/acre.
Ihs/acre.
-------
TABLE D-7
ANNUAL RECORD
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SLUDGE USER MAIUIF \JOHjJ
FIELD REFERENCE
CROP YEAR _
PARAMETER
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids (organic carbon)
Total Dissolved Solids
PH
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Titanium
Lead
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Tin
Cadmium
Arsenic
Selenium
Mercury
Sulfate
Alkalinity @ pH 4.5
Alkalinity @ pH 4.2
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Cation Exchange Capacity
Electrical Conductivity
Vanadium
Cobalt
MBAS
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Coliform
SLUDGE
J&<7dft?m9/kg
S/,000 mg/kg
/3.OOO mg/kg
y $OQ mg/kg
2.3 %
t.S %
IfOOO mg/l
3.2
0f8£O mg/kg
2f3?O mg/kg
SZ5 mg/kg
•< ?O mg/kg
29& mg/kg
,/4O mg/kg
Z34 mg/kg
/09 mg/kg
^/ mg/kg
^ lO mg/kg
fj mg/kg
/^ mg/kg
•3OO mg/kg
^ ^ mg/kg
//> ^ mg/kg
J^.5* mg/kg
,£ 9^? mg/kg
<2> 4£C ma'kg
^72^i? mg/kg
^ 97O mg/kg
/^ /i?<7 mg/kg
SOIL
,57 mg/kg
/^ mg/kg
2.4%
6>.6>
/,{. mg/kg
d5. //mg/kg
A mg/kg
/^ mg/kg
/<9 meq/lOOg
//?^umhos/cm
CROP
^J M9/g
/2/ M9/g
<^,^ Mg/g
, / ^g/g
^.^ fg/g
$2 ng/g
• d?6 Mg/g
.£>/ A
-------
as written, allows accounting for annual sludge application.
Since the metal content of sludge can vary, this cannot be
easily accounted for with the equation as written. However,
the equation can readily be modified to permit calculation
of total allowable metal loadings on a Ibs per acre basis
as:
Total Allowable Metal Application, Ibs/acre = 65 x (CEC)
where metal equivalents of sludge applied (Ib/ton of sludge)
are:
Metal Equivalent Content, Ibs/ton of sludge =
(ppm Zn)+2(ppm Cu)+4(ppm Ni)
500
The value 500 converts parts per million to pounds per ton.
The total sludge application is thus a matter of an account-
ing of yearly metal equivalent loadings until the maximum
permitted loading is reached.
In addition to the metal equivalents' limitations, Cd addi-
tions must be limited to a maximum of 2 Ibs per acre per
year with a total lifetime maximum of 20 Ibs per acre.
These limitations on heavy metal loading based on plant
toxicity effects also will protect the ground water from
metal contamination due to overloading of sludge on sites
which meet the criteria outlined in Chapter 6. An example
calculation for sludge application rate based on the Zn, Cu,
Ni, and Cd content is presented below:
Sample Calculation:
Sludge metals (ppm); Zinc (Zn) =2,370; Copper (Cu) =525;
Nickel (Ni) = 81; Cadmium (Cd) = 73. Application site soil
CEC = 10 meq/100g soil.
1. Total allowable metal equivalent loading =
65 x CEC = 650 Ibs/acre.
2. Sludge metal equivalent per ton =
2,370+2(525)+4(81) = 3,744 =
500 500
7.5 Ibs metal equivalents per ton of sludge.
D-11
-------
3. Total loading permitted = 650 = 87 tons/acre.
7.5
4. Check cadmium limitation.
4a. Yearly loading limit due to Cd =
2 x 500 = 2 x 500 =
ppm Cd 73
13.7 tons sludge/acre for 2 Ibs of Cd.
Where 500 is a conversion factor.
4b. Total Cd loading permitted = 137 tons sludge/acre
for 20 Ibs of Cd .
Based on these calculations, the total sludge application
for a soil with a CEC of 10 meq/100g is limited by the zinc
equivalent which allows a total application of 87 tons to
the soi I.
The procedures just described for determining the total
sludge application rate are as suggested in the WDNR guide-
lines. For this reuse program the total sludge application
rate should be reduced by one-fourth for land which will
grow vegetables for direct human consumption. The total
loading should also be reduced by one-half for land growing
leafy vegetables. A total sludge application worksheet is
shown as Table D-8.
D. 4 ANNUAL SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE DETERMINATION
EXPLANATION
The annual sludge application rate is based upon the crop
nitrogen requirement and the amount of available nitrogen
contained in the sludge. As discussed in Section 6.3, the
basis of the criteria is to assure that no excess nitrates
will leach into the ground water due to an excess applica-
tion of sludge nitrogen that cannot be used by the crop.
The crop nitrogen requirement will be estimated from the
results of the soil monitoring described in Appendix E.
Lacking a soil test, the crop nitrogen requirements can be
estimated from the data given in Table 6-3.
The available nitrogen content of the sludge will be based
on a laboratory analysis of sludge and estimated values for
volatilization of ammonia and mineralization rates of organic
nitrogen. Residual nitrogen availability from previous
D-12
-------
TABLE D-8
TOTAL SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE WORKSHEET
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SLUDGE USER NAME:
FIELD REFERENCE Ni
SLUDGE CHARACTER
ZINC CONTENT (Zn)
COPPER CONTENT (Cu)
NICKEL CONTENT (Ni)
CADMIUM CONTENT (Cd)
= 2370 mg/kg
= S2.S mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
CROPS WHICH MAY BE GROWN ON SITE
< ) VEGETABLES FOR DIRECT
HUMAN CONSUMPTION
( ) LEAFY VEGETABLES
( t^ ) OTHER CROP TYPES ONLY
AVERAGE SOIL CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY
CEC = / _ &>$O Ibs/acre
SLUDGE METAL EQUIVALENT
(Zn) + 2 (Cu) + 4 (Ni)
(E) =
500
2(525)+ 4(g/
500
,ht/riry
ZINC EQUIVALENT SLUDGE APPLICATION LIMIT
A
E
dry tons sludge/acre.
COMPUTATION BY CADMIUM METHOD
CADMIUM APPLICATION LIMIT
20 x 500 20 x 500
(C) =
(Cd)
(
= f-37 dry tons sludge/acre.
TOTAL ALLOWABLE SLUDGE LOADING FOR GENERAL CROPS
IS THE LESSER OF M AND C. FOR THIS SITE IT IS (T) =
dry tons sludge/acre.
SPECIAL CROP LIMITATIONS
LOADING ON VEGETABLES FOR DIRECT HUMAN CONSUMPTION
.75 x (T) = .75 x _ = _ dry tons sludge/acre
LOADING ON LEAFY VEGETABLES =
.50 x(T) = .50 x _ =
. dry tons sludge/acre.
TOTAL ALLOWABLE SLUDGE APPLICATION FOR THIS SITE IS
.dry tons sludge/acre.
D-13
-------
years of sludge application is not computed because (1) it
is negligible compared to the annual requirement, and (2) it
will be partially accounted for in the recommended soil
testing program.
Following are two example calculations of the annual appli-
cation rate. One is for use of the treatment plant sludge,
and the other for lagoon sludge.
Sample Calculation 1 - Treatment Plant Sludge.
Assume: Nitrogen content: 5. 5% ammonia N, 5.0%organicN
Crop: Grain corn
Sludge application method: Surface applied,
no soil incorporation
Soil Class: 3
W
Annual Application Rate, (dry tons/acre/year) - TT-
Where:
1. W = Total crop nitrogen requirement in Ibs N/acre.
Since we have no soil test, use 125 Ibs N/acre for a
grain corn crop as shown in Table 6-3.
W = 125 Ibs N/acre
2. N = Total available nitrogen content of sludge in
Ibs N/dry ton = Namm + Norg.
Where:
2a. Namm = available ammonia N or
Namm = % ammonia in sludge x availability coeff.
x 20. The value 20 is a conversion factor.
• If sludge is soil incorporated, use an avail-
ability coeff. of 1.0.
• If sludge is surface applied, use an avail-
ability coeff. of 0.5.
Therefore, for this example:
Namm = 5. 5 x 0. 5 x 20 = 55 Ibs/ton
Namm = 55 Ibs N/ton.
D-14
-------
2b. Norg = available organic N or
Norg = % organic x availability coeff. x 20.
• Use an availability coeff. of 0.20 which is
based on an estimated mineralization rate for
the first year of 20%.
Therefore, for this example:
Norg = 5.0 x 0.2 x 20 = 20 Ibs/ton
Norg = 20 Ibs N/ton.
2c. N = Namm + Norg = 55 + 20 = 75
N = 75 Ibs N/ton.
W
3. Annual Application Rate = -^
= 125 Ibs N/acre
75 Ibs N/dry ton sludge
= 1.7 dry tons/acre/year.
4. Check the cadmium limitation, the computation of which
is shown in Section D.3. Use whichever is smaller, the
annual application rate computed in Step 3 or the
cadmium limitation. For this example, it is assumed
that cadmium is not limiting since it appears that
13.7 tons per acre per year are required to reach 2 pounds
of cadmium per acre.
5. Check Soil Class 3 limitation. Reduce the annual
sludge application rate by one-third if the site is on
Class 3 soils. The equation is:
Soil Class 3 Annual Application Rate = 0.67 x annual
application rate determined in Step 4.
Therefore, for this example and Class 3 soils:
Annual Application Rate = 0.67 x 1.7 =
1.1 dry tons/acre/year .
Based on the foregoing, the application rate would be
1.1 dry tons per acre per year because of the Class 3 soil
limitation.
D-15
-------
Sample Calculation 2 - Lagoon Sludge.
Assume: Nitrogen content: 1.2% ammonia, 4.6% organic
Crop: Grain corn
Sludge application method: soil injection
Soil Class: 1
1. W = total crop nitrogen requirement = 125 Ibs N/acre,
from Table 6-3.
2. N = Total available N content sludge = Namm + Norg.
2a. Namm = % ammonia x available coeff. x 20 = 1.2 x
1.0 x 20 = 24 Ibs/ton.
2b. Norg = %org. x available coeff. x 20 = 4.6 x 0.20
x 20 = 18.4.
2c. N = Namm + Norg = 20 + 18.4 = 38.4 Ibs/ton.
W 125
3. Annual Application Rate = TT = 30-4
Annual Application Rate = 3.25 dry tons/acre/year.
4. Check cadmium limitation. Again, as in Example 1,
cadmium is not limiting.
5. Check for Class 3 soils limitations. None,
Based on the foregoing, the application rate would be
3.25 tons per acre per year.
The foregoing calculations are easily adapted to a worksheet
format, an example of which is shown in Table D-9.
D-16
-------
TABLE D-9
ANNUAL SLUDGE APPLICATION RATE WORKSHEET
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
SLUDGE USER NAME:
FIELD REFERENCE NO.:.
NITROGEN CONTENT OF SLUDGE IS_s5I^L_% AMMONIA. _«£_0_% ORGANIC
CROP TO BE GROWN IS
SLUDGE APPLICATION METHOD T#UC,K
THE MAJOR SOIL CLASS IS 1 2 CIRCLE ONE
CADMIUM CONTENT OF SLUDGE IS 73 mg/kg.
TOTAL CROP NITROGEN REQUIREMENT, W (Ibs/acre) IS /2-5* (FROM SOIL TEST
OR TABLE 6-3).
AVAILABLE AMMONIA NITROGEN = % AMMONIA x AVAILABLE COEFFICIENT x 20
Namm = &-S x » S x 20 = ££" Ibs. N/ton.
FOR SURFACE APPLICATION USE AVAILABLE COEFFICIENT = 0.5.
FOR SUBSURFACE APPLICATION USE AVAILABLE COEFFICIENT = 1.0.
AVAILABLE ORGANIC NITROGEN = % ORGANIC x AVAILABLE COEFFICIENT x 20
Norg = 5.O x >2O x 20 = ZO Ibs. N/ton.
UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, USE AVAILABLE COEFFICIENT = 0.20.
TOTAL AVAILABLE NITROGEN, N = Namm + Norg = 5$ + 2-O = _ L~L _ Ibs. N/ton.
1. ANNUAL APPLICATION RATE =-^= (A) = ^^-= /. 7 dry tons/acre/year.
2. CHECK CADMIUM LIMITATION: , M2 x 500'. .= ,2,OC = /£ 7 dry tons/acre/year.
(mg/kg cadmium) (
3. CHECK SOIL CLASS. IF SOIL CLASS 3, USE:
APPLICATION RATE = 0.67 x (A)=0.67 x / 7 = / / Hry tons/acre/year.
4. USE THE LESSER OF COMPUTATION 1 OR 2, UNLESS CLASS 3 SOIL; THEN USE
THE LESSER OF COMPUTATION 2 OR 3.
RECOMMENDED ANNUAL SLUDGE APPLICATION IS _ /_/ - dry tons/acre/year.
D-17
-------
Appendix E
MONITORING PROGRAM
The sludge reuse program should be monitored to protect the
environment, provide farmer confidence in the program, and
comply with requirements by regulatory agencies. The moni-
toring program will include sampling and analysis of the
sludge, soils, crops, and ground water. The objectives and
procedures for each part of the monitoring program are
discussed in detail in this appendix. The estimated costs
of the monitoring program are presented in Table B-13.
E.1 SLUDGE MONITORING
Objective
The sludge will be monitored for two purposes: characteri-
zation and documentation. The sludge will be characterized
periodically to establish the quality. To document the
actual quantity and quality of sludge applied, samples will
be taken as sludge is applied to land.
Description
The sludge in the existing lagoons has already been charac-
terized as a part of this planning study (see Chapter 5).
Therefore, only the digester and storage lagoon sludges need
to be periodically characterized. This will be done by
monthly sampling and analysis of digester sludge for solids
content, total Kjeldahl and ammonia nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, cadmium, zinc, copper, and nickel. Sludge charac-
terization monitoring will also include quarterly sampling
of the digesters and storage lagoon for complete characteri-
zation. Complete characterization will consist of deter-
mining the following: total Kjeldahl and ammonia nitrogen,
total phosphorus, potassium, total solids, total volatile
solids, total soluble salts, pH, iron, zinc, copper, titanium,
lead, barium, chromium, manganese, nickel, tin, cadmium,
molybdenum, arsenic, boron, selenium, mercury, sulfate,
alkalinity as CaCO at pH 4.5 and pH 4.2, calcium, magnesium,
and sodium.
The documentation sampling and analysis will consist of
collecting a composite sample from each sludge source,
digesters, storage lagoon, existing lagoon, or small
E-1
-------
on-farm lagoon that is used each day. These composite
samples will be analyzed for total solids and total Kjeldahl
and ammonia nitrogen.
Sampling Procedures
The periodic samples for characterization will be collected
as grab samples. The sludge samples will be collected from
a point within the distribution system to ensure that the
samples are representative of the sludge that is eventually
applied onto fields. Preservatives must be added to the
sludge samples unless the analyses are performed on the day
collected. Two samples at each sampling point must be
taken; one preserved by mercuric chloride for nitrogen and
total solids analyses, and one preserved by nitric acid for
heavy metal analyses. The preservatives can be added in the
laboratory to avoid handling them in the field. Methods of
preservation are explained in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater.
The daily samples for documentation will consist of several
subsamples collected throughout the day and composited into
a single sample for analysis. If sludge is being taken from
more than one of the sludge sources (the digesters, storage
lagoon, existing lagoons, or small on-farm lagoons) , a
composite sample must be collected from each source. If the
sludge is hauled by tanker truck, a subsample should be
taken from each truckload. If the sludge is transported by
pipeline for direct application to land, hourly subsamples
should be collected directly from the pipeline. Each com-
posite sludge sample should be preserved by mercuric
chloride for the total solids and nitrogen analyses.
The sampling devices and sample containers must be cleaned
of all growths of sewage organisms before every use.
Analysis Procedures
Table E-l lists the references on methods for laboratory
analysis of each sludge constituent.
E.2 SOIL MONITORING
Objective
The objectives of soil monitoring are to determine the
condition of the soil before the initial sludge application
and to determine the nutrient and pH status of the soil
while sludge is being used. These parameters must be deter-
E-2
-------
mined to set the total and annual sludge application rates
and the lime requirement.
TABLE E-1
SLUDGE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES REFERENCES
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
PARAMETER
Total Kieldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Potassium
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Total Soluble Salts
pH
Boron (hot water soluble)
Mercury
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Titanium
Lead
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Tin
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Arsenic
Selenium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Sulfate
Alkalinity @ C«CO3 * pH 4.5 1
Alkalinity S> C«CO3 pH 4.2 ]
SAMPLE PREPARATION
EPA, 1974, p. 175
EPA, 1974, p. 165
EPA, 1969, p. 18
EPA, 1969, p. 18
EPA, 1974, p. 270
EPA, 1974, p. 272
Chapman and Pratt, 1961, p. 234
EPA, 1974, p. 239
Chapman and Pratt, 1961, p. 246
EPA, 1974, p. 137
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al. 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975. p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p, 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p, 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975. p. 22
Caldwell, et al, 1973. p. 734
CaWwell, et al, 1973, p. 734
EPA, 1969, p. 18
EPA, 1969. p. 18
EPA, 1969, p. 18
EPA, 1969, p. 18
Sample prepared by mixing,
dilution and settling, then
supernatant is analyzed
QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION
EPA. 1974, p 165
EPA, 1974, p. 165
EPA, 1974, p. 249
EPA, 1974, p. 143
EPA, 1974, p. 270
EPA, 1974, p. 272
Chapman and Pratt, 1961, p. 234
EPA, 1974, p. 239
EPA, 1974, p. 13
EPA, 1974, p. 137
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Caldwell, et al, 1973, p. 734
Caldwell, et al. 1973, p. 734
EPA, 1974. p. 19
EPA, 1974, p. 114
EPA, 1974. p. 147
EPA, 1974, p. 277
EPA, 1974. p. 3
EPA, 1974, p. 3
Description
The soil monitoring program will consist of two parts. One
will be to make use of the University of Wisconsin Extension
soil testing and fertilizer recommendations and lime recom-
mendations program. Another part will be to determine the
background levels of sludge constituents which may accumulate
in the soil. The data collected will be used in computing
the total allowable sludge application rate.
The extension program consists of gathering soil samples
every year before a crop is fertilized and planted. The
Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory, University of Wisconsin
at Madison, then analyzes the samples for available phos-
phorus, potassium, organic carbon, and pH. They then make a
recommendation for fertilizer and lime application based
E-3
-------
upon the test results, immediate past cultural practices,
and crop to be grown. As part of the MMSD sludge reuse
program, the fertilizer and lime recommendations will be
used to determine the sludge application rate and the need
for a lime application and will be required every year
before sludge application.
Soil samples for background level determination will be
collected before any sludge is applied to the field. The
results of this analysis will be recorded and kept on file.
The results will be used to determine the total allowable
sludge application limit for each field and to quantify the
soil condition as it was before any sludge was applied. The
initial soil samples will be analyzed for cation exchange
capacity, electrical conductivity, calcium, magnesium,
sodium, iron, aluminum, zinc, copper, nickel, cadmium,
molybdenum, mercury, manganese, and boron.
Sampling Procedures
The most important part of establishing useful soil analysis
is obtaining representative samples. This will require
careful selection of location, procedure, and time of sam-
pling.
Location. The sampling locations will be different for the
initial and annual soil sampling. When performing the
initial soil samping, each major soil series on a site will
be sampled at a minimum rate of one sample location per soil
series per 20 acres and a maximum of one sample location per
5 acres. The extent and location of the various soil
series can be found in the Dane County Interim Soil Survey.
The locations for the annual sampling should be determined
using standard University of Wisconsin Extension procedures
which are explained in detail by Schulte and others (1968).
Procedure. The success or failure of soil analysis depends
on securing a representative soil sample, plus subsequent
handling operations. Several steps are needed to obtain the
final sample: (1) taking and mixing a series of cores from
the location to be sampled; (2) subsampling this original
sample one or more times; (3) air drying, grinding, sieving,
mixing, and storing. The greatest possibility for error,
assuming proper subsampling, drying, grinding, and sieving
techniques, lies in securing a representative sample at the
beginning. Considering the time and expense required for
all subsequent operations, including analysis, frequently
too little time and thought are put into the original sam-
pling plan. For these reasons, we recommend that the District
E-4
-------
staff be trained by University Extension agricultural agents
or Extension soil specialists on where and how to sample the
soils. The detailed procedures for soil sampling are
explained by Schulte and others (1968) and by Chapman and
Pratt (1961). In general, they recommend that at each
sample location, a series of cores be taken according to a
systematic grid layout of the area of equal diameter and
comparable depth (volume). These cores should then be
composited. Separate composite samples representing differ-
ent segments of the soil profile or root zone should be
taken. Contamination from soil surface materials (crop
residues, manures, fertilizers, etc.) should be avoided,
also contamination of one soil depth with that of another.
The sampler should show on a map the location of the initial
sampling points for later reference. The annual soil sam-
pling locations need not be recorded.
For the initial soil monitoring, 20 soil sample cores will
be taken at each location. The core samples from undeveloped,
homogeneous soils will be taken to represent depths of
0-6 inches, 6 inches to 2 feet, and 3-5 feet. In developed
soils, the sampling depth will be based upon the various
layers. The 20 core samples for each depth will then be
composited. The initial composite samples will then be
split and one-half of each labeled as to depth, date, loca-
tion in field and field location, and stored in a dry place
for future reference. The remaining half of each initial
soil sample will be analyzed. The soil cores can normally
be collected by a standard closed face hand auger or a
Gliddings pickup-mounted soil probe and sampler or equivalent.
The detailed procedures for annual soil sampling are explained
by Schulte and others (1968).
Time of Soil Sampling. The initial soil sample must be
collected prior to the first sludge application on sites
which have not had sludge applied in the past. Sites which
have had sludge applied in the past should be sampled prior
to any additional sludge application. Also, enough time
should be allowed (1 month) so that the samples can be
analyzed before sludge is applied to the field.
There are also some time constraints on when samples should
be collected for annual soil testing. The University Exten-
sion recommends that the samples be collected in the fall,
after harvest and before snowfall, where sludge will be
applied the following spring. The minimum turnaround time
from delivery of the sample to the laboratory until the
fertilizer and lime recommendations are developed is
2-3 weeks.
E-5
-------
Analysis Procedures
The annual phosphorus, potassium, pH, and organic carbon
soil analyses will be performed using the procedures out-
lined for the Extension soil test program by Schulte, Olsen,
and Censon (revised 1975) .
Procedures for the many analyses performed on the initial
condition samples are contained in several references.
These are listed in Table E-2.
TABLE E-2
SOIL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES REFERENCES
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
PARAMETER
Electrical Conductivity
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Aluminum
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Mercury
Manganese
Boron
Cation Exchange Capacity
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Bower and Wilcox, 1965, p. 937
Schulte, et al, 1975, p. 17
Schulte, et al, 1975, p. 17
Pratt, 1965, p. 1033
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
lire and Shand, 1974, p. 63
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Schulte, et al, 1975, p. 13
Chapman, 1965, p. 894
QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION
Bower and Wilcox, 1965, p. 937
Schulte, et al, 1975, p. 17
Schulte, et al, 1975, p. 17
Pratt, 1965, p. 1033
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Ure and Shand, 1974, p. 63
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Schulte, et al, 1975, p. 13
Chapman, 1965, p. 894
E.3 PLANT MONITORING
Objective
The principal objective of the plant monitoring program is
to determine whether the application of the sludge to the
land is creating an excess of noxious or toxic elements
resulting in potentially harmful impacts to crop produc-
tivity or the food chain. The principal potentially harmful
elements found in the sludge are the heavy metals and boron,
These elements are usually "fixed" in the soil to varying
degrees and therefore will require a buildup in the soil
before becoming readily available to the plants.
Description
The final effect of application to the land of the various
constituents in the sludge is the effect on the plants grown
on the land. Plant tissue analysis will provide a sensitive
E-6
-------
and accurate assessment of these effects; therefore, the
crops will be monitored on all areas receiving sludge by
periodic plant tissue analysis.
TABLE E-3
SUGGESTED MAXIMUM
TOLERANCE LEVELS FOR VARIOUS
ELEMENTS IN SUCCULENT PLANT TISSUE
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ELEMENT
NORMAL
RANGE
Ml/9
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Molybdenum
Selenium
Vanadium
7-75
0.05-0.2
3-40
15-150
0.001-0.01
0.01-1.0
15-150
0.01-0.1
0.1-0.5
0.01-0.3
0.1-5.0
0.2-1.0
0.05-2.0
0.1-1.0
SUGGESTED
MAXIMUM
TOLERANCE
LEVEL
lig/g
100
3
150
300
0.04
3
350
2
2
5
10
3
3
2
Table E-3 lists suggested
maximum tolerance levels for
various elements in succulent
plant tissue of crops normally
grown in the project area.
These suggested levels include
a safety factor and are, in
effect, a warning level beyond
which toxicity symptoms might
be expected. The monitoring
program will include analysis
of all of the elements listed
in Table E-3. These elements
have been found to be poten-
tially hazardous to plant
growth or in the food chain.
Sampling Procedures
TABLE E-4
SUGGESTED PLANT PARTS FOR SAMPLING
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
Corn
Legumes
Cereals
Grasses
Soybeans
PLANT PART
Leaves at or opposite and below ear level
at tassel stage
Upper stem cuttings in early flower stage
Whole plants at boot stage
Whole plants at early hay stage
Youngest mature leaves and petioles on the
plant after first pod formation.
Methods. Proper sampling of
the plant tissue for the
particular crop is critical to
the dependability of the
results. Plant sampling
should initially be conducted
under the direction of an
experienced plant scientist or
agricultural chemist. After
some training, the staff can
perform the sampling.
Table E-4 indicates the sug-
gested plant parts to be
sampled from the crops typi-
cally grown in the project area. Guides for sampling other
crops are described by Chapman (1966) . It is also important
to obtain representative samples; procedures for this are
also explained by Chapman (1966).
Frequency of Sampling
Sampling will commence during the first crop season follow-
ing the first application of sludge. This will provide
background information and measure any possible effect of
initial introduction of an element. Subsequent sampling
will be performed in the crop season following every third
E-7
-------
annual application of sludge. This will monitor any pos-
sible effect of a potential buildup of elements resulting
from repeated applications. Also, the crops should be
monitored in the fifth year after a sludge application if
the site is no longer used for sludge reuse.
Analysis Procedures
The procedures for analysis of plant tissue for various
elements are referenced in Table E-5.
TABLE E-5
PLANT TISSUE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES REFERENCES
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
PARAMETER
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Lead
Molybdenum
Selenium
Vanadium
SAMPLE PREPARATION
Chapman and Pratt. 1961, p. E
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 197S, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Bouchard, 1973, p. 115
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Caldwell, et al, 1973, p. 734
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
Caldwell, et al, 1973, p. 734
Epstein, et al, 1975, p. 22
QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION
Chapman and Pratt, 1961, p. 88
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Bouchard. 1973, p. 115
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Caldwell, et al, 1973, p. 734
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Caldwell, et al, 1973, p. 734
Follow methods manual supplied with AA unit
Use of Analysis Results
The results of the analyses of the samples will be compared
to generally accepted "normal" ranges of the elements in the
respective types of plants. The normal ranges shown in
Table E-3 have been suggested by Melsted (1973). As addi-
tional research is conducted on soil-plant relations con-
cerning the fate of sludge constituents following land
applications, the normal and maximum levels of the elements
in plant tissue will be refined. As new information is
accumulated, it should be used in determining the effects of
the sludge application to land in the project area.
In the event that suggested maximum tolerance levels of any
of the elements are reached in any of the samples, it will
be considered a warning of potential danger. An additional
set of samples should be taken from the affected site to
verify the condition. If it is verified, sludge application
on that site should be discontinued until the reason is
determined. Monitoring should continue with samples taken
E-8
-------
each year for a reasonable length of time. Consultation
with knowledgeable plant scientists should be made and
suggested remedial action taken. Such remedial action may
be a crop change or an effort to change soil pH which would
affect the availability of the potentially harmful element.
E.4 GROUND-WATER MONITORING
Objective
The ground-water monitoring program will consist of sampling
and analyzing ground water from on or near all sludge appli-
cation sites. The objective of this monitoring is to estab-
lish background levels and detect ground-water quality
changes, if any, after sludge application.
Description
Ground water from all wells and other ground-water sources
on and within 500 feet of all sludge application sites will
be monitored. An initial sample will be collected from each
ground-water source before sludge is applied to establish
background levels. Thereafter, a sample will be collected
every 3 years to monitor changes in ground-water quality.
If a site is no longer used for sludge application, the
ground water should be monitored 5 years after the last
sludge application.
The initial samples used to determine background conditions
will be analyzed for MBAS, arsenic, nitrate-nitrogen, total
dissolved solids, mercury, and coliform. The periodic
monitoring samples will be analyzed for nitrate-nitrogen and
total dissolved solids.
Sampling Procedures
Wells should be pumped long enough prior to sampling to
evacuate at least three times the volume of water in the
casing if volume is known; otherwise, the well should be
pumped for 20 minutes prior to sampling. Where domestic or
municipal wells are connected to pressure tanks or storage
tanks, the sample should be collected from the most readily
available point before the point of chlorination. If sample
collection is from a domestic faucet, enough time should be
allowed for water in the pipe from the pressure tank to the
faucet to be completely replaced by fresh water. From a
pressure source, the water should be run into sample bottles
slowly to minimize agitation and the resultant excessive
aeration or loss of gas. Upon sampling, the following
information should be recorded:
E-9
-------
• Date and time of collection.
• Name of collector.
• Well location and point of sample collection.
• Well type and use.
• Duration of pumping prior to sampling.
• Appearance of water at time of sampling (clear,
colored, turbid, sediments, etc).
• Description of natural or manmade factors that may
assist in interpreting chemical quality.
The water sample from each well shall consist of three
separate specialized samples. The laboratory samples should
consist of 1 gallon as is for chemical analysis, 1 gallon
preserved in nitric acid for heavy metal analysis, and
1 pint in a sterilized container for coliform analysis.
Samples should be kept in the dark and at low temperatures
until analyzed. Except for tests run in the field, the
samples should be analyzed within 24 hours after collection.
The coliform analysis sample should be analyzed within
8 hours after collection. All samples should be labeled and
recorded.
Analysis Procedures
All analyses will be performed in accordance with "Standard
Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater" 1971. If
in the future, after background levels have been established,
new laboratory procedures are adopted, correlation to back-
ground levels will be required.
E.5 SURFACE WATER MONITORING
A broad surface water monitoring program is not recommended
for the sludge reuse program. However, limited monitoring
may be useful in some instances where runoff is occurring
from a sludge-applied field. Samples could be taken to
determine if the stream is being polluted, the magnitude of
the problem, and the source of the problem. With this
information, the District can more effectively correct the
problem.
E-10
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
KfTBRIENSGERE
ENGINEERS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND
1.01. General 1-1
1.02. Description of Proposed Actions 1-1
1.03. Location of Proposed Actions 1-4
1.04. Sludge Quality, Quantity and Storage Lagoon 1-4
Problems
A. General
B. Treatment Plant Sludge
C. Future Sludge Characteristics
D Lagoon Sludge
E. Storage Lagoon Problems
1.05. Program Objectives 1-10
1.06. Program Costs and Financing 1-11
A. Background
B. Basis of Allocation of the Costs to the Parameters
C. Present Organic Solids Reuse Program
and Costs
D. Proposed Organic Solid Reuse Program Costs
1.07. History of the Sludge Disposal Program 1-12
SECTION 2 - THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
2.01. General 2-1
2.02. Climate 2-1
A. Temperature
B. Precipitation
C. Snowfall
D. Winds
E. Severe Climatological Events
2.03. Topography 2-2
A. General
B. Driftless Area
C. Glaciated Area
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
PAGE
SECTION 2 - THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTIONS (Cont'd.)
2-3
2-5
2-5
2.04.
2.05.
2.06.
2.07,
2.08.
2.09.
2.10.
2.11.
2.12.
2.13.
2.14.
Geology
Soils
Hydrology
A. General
B. Surface Water Resources
C. Groundwater Resources
Biology
A. General
B. Mammals
C. Reptiles
D. Amphibians
E. Birds
F. Invertebrates
G. Fish
H. Endangered Species
I. Vegetation
Air Quality
Land Use
Significant Environmentally Sensitive Areas
A. General
B. Wetlands
C. Scientific and Natural Areas
Population
Other Water Quality Management Programs
in the Area
A. General
B, Dane County 208 Planning Program
C. 201 Facilities Planning Studies
D. Wisconsin River - National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System Study
Aesthetics and Recreation
A. Aesthetics
B. Recreation
Energy
A. General
B. MMSD Usage
2-13
2-18
2-20
2-20
2-24
2-24
2-26
2-26
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
PAGE
SECTION 2 - THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTIONS (Cont'd.)
2.15. Public Health 2-27
A. General
B. Waterborne Diseases
C. Mosquito Control
2.16. Historical and Archeological Sites , 2-28
A. Historical Sites
B. Archeological Sites
SECTION 3 - SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
3.01. Previous Studies 3-1
A. General
B. Waste Treatment Report, Greeley and Hansen
Engineers, 1971
C. Sludge Disposal Study, Roy F. Weston
Engineers, 1974
D. MMSD Addendum to Roy F. Weston Sludge
Disposal Study, 1974
E. Summary
3.02. Land Application 3-4
A. General
B. Land Application Regulations
C. Sludge Application Rate Considerations
D. Methods of Sludge Transportation, Storage
and Application
3.03. No Action 3-14
SECTION 4 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
4.01. General 4-1
4.02. Program Description 4-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
SECTION 4 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS (Cont'd.)
4.03. Program Management
A. Program Administration
B. Monitoring Program
C. Marketing Program
D. Sludge Handling Facilities
E. Manpower Requirements
F. Program Implementation Schedule
G. Program Cost
H. Sludge Handling Contingency Plan
SECTION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
5.01. General
5.02. Environmental Impacts
A. Climate
B. Topography
C. Soils
D. Water Quality
E. Water Quantity
F. Water Uses
G. Water Quality Management
H. Air Quality
I. Land Use
J. Biology
K. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
L. Aesthetics and Recreation
M. Energy
N. Public Health
O. Historical and Archeological Sites
5.03. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided
Should the Proposed Action be Implemented
A. Increased Traffic
B. Increase of Metals Concentrations
C. Construction Activities
5.04. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Usage
of the Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
A. Water Quality
B. Recreation
PAGE
4-2
5-1
5-1
5-10
5-11
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
PAGE
SECTION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS (Cont'd.)
5.05. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of 5-11
Resources Which Would Be Involved if the
Proposed Actions Should Be Implemented
SECTION 6 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
6.01. Facilities Planning Advisory Committee 6-1
6.02. Public Information Meetings 6-1
6.03. Public Hearing 6-2
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1-1 Estimated Organic Solids Reuse Program Costs
1-2 Treatment Plant Sludge Characteristics
1-3 Nitrogen Analysis, Treatment Plant Disgested Sludge
1-4 Estimated Future Sludge Quantities
1-5 Lagoon Sludge Characteristics
1-6 Estimated Annual Cost for the Average
Residential Customer Without Grants
1-7 Estimated Annual Cost for the Average
Residential Customer With 80 Percent Grants
2-1 Geologic Units, Dane-Rock Counties, Wisconsin
2-2 Soil Associations of Dane and Rock Counties
2-3 Flow Data, Yahara River Basin
2-4 Water Quality Data for Summer Months
2-5 Groundwater Quality Data
2-6 Surface Water Fisheries
2-7 Wisconsin Endangered Species List
2-8 Rare and Endangered Species (USEPA Region V)
2-9 1974 Air Quality Data
2-10 Dane County Land Use
2-11 Rock County Land Use
2-12 Public Scientific Areas
2-13 Population Data
PAGE
1-3
1-7
1-6
1-8
1-9
1-13
1-14
2-4
2-6
2-9
2-10
2-12
2-15
2-16
2rl7
2-19
2-21
2-22
2-23
2-24
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1-1 Sludge Storage Lagoons
1-2 Location of Proposed Actions
1-2
1-5
vi
-------
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND
1.01. GENERAL
Under provisions contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) initiated a program for the
development of a 201 Facilities Planning study. The objective of the 201 Study is to
determine a wastewater treatment and discharge alternative which will meet the require-
ments of the Federal and State legislation regarding protection of the environment. Also
included in the 201 Facilities Plan is the development of an organic solids (sludge) reuse
alternative.
These studies are in compliance with Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit No.
WI 0024597. This permit requires completion of a Facilities Plan prior to any further design
or construction of advanced wastewater treatment, effluent discharge or sludge disposal
facilities. This report will assess the alternatives presently available for the disposal or reuse
of the sludge resulting from the treatment of wastewater at the Nine Springs Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
1.02. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
The proposed method of sludge handling and disposal encompassing both the sludge
produced during future wastewater treatment and the sludge presently being stored in the
lagoons adjacent to the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant is summarized below.
It is recommended that liquid anaerobically digested sludge be made available to the
agricultural community in the vicinity of the Nine Springs treatment plant for application
to agricultural lands for the utilization of its nutrient value. The sludge from the treatment
plant and from the existing lagoons (Figure 1-1) will be disposed of in this manner. The
major portion of the existing lagoons will be abandoned and allowed to return to the
natural state of the surrounding area. A portion of the western lagoon (Lagoon 1) will be
retained for the the seasonal storage of sludge.
The sludge application program would be administered by MMSD staff personnel. Trans-
portation of sludge would be accomplished by the utilization of tanker trucks or pipeline.
Field application would utilize truck spreaders initially, with additional spreading capacity
furnished by subsurface injection equipment and tractor spreaders.
MMSD personnel would have overall responsibility for the management and monitoring of
the proposed program. Adherance to State and Federal regulations and guidelines regarding
the land application of sludge must be maintained. Site location and management, applica-
tion rate development, monitoring of environmental indicators, and the necessary record
keeping required to maintain proper program control will be conducted by MMSD. A
marketing program to develop a strong and reliable demand for the sludge will be a part of
the proposed actions.
A contingency sludge handling and disposal program is required in the event of the land
application program becoming inoperative for any reason. With pumping of the sludge
supernatant back to the treatment plant, as at the present, a sufficient volume for
approximately three years of sludge production would be provided by the seasonal storage
1-1
-------
FIGURE
MMSD FACILITIES PLAN
SLUDGE STORAGE LAGOONS
1-2
O-BRIEN&GERE
ENGINEERS. INC
-------
lagoon located in Lagoon 1. This assumes solids concentration of approximately 10% in the
lagoons after supernatant return. This is the concentration currently obtained. During this
period the problems which caused the halt of the land application program should be
investigated and corrected. If the problem cannot be corrected or modified such that the
land application program could be resumed, then the period should be utilized to develop
an alternative sludge handling and disposal program. It is also proposed that the existing
dikes for Lagoon 1 be left in place and that their structural integrity be maintained. Surface
drainage from the unused portion of Lagoon 1 would be provided. The capacity provided by
having the entire volume of Lagoon 1 in reserve would enable the MMSD to utilize Lagoon
1 in the event of some unforeseen development.
The implementation of the proposed actions would begin immediately upon approval of the
regulatory agencies. It is anticipated that review of the proposed actions should be com-
pleted by early 1977. Establishing the required market for the proposed actions and the
purchasing of all required equipment would mean that full implementation of the program
would not begin until 1978. The marketing and monitoring programs would begin during
1976 as interested farm owners expressed a desire for the application of sludge to their
lands.
Annual costs for implementation of the proposed actions have been developed in Table
B-14 of Volume III - Organic Solids Reuse Plan by CH2M-Hill. Capital costs were es-
tablished for the purchase of equipment required to implement the program and to
construct required facilities. The costs reported reflect amortization over a period of 20
years at a 1% interest rate. As additional spreaders, nurse tankers, pipeline or other facilities
are required, the costs have been adjusted accordingly. Also included is the estimated costs
for operation and maintenance of the program and anticipated program revenues.
During the first ten-year period, it is proposed that sludge currently stored in the existing
lagoons be removed. The operation and maintenance figures estimated reflect the increased
costs during this period. After the lagoons have been emptied the operation and main-
tenance costs would drop significantly. Table 1-1 summarizes the total annual costs (with-
out State or Federal grant allocations) estimated for the implementation of the proposed
reuse program.
TABLE 1-1
ESTIMATED ORGANIC SOLIDS REUSE PROGRAM COSTS
1978-1987 1988-2000
Capital Costs $2,130,000 $536,000
Average Annual
Debt Service! 157,700 209,500
\
Average Annual
Operation &
Maintenance 250,900 108,800
Average Annual
Program Revenue 6,400 5,000
Total Annual
Cost2 $ 402,200 $313,300
Source: Table B-14, Organics Solids Reuse Plan by CH2M-HU1
1. To pay off capital costs in20 years @ 7% interest.
2. Total Annual Cost = Debt Service + Operation and Maintenance - Program Revenue
1 -3
-------
In addition to the implementation of the proposed reuse program, upgrading of the existing
handling system is proposed. Detailed evaluation of the alternative cost estimates required
to provide improved solids handling of the expected increase in solids production resulting
from various levels of advanced wastewater treatment may be found in Volume II Waste-
water Treatment Plant, by CH2M-HU1.
1.03. LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
The MMSD treatment facility, Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant, provides treatment
for the wastewater generated in the City of Madison and the surrounding area. The sludge
produced as a result of the wastewater treatment and the sludge currently stored in the
lagoons adjacent to the treatment plant are proposed to be applied to agricultural lands
within 5 to 12 miles of the treatment plant as shown on Figure 1-2.
Required sludge handling facilities such as pumping stations, loading docks, laboratory
facilities, equipment storage and maintenance areas and administrative offices will be
provided at the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant and possibly at a remote site.
Additional laboratory facilities providing required analyses of a special (soils and plant tissue
analysis) nature may be provided by qualified agencies in the area.
Field application of the sludge will be limited to those sites possessing suitable soil,
topography, bedrock geology, groundwater and other requirements as outlined in Section 3.
It is planned that the market developed for the organic solids will be limited to the
southcentral portion of Dane County. This would minimize the program costs for trans-
portation of sludge. Also there is an apparent abundance of land area in this portion of the
county suitable for the land application of sludge.
1.04. SLUDGE QUALITY, QUANTITY AND STORAGE LAGOON PROBLEMS
A. General
The quality of the sludge produced by the present treatment processes at the Nine
Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant was analyzed during a sampling and analysis
program conducted during 1975 and by reviewing sludge quality data provided by
MMSD.
Grab samples of the digested treatment plant sludge were taken at the inlet pipe of the
storage lagoons. Lagoon sludge samples were taken at 18 stations in Lagoon 1 and at
30 stations in Lagoon 2. These stations were located in a rectangular grid pattern
which assured coverage of the entire lagoon storage area. Analyses were run according
to standard procedures outlined in the following publications:
EPA, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (1974)
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater (1971)
Roberts, et al; Methods of Soil Analysis Used in the Soil Testing Laboratory at
Oregon State University (Special Report No. 321, April 1971), Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
1 -4
-------
EPA, Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods: Chemistry
Laboratory Manual - Bottom Sediments (December 1969)
B. Existing Treatment Plant Sludge Characteristics
The digested treatment plant sludge samples were analyzed for several physical and
chemical constituents. The characteristics of the treatment plant sludge may be
different in the future due to changes in the wastewater input or to changes in
treatment processes. Table 1-2 summarizes the data on the existing treatment plant
sludge.
Additional analyses were conducted to determine the amount of nitrogen occurring in
the treatment plant sludge. These results are summarized in Table 1-3.
Most of the sludge constituents are within the typical digested sludge values reported
in various studies (Konrad, J.G., and Klienert, S.J., 1974; Dean, R.B. and Smith, Jr.,
I.E., 1973). The report by Konrad and Klienert presented data collected from thirty-
five sewage treatment plants in Wisconsin. The values reported for the Nine Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant were in the lower portion of those reported. The high
ammonia levels are the result of ammonia accumulation in the digesters and should be
corrected by future modifications to the digestion system. The higher ammonia values
would be of benefit to farmers in a land application program, however, State and
Federal guidelines would require that additional land area be utilized to meet applica-
tion limitations. The low solids content means that excess liquid material is being
handled in comparison to the typical digested sludge. This results in the need for
additional storage area and larger capacity transportatipn or conveyance facilities.
The cadmium to zinc ration (73 to 2370 mg/kg) is approximately 3.1%. It has been
suggested (Chaney, R.L., 1973, Chaney, R.L., et al, 1975) that in order to overcome
cadmium toxicity problems, the cadmium to zinc ratio should be limited to 1% or less
for sludges to be applied to agricultural lands. Applications rate considerations are
developed in more detail in Section 3.02C of this report. Other factors affecting the
annual and total application rates, as shown in that Section, appear to be more limiting
than the cadmium to zinc ratio.
TABLE 1-3
NITROGEN ANALYSIS
TREATMENT PLANT DIGESTED SLUDGE1
Parameter Range (%) Average (%) Typical Digested Sludge2
Total Nitrogen 8.2-14.8 10.5 5.0
NHs-N 3.9-7.9 5.5 1.6
Organic-N 4.3-6.9 5.0 3.4
Source: Organic Solids Reuse Program Study CH2M Hill
1 Values reported on dry weight basis.
2 After Dean, R.B. and Smith, Jr., J.E., 1973. The Properties of Sludge In
Proceeding of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land, Champaign, Illinois.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-2
TREATMENT PLANT SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter*
Total Solids (%)
Total Volatile Solids (%)
Total Soluble Salts
(uohms/cm)
pH
Potassium
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Titanium
Lead
Barium
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Tin
Cadmium
Molybdenum
Cobalt
Alumium
Arsenic
Boron (hot water
soluble)
Selenium
Mercury
SO4-S (soluble)
Alkalinity as CaCOs
pH4.5
Alkalinity as CaCOs
pH4.2
Calcium
Magnesium
Total Phosphorus
Range
1.88-2.92
1.6
6380-7840
8.11-8.12
4820-9100
6800-10800
1600-3032
500-570
<90
175-640
600-1820
100-312
170-200
45.6-270
<10
37.7-160
<10
< 20-40
2640-3100
14
4-500
<4
4.8-19.3
200-470
5800-6100
6300-6600
13400-77900
6600-12900
6000-26800
Average
2.34
1.6
7150
8.11
7670
8850
2370
525
<90
286
1140
234
189
81
<10
73
<10
30
2870
14
300
< 4
11.6
335
5950
6450
51200
8970
13970
Typical Digested
Sludee2
4-6
12000-19000
8000-78000
490-12200
140-10000
40-4600
530-1340
50-32000
180-1130
15-1700
5^00
3600-12000
150-750
0.6-31
42000-180000
8000-12000
27000-61000
Source: Organic Solids Reuse Plan CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc., 1975
1
Values reported in mg/kg except as noted.
2 Konrad, J.G. and Klienert, S.J., 1974. Surveys of Toxic Metals in
Wisconsin: Removal of Metals from Waste Water by Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants. Technical Bulletin No. 74, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources.
1 -7
-------
C. Future Treatment Plant Characteristics
Several locations are being investigated as possible points of future effluent discharge.
Dependent upon the final discharge point, the effluent quality may vary somewhat as
required to protect the water quality of the streams. The degree and type of treatment
required to produce a given quality effluent will determine possible changes in the
quality and quantity of sludge produced in the future.
There are basically three different effluent qualities which would satisfy the require-
ment to protect the water quality of the potential receiving streams. These are
summarized below:
Effluent I - Less than 30 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids; Less than 2.0 mg/1
ammonia nitrogen
Effluent II - Less than 10 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids; Less than 0.2 mg/1
ammonia nitrogen
Effluent III (industrial reuse) - Less than 150 mg/1 total hardness; Less than 1,000
mg/1 total dissolved solids; Less than 0.2 mg/1 ammonia nitrogen
Effluent quality levels I and II can be achieved through conventional biological
treatment processes. Level III could be achieved utilizing lime softening in addition to
the biological treatment required for Levels I and II. The sludge produced as a result
of biological treatment is generally suitable for application to agricultural land. The
problems of high ammonia nitrogen and water (liquid) content are expected to be
reduced with improved wastewater treatment and sludge processing in the future. The
sludge which would be produced as a result of the lime softening associated with level
III might be suitable as soil pH conditioner. However, the large volumes of sludge
which would be produced through lime softening, as well as the possible poor quality
of such a sludge, may require that all or a portion of it be disposed of by landfill
methods.
Estimates of the sludge quantities which would be produced in the future would
increase as the level of treatment required and the volume of flow to the treatment
plant increase. Conservative estimates of quantities of sludge produced in the future are
summarized in Table 1-4.
TABLE 1-4
ESTIMTED FUTURE SLUDGE QUANTITIES
(Tons of dry solids per year)
Year
1981
1990
2000
Level I
5870
6560
7460
Level II
6730
7500
8520
Level III
6730 + Lime Sludge
7500 + Lime Sludge
8520 + Lime Sludge
1 -
-------
The sludge which would be produced in the lime softening process would require
separate handling from that produced through the biological process. The more con-
servative estimates for the Level II treatment will be utilized for making cost estimates,
sizing of handling and transportation facilities, and estimating other required facilities.
If a lesser degree of treatment is required, and consequently, a lesser volume of sludge
produced, then the estimated cost and other figures would have to be adjusted
accordingly.
D. Lagoon Sludge
1. Sludge Characteristics
The sludge from the storage lagoons was sampled and analyzed as described
earlier. Table 1-5 summarizes the characteristics of the sludge contained in the
lagoons. The higher percentage of solids noted in Lagoon 1 has resulted from the
solids contained in the sludge having settled out near the point of discharge
(Lagoon 1). The slightly higher ammonia nitrogen levels noted for Lagoon 1 have
resulted from the high values of the treatment plant sludge. Through volatiliza-
tion, the ammonia nitrogen levels of the sludge have decreased by the time it has
reached Lagoon 2. The cadmium to zinc ratio of the combined lagoon sludges is
approximately 1.3%. This is much lower than the current ratio found in the
treatment plant sludge (3.1%). Increased industrial use and discharge of cadmium
in recent years would explain the higher cadmium content of the present treat-
ment plant sludge.
TABLE 1-5
LAGOON SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS
Lagoon 1 Lagoon 2
Parameter Range Average Range Average
Depth of Sludge (ft) 2.0-7.1 5.74 2.7-17.2 5.30
Total Solids (%) 3.1-24.1 12.90 4.2-12.7 8.20
Volatile Solids (%) 9.8
Total Nitrogen (%) 2.74-9.23 5.71 4.16-8.66 5.98
Ammonia Nitrogen (%) 0.81-1.85 1.30 0.50-1.88 1.16
Total Phosphorus (%) 1.39-2.67 1.88 0.73-1.41 1.07
Total Potassium (%) 0.12-0.20 0.15 0.07-0.31 0.18
Zinc(mg/kg) 2145-3456 2934 2012-2080 2046
Copper (mg/kg) 470-490 479 259-541 420
Cadmium (mg/kg) 30.0-39.1 35.5 25.3-33.3 29.3
Nickel (mg/kg) 50.0-60.3 56.8 50.7-55.5 53.1
Mercury (mg/kg) 19.4-21.7 20.7 17.3-26.9 22.1
Total Soluble Salts 2670-4430 3703 2740-4730 3687
(uohms/cm)
Source: Organic Solids Reuse Plan, CH2M-HU1 Engineers, Inc., 1975
1 -9
-------
In addition to the analyses conducted on the sludge itself, several samples were
taken of the peat and marl material underlying the lagoons and analyzed for a
number of chemical constituents. It was recognized that the potential for ground-
water contamination through leaching from the stored sludge existed. Analyses
indicated that the concentrations in the peat and marl below the sludge, returned
to levels consistent with those of a control sample obtained away from the
immediate lagoon area within one foot below the peat/marl and sludge interface.
Since Lagoon 1 has been utilized for sludge storage since 1942 and Lagoon 2
since 1967, it was concluded that there is no appreciable threat to groundwater
contamination through leaching from the sludge material.
E. Storage Lagoon Problems
Investigations of the sludge storage lagoon dikes and a review of the dike failures of
Lagoon 2 indicated that the dike embankments, especially of Lagoon 2, are not stable.
Failures of a portion of the dikes of Lagoon 2 in 1970 and the resultant spill of sludge
and supernatant to nearby surface waters dramatically pointed up the need for
remedial action. An additional dike failure occurred in 1973 but spillage was negligible
at that time.
In a report submitted to MMSD by CH2M-Hill Engineers in July 1975 (Geotechnical
Evaluation of Sludge Lagoon Embankments) several conclusions were drawn based on
previous studies and field investigations of the existing conditions.
These are summarized as follows:
Certain reaches of the lagoon dikes are unstable
Dike failure(s) with possible damaging spillage is imminent, especially along the
south side of Lagoon 2.
The present method of removing sludge solids (draglining from the dikes) con-
tributes to the dike instability by removing counterweight material.
Regardless of future sludge handling and disposal rnethods, the existing instability
of the dikes must be corrected.
It was recommended by the CH2M-Hill report that a program be instituted which
would stabilize the existing lagoon dikes as soon as possible.
1.05. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the current Facilities Plan are to develop a sludge disposal alternative
which will alleviate the threat of future dike failures and provide a means of disposing of
both the sludge produced in the future and that sludge currently stored in the lagoons in a
manner which will not cause harm to the environment.
The protection of present and future land use plans, the delicate and sensitive flora and
fauna of the area, unique or rare topographical and geological formations, historical places
and other environmentally sensitive factors have been considered. The Organic Solids Reuse
Plan develops a sludge disposal alternative which will accomplish these objectives while
fulfilling State and Federal requirements for sludge disposal.
1-10
-------
1.06. PROGRAM COSTS AND FINANCING
A. Background
In accordance with Section 35.935 - 13 of CFR Title 40, MMSD is developing a
system of User Charges and an Industrial Cost Recovery Program as a grant condition
for the Fifth Addition to the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. The User
Charge and Industrial Cost Recovery systems developed in conjunction with the Fifth
Addition construction will be expanded to cover subsequent additions relating to
sludge handling and advanced wastewater treatment. This section has been developed
to estimate the effects on the average residential users of the proposed Organic Solids
Reuse Program.
Capital, debt service, operating, and maintenance costs associated with the Organic
Solids Reuse Program will be accounted for in the User Charge System and in the
Industrial Cost Recovery System. The parameters used in these systems are volume,
BOD, suspended solids, and the number of equivalent 5/8-inch water meters.
B. Basis of Allocation of the Costs to the Parameters
The Organic Solids Reuse Program will be concerned only with the storage and
ultimate disposal of anaerobically digested sludge. This end product is composed
entirely of suspended solids; however, a portion of these solids were generated in the
removal of BOD. Analysis of the primary and secondary treatment processes, the
sludge thickening process, and the anaerobic digestion process at the Nine Springs
treatment plant resulted in the following allocation of costs associated with the
anaerobically digested sludge:
BOD - 40 percent
Suspended Solids - 60 percent
C. Present Organic Solids Reuse Program and Costs
In 1975, a total of 10,364 dry tons of sludge were removed from the lagoons and
placed ort farmland. The total cost of removing the sludge from the lagoons, trans-
porting it to farmland, and applying the solids to the land was approximately
$172,000 or $16.60 per dry ton of solids.
In 1975 all MMSD expenses were allocated to its customers on the basis of flow
volume. The total volume received at the Nine Springs treatment plant in 1975 was
13,167 million gallons. The Organic Solids Reuse Program share of the users' cost was:
$172,000
13,167 MG = S13-06/MG
The average residential customer in the MMSD has three people each using 62 gallons
of water per day. To this figure is added the average daily volume of inflow and
infiltration of 18 gallons per person resulting in an average daily flow per person of 80
gallons, or 240 gallons per residential customer. The yearly wastewater volume con-
tributed by the average residential customer, including inflow and infiltration, is then
calculated to be 87,600 gallons. Thus, the present Organic Solids Reuse Program costs
the average residential customer:
$13.06/MG x 0.0876 MG/Yr - $1.14/Yr
1-11
-------
D. Proposed Organic Solids Reuse Program Costs
Table B-14 of CH2M-Hill's Organic Solids Reuse Program lists the year by year cost
estimates for the sludge reuse program through the year 2000. The capital cost
estimates and the debt service cost estimates do not reflect any government grant
contribution. The total annual costs vary from $250,000 to $425,000 with an average
annual cost of $352,000. The total annual cost is computed as the sum of the debt
service costs and the total operation and maintenance costs minus the annual program
income.
Table 1-6 shows the estimated annual cost for the average residential customer if no
grants are received to reduce the annual debt service costs. The total annual costs are
allocated on the basis of 40 percent to BOD and 60 percent to suspended solids. The
tons of BOD and suspended solids received at the Nine Springs treatment plant in a
year are based on the design values of 0.23 pounds of BOD per capita per day and
0.23 pounds of suspended solids per capita per day. These per capita figures include
the commercial and industrial contributions in addition to the residential contribution.
The residential contributions of BOD and suspended solids are 0.152 and 0.200 pounds
per capita per day respectively. This results in an annual contribution of 166 pounds
of BOD and 219 pounds of suspended solids for the average residential customer. The
estimated annual cost to the average residential customer if no grants are considered
varies from $1.96 to $4.23 with an average annual cost of $3.09.
Table 1-7 shows the estimated annual cost for the average residential customer if grants
are received to cover 75 percent of the capital costs, thus reducing the debt service
costs by 75 percent. The total annual costs of the Organic Solids Reuse Program would
vary from $146,000 to $324,000 with an average annual cost of $212,000. The
resulting estimate of the annual cost for the average residential customer would vary
from $1.14 to $3.16 with an average annual cost of $1.85.
At this time MMSD has funds in its Construction Account. These funds have accumu-
lated through interceptor benefit charges collected from new users and through delayed
grants. These grants were received for projects financed entirely by MMSD through
general obligation bonds. At the time of construction these grants were not available,
and since MMSD financed the construction through its Construction Account, when
the grants were received they were deposited in the Construction Account. Now,
depending on the sequence of construction of the Organic Solids Reuse Project and the
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Project, some or all of the capital costs of the
Organic Solids Reuse Project will be paid for using the funds in the Construction
Account. Thus it may not be necessary to pass future bond issues, and the debt service
costs for the Organic Solids Reuse Program could be nonexistent or substantially less
than those shown in Table B-14 of CH2M-Hill's Organic Solids Reuse Program. This
will further reduce the total annual cost of the project resulting in the cost to the
average residential customer being as little as $1.45 per year on the average through
the year 2000.
1.07. HISTORY OF THE SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Since the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant was placed in 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
1 - 12
-------
U Pi
o
6?
I
OONVOOO
q
oi
CO
W
_J
ca
H
II
13 J
3 22
PQ
O —
ON O — ' (NTj-^^o
oC o cf o" o cT o"
0
ro O
Os vo
oo •—
>n ^H
(N
—'OOoo —
o o
o o o o
o
(N
CO O
ON ^D
o\ cs
oo —<
o
'C
—, X
ea
-4—»
O
H
on
—'OO
oo ^i
10 —
00 (N
ON
q^
oo"
-------
.
15 §?£
UJ
_l
ca
BO •-
20
u +->
> G
< 8
£^
+- 43
V9 •<-*
O '5
U *
— 1-1
II
•oU
S-4-^
C
•^ u
w -r)
w-a
u
Oi
~ " SI ^ *** •
00 O 'O *O f"* ^J* ^ ^O */"* to O *—• O ON ON O* OO 00 00 00 O 00 ^ ro
^ CS c4 «N Ji ^ ^ •-«' ^' ~H* O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~
||g r:,22oor:^.o,n;Q2oooooooooooooooo0ooo^^^ -
- |
H oC o^ cT cT cT o C^ cT c> —" —<" ^ -^ -* —< -^ -^ -^ ri of ri1 ri r^T oo —T
o — -^~ocSooooooooo'oo'oooooo o
Q « • • • • • » _• * * * • , • • • (•(***• •
t^ 00 ^^ C*^ 0s! T^ ^C? *^1*' ^^ * (^3 (^N ^f^ if) to '^^ '^i ^^^ V^ l^^ ^O V^ ^^ 1^f ^f C*^
5M~
^^ ^^ **^ ^sj f^ ^^ (^^ ^Q f"x. QO ^^ '"^ CM CO ^^ ^^^ ^O f1** 00 C^ ^3 *™^ C**J ^^ '
w5 c^4 ^o r*** ON •*•* co ^^i r*** ^^ ^™^ ^^ ^o oo ^5 CM ^^ ^o oo G3 o^ ^o ^* c^ ^^
£ oC o* o" <3 o" o" o" o" o" —" —" —' —' —I" —" —" ~ •- rT r
a>
s
I
I
I
1-14
-------
utilized as a fertilizer for lawns, gardens, flower beds, etc. 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.
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 time. 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 area of the two lagoons 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
time. 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-HU1 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. Further information regarding
the evaluation of these methods of sludge disposal may be found in Section 3 of this
report. The recommended method of sludge disposal was land application of the sludge to
utilize its nutrient value as a fertilizer substitute.
The current Facilities Plan studies are being conducted in fulfillment of a requirement of
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit No. WI-0024597
received by MMSD on 27 September 1974. 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, environmental factors and program costs.
1 -15
-------
SECTION 2 - THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
2.01. GENERAL
A more detailed write-up of the environmental conditions as they exist in Dane and Rock
Counties may be found in the Environmental Inventory which is included as Appendix A of
the Facilities Plan. The material presented in the following sections is a brief summary of
the material and data included in Appendix A.
2.02. CLIMATE
A. Temperature
South-central Wisconsin's climate is typical of the continental interior of North
America. Annually, temperatures vary over a wide range. In summer months (June,
July, August and September) mean temperatures reach a high of 70.1°F in July while
the January mean temperature is a low 16.8°F. Extreme temperature values recorded
at the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration weather station, located at
Dane County Regional Airport in Madison, over the past 15 years (1959-1974) reached
a maximum of 98°F during July, 1965 and a minimum of -30°F during January,
1963. These values have been exceeded in the area by a high reading of 107°F
recorded during July, 1936, at the Madison City Office Building and by a minimum of
-37°F recorded during January, 1951 at Truax Field (Dane County Regional Airport).
B. Precipitation
Precipitation is generally sufficient throughout the year to supply the needs of crops.
The Madison area receives the water equivalent of, on the average, 30.47 inches per
year while the Beloit area receives an average of 32.64 inches annually. The water
equivalent value accounts for precipitation in all forms (rainfall, snow, sleet, hail, etc.).
There are no predominantly 'Vet" or "dry" seasons, however, during the summer
months most of the precipitation occurs during thunderstorm activity. As a result,
there may be short periods when soil moisture falls below the optimum for crop
growth. Many areas experience some minor effects of drought. The problem has not
been of such severity to warrant general use of supplemental irrigation to supply water
to agricultural areas.
C. Snowfall
The snowfall in Dane and Rock Counties averages approximately 35.5 inches per year.
The maximum amount recorded in Madison since 1935 was 67.1 inches during the
winter of 1970-71. Due to the normally low temperatures during the winter months,
there is often a snow cover on the ground from December to mid-March.
D. Winds
The winds have an annual mean speed of 10.0 mph. Coming out of the west-northwest
and northwest during the months of January through April, they carry relatively cold,
2- 1
-------
dry air masses which account for the normally low temperatures and snowfall of the
area. During the summer and autumn, the winds are generally southerly. Maximum
wind speeds are associated with storm events. The maximum recorded value at the
weather station was 77 mph, during May, 1950.
E. Severe Climatological Events
Severe climatological events include hurricanes, tornadoes and severe thunderstorms.
Hurricanes have not occurred in Wisconsin, being limited to the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico coastal states and those states immediately inland. Tornadoes pose some threat
to the area. Over the past 60 years, an average of one tornado in four years has been
reported in the Madison area. The northwest quadrant of Wisconsin experiences more
tornadoes than any other portion of the State.
Thunderstorms occur on the average of seven (7) days per month during the period of
July to September. High winds and short periods of intense precipitation often
accompany thunderstorms events.
2.03. TOPOGRAPHY
A. General
The south-central portion of Wisconsin is an area of varied terrain. Glaciers, which
progressed over much of the area from the northeast, resulted in the formation of two
distinct geographical provinces, the Driftless Area and the Glaciated Area. A line
running approximately northwest to southeast and passing through the areas of Lake
Wisconsin, Middleton and Janesville marks the approximate extent of the latest glacia-
tion.
B. Driftless Area
The Driftless Area is found in the southwestern corner of Wisconsin. The western
portions of Dane County and Rock County are included in this area. During the glacial
periods, this area was not covered by the glaciers as was the remainder of the area. The
absence of the scouring, erosion and deposition of morainal material associated with
glacial action, preserves an area of Wisconsin in its pre-glacial condition.
The topography of this Driftless Area is typified by a hilly terrain with narrow, steep
sided valleys of the Western Uplands. The streams in this area have a well developed
branching or dendrite pattern, typical of older topographical regions.
C. Glaciated Area
To the east of the Driftless Area lies the area covered by the Green Bay Lobe during
the latest continental glaciation. Relief here is relatively gentle with broad valleys and
gently sloping hillsides typical of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands. There are
numerous lakes and wetlands areas present here which are virtually absent in the
Driftless Area.
2-2
-------
Two features unique to glaciated regions are common here. These are the kettle or
pothole lakes found in depressions left by ice blocks broken off from the receding
glaciers and the numerous drumlins present. Drumlins are low, elongated hills of
unconsolidated glacial material. They are interesting in that the long axis of the
drumlins indicate the direction of the glaciers' movements.
2.04. GEOLOGY
The study area is underlain by a series of rock formations and above these a layering of
unconsolidated material. Table 2-1 describes the geologic layering in Dane and Rock
Counties.
The Precambrian rocks are the oldest found in the area and occur at a minimum depth of
300 feet below the surface. Granite, basalt and rhyolite are common igneous and
metomorphic rock types of the Precambrian system.
Overlying the Precambrian system are the dolomites, sandstones-and shales of the Cambrian
system. These rocks are sedimentary formations deposited during periods when the area was
covered by ancient seas. The Cambrian system rocks are utilized as the primary source of
water supply by most municipalities in Wisconsin. The following rock formations make up
the Cambrian system:
Mount Simon Sandstone )
)
Eau Claire Sandstone ) Dresbach Group
)
Galesville Sandstone )
Franconia Sandstone
Trempealeau Formation
The Ordovician system is geologically younger than the Cambrian rocks. Having been
deposited at a later time than the underlying formations, these rocks have been subjected to
more of the erosional forces. As a result, the layering is not as consistent in this system,
with some rock layers having been completely removed by wind and water erosion or by
glacial action. The following rock formations make up the Ordovician system:
Prairie du Chien Group
St. Peter Sandstone
Platteville, Decorah and Galena Formation
Maquoketa Shale
2-3
-------
eristics
•**
o
Primary Chara
osits of silt, sand,
organic materials
O.T3
Unconsolidated de
gravel, boulders an
J3
-4— •
3
O
V!
C
_>.
0
•o >.
c ^
§ e
Dolomite shale; fo
western Dane Cou
•a
CU
6 S
5§
e w
C |
cu g
§ -S
05 CU
si c
* 0
Dolomite layers w
ium grained sandst
S
'5
cu
o
.w
en
•o
03
(A
T3
CU
C
'2
a
E
_3
•3
cu
E
o
4-<
CU
1
_o
"ob
0
o
13
03
_cu
"c3
en
4^
VH
CU
o
<*-
0
en
03
£
03
CU CU
e ts
o i2
en U
V-
0
en
03
g
03
ES
0 O
en *J
J5-0
S C
> S
£2 -a
S c
5? w
•2 j*
cu ca
•tt -C
E "
o r
•o 2
Q-S
ined sandstone and
3
^
2 c
5i>2
EC/3
*;
.S'S
11
s'l
.Is
b c
ined sandstone with
rained siltstone
~03 60
ei cu
EG
3 <*-
=3 °
cu en
£03
2
o S3
... cu
c E
b S
ined sandstone
03
M
E
•3
CU
E
o
-4-»
CU
c
b
ined sandstone with
tale and siltstone
'ft -5
Fine to medium gi
extensive areas of :
cu
E
o
en
.fi
4-*
'£
cu
O
^-»
en
•o
C
Medium grained sa
shale layers
3
x:
o
en
en
^d
O
2a
U S
S o
&£
0^
Igneous or metom
granite, basalt and
TABLE
tn
cu
C
r-
ro
6
O
O
>n
00
O
(N
00
in
r-
O oo
>n rf
—i en
in O
o
in
C4
o
o
ro
c
o
"51
o
"o
cu
O
en ^
+-> a
C <£
OS O
=1
cu Q
21
.52 8
CU CU
&
oo
03
-**J
cu
^
O
I
S
S c-
8.2
O +*
cu ^s
O
+j
"~ C r=s
cu O ^
— U. i_
T73 cu
> 03 <-
cu c W
£ J5 OH
EO
OO
C
cu
3
•a
"C 3
2 £
1 C
•a .2
u +3
O, 03
II
HU-
CU
C
O
I
C
O
£
g s
§ 2
•a
I
03
O
t/5
K
'03
G
I
-------
The Quartenary system contains the deposits of most recent origin. Materials making up this
system include loess, glacial lake deposits, morainal deposits and other unconsolidated
deposits. These deposits range from sand, silt and gravel to organic matter. Erosional forces,
acting on the rock formations of older geologic systems, have helped form these deposits.
2.05. SOILS
Soils are those materials making up the uppermost surface of the earth's covering except
where unweathered bedrock is exposed. The soil is composed of various combinations of
inorganic materials originating from the underlying bedrock and of organic materials result-
ing from the decomposition of plant and animal life.
The hundreds of different soil types are differentiated from one another by their texture,
color, slope, stoniness, permeability and other physical and chemical properties. Soil series,
groupings of soil types with similar characteristics, have been further grouped into soil
associations. The soil associations are mapped for areas having distinctive patterns of soil
areas.
In Dane County, the over ninety soil series which are present have been grouped into seven
soil associations. The sixty soil series present in Rock County have been grouped into nine
soil associations. Mapping of the soil associations can be used as a guide for general planning
purposes. For detailed agricultural management or construction design work, the soil series
data are required. Table 2-2 summarizes the characteristics of the soil associations in Dane
and Rock Counties.
2.06. HYDROLOGY
A. General
The general area of the proposed land application project lies entirely within the
Lower Rock River Basin. The following sections are a summary of the information
available for the basin. A more detailed account of water uses, sources of pollution,
water quality and water resources management of the basin may be found in Appendix
A.
The basin drains approximately 1,900 square miles of south-central Wisconsin. Much of
the basin is included in the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands geographical province, a
result of past glaciation. Major tributaries of the Rock River include the Bark and
Yahara Rivers, Turtle, Koshkonong, Marsh and Bass Creeks. Wetland areas and lakes
are common to this region. Major lakes located in the basin are Lakes Mendota,
Wingra, Monona, Waubesa and Kegonsa on the Yahara River and Lake Koshkonong on
the Rock River.
The groundwater resources are abundant in the basin. Virtually all public, industrial
and private water supplies are drawn from the groundwater aquifer.
2-5
-------
O3
O
tu
J
CQ
c/D
W
Q
U.
O
1/3
Z
o
H
U
O
C/3
<*>
C
C
O
o '
••C Q
H 2 °
O
U
X
U
o
OS
Q
Z
<
u
Z
x
T3
O
E
o
c
3
O
O
T3
O
•a
'S5 c
•o
o
S
o
•a
E
03
O
o —
+-1 >.
00 "tn
•o
o
o
oo
i
ll!
>
— T3
+-• C
~ 03
60
C
o
•*- T3
<~ o
2 o
O 60
a
r
C C
03 0
'
ro
4>
4>
VI
&
•4— »
03
u-
U
•o
0
E
2
u
V)
&
4>
>
0
•*— »
4>
"03
kH
u
•o
o
E
S
03
_O
>.
03
» 0?
>>o
rz! O
00 •!->
o a
_£ff O
^ a>"
>^ C 03
c & E?
o> _2 D
60 *03 >
•a
o
o
00
*i 1
0 1 04 w->
O4 •^—s - '
" ' V5 , — . v>
1111
U O ~ n
Illl
Tf
a>
t-H
(U
>
a>
en
1)
^
0)
u
00
0
-t-i
• >,
C 03 ^
03 •— ^2
O ° o
— — "c
l/l C/5 C^
o cx
-w Oi
^ 60£
>> C oo
c'S-E?
u 5 S
60 oo >
T3
O
0
60
1 II
III!
S 0 ° •-
•£> ° C n
C ° fc r^
g oo y c
Q ca S S
>r-)
4)
Ui
4)
>
£
4>
>
4)
OO
.e
•4—t
^
>
'o
oo
>.
T3
C
03
00
0
•*^
"aj
>
4^
^
O
o
a
^— N
t^
0
CO
^
JD
C
n)
i_
a
\6
i.
4>
ts
E
cj
'E
03
60 oo
S3
>.c°
c'i-
u 5
00 To
"3 <~>S*
§J^^
p-J O O4
73-^
CH r-
ll-s
3*3
•o
o
E
03
•3 >>
u 03
r=! O
.
O
60
v- O
O o
O 00
a.
o o
O r*~>
ro ^—
^
-------
o
a
C
OJ
4-1
ca
t-f
w
•a
o
E
>
W3
O
>
C/5
O
O
2
w
•a
o
E
3
~V)
SJ
u
Cfl
"8
E
u
en
W
D
O
8
&
Q
v> r?
c S
.2 3,
rt o
•s X
£u
0>
2
1
2
u
T3
O
E
o
-a
U
CA
•a
o
E
2
I
2
eu
"8
E
ca
u.
u
•a
o
E
•a
t>
I
(N
CN
W
J
03
<
H
Q
U.
O
•o
4)
3
.S
a
Textu
rt
0
^
>>
ta
0
>>
S >
O CB
•o >
COW
?.S -a
ca ro c
>,+-"' >»— *
c ^ § "c ^"c
ca O o ca ^^ ca
M ••-> -Z, M O tfl
•-
(O O
TJ
111
•3
60
o
•73 ^^ w
03 O to
±; a c c c? *i
•*H »F-4 cd rt »T^ •*"*
Cfl W5 CO C« "
E§^
g « c
^11
K bo 75 5 S
U
S
CO
H
4> D CU
> u o
a> •<-> «
U U U
> ; w 0
"
O 60
-^ ,>> c
13-S'E,
S |5
— 60 M
O 60 O 60
"^ ^.S "^^.S
*i\ ^^ O. fl\ "*^ O>.
i a-ca i
13 u d
>• w o
60
c
S 1
^S 60
60
C
1 -
-,
> g o
i 60-3
-------
B. Surface Water Resources
1. Quantity
The Yahara River basin drains all of the southern-central portion of Dane County.
This basin includes the Madison Lakes as well as the Badfish Creek.
Table 2-3 shows the flow values for the Yahara River and the Badfish Creek. Over
its length (60 miles) the Yahara River falls a total of 190 feet. Most of this is
absorbed through the Madison Lakes and at the four dams located downstream of
the lakes system. There are numerous wetland areas and small kettle lakes in the
basin. These are associated with the topographical features left by glaciation.
2. Quality
Surface waters of the basin are generally rich in nutrient materials and profuse
growths of aquatic vegetation and algae are common. Siltation results in increased
turbidity and sediment loading to the basin. These conditions are due, in part, to
the natural fertility of the lands of the basin, but are augmented by urban
development and agricultural activities. Table 2-4 summarizes the water quality
data for several monitoring stations in the basin.
3. Uses
The surface waters of the Yahara River Basin are utilized for recreation, fish and
aquatic life propagation, power generation, industrial cooling water, irrigation,
stock watering and waste assimilation. A major asset of the basin is the recreation-
al opportunities afforded by the lakes and streams. Fishing, swimming and boating
are all enthusiastically pursued by residents and visitors of the area.
The dams located on the River are not presently utilized for power generation.
The dams at Dunkirk and Stebbinsville are currently undergoing repair and will be
put into operation in the near future.
Irrigation and stock watering utilize relatively small amounts of the flow in
the basin.
The Badfish Creek is used most extensively for waste assimilation receiving the
effluent from the MMSD (approximately 36 MGD in 1975) and the Village of
Oregon wastewater treatment plants. Diversion of the MMSD effluent from the
Yahara River, upstream of Lake Waubesa to the Badfish Creek was initiated in
December of 1958. The City of Stoughton treatment plant discharges 1.0 MGD
directly to the Yahara River. The Village of Cottage Grove treatment plant
discharges 0.03 MGD to Door Creek which flows into the Yahara River.
4. Sources of Pollution
Pollution of surface waters may occur as the result of point source or non-point
source discharge of possible contaminants. Point source discharges (direct dis-
charges) generally originate either from a municipal or industrial wastewater
treatment plant. Non-point source discharges (indirect discharges) may result from
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-3
FLOW DATA, YAHARA RIVER BASIN
Stream
Bad fish Creek
Location
Drainage
Area
Sq. Miles
Low Flow
(Q7.10)
cfs
Average6
Discharge
cfs
1 00 Yr. Flood
Discharge
cfs
Period
of
Record
near Stoughton
U.S.G.S.5-4301
43.5
1.9a
Badfish Creek
Yahara River
Yahara River
Yahara River
Mouth
McFarland
U.S.G.S.5-4295
at Stoughton
Mouth
83.1
327
407
8.8a
4.7b
6.6a
15.4a
52.4
148
871'
867C
970C
1956-66
1930-
a - Harza Engr. Co., "Water Quality of Badfish Creek", 1971
b - Determined for post diversion flow data, O'Brien & Gere Engineers
c - U.S.G.S., Open file report
d - Maximum recorded discharge, period of record
e - U.S.G.S., "Water Resources Data for Wisconsin", 1974
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-4
WATER QUALITY DATA
FOR SUMMER MONTHS (JUNE-SEPT.)1
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
BODs
Suspended Solids
Vol. Suspended Solids
Phosphorus
OrgN
Ammonia-N
Nitrite-N
Nitrate-N
Total Coli
Yahara Riverz
1955-1958 1972-1975
Main Stem
Badfish Creek
1955-1958 1972-1975
Badfish Creek
Rutland Branch
1955-1958 1972-1975
20.2
10.8
9.1
6.8
35.1
17.6
1.0
2.6
0.07
0.02
0.17
2,124
20.4
6.8
8.3
10.8
84.0
50.3
1.5
2.4
1.3
0.22
1.2
55,704
16.2
8.6
8.0
2.6
32.9
23.3
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.09
1.8
14,719
19.3
2.5
7.6
18.1
24.4
9.0
6.0
1.8
10.5
0.35
1.3
86,239
13.3
10.2
8.1
1.7
20.0
14.0
0.09
0.4
0.05
0.02
2.8
6,749
13.5
8.8
8.0
1.6
13.8
4.1
0.1
0.5
0.15
0.04
3.7
17,561
Source: MMSD Water Quality Monitoring Program
1 Values reported in mg/1, except as noted
2 Data collected at three locations:
Fulton, Section 18, Town of Fulton
Stebbinsville, Section 2, Town of Porter
STH 59, Section 10, Town of Porter
2- 10
-------
overland runoff, contaminated groundwater discharge, or from precipitation which
contains participate matter. Stormwater drains are considered as point sources of
pollution since Stormwater drainage systems serve to concentrate these wastes.
5. Surface Water Resource Management
The Yahara River basin is managed by the WDNR as a part of the Rock River
Basin. An interim basin plan was prepared in accordance with Public Law 92-500.
Management includes water quality monitoring, non-point source studies, self-
surveillance of point-source discharges, and administration of the construction
grants for pollution abatement facilities. Future management goals include the
continuation and expansion of the above programs as well as implementation of
an area-wide waste management study under Section 208 of Public Law 92-500.
C. Groundwater Resources
1. Quantity
The Yahara River basin has an abundant groundwater supply. A deep aquifer
consisting of sandstone and dolomitic deposits of Ordovician and Cambrian ages
contains much of the groundwater utilized for deep well water supply in the
basin. Shallow wells draw groundwater from the glacial till, ground moraine and
outwash deposits of the Quaternary age. The surface deposits are in general
sufficiently permeable to permit moderately rapid recharge of the groundwater.
Surface water flow in the basin is normally augmented by groundwater discharge.
In Dane County it has been estimated (Cline, D.R., 1965) that approximately 60
to 95 per cent of the annual average stream flow is contributed by groundwater
discharge. In areas of heavy groundwater pumpage, such as in the immediate
vicinity of the City of Madison wells, drawdown of the groundwater may result in
recharge by the nearby surface waters.
2. Quality
Groundwater quality is good in the Yahara River basin. The quality of the
groundwater is reflected by the values shown in Table 2-5. The high concentra-
tions indicated for dissolved solids and total hardness result from the percolation
of the groundwater through the sandstone and dolomite which make up the area's
aquifer. Due to the high hardness, many homeowners in the area have had water
softeners installed. In a few isolated wells, iron concentrations have been suf-
ficiently high to cause staining problems. The background concentrations of
nitrate nitrogen are less than 5 mg/1. A few isolated wells have had concentra-
tions reported in excess of the accepted drinking water standard of 45 mg/1 (U.S.
Public Health Service).
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-5
GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA
Range Average
Dissolved Solids 175-500 270
Total Hardness 170-470 260
as CaCOs
Total Alkalinity 100-390 300
as CaCOs
Sodium & Potassium 0-45 8
as Sodium
Chlorides 0-100 10
Sulfate 0-140 25
Nitrate 1-18 3.8
Source: Cotter, R.D., et al, 1969
Values reported in mg/1
Uses
As discussed above, the groundwater aquifer furnishes virtually all the water
utilized in the basin for public, industrial and private water supplies. The City of
Madison, the major water user in the basin, currently withdraws approximately 30
MGD. Other users include Oscar Mayer, Inc. and other municipalities.
4. Sources of Pollution
Potential contaminants of the groundwater may reach the aquifer from a number
of sources, including poorly located or designed sanitary landfills, industrial or
municipal wastewater seepage lagoons, private wastewater septic tank drainage
fields, animal feedlots, and improperly conducted fertilization programs. Materials
applied to the soil surface at rates faster than they can be removed by surface
runoff or utilized by the flora and fauna, pose a threat to the groundwater and
potentially contribute to its pollution.
5. Groundwater Resource Management
The WDNR and the USGS have established a groundwater monitoring network on
a statewide basis. This program enables these agencies to monitor the groundwater
quality and to locate quality problem areas.
-------
Regulations and guidelines have been established to control activities which may
lead to groundwater contamination. Siting and design criteria for septic tank
systems and sanitary landfills and fertilizer application rates help to minimize the
hazards of groundwater pollution from these sources.
2.07. BIOLOGY
A. General
The study area biology includes all the animal and plant life of both terrestrial and
aquatic habitats. The native and introduced species of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, insects, trees, shrubs and grasses are all a part of the area's environment.
B. Mammals
Mammal species of Wisconsin have been reported to have numbered 78 species in all
(Wildlife, People and the Lane, 1970). Some species such as the bison, cougar and
wolverine have disappeared from the state. Other specie? remaining in the area include
squirrels, foxes, weasels, white-tailed deer, mice, muskrat, rabbits, bats and badgers.
While some species are found exclusively in fields, others in woodlands and others in
marshy habitats, many species are found in overlapping habitat areas. The south-central
portion of Wisconsin, including Dane and Rock .Counties, is extensively cultivated. As a
result, species found primarily in field and light woods are common. This would
include the rabbits, mice, skunks, foxes and some weasels. Species found in woods and
deep woods are not common or not found at all in the area. This would include the
white-tailed deer and the black bear.
C. Reptiles
Reptiles common to the area include many snakes and turtles and a few lizard species.
These are important in the control of the insect and small rodent populations. Two
species of poisonous snakes are found in Wisconsin, the Massasaqua and the timber
rattlesnake. However, neither of these are found in the Dane and Rock County area.
D. Amphibians
The amphibians, frogs, toads and salamanders, find ample habitat areas in the eastern
portions of Dane and Rock Counties in the numerous wetlands and along streams and
rivers. They are not as abundant in the western areas of the counties due to the
scarcity of wetlands. The amphibians also play an important role in the control of the
insect population.
E. Birds
The bird species of Wisconsin include upland game species, waterfowl, shore birds,
birds of prey and song birds. Depending upon the species, bird habitats can range from
the wild lake and woods areas favored by the bald eagle to the typical backyard
inhabited by the sparrows, robins and other song birds. Some species are year-round
inhabitants while others are migratory or only occasional visitors to the area. The
upland game birds and the waterfowl species offer abundant opportunities for hunting
in the area.
2-13
-------
A record number, 91 bird species, were recorded in the Madison vicinity during the
1974 annual Christmas Bird Count sponsored by the Audubon Society. Similar counts
in Evansville, Cooksville and Beloit recorded 37, 28 and 49 species, respectively.
F. Invertebrates
Invertebrates include all of the various species of spiders, ticks, grasshoppers, crickets,
beetles, dragonflies and the many other related groups found in Wisconsin. A complete
listing of the invertebrates is impossible since not all species have been enumerated or
classified as yet. An investigation of the aquatic insects of the Badfish Creek and at
two locations on the Yahara River was conducted during the summer months of 1975.
The results of that program are found in Appendix E.
G. Fish
Fish species of Wisconsin range from the intolerant game species such as the rainbow
trout to the very tolerant rough fishes such as the carp and bowfin. Many fish species
are quite sensitive to water quality and habitat changes while others are not and may
be found in a variety of habitats. An analysis of a water body's fish population may be
useful in indicating the general water quality of a lake or stream. During 1975 a fish
sampling program was conducted on the Badfish Creek and at two locations on the
Yahara River. Results of that program are found in Appendix D. Table 2-6 is a
summary of the types of fish which may be found in the Dane and Rock Counties'
waters.
H. Endangered Species
The United States Department of the Interior (USDI) has published an extensive listing
of the species which are threatened with extinction throughout the world. This list has
been utilized by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as an aid in
developing a similar list for the state. This listing (Table 2-7) is much more restricted
than that of the USDI. The only species included on the WDNR list which may now
be found in the study area is the ornate box turtle. Members of this species occur
along streams in wooded areas and may possibly occur in the western regions of Dane
County. Also, at one time an active fishery for cisco was reported to be in the Madison
Lakes. However, this species is no longer found due to a combination of intensive
fishing pressure and changes in the water quality and habitat of the Lakes.
The Rare and Endangered Animal Species list provided by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V, is shown as Table 2-8. The blue pike (Stizostedium
vitreum glaucum) included on this list is a subspecies of the commonly found walleyed
pike (Stizostedium vitreum). The blue pike was found in Lakes Erie and Ontario but
reports of the species have been so sporadic that it is now thought that the species has
totally disappeared from the lakes (Scott and Grossman, 1973). The Kirtland's warbler
(Dendroica kirtlandii) and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) are not found in Wisconsin.
I. Vegetation
Native terrestrial vegtation species of the study area included the grasses, shrubs,
wildflowers and marsh plants common to the once extensive prairie lands and wet-
lands. Through the increased activities of man, these areas have been drastically
2- 14
-------
TABLE 2-6
SURFACE WATER FISHERIES
Typical
Gamefish
Species
Typical
Panfish
Species
Forage
Fish
Rough
Fish
VI
Badfish Creek
Black Earth Creek
Koshkonong Creek
Lake Kegonsa
Lake Koshkonong
Lake Mendota
Lake Monona
Rock River
Lake Waubesa
Wisconsin River
Yahara River
Sugar River
ft =3
X X X X
x x x
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
X X
X
X X
x
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
XX
o
=5 A
> «
*1
II
-------
TABLE 2-7
WISCONSIN ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
MAMMALS
Canada lynx - Lynx canadensis
Marten - Martes Americana
Timber wolf - Canis lupus lycaon
BIRDS
Bald eagle - Haliaetus leucocephalus
Osprey - Pandion haliaetus
Double crested cormorant - Phalacrocorax
Peregrine falcon - Falco peregrinus
REPTILES
FISHES
Ornate box turtle - Terrapene ornata
Queen snake - Natrix septemvitatta
Massasauga - Sistrurus catenatus
Wood turtle - Clemmys insculpta
Greater redhorse - Maxostoma valengiennesi
Ozark minnow - Dionda nubila
Pugnose shiner - Notropis anaogenus
Longjaw cisco - Coregonus alpenae
Kiyi - Coregonus kiyi
Shortjaw cisco - Coregonus zenithieus
Shortnose cisco - Coregonus reighardi
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-8
RARE & ENDANGERED ANIMAL SPECIES
(USEPA REGION V)
FISH
BIRDS
Salmoniformes
Longjaw Cisco
Perciformes
Blue Pike
Falconiformes
Arctic Peregrine Falcon
Passeriformes
Kirtland's Warbler
MAMMALS
Chiroptera
Indiana Bat
Carnivora
Eastern Timber Wolf
Coregonus alpenae
Stizostedion vitreum glaucum
Falco peregrinus tundrius
Dendroica kirtlandii
Myotis sodalis
Canis lupus lycaon
Source: U.S. List of Endangered Fauna, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1974
2-17
-------
reduced, so that at present, only scattered and isolated areas of prairie land remain and
the acreage of wetlands remaining is becoming less each year. In the western portion of
the study area, hardwood trees of the northern deciduous forest are common. These
include maples, oaks, hickory and birch trees.
Some species of wildflowers are protected under Wisconsin statutes. Trailing arbutus,
lady slippers, American bittersweet, pitcher plants and various wild lily species are
protected from cutting, injury, destruction or removal from any public lands or from
private lands without the owner's permission.
Aquatic vegetation includes the large rooted plants and the free floating and attached
algae. The species found in any given water body are dependent upon the water quality
and physical characteristics of the lake or stream. Many algal species have been
grouped into the broad categories of clean or polluted water algae. Various investiga-
tors (Birge and Juday, 1922; Lawton, 1950; Fitzgerald, 1955) have found the dominant
species of algae in the Madison Lakes have been from the polluted water species. These
species include the Melosira, Anabaena and Anacystis. A sampling program to identify
the algae species present in the Badfish Creek was conducted during 1975. Results of
this program are found in Appendix D.
2.08. AIR QUALITY
The Federal government has established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) which would, if universally met, provide for the protection of the public health
with an adequate margin of safety. Among the various air pollutants for which maximum
recommended standards have been set are the following:
Sulfur oxides
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
Photo chemical oxidants
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides
Air quality monitoring stations have been established in Dane and Rock Counties at
several locations in Madison and Beloit, respectively. Data for 1974 collected at these
stations are summarized in Table 2-9. During 1974 the stations in Madison and Beloit have
met the standards set by the NAAQS. Measurements taken over the past five to ten years
have indicated a reduction in the amount of particulate matter in the Madison area. The
annual geometric mean for particulate matter in 1961 was 76 ug/m3. A steady decline has
resulted until, as shown in Table 2-9, the 1974 value is 42.32 ug/m3. Other data show that
the dustfall in Madison has decreased from 24.1 tons/sq mi/month in 1966 to 13.1 tons/sq
mi/month in 1972.
2- 18
-------
4
3
O
CO
a
a.
(N
41-I.-II-i.
ten &D b£) fen
g* 3> g» ^
in O
o
I
| e *
s §§
.
c x x c
c
03
U
(N
U-l
Q
S
D
O
o ^
O «
O •""*
o "^
I
oo
m
3
CO
(N
co
E
o
u
•o eb
w >
3°
00
O
wS
o
•o
C CA
I
3
1
X
o
l-l
a
3
a •
g c s 2
a g-o^
-2 6 •§ c
g § 8 ft
ll3 2
Iss-a
o
•*-•
a
i-.
•S 3
2-19
-------
2.09. LAND USE
Land use inventories for Dane and Rock Counties have been prepared by the Dane County
Regional Planning Commission and the Rock County Planning Department. Aerial photo-
graphs and field investigations have been utilized in developing a thorough compilation of
the land uses. Tables 2-10 and 2-11 summarize the data collected for the two counties.
There has been increased development in each county as increasing populations have
required additional acreage for housing, services, transportation and recreational oppor-
tunities. Vacant, agricultural and natural land use categories have shown the greatest
declines as it is generally from these categories that the needs of the increasing population
for developed land are satisfied: Other losses, especially in Dane County, have resulted from
the annexation of acreage formerly under the jurisdiction of rural townships to existing
urbanized areas. This again is the result of the demands of the increasing population.
As the population continues to increase, if past trends are followed, additional land areas
will be developed to accommodate the greater number of people. The projected year 2000
Dane County population of 400,000 would be an increase of approximately 38% over the
1970 population of 290,272. The MMSD planning area had a population in 1970 of
240,406. DCRPC projects this to increase by 44% to 345,715 by the year 2000. Based on
this projected increase in population, the DCRPC has estimated that there would be a
demand for an additional 2040 acres of developed land (commercial, residential and
manufacturing) in the MMSD planning area by the year 2000. As population projections are
revised and changes in land use patterns take place this estimate might also be revised to
reflect these changes.
2.10. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
A. General
Areas with significant environmental sensitivity include areas of unique or scarce
wildlife habitat or of scientific interest. Wetlands, wood lots, geological formations and
prairie land are typical of environmentally sensitive areas. Special care must be taken
to protect these areas from change or destruction.
B. Wetlands
The wetlands provide many valuable services including the following:
1. Watershed protection
2. Recreation
3. Education
4. Scenic value
2-20
-------
TABLE 2-10
DANE COUNTY - LAND USE
1970 1964
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
Two Family
Multiple Family
Farm Dwellings
Group Quarters
Mobile Homes
Hotel and Motel
Seasonal Dwellings
MANUFACTURING
TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES
Street and Road R.O.W.
Other
COMMERCIAL
Wholesale
Retail
SERVICES
General
Government and Education
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL AND VACANT
WATER
TOTALS
DEVELOPED ACREAGE
N.C. - Not Comparable, similar data was not collected in 1964
Source: Dane County Regional Planning Commission
2-21
Land Use
in acres
29,969.6
15,595.1
747.5
913.7
11,756.2
56.8
528.0
123.0
249.3
991.2
34,392.0
29,144.0
5,248.0
1,941.8
515.8
1,426.0
6,382.0
1,049.1
5,332.9
11,632.2
678,716.1
22,651.4
786,676.3
85,308.8
Percent
of total
3.8
.1
4.4
.2
.8
1.5
86.3
2.9
100.0
10.8
Land Use
in acres
24,291.9
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
25,992.7
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
11,459.6
686,555.8
16,270.3
778,232.9
75,406.8
Percent
of total
3.1
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
N.C.
1.5
88.2
2.1
N.C.
9.7
-------
TABLE 2-11
ROCK COUNTY - LAND USE
TOWNSHIP TOTAL
1973
1968
Residential
Trailer Park
General Industrial
General Extractive
Transportation, Communication
and Utilities
Street and Roadway R.O.W.
Railroad R.O.W.
General Commercial
Motels and Hotels
Personal and Business
Services
Government Services
Educational Institutions
Cemeteries
Cultural, Entertainment
and Recreational
Public Parks and Waysides
Agricultural
Vacant Land
Vacant Buildings
Woodland
Water
TOTAL
Developed Acreage
Land Use
in acres
9,565.50
236.25
33.00
519.50
901.75
12,216.75
1,684.00
260.50
23.25
236.25
51.00
146.50
158.75
956.00
954.75
375,573.25
2,572.25
38.75
28,591.25
4,135.50
438,854.70
27,982.50
Percent
of total
2.18
.05
.01
.12
.21
2.78
.38
.06
.01
.05
.01
.03
.04
.22
.22
85.58
.59
.01
6.51
.94
100.00
6.38
Land Use
in acres
8,400.00
26.00
18.50
401.25
782.25
11,932.00
1,755.00
145.50
12.00
136.00
17.00
61.00
159.50
233.75
663.00
380,336.00
2,571.25
31.50
29,190.25
3,920,75
440,792.50
24,774.25
Percent
of total
1.91
.01
.09
.18
2.71
.40
.03
.03
.01
.04
.05
.15
86.28
.59
.01
6.62
.89
100.00
5.62
Source: Rock County Environmental Inventory-Rock Valley Metropolitan Council, 1975
2-22
-------
However, it is not often that the value of such areas is readily apparent in monetary
terms. Consequently, there is pressure from private owners and developers to initiate
drainage or other measures which would enhance the immediate monetary value of a
wetland area.
Wetlands of Dane County have been studied (Bedford, et al., 1974) and a priority
rating system has been set up. This has been an attempt to rate the quality and
importance of each wetland area in the county. Priority groups range from I to V,
with I being the highest rating. The ratings now can be Used as an aid in planning
future development within the county.
Rock County has not had an intensive study of its wetlands. Most of the wetlands in
Rock County are located in the Yahara and Rock River valleys. In 1968 a survey
indicated that there were approximately 4,200 acres of wetlands within the towns of
Union, Porter, Fulton, Milton and Janesville.
C. Scientific and Natural Areas
In order to aid in the protection of other environmentally sensitive areas, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has established the Scientific Areas
Preservation Council. This Council has indentified and listed many sites within the
state which have significant value for their educational, research, scarce or unique
characteristics. Examples of native prairie land, wood lots, wetlands and geological
formations are among those areas listed. Most of the sites inventoried and listed by the
Scientific Areas Preservation Council are privately-owned and are not open to the
public for their use nor is there any direct control over the use or management of such
sites. A relatively few (approximately 124 in the state) are under public ownership or
management. Two public sites are located in Dane County and three in Rock County.
These are listed in Table 2-12 below.
TABLE 2-12
PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC AREAS
Site Location Acres
New Observatory Woods Dane County 13
Waubesa Wetlands Dane County 129
Avon Bottoms Rock County 40
Swenson Prairie and
Oak Opening Rock County 40
Newark Road Prairie Rock County 22.5
2-23
-------
Additions to the listing of scientific areas are continually being made as more are
identified and inventoried. At present there are about 70 privately owned sites in Dane
County and 95 similar sites in Rock County in the Council's data file.
2.11. POPULATION
Population data is collected and tabulated by the United States Bureau of the Census.
Wisconsin's total population has increased from the 30,945 reported by the Bureau of
Census in 1840 to 4,417,731 for 1970.
Dane and Rock County's population in 1970 had increased significantly in the decade since
1960. Table 2-13 summarizes the population changes between 1960 to 1970.
TABLE 2-13
POPULATION DATA
1960
3,951,777
222,095
113,913
126,706
1970
4,417,731
290,272
131,970
173,258
% Change
+11.8
+30.7
+15.9
+36.7
Wisconsin
Dane County
Rock County
City of Madison
As evidenced by the above data, the urban areas have experienced the greatest population
increases.
2.12. OTHER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE AREA
A. General
The present 201 Facilities Plan Study for the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
is being conducted under the scope of Section 201 of Public Law 92-500. It is the goal
of the 201 Study to identify an environmentally sound and economically feasible
wastewater treatment and discharge strategy and a sludge disposal program which will
be consistent with other region-wide plans.
Other programs concerned directly with water quality management or wastewater
treatment and discharge in the area include the following:
1. 208 Planning Program for Dane County
2. 201 Facilities Plan Studies - several communities are in various stages of com-
pletion.
3. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Study for the lower portion of the
Wisconsin River.
2-24
-------
B. Dane County 208 Planning Program
The Dane County Regional Planning Commission has been designated as the 208
Planning Agency for Dane County. This planning effort will investigate various opera-
tional and administrative alternatives and determine the most practicable program
which will insure the protection of the surface and groundwater quality. The work
plan for the program has identified the following work elements.
Non-point Sources
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
Water Quality Standards
Waste Load Allocations
Land Use - Water Quality Linkages
Institutional Considerations
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Protection and Preservation of Streams
Protection and Preservation of Marshes and Wetlands
Each of these work elements will be investigated and recommendations or aid will be
given in appropriate areas which will help to implement the goal of the program.
C. 201 Facilities Planning Studies
In addition to the 201 Facilities Plan being conducted for the Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District, the communities of Deerfield, Edgerton, Mt. Horeb, Sun Prairie,
Marshall, Brooklyn and Verona area also conducting similar studies in the general study
area. An investigation of alternative discharge sites and treatment processes is an
integral part of a 201 study. The recommendations of a 201 study should be
compatible with other study plans in the area.
D. Wisconsin River - National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Study
It is the objective of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act passed by the U.S. Congress in
1968 to preserve and protect "for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
generations" the rivers or sections of the rivers which possess "outstandingly remark-
able scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar
values". The Wisconsin River, in that section reaching from its mouth at Prairie du
Chien, upstream to Prairie du Sac, has been included as being worthy of further study
under this act. Dependent upon the results and recommendations of the initial study
various land use and water management alternatives may be implemented.
2-25
-------
2.13. AESTHETICS AND RECREATION
A. Aesthetics
Aesthetic qualities are difficult to evaluate. Enjoyment of natural areas, scenic over-
looks, pleasing architectural styles or even the knowledge that the opportunities exist
to enjoy these areas are a part of the aesthetic quality of an area. Dane and Rock
Counties offer ample opportunities to observe native wildlife in their natural habitats.
The University of Wisconsin Arboretum in Madison in an excellent area in which to
view not only many mammals, birds and other animal species but also a variety of the
scarce habitat regions (wetlands, prairie and oak openings) that were once common in
Wisconsin. Numerous other sites in Dane and Rock Counties are available for those
interested in the enjoyment of nature.
B. Recreation
Recreation facilities are readily available in Dane and Rock Counties. County parks
offer a variety of outdoor sports opportunities including skiing, golf, picnicking,
camping, swimming and fishing. Privately-owned and village-operated areas are also
available for use. The many lakes and streams in the area have generally easy public
access and are widely utilized for water orientated activities. Fishing and boating are
popular with both area residents and visitors. Hunting for the upland game birds and
waterfowl species are also important recreational outlets available in the area. During
1974 a total of 54,599 regular fishing licenses and over 55,000 hunting licenses were
sold in the area. In addition, approximately 25,000 "Voluntary Sportsmen's" licenses
were sold in Dane and Rock Counties. These licenses entitle the holder to all fishing
and hunting privileges (except deer and bear hunting) while providing a means to
contribute funds directly to fish and game management programs.
2.14. ENERGY
A. General
Electrical power in the Dane and Rock County area is supplied primarily by the
Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WP&L) and by the Madison Gas and Electric
Company (MG&E). MG&E supplies the power needs for the City of Madison and other
areas in the immediate vicinity. MMSD obtains most of their power from MG&E.
WP&L furnishes power for one pumping station.
B. MMSD Usage
Electrical energy is utilized by the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District to operate
the multitude of motors, pumps and miscellaneous equipment required to collect,
convey, treat and discharge the wastewater from the District. The total electrical
energy requirements of MMSD have increased annually as the wastewater flow has
increased and the degree of treatment has been upgraded to provide improved treat-
ment. In 1937, the first year after the activated sludge treatment process was added,
the electrical requirements of MMSD were 2,415,590 KWH. At that time, it is
estimated, only 20% of MMSD's power requirements were used for the treatment and
discharge of the wastewater.
2-26
-------
By 1974 total electrical requirements had reached 19,262,456 KWH. Discharge pump-
ing alone is estimated to demand 60% of the total.
Gasoline and diesel fuel are used to run the trucks, cars, earth moving equipment and
gasoline powered pumps. The 1974 consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel for the
operation and maintenance of the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant was:
gasoline, approximately 4,158 gallons and diesel fuel, approximately 19,601 gallons.
All of the diesel fuel and an estimated 75% of the gasoline was utilized for the
processing and storage of organic solids (sludge).
2.15. PUBLIC HEALTH
A. General
The State and local public health agencies have the responsibility of maintaining a
surveillance of the areas which would effect the public health. Food inspection, well
water analysis, swimming area water analysis and mosquito control are only some of
the areas in which the public health agencies are involved.
B. Water borne Diseases
Typhoid, cholera and dysentery are caused by bacteria associated with improper
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Periodic epidemic outbreaks of these
and related diseases were not uncommon in the United States even into the early
1900's. There have been no major occurrences of waterbome diseases in either Dane or
Rock County in recent years. Only isolated individual cases resulting from well water
contamination by improper septic tank placement or maintenance have been reported.
Occasional outbreaks of schistosome dermatitis, or "swimmers itch", have occurred at
various beaches on the Madison Lakes. This is a relatively minor skin irritation caused
by a parasitic blood fluke. The species found in Wisconsin appears to be incapable of
surviving in a human host and therefore the irritation is limited to the skin or region
of initial contact.
C. Mosquito Control
There are no area-wide mosquito control programs in effect in either Dane or Rock
County. Limited spraying or fogging operations are conducted primarily in recreational
facility areas such as picnic or camp grounds as much for nuisance control as for
prevention of disease.
Mosquitoes can transmit such diseases as yellow fever and encephalitis. During 1975 a
number of cases of the St. Louis strain of encephalitis were reported in Missouri and
Dlinois. Locally, two or three suspected cases were reported, but it could not be
confirmed that the individuals had contacted the disease locally as all had travelled
outside of the state.
2-27
-------
2.16. HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
A. Historical Sites
There are many sites of local, state and national historical significance in Dane and
Rock Counties. A total of 26 sites in Dane County have been listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Twenty-one of these sites are located within the City of
Madison. There are six sites in Rock County which have been listed. The hamlet of
Cooksville, located in the Town of Porter, has been included as an historic district due
to several examples of early architecture found there. In addition to the National
Register of Historic Places listing, which is limited to sites of more than local
significance, there are numerous sites connected with local history.
B. Archeological Sites
The State Historical Society of Wisconsin maintains a data file on known archeological
sites. It has been reported by the Historical Society that there are many known
archeological sites located in Dane and Rock Counties. These sites include indian effigy
and burial mounds, campsites and village sites.
2-28
-------
SECTION 3
SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
3.01. PREVIOUS STUDIES
A. General
The Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District has had a number of studies done to
determine a more reliable and feasible method of sludge disposal. After the 1970
failure of the dike on the eastern sludge lagoon, a study by Warzyn Engineering and
Service Company, Inc. indicated that the lagoon dikes were built on a base of peat and
silt. There was very little bearing strength and a good possibility existed of further
dike failures. Extensive dike maintenance and repair work were required to prevent
further failures from occurring.
B. Waste Treatment Report, Greeley and Hansen Engineers, 1971
The firm of Greeley and Hansen Engineers submitted its "Report on Sewage Treatment
Additions to the Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works" in March of 1971. In
addition to evaluating improvements of the waste water treatment processes, the report
evaluated five sludge handling and disposal alternatives. These alternatives were as
follows:
Spread dried, digested sludge on land
Incinerate digested sludge
Incinerate raw sludge
Heat treat and landfill digested sludge
Apply liquid, digested sludge to land
An economic analysis of these alternatives indicated that the application of liquid
digested sludge alternative, with a 25 mile pipeline transport system, was the least
costly. It was estimated that the cost of this alternative was $23.00 per ton of dry
solids. The other alternatives ranged in cost from $66 to $91 per ton of dry solids.
C. Sludge Disposal Study, Roy F. Weston Engineers, 1974
The firm of Roy F. Weston Engineers submitted a report, "Nine Springs Sewage
Treatment Works Sludge Disposal Study" in 1974. This study dealt entirely with
sludge treatment and disposal alternatives.
Seven methods of sludge disposal were evaluated during the course of this study as
follows:
Sanitary landfill
Subsurface placement
Lagoon storage
3-1
-------
Land application of liquid sludge
Land application of dried sludge
Land application of compost
Dispersion to the atmosphere (Incineration)
The alternatives were ranked by their ability to fulfill a series of six primary objectives,
each broken down into several categories. The primary objectives were as follows:
Public acceptability
Environmental preservation
Resource recovery potential
Adaptability to disposal site constraints
Operational flexibility
Product marketability
Four methods of disposal were eliminated from detailed evaluation after a preliminary
screening.
Lagoon disposal of sludge had ranked high in a number of categories, most notably in
the operational flexibility and in the minimization of the accumulation of heavy metals
in the food chain and in the minimization of air pollution parameters other than odor.
The possibility of continued lagoon disposal of the digested sludge was eliminated
despite the high ranking noted above because of the dike instability and the probable
lack of support from public officials. In addition, the WDNR had included as a
requirement of pollution abatement order number 4B-71-1L-22, issued in 1971, that
the present method of sludge disposal to the existing lagoons be abandoned and that
an alternative method of sludge dispoal be implemented as soon as practicable. As
clarification of this point, the WDNR indicated in 1972 that the following methods of
sludge disposal would be acceptabile: spreading of liquid digested sludge on farmland;
composting; vacuum filtration of digested sludge and disposal of the cake on land; and
vacuum filtration of undigested sludge followed by incineration.
Land application of dried sludge also ranked high in a number of categories. It was
judged to rank high in public acceptability, in several categories under environmental
preservation, in providing nutrients to the soil under resource recovery potential, in
adaptability to disposal site constraints and in several categories under product market-
ability.
Testing of the sludge produced at the Nine Springs treatment plant during the course
of the study indicated that the dewatering characteristics of the sludge were quite
poor. This, coupled with the variable quality of the sludge in regard to meeting the
"guaranteed nutrient level" of other dried sludge products (i.e. "Milorganite" which
has been marketed by the Milwaukee Sewerage Commission for a number of years),
would make the production of a marketable product difficult.
3-2
-------
While the land application of dried sludge had ranked high in most categories, under
the product marketability objective it had ranked low in one important category, that
of market assessability. The Milwaukee Sewerage Commission had marketed its dried
sludge under the name of "Milorganite" as mentioned. Despite the early success of this
program, the market had dwindled to a specialized group of customers. Since relations
with these customers, mainly golf courses, had been established over a number of
years, it was judged that MMSD would find the market assessability very tight. Land
application of dried sludge was, therefore, eliminated from further consideration.
Incineration of the sludge was also eliminated. Various alternatives for dewatering the
sludge, including vacuum filtration and centrifugation, were considered necessary prior
to incineration. Due to the high moisture content of the sludge cakes subsequent to
dewatering tests, the use of supplemental fuel was considered necessary to maintain
combustion in an incinerator. The heat value of the sludge cakes was not high enough
to support combustion. Sandbed drying and lagooning for dewatering the sludge was
not considered as an efficient method of drying sludge as it would not meet the
requirement of continuous feed to incinerator. It was judged that incineration was not
practicable without the use of supplemental fuel for sludge drying and the maintenance
of combustion.
The only categories in which incineration received high rankings were the minimization
of groundwater pollution, insect breeding and odor emissions. In all other categories,
incineration received low rankings. Due to the limited supply of commonly available
fuels, incineration of sludge was eliminated.
Subsurface placement, or trenching, of sludge had been eliminated due to the strong
possibility that such a disposal alternative would not gain WDNR approval. The Weston
report states that "The ranking of options (alternatives) with respect to this objective
(favorable enforcement agency attitude) was based principally upon the consultant's
interpretation of conversations with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
personnel concerning disposal options for municipal wastewater treatment sludge. DNR
specifically stated that they would not approve of the Subsurface Placement disposal
option under any circumstances".
Three other alternatives evaluated in this report were the land application of liquid
sludge, land application of compost and sanitary landfill. These alternatives were all
found to be suitable and were further evaluated.
In the judgement of Roy F. Weston, Inc. sufficient disadvantages existed for the
probable successful implementation and operation of the'sanitary landfill and the land
application of compost alternatives, such that land application of liquid sludge was the
recommended method of sludge disposal. The land application of liquid sludge was
calculated to be the least costly with an estimated disposal cost of $63 per dry ton of
solids.
D. Addendum to Roy F. Weston Sludge Disposal Study, 1974
The staff of MMSD prepared an addendum to the Weston Report evaluating the costs
associated with sludge conditioning (chemical addition, mechanical dewatering,
3-3
-------
centrifugation), and transportation for seven additional alternatives. The least costly
alternative of the MMSD investigation was anaerobic digestion of thickened raw sludge,
followed by pipeline transport to a lagoon and land irrigation at a cost of $41 per dry
ton of solids.
E. Summary
The studies which were conducted regarding the final disposal of sludge produced at
the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant determined land application of liquid
digested sludge to be the most practicable method of sludge disposal. The MMSD
Commission resolved in .June, 1974, that sludge disposal would be handled through the
land application of liquid digested sludge. As a part of the 201 Facilities Planning
Study being conducted jointly by the firms of O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. and
CH2M-HJ11 Engineers, the investigation for the most environmentally sound and socially
acceptable methods of implementing land application was conducted by the firm of
CH2M-Hill.
3.02. LAND APPLICATION
A. General
Land application of sludge to agricultural land as a substitute for manufactured
fertilizers or as a soil conditioner has gained in acceptance in recent years. Three basic
levels of reuse are in general operation based on the application rate of sludge to the
land. These are fertilization, high-rate fertilization and disposal. The rate of sludge
application is dependent upon the sludge characteristics, soil conditions and the crop
grown along with other considerations such as climate and farm community accept-
ance.
1. Fertilization
The reuse of sludge for its fertilizer value relies primarily upon the nutrient
content of the sludge and the nutrient requirements of the crop being grown.
Application rates typically range from 1 to 20 tons dried sludge per acre per year.
While a beneficial reuse of the sludge solids is realized in this type of operation
through the utilization of its nutrient value, maximization of crop production is
the objective rather than the complete disposal of all sludge solids. Application of
sludge is therefore limited to times when nutrient supply is critical to the crop
growth and when application will not physically damage the crop. The toxic
accumulation of heavy metals in the plant materials may also be limiting. If there
is sufficient amount of agricultural acreage devoted to such a reuse program, then
it may be possible to fully dispose of all sludge solids by this method. Storage
facilities are required for those periods when it is not possible to apply the sludge
to the crops.
2. High-rate Fertilization
High-rate fertilization differs from the fertilization method discussed above in that
it is the objective of this method to completely dispose of all sludge produced
dependent upon the soil's capacity to accept the sludge. Application rates
3-4
-------
typically range from 5 to 75 tons dried sludge per acre per year. Limitations are
based on the protection of ground and surface water quality and climatic con-
ditions as well as the soil characteristics. Maximization of crop production is
secondary to sludge disposal. Storage facilities are again required to store the
sludge produced during the winter months when it is impossible to apply sludge
to the land.
3. Disposal
The maximum utilization of limited acreage for sludge disposal is possible with
this method. Usage of the nutrient value of the sludge for crop growth is of
minimal importance. Application rates are dependent almost entirely upon the
protection of the ground and surface water quality. Climatic conditions are not of
as great a limitation as with the other methods of sludge utilization.
B. Land Application Regulations
1. General
Regulations and guidelines pertaining to the land application of sludge have been
developed by the WDNR and the USEPA. Local governmental agencies have
indicated that no regulations have been developed at that level. Township, village,
city and county agencies rely upon the state and federal requirements for
regulation of sludge application to the land.
2. State Guidelines
The WDNR has prepared and issued, in 1975, Technical Bulletin 88, "Guidelines
for the Application of Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land in Wisconsin."
This report provides the information required to develop a land application
program. The considerations of soil suitability, public attitudes, system economics,
public health aspects, system monitoring, crop requirements, sludge characteristics
and site selection and management are discussed.
The WDNR guidelines should be utilized by planning and design agencies in the
developement of any land application system. WDNR personnel will use these
guidelines as an aid in determining if a particular land application program will be
granted operation permits. The recommendations are summarized as follows:
Raw sludge should not be applied to agricultural land.
Sludges should be applied to soils consistent with the nitrogen needs of the
crops being grown.
At least 2 feet and preferably greater than 4 feet of soil should exist
between the sludge application zone and bedrock, any impermeable layer, or
the water table.
Sludge should not be applied to soil in the year the area is used for any root
crops or other vegetables which are consumed uncooked.
3-5
-------
If sludge is surface applied to sloping land, runoff should be minimized by
use of contour strips, terraces and border areas. Also, runoff can be reduced
by injection or immediate incorporation of the sludge.
Pasture land (or corps which are harvested green) should not be used for
milk cow feeding for 2 months following sludge application. Other animals
should not graze pasture land or be fed greenchop material for at least 2
weeks after sludge application.
Metal loadings must be kept within acceptable limits to minimize the
potential of crop damage or food chain accumulation. The soil pH must be
maintained at 6.5 or greater.
Application systems must be such that they minimize the runoff potential
and odor problems while remaining cost-effective.
Sludge application sites should be at least 500 feet from the nearest
residence. If the sludge is injected or incorporated into the soil, a reduction
in this distance may be possible.
Site management must be such that nutrient deficiency and soil acidity
problems do not occur, public access is limited, and crop yields are
maximized.
Site monitoring should be the responsibility of the municipality. If sludge
additions consistent with nitrogen requirements are used, monitoring needs
include only sludge and plant analyses as well as routine soil testing. If
higher rates, on dedicated land, are used, comprehensive groundwater
monitoring must be included.
To insure adequate protection of water supplies, the sludge application site
should be a minimum of 1,000 feet from the nearest public water supply
well and 500 feet from the nearest private water supply well.
The requirements that a 500 foot radius buffer zone around all private water
supply wells would eliminate 15% of the available land area from further evalua-
tion for the land application of sludge. Section NR 112.07(k) of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code on Well Construction and Pump Installation Standards and
Related Information requires that a 200 foot distance be maintained between any
sludge disposal area and any well used to supply water for human consumption or
for food preparation. Agricultural lands falling within a 500 foot radius of a
private well would require the utilization of artificial fertilizers to provide the
nutrients needed for maximum crop production if sludge application is prohibited.
3. Federal Guidelines
Federal guidelines regarding land application of sludge are contained in a supple-
ment to the "Federal Guidelines: Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities" entitled "Municipal Sludge Management: Environ-
mental Factors." The USEPA guidelines, which must be used by federal grant
3-6
-------
applicants, are summarized as follows:
The sludge nutrient value, heavy metals and other constituents which may be
economically recycled or cause environmental damage should be determined.
The site soils should be tested for cation exchange capacity (C.E.C.), pH, and
background heavy metals.
The soils and groundwater conditions should be investigated at each site.
Sludge must be stabilized before land application.
Pathogen reduction may be required in some projects.
The suitability of the crop for sludge amended soils must be determined.
The project should be designed so that groundwater will be protected from
pollution.
Surface water runoff must be controlled.
The annual application rate must be such that the amount of plant available
nitrogen added is not greater than twice the nitrogen requirement of the
crop.
The grant applicant must show the capability to manage and operate the
system.
The grant applicant must develop and implement a monitoring program. The
monitoring data must be periodically reviewed.
The sludge heavy metal additions calculated as zinc equivalent must not
exceed 10 percent of the C.E.C. of the unsludged soil.
The soil pH must be maintained at 6.5 or greater for a period of at least 2
years after sludge application.
Sludge having a cadmium content greater than 1 percent of its zinc content
should not be applied to cropland except under certain specified conditions.
Special precautions should be taken when sludge is applied to pasture.
The facility plans should be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Products in the human food chain grown on sludge amended land should be
monitored for heavy metals, persistent organics, and pathogens.
Many of the federal and state regulations are similar in the concern for protection
of ground and surface water quality, heavy metal buildup, establishment of a
monitoring program and investigation of the capacity of the soils and potential
3-7
-------
crop to accept the sludge loading. Notable differences are apparent in the
WDNR's in calling for application of sludge a rate "consistent with the nitrogen
needs of the crop being grown." The USEPA's guidelines would allow application
of sludge at a rate not to exceed twice the nitrogen requirements of the crop
being grown.
C. Sludge Application Rate Considerations
1. Soil Suitability
Seven soil characteristics were evaluated for each soil series found in the study
area to determine its suitability for sludge application. The soil characteristics
were as follows:
- erosion hazard - soil texture
- depth to groundwater - soil permeability
- depth to bedrock - cation exchange capacity
- flood hazard
Each soil characteristic was given a point rating ranging from 0 to 1.0, based upon
pertinent data for that characteristic. The highest ratings were given to those soils
most suitable for sludge application. A rating number for each soil series was
obtained by multiplying the rating numbers of each individual soil characteristic
together. The soils were then grouped into four classifications based on the final
numerical rating as follows:
Class 1 - .66 - 1.00 - Most suitable
Class 2 - .35 - .65 - Suitable with minor limitations
Class 3 - .01 - .34 - To be used only if Class 1 & 2
soils are not available
Class 4-0 - Not suitable
Of the over 200 soil series and phases evaluated, only 83 obtained a classification
of 1 or 2. These soils correspond to the WDNR guidelines' classification of soils
with slight limitations for sludge application. Class 3 soils correspond to those
with moderate limitations and Class 4 soils correspond to those with severe
limitations.
2. Crop Suitability
Sludge application to crops for the utilization of its fertilizer value is based upon
the fertilizer requirements of the crop and the fertilizer value content of the
sludge. Crops grown in the study area require approximately 35 to 200 pounds/
acre/year of nitrogen, (leguminous crops such as alfalfa are able to obtain nitrogen
3-8
-------
directly from the air but will utilize soil nitrogen if it is readily available.)
Phosphorus requirements range from 15 to 85 pounds/acre/year and potassium
requirements range from 40 to 400 pounds/acre/year. The annual sludge applica-
tions should not be greater than that which will meet the crop requirements for
nitrogen. The nitrogen contents of the treatment plant and lagoon sludges differ
due to the amounts of nitrogen available in each as shown in Section 1.04 of this
report. In general, more lagoon sludge must be applied in order to reach the same
level of nitrogen availability as with treatment plant sludge. Dependent upon the
crop being grown, soil characteristics, past fertilization and crop management
practices, annual sludge application rates, based on the nitrogen requirements,
may range from .05 to over 6.0 tons/acre/year. Other possibly limiting factors
such as the suggested limit of 2 pounds/acre/year (WDNR, 1975) of cadmium are
not as restrictive as the nitrogen due to the characteristics of the MMSD sludge.
Based on the limit of 2 Ibs/acre/year application of cadmium, the annual applica-
tion rate for the existing treatment plant sludge would be 14 tons/acre/year and
31 tons/acre/year for the lagoon sludge. These are well above the maximum
annual application rate of approximately 6 tons/acre determined by the nitrogen
requirements.
Even though the cadmium to zinc ratio exceeds the suggested 1% limit (Chaney,
P.L., 1973; Chaney, R.L., et al, 1975) as stated in Section 1.04, the potential
toxicity problems associated with high cadmium loadings will not be significant
due to the more restrictive nitrogen loading limits as they apply to the MMSD
treatment plant and lagoon sludges.
Total application of sludge (over a period of years) is limited by the heavy metals
loading. The USEPA and the WDNR have recommended the use of the "zinc
equivalent" method of determining the permissible total heavy metals loading.
Based on this method, total application would be limited to approximately 140
tons/acre of sludge for Qass 1 soils, 90 tons/acre for Class 2 soils and 60
tons/acre for Qass 3 soils.
Suggested total cadmium loadings are limited to 20 Ibs/acre (WDNR, 1975). For
the treatment plant sludge this would limit the total sludge loading to approxi-
mately 137 tons/acre and for the lagoon sludge to approximately 308 tons/acre.
These are both well above the total loading limits established through the use of
the "zinc equivalent" method as shown above.
Recommendations regarding the application of irrigation water developed at the
University of California would limit the total application of lagoon sludge to 120
tons/acre based on its iron content. The effects of dissolved salts, mercury and
phosphorus were also evaluated. Due to the characteristics of the treatment plant
and lagoon sludges, the allowable loadings based on these parameters are not as
restrictive as those established above.
The total sludge application should be reduced by approximately 25% for those
areas where vegetables are grown for direct human consumption. Reduction of the
total application by 50% in fields where leaf vegtables such as lettuce may be
grown, since cadmium has a tendency to accumulate in the leaves should also be
made.
3-9
-------
Annual and total sludge application loadings must be determined on an individual
basis. Soils analysis to determine the characteristics of the soils found on any
given parcel of land must be carried out by qualified soils testing personnel. The
planned crop for a given parcel of land must also be determined and the crop
management practices must be adhered to. This will insure that the proper
application rates are calculated and maintained. The sludge character must also be
monitored so that changes in its character may also be accounted for in maintain-
ing the proper application rate.
3. Other Considerations for Agricultural Reuse
a. Fertilizer Market
The fertilizer industry has experienced a shortage of natural resources and of
the energy resources required to produce the quantity of fertilizers needed to
meet the agricultural demand in recent times. As a result, the cost of
manufactured fertilizers has risen sharply and the farm community has
expressed a greater interest in obtaining alternate sources of fertilizer. The
sludges produced at wastewater treatment plants, having a nutrient content
capable of supplying at least a portion of the fertilizer demand, are being
used to some extent to fill this need.
Due to projected costs for manufactured fertilizers remaining high, the
demand for alternate sources is expected to also remain high. It is estimated
that the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant could supply only 3% of
the area's nitrogen requirements. This relatively limited supply should assure
that the high demand for the available treatment and lagoon sludge con-
tinues.
b. Farm Community Acceptance
Two public mettings were held with members of the farm community of the
area during the course of the study to determine the local attitudes toward
the reuse of available sludge material. Questionnaires filled out at those
meetings, as well as in response to a mailing to area farmers, resulted in
approximately 26 farmers expressing a strong interest in using sludge on their
agricultural land. These farmers, together, represent a potential sludge reuse
area of over 5,000 acres. Estimates regarding the land area required for the
land application of MMSD's treatment plant and lagoon sludges range from
5,200 to 5,700 acres. For the treatment plant sludge only, approximately
2,400 to 3,000 acres would be required.
The interest already expressed along with an anticipated public relations
program appear to assure that sufficient land area would be made available
through the farm community for land application.
c. Land Ownership
Evaluation of the alternative between private versus public (MMSD) owner-
ship indicated that the cost of public ownership would be considerably
3- 10
-------
greater than private ownership. For a more easily managed program under
public ownership, a single large parcel of land would be beneficial. Condem-
nation proceedings would most probably be required in order for MMSD to
purchase the large parcel of land area required. This would be both ex-
pensive and time consuming. Having a large parcel of land devoted to the
land application of sludge under public ownership would place the public
agency in competition with the private farmers for the sale of crops grown.
Maintaining the present privately owned land arrangements would appear to
avoid the problems described above. No purchase of large land areas would
be required as the sludge would be supplied only to those farmers who are
voluntary participants in the program. The present competition for crop sales
would also be maintained. The sludge application sites would of necessity be
relatively small and scattered compared to a large publically owned site. This
would require implementation of a well planned and managed program to
insure the program's success.
4. Sludge Application Periods
Several factors will have a bearing on periods when sludge may be applied to the
land. Cultural practices, stage of crop growth, weather, application equipment,
and public health considerations affect the periods when sludge is applied.
Weather conditions alone prohibit land application from December through March
when there is a high probability that the ground may be frozen. Recommenda-
tions of the USEPA and WDNR also limit the periods when sludge may be
applied to growing crops or to fields to be grazed or harvested for human or
animal food.
Field conditions, whether they are wet and muddy or not, may determine the
type of application equipment which must be utilized to enter the field. In
general, tractor-drawn equipment would probably be able to operate in less favor-
able field conditions than even specially designed truck-drawn equipment.
The recommendations of the USEPA and the WDNR outlined previously, are
meant to provide a reasonable degree of safety in regards to the public health.
For those crops which are to be eaten by humans (sweet corn, green peas, etc.)
and the crops which are to be fed to livestock (silage corn, forage grasses, etc.)
minimum periods have been established which must elaspe between the sludge
application and the harvesting. As discussed in Section 3.02 B, sludge should not
be applied to sites in the year when any root crops or other vegetables which are
cooked prior to consumption are grown. In addition, for vegetables which are
commonly eaten uncooked, there should be no sludge application within three
years of the time when the crops are grown. Dairy cows should not be allowed to
graze in pastures or be fed greenchop (forage crops which are harvested green) for
a period of two months following sludge application. Other livestock should not
be allowed to graze in pastures or be fed greenchop for a period of two weeks
following sluge application.
3-11
-------
D. Methods of Sludge Transportation, Storage and Application
1. Transportation Methods
Of the three most feasible methods of sludge transport; rail haul, pipeline
transport and truck transport, only pipeline and truck transport were considered
applicable for the study area. Rail haul is feasible when suitable land areas are not
available in the immediate vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant and the
sludge would consequently have to be transported a considerable distance. Such is
not the case in the study area where sufficient land area with suitable soil types
for sludge application are available within 10 to 15 miles of the wastewater
treatment plant.
Truck transportation of sludge utilizes closed tank trucks to convey sludge from
the treatment plant to the various application sites. Tank capacities of up to
6,000 gallons are commonly available. In general, the larger the tank capacity, the
less costly the transportation costs since fewer trips would be required to trans-
port a given quantity of sludge. It is estimated that transportation costs would be
approximately $2.69/dry ton mile utilizing a 5,000 gallon capacity truck.
Most trucks would be loaded at a central loading dock or wet well at the
treatment plant and would discharge their loads to a temporary storage facility or
directly to the field application equipment at the site. Some trucks have been
specifically designed or modified to enable them to be utilized for both over-the-
road haul and in-field application.
One of the primary advantages of a truck transport system is the flexibility of
operations afforded by the mobility of a truck fleet. A disadvantage of such a
system is the additional traffic load which would be required by the transporta-
tion of the sludge.
Class B town roads in the Dane County area are subject to seasonal load limits to
protect the road surface from heavy traffic. Generally these restricted load limits
extend from March to May each year to coincide with softened road conditions
resulting from the spring thaw. Since the early spring is one of the periods of
potentially heavy sludge transportation and application activity, scheduling of the
sludge transportation may require adjustment. It may mean that the majority of
the sludge transportation requiring travel on Class B roads would be conducted
during the fall months and the sludge could be either applied at that time or
stored in on-farm lagoons for later application. Class A roads are not subject to
the same restrictive limitations as Class B roads. If transportation could be
limited to Class A roads, then scheduling would not cause any major problems.
Pipeline transport is utilized to convey sludge via an underground system. The
sludge would be pumped from the treatment plant to a number of discharge
points. Dependent upon the market demand for the sludge, these points could
serve as loading areas for a limited scope truck transport system, or the route of
the pipeline could be laid out so as to enable discharge points to be set up at
individual farms.
3- 12
-------
Advantages of a pipeline transport system are the lack of any visual impact of
the conveyance of the sludge once the pipeline is installed and it is more cost
effective than truck transport. It is estimated that the cost for this system would
be $1.57/ton-mile. A major disadvantage of pipeline transport of sludge is the
inflexibility of the system. If for some reason an established market demand for
the sludge in the discharge point area declines, it would not be feasible to relocate
the pipeline system.
2. Intermediate Storage Facilities
Intermediate storage facilities are utilized to increase the efficiency of the sludge
transportation and application systems. By being able to store a quantity of
sludge at the application site, transportation facilities could be utilized at a more
uniform rate and not be required to deliver large volumes of sludge during peak
application periods. Storage facilities may take the form of a small lagoon on the
individual farms using the sludge. It is estimated that a lagoon with approximately
3 to 5 acre feet (980,000 to 1,630,000 gallons) of storage capacity would hold
sufficient sludge required for a 100 acre application and would cost approxi-
mately $8,500 to install. Proper precautions would be required to protect ground
and surface water quality and to limit unnecessary access.
Large nurse tanks (15,000 gallons and over) could be utilized as mobile storage
facilities. These could be moved to a point of easy access for either truck
transport or pipeline discharge and then moved to a point close to the actual
field application. An advantage of this type of intermediate storage is that there is
no need for any land area on individual farms to be permanently devoted to a
storage facility. The estimated cost of a nurse tank would be about $15,000.
3. Application Methods
There are three basic methods of sludge application. These are:
sprinkler gun
subsurface injection
truck or tractor drawn spreader
A variety of models, manufacturers and combinations of these basic systems are
available.
Sprinkler guns have the advantage of allowing application to be done during
periods when the soil is too soft to allow other types of application equipment to
operate. Also, they would allow application to small grain crops at periods during
their growth when other equipment would cause injury to the crop. Disadvantages
lie in the adverse visual impact of the spraying operation and the potential sealing
effect a thin layer of sludge has unless broken up after application. The cost of
this system is estimated at $3.56/dry-ton of solids.
3- 13
-------
Subsurface injection is done in the field using specially designed equipment to
incorporate sludge directly into the soil. A feeder hose is commonly used to
supply sludge, under pressure, from an intermediate storage facility or nurse tank
to the tractor drawn injection machine. This method of application minimizes the
adverse visual impact of the application operation since it would closely resemble
normal farming practices. By placing the sludge directly into the soil, possible loss
of the nutrient value through subsequent runoff is also minimized. Application
would be possible only during periods when there are no corps growing in the
fields. The injector blades and feeder hose would cut the plant roots and tear the
plants out of the ground. The cost of this system is estimated at $5.93/ton of
solids.
Truck spreaders would be able to drive directly from the wastewater treatment
plant or intermediate storage facility to any field, allowing great flexibility in the
application program. The relatively small capacity (1500 to 2500 gallons) of the
truck tanks would require frequent return to the plant or storage facility for
refilling resulting in a decrease in efficiency. The truck spreaders would be
restricted to periods when the soils are relatively dry to limit soil compaction.
Large flotation tires can be utilized to reduce this problem. However, these large
tires would damage crops such as corn and small grains. The estimated cost of this
system is approximately $11.90/ton of solids.
Tractor spreaders could utilize the feeder hose system described above or pull a
small tank. The feeder hose would allow a more continuous type of operation
since the need to return to an intermediate storage facility or nurse tank would
be eliminated. However, the limitations regarding damage to crops by the hose
would be restrictive to the types of crops or periods when this system could be
used. The tank system would require the frequent refilling as required with the
truck spreader system. The cost of a feeder is estimated at $2.44/ton of solids.
3.03. NO ACTION
No action in regard to sludge disposal would mean the continued discharge of sludge to the
existing lagoons adjacent to the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. Pumping of
supernatant to the treatment plant and continued maintenance of the lagoon dikes would
be required to prevent over-topping or failure of the dikes in the future.
The pollution abatement order issued in 1971 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources discussed earlier required that the method of sludge disposal to the existing
lagoons be abandoned and an alternative method of sludge disposal be instituted.
The potential damages which might result from further release of sludge through a dike
failure or accidental discharge to nearby surface waters as well as the requirements of the
WDNR pollution abatement order necessitate the abandonment of the present disposal
system.
3-14
-------
SECTION 4 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
4.01. GENERAL
Land application of the anaerobically digested wastewater treatment plant sludge and the
sludge currently stored in the lagoons is recommended as the proposed method of sludge
disposal for the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District. The following sections outline the
program management, monitoring, marketing and sludge handling programs as well as the
manpower requirements, implementation schedule and program costs.
4.02. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Liquid anaerobically digested sludge would be made available to the local farm community
for application to agricultural lands. Sludge application rates would be developed through
procedures which would determine the capacity of the soils found on an individual farm
and the planned crop to utilize the nutrient content of the sludge. Other factors, such as
erosion potential, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock, soil permeability, flood hazard
and soil texture are also important factors which would be considered in determining the
proper application rate for a given site.
The land application program would be administered by MMSD, which would conduct or
supervise the soils sampling and analysis, schedule application operations, monitor the
sludge, soil, plant material and groundwater for various chemical constituents and maintain
the records necessary for the efficient administration of the program.
During the first few years of this program, sludge currently stored in the sludge lagoons
would be removed and applied to the land along with sludge produced at the treatment
plant. Once sufficient storage volume is available, and from then on, the treatment plant
sludge would be temporarily stored in a portion of Lagoon 1 during the periods when field
application is not possible.
Removal of the lagoon sludge would be continued until all material currently stored in the
lagoons would be removed and the area, except for the portion of Lagoon 1 to be used for
seasonal storage, would be allowed to return to its natural state. The dikes of Lagoon 1
would be structurally maintained as an emergency backup to the contingency plan. The
contingency plan is the utilization of the seasonal storage lagoon to store sludge for a
period of up to three years. It would be implemented in the event of the proposed reuse
program becoming inoperative. Sufficient volume would be obtained in the seasonal storage
lagoon for the three-year period by re-instituting the return pumpage of lagoon supernatant
to the treatment plant as is the current practice.
Transportation of sludge to the application sites would be accomplished by tanker trucks. If
a great enough demand is developed and the marketing area warrants it, then pipeline
distribution of sludge may become feasible in the future. Application would be by truck
spreader, tractor spreader and subsurface injection. The type of application equipment
utilized would depend partially upon the physical characteristics of a particular site,
equipment availability and the type of crop planned for the site.
4-1
-------
4.03. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
A. Program Administration
Day-to-day and long term program management would be the responsibility of MMSD.
A program manager would be assigned who would be responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the sludge storage, handling, transportation and application facilities.
He would also conduct interviews with prospective sludge users, conduct site screening
surveys and interpret the results of the soil and water tests. Determination of annual
application rates and record keeping would be required to maintain a successful
program.
Development and maintenance of a sludge market would be of prime importance for
the program manager to insure that the farm community is well informed of the
potential benefits that may be gained through the use of sludge as well as of the
precautions necessary to protect the environment. The program manager should also be
aware of the advances made in land application of sludge and be prepared to modify
operating procedures so as to take advantage of improvements made in storage,
handling, transportation and application technology.
B. Monitoring Program
The land application of sludge may affect the environment of the area surrounding
each application site. Therefore, a monitoring program would be beneficial to docu-
ment any changes in the surrounding area. The data which would be collected would
be used to protect the public health, to provide a basis of confidence in the reuse
program for user farmers, and to build up a continuing documentation of the effect of
the proposed sludge reuse on the agricultural community. Four areas of sampling and
analysis would be implemented in the recommended monitoring program. These are
the sludge characterization, soils, crops and groundwater effects.
All sampling would be conducted by MMSD staff personnel. In instances where
specialized sampling procedures are required, training would be provided by qualified
people to insure that representative samples are obtained. Analyses would be con-
ducted in accordance with standard procedures appropriate for the material (sludge,
soil, plant tissue or water) and parameter being analysed. The analyses would be
performed either in the MMSD laboratory or in a laboratory especially equipped to
perform certain analyses.
Monitoring of the sludge quality would be required to detect any changes in the sludge
quality resulting from variations of the wastewater influent characteristics or opera-
tional changes which may occur. If the sludge quality warrants it, application rates
would be adjusted to compensate for such changes. Parameters monitored would
include the following:
Ammonia Nitrogen Nickel
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Tin
Total Phosphorus Cadmium
Potassium Molybdenum
Total Solids Cobalt
Total Volatile Solids Aluminum
Total Soluble Salts Arsenic
pH Boron
Iron Selenium
Zinc Mercury
Copper Sulfate
Titanium Alkalinity
Lead Calcium
Barium Magnesium
Chromium 4 - 2 Sodium
Manganese Nitrate
-------
A limited sludge characterization sampling and analysis would be conducted on a
monthly basis for a selected set of parameters. The monthly characterization would
include analysis for the following parameters: solids content, total Kjeldahl nitrogen,
ammonia nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, cadmium, zinc, copper and nickel. A com-
plete characterization would be conducted on a quarterly basis which would include, in
addition to the above set of parameters, the following: total volatile solids, total
soluble salts, pH, iron, titanium, lead, barium, chromium, manganese, tin,
molybdenum, arsenic, boron, selenium, mercury, sulfate, cobalt, aluminum, alkalinity,
calcium, magnesium and sodium. A daily sampling of each sludge source (treatment
process), digester or lagoon, would be analyzed for total solids, total Kjeldahl and
ammonia nitrogen in order to maintain control of the sludge application procedures.
The solids monitoring program would consist of two parts. The first portion would be
the continued utilization of the University of Wisconsin Extension soils testing program
which has been set up as an aid to the farm community in determining fertilizer
applications rates for optimum crop growth. This service would be utilized for the
same purposes, to determine the proper annual sludge application rates.
The other portion of the soil sampling program would be the determination of the
background levels of the constituents which would determine the total allowable sludge
loading. Samples would be collected prior to any sludge application. The parameters to
be monitored include the following: cation exchange capacity (CEC), electrical con-
ductivity (EC), sodium, iron, aluminum, zinc, copper, nickel, cadmium, molybdenum,
mercury, manganese and boron. This sampling and analysis would establish the suit-
ability of a given site for inclusion in the sludge application program and, if suitable
for inclusion in the program, determine the proper application rates, as mentioned
above.
The crop monitoring program would be conducted to determine if potentially harmful
concentrations of the heavy metals are being approached in the plant tissues which
may enter the food chain. The heavy metals normally are not readily available to the
plants and must accumulate in the soil before they become a major concern. Sampling
of the plant tissues of crops commonly grown in the study area would be taken prior
to the first sludge application and at three year intervals thereafter. Analyses would
determine the concentrations of the following elements: boron, cadmium, copper,
manganese, mercury, nickel, zinc, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum,
selenium and vanadium. If the suggested maximum levels are reached for any of the
elements, application of sludge would be discontined at once and investigation into the
causes of the buildup and possible remedial actions would be undertaken.
Groundwater monitoring would be done in order to establish the background levels
and to detect any changes in the water quality which may occur as the result of sludge
application. Regulations limit the proximity of land application of sludge to any wells
utilized for water supply. Any groundwater source within 500 feet of a sludge
application would initially be sampled prior to the sludge application and at three year
intervals thereafter. The initial sampling and analyses would determine the levels of the
following parameters: MBAS, arsenic, nitrate nitrogen, total dissolved solids, mercury
and coliforms. The periodic samples thereafter would be analyzed for nitrate nitrogen
and total dissolved solids only. The periodic nitrate and TDS monitoring would provide
a general indication of sludge constituents reaching the groundwater.
4-3
-------
While the recommended groundwater program represents a significant effort to
establish background levels and to detect any groundwater quality changes, it is
suggested that MMSD consider the expansion of the monitoring program to include all
existing wells within one-half mile of each application site on a yearly basis. It is felt
that the additional number of analyses which would be required by the extention of
the monitoring program would provide a much wider data base with which to
document the groundwater quality. It is suggested that sampling of the wells be
conducted during the summer months or in the periods subsequent to major applica-
tion of sludge to nearby sites.
The recommended monitoring program does not include any provision for surface
water monitoring. Proper program implementation and management controls would
prevent sludge application to sites where or during periods when runoff to surface
water would be anticipated. Due to these controls, as outlined in Volume III, Organic
Solids Reuse Plan chances of surface water contamination are felt to be minimal. The
MMSD should continue the program of sampling and analysis of the surface waters of
Badfish Creek and the Rutland Branch (Anthony Branch). The Rutland Branch is
identified as a Class II trout stream. If a sludge application site were to be located
within the Rutland Branch drainage basin, it is suggested that the monitoring of that
stream be expanded to include sampling at a number of locations, both upstream and
downstream of the sludge application site, after major rainfall events. Sampling should
also be conducted during snowmelt periods when soil materials may be washed into
the stream. Such a surface water monitoring program would enable MMSD to docu-
ment what affects on the surface water quality, if any, may be attributable to the land
application of sludge.
C. Marketing Program
An active marketing program will be initiated which will be used to develop and
maintain a reliable demand for the sludge. Components of a successful marketing
program should include an easy access by the public to information regarding the land
application operations. Data concerned with the volume of sludge applied, and results
of the analyses performed under the monitoring program should be made available. In
addition, information on new technology in the area of land application equipment
and research should be made available through the use of brochures and public
meetings. Public meetings could also be utilized as a forum for obtaining the views,
and suggestions of user farmers regarding the operating practices of the program.
An initial objective of the marketing program should be the establishment of a trade
name and logo to be utilized thereafter in place of the term sludge or sewage sludge.
Such a trade name would provide a means to disseminate information to the public
without having to constantly use the word sludge, which has negative connotations for
many people. The trade name and logo could be utilized as a identification on the
trucks and other equipment required for the proposed land application program.
Another component of the marketing program should be the establishment of demon-
stration plots both near the treatment plant site and at other distant locations where
sludge is used. These plots could be utilized for demonstration and promotional
activities to show the effects of land application of sludge.
4-4
-------
Day to day personal contact with the user farmers as well as the general public will be
made by the drivers of the trucks used to transport the sludge from the treatment
plant to the land application sites. A special effort should be made to obtain people
who will maintain a courteous and helpful attitude towards the members of the farm
community and the general public with which they come in contact. Cleanliness of the
drivers' uniforms and of the trucks would aid greatly in maintaining a good public
image of the program.
D. Sludge Handling Facilities
Estimates of the storage, transportation, distribution and land application facilities
required will depend upon the size and location of the sludge market which is
developed. Seasonal storage of the treatment plant sludge will require that approxi-
mately half (23 acres) of the existing Lagoon 1 be retained for this purpose.
The transportation and distribution equipment required will be at a maximum during the
first ten years of the program while, in addition to the land application of the
treatment plant sludge, the sludge from the storage lagoons will be removed. It is
estimated the lagoon sludge will be completely removed after ten years and then the
transportation and distribution equipment requirements will be significantly reduced.
A total of six tanker trucks (5,000 gallon capacity) should be sufficient to meet the
peak demand periods of application. It is hoped that while the market for sludge can
be expanded over the first few years, an accompanying development of on-farm storage
lagoons will enable the initial number of tanker trucks to keep pace with the demand.
After a reliable sludge market is developed, the feasibility of a pipeline distribution
system could be evaluated. Such a system would become viable if a strong and reliable
market is developed for a particular area.
Field application equipment will be comprised initially of four truck spreaders. These
vehicles have received favorable comments from the farm community and would also
provide for maximum flexibility during the first stages of the proposed land applica-
tion program. A tractor spreader and a subsurface injector should also be provided to
meet the peak application demands and as demonstrators of these application methods.
As the sludge market is expanded an additional tractor spreader and an additional
subsurface injector should be added. After ten years (or when the storage lagoons have
been emptied) the field application equipment inventory could be reduced to one each
of the truck spreaders, tractor spreaders and subsurface injectors.
The land requirements during the first year of the proposed program is estimated at
2,000 acres. After the first year the market will have hopefully been expanded
sufficiently to provide 5,000 to 6,000 acres for land application. This level of land
usage is expected to continue until the existing sludge storage lagoons have been
emptied. After the lagoons have been emptied, land usage is expected to drop to
approximately 2,500 to 3,000 acres. This level would continue indefinitely.
4-5
-------
In order to alleviate a portion of the peak demand for the transportation of sludge
during the early spring months, a number of on-farm storage lagoons should be
installed. A lagoon capable of storing approximately 4.5 acre-feet (1,470,000 gallons)
of sludge would provide sufficient storage for the needs of a 100 acre farm. A total of
20 such lagoons would supply the storage capacity needed to keep the tanker truck
requirements to a minimum.
E. Manpower Requirements
The implementation of the proposed land application program will necessitate the
commitment of a number of MMSD staff personnel. A program manager will be
required on a full time basis to schedule the sludge handling, distribution and applica-
tion operations, maintain the sampling and analysis records and to keep abreast of the
technological advances and research relevant to the land application of sludge.
Other staff personnel will be required to maintain and operate the sludge removal
equipment, tanker trucks, field application equipment, miscellaneous pumps and other
equipment. The monitoring program will also require the commitment of additional
laboratory technicians to perform the analyses as outlined earlier. Clerical help will be
required for filing, correspondence and related office work.
Field operations will, of necessity, be limited to a 6 to 9 month period dependent
upon climatic conditions. However, equipment maintenance and other tasks necessary
to the program would be required such that the staff personnel would be fully
employed on a year around basis. During the first few years, there would be a higher
demand for laboratory work as new sites are added to the program and the initial
sampling to establish background levels present is at a maximum.
F. Program Implementation Schedule
The evaluation of various sludge handling and disposal alternatives for the MMSD has
been a continuing effort. The current study has been actively looking at the existing
sludge storage and the limited land application programs utilized by MMSD and
alternative programs since the early part of 1975. It is expected that approval of the
proposed land application program will be obtained from the appropriate regulatory
agencies by early 1977.
The proposed land application and monitoring programs should be begun as soon as
practicable after regulatory agency approval is received. Required equipment to
implement the program should be ordered as soon as approval of the program is
received. Prior to receipt of the specially ordered tanker trucks, spreaders and other
related equipment, the present limited land application program would be continued.
By the operating season of 1978, it is expected that all equipment would be on hand
and full scale operation of the proposed program could begin.
The marketing program would begin in earnest during 1976. The development of a
reliable market would be of prime concern to insure the success of the proposed
program. Preliminary informational public meetings have been held during the planning
stages of the current study. A portion of these meetings were devoted to an explana-
tion of the advantages and disadvantages associated with a land application of sludge
program. Various methods of field application were presented for the review and
comment of those in attendance.
4-6
-------
If the proposed program were to be fully implemented by 1978, it is estimated that
the removal of the majority of the sludge currently stored in the lagoons would be
completed by approximately 1986. Continued removal operations may extend to 1990.
Equipment replacement (field application equipment, tanker trucks, etc.) should be
phased so as to avoid the need to replace several pieces of equipment at one time.
During the second through fifth years of the program on-farm storage lagoon construc-
tion should begin. The goal of the program is to construct five such lagoons each year
with a total of twenty on-farm lagoons available after the fifth year. As discussed
earlier the utilization of these lagoons would alleviate some of the peak transportation
demand scheduling.
G. Program Cost
Yearly capital, operation and maintenance and debt service costs have been estimated
for the proposed program as shown in Section 1.06 of this report and in the Organic
Solids Reuse Plan by CH2M-H111.
Capital costs include the purchase of required equipment and the construction of
facilities necessary to implement the proposed program. These costs would be
amortized over a period of 20 years at a 7% interest rate and are reported as the debt
service.
The cost of providing gasoline, lubricants, informational materials, office supplies and
any other services necessary to maintain the equipment in proper running condition
and to administer the program are reported as operation and maintenance (O & M)
costs. Salaries for the drivers, vehicle maintenance personnel, laboratory technicians,
clerical help and program manager are also included in the O & M costs.
A portion of the program income would result from the charging of a sludge user fee.
Since the sludge which would be applied to a farmer's field would substitute for a
portion of the artificial fertilizer normally applied for optimum crop growth, its use
would contribute a service of value for the farmer. A user fee would help offset the
costs required for the monitoring program and for the transportation and application
operations. It would not be the purpose of the user fee to recover the entire costs, or
even a significant portion of the program. Its primary functions would provide a
control over supply and demand of the sludge and dispel the impressions which might
arise from supplying the sludge at no cost. That is that the sludge would have no
value.
The sludge user fee could be set up in a number of ways. The proposed fee schedule
would include a standard fee for the initial site inspection, sampling and analysis. The
suggested fee for this initial work is $200. For parcels larger than 200 acres the fee
should be increased at a rate of $2.25/acre. An annual fee for monitoring should be set
at $.50/acre.
In order to control the distance which the sludge would be transported to as little as
practicable, an initial maximum distance beyond which a transportation fee would be
charged, should be established. Initially it is suggested that this distance be set at
4-7
-------
twelve miles from the treatment plant facility. Farmers beyond this distance would be
assessed a fee of $1.50/ton-mile for the sludge. As the program becomes more firmly
established, the twelve mile distance could be drawn in closer to the sludge source to
consolidate the marketing area.
Total annual costs have been estimated to average $402,200 during the first ten years
(1978-1987) of the program. During this period sludge would be removed from the
existing storage lagoons. Based on an average yearly volume of 15,500 tons of sludge
solids recycled during this period, the cost would be approximately $27.97 per ton.
For the remainder of the program study period (1988-2000) the total annual costs
have been estimated to be $313,300. This reflects a significant decrease in the yearly
operation and maintenance costs due to the anticipated completion of removal of
sludge from the existing lagoons. Debt service costs also decrease as payments for
equipment purchased at the beginning of the program are completed. The cost per ton
of sludge solids during this period have been estimated at $40.80 per year based on an
average yearly amount of 7700 tons recycled.
H. Sludge Handling Contingency Plan
The prevention of possible loss of the sludge reuse market through a lack of interest
on the part of the agricultural community and the prevention of community members
from becoming frightened by unfounded claims regarding the value of sludge for its
fertilizer value are the prime objectives of the marketing program. Confidence of the
agricultural community should be developed through the open dissemination of in-
formation and the extensive monitoring program.
If, through an unforeseen change in sludge quality, the land application of sludge
becomes impossible, an alternative sludge handling plan is required. Alternative plans
could include the following:
Have several thousand acres of MMSD owned or option-to-control lands available
for sludge application.
Have facilities for incinceration or dewatering and landfill available for sludge
disposal.
Have lagoon storage capacity to hold sludge for a minimum of three years
available.
The high cost and impracticability of the first two alternatives eliminates them from
further consideration. The third alternative could be implemented by the re-institution
of the present practice of pumping lagoon supernatant back to the treatment plant.
This would provide sufficient capacity in the seasonal storage lagoon to hold approxi-
mately three years production of sludge.
4-8
-------
The three year storage period should be utilized to find and correct the condition
causing the sludge to be unacceptable for land application. If the cause cannot be
found or corrected, then studies to identify a permanent sludge disposal alternative
should be initiated.
The existing dikes for Lagoon 1 would be structurally maintained. The remaining area
of Lagoon 1, not utilized by the seasonal storage lagoon, could be held in reserve as an
additional backup to the contingency plan in the event of some unforseen happening.
4-9
-------
SECTION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
5.01. GENERAL
The proposed actions for the handling and disposal of sludge produced at the Madison
Metropolitan Sewerage District's wastewater treatment facility, as described in Section 4.0,
encompass the application of liquid anaerobically digested sludge to agricultural lands.
Sludge material currently stored in the sludge lagoons adjacent to the Nine Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant would be removed and also applied to agricultural lands. Most
of the present lagoon area would be allowed to return to its natural state once the sludge
had been removed. A portion of Lagoon 1 would be retained for seasonal storage of sludge
during periods when land application is not possible. The following sections provide
information regarding the impacts which the proposed actions are expected to have on the
environment.
5.02. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Climate
The application of wastewater treatment plant and lagoon sludge would have virtually
no effect upon the general climatic conditions of the south-central Wisconsin area. The
application of sludge to agricultural lands would be similar in nature to common farm
practices and hence be affected by or dependent upon climatic conditions. Sludge
application could not be done during rain storms, for instance, or during periods of
high winds. Neither could plowing, seed planting .nor other farm related tasks be done
during such periods.
B. Topography
Application of sludge material to agricultural lands for the beneficial utilization of its
nutrient content would have negligible impact on the topography of the area. State
and Federal guidelines and regulations limit the maximum degree of slope for sites
which are to be utilized for sludge application. Sites with slopes of 0-6%, 6-12% and
more than 12% have in general slight, moderate and severe limitations respectively for
sludge application in regards to potential for runoff (WDNR, 1975).
The degree of slope may also pose limitations to the type of equipment most suitable
for field application (WDNR, 1975). Truck or tractor drawn spreaders operate most
efficiently on level to slightly sloping land and are not suitable for steep or rough
slopes. Subsurface injection equipment is subject to the same slope limitations as the
truck or tractor drawn spreaders. The steeper slopes would require more power and
better traction for the application equipment with possible rutting of the soil.
C. Soils
1. General
Soils found on an individual farm will be tested for their suitability for sludge
application as described in Section 3.02. Included in the soils analysis are the
5-1
-------
following characteristics: erosion hazard, depth to groundwater, depth to bedrock,
flood hazard, soil texture, soil permeability and cation exchange capacity. If the
soil of a particular site is judged suitable for sludge application, the rate of annual
application and the total permissible loading will be regulated by such factors as
the type of crop to be grown, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics
of the sludge and the past fertilizer or sludge application practices. The following
sections will discuss the impact of sludge application on soils.
2. Nutrient considerations
Soils naturally contain up to 6,000 Ibs/acre of organic nitrogen. However, much
of this nitrogen is not available to plants for their use. Many of the soils of
Wisconsin have less than 100 Ibs/acre of nitrogen available. Farm crops grown in
southern Wisconsin, such as corn, tobacco, sorghum and other vegetable varieties,
require up to 200 pounds of additional nitrogen per acre per year for optimum
growth. By establishing the proper annual application rates, no excess of nitrogen
will be applied to the land. If an excess of nitrogen were to be applied, then that
portion not utilized by crop would be subject to leaching. Nitrogen leached from
the soil, either by groundwater movement or surface runoff, may contaminate
surface water streams and lead to a number of problems (see Section 5.02 D).
Annual application rates may be limited by other nutrients (phosphorus and
potassium), however, initial calculations indicate that these parameters are not as
limiting as nitrogen.
3. Heavy Metal Considerations
The metals of greatest concern in the land application of sludge are the following:
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. If large concentra-
tions of metals are applied to the soil they may reach levels toxic to plants and
animals. If the metals remain in the soil and are not taken up by the plants, then
there is little problem. If, however, they are taken up by the plants, then levels of
toxicity may be approached. The mechanisms by which the heavy metals are
retained in the soil are numerous and complex. Allowable loadings based on the
metals content of the treatment plant and lagoon sludges have been calculated
utilizing the "zinc equivalent" method recommended by the USEPA and the
WDNR. This method of loading calculation results in the total amount of metals
which may be applied to the land before possibly toxic levels are reached. For the
study area soils and the crops grown in the area total allowable loadings of sludge
are calculated to range from 30 tons/acre to 150 tons/acre. This would permit use
of even the most restrictive of the suitable soil areas and crops for a period of 15
years before reaching potentially dangerous metals concentrations.
D. Water Quality
The proposed actions of land application of sludge possess the potential for con-
tributing to the pollution of the surface and groundwater resources of the area if
proper precautions are not followed. Restrictions on site location, soil, geological, and
topographical considerations, annual application rates, and total allowable loadings have
been developed so that the chances of creating a potentially hazardous pollution
problem are minimized.
5-2
-------
As an integral part of the proposed program, day to day control of the field
application operations will allow supervisory personnel to make decisions based on
possible variations in the sludge characteristics, weather conditions and crop require-
ments which will prevent excessive sludge from being applied to the fields. Excessive or
improperly applied sludge is susceptible to physical overland runoff to nearby surface
waters in the event of a heavy rainfall. The nutrient content of the sludge may lead to
unwanted weed and algae growth in the streams and lakes. Management of the sludge
application methods and of the field and cropping practices will minimize the
possibility of freshly applied sludge reaching nearby surface waters.
Excessive nitrogen loading may result in contamination of the groundwater. As stated
elsewhere (Section 2.07 C) the groundwater generally discharges to the surface waters
supplying up to 95% of the average annual stream flow in Dane County. If ground-
water containing high nitrogen concentrations discharge to the surface waters, then
nuisance weed and algae growth may occur as above.
The annual sludge application rates are to be developed based on the nitrogen content
of the sludge and on the crop requirements and other site criteria as discussed in
Section 3.02 C. Proper annual loadings will eliminate the hazards of excessive
nutrients.
Heavy metals applied to the land with the sludge tend to remain in the plow layer
(upper 12 to 18 inches) of the soil (Kirkham, M.B., 1974). These elements form inert
and insoluble compounds with various components of the soil and as such are less
available to plants than the total loading would indicate. The soils capacity to retain
the heavy metals is not unlimited. Since these elements accumulate in the soil and are
not removed through crop utilization, the total allowable loading of sludge is based on
the metals content. Proper management will allow control of the heavy metals and
prevent the threat to the water quality (Kirkham, M.B., 1974).
Possible increases of pathogenic organisms in surface waters from sludge applied to the
land would be possible only if overland runoff with severe accompanying soil erosion
were to occur. The pathogenic content of an anaerobically digested and stabilized
sludge is greatly reduced from that of the comparable raw sludge and continues to
decrease with exposure to the soil environments. The MMSD sludge processing would
include anaerobic digestion as well as other precautions to insure that the sludge will
be well stabilized and, consequently, that there will be little chance of pathogenic
contamination.
The threat to the water quality of Nine Springs Creek, the Yahara River and to Lake
Waubesa will be substantially reduced by the proposed actions. With the removal of
the stored sludge from Lagoon 2, the potentially hazardous materials threatening the
water quality of these bodies of water would no longer be present.
E. Water Quantity
The proposed actions are to provide the sludge for its fertilizer value. As such it would
be applied to agricultural lands in a manner which would not interfere with farming
5-3
-------
practices. The sludge would be in liquid form (approximately 5% solids). An applica-
tion of three tons/solids/acre is equivalent to approximately a 0.5 inch depth of water.
This is not a significant amount of water when it is considered that many rainfall
events exceed this amount. However, if liquid sludge is allowed to remain on the soil
surface, a crust may form which will delay drying. With incorporation of sludge into
the soil, drying time is reduced.
When soil wetness may create problems for conducting necessary agricultural tasks,
then sub-surface injection or incorporation into the soil by disk harrowing should be
done.
There should be no appreciable increase in either the surface or groundwater volume at
any site as the result of the proposed actions. The sludge will dry after application
primarily by the loss of moisture through evaporation into the atmosphere and
adsorbtion to the soil.
F. Water Uses
Improper application rates or poor site management could result in contamination of
the surface or groundwater resources as discussed above. In the event of the surface
water resources becoming contaminated, reduction of their usefulness for recreational
pursuits might be realized. Excessive nutrient loadings contribute to the problems
associated with enrichment of the water body (Hynes, H.B.N., 1967) such as nuisance
weed and algae growth. Groundwater resources contaminated by excessive nutrients or
possible increased levels of other pollutants may become unsuitable as sources of
public or private water supplies.
As discussed in Section 3.02 C, development of annual application rates and total
allowable loadings are meant to protect the environment, including the water resources.
Implementation of the proposed actions with the required site investigations and the
monitoring programs would provide the means to insure that procedures are followed
which would protect delicate environment conditions.
As a part of the proposed actions the removal of sludge from Lagoon 2 and its
eventual abandonment will substantially reduce the threat of contamination of nearby
surface waters by supernatant spillage resulting from further dike failures. The ground-
water resource in the area of the existing lagoons have not shown any evidence of
contamination from leaching of stored sludge (Section 1.04). The peat/marl soils
underlying the lagoons appear to effectively protect the groundwater resources.
G. Water Quality Management
Implementation of the proposed actions will fulfill the stipulations of the agreement
between MMSD and WDNR which require that the present method of lagoon storage
of sludge be terminated and an alternative sludge disposal method be instituted. It was
the intent of this agreement that the threat of future dike failures be alleviated.
5-4
-------
An important water quality management program of concern in the Dane County area
is the 208 areawide study currently beginning under direction of the Dane County
Regional Planning Commission. The program tasks of this study, discussed in Section
2.12, include the investigation of various operational and administrative alternatives
which are available and to determine the most practicable program which will insure
protection of the surface and ground water resources. The proposed actions will serve
to accomplish a step towards this objective.
Continued monitoring of the area's water resources by the WDNR and the USGS along
with the monitoring program of the proposed actions will allow close surveillance of
water quality. Changes in the water quality will provide the information needed to
document future impacts on the water resources.
H. Air Quality
The primary air quality parameter of concern relative to land application of sludge is
the potential for the production of odors. Liquid digested sludge, if the process is
operated properly, does not have an objectionable odor. It typically has a faint, earthy
odor which dissipates rapidly. The common farming practice of applying manure to
fields releases a sometimes strong odor, very noticable to those on adjacent roads or
living in nearby residences. The present sludge storage practice at the Nine Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant has not resulted in any complaints to the WDNR Southern
District, Air Quality Section (personal communication, Richard Wales, Air Pollution
Engineer, WDNR).
As a part of the application operations, subsurface injection of the sludge material will
be utilized whenever necessary to prevent odor complaints. This method of application
or the immediate incorporation into the soil of surface applied sludge should be
utilized to keep possible odor problems at a minimum.
At transfer locations or distribution centers where there is the possibility of odor
production care should be taken to prevent spillage of sludge. In the event of a spill,
clean up procedures should begin at once.
The proposed transportation of sludge in closed tank trucks should preclude the
possibility of odors emulating from the trucks during haul to the application sites. A
program of maintaining the trucks and any other equipment which is to travel over
public roads in as clean a condition as practicable should be instituted to minimize
possible complaints.
I. Land Use
The proposed land application of sludge would utilize existing agriculture lands as the
areas to receive sludge. It is not planned that additional land areas not already devoted
to the raising of crops or in pastures would be developed for the express purpose of
sludge application. This does not limit area farmers from having sludge applied to fields
or other areas of their farms which are not currently active for the purposes stated
above but which are part of their farm lands.
5-5
-------
It is proposed that the construction of small on-farm storage lagoons capable of
temporarily storing the sludge to be used on an individual farm be instituted at the
outset of the program. This would alleviate some of the transportation scheduling
problems which may arise during seasons (early spring and late fall) of peak sludge
application or when highway use is restricted due to seasonal load limits. It is
estimated that a lagoon with a storage capacity of approximately 4.5 acre-feet
(1,470,000 gallons) of 5% solids sludge would be sufficient to store the sludge required
for 100 acres of farm land. The construction of on-farm lagoons would only be done
after detailed field inspection of a prospective lagoon site is conducted by qualified
MMSD personnel. There would also be a long term (several years) commitment from
the farmer to the District for the acceptance of sludge before any permanent installa-
tion is constructed.
The proposed removal of the sludge currently stored in the lagoons adjacent to the
Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant will eventually result in approximately 105
acres returning to the natural grass-sedge marsh condition which existed prior to
implementation of the current sludge storage system. It is proposed that the western
half of Lagoon 1 be retained as the primary storage facility for the sludge produced
during treatment of the wastewater. The dikes built for Lagoon 1 have proven to be
stable as no problems have arisen since its construction in 1942. It is not expected that
the continued utilization of the western portion of Lagoon 1 will result in any dike
instability problems in the future.
If the existing lagoons were to be totally abandoned, a new storage lagoon would have
to be established. The expense, both in time and money, would require significant
delay and added cost to the implementation of the program.
An investigation of the soils and land use mapping for the study area has shown that,
based on the soils limitations discussed in Section 3.03.C and the regulations regarding
proximity of sludge application to residences and water supply wells as outlined in
Section 3.02.B, approximately 40,000 acres of land are suitable for land application of
sludge. Estimates for the land required for land application range from a maximum of
6,000 acres per year until the lagoons are emptied to 2,500 acres per year thereafter.
It is apparent that sufficient suitable land area is available for land application of
sludge.
J. Biology
Possible impacts on the plants and animal life of the study area would result from the
build-up of materials contained in the sludge to levels which may be toxic to normal
life functions.
The development of the annual application rates and the total allowable loadings are
done to provide for the protection of plant and animal life of the area while enabling
the maximum beneficial value of the sludge to be utilized. In virtually all cases, the
concentration of pollutants found in the sludge to be applied to the land would
become phytotoxic (harmful to plant life) before they reach a level which would be
5-6
-------
harmful to animal life. This natural mechanism acts to protect the higher animal life
forms which feed on plant life. Development of the annual application rate and the
limitation on the total allowable loading for any given site are based, in part, upon the
ability of the crops to be grown on the site to utilize the fertilizer value of the sludge
for growth. Nutrient levels, primarily the nitrogen level, are generally the limiting
factors for the annual application rate. As discussed in Section 3.02.C, typically grown
field crops in Wisconsin require from 35 to 200 pounds/acre/year of nitrogen for
optimum growth. Phosphorus requirements range from 15 to 60 pounds/acre/year and
potassium requirements range from 40 to 400 pounds/acre/year. Excessive concentra-
tions of these nutrients applied to the land, greater than that capable of being utilized
by the crop, may run off during periods of rain and lead to an overly abundant growth
of weeds and algae in streams and lakes. This condition subsequently contributes to
the deterioration of the water quality and promotion of less desirable forms of animal
life. Based on the nitrogen content of the existing treatment plant and lagoon sludges,
and the crop requirements, annual application rates may range from .05 to 6.0
tons/acre/year.
Total allowable loadings are limited by the materials which are not utilized on an
annual basis but which may be retained in the soil. The heavy metals (boron,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) are those of
concern regarding the total allowable loading. In general, the concentrations of metals
which have proven to be phytotoxic are not reached when the annual loading rate is
limited by the nitrogen content of the sludge.
Since the mechanisms which relate to the metals' interaction with the soil and plants
are numerous and complex, there is no one totally acceptable method of determining
the safe loading rate. The "zinc equivalent" method is recommended by both the
USEPA and WDNR. This method limits the total metals loading, calculated as zinc
equivalent, to 10 per cent of the soils' cation exchange capacity (CEC). The resultant
total loading factor is used to determine the total allowable application of sludge.
Based on these calculations total application of sludge would be limited to amounts of
30 to 150 tons/acre.
Even for the most restrictive of the suitable soils and crops, the nitrogen-limiting
annual application rates would allow ten years of sludge application before reaching
the total allowable loading. Other soils and crops would permit application for well
over one hundred years.
K. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Areas with significant environmental sensitivity include the wetlands, prairie lands and
unique geological formations. Many of these areas have been inventoried and listed by
the Scientific Areas Preservation Council of the WDNR. It is proposed that the land
application of sludge be limited to agricultural areas which have been utilized in the
past for cropping or for grazing purposes. As such, the proposed actions should not
constitute any threat to the types of areas outlined above. The proposed abandonment
of a significant portion of the existing sludge storage lagoons would eventually result in
the return of over 100 acres of the Nine Springs wetlands to its original condition, a
complete reversal of the trend of drainage and consequent loss of wetland areas in the
past.
5-7
-------
L. Aesthetics and Recreation
The aesthetic qualities and recreational opportunities outlined in Section 2.13 are
important to quality of life enjoyed by the residents and visitors of the study area.
The proposed actions will limit sludge application to existing agricultural lands. The
actual field application operations will not be greatly different from present farm
practices. This will not affect the use of recreational areas or the enjoyment of other
aesthetically pleasing areas to any great extent. It would be the responsibility of the
farmer to limit access to fields where sludge have been recently applied, as an added
measure of safety for health reasons. This precaution may result in limitation of
hunting activities for short periods of time.
The removal of sludge from the existing storage lagoons will eliminate a potential
hazard to the water quality, hence, the utilization of the water areas (Nine Springs
Creek, Lake Waubesa, Yahara River, etc.) immediately downstream from the lagoons.
Care should be taken to maintain the trucks and other equipment which will be used
to transport the sludge from the treatment plant to the application sites in as clean
and in good operating condition as possible. This would minimize the visual and other
effects that might result from spillage of sludge, either at the treatment plant or along
the transport routes.
M. Energy
The proposed land application of sludge will require a significant increase in the energy
consumption over the present levels utilized for sludge storage. It should be realized
that the present method of sludge storage represents a minimum in regards to fuel
usage. During 1974, a fairly "typical" year for the present sludge storage and disposal
operation, approximately 23,800 gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline were consumed by
the trucks, cranes, earth moving vehicles, and pumps required to operate and maintain
the system.
With the implementation of the proposed actions fuel consumption is estimated to
increase approximately 180 percent to about 40,000 gallons per year. After the
existing storage lagoons have been emptied and a number of on-farm lagoons have been
installed, the fuel consumption would be reduced considerably as the need for several
of the tanker trucks and field application vehicles would be eliminated.
The increase in fuel consumption is required in order to meet the requirements of the
pollution abatement orders issued by the WDNR in 1971. Other methods of sludge
disposal, such as incineration, composting and heat treating of raw or digested sludge
had been eliminated from further investigation for a number of reasons, included
among which was the requirement for additional natural gas supplies. Of the available
sludge disposal alternatives which would satisfy the pollution abatement orders, the
land application of liquid digested sludge represents a minimal increase of fuel con-
sumption.
N. Public Health
There is no question that digested sludge contains bacteria, viruses, intestinal worms
and other protozoa which are potentially pathogenic. While the current anaerobic
5-i
-------
digestion and storage of sludge has been shown to be an effective method of pathogen
reduction, complete elimination of potential public health problems is not achieved.
However, there have been no reported cases of disease related to the public health
traced to digested sludge. Under normal land application procedures, following the
appropriate state and federal regulations, pathogens will not move more than a foot or
two through the soil due to the physical filtration and the sorption-inactivation
properties of the soil and the natural die-off.
State and federal regulations and guidelines regarding land application are directed
towards the protection of the public health and environment. As a result, the land
application of sludge is subject to a number of restrictions. The following guidelines
concerning land application of sludge are obtained from those published by the WDNR
and draft guidelines compiled by USEPA:
Sludge should not be applied to soil in the year the area is used for any root
crops or other vegetables which are cooked or processed. Sludge treated land
should not be used for human food crops to be eaten raw until 3 years after
sludge application.
Pastureland and harvested forage should not be used for milk cow feeding for two
months following sludge application. Other animals should not graze pastureland
or be fed greenchop material for at least two weeks after sludge application.
Public access must be limited in areas of sludge application.
Studies (Bertucci, et al, 1974, Bertucci, et al, 1973) have shown that viruses inoculated
into anaerobic digesters have been subject to die-offs of greater than 99 per cent
within 48 hours. Continuing research into the pathogen content and its control in
sludge material will provide additional information regarding the levels required to
constitute a health hazard. If further studies indicate that additional procedures are
required to protect the public health, processes such as pasteurization, lime disinfection
or heat treating can be ultilized. These processes are expensive and would require the
use of additional energy resources.
O Historical and Archeological Sites
There are 26 sites currently included on the National Register of Historic Places in
Dane County. The majority of these (21) are located within the City of Madison, with
the others located at various places around the County. There are none located close
to the proposed area to be utilized for land application and there will be no impact on
these by the proposed actions. In Rock County six sites have been designated for the
National Register of Historic Places. One of these, the hamlet of Cooksville, contains
several excellent examples of the homes built during the early settlement of the area.
This entire hamlet has been designated as an historic district. The proposed land
application area lies to the northwest of Cooksville approximately five miles. There will
be no impact felt in the hamlet assuming proper procedures are followed regarding
land application.
5-9
-------
The director of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin was contacted regarding the
location of sites of known arecheological importance. A data card file is maintained at
the Historical Society offices with information on the location, contents and condition
of the sites. The status of the sites, as to whether they have been inventoried by
knowledgeable researchers, is also maintained. The land application of sludge to
existing agricultural areas will have no impact on any known archeological site. If such
sites had existed in these areas, the active farming practices would have already
destroyed any artifacts present.
5.03. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED
ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
There are a number of adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should the proposed
actions be implemented. These impacts, however, can be minimized by careful planning, site
investigation and program management.
A. Increased Traffic
The transportation of the sludge from the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant to
the field application sites would cause an increase in the truck traffic. It is estimated
that tanker trucks utilized to transport the sludge would travel a total of 120,000
miles annually. The presence of these trucks on the haul routes to the application sites
may cause some concern regarding traffic volume. The major impact of this increased
traffic would be in the immediate area of the treatment plant. As discussed in Section
3.02D of this report, seasonal load limits placed on many roads in the area may
require scheduling of the transportation of sludge during periods not affected by the
restricted load limits.
Associated with the transportation and application of sludge is the required con-
sumption of fuel for vehicle operation. It is estimated that fuel consumption would be
approximately 40,000 gallons per year.
B. Increase of Metals Concentrations
The land application of sludge would cause the build-up of the metals concentrations
in the soil. Total allowable loadings are based on the latest available research regarding
the affects which a metals build-up might have on the public health and the growth of
crops. Proper program mangement would insure that the total allowable loadings would
not be exceeded. As research is continued the land application loadings would be
modified based on developing knowledge.
C. Construction Activities
The proposed actions include the construction of truck loading platforms and other
related facilities as they become justified by the implementation of the program.
Associated with any construction project are the increases in noise levels and
temporary deterioration of local air quality caused by construction activities. These
impacts will be of relatively short duration, being limited to actual time of construc-
tion. The area of the treatment plant is not heavily populated and consequently
homeowners would not be affected by the impacts.
5- 10
-------
5.04. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USAGE OF THE ENVIRON-
MENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
A. Water Quality
The water quality of the surface waters of Nine Springs Creek, the Yahara River below
the confluence with Nine Springs Creek, and in Mud Lake have been adversely affected
in the past by the release of approximately 85,000,000 gallons of lagoon supernatant.
This resulted from the failure of a portion of the Lagoon 2 dike in 1970. The spill was
cited as the cause of a fish kill which occurred downstream of the spill. An additional
dike failure occurred in 1973 but little supernatant was spilled, prior to the sealing of
the failure zone, by a mud wave which developed in the lagoon. The proposed actions
would alleviate the threat of future spillage to nearby surface waters by removing the
material now stored in the lagoons.
Groundwater quality has not been affected by the storage of sludge in the lagoons as
discussed in Section 1.04 of this report and in Volume III - Organic Solids Reuse
Plant.
Development of annual application rates, proper site management, and close monitor-
ing of environmental factors at the application sites would minimize possible adverse
impacts on the surface and groundwater quality from developing over a period of time.
B. Recreation
Accidental spillage of supernatant from the storage lagoons in the past has contributed
to the temporary degradation of the water quality in areas downstream from the
lagoons. The fish Kill may have decreased the fish populations in these areas and hence
the recreational opportunity afforded to fishermen by their presence. Aesthetic enjoy-
ment of these areas may have been temporarily decreased by the presence of dead fish
in the water. Increased weed and algae growth may also have been accelerated by the
discharge of nutrients with the spills.
The unstable condition of the dikes of Lagoon 2 appear to be susceptible to structural
failures in the future if corrective measures are not taken, The proposed actions would
remove the threat of future spills. In addition to the removal of the threat to the
water quality, the proposed actions would allow the land area currently devoted to
Lagoon 2 (approximately 85 acres) to eventually return to its natural sedge-meadow
condition. This would be a distinct departure from the general practice of draining
wetland areas to provide additional acreage for farming or other development.
5.05. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH
WOULD BE INVOLVED IF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS SHOULD BE IMPLE-
MENTED
By the implementation of the proposed actions the only irreversible or irretrievable commit-
ment of resources would be for the manpower and the fuel which would be required. It
5-11
-------
should be noted that the present method of sludge handling disposal represents a minimum
commitment of these resources. The implementation of any improved sludge handling and
disposal alternative would require a substantial increase in the use of manpower and fuel.
Land areas committed to on-farm storage lagoons would not be irreversible commitments.
While in use these areas could only be utilized for sludge storage, but if the farmer wished
to locate a lagoon at a different site or to drop out of the program, then after the removal
of sludge from the lagoon it could be restored to its original use.
5-12
-------
SECTION 6 - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
6.01. FACILITIES PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Facilities Planning Advisory Committee (FPAC) was established in the fall of 1974 by
the MMSD to act as an advisory group for the engineering firms engaged to complete the
Facilities Plan. Members of the FPAC included representatives from the MMSD, Dane
County Regional Planning Commission, Rock County Board, Rock Valley Metropolitan
Council and an independent private citizen. Also attending committee meetings were
representatives of the WDNR and the USEPA.
The committee met regularly during the course of the study to monitor the progress of the
study work and to offer advise to the engineers regarding areas of concern. The FPAC
meetings served as a time: for presentation of work progress; to interchange views on areas
of concern; and to identify additional study tasks. All committee meetings were open to the
public and news media.
6.02. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS
A public information meeting was held Norvember 6, 1973, in Madison to present to the
public an account of the progress of the sludge disposal study being conducted at that time
by the engineering firm of Roy F. Weston, Inc.
On May 15, 1974, a second public meeting was held in Madison to present the recom-
mendations of the Weston report and of the addendum which had been prepared by the
staff of the MMSD. It was the recommendation of this report that the alternative of the
land application of liquid anaerobically digested sludge be developed. Public comments on
this recommendation were favorable.
The Capitol Community Citizens (CCC), a concerned group of area citizens, submitted a
position statement to MMSD on May 30, 1974, stating that they approved of the land
application of sludge only on a temporary basis. They suggested that a long-term sludge
disposal program should include the composting of the sewage sludge along with the solid
wastes generated in the area.
The commissioners of MMSD, after consideration of the Weston report recommendations,
and public input, resolved on June 7, 1974, that the disposal of sludge should be handled
through a land application program. On July 15, 1974, the MMSD commissioners resolved
that the land application program should be implemented immediately.
A letter describing the land application alternative and a questionnaire requesting their
comments was sent to area farmers in August of 1974. The comments received from the
farmers were quite favorable and a high degree of interest in the alternative was shown.
During September of 1974, Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPEDS)
Permit No. WI-0024597 was received. It was stated in the permit that funding for the
construction of any additional wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, including sludge
treatment and disposal facilities, would not be forthcoming until a Facilities Plan was
completed.
6-1
-------
Contracts were awarded for the preparation of a Facilities Plan late in 1974. Public input to
the study was continued through the FPAC as described in Section 6.01 and through a
series of public meetings held during the course of the study. Public meetings were held on
June 26, 1975, at the Town of Dunn, Town Hall, and again on October 2, 1975, at the
Town of Fitchburg, Town Hall. At each of these meetings progress of the sludge study was
reported. Various methods of field application were discussed as were the potential ad-
vantages and disadvantages of land application program. Interest expressed in the program
by members of the farm community in attendance was high at each meeting.
A demonstration of liquid and dry sludge spreader trucks manufactured by Big Wheels, Inc.
was conducted for members of the FPAC and other interested persons on May 30, 1975, at
the Nine Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant. On September 4, 1975, a demonstration of a
dredge manufactured by Mud Cat was conducted at the existing sludge lagoons.
A high degree of interest has been expressed by members of the public in a program of land
application of sludge. It is not expected that the implementation of such a program would
generate any appreciable adverse reactions.
6.03. PUBLIC HEARING
On April 28, 1976, the firmal public hearing was held at the Town of Fitchburg Town Hall.
The purpose of this hearing was to present to the public the recommended organic solids
reuse plan and the assessment of that plan on the environment. Public comments and
questions on the program were also accepted for the record. Notice of the hearing was
published in area newspapers thirty days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is
included at the end of this Section. Copies of the Environmental Assessment Statement
were available for public review for a period of thirty days at various locations as indicated
in the notice.
Approximately 80 to 100 people attended the hearing including members of the local farm
community; City of Madison, Dane County, State of Wisconsin and Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District personnel; and other interested members of the public. A member of the
engineering firm of CH2M-Hill presented a summary of the work which was done in the
evaluation of the various alternatives available for the reuse program and a review of
MMSD's sludge handling and storage programs. Members of the engineering firm of O'Brien
& Gere presented a summary of the work which was done in evaluating the potential
impacts which the proposed reuse program may have on the environment.
Comments and questions from the members of the public present were taken. None of the
comments expressed or questions raised at the hearing were negative to the proposed reuse
of sludge on agricultural lands. Several members of the farm community spoke in endorse-
ment of the proposed program and, in general, seemed to be anxious to become a part of
the program. Another endoresement was given by Professor Arthur Peterson, Soil Science
professor at the University of Wisconsin. A representative of the City of Madison, Engineer-
ing Department read into the record a resolution, dated April 28, 1976, which had been
passed by the City of Madison Common Council and signed by Mayor Paul Soglin, also
endorsing the proposed program.
6-2
-------
Some concerns were expressed regarding certain aspects of the proposed program, such as
the suitability of lands receiving sludge application for development in the future. A review
of material presented in both the Organic Solids Reuse Program and the Environmental
Assessment Statement indicated that such concerns had been considered and accounted for
in the development of the program.
Written comments were accepted at the MMSD offices for a period of 15 days following the
public hearing. Any written comments which have been received as well as an official
transcript of the public hearing are contained in Volume VHI-Public Participation of the
Facilities Plan. The official transcript also contains a copy of the notice, a list of the
newspapers which published the notice as well as other materials.
6-3
-------
environmental
assessment
hearing for the
Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District
organic solids
recycle system
A final public hearing on the
environmental assessment of
the organic solids recycle
system of the Madision
Metropolitan Sewerage District
will be held on Wednesday
April 28, 1976 in the Fitchburg
Town Hall at 8:15 p.m.
Fitchburg Town Hall — 4 miles south of Beltline
on Fish Hatchery Road
The organic solids recycle system involves returning waste organic
solids (liquid digested sewage sludge) to agricultural land as a natural
organic fertilizer and soil conditioner. Detailed information will be
presented about this water pollution control project and its possible
environmental effects on the area.
public testimony invited
Interested persons, groups and agencies are invited to hear this discus-
sion and to give public testimony on the environmental and technical
aspects of the project. Also, written testimony will be accepted for
15 days following the public hearing and should be addressed to:
Mr. James Nemke
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
104 N. First Street
Madison, Wl 53704
A record of all public testimony will be submitted as part of the envi-
ronmental assessment statement to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Copies of the environmental assessment statement
can be reviewed at the following locations:
PUBLIC LIBRARIES
BELOIT COLLEGE
BELVIDERE
EDGERTON
EVANSVILLE
JANESVILLE
MILTON
MADISON
UNIVERSITY or
WISCONSIN
(MEMORIAL UNION)
TOWN HALLS
DUNN
FITCHBURG
FULTON
RUTLAND
STOUCHTON
AND AT THE OFFICES OF THE FOLLOWING-
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. MADISON, CITY COUNTY BUILDING
CITY ENGINEER. MADISON, CITY COUNTY BUILDING
CITY CLERK, MADISON. CITY COUNTY BUILDING
DANE COUNTY CLERK. MADISON. CITY COUNTY BUILDING
ROCK COUNTY CLERK, JANESVILLE, COUNTY COURT HOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SOUTHERN DISTRICT
ROCK VALLEY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, 401 W. STATE ST., ROCKFORD
DANE COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, 14 SO. CARROLL, MADISON
MADISON METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT, 104 N. FIRST ST., MADISON
O'BRIEN AND GERE ENGINEERS, 910 W. WINGRA DR. MADISON
CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, 2929 N. MAYFAIR RD.. MILWAUKEE
This is an opportunity for the public to learn the details of this impor-
tant pollution control project, and to present their views regarding its
environmental and technical aspects.
MADISON METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE DISTRICT
A-l
-------
REFERENCES
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater",
13th Ed., 1971
Arboretum News, "Winter Birds at the Arboretum", Vol. 15, No. 1, 1966
Arboretum News,"Summer Birds of the Arboretum", Vol. 18, No. 2, 1969
Bedford, B.L., et a] "The Wetlands of Dane County, Wisconsin", Dane County Regional
Planning Commission, Madison, Wisconsin, 1974
Bertucci, J., jJ^al, "Inactivation of Viruses in Anaerobically Digested Sludge", Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1973
Bertucci, J., et a], "Studies on the Inactivation of Four Enteric Picornaviruses in Anaerobic-
ally Digesting Sludge", Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Chicago,
Illinois, 1974.
Burrows, W., e_t a], "The Textbook of Microbiology - The Pathogenic Micro-organisms",
19th Ed., 1968
Chancy, R., "Crop and Food Chain Effects of Toxic Elements in Sludges and Effluents",
paper presented at the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents
on Land, Champaign, Illinois, 1973
Chancy, R.L., et al, "Plant Uptake of Heavy Metals from Sewage Sludge Applied to Land",
paper presented at the National Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and
Disposal, Anahiem, California, 1975
CH2M-Hill Engineers, "Geotechnical Evaluation of Sludge Lagoon Embankments", 1975
CH2M-HJ11 Engineers, "Organic Solids Reuse Program" 1976
Cline, D.R., "Geology and Groundwater Resources of Dane County, Wisconsin", Water
Supply Paper 1779-U, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1965
Cotter, R.D., et a], "Water Resources of Wisconsin, Rock-Fox Basin", Hydrologic Investiga-
tions Atlas HA-360, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 1969
Dane County Historical Society, "Map of Historic and Scenic Sites of Dane County", n.d.
Dane County Regional Planning Commission (DCRPC), "Land Uses in Dane County", 1972
Dane County Regional Planning Commission, "Land Use Plan", 1973
Dane County Regional Planning Commission, "County Park and Open Space Plan", n.d.
B-l
-------
Dane County Regional Planning Commission, "Waterways: 208 Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning Work Program", 1975
Dane County Park Commission, "Guide to Dane County Parks", n.d.
Dean, R.B., and Smith, Jr., J.E., "The Properties of Sludges" Paper Presented at the Joint
Conference on Recyclying Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, Champaign,
Illinois, 1973
Dickinson, W.E., "Handbook of Amphibians and Turtles of Wisconsin", Milwaukee Public
Museum, 1965
Ditmars, R.L., "Reptiles of North America", Doubleday and Company, 1936
Douglas, N.B., Historical Survey, Rock County Historical Society, personal communication
Eddy, S. and Surber, T., "Northern Fishes", University of Minnesota Press, 2nd Ed. 1943
Engineers and Scientists for Social Responsibility, "The Quality of Madison's Air", 1970
Fassett, N.O.,"Grasses of Wisconsin", University of Wisconsin Press, 1951
Greeley and Hansen Engineers, "Report on Sewage Treatment Additions to the Nine Springs
Sewage Treatment Works", Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, 1971.
Greene, C.W., "The Distribution of Wisconsin Fish", State of Wisconsin Conservation
Commission, 1935
Harza Engineering Co., "Water Quality of Badfish Creek;'1971
Hine, R., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal communication
Hynes, H.B.N., "The Enrichment of Streams", Paper presented at a Symposium on Eu-
trophication: Causes, Consequences, Correctives, Madison, Wisconsin, 1967
Kirkham, M.B., "Disposal of Sludge on Land: Effects on Soils, Plants, and Groundwater",
Compost Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1974
League of Women Voters, "Air Pollution in Wisconsin with Special Consideration of
Madison and Dane County", 1970
Lynam, B.T., et ajj "The Utilization of Municipal Sludge in Agriculture", Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1975
McLeod, R.S., "A Digital Computer Model for Estimative Hydrologic Changes in the
Aquifer System in Dane County, Wisconsin", Open File Report 75-304, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Washington, D.C., 1975.
Madison Department of Public Health, "1972 Annual Report", 1972
3-2
-------
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), "Chronological History of Sludge Dis-
posal", 1975
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, file data
Manson, RJ. and Merritt, C.A., "Land Application of Liquid Municipal Wastewater
Sludges", Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1975
Martin, L., "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin", University of Wisconsin Press, 1965
Melsted, S.W., "Soil-Plant Relationships (Some Practicable Considerations in Waste Manage-
ment)", Paper presented at the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land, Champaign, Illinois, 1973
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Local Climatological Data, Annual
Summary with Comparative Data, 1974, Madison, Wisconsin", 1975
Pelczar, M.J., and Reid, R.D., "Microbiology", 2nd Ed., 1968
Rock County Park and Conservation Commission, "Rock County Official County Parks and
Highway Map", 1974
Rock Valley Metropolitan Council, "Rock County Environmental Inventory", n.d.
Scott, W.B. and Grossman, E.J., "Freshwater Fishes of Canada", Fisheries Research Board
of Canada, Bulletin 184, 1973
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, "The National Register of Historic Places in
Wisconsin", 1975
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, "Wisconsin Registered Landmarks", n.d.
Roy F. Weston Engineering Co., Inc., "Nine Springs Sewage Treatment Works Sludge
Disposal Study", 1974
Smith, J.M., State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Letter
dated December 4, 1975
Sonzogni, W.C. and Lee, G.F., "Nutrient Sources for Lake Mendota - 1972", Trans, of
Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 62 133 164, 1975
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pheasant Branch Watershed - Fish and Wildlife
Resources Inventory", 1975
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS),"Dane County Interim Soil
Survey Report", 1975
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Soil Survey of Rock County,
Wisconsin", 1974
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Number of Inhabitants, United
States Summary", 1971
B-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), "Lake Kegonsa, Dane County, Wisconsin",
Working Paper No. 40, PB-239639, 1974
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes", 1974
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), "Water Resources Data for Wisconsin", 1974
Water Information Center, "Climates of the States", Vol. 1, 1974
Water Resources Task Group, "A Technical Evaluation of Land Disposal of Wastewaters and
the Needs for Planning and Monitoring Water Resources in Dane County, Wisconsin",
Dane County Regional Planning Commission, Madison, Wisconsin, 1971.
Wildlife, People and the Lane, "The Wildlife Resources of Wisconsin", 1970
Warzyn Engineering and Service Co., Inc.
Wisconsin Conservation Department, "Surface Water Resources of Dane County", 1961
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), "1974 Air Quality Data Report",
1975
WDNR, "Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin", Technical Bulletin No. 88, 1975
WDNR, "Endangered Animals in Wisconsin", 1973
WDNR, "Forest Trees of Wisconsin", 1974
WDNR, "Surface Water Resources of Rock County", 1970
WDNR, "Wildflowers of Wisconsin", 1973
WDNR, "Wisconsin Trout Streams", 1974
WDNR, "The Rock River Basin", 1975
B-4
-------
O e/3
_ ZZ
%<2
iili
SgSs
1 !!i
lei
sis
km3
Sg z
< o
2
-------
€) •
o •
i3 Q
=f z
^ m
5 0
m uj
< —1
u
"• 7 -~
EC < H 0
w IN UJ Cl
EZOMETRIC
INTOUR LIN
.EVATION (F
'RIL -MAY '
— U _J Q.
0. U UJ <
I
b
%
1
-1 1-
U. (_,
X O
1
o ^ "-
I
r>\
A
\
S
-------
'
^\
\^1 /
— ^
V
z
g
m Q^O^
\ w o^
UJ OT t §
o
<
1
z
o w
S i
CC ™ W CC
"^1 ^1
o-i m -i 5
1/5 O) n Jr [0 u
u, < X ° < -.
st§ sts!
O 3 -1 UJ D Q.
CD o
i Q
^~
CO
111
DC
2
u_
Q.
5
_i
s
~j
K.
UJ
"Z
UJ
^ H
o £
0»
a: a
1-
1 §
O UJ
••2 ^
< OT
S
Ti..
^
o
i
§
i2
<
S
c
3
S
-------
-------
r^:-, -TN
CO U < O 12 CJ
CC SF °" uj UJ ^
D UJ S
-------
cc
D
(3
II
i- 2
z S zzztgPg
E ; 2 2 S s i P &
-------
cr o
UJ 7
9 O
<" F
§3
o
b
a- p
UJ
a:
52
u.
UJ
3 S
-------
§1
II z
fv • Ip S
p 1
oU D
STIMATE;
cc
<
cc
h-
.Si
« D D:
i"
V
UJ
0.
h-
u!
0
in
5
cc
H
z
cc
t
UJ
0
CO
CO (-
in a-
UJ
UJ Q
OC
-) UJ
1 1
J
V)
J-
Ij
ETROPO1
%
1
O
S
K-
y
CC
h-
to
Q
UJ
WERAG
UJ
in
~2d
5«
^
CO
?.
O
K
S
1
o
J
G
SJ
C
-------
|