United States   j : .
Environmental Protection
Agency     :
Technology Transfer!
Process
Design
Manual
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-625/1-83-016
October 1983
Land  Application of
Municipal  Sluclgd

-------

-------
EPA-625/1-83-016
                            PROCESS DESIGN MANUAL

                                     FOR

                        LAND APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL

                                    SLUDGE
                     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                      Office of Research and Development
                 Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                                 October 1983
                                 Published by
                     U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                Center for Environmental  Research Information
                             Cincinnati,  OH 45268

-------
                                   NOTICE

     This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved
for presentation and publication.  Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                ABSTRACT


This manual  presents  a rational  procedure  for the  design  of municipal
sludge land application systems.   The  utilization of sludge in agricul-
ture,  forestry,  the  reclamation  of disturbed  and  marginal  lands,  and
dedicated high rate surface  disposal  practices  are discussed in detail,
with  design  concepts   and  criteria  presented  where  available.    A  two
phased planning  approach to  site  identification,  evaluation, and selec-
tion along with  information  on  field investigations are also presented.
The manual  includes  examples of  each  land  application  option  and case
studies  of  sludge  utilization  in  agriculture and for  reclamation  of
disturbed mining  lands.

-------

-------
                                CONTENTS
Section
Page
   Abstract	.	i i i
   Tab! es	xi v
   Fi gu res	xxi i
   Acknowl edgements	xxv

   1    Introducti on	 1-1
        1.1  General	1-1
        1.2  Historical Perspective of Options	.....1-1
        1.3  Objectives of Manual	1-1
        1.4  Scope of Manual	1-3
        1.5  Use of Manual	1-3
        1.6  Ref e rences	.1-3

   2    Overview of Sludge Land Application Options	2-1
        2.1  Introduction	2-1
        2.2  Agricultural Utilization	2-4
             2.2.1  Purpose  and Definition	..2-4
             2.2.2  Advantages of Agricultural
                    Utilization	2-5
             2.2.3  Limitations and Potential Disadvantages
                    of Agricultural Utilization..	2-5
        2.3  Application to  Forest Lands	2-6
             2.3.1  Purpose  and Definition	.2-6
             2.3.2  Advantages of Forest Land
                    Uti 1 i zati on	 2-6
             2.3.3  Limitations and Potential Disadvan-
                    tages of Forest Land Utilization	2-7
        2.4  Application for Reclamation for Disturbed and
             Margi nal Lands,	2-7
             2,4.1  Purpose  and Definition	'2-7
             2.4.2  Advantages of Utilizing Disturbed and
                    Marginal Lands.	..	2-9
             2.4.3  Limitations and Potential Disadvan-
                    tages of Disturbed or Marginal Land
                    Reclamation	2-9
        2.5  Dedicated Land  Disposal..	.......2-10
             2.5.1  Purpose  and Definition	....2-10
             2.5.2  Advantages of Dedicated Land  Disposal	2-11
             2.5.3  Limitations and Potential Disadvan-
                    tages of Dedicated Land Disposal	..2-11
        2.6  Other Sludge Utilization Options	2-12
             2.6.1  Turf Farms	c	2-12
             2.6.2  Parks and Recreational Areas	.....2-13
             2.6.3  Highway, Airport, and Construction
                    Landscapi ng	„	2-13
        2.7  References.....	2-13

-------
r
            CONTENTS (continued)
            Section                                                            Page

               3    Publ ic Partici pation	 .3-1
                    3.1  Introduction	 .3-1
                         3.1.1  Objectives		3-1
                         3.1.2  Elements of Successful  Public
                                Invol vement Programs	3-2
                         3.1.3  Partici pants	 3-2
                         3.1.4  Methods	3-3
                         3.1.5  Timing	3-4
                    3.2  Public Participation Considerations Specific
                         to Agricultural  Utilization..	.....3-5
                    3.3  Public Participation Considerations Specific
                         to Forest  Utilization	.....3-6
                    3.4  Public Participation Considerations Specific
                         to Disturbed Lands	.....3-7
                    3.5  Public Participation Considerations Specific
                         to Dedicated Land Disposal	3-8
                    3.6  References	3-8

               4    Technical  Assessment and Preliminary Planning	.....4-1
                    4.1  General	 .4-1
                    4.2  SIudge Characterization	.4-1
                         4.2.1  Physical  Characteristics of Sludge	4-1
                         4.2.2  Chemical  Characteristics of Sludge	.....4-3
                         4.2.3  Biological Characteristics....,	«....4-5
                         4.2.4  Data Sources	4-5
                    4.3  Regulations and Guidelines	.....4-5
                         4.3.1  Fl oodpl ai ns	,	 4-5
                         4.3.2  Surface  Waters....	4-7
                         4.3.3  Ground Water	4-7
                         4.3.4  Air Quality	4-8
                         4.3.5  Public Access.....	4-8
                         4.3.6  Sludge Treatment for Pathogen Reduction	4-8
                         4.3.7  Sludge Application  to Land Used  for the
                                Production of Food  Chain Crops.	.....4-8
                         4.3.8  Sludge Classified as Hazardous  Wastes	....4-10
                         4.3.9  Possible Permits Required	....4-10
                    4.4  Estimate of Land Area Requirement	....4-10
                    4.5  Transportation  of Sludge	....4-11
                    4.6  Cl imate	4-12
                    4.7  Sources  of Additional Information	....4-12
                    4.8  References	 .4-15

               5    Site  Evaluation and  Selection of Options	.....5-1
                    5.1  General		5-1
                         5.1.1  Planning Procedure	.....5-2

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section                                                            Page

        5.2  Land Use in the Area	....5-2
             5.2.1  Current Land Use	..5-2
             5.2.2  Future Land Use....	..	...5-4
             5.2.3  Zoning Compliance	5-4
             5.2.4  Aesthetics...........	5-5
             5.2.5  Site Acquisition.	5-5
        5.3  Physical Characteristics of Potential Sites	5-6
             5.3.1  Topography.	,	5-7
             5.3.2  Soil Permeability, Infiltration, and
                    Drainage....	5-8
             5.3.3  Ground Water Constraints	.........5-12
             5.3.4  Proximity to Surface Water.	5-13
        5.4  Site Selection Process	5-13
             5.4.1  Site Screening	5-14
             5.4.2  Contact with Owners of Prospective
                    Si tes.	.....	..5-16
             5.4.3  Field Site Survey....	5-16
        5.5  Field Investigation and Testing	5-18
             5.5.1  General	5-18
             5.5.2  Soil Testing...	....,	5-18
             5.5.3  Ground Water Testing.	....5-21
        5.6  Preliminary Cost Analysis.	.........5-21
        5.7  Final Site Selection	5-22
        5.8  Selection of Land Application Options.....	5-22
              5.8.1   Qualative Impact Comparison...	.....5-25
        5.9   Site Selection Example.....	5-25
              5.9.1   City Characteristics..........	5-25
              5.9.2   Sludge Characteristics	5-25
              5.9.3   City Regulations Considered	5-27
              5.9.4   Public Acceptance	5-27
              5.9.5   Preliminary Feasibility Assessment	.....5-27
              5.9.6   Estimate Land Area Required	5-27
              5.9.7   Eliminate Unsuitable Areas	5-28
              5.9.8   Identify Suitable Areas	5-28
              5.9.9   Site.Survey and Field Investigation	....5-33
              5.9.10  Cost Analysis...	5-33
              5.9.11  Final Site Selection	..........5-33

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
Page
        5.10 References	5-33

   6    Process Design for Agricultural Utilization	6-1
        6.1  General 6-1
        6.2  Detailed Site Investigations	6-2
             6.2.1  General Soil Properties	6-3
             6.2.2  Soil Sampling and Analysis	6-5

        6.3  Constrai nts	6-7
             6.3.1  Pathogens	,	6-7
             6.3.2  Ni trogen	6-8
             6.3.3  Organics	6-8
             6.3.4  Cadmi urn.	 6-9
             6.3.5  Lead, Zinc, Copper, and Nickel	6-10
             6.3.6  Other Sludge Constituents	6-10
        6.4  Sludge Application Rate Calculations 	-....6-12
             6.4.1  Crop Selection and Nutrient Require-
                    ments	 .6-13
             6.4.2  Calculation of Residual N, P, and K..	6-14
             6.4.3  Calculation of Annual Application Rate	6-20
             6.4.4  Calculation of Fertilizer N, P, and K	6-27
             6.4.5  Termination of Sludge Applications
                    Based on Metal Additions.	»	6-27
        6.5  Mom"toring Requi rements	6-27
             6.5.1  Soil pH	-	6-28
             6.5.2  Soil Test for P and K	6-28
             6.5.3  Nitrate in Ground Water	6-28
             6.5.4  Cadmium in Crops..	6-29
             6.5.5  Other Analyses....	6-29
        6.6  Sludge Application Methods and Scheduling	6-29
             6.6.1  Methods of Application	6-29
             6.6.2  Schedul ing	,	6-30
             6.6.3  Storage	. „	 6-32
        6.7  Design Example of Sludge Application Rate
             Cal cul ati ons	6-33
             6.7.1  Calculation of Initial  Annual Sludge
                    Appl ication Rate.	6-34
             6.7.2  Calculation of Annual Sludge Application
                    Rates Using Cadmium Limitation	6.35
             6.7.3  Calculation of Annual Sludge Application
                    And Supplemental Fertilizer Rates for Multi-
                    Year System	6.36
             6.7.4  Sludge Application Rate Limited by
                    Phosphorus	6-41
             6.7.5  Calculations of Total Cumulative Amount
                    of Sludge Application	6-43
                                      vm

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
Page
   8


6.8
6.7.6 Area Requirement 	
6.7.7 Storage 	 „ 	 	 	
6.7.8 Application Scheduling and Operations.....

Process Design for Forest Land Utilization 	 	
7.1
7.2



7.3



7.4

7.5

7.6








7.7

Site Investigations and Selection Criteria 	
7.2.1 Physical Features.. 	
7.2.2 Topography.... 	
7.2.3 Soil Characteristics 	 	 	

7.3.1 Pathogens 	 	 	 	
7.3.2 Nitrogen.... 	
7.3.3 Cumulative Metal Loadings.... 	
Effect of Sludge Additions on Tree Growth

Comparison of Sludge Application to Forest
Land in Various Stages of Growth 	 	 	
Design Example of Sludge Application to
Forested Lands 	 	 	 	
7.6.1 Sludge Quantity and Quality Assumptions...
7.6.2 Site Selection 	 „ 	
7.6.3 Calculate the Sludge Application Rate 	
7.6.5 Determine Cumulative Metal Loadings 	
7.6.6 Cumulative Sludge Loadings 	
7.6.7 Application Scheduling 	 	 	
7.6.8 Sludge Application Equipment.... 	

Process Design for Disturbed Land 	 	 	 	 	
8.1
8.2
8.3

8.4




8.5






General 	 	 	 	 	 . 	
Public Participation Considerations......... 	
Post Sludge Application Land Utilization 	

Detailed Site Investigation 	 	 	 	 	
8.4.1 Ground Water Protection... 	
8.4.2 Disturbed Soil Sampling and Analysis......
8.4.3 Chemical Characteristics of Drainage


8.5.1 Constraints Related to Sludge

8.5.2 Pathogens and Parasites... 	
8.5.3 Organi cs 	 „ . 	
8.5.4 Nitrogen 	
8.5.5 Total Metal Applications.. 	
...6-45
...6-45
...6-46
...6-78
	 7-1
	 7-1
	 7-3
	 7-3
	 7-4
	 7-4
	 7-5
....7-5
....7-6
....7-8

	 7-9

	 7-9

...7-13
...7-13
...7-14
...7-15
...7-18
...7-19
...7-19
...7-19
...7-20
....8-1
	 8-1
....8-4
	 8-4
	 8-4
	 8-5
...;8-5
....8-6

	 8-8
	 8-8

	 8-8
	 8-9
	 8-9
...8-10
...8-10

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
                                                                   Page
        8.6  Vegetation Selection	.....8-11
             8.6.1  General	.....8-11
             8.6.2  Seeding and Mulching	.....8-11
        8.7  Sludge Application Rates	8-16
             8.7.1  General	 8-16
             8.7.2  Calculation of Sludge Application
                    Rate Based on Metal Loading	8-17
        8.8  Monitoring Requi rements	.8-18
             8.8.1  General	 .8-18
             8.8.2  Suggested  Monitoring Program....	8-18
        8.9  Sludge Application Methods and Scheduling	.8-20
             8.9.1  Transportation	8-20
             8.9.2  Site preparation Prior to Sludge
                    Appl i cation	8-20
             8.9.3  Methods of Application	8-21
             8.9.4  Schedul ing	8-21
        8.10 Design Example for Sludge Application to
             Di sturbed Land	8-22
             8.10.1 Sludge Characteristics	8-22
             8.10.2 Site Characteristics	8-23
             8.10.3 Calculation of Maximun Sludge Application
                    Rate	,	8-23
             8.10.4 Line Application Determination	8-24
             8.10.5 Calculation of Nutrient Application	8-24
        8.11 References	8-26

   9     Process  Design for Sludge  Application to  Lands
        Dedicated  for  Disposal	'	g_i
        9.1   General.:	,...	g_j
        9.2   Regulatory Considerations	g_2
        9.3   Public Participation....	g_2
        9.4   Basic Types  of Dedicated  Land Disposal  Site
             Designs	9-3
        9.5   Site  Investigations	g_5
        9.6   Environmental  Constraints  in  Dedicated  Land
             Disposal  Site Design	g_s
             9.6.1   General	g_s
             9.6.2   Nitrogen Control at  Dedicated  Land
                    Di sposal Si tes	g_7
             9.6.3  Sludge  Metals Control  at  Dedicated
                    Land Disposal Sites	,g_8
             9.6.4  Sludge  Pathogens at  Dedicated  Land
                   Di sposal Sites	g_8
             9.6.5  Persistent  Organics  Control at
                   Dedicated Land Disposal Sites	9-8

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
              9.6.6   Aesthetic Control of Dedicated Land
                      Disposal Sites	9-9
        9.7   Preliminary Design of Dedicated Land Disposal
              Sites	i	9-9
              9.7.1 General	9-9
              9.7.2 Climate Considerations	9-10
              9.7.3 Vegetation Considerations at Dedicated
                    Land Disposal Sites	9-11
              9.7.4 Surface Runoff Storage Volume Required	..9-11
              9.7.5 Sludge Application Rate Calculations	9-15
              9.7.6 Land Area Requirements	9-19
              9.7.7 Ground Water Leachate Collection
                    and Control	9-22
        9.8   Methods for Application  of Sludge to Dedicated
              Land Disposal Sites	9-23
              9.8.1 General	9-23
              9.8.2 Application of Liquid Sludge	9-23
              9.8.3 Application of Dewatered Sludge	9-23
        9.9   Monitoring Requirements	'.........9-24
              9.9.1 Criteria  Pertaining to Water Resource
                    Protection	9-24
              9.9.2 Monitoring Needs...	9-24
              9.9.3 Closure and Post-Closure Care Plans....„	9-25
        9.10  Desi gn Exampl e	9-27
              9.10.1  Sludge  Generation and Characteristics	9-25
              9.10.2  Cl i mate	9-25
              9.10.3  State and Local  Regulations of Concern	9-25
              9.10.4  Characteristics  of the Site	9-27
              9.10.5  Determination of Sludge Application  Rates...9-27
              9.10.6  Sludge'Storage  for Design Example	9-31
              9.10.7  Sludge  Storage  Design	......9-32
              9.10.8  Surface Runoff  Control for  Design Example...9-35
              9.10.9  Other On-Site  Improvements  Area  Required....9-36
              9.10.10 Total Site Area Required	9-36
              9.10.11 Sludge  Application Method		9-36
              9.10.12 Monitoring Requirements  for Sample Design...9-40
              9.10.13 General Estimates	9-40
         9.11  References	9-40

   10    Facilities Design  and Cost  Guidance	...10-1
         10.1  General 10-1
         10.2  Transportation  of  Sludge	10-1
              10.2.1  Transport  Modes.	10-1
               10.2.2  Vehicle Transport	10-3
               10.2.3  Pipeline Transport	10-15
               10.2.4  Other Transport Methods...........	10-26
                                       XI

-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section
        10.3  SI udge Storage	10-27
              10.3.1  Storage Requirements	10-27
              10.3.2  Storage Capacity.	10-27
              10.3.3  Location of Storage	10-32
              10.3.4  Storage Design..	10-32
              10.3.5  Cost Estimation Factors	10-33
        10.4  Sludge-to-Land Application Methods	.10-34
              10.4.1  Current Status..	10-34
              10.4.2  Vehicular Application of Liquid
                      SI udge	„	„	10-35
              10.4.3  Vehicular Application of Dewatered
                      SI udge	10-40
              10.4.4  Cost Estimation Factors	10-42
              10.4.5  Irrigation Application	10-42
        10.5  Site Preparation	.....10-49
              10.5.1  General	10-49
              10.5.2  Gradi ng	10-49
              10.5.3  Strip  Cropping	„	10-50
              10.5.4  Subsurface Water Control	....10-50
        10.6  Supporting  Facilities Design	10-51
              10.6.1  Access Roads.....	...10-51
              10.6.2  Site Fencing  and Security	10-51
              10.6.3  Equipment and Personnel  Buildings	10-52
              10.6.4  Lighting and  Other Utilities...	10-52
              10.6.5  Cost Estimation Factors	10-52
        10.7  References	10-54

  11     Operation  and Management	n_i
        11.1  General	 11-1
        11.2  Nuisance Issues	H_l
              11.2.1  Odor	11_2
              11.2.2  Spillage	11-3
              11.2.3  Mud	11_3
              11.2.4  Dust	H_3
              11.2.5  Road Maintenance	....	...11-3
              11.2.6  Selection of  Haul  Routes	11-4
        11.3  Safety Concerns	...11-4
        11.4  Health Concerns	...11-5
              11.4.1  General	 H-5
              11.4.2  Personnel  Health Safeguards	...11-5

        11.5  Moni tori ng	„.. n_e
              11.5.1  General	...11-6
              11.5.2  Sludge Monitoring	...11-6
              11.5.3  Soil Monitoring	...11-7
              11..5.4  Vegetation Monitoring	...11-7
                                     xn

-------
CONTENTS, (continued)
Section
                                                                  Page
              11.5.5  Ground Water Monitoring		.11-7
              11.5.6  Surface Water Monitoring	11-8
        11.6  Recordkeepi ng	•	H"8
        11.7  References	• • • •	11-12


Appendices

    A.  Characteristics of Sewage Sludge	A-l

    B.  Effects of Sludge Applications to Land on Soils
        and  Plants	•	B-!

    C.  Sampling and Analytical .Methods	C-l

    D.  Case Study of Sludge Use  for Reclamation  of
        Disturbed Mining Lands  in Venango County,
        Pennsyl vani a	• •	D-1

    E.  Case Study of Sludge Application to Agricultural
        Land at Salem,  Oregon..........	.E-l

    F.  Conversion Factors	«	F-l
                                      xiii

-------
                                 TABLES
Number
  1-1

  1-2

  2-1

  4-1
  4-2

  4-3

  4-4
  4-5
  4-6
  4-7
  4-8
  5-1

  5-2

 5-3

 5-4

 5-5
 5-6
 5-7
                                                         Page
 Estimated Distribution of Municipal Sludge in 1980,
 by Management Method and Treatment Plant Size.	1-2
 Estimated Municipal Sludge Production in 1982, by
 POTW Size	
                                                          ,1-2
 Summary of Typical Characteristics of Alternate
 Sludge-to-Land Options ................................... 2-2
 Chemical  Composition of Sewage Sludges ................... 4.4
 Summary of Joint EPA/FDA/USDA Guidelines for Sludge
 Application for Fruits and Vegetables Production ......... 4-9
 Estimated Sludge Application in Dry Weight for
 Different Land Disposal  Options ......................... 4_n
 Sludge Solids Content and Handling Characteristics ...... 4-11
 Transport Modes for Sludges .............. ... ............ 4-13
 Auxiliary Facilities for Transport* ..................... 4-13
 Evaluation  of Sludge Transport Modes .................... 4-14
 Potential  Impacts  of Climatic Regions  on Land
 Application  of Sludge......... ..................... .....4-14
 Suggested Provisions  of  Contracts  Between  Sludge
 Generator,  Sludge  Applicator,  and  Private  Landowners ..... 5-6
 Recommended  Slope  Limitations  for  Land Application
 of Sludge  (Compiled  from  Existing  State  Regulations
 in 1982) ................................................. 5_7
 Soil Limitations for  Sewage  Sludge  to  Agricultural
 Land at Nitrogen, Fertilizer  Rates  in Wisconsin........... 5-9
 Soil Conservation  Services  (SCS) Permeability Classes
 for Saturated  Soil..... ......................             _
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Drainage Classes... ..... 5-11
Recommended Limits for Depth to Ground Water ...... . ..... 5-13
Suggested Setback Distances for Sludge Application
Areas ................. . ...... . .......................... 5_13
                                    xiv

-------
TABLES (continued)
Number

  5-8

  5-9

 5-10


 5-11


 5-12

 5-13


 5-14


 5-15

  6-1


  6-2


  6-3


  6-4


  6-5


  6-6


   6-7



   6-8

   6-9
                                                        Page

Potentially Unsuitable Areas for Sludge Application.....5-15

Sample Form for Preliminary Field Site Survey	5-17
Necessary Site-Specific Information of a General
Nature	

Suggested Soil Test Data for Site Characteristics
for Sludge Land Application Options	
                                                       ,5-19
                                                       ,5-20
Cost Factors to Be Considered During Site Selection	5-21


                                                  	5-24
Example Design Features Checklist of Candidate
Opt i ons	
Comparison of Qualitative Factors for a Hypothetical
Project	•	5-26

Ranking of Soil Types for Sludge Application	5-32

Relative Accumulation of Cadmium into Edible Plant
Parts by Different Crops	
Recommended Cumulative Limits for Metals of Major
Concern Applied to Agricultural Cropland.	
                                                       ,6-10


                                                       .6-10
Representative Fertilizer  Recommendations for Corn
and  Grain Sorghum  in the Midwest..	6-15

Representative Fertilizer  Recommendations for Soybeans
in the  Midwest	••	6-16

Representative Fertilizer  Recommendations for Small
Grains  in the Midwest	6-17

Representative Fertilizer  Recommendations for Forages
in the  Midwest	6-18

Estimated Percentages  and  Amounts  of Organic N  Min-
eralized  after Sludge  of Various Types  are  Applied
to Soi 1 s	6-19
 Summary of Annual  Limitations...	6-26


                                                   	6-28
 Typical  Site  Monitoring  Requirements  for  Sludge
 Application at  or  Below  Agronomic  Rates	
                                     •xv

-------
TABLES  (continued)
 Number
 6-10

 6-11

  7-1

  7-2
  7-3
  7-4

  7-5

  7-6

  8-1

'  8-2
  8-3
  8-4
  8-5
  8-6
  8-7
  8-8
  8-9
 8-10
 8-11
 8-12
 General  Guide  to Months  Available for Sludge
 Application  to Different Crops  in North  Central
 States	
                                                         Page
.6-31
 Typical Months  of  the  Year  When  Sludge  Can  Be  Applied
 to  Corn and  Forage for Design  Example.....	6-49
 Selected  Sludge-to-Forest Land Research and
 Demonstration Projects	7-2
 Estimated Annual Nitrogen Removal  by  Forest Types	7-7
 Sludge Application to  Recently Cleared  Forest  Sites	7-10
 Sludge Application to  Young  Forest  Plantations
 (over 2 Years Old)	7_11
 Sludge Application to  Closed Established Forests
 (over 10  Years  Old)	„	7-12
 Monthly Application Schedule for a  Design in the
 Pacifie Northwest	„	7-22
 Selected  Land Reclamation Projects  Involving
 Muni ci pal SI udges	8-2
 Humid Eastern Region Vegetation	:..8-12
 Drier Midwest and  Western Region Vegetation	8-13
 Western Great Lakes	8-14
 Northern  and Central Prairies.	8-14
 Northern  Great Plains	.8-14
 Southern  Great Plains	8-15
 Southern  Plains	8-15
Southern  PIateaus	.8-15
 Intermountain Desertic Basins	8-15
Desert Southwest	„	8-16
Cal i forni a Val 1 eys	t	8-16
                                    xvi

-------
TABLES (continued)
Number                                                              Pa9e

 8-13       Water Sample Collection...	8-19

  9-1       Permits and Approvals Needed Prior to Construction
            of a OLD Project at Sacramento, California	9-2

  9-2       Siting Criteria for Dedicated Land Disposal.....	9-7

  9-3       Odor, Dust, and Hazard Distance Criteria Adopted for
            the Sacramento, California, OLD Site.....	9-10

  9-4       Advantages and Disadvantages of Growing Vegetation on
            Dedicated Land Disposal Sites	9-13

  9-5       Net Monthly Soil Evaporation at Colorado Springs,
            Colorado	9-17

  9-6       Monthly Sludge Application Rates at Colorado Springs,
            Colorado, OLD Site	9-18

  9-7       Projection of Digested Sludge Production for Design
            Example	 .9-26

  9-8       Typical Characteristics of Digested and Lagooned
            Sludge for Design Example.	9-26

  9-9       Average Climatological Data for the Sludge Application
            Area  for Design Example	.....9-28

  9-10       Soil  Characteristics  of Dedicated Land Disposal Site
            for Design Example	9-28

  9-11       Net Soil Evaporation  at Dedicated Land Disposal Site
            for Design Example	9-29

  9-12      . Monthly Sludge Application Rates for Design Example
            Based on Net Soil Evaporation....,	9-30

  9-13       Calculation of Sludge Volume Storage Needs for  1980
            Sludge Generation for Design Example	9-31

  9-14       Final  Determination  of Storage  Volume,in  Sludge
            Storage Basins for  1980,  for Design  Example	...9-34

  9-15       Monitoring  Program  for Sludge,  Soil, and  Waters,
            Desi gn Exampl e.	9-41
                                   xvn

-------
TABLES (continued)
Number                                                              Page
 9-16       Estimated Capitol Costs (1982) for Dedicated Land
            Disposal Site Used as Sample Design	..9-42
 9-17       Estimated Operational Costs (1982) for Dedicated
            Land Disposal Site Used as Sample Design.'...............9-43
 10-1       Truck Operation Summary, Liquid Sludge	10-7
 10-2       Truck Operation Summary, Dewatered Sludge.......	10-8
 10-3       Projected Monthly Sludge Distribution for Agricultural
            Sludge Utilization Program, Madison, Wisconsin.,	10-11
 10-4       Capital  and Operating Cost of Sludge Hauling Trucks....10-13
 10-5       Truck Facilities:  Capital, Operation and Maintenance
            Data, Liquid Sludge	10-13
 10-6       Truck Facilities:  Capital, Operation and Maintenance
            Data, Dewatered Sludge.	10-14
 10-7       Application for Sludge Pumps	..10-21
 10-8       Estimated Pi pel i ne Cost (1980)	10-23
 10-9       Estimated Pipeline Crossing Cost (1980)	.10-23
10-10       Surface Application Method and Equipment for Liquid
            SI udges	10-36
10-11       Subsurface Application Methods, Characteristics,, and
            Limitations for Liquid Sludges	„	10-36
10-12       Methods and Equipment for Application of Dewatered
            Semisolid and Solid Sludges	10-40
10-13       Approximate 1982 List Prices for Sludge Hauling
            and Spreading Trucks....	10-45
10-14       Approximate Capital Cost of Different Sprinkler
            Systems	10-46
  A-l       Quantities of Raw Sludges Produced by Various
            Treatment Processes	...»	A-2
  A-2       Concentrations of Organic C, Total N, P, and S, NH4+
            and N0o~ in Sewage Sludge	A-3
                                  x\n

-------
TABLES (continued)
Number

  A-3


  A-4


  A-5


  A-6


  A-7



  A-8


  A-9

 A-10


 A-ll

 A-12

 A-13


 A-14

 A-15


 A-16


   B-l

   C-l
Concentrations of K, Na, Ca, Mg, Ba, Fe, and AT in
Sewage SI udge	
Concentrations of Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, Cd, and Cr in
Sewage SI udge	
Concentrations of Mn, B, As, Co9 Mo, and Hg in
Sewage SI udge	
 Page


..A-4


..A-5


..A-6
Relationship Between Quantity of Wastewater Treated
and Chemical Composition of Sludges in Indiana	A-7

Relationships Between Population in Sanitary
District and Chemical Composition of Sewage
Sludges from Different Size Cities in Iowa	A-8

Concentrations of Selected Constituents in Sewage
SI udges.,	A-9
Organic Compounds Detected  in Sludges,
.A-13
Characterization of Organic Compounds in 238 Sludges
Collected from Treatment Plants  in Michigan	A-14

Bacteria and Parasites in Sewage and Sludge	A-18

Human Enteric Viruses in Sewage	.A-19

Percent Removal of Pathogens by  Various Sewage
Treatment Processes	.....	A-21

Reported Concentration of Enteric  Viruses  in Sludges....A-22

Parasite Concentration in Primary  and Secondary  Sludge
As Compared to Treated Sludge.....	A-23

Factors That Influence the Survival of  Bacteria  and
Viruses in Soil			A-25

Pesticide and PCB Content of Dry Sludges	B-19

Potential Soil Surface Layer and Subsurface Parameters
of I nte rest	C-5
                                  xix

-------
TABLES (continued)


Number                                                              Page

  C-2       Extraction Methods for Soil	C-6

  C-3       Analytical Methods for Elements in Solution	C-8

  C-4       Physical Analysis for Soils....	C-10

  C-5       Suggested Procedures for Sampling Diagnostic Tissue
            of Crops	C-12

  C-6       Potential Crop Monitoring Parameters	C-13

  C-7       Sample Size and Sample Preservation	C-18

  C-8       Extraction Methods for Sludge	C-26

  D-l       Chemical Analysis of Dewatered Sludge Applied on the
            Venango County Demonstration Plots	.D-3

  D-2       Chemical Analysis of Liquid Digested Sludge Applied
            on the Venango County Demonstration Plots...	,D-4

  D-3       Amounts of Selected Nutrients and Trace Elements
            Applied by Each Sludge Application on the Venango
            County Demonstration Plots	„	.D-7

  D-4       Comparison of Trace Metal  Loadings at the Venango
            County Demonstration Project with EPA and PDER
            Recommendations	D-7

  D-5       Commercial Fertilizer Equivalents of the Sludge
            Application Rates in Venango County	.D-8

  D-6       Vegetation Height Growth and Dry  Matter Production
            at the Venango County Demonstration Site	D-12

  D-7       Average Concentration in ug/g of  Trace Metals in the
            Foliar Samples Collected from the 184 mt/ha Plot at
            the Venango County Demonstration  Site	D-13

  D-8       Results of Spoil  pH for the 185 mt/ha Plot  at the
            Venango Demonstration Site	D-14

  D-9       Analyses of Spoil  Samples  for Extractable Trace
            Metals on the 184 mt/ha Plot at the Venango County
            Demonstration Site.	D-14
                                    xx

-------
TABLES (continued)
Number

 D-10



 -D-ll



  E-l


  E-2
Results of Analyses for Trace Metals and Nitrate-
Nitrogen for Soil Percolate at the 90-cm Depth from
the Venango County Demonstration Site	
Ground Water Analyses for Trace Metals and Nitrate-
Nitrogen Following Sludge Application at the Venango
County Demonstration Site	
Characteristics of Digested Sludge at Salem, .Oregon,
Willow Lake POTW...	,
 Page



.D-15



.D-17


..E-2
Cumulative Sludge Metal Loadings for Agricultural
Land, Salem, Oregon	
                                                                    ,E-3
                                  xxi

-------
                                 FIGURES
Number                                                              Page

  1-1       Sequence of the manual's use	.1-4

  4-1       Simplified planning steps for a sludge land application
            option	....	4-2

  4-2       Institutional framework	4-6

  5-1       Two-phase approach to sludge application site identifi-
            cation, evaluation and selection	5-3

  5-2       Diagrammatic representation of open and closed drainage
            systems	5-10

  5-3       Planning, site selection, and option selection
            sequence	5-23

  5-4       General area map with concentric rings	5-29

  5-5       General soil map showing area selected for sludge
            util i zati on	5-30

  5-6       Detailed soil survey map of potential site for sludge
            appl i cati on	.	5-31

  7-1       Forest land sludge application vehicle	7-21

  9-1       Alternatives in consideration of dedicated sludge
            disposal  site design	,	9-4

  9-2       Fate of water received by dedicated sludge disposal
            site	'.	9-12

  9-3       Alternate considerations for disposal of surface
            run-off stored in lagoons	9-14

  9-4      'Suggested drying days between sludge applications for
            average soil conditions and periods of net evaporation
            <2 in/mo	9-20

  9-5       Sludge storage ponds, conceptual design....	9-33

  9-6       Design example site area required, theoretical for a
            square site	9-37

  9-7       Schematic diagram of sludge pumping and application
            method	9-38
                                  xxn

-------
 FIGURES  (continued)


 Number                                                               Page

   9-8        Tractor  and  injection  unit	«	9-39

  10-1        Examples of  sludge  transportation  modes  and  combina-
             tions  to land  application  sites.....	10-2

 10-2A        6,500-gallon liquid sludge  tank  truck	10-5

 10-2B        3,300-gallon liquid sludge  tank  truck  with  2,000-gallon
             pup  trailer	»	10-5

 10-2C        25-cubic-yard  dewatered  sludge haul  truck.	10-6

 10-2D        12-cubic-yard  dewatered  sludge spreader  vehicle	10-6

  10-3        Hydraulic characteristics  of sludge  solids,	10-17

  10-4        Storage  days required  as estimated from  the  use  of the
             EPA-1  computer program program for wastewater-to-land
             systems	.......	10-29

  10-5        Example  of mass flow diagram using cumulative sludge
             generation and cumulative  project  sludge application
             to estimate  sludge  storage  requirement	,	10-31

  10-6        Splash plates  on back  of tanker  truck...	10-37

  10-7        Slotted  T-bar  on back  of tanker  truck	10-37

  10-8        Tank truck with spray  nozzle for liquid  sludge surface
             appl i cat i on	 10-38

  10-9        Tank truck with liquid sludge tillage  injectors	10-39

 10-10        Tank truck with liquid sludge grassland  injectors	10-39

 10-11        Tractor  pulled liquid  sludge subsurface  injection
             unit connected to delivery  hose	10-41

10-12A        Tank wagon with sweep  shovel injectors	10-41

10-12B        Sweep  shovel injectors with covering spoons  mounted
             on tank  wagon	.....10-41

 10-13        7.2-cubic-yard dewatered sludge  spreader........	..10-43

 10-14        Large  dewatered sludge spreader.......	..10-43
                                    xxm

-------
FIGURES (continued)

Number                                                              Page
10-15       Example of disc tiller	10-44
10-16       Example of disc plow....	10-44
10-17       Center pivot spray application system	10-47
10-18       Traveling gun sludge sprayer	10-47
10-19       Diagram of liquid sludge spreading system in forest
            land utilizing temporary storage ponds	10-48
 11-1       City of Defiance Water Pollution Control Department
            land application program:  sampling and analytical
            schedule	11-9
 11-2       City of Defiance Water Pollution Control Department
            land application project	11-10
 11-3       Daily log sheet, Defiance, Ohio	11-11
  A-l       Variability of N, P, and K in sewage sludge	A-16
  A-2       Variability of Zn, Cd, and Cu to sewage sludge from
            two POTW's in Pennsylvania over a 2-year period	A-16
  B-l       Soil textural classes and general terminology used in
            soi 1 descri ptions	B-2
  B-2       Nitrogen cycle in soil	B-5
  B-3       Phosphorus cycle in soil	B-8
  B-4       Reactions of metals in soil...	B-10
  C-l       Typical monitoring well  screened over a single
            vertical  interval	C-16
  C-2       Typical pressure/vacuum lysimeter for leachate
            monitoring	C-21
  E-l       Portable sludge pump	E-7
  E-2       Big gun sprinkler	E-7
  E-3       Biogrow sludge haul  truck distributing sludge to
            farml and	E-8
                                  xxiv

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This manual represents the  state-of-the-art  on  process design for muni-
cipal  sludge  land  application  systems.   It  is  the  third  in a series to
serve as an update of the  October  1974  Process  Design Manual for Sludge
Treatment and Disposal  (EPA 625/1-74-006).   The first two volumes in the
series  were  Municipal  Sludge  Landfills,  EPA 625/1-78-010,  and Sludge
Treatment  and  Disposal,  EPA 625/1-79-0011.   Preparation  of this manual
was sponsored  by the U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency's Municipal
Environmental  Research  Laboratory (MERL) and the Office of Water Program
Operations (OWPO).   A coordinating committee assisted  EPA  and  its con-
tractor  in  defining  the  scope and  content  of  this  effort,  guided the
work  of  the  contractor,  and was responsible  for  coordinating technical
reviews of the manual.   A group of very  responsive technical experts and
invited  reviewers  from  the  private  sector,  academic institutions, and
state and  federal  agencies provided many  helpful  technical  review com-
ments.   Contract administration was provided by  EPA MERL, Cincinnati,
Ohio.

EPA Project Management:   Roland Villiers, Project Officer
                         G. Kenneth Dotson, Task Assignment Officer

CONTRACTOR:  SCS Engineers, Inc., Long Beach, California

Supervision and Principal Authors:   Kenneth LaConde,  Project Director
                                    Curtis Schmidt, Senior Engineer
                                    Ho  Van  Lam,   Terrance   Boston,  and
                                    Thomas Dong

Editing  and  Production:  Jane  Humphrey,  Robert  Black, Jeff  Le Bard, and
                         Martha Coleman
Other  Contributory  Authors:
    Dr. Robert Miller, Dr. A.  L.  Page,  Dr.  Lee
    Sommers,  Dr.  William  E.  Sopper, Dr.  Dale
    Cole, Sherwood C.  Reed,  Dr.  Charles Henry,
    and Sonja N. Kerr
COORDINATING COMMITTEE:
Robert K. Bastian, EPA/OWPO (Chairman)
Dr. James E. Smith, EPA/CERI
G. Kenneth Dotson, EPA/MERL
Sherwood C. Reed, USA/CRREL
Dr. Joseph B. Parrel 1, EPA/MERL
James Bachmaier, EPA/OSW
Dr. Robert Miller, NC State Univ.
Dr. A. L. Page, UC-Riverside
Dr. Lee Sommers, Purdue Univ.
Dr. William E. Sopper, Penn State Univ,
Dr. Dale W. Cole, Univ. of Washington
                                xxv

-------
Technical Experts and Invited Reviewers:
   Private Sector:
Dr. Cecil Lue Hing, Chicago MSD
L. Gene Suhr, CH2M-Hill
John Baxter, Denver METRO
Ronald Crites, George Nolte & Assoc.
Henry Hyde, Waste & Water Int'l.
Dr. J. C. Corey, DuPont De Nemours & Co.
Thomas Numbers, Hydrofax
George Hall, PRAIRIE PLAN
   Academic Institutions:
   State Agencies:
           Lee W. Jacobs, Michigan State Univ.
           Dennis R. Keeney, Univ. of Wisconsin
           Raymond C. Loehr, Cornell  Univ.
           Terry Logan, Ohio State Univ.
           V. Van Volk, Oregon State Univ.
   Federal  Agencies:
	   Dr.
        Dr.
        Dr.
        Dr.
        Dr.
        Dr. Michael Overcash~ NC State Univ.
        Charles L. Henry, Univ. of Washington

 Robert Manson, Ohio EPA
 John Mel by, Wisconsin DNR
 Dr. Merry L. Morris, New Jersey DEP
 David O'Tool, New York DEC
 Steve Wilson, Oregon, DEQ
 Fred Cowles/Dan O'Neil, Michigan DNR
 Gordon Meyer/Steve Stark, Minnesota PCA
 Richard Duty, Oklahoma SDH

   Dr.  Dean H. Urie, U.S. Forest Service/USDA
   Charles Fogg, Soil  Conservation Service/USDA
   Dr.  Robert H, Dowdy, Science & Education Admin./USDA
   Dr.  James Parr, Science & Education Admin./USDA
   Donald  Smith, Office of Surface Mining/DOI
   Bill  Bui man, EPA/Region III
   Ben  Chin, EPA/Region IV
   Steven  Poloncsik, EPA/Region V
   Mario Nuncio, EPA/Region VII
   Dana Allan, EPA/Region X
   Robert  Burd, EPA/Region X
   Jack Witherow,  EPA/RSKERL
   Laurel  Kasaoka, EPA/OSW
                                   xxvi

-------
                               CHAPTER  1

                              INTRODUCTION
1.1  General

Land application  of  municipal  wastewater treatment plant  sludge  can  be
managed in  a cost-effective and  environmentally  safe  manner.   Estimates
made in 1980, shown  in  Table  1-1,  indicate  that  approximately one quar-
ter of the sludge generated in the United States  was being directly uti-
lized  for  landspreading  on  food  chain  and  non-food chain  cropland.
Since much  of the sludge  marketed or distributed  free also  goes  to the
land, the total  may  approach 40  percent.   Increased numbers  and capaci-
ties of wastewater treatment facilities, constraints on many sludge dis-
posal alternatives,  and increasing costs have led  many additional  com-
munities  to  consider use  of land  application techniques.  As  shown  in
Table 1-1,  smaller publicly  owned treatment works  (POTW's) tend  to use
land application  more than do  large  POTW's.   As  shown in Table 1-2, the
estimated sludge  production in 1982  was  almost 7,000,000 dry  tons; this
quantity is expected to increase in the future.,

1.2  Historical  Perspective of Options

Land application  of  sewage  and sludge has been  practiced  in  'many coun-
tries for centuries.  Many  "sewage farms" were  initiated as  a preferred
alternative  to  the  direct  discharge of raw  sewage into waterways.   A
large number of land application  projects have involved the  use of sew-
age  or  sludge on  agricultural  land  (and a few on  land dedicated  to the
disposal  of  sludge),  relatively  few  long-term projects have  been  devel-
oped where  sludge or  sludge compost  has  been  used  on  forested lands,  or
to reclaim drastically disturbed lands.

1.3  Objectives  of Manual      '   ,'

The  principal objective of this  manual  is  to provide general  guidance
and  basic  information  for use  in  planning,  designing,  and  operating
projects  for land application  of  sludge  by  one  or  more of the following
design options:

     t     Agricultural  utilization.
     •     Forest land utilization.
     •     Drastically disturbed land utilization.'"
     •     High-rate dedicated land disposal  site,
other than landfills,
Certain alternative land application options, such as biomass production
of trees or other  crops  for  fuel  or conversion to ethanol, are not dis-
cussed  in  detail,  because they are  emerging  technologies,  and insuffi-
cient data exist to select design parameters, evaluate  costs,  and draw
conclusions.    The  techniques for preliminary  sludge  treatment  and pro-
cessing  (i.e.,  digestion, composting,  disinfection,  dewatering,  etc.)
are described in other sources (1) (2), and are not included herein.
                                   l-l

-------
                                TABLE 1-1
         ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF  MUNICIPAL SLUDGE  IN 1980,
            BY MANAGEMENT METHOD AND  TREATMENT  PLANT SIZE*
Percent of Sludge Managed by
This Method by Plant Size
Management
Landspreading on
Landspreading on
Distribution and
Landfill
Method
food chain crops
non-food chain crops
marketing

Thermal processing, e.g.,
incineration
Ocean disposal

Other, e.g., long-term lagooning
Total

Small
<1 mgd
31
8
11
31
1
1
17
100
Medium
1-10 mgd
22
17
13
35
1
0
Jl
100
Large
10 mgd
10
11
19
12
32
4
12
100
Percent
of Total
12
12
18
15
27
4
..12
100
 * Based upon data supplied by the U.S. EPA Sludge Task Force, 1983.
                            TABLE 1-2
        ESTIMATED MUNICIPAL SLUDGE PRODUCTION IN  1982,
                          BY  POTW'SIZE*
. .
POWT Size (MGO)
0-2.5
2.5-5
5-10
10-20
20-50
50-100
100
Total
No. of
POTWs
14,168
631
352
187 .
125
40
41
15,544
Sludge Produced
(dry tons/yr)
1,189,810
515,504
588,445
622,478
924,896
676,091
2,324,274
6,843,493
Percent
of Total
17
8
9
9
14
.; 10
34

* Based upon analysis of data from the 1982 Needs Survey supplied by the
  U.S. EPA Sludge Task Force, 1983.
                                1-2

-------
1.4  Scope of Manual

This manual represents the state of  the  art with respect to land appli-
cation of sludge for its use in agriculture, forestry, land reclamation,
and high-rate dedicated land disposal.  Previously published EPA manuals
which  should  be  extensively  used as  supplemental  information  sources
are:

     •     Process  Design Manual  -  Municipal   Sludge   Landfills  (EPA-
           625/1-78-010), Reference (1).

     •     Process  Design  Manual  - Sludge  Treatment and Disposal  (EPA-
           625/1-79-011), Reference (2).

     •     Process  Design Manual  for  Dewatering Municipal  Wastewater
           Sludge (EPA-625/1-82-014), Reference (3).

References are made throughout this manual to these documents,

1.5  Use of Manual

The information contained  in  this  manual  is intended for use by munici-
pal  wastewater treatment and  sludge management authorities,  project
planners, designers, and consultants in many disciplines including engi-
neering, soil science, agronomy, etc.

Figure 1-1 presents  a  suggested  sequence to follow when using this man-
ual.   This sequence may  be  varied according to  user needs.   Chapter 2
provides an overview of land application options and the advantages/dis-
advantages of  each  option.   Chapter 3  discusses public participation.
Chapter  4  covers  the  primary elements needed  for technical  assessment
and  preliminary  project  planning.   Chapter  5 provides  detailed  site
evaluation and selection procedures; and selection of the final land ap-
plication  option  or options.   After  an  option or a combination  of op-
tions  is selected,  the process  design  chapters  (Chapters  6  through 9)
relevant to the option(s) selected should be consulted.  Chapters 10 and
11  provide general  facility  design and O&M  guidance.   Appendices A, B,
and C  provide  supplemental  data and information  which  may be useful to
some manual users.  Appendices D and E provide two case  studies.

1.6  References

1.  U.S. EPA.   Process  Design Manual:   Municipal  Sludge Landfills.   EPA
    625/1-78-010.   (Available from National  Technical   Information  Ser-
    vice, Springfield, Virginia, PB-279 675).  October 1978.

2.  U.S. EPA.   Process  Design Manual  for Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
    EPA  625/1-79-011.  MERL, ORD, Washington, D.C.   September 1979.

3.  U.S. EPA.  Process Design Manual for Dewatering  Municipal Wastewater
    Sludge.   EPA-625/1-82-014.   MERL,  ORD, Washington,  D.C.   October
    1982.
                                    1-3

-------
                INTRODUCTION TO LAND
                APPLICATION OPTIONS

                   (CHAPTER 2)
                PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
                 PROGRAM ELEMENTS

                   (CHAPTER 3)
                BASIC ELEMENTS FOR
               TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
              AND PRELIMINARY PLANNING

                   (CHAPTER 4)
               SITE EVALUATION AND
               SELECTION OF OPTIONS

                  (CHAPTER 5)
   ONLY ONE CHAPTER IS USED I  UNLESS A C
                                COMBINATION OF OPTIONS IS 'SELECTED
PROCESS DESIGN
FOR
AGRICULTURAL
UTILIZATION
(CHAPTER 6)
1
i
L 	


PROCESS DESIGN
FOR FORESTED
LAND
UTILIZATION
(CHAPTER 7 >
i


PROCESS DESIGN
FOR
DISTURBED LAND
RECLAMATION
(CHAPTER 8)
i


PROCESS DESIGN
FOR DEDICATED
LAND
DISPOSAL
(CHAPTER 9)
1
i
                                                 COMBINATION OF
                                                   TWO OR MORE
                                                    OPTIONS
                       i
                                                    ..J
                FACILITY DESIGN AND
                  COST GUIDANCE

                  (CHAPTER 10)
                  OPERATION AND
                   MANAGEMENT

                   (CHAPTER 11)
Figure 1-1.   Sequence of the manual's use,
                    1-4

-------
                                CHAPTER 2

                 OVERVIEW OF SLUDGE APPLICATION OPTIONS
2.1  Introduction

The sludge application options covered in this manual are:

     c     Agricultural Utilization:  Use of  sludge  as  a source of fer-
           tilizer nutrients  and/or  as  a soil  amendment to enhance crop
           production.  Effectiveness of sludge as a soil amendment gen-
           erally  requires  application  rates  greater  than  agronomic
           rates (e.g., the nutrient requirement of the crop).
           Forest Utilization:   Use of
           hance forest productivity.
sludge on forested  land to en-
     •     Land Reclamation Utilization:  Application of sludge to strip
           mine  lands,  mine.tailings,  or  other  disturbed  or  marginal
           land for the purpose of revegetation and reclamation.

     •     Dedicated  Land  Disposal  (OLD):   Application  of sludge  to
           soils, with or without vegetation, for the primary purpose of
           sludge disposal.  This option differs from the others in that
           sludge is  generally applied at  higher  rates  and  system man-
           agement is  more intensive.   Crop  production (if  any)  is  of
           secondary  importance.    Specifically excluded  from  the  OLD
           site definition  used  herein  are landfills,  i.e.,  sites where
           sludge or  sludge mixed  with  refuse,  is deeply  buried,  and
           covered.

The  definitions  above are  not mutually  exclusive.   For  example, land
reclamation utilization may involve the planting of trees on the sludge-
amended soil; or a dedicated land disposal site may produce agricultural
crops, etc.   It  is  also possible that  two or  more options,  e.g., agri-
cultural  and forest utilization,  can be used  in a  single sludge manage-
ment program.   Table  2-1 summarizes the  typical characteristics of  the
sludge-to-land options covered in this manual..

Each of these  options  has advantages and  disadvantages  in  terms of  the
quality and  quantities  of sludge that  can  be  utilized  and for applica-
tion site requirements.   This  chapter  provides  an  overview of these  op-
tions and highlights their advantages and  disadvantages.  Each option is
then discussed in much greater detail in the subsequent design chapters.
These design  chapters  present  the criteria and  limitations  that estab-
lish the sludge application rates:

     9     Chapter 6,  Agricultural  Application, is designed for  the  N
           and/or P need of the crop.  This is to ensure acceptance by
                                   2-1

-------



















CO
o
I-H
Cu
O
o

•a:

i
o
1—

LU
CD
O
n^
_j
co

LU

«C
Oi
LU


evj ..
Lt.
LU<=>
	 I .
55 Y\
LJ; HH

CO
|^!
i.i
o
eC
2p
DC
O

i
t

O

cu
r~


Lt.
O
>~
s:
GO






















'OX:*' O QJ 1
*v. I OJ 1 1 C ifi Q) r— •
QJ
4J

C/)


ro
M
o
PL


o
•o
QJ
4-1
ro
t_>
•5
2

o
4->
ra

£

4J
=3
C

4J
m
re

u
OJ

•Q
C
re
_i
C 4-1 QJ 4-1 tO -P- Cn t*- • 3 t- - 4J 3 QJ
1— E "O TO -t- tO QJ O 1- C to O QJ 3 t_ -O 4J
E Ct- i- O O f- 4-» *0 4J OQJTO
QJOC-r- QJOTO C "^-v t— QJ »r- C 3 CLX: E
coo >>p— 4->*r- 3cnoj Q> t*_ to ro M- tou-p-
C C7* *-x. O TO4-ltO E C Cn ia C-'r-p— C CO P—
TO'-* E ra >> •!- -a Q)I— -OCTOU
t_ O U * — O TO >>4-> 3 t_ X: GJ 4-> T- • t- •
4j ro t— r— •«- -o xi TO i — QJ 4J. — c ro QJ 4J • >> QJ
r_ --^T- OP— t_ in -C 3 cox: -o t- in x> c:
ro O I— o CLO -o QJ c >»u- T- 4-> QJ 3 +j- c •!-
EOJ to C CL^S) QJ C U— 3 i — QJl/1 in 4J t/J O "O 4->
CVJO QJTO CQJO.p— tOQJC3r— TOT-OJ 3
OOCT -CO 5OlT3Q)TO3-OO3QJ4->4-> O
C u- -C1 O S *•+* O cnQJto U EQJO'— CLO (~
O QJ * WCr— TOf—O>jE-D*p" OQJ
•*> O O "*»P— LO QJ >) OJ -P- P— OJ 4-»-Mi — O t- >}l*_ >-»
t/1 4-1 4-1 C to J2 C: t — **"• C/) O P— QJ t_O4-JCT>i — p— i*- i—
QJ _C T- QJ TO >^*P- r— 4-1 O I- £_4-lQJ O«f— r— TO r—
•r-coOts* -r-4->t-4J ro*p-CL4-iE o*p-CL>»c: roro ro
t. T- O C U t-^-QJ3 3 P— W C t_ QJEOt_CS- 3 CO 3
TO QJ <— t GJ 4-> TO3>O WTO'»-OQJ JZ-p-t-QJTOO WU-C W
> J: •*— - CLGJ >-WQJ£_ Z3CL"OO4-l r— i — C-£»O<4- ZDO-r- ^5
1
• i i i
C>, p— II COp— r— •»- O .r-t34-l tDTO
»r- O -^ CL CLO C TO CL*— * -P- • O r— C *P- E E

(U ^- O TO C i — QJ TO4->QJ*p-C_ "O 4-1X14-3
OtTO p— O *p-ro"O T-CO-OTO QJOJOJ^ 3TO
C O *-•» QJ QJTO4J E4-1QJ QJ" — C"OQJ OJC4-JQJ .Q~O
PO 4J h- E EC C*t- EroTOTO>, COTOC QJC
L. «r— *^ O 1 >i QJ *"*••• **** r^ t. TO CO E ** •*-* *'"" •
|->O4-1 4_1^-LO. jQEQJ 4-l.p-I_l*_QJ 4-1 ••-<*. QJTOTOtO
^— ^3 1 1 4-> l/l C +J I O TO O L- if) i— O C O t— QJ
TOU-CSJO) aj'p-4-»r— -OI-TO QJ-P- 3 -r-*0 .r--r-t-4->
EOC» C-OtJfD QJQJ4J CCOQJ-M "OW>, 4->p— QJ-i-
OOC O*O> C>W O34JO3 T3>>4-> 3CL4JW
O4-14-1O eCiflt- 3O SCU- CC.Q-P- OE
C J^ TO»r- TO C QJ OO14-! TOCQJ OTOr— t_Ot-"O
CTO4-* O4-1 TO TO3C i— -O*r- OTOQJ
.^^-v^-^na >) • >t- >>«P— O--P- (rt QJ XI >» P— -O
(rt Qj r— O r— C 4-1 i— i — O>i» i — C Q- QJ "O*O4^(tJ ^— QJ 3 s-
QJSro^-T- r— O TO P— OP— p— O t/ll/l CQJO^- « — X1O13
•r-JZrop— TO*p-Ot- TOECQJ TO-r-4-> QJ QJXIQJ'p- TO QJ4-S
L. >»*»*. 3Q. 34^-r-TO 3 I- Q) > 34-ltrtt-+J CLt-U-TO 3 >j t- tf)
TOt-4->tf)CL WTO'^QJ tfl -i— CD QJ W1TO3O-P- QJ 3 4— > (/) TO 1— *r-
>*O£=:3TO 3OCL>j ^ **— TO r— 3 O E *t— C/l Q4-*TOro ^Etp~T!
r"
!5 m
C
o

4J
re

^

=>
1
TO
— J
4-1
QJ
t_
O
u_

t_»* r— 1 QJ 33Si — i- C T3 1 "O
CO>>QJ>,^ ram 4-sco. — E 30 -P--O OCCQJ
•r- OJ *^C QJ4VOJ C TOCro 3C4- Or— C: 4-1 IS i- C •
CM -— * t_ -i— I J= QJ O O >-r-t_ O •»- • OJ C/l 4-13TO 014-*

cn o TO 'ro P— ••— *•— 4V L_oro*o ro co GJ 3 ro QJQJQJ 3"oroi/)Qj
C 4-1 "*«, M3CLJZ 4-1 -p— 1 CL C- 4-> GJ C-r- GJ O X: 4-> • "OTO^QJE
TO f— P— o* CL I *o «-H co c M— >VP- r— ro >> c u ro to o ^OCL
L.O*r-TO4-l QJT3 ^aJ1^^. XiT3CL TOtOE «r— QJ r— »>>3
r— OtOCoQJ O TOl/1 Q)C4-» *OOroQJCMt— tO r— £_ 3 W C p— O~
TO U_ t— 1 TJ E QJ r— -Ot-^-TO QJ>~~ fj> «J -r- • O 4-> O C/l *r— r— QJ
Eo c 3 -r- xi ro»cnro 014-1014-3 4J Qj*oo'E *o c/> «P-QJTOTO
OOr— 4-1 cc> c >w i— P— en 3 4-> C -a >,M- n- o i- .p- c
O4-14-1 Vll>s 4-lOOt- 3£-0 ErtJtJp— O CCX)O if-Ot-OO
exi en QJTO C/)T-»P-QJ Oajcn4-i T-4->3f>toc oro T- TO QJ QJ -p-
O)^- C*CE 34-14-14J CTO P— QJ r— r— "O >> "O4-1 Q.4-S
,«M— o^^^. t/j o *p^ raroc >i 5 i- £= to r— <+— to m GJ4-i "O to ro
W»CU T3QJ C« OO-p- r— O O >% • QJ TOO-p- T3 4V 4-> •»- QJQJC O
OJ3:roCf- ocn c*p-f- p— Or— xj ~o r— o ctoot. xi4-iaJGJ'p~
T- X:OJO**r-GJ GJi — r— C_ TO-OECGJ QJTOf-OJQJ QJGJQjrS «i->>p—
t_ >**-N. O- QJ O 4J 4-> 4-> CL Q. TO 3Ct-QJ> >»4-l 4-1 CL«4- *- CLt-4-4-1 C E QJ P— CL
TOC.4JQJCL4-1TOTO U-Q.CLQJ WTO-p-CnQJ TOTOO >v~ O QJOt+-rd TO'*-COCL
>-"OE-aw>aiOL. Orere>> Or— 4-rer— ^ r— 4-1 4-» *— E OU-TOE cj r— 3 > TO

t/» GJ >» P— 4-1
C
o
•r-
4-1
TO
Nl


4^


ro
L.
4-1
o
t-
CL OO(/> V)4-i
CL.C— M 3^O f— •O3*-r— O E *r- CnstO C>^
T- >, O tO CQJ-O TO GJ r— QJ TO~O4J QJ "OCTO3 OTOCO,
O «-< O C p— C: COp— Ct/»>CCL QJ X:4-QJ CT-OE**^ ••- E C
GJ P"*. x-xt^. *r- TO3TOC 5 OQJ*r-4-lE-*-**'~'- (D| — i C+JC 3>*- P— 3QJ*O4-»G) S'r-TJO
f }__ j^_ f _ 4^ (j «r— ^J J p— CGJQJ3 E 3C— QJ O x; 4-> *P~ C XZ ^— QJ L-
CM >sQJ TOW)4-1QJ QJO4JX1E 3V)»t*-O > t_ U p— 4-» TO 4J QJCLWO
r— O4-14-1 QJ WXTX 4J-r-t(— OOTOQJ -p- QJ tO 13 TO r— TO CQ.3
ro u— ro o o. >i QJ o GJ ro 4-> o 4-> ~o ocoji/iv) WE OOCLGJ -P-TO >»
EO CTO QJp— >tOp— >-f- OC TO-P-T-3C- C3 -r-.p- 5 4-> Q>X1
OOt- L.I — t- CL i-*CJCTOfl3 "Op— TO ajC-tt-f—'O--* 3QJt_
O 4-1 4-1 TO TOTO E L-COt- >) 03 CL TO QJ CL "O "4— D. C CD O 4-> »3x:*o CLO-p-4-i ^— . XIOCL >» xQJ«3*r-CL3c L.TO QJ
cn«— * c o p^ w en o tJ 4-J c c/> p™ * TO * QJ t- QJ T3 TO o «r- 'i~ t/i 4-* •
.*.,_ ^-^.r- r— 3 C C • >> TOO *— * TD tO O • TOt- £-4-1 >, t_ QJ -r- C
W)QJ "OGJ ro GJ'r-GJE r~ OOt- QJtnOJQJCVJr— GJ O.QJQJrotO r— CLP— E £-
QJ 31 TO C CO O •* QJ 4-> XJ QJ r— • *r- QJ 4-li — CnCH TO X}t/)t/)XlCn QJ p— OO'r—QJ
T- x:QJT3» -r-^SC 4-1 TO T3 f— TO E T-TOTJ-DOE EQJ T3Jx;> TOt-'p-r— 4-1
t. >*"^. CL 3 o a_p— 4-irocw) SCCL t_ £4^334-*^ ct-.-oc3t_£_ 3 Q.X: 4-1
TO t, 4_> QJ r— 4-1 < >>r— QJp— TO>» (/)TOCL>>ro -r-ajr— i — O TO TO •«— TO r— O TO tOCLQJQjro
c
O I
i/i c -P- x
QJ O 4-1 QJ
4_j .f— TO i —
TO 4-1 O Cj-

U)
u

4-1
V)
•r—
L.
QJ

o

TO
X:


CK TO -P- E
Or— 0
c c .p- a. o c
O O P— CL O
•p- ••— CL «=C 4-> '»-
4-1 4-1 Q- t- 4J
TO ro «^ M— o TO
U 0 O CL 0
>r_ .,— H_ (rt 4-1 •*-
f— p— o GJ c; in p —
Q, CL 4- TO O CL
5- 5-51 £_ 3_ ^^ <
Q) QJ QJ tO tO r— to GJ C QJ
en en 3 t_ «^^ 3 *— ' en TO en
*CJ "O CT QJ QJ ^- GJ "O TU
3 3QJ C 4-> QJ4-> 3 >> 3
r— P— t_ £
-------
^
L.

QJ
4-»
OO


m

o
o.
tn

O


QJ
4->
re
o
-o
QJ
Q
£

t-
e.


o
(=

4J

J3

" •
i/j oj
 >
E T-
•r— 4.)
4J O
QJ QJ
CO O

C
o
4J
re
Nl

r—

4J
O
C
O


re
E
re
o
QJ
C£

*O
C
re
_j
in •
QJ QJ
re 3
c
•r- C-
E QJ
•r- Nj

QJ r—

o u
QJ
in w-
QJ
O r—
3 re
"O T-
CJ O
£_ L_
QJ
* E
in E
QJ 0
>- O

w •
QJ QJ
4-> in
c
o
T*
ro
Nl
•r-
•r—
4-3


•o
ro
_j


tn
QJ
S_
Q
U.
re 3
c
"i V
H- NJ

QJ r-
t- 4->
O «-
QJ
in tf_
QJ
O r—
3 re
-a -r-
QJ O
t, t-
QJ

- 0
CO •
OJ QJ
C
O


re

•r—

•r-
£
r—
re
t-
3
4->
Is
O
t_
en
4-> in
re 3
c
•r- S-
E QJ

I— «r-
QJ i —

O t-
QJ
in **-

0 r—
3 re
ai *o
£_ L.
a>
« E
in E
QJ O
>~ o
•o
O)



•i— -o
• %

C 0
s .=
•^-^ .f—
t-
r-H ^
oj ™
re
UJ -e
	 | O
QJ

O
in o
4-3 QJ
c t-

•r- >>
3 re
C -i-
OJ -r-
Cni»—
CO ? c
«C i— ai
[-_ OO JD
-^
QJ

O r—

4-> 3
CO 4->
QJ r-
L- 3
O

f— L.
cn
P— re

O QJ


>>4->
r— 3
r— '" 4—
re •
3 £- Q)
WOW
4->

0
O.

W "O

o re
4^ 4J
QJ

o -a
W C
ro
w
o o
i — -+-» C

4~> •!—
•> QJ m
w cn o

>— > QJ



r«.

o
tn
en
c
£
in

x
QJ

C W
O C
O
W *i—



OJ O
0 0




o
W

en
c

4-J
•f— O
X *r-'
QJ 4-»


0 £-
QJ
•a o
c ro
Q) t-
cx re
QJ .£=
a o



c
o
O T—
4J 4->


•i— O
>*- 0
QJ
C i —
QJ *i—
-t> 0
(O CD
C 4J
QJ in
O X
D_ QJ











OJ


as
u


Q.
a.
(D
-4-*
o



•>-? •

L. 0

a.
E E


*-> J->
(O *O

•U t-
W CT
§ 3
§J


* tn

QJ O
>— QJ



1

O 4->
t- O
ex re
cx
C E
O -i-
-M 4J
re re
£_ OJ
4-> £.

c
0 3
E 0
OJ -C



QJ O
>- QJ
r-
're



O QJ
•i- E
4-> E
0 0

•Q
O QJ
t- o
ex re
QJ Q. W
> QJ £_
O t- QJ
£_ Nl

•i— 3 ^
•>-3 4-J
>> s-
03 C- QJ
QJ
W
C
c o
•r- CX
in
4-J QJ
C *-

||
0 0
£_ £_
_e
>
O i-
'm 2
I 0)
I- QJ
o >
^
o



& .
i- QJ

•r—


QJ QJ
i — *r->

re o
0

r— t_
Q. ro
O_ E
re *r-
L.
4-> O-
£


I  QJ
QJ O_ TO -r-
CX O-r- r-
o re 3 o.
L. E a.
a. QJ 3 ro
en o
jr -o o QJ

•r- r- *O
jt V) -O 13

T3 *f- re in
OJ O

•r- C QJ re
O O 4J 4->
> .p- re o
 £- 4->
1 C
o o
QJ T-
i — 4->



L. i — +J QJ
QJ fl ro *r"

O re 3 CL.
o. QJ 3 re
en o
-c -o o QJ
4_» 3 re Oi
•r- i — -O
S w -o 3_
QJ O
•O W ! 	
•r- c QJ re
O O 4J 4->
> -r- re o


4J »
O QJ
re cn
Q. QJ
E >

c
r— O
3
E^

x: u s
r— X L_
ro o cn
•r- 4J
C 4-> O
QJ >>••-
o a. ro
Q- *• — 4-»
L,
QJ

C r—
ro r— »
-03-0
L. QJ C

•r— 3 (Q ^~


in ^5
ro «r-
•o
a; QJ c
.0 4-9 re


re QJ

in o
cn r— r—
OJ C QJ

I

"c O *° QJ

>— 3 • ro r— in

*o in o *f~ QJ

-Q re 4-> a. ro .a
t- ro ex E o
3 >,-D re t-
4-5 -o re 4-> o_
in ro t- QJ c


r— "O 3 QJ M—
QJ re r- cn 4_>
4-» tn QJ C -i-
-r- 4-> t- re x
c re QJ E QJ



o w o a. re re

in

QJ C
4-> re
•r- C
C *r-
t_ C«4->
QJ -f- ro
CL W O
-O QJ •«-
£- -0 r-
CL £X
•O Q.
x: c ro

*=•&
o
•O -t- i —


•f- OJ -»-> O)
O r— C 4->
> a) o 10
ct W U t_
"t/T
^— -"O
QJ C
4-> re


C -r-

QJ !r- (O

0 QJ ••-
o- "0.
•a Q.
.c c ro
4^ ro

"He c ^
o
-O **- r—
QJ 4-3 O •
•O O E- cn
*r- QJ 4-> QJ
O i — C 4-J
> QJ O re



O C
3
C O
O S—


ro i-
-o o
re
t- W
cn t_
QJ QJ
•a 4J
re
ro
•r— QJ
QJ M- QJ
o 3 ro
a_ w 2£
u*
o


4^ ro
•»- t_ o


QJ 3
"O -O CL.


> C
re c -r-
O>r—

r*i to Q
QJ S-

ro c •

QJ o tn
* D_ QJ
QJ t_ C 0
>- O- re ro



Ijz

E i
QJ C
i— 0

O

Q--r-
re w
w

r- 0
•— o
ro re •
3 -o

3 T- r—



y r-^ j,,s


cn
f- C
QJ *r—

ti
CL C_
4J
^ 0
0

QJ "O in
•^3 c W

O O
> c o
ro o re

QJ 4-> O

C- < —
c QJ _a
o 8" o-
£_

CX
o


c
_£= O


5 re
t_
"O QJ
QJ CX
-o o


>. c
ro ro
QJ C

c w
ro QJ
C_3 ^3



.C
4J 4J

ro re
QJ O.

o "~
•f- QJ
r— U

Q. W
f— 3
ro c
c o
QJ -^
o c
c_ re





^


>r_


ro
4->


~


>>

,__
2.
w
c

3 -r-
"° "3 w

QJ >»-r~ +J

•r- 4-> W

C QJ -r- "O

X O r- E-
OJ .f- .,_ 3
r- O 4->

0 §" W -r^
C O t_ TJ
o ro
>) r— >»

r— jQ Cn to

3 >> t_
w re t- c






»
QJ
•r*
W
C
QJ
-P

QJ


O
C

>>


ro
3




•

>

W

. QJ
X
OJ
4->
o

r^

re
3
ID



O
U- 4-3
O QJ



i&
3 l_
cr o
QJ

c 'o
t_
O *
•r- QJ
o re
SI 5



«

_^ 4->
C QJ

Q


re
o c
in o

r— 4->
r— re

l»- '.*_>

3 c
QJ O
M— E

1

o
s



c

in

i— O
ro QJ
O T-S
in o

f— CX
tt- O

S 4-3
QJ ro

4-3



1
•r-j
o
{.
CX
- (—
o

ro
L.
4->


O

"O


CJ tn
<4- 4->
O
t
in
4->
O
QJ

C C?
ro t-
cx
QJ
cn QJ
ro ro
i— O
w
It- 1
O r—

QJ

"O T—
c ro
31 tn



cn
c

w
3

in c\j
4-3 CO
QJ r-l

O
L. C
CL 0
cn4->
^ &
4_)
tn in
X -C
LU 4->
in
4-> QJ

Qj re

o
a.
c



O QJ •
CX— V)
O -O -r-

o_ ro ro


-o >> QJ

4J r— re
•r- TO O
E =3 I
i- in >,
— I =5.0


1 W QJ
r- o ro
3 QJ O
cn.r-3 i

E_ t_ _a
CX 1


-C i — O
re
w L. ro

4-9 C C
re QJ o
4-> cn

5 tO r— W
QJ C -Q T-

•i— ro ro





i i

O w
t_ ro
CX O

-o ro
w c
o o •
CX W
o -o ••-

o.r— ' ro
•a .Q

~o re QJ


•i— W U
E 4-> I
n QJ^




w
QJ
4-3 •
re t_ QJ
4-> O 0

W r—
W O
O -r- C
E •*-» -r-
re
• "r— W
QJ 3 QJ
*w t_ iH
C QJ
QJ QJ -O
4-> > *r-
x re 3
LU .c cn





o
in 4->
c c

•r- U T-
4J •»— in
r— S "O
' 3
cn c w
QJ O w
t- QJ
QJ U
cnr— o
c .n t-
4J r— CM
in -r- QJ CC
x > ro •— i



w


re o re


re t_


O QJ U—

re

c o fi-
re r— O

-o o

J 1 J»—
'i w5^
•r- ro c
















^

4->



1
1
















"O
OJ


E
•r-
_J















QJ
W
c
QJ
4->
X
UJ

) 	
ro o
O 4-J

c cn

O 'I—
QJ C *— »
4-> -i- CNJ
ro co
O I- t— <
QJ »•— ••
4-3 C
•r- QJ O.
^ 3 4J
-Q 4-> CX
ro ro o
•r- QJ yi
> *r- Jl




f^

'*-


L- in


QJ QJ

O

C CX


QJ •(—

C «r-
•r- 0
cn QJ
c ex


















































































2-3

-------
           the  farmers and to  minimize  need for environmental monitor-
           ing.  Application is at agronomic rates, usually on an annual
           basis.

     •     Chapter  7,  Forest  Land Application, can be  limited by the N
           need  of  the trees,  i.e., application  at  silvaculture  use
           rates.   Sludge  is  often applied  only  one  time, or at multi-
           year intervals, e.g., every 5 years, to a specific  area.

     t     Chapter  8,  Application  to  Disturbed Land for Reclamation, is
           typically limited by the cumulative metals loadings.  Usually
           there  is only  one   application  to  a  site.    In  some cases,
           nitrogen may be a factor to protect drinking water quality in
           aquifers.

     •     Chapter  9,  Application  to  Dedicated Sludge Disposal Site, is
           primarily  limited  by  site-specific soils  and hydrogeologic
           conditions,  climate,  and  vegetation  (if  grown).    Usually
           there are many  sludge  applications  per year to the same site
           area.  Careful protection of ground water aquifers  is a major
           feature of these systems.

A limitation to all  of the options is that sludge may contain materials
that are potentially harmful to surface  waters,  ground waters, and pub-
lic  health.   To avoid  these  problems,  the  site  selection,  design,  and
management of land application  systems require careful attention.

2.2  Agricultural  Utilization

     2.2.1  Purpose and Definition

Agricultural utilization  of  sludge is practiced  in  nearly every state,
and  is  especially common  in  New Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Illinois,
Michigan, Missouri,  Wisconsin,  and Minnesota.   Hundreds of communities,
both large and small, have developed successful agricultural  utilization
programs.  These programs benefit the municipality generating the sludge
by providing an ongoing environmentally  acceptable means of  sludge dis-
posal, and provide the participating farmer with a substitute or supple-
ment for conventional fertilizers.

The  agricultural  utilization  option assumes that  the  sludge  is applied
at "agronomic rates," defined.as the annual rate at which the N and/or P
supplied by the sludge and available to the crop does not exceed the an-
nual N and/or P requirement of  the crop.   The amount of plant available
N or P  applied  to the  site is  based  on  that  required by  the  crop.   In
the case of N, the  farmer  would have  applied this quantity of available
N as commercial  fertilizer.  By limiting N loadings to fertilizer recom-
mendations, the impact  on  ground water should  then be no different from
normal  agricultural  operations.   Chapter 6 of this manual  provides  de-
tails of agronomic rate calculations,  limitations, etc.
                                   2-4

-------
     2.2.2  Advantages of Agricultural Utilization

Sludge  contains  several  plant macronutrients,  principally  N and P, and
in most  cases,  significant  amounts of micronutrients such as boron (B),
manganese (Mn),  copper  (Cu),  molybdenum  (Mo),  and zinc (Zn).  The exact
ratio of these  nutrients  will  not be that of a well-balanced formulated
fertilizer; nevertheless, most agronomic crops respond favorably to the
nutrients in sludge.

Sludge may also  be a valuable  soil conditioner  if added at rates greater
than agronomic  rates.   The  addition of  sludge to  a ftne-textured clay
,soil can make the  soil  looser and more friable, and increase the amount
of pore  space  available for root  growth  and the entry of water and air
into the soil.   In coarse-textured sandy soils, sludge,,can  increase the
water-holding capacity  of the soil, and  provide  chemical  sites for nu-
trient exchange  and adsorption.

The  municipality(ies)  generating  the sludge  may benefit,  because,  in
many cases,  agricultural  utilization is  less expensive than alternative
methods  of  sludge  management/disposal.   The general  public may benefit
from cost  savings  resulting  to  the municipality(ies) and  the farmers
using the sludge.   The  recycling of nutrients  is attractive to citizens
concerned with the environment, and  resource conservation.

A major  advantage  of  agricultural  utilization  is that usually the muni-
cipality does not  have to purchase land.  Further, the land  utilized for
sludge  application  is kept  in  production.  Its value for future uses is
not impaired, and  it remains on the  tax roles.

A final  advantage  is that  agricultural  utilization  usually takes place
in a  relatively rural setting.   The sludge  application  operations are
similar to conventional  farming operations, and are not likely to create
public complaints  if properly  managed.
     2.2.3  Limitations and
            Utilization
Potential  Disadvantages of Agricultural
Sludge  may contain  constituents which  are potentially  harmful  to the
crops themselves  (phytotoxicity), or to animals  and  humans who consume
the  crops.   To avoid this problem,  the  quantity of sludge which may be
applied  per  unit  of land area,  both  on  an annual and cumulative basis,
should be controlled in accordance with regulatory  limits or guidelines,
and  good management  practices,  as detailed in Chapter 6.   Cadmium  (Cd),
a  sludge constituent of widespread  concern,  has been extensively  stud-
ied.   Its  application  to cropland is  regulated  (see  Chapters 4 and 6).
In  general,  municipalities which  collect  and treat substantial amounts
of  industrial  wastes from manufacturing industries may generate sludge
which contains  relatively high  levels of  potentially harmful constitu-
ents.  (See Appendix A for typical sludge characteristics.)  These muni-
cipalities  should  carefully  review the limitations placed on sludge ap-
plication  to  cropland  (Section  6.4  of Chapter  6)  before initiating an
agricultural utilization program.
                                   2-5

-------
 Sludge application  rates  for agricultural  utilization  (dry  unit  weight
 of sludge  applied  per unit  of land area)  are usually relatively  low.
 Thus,  large land areas may be  needed, requiring the  cooperation  of  many
 individual  land owners.   In  addition, the scheduling  of  sludge transport
 and application scheduling for agricultural  planting, harvesting, etc.,
 plus  adverse climatic conditions,  will  require careful  management.   If
 the farms accepting sludge are numerous  and  widespread,  an  expensive and
 complicated sludge  distribution system may be required.

 2.3 Application to Forest Lands

     2.3.1   Purpose and Definition

 Except for  certain  areas  in  the Great Plains  and the  southwest, forested
 lands  are abundant  and well  distributed throughout  most  of the  United
 States.   Many  major municipalities are located in  close  proximity  to
 forests;  in fact,  it  is  estimated that  close to  one-third of the  land
 within the  standard  metropolitan  areas   is  forested.    Furthermore,  ap-
 proximately  two-thirds of all  forest land in the  United States is  com-
 mercial  timberland  (12).    Thus,  the application  of sludge  to   forest
 soils  has  the  potential  to  be  a  major  sludge  utilization/disposal
 option.

 Unlike agricultural utilization,  sludge  application  to  forest lands  is
 not a  common practice.  In 1982,  demonstration projects were  ongoing  in
 several  regions of  the  country (see  Chapter 7).    These  demonstration
 projects  strongly indicate that forest application of sludge is a  feasi-
 ble  option.   However, the  technical  data  base needed to design  such
 projects  is  incomplete.  Users  of this manual  who are considering  sludge
 application  to  forest  land are advised  to contact  the cities, agencies,
 etc.,  listed in  Chapter 7 to  obtain updated information.

 Three  categories of forest lands may be  available for sludge disposal:

     •     Recently cleared land prior to planting.
     •     Newly established  plantations  (about 3 to 10 years  old).
     t     Established forests.

 The availability  of sites  and the  relative advantages and  disadvantages
 of  each  approach will  determine which option  or combination of options
 is best for a given  situation.

     2.3.2  Advantages of Forest Land Utilization

 Sludge contains  nutrients  and essential  micronutrients  often lacking  in
 forest  soils.    Demonstration projects  have   shown  greatly accelerated
tree growth  resulting  from sludge  application to both newly established
plantations  and  established  forests.   In addition,  sludge  contains  or-
 ganic matter which  can improve the condition of forest soils by increas-
 ing the  permeability of fine-textured clay  soil,  or by increasing  the
water-holding capacity of sandy soils.
                                   2-6

-------
Since forests are not a  food  chain  crop,  there are fewer public health-
related concerns with the plant uptake  of  sludge constituents than with
agricultural use of  sludge.   In addition, research  indicates that some
tree •• species are very tolerant to constituents in sludge (e.g., metals)
which ,may be harmful  (phytotoxic)  to certain agricultural crops.

Municipality(ies) located near  forest  lands  may benefit, because forest
land utilization may be  less  expensive  than  alternate methods of sludge
management/disposal.   The  general  public may  benefit  from  cost savings
realized by  the municipality(ies)  and the commercial  growers using the
sludge.   The recycling  of nutrients  is  attractive  to  environmentally
concerned citizens.   For example, Seattle,  Washington,  is  developing a
long-term program to apply sludge  to forest lands in a systematic, well-
managed program.   For Seattle, the  proposed program  appears  to be the
least  expensive method   of  sludge  utilization/disposal, and  has strong
public support.   Since  forests are perennial,  the  scheduling of sludge
applications is not as complex as  it may be for agricultural utilization
programs when  planting   and  harvesting  cycles  must  be  considered.   In
some cases, the sludge application to forest soils may be a one-time ap-
plication, or applications may be  scheduled at 3- to 5-year intervals.

A final  advantage  of forest  land  utilization is that the  municipality
usually does not have to pay for acquiring land.

     2.3.3  Limitations  and Potential Disadvantages of Forest Land
            Utilization

Since  sludge  application to forest  lands  is  not widely practiced, the
designer of a proposed new program will probably have few regulations or
nearby existing similar  programs to  use  for  guidance.  This information
gap may necessitate substantial preliminary effort with regulatory agen-
cies, forest land owners, and  the  general  public to obtain approval for
a proposed new program.

It  may  be  difficult to  control  public access  to  sludge-amended forest
lands.   The public is  accustomed  to free access to  forested areas for
recreational purposes, and may tend to ignore posted signs.
Control  of  public  access  is needed  for  up  to  12 months
sludge is sprayed on forested areas. ,
fences, etc.
after liquid
Access  into  some forest  lands  may  also  be difficult  for conventional
sludge  application  equipment.   Terrain  may  be uneven  and obstructed.
Access  roads may  have  to  be  built  and/or specialized sludge application
equipment used, or developed.

2.4  Application for Reclamation of Disturbed and Marginal Lands

     2.4.1  Purpose and Definition

The surface mining of coal, exploration for minerals, generation of mine
spoils  from underground mines,  and tailings from mining operations have
                                   2-7

-------
 created  over 1.5 million  ha (3.7 million  ac)  of drastically  disturbed
 land.   The properties of these drastically disturbed and marginal  lands
 vary considerably from  site  to  site.   Their inability to  support  vegeta-
 tion is the  result  of several factors:

     •      Lack  of  nutrients -  The soils  have low N, P, K, and/or micro-
            nutrient levels.

     •      Physical   properties  - Stony  or  sandy materials  have  poor
           water-holding   capacity  and   low  cation,  exchange  capacity
            (CEC).    Clayey soils have  poor infiltration, permeability,
           and drainage.

     t     Chemical  properties  -  The pH of mine  soils,  tailings, and
           some  drastically  disturbed  soils  range from  very acidic to
           alkaline.   Potentially phytotoxic levels of  Cu,  Zn, Fe, and
           salts may  be present.

     •     Organic  matter  -  Little, if any, organic matter is present.

     •     Biological properties  - Soil biological activity is  generally
           reduced.

     •     Topography -  Many of  these  lands  are characterized by  steep
           slopes which are  subject to excessive  erosion.

 Historically, reclamation  of these  lands  is accomplished by grading the
 surface to slopes that minimize erosion and facilitate revegetation.  In
 some cases, topsoil is,added.   Soil amendments such as lime and fertili-'
 zer are  added,  and  grass, legumes, and/or  trees  are  planted.  Although
 these methods are sometimes  successful, numerous  failures have  occurred,
 primarily  because   of the very  poor  physical,  chemical,  or  biological
 properties of these disturbed lands.

 There have been a number of  successful land reclamation projects involv-
 ing the  use of  sludge  or  sludge compost.  Most  have  been  conducted on
 strip-mined land or mine tailings in the  Eastern  coal  states of Pennsyl-
 vania, Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia, and Alabama.   Projects in Ven-
 ango,  Somerset,  Westmoreland,  and  Lackawanna   Counties,  Pennsylvania,
 have involved  reclamation  of bituminous  and  anthracite  strip-mine  soil
banks with sludge or  sludge  compost.   The soils were backfilled, recon-
toured  without  topsoil, and treated with  lime to raise  the  pH to  7.
 Sludge  was  applied  at  rates  commensurate  with  the  physical/chemical
 characteristics of the mine  soils and state guidelines.

Similar  reclamation projects have been  conducted at Fort  Martin,  West
 Virginia;  Contrary  Creek,  Virginia   (abandoned  pyrite mine  tailings);
 Fulton County, Illinois (Prairie project); and the Shawnee National  For-
est (PALZO Tract),  Illinois.   No serious  ground water  degradation prob-
 lems associated  with sludge  application  has  been documented  at  any  of
these sites.
                                  2-8

-------
Typically,  sludge  is  applied  only  once  to  land  reclamation  project
sites.  Therefore, an ongoing program of sludge application to disturbed
lands requires that  a planned  sequence  of  additional  sites be available
for the life of the program.  This objective may be achieved through ar-
rangements  with  land owners  and mining  firms  active  in the  area,  or
through the planned sequential  rehabilitation of existing disturbed land
areas.  In  some  cases, reclaimed  areas  may be used for agriculture pro-
duction using agronomic rates of sludge application.

     2.4.2  Advantages of Utilizing Disturbed and Marginal Lands

This  option may  be  extremely  attractive  in  areas where  disturbed and
marginal lands exist because of the dual  benefit to the municipality in
disposing of  its  sludge,  and to the  environment  through  reclamation of
unsightly, largely useless land areas.

Sludges have  several characteristics which  make them  suitable  for re-
claiming and  improving disturbed  lands  and marginal  soils.   One of the
most  important  is  the  sludge  organic  matter  which (1)  improves  soil
physical  properties by  improving  granulation, reducing  plasticity and
cohesion, and  increasing  water-holding  capacity;  (2) increases the soil
cation  exchange   capacity;  (3) supplies  plant  nutrients;  and  (4) in-
creases and buffers soil  pH.

The natural  buffering  capacity and pH of  most  sludges  will  improve the
acidic or moderately alkaline  conditions  found  in many  mine soils.  Im-
mobilization  of  heavy metals  is  pH-dependent, so sludge application re-
duces  the  potential for  acidic, metal-laden runoff, and/or  leachates.
Sludge  is  also  desirable,  because  the  nutrients  contained  therein may
substantially reduce commercial  fertilizer needs.   Furthermore, sludge
helps to increase the number and activity of  soil microorganisms.

The amount of sludge applied in a single sludge application can often be
greater for land reclamation than for agricultural utilization, provided
that the quantities  applied do not pose  a  serious risk of future plant
phytotoxicity  or unacceptable  nitrate  leaching  into a  potable ground
water  aquifer,   and  regulatory agency  approval  is  granted.    In  some
cases, serious degradation  of  surface and  ground water  may exist at the
proposed  site,  and  a  relatively  heavy  sludge  addition  with  subsequent
revegetation can be justified as improving an already bad situation.
The municipality  usually  does  not have  to purchase land for reclamation
projects.   In  addition,  disturbed  or  marginal lands are usually located
in rural, relatively remote areas.

     2.4.3  Limitations and Potential Disadvantages of Disturbed or
            Marginal Land Reclamation

Plant species selected for  use  in  revegetation should be carefully sel-
ected  for  their  tolerance to  sludge  constituents and their suitability
to local soil and climate conditions.  If crops intended for animal feed
or human consumption are  planted, the same limitations  (e.g., Cd) exist
as apply to agricultural   utilization  of sludge.
                                   2-9

-------
 Disturbed lands,  especially  old abandoned mining sites, often  have  ir-
 regular, excessively eroded  terrain.   Extensive grading and .other  site
 preparation steps may be necessary to prepare the site for  sludge appli-
 cation.   Similarly, disturbed  lands often  have irregular patterns  of
 soil  characteristics.   This may  cause  difficulties  in  sludge  applica-
 tion, revegetation, and future  site monitoring.

 Only  a  few states  have  developed specific regulations  (e.g.,  Pennsyl-
 vania,  Illinois)  or  guidelines  (e.g.,  New York) for  sludge  application
 to disturbed or  marginal  lands.   Therefore, many proposed new  projects
 may be faced with  an  extensive  preliminary pioneering effort to  obtain
 regulatory agency approvals.

 2.5  Dedicated  Land Disposal

      2.5.1  Purpose and Definition

 The definition  of a dedicated  land disposal  (OLD)  site is less clear
 than  the other  options described in the preceding sections.  Generally,
 a  OLD project has the  following  characteristics:

      •      The  primary  purpose is  long-term sludge application,  i.e.,  it
            is  a  dedicated disposal  site  for  landspreading  of  sludge.
            Any  additional  site  activities  or benefits, such as  the pro-
            duction of  agricultural crops or improvement  of soil  charac-;
            teristics, are  secondary to the  sludge disposal activity.

      •      Normally,  sludge  application rates  are  substantially  higher
            than   for, other   options,  e.g.,  agriculture, forest,  etc.
            Obviously,  higher  application rates  reduce the  area of land
            required.

      t      Usually,  the municipality(ies)  owns or has a  long-term lease
            on the land, which allows  the,agency substantial  discretion
            in use of the land for  sludge disposal purposes.  .

      •      Usually,  the site  needs to be  more  carefully designed, man-
            aged,  and monitored  than sites  where sludge is  applied  at
            agronomic rates as a fertilizer  amendment to cropland, forest
            land,  etc.

      t      Site  design  and operations  are focused,  upon  containing  any
           environmentally  detrimental   sludge  constituents within  the
           dedicated disposal  site.  Surface runoff, ground water leach-
           ate,  and harvested crops  (if any)  are carefully controlled.
           Strict  controls are virtually always required, and permitting
           procedures often involve many agencies.

A special case included within the OLD site definition is when sludge is
applied to  cropland at higher than agronomic rates  (see Section 2.2.1
for definition  of agronomic rates).   Regulations generally  require that
                                   2-10

-------
projects  involving  sludge utilization  at  greater than  agronomic  rates
implement an extensive facility management plan to prevent adverse  envi-
ronmental impacts,  and  impose  restrictions on the end  use  of the  crops
grown.   In  1981, there  were  at least  20  operational  OLD sites in  the
United States.

     2.5.2  Advantages of Dedicated Land Disposal

Generally,  sludge  is applied  to  OLD sites  at high annual  application
rates for many years; smaller  land  areas  are thus required than for the
other land  application   options discussed  in previous  sections.   Since
less land area is required, the municipality may be able to find a suit-
able site close to the POTW(s), thereby reducing sludge transport costs.
Pipeline transport  of sludge in lieu  of vehicle transport is often fea-
sible.

Sludge quality in terms  of  potential  contaminant  concentrations is usu-
ally  less  of  a constraint  with this option.   Therefore, sludges  which
are not  of  suitable quality for the other options may be acceptable for
OLD.

The municipality normally owns or controls the OLD site(s) under a long-
term  lease.   This eliminates the  need for contractual  arrangements with
privately  owned  farms,   tree  growers, mining  operations, etc., usually
required by the alternative options.  In addition, direct control of the
land  allows  much  greater  control  of  sludge application  scheduling,
rates,  and  procedures.    On-site  construction  (e.g.,  grading, drainage,
storage,  fencing,   roads,  etc.)  can  be implemented to  optimize future
operations without  concern for its  impact on a private owner.  The muni-
cipality  has  the  security of  an  assured long-term facility dedicated to
sludge disposal as  its primary objective.
     2.5.3
Limitations
Disposal
and Potential  Disadvantages of Dedicated Land
Sludge  application rates  for OLD  sites are  usually much  higher than
those  required for vegetation  growth and/or  soil  enhancement.   There-
fore,  sludge constituents  accumulate  at  a higher rate on the site.  This
requires:

     t     Generally, that the land must be purchased or leased, result-
           ing in  land costs  to the municipality and probable removal of
           the  land from  the tax  rolls.    Sometimes  land condemnation
           proceedings may be necessary to acquire an appropriate site.
           Objections by neighboring  property  owners are also likely.

     •     Sites  be carefully designed, constructed, and managed to re-
           tain  on site the  excess  sludge  constituents  which could de-
           •grade  the  surrounding  environment.   Surface water runoff and
           ground  water leachate  must  usually be  controlled,  often by
           construction  of relatively expensive collection systems, re-
           tention structures, etc.
                                   2-11

-------
      •     Buildup  of metals, salts, etc., in the soil may make  the  OLD
            site  soil  unsuitable  for  future use in agricultural  produc-
            tion,  forestry,  etc., because  of  phytotoxicity.    Deed  re-
            strictions prohibiting future  agriculture  use  of the site  may
            be  required.

      •     Regulatory agency  requirements for  monitoring  of potential
            ground water  and  surface  water  contamination are usually more
            extensive  than required  for the other  land application  op-
            tions.

 Because  large quantities  of  sludge  are  continually  applied at  a  OLD
 site,  the  potential is higher for  nuisances  such  as odor, noise, dust,
 and  spills.   A  OLD site must generally  be carefully located, managed,
 and  operated to avoid complaints  by the public.

 Permitting  procedures may be  complex and time-consuming, requiring  ex-
 tensive  site  investigations,  design  approvals,  reporting to regulatory
 agencies, and  closure/post-closure plans.

 2.6   Other  Sludge Utilization  Options

 There  are a number  of sludge land application practices which have been
 studied, but  to date have not been  used on a  large  scale.   Several  of
 these  options  possess sludge  utilization/disposal potential.

      2.6.1  Turf Farms

 The  nutrients  and  soil  amendment properties  of sludge make  it  poten-
 tially valuable and effective for use in sod production.   One advantage
 is that  the organic  N  in sludge is  released  and  becomes available  for
 plant  growth  over   a  relatively  long period of  time.   This  greatly  re-
 duces  the amount  and/or frequency of  inorganic  N  application.   Another
 advantage  is   that  turfgrass  is  a  non-food  chain  crop;  consequently,
 heavy  metal  uptake  is a  lesser  concern.   In  addition, turfgrasses  are
 generally more tolerant of soil heavy metal and  salt concentrations than
many other  crops.

The use of  sludge in  commercial sod production has great potential (29).
Dried or composted  sludges provide an ideal growth medium for most turf-
grasses.  Liquid sludges possess many of the same benefits, but are less
convenient to handle.

Seedling establishment  is more rapid  in  composted  sludge/soil  mixtures
than  with conventional  sod seeding  practices.   Sod  grown with  sludge-
compost/soil mixtures weighs  about  30 to  40  percent less than  normal
soil   sod  (29,  31,   32).   Hith surface  application  of composted  sludge,
little or no  herbicides are  generally  required.   Liquid  sludges often
contain viable  seeds  of undesirable plants, e.g.,  tomatoes,  which will
require weed control.
                                   2-12

-------
     2.6.2  Parks and Recreational  Areas

There have been two basic  approaches  to sludge use in parks and recrea-
tional' areas:   (1) land  reclamation followed  by park establishment, and
(2) use  of  sludge as  a  substitute for  conventional  fertilizers  in the
maintenance  of  established  parkland  vegetation.   Sludge can  supply  a
portion 'Of  the  nutrients  required to  maintain lawns,  flower  gardens,
shrubs and  trees, golf  courses, recreational  areas, etc.  (19,  31, 32,
33, 34).

Although  sludge  use can  be beneficial  for park maintenance, there are a
number of disadvantages associated with  its use:

     •     Liquid sludge application may be odorous, and presents poten-
           tial public health problems  from sludge-borne pathogens.

     •     The  use of  sludge on close-cut, highly maintained turf, such
           as  golf courses, may be aesthetically objectionable, because
           of a black  residue left on the  surface of the sod.

     •     Public relations  problems  dealing with popular misconceptions
           and  objections  to sludge use in public places may develop.

All  of the  above-listed objections are significantly minimized if  heat-
dried or  composted sludge  is used.

     2.6.3   Highway, Airport, and  Construction Site  Landscaping

The  construction  of highways, airports, major  buildings,  shopping malls,
etc.,  frequently creates  large  areas of marginal, eroded, or  generally
poor-quality soils.  Landscaping  is  required  to  improve•aesthetics and
control  erosion.  Sludge  is an excellent soil conditioner and nutrient
source.   All forms  of sludge  (i.e.,  liquid,  dewatered, dried, or com-
posted)  can  be mixed with these soils  before  planting to  provide a soil
environment  suitable  for vegetative  growth.  Sludges can also be used  in
lieu of  conventional fertilizers to provide many  of  the  nutrients needed
to maintain  the established vegetation  (19, 31, 33,  34).

2.7   References

  1.   U.S. General Accounting Office.   Sewage  Sludge  -- How Do We Cope
      With It?   Report to the  Congress.   CED-78-152, Washington,  D.C.,
      September 1978.   38 pp.

  2.   Galen,  G. R.  Federal  Regulations for Municipal  Sludge:   Impact  of
      EPA Rules and Regulations  on Land Application.  In:  National  Con-
      ference on  Municipal  and  Industrial Sludge  Utilization  and  Dis-
      posal,  Washington, D.C., May  1980.  pp.  1-3.
                                   2-13

-------
  3.  U.S.  EPA.   Sludge Treatment and  Disposal,  Vol.
      012.   Environmental  Research Information Center.
      October 1978.   155 pp.   (Available from National
      tion  Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,  PB-299  594)

  4.  California Department  of  Health.    Consideration
      stances in Sewage Sludge Added to Soil  That  Will
      Crop:   A  Public  Health  Perspective.   Sacramento,
      pp.
                                                  2.   EPA-625/4-78-
                                                   Cincinnati,  Ohio,
                                                 Technical  Informa-
                                                   of Chemical Sub-
                                                  Produce an  Edible
                                                   March 1978.   230
  5.
  6.
  7.
  8.
CH2M  Hill.
Wastewater
1976.  133
   Biogro
Treatment
PP.
                      Program  Organic  Solids Reuse.    Willow  Lake
                     Plant, Salem, Oregon.  Corvallis, Oregon, June
Braude, 6.,  G.  P. Sagik, and  C.
Using  Sludge for  Crops.   Water
1978.
                                  A. Sorber.
                                   and Sewage
                                   Human  Health  Risk of
                                   Works,  125(2):62-64,
Pierce,  R.  6.   Sewage
8(6):6-10,144, 1977.
              Sludge  for Agricultural  Use.    Waste  Age,
Hyde, H.  C.,  A.  L. Page, F. T.  Bingham,  and  R.  J.
of Heavy  Metals  in Sludge on Agricultural  Crops.
Control  Fed., 51:2475-2486, 1979.
                                         Mahler.   Effect
                                         J.  Water Pollut
 9.  Criteria  for  Classification  of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
     Practices.  Federal Register,  44:53438-53468,  September  13,  1979.

10.  Decker, A. M.,  J.  P.  Davidson, R. C. Hammond, S. D. Mohanty, R. L.
     Chaney,  and  T.  S.  Rumsey.    Animal  Performance on  Pastures Top-
     dressed with  Liquid  Sewage  Sludge and  Sludge Compost.   In:  Na-
     tional  Conference  on  Municipal  and  Industrial  Sludge  Utilization
     and Disposal, Washington, D.C., May 1980.  pp. 36-41.

11.  Fitzgerald, P. R.  An Evaluation of the Health of Livestock  Exposed
     to Anaerobically Digested Sludge  from a  Large Community.  In:  Na-
     tional  Conference  on  Municipal  and  Industrial  Sludge  Utilization
     and Disposal, Washington, D.C., May 1980.  pp. 32-36.

12.  Smith, W. H., and J.  0.  Evans.  Special  Opportunities and Problems
     in Using  Forest Soils for Organic Waste Application.   In:   Soils
     for Management  of  Organic Wastes  and Wastewaters.    L.  F.  Elliott
     and 0.  F.  Stevenson,-eds.   Soil  Science  Society of America, Madi-
     son, Wisconson, 1977.  pp.  428-454.

13.  Harris, A. R.   Physical  and Chemical Changes  in Forested Michigan
     Sand Soils Fertilized  with  Effluent and Sludge.   In:    Utilization
     of Municipal  Sewage  Effluent  and  Sludge  on Forest  and Disturbed
     Land.   W. E.  Sopper,  and S.  M. Kerr,  eds.  Pennsylvania State Uni-
     versity Press, University Park, 1979.   p. 155-161.
                                  2-14

-------
14.  Wooldridge, D. 0.,  and  J.  D. Stednick.   Effects of Sludge Irriga-
     tion on  Three Pacific  Northwest  Forest  Soils.   EPA-600/2-80-002,
     Municipality  of  Metropolitan  Seattle,  METRO,  Washington.   March
     1980.  188 pp.  (Available from National Technical  Information Ser-
     vice, Springfield, Virginia, PB80 204068)

15.  Sidle, R. C.  The Potential Use of Forest Land as a Sludge Disposal
     Site.  In:  Food, Fertilizer and Agricultural Residues, Proceedings
     of the  1977 Cornell Agricultural  Waste  Management  Conference.   R.
     C. Loehr,  ed.   Ann Arbor  Science,  Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977.  pp.
     199-215.

16.  Stednick, J.  D.,  and  D.  D. Wooldridge.  Effects of Liquid Digested
     Sludge Irrigation on the Soil of a Douglas Fir Forest.  In:  Utili-
     zation of  Municipal  Sewage Effluent and  Sludge  on  Forest and Dis-
     turbed  Land.   W.  E. Sopper,  and S.  N.  Kerr,  eds.    Pennsylvania
     State University Press, University Park,  1979.   pp. 47-60.

17.  Riekirk, H.,  et  al.   Effects of Dewatered Sludge Applications to a
     Douglas  Fir Forest Soil on the Soil, Leachate, and  Groundwater Com-
     position.   In:  Utilization of Municipal  Sewage  Effluent and Sludge
     on Forest  and Disturbed Land.  W.  E.  Sopper,, and S. N. Kerr, eds.
     Pennsylvania  State University  Press,  University Park, 1979.   pp.
     35-45.

18.  Edmonds, R. L., and D. W.  Cole, eds.   Use of  Dewatered  Sludge as an
     Amendment for  Forest  Growth:  Environmental,  Engineering,  and Econ-
     omic Analyses.   Bulletin  Nos. 1-3.   Center for Ecosystem Studies,
     University  of  Washington,  Seattle, April  1976-January 1980.  3 Vol-
     umes.

     Utilization of Municipal  Sewage  Effluent and Sludge on Forest and
     Disturbed  Land.   W.  E.  Sopper, and S. N. Kerr, eds.   Pennsylvania
     State University  Press,  University  Park,  1979.   pp.  423-443.

     Sopper,  W.  E., and  S.  N. Kerr.   Revegetation of Mined Land Using
     Wastewater  Sludge.   Public Works,  111(9):114-116, 1980.

     Mathias,  E. L.,  0. L.  Bennett, and P. E. Lundberg.  Use  of  Sewage
     Sludge  to Establish Tall  Fescue  on  Strip Mine  Spoils  in  West Vir-
     ginia.   In:  Utilization  of  Municipal  Sewage Effluent and  Sludge on
     Forest  and Disturbed Land.   W.  E.  Sopper,  and S.  N. Kerr, eds.
     Pennsylvania  State University  Press,  University Park, 1979.  pp.
     307-314.

 22.  Stucky,  D.  J., and J. Bauer.   Establishment,  Yield, and Ion  Accumu-
     lation  of  Several  Forage Species  on  Sludge-Treated Spoils of the
     Palzo  Mine.   In:    Utilization  of Municipal  Sewage   Effluent  and
     Sludge  on Forest  and  Disturbed  Land.   W.  E.  Sopper, and S. N.  Kerr,
     eds.   Pennsylvania  State  University Press,  University Park,  1979.
     pp.  379-387.
19.
20.
21.
                                    2-15

-------
23.
24.
25.
26.
      Sopper, W.
      Land Using
      Conference
      March 1979.
E., and S. N. Kerr.
Municipal  Sludges.
on  Municipal  Sludge
  pp.  228-237.
Criteria for Revegetation of Mined
In:   Proceedings of  8th National
Management, Miami  Beach, Florida,
      Williams,  B.  D., and P.  E.  Packer.  Sewage Sludge and Other Organic
      Materials  as Amendments for  Revegetation  of Spent Oil  Shale.   In:
      Utilization of  Municipal Sewage  Effluent  and Sludge  on  Forest  and
      Disturbed  Land.  W.  E.  Sopper,  and S.  N.  Kerr,  eds.   Pennsylvania
      State University Press,  University Park, 1979.   pp.  353-358.
      U.S.  EPA.   Process Design Manual  for Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
      EPA-625/1-79-011,   Center  for  Environmental  Research  Information,
                         September  1979.    1,135  pp.   (Available  from
                         Information Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,  PB80
     Cincinnati,  Ohio,
     National Technical
     200546)
      Sacramento  Area  Consultants.    Sewage  Sludge Management  Program.
      Volume  I:    SSMP Final  Report,  Work  Plans,  and  Source  Survey.
      Sacramento  Regional  County  Sanitation District, Sacramento,  Cali-
      fornia,  September 1979.  (Available from  National Technical  Infor-
      mation Service,  Springfield, Virginia,  PB80 166739).

 27.   Brown  and  Caldwell.    Preliminary  Draft:   Colorado Springs  ,Long-
      Range Sludge  Management Study.   City of Colorado  Springs,  Colorado,
      April 1979.

 28.   Murray,  J.  J.,  J. C.  Patterson, and D.  J.  Wehner.   Use  of  Sewage
      Sludge Compost  in Turfgrass Production.   In:  National Conference
      on  Municipal  and Industrial  Sludge Utilization and Disposal,  Wash-
      ington, D.C., May 1980.  pp. 66-70.

 29.   Abron-Robinson,  L. A.,  C.  Lue-Hing,  and E. J. Martin.   The  Produc-
      tion of  Non-Food-Chain  Crops  Using Sewage Sludge:  A Cost Compari-
      son Analysis. . In:  National Conference on  Municipal and Industrial
      Sludge Utilization  and Disposal, Washington,  D.C.,  May 1980.  pp.
      97-101.

 30.   Sopper, W.  E., and S.  N. Kerr.  Mine Land  Reclamation with  Munici-
      pal Sludge—Pennsylvania's  Demonstration Program.   In:    Reference
      19.  pp.  55-74.

31.   Hornick,   S.  B.,   J. J.  Murray, R. L.  Chaney, L. J.  Sikora, J. F.
      Parr, W.  D.  Burge,  6.  B. Will son,  C.  F.  Tester.    Use of  Sewage
      Sludge Compost for Soil Improvement and  Plant  Growth.   USDA,  Sci-
      ence and Education Administration Agricultural Reviews and Manuals,
     ARM-NE-6, August  1979.  10 pp.

32.  Murray,  J. J.   Use of Composted Sewage  Sludge in Turf Grass  Produc-
     tion.  In:   Proceedings of Waste  Water Conference,  Chicago,  Illi-
     nois.  American  Society of Golf Course Architects, November  1979.
                                  2-16

-------
33.  Sanderson, K.  C.5  and W. C.  Martin.   1974.   Performance  of  Woody
     Ornamentals  in  Municipal   Compost  Medium  Under  Nine  Fertilizer
     Regimes.  Hort. Science, 9:242-243.

34.  Annon.   Using Municipal  and Agricultural Waste  for  the Production
     of Horticultural Crops.   Proceedings  of a  Symposium,  1980.   Hort.
     Science, 15(a):161-178.
                                   2-17

-------

-------
                                CHAPTER  3

                          PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
3.1  Introduction

A community's willingness to cooperate with a sludge-to-land application
project varies with  its  perceptions  of  the project's potential  benefits
and costs.   For a  land  application project to  gain public acceptance,
the community must determine that the benefits are greater than  any pos-
sible or perceived burdens (e.g., odors, noise, truck traffic, etc.).

A major public acceptance barrier which  has  surfaced in many documented
case studies  is  the widely  held perception that  sludge  is malodorous,
highly contaminated, and otherwise repulsive.  Experience has shown that
such public apprehension can  be  partially  allayed through public educa-
tion campaigns,  adequate planning,  and, most  importantly,  small  demon-
stration or pilot programs (1).

Planning for public participation in a land application project  involves
careful and early evaluation  of  who  should be  involved, to what degree,
and for  what  purpose.   Clearly  defined objectives  will  simplify deci-
sions, and will  help to  keep  the program from becoming too diffused and
ineffective.  The following  discussion  presents  a summary  of the major
considerations necessary to  implement a  successful  program.   A  more de-
tailed discussion of public  participation  programs is presented in Ref-
erence (5).   Potential mitigation of  public  acceptance problems is dis-
cussed in Reference (1).

     3.1.1  Objectives

The major objectives of a public participation program include:

     1.  Providing  the  community with  sufficient  technical  information
         to clearly  define the advantages  and  disadvantages of  the pro-
         posed project.  Technical information should be presented in an
         easily  understandable  manner  to  ensure  communication between
         the  public,  engineer,   planner,  consultant,  regulatory,  and
         other officials.

     2.  Convincing landowners who are potential  participants that it is
         in their best interest to participate in the project.

     3.  Correcting any misinformation that exists within the community.

     4.  Keeping the community informed of plans as they develop.

     5.  Soliciting suggestions and support from both the proposed proj-
         ect participants and their neighbors.
                                   3-1

-------
Most  programs  will  aim at the  first  of  these objectives, and many will
pursue the  second and third.   The fourth and fifth objectives, taken in
conjunction  with  the first three, suggest  a  willingness  to involve the
community, to  listen to and  use their suggestions, and to make the pub-
lic part of  the planning team.  The perspective of the engineering/plan-
ning team should be  one of cooperation rather than confrontation.

     3.1.2   Elements  of Successful Public Involvement Programs

One should begin with the existing sludge management system and the need
to change it.  Citizens should be told how the wastewater treatment pro-
cess  functions,  and what it  means  to the  community.   Sludge should be
defined, along with  an explanation of where it originates and its compo-
sition and volume before and  after  treatment.  Sludge management should
be related to the public's demand for clean water  (2).

Agency and other project personnel  should be  trained in public contact.
Personnel should  be well prepared to translate  technical  concepts into
simple, clear  terms; they  should also be prepared to deal  with hostile
audiences.   The attitudes  displayed by  project  staff members do much to
create credibility or engender hostility.

The public's  real  concerns should be  identified.   Often,  publicly ex-
pressed  concerns  mask the real  reasons for  opposition.    For  example,
property owners adjacent to  a sludge application  site  may  sound alarms
about ground water  pollution  when their  major concern is  actually prop-
erty value depreciation (2).

     3.1.3  Participants

It is essential that a  group  of  knowledgeable and enthusiastic  resource
people participate in a land application program.  This group should in-
clude the following participants (9):

     •    University staff  and federal  and state experts who can provide
          valuable  research  and  technical  information  on  land  applica-
          tion of sludge, and whose credibility  usually reduces concern
          and misunderstanding among concerned individuals or groups.

     •    POTW managers  and   city officials  who  can  provide background
          information on municipal  sludge problems.

     •    Local or  state cooperative  extension staff who can assist  in
          the organizational  aspects of  community meetings.

     •    Various  agency  personnel,  including  health  officials,  soil
          conservation  staff,  state   environmental   protection  staff,
          etc., who  will  express their  concerns  and policies as  they in-
          fluence  the design  of  a proposed  project.
                                   3-2

-------
Other local organizations/persons who should be involved in the develop-
ment of a land application project can include:

     •    Recipients  (e.g.,  farmers,  tree  growers,  mine  landowners,
          etc.) who will use the sludge, and their neighbors.

     •    Consulting engineers, and waste management firms.

     •    Farming,  forestry,  mining,  and  other  local  organizations,
          e.g., Farm Bureau, Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

     •    Crop  processors  and produce  users  (via business,  trade, and
          consumer organizations).

     •    News/communications media.

The  actual  project participants,  whether on  an  active or  an informa-
tional basis,  will vary with the choice of land application option.  In
each  case,  a  broad spectrum of  participants  should  be considered  early
in  the  project.   The  number of participants  can  be narrowed later, as
necessary.

     3.1.4  Methods

A  number of  methods  are available  for communicating the  need  for and
feasibility of a  proposed  project,  and the technical information  needed
to  understand the project  and to gain the support of  individuals  within
the  community.  Not all will be  needed  in  all  cases,

The  information transfer process must address all  of the advantages and
disadvantages of  sludge use  on land.Any  potential  problem which  is not
publicly  addressed at  the  outset of ,a project will  likely be  brought to
the  attention of  the  media, resulting in the  possible reduction of pub-
lic  support and the Toss of  the  project  leadership's credibility.

           3.1.4.1 Formal Methods

     •     Public  hearings  or meetings  may be required and/or desirable
           for most types of  projects.

      •     Workshops  can bring together professional  planners  and  public
           officials with  landowners and others who will be directly in-
           volved.  Specialized  workshops, such as  one involving  land-
           owners  who have  expressed tentative interest  and others who
           have already participated  in  a  similar  project, may be  espe-
           cially  beneficial.

      •     An  Advisory Committee, composed of  representatives  from local
           government,   consumer/business  organizations,  environmental
           protection  organizations,  processors,   and  planners,  can be
           useful  for maintaining  contact with both the general  public
                                   3-3

-------
           and  interested  organizations.   Such  a  committee  should  be
           formed early in the  planning  stages.   Its meetings should  be
           scheduled such that  there  is time  for  its views to be  heard
           and carefully considered before  final  decisions  are  made.

      •    A mailing list is  helpful for  disseminating information as the
           project proceeds.   All  interested  persons and  organizations
           should be included.   The list  should  be kept current, and  a
           continuing effort should be  made to keep  all  who are inter-
           ested informed.

      •    Advertising  and public  relations techniques,  such as press re-
           leases, pamphlets, and brochures;   and  radio,  television,  or
           newspaper feature  stories and "advertisements.

           3.1.4.2  Informal  Methods

      •    Open  meetings, less  structured  than public hearings or work-
           shops,  can be held in conjunction with meetings  of an Advisory
           Committee  or other interested organizations, such as the Town
           Council,  etc.  These meetings provide a more  relaxed forum for
           the exchange of information  and views.   They  also  offer the
           professional  planner/engineer  with  an   ideal  opportunity  to
           listen  to the community and to become aware of misinformation
           which  may exist  concerning  potential problems associated with
           land  application of sludge.

      •    Personal  contacts  or  interviews with  potential  participants
           may be the most effective  means of  soliciting participation.
           Contacts  can be  made  in cooperation  with  local  planners  or
           county  extension agents  who are  already familiar  with the com-
           munity.

      •    Demonstrations and field days can create  opportunities for the
           public  to  see sludge  utilized  as a  resource.  Allowing people
           to  see, feel, and smell  treated, stabilized sludge  can often
           be  good public relations.

      •    Traveling  displays can  be  set  up to  inform the  public  in  a
           visually  interesting  manner;  these  displays can be  moved  to
           such  locations as  public  libraries,  shopping  centers,  etc.
           (2).

      3.1.5  Timing

A public  participation  program  should begin very  early  in the develop-
ment  of a  proposed  project,  and  should  continue  throughout the project.
All persons concerned should have  the opportunity to express their views
before any decisions affecting the general  public are made.  They should
then be kept  informed and involved throughout  the course of the project.
                                   3-4

-------
3.2  Public Participation Considerations Specific to Agricultural  Utili-
     zation

Project implementation  requires  acceptance and  approval  by  local  offi-
cials, farmers,  landowners,  and  other affected  parties.   Public  resis-
tance to agricultural utilization of  sludge  can  stem from fear that the
sludge may  contain  concentrations  of  organic  or  inorganic  substances
that could be  toxic  to  plants, or accumulate  in animals  or  humans con-
suming crops grown on sludge-treated lands.

The most critical  aspect of the program  is  securing the  involvement of
farmers who  will  utilize  the ;sludge.   How this  involvement is  to be
secured during  the planning process depends on  the individual  communi-
ties'  involved;  their past  experience  with  sludge  application  systems;
overall public  acceptance  of the concept;  and the  extent to which re-
lated or tangential environmental concerns are voiced in the community.

Generally,  a low-key approach is most effective.   The various approaches
can consist of one or more of the following steps:
          Check with the POTW to
          sludge in the past.
.see if any local farmers have requested
     •    Have the  local  Soil  Conservation  Service  or agricultural  ex-
          tension service agent poll various individuals in the area for
          expressions of interest.

     t    Describe the project in the local newspaper, asking interested
          parties to contact the extension agent.

     •    Personally visit the identified parties and  solicit their par-
          ticipation.   A telephone  contact  will elicit  little support
          unless followed by a personal visit.

The use of demonstration plots is very effective in promoting the utili-
zation  of sewage  sludge  by  farmers.   If farmers can compare crops grown
on  sludge-treated soil  with  these grown  with conventional fertilizer,
their willingness to use sludge will increase  markedly (3).  The follow-
ing  questions regarding  sludge  utilization  need  to  be  discussed with
landowners:
          How  long  is  the  landowner
          trial  period of  1 or  more
          until  one or both parties
          period of time)?
      willing  to participate  (e.g., a
      years;  open-ended participation;
     decide  to quit;  for  a prescribed
          What  crops are  traditionally  planted,
          crop rotation?
                 and what  is the usual
           If  the  sludge characteristics were such that a different
           is  desirable, would  the landowner  be willing to  plant
           crop?
                                   crop
                                   that
                                   3-5.

-------
          Which
          gram?
fields would be included in the  sludge  application  pro-
     •    Under  what  conditions would the  landowner  accept the sludge,
          what time of the year, and in what quantities?

     •    Is the  landowner willing  to  pay  a nominal  fee for the sludge,
          or accept it free  of  charge,  or  must the municipality pay the
          landowner for accepting sludge?

     •    Is  the  landowner  willing to  engage  in special  procedures,
          e.g., maintaining soil pH at 6.5 or greater?

The public relations  program should emphasize  both the benefits and the
potential problems of applying sludge on cropland.

3.3  Public Participation Considerations Specific to Forest Utilization

No  operational   full-scale  forest  application programs  in the  United
States  were  identified at the  time this  manual  was  prepared  in  1982,
although  there  were  a few such  programs planned  for  implementation  in
the near  future.   Thus,  proponents of a new  program  will  have obvious
handicaps in  gaining  acceptance of new, relatively unproven  sludge ap-
plication techniques.   On the  positive  side, proponents  can  emphasize
the successful forest application demonstration projects listed in Table
7-1, and  the basic similarities  between  forest application and agricul-
tural  application.

To  help  achieve acceptance,  a forest application  program  should satis-
factorily address the following questions:

     •    How will public access be controlled in the application  area
          for an  appropriate period  (normally 12  to 18  months)  after
          sludge application?  Forested areas are often used for various
          recreational activities  (e.g., picnicking,   hiking,  gathering
          of forest products, etc.).  Even  privately owned  land is often
          viewed by the  public  as  accessible  for these purposes.   The
          owner of the land, private or  public,  will  have  to  agree to a
          method for  controlling public  access (e.g.,  fence,  chain  with
          signs, etc.).   The public, through  its  representatives,  must
          agree to restrictions  if the  land is publicly owned.

     t    Will  public  water supplies and  recreational  water resources  be
          adequately   protected   against  contamination?    This  concern
          should be covered  by  proper  siting, system  design,  and  moni-
          toring.   Public health   authorities  and regulatory  agencies
          must  be  satisfied  and  involved   in  the public  participation
          program.   Careful  consideration  must  be  given  to  municipal
          watersheds  and/or drinking water  recharge areas  to  avoid  con-
          tamination.
                                  3-6

-------
     •    Will  the applied sludge cause adverse  effects  to  the existing
          or future trees in the application area?   Based  on the avail-
          able  data from research and  demonstration  projects,  many tree
          species, with few exceptions, respond positively  to sludge ap-
          plication,  provided  the  sludge  is  not   abnormally high  in
          detrimental  constituents,  and proper  management  practices are
          followed.

     •    Unlike most agricultural  applications, there is much less con-
          cern  about possible food  chain transmission of  contaminants to
          man.    The consumption of  wild animals by hunters  and  their
          families will occur,  but  there is  little potential for contam-
          ination of meat from such  animals  through  contact with a prop-
          erly  managed sludge application  area.

3.4  Public Participation Considerations Specific to Disturbed Lands

Prior to the initiation of any reclamation project using  sludge, it will
likely be necessary to educate the public to  gain public acceptability.
The task may be  difficult with lands  disturbed by mining,, because local
opposition  to  mining  activity already exists  in many  cases.   This is
particularly true  if  the mining activity has  already created  some ad-
verse environmental problems,  such  as reduced  local  ground water qual-
ity, acid  mine  drainage, or serious  soil  erosion and sedimentation of
local streams.

Citizens,  regulatory  agencies, and  affected  private business entities
need to  participate in  the  planning  process  from  the beginning.   The
most  effective  results  are  usually  achieved  when   industry,  citizens,
planners, elected  officials, and state and  federal  agencies share their
experience, knowledge,  and  goals,  and jointly  create a  plan acceptable
to all.

Participation of  local  advisory  groups is helpful.    This  procedure was
used  successfully, in  developing  the  Pennsylvania  program for  using
sludge for  reclamation  of  mined  land.  The Pennsylvania advisory group
was  composed  of  farmers,  elected officials,  representatives  from the
Soil  Conservation District, Game  Commission,  Bureau  of  Forestry,  the
County Extension  Agent,  and  Community  Resources  Agents.  This group met
quarterly with project personnel, and independently monitored several of
the  pilot  demonstration  sludge projects over  a  2-year period.   The re-
sults of  their  independent monitoring  study,  which  included analyses of
sludge  delivered to several sites,  vegetation, soils,  and water, con-
vinced  them that the concept was technically  sound  and  environmentally
safe.   All  demonstrations  were highly successful and paved the way for
public  acceptance of  full-scale operations which are now  under  way in
Pennsylvania.

Obviously,  important participants are the owners of  the disturbed land.
For  a continuing program, it  is  usually  necessary  to make contractual
arrangements with the owner(s)  to  ensure  that  the areas  of  disturbed
                                   3-7

-------
 land  needed  for sludge  application  will  be available during  future years
 of  project operation.

 3.5  Public  Participation  Considerations Specific  to Dedicated  Land
      Disposal

 Virtually  all  proposed  dedicated  land  disposal   (OLD)  projects  will
 undergo  an  extensive public  participation process.   The project  propo-
 nents should  show that  the  OLD  option  is  the  most  suitable  project
 alternative  in terms of  economics^ technical  feasibility, and  environ-
 mental impact.

 Since OLD sites are normally intended for long-term use, adjacent  prop-
 erty  owners will be particularly concerned about potential odors,  patho-
 gens,  vectors,  noise, dust,  traffic,  aesthetics,  and other factors af-
 fecting  their  quality of  life and the  resale  value of their property.
 Proper design and  operational  management will help to eliminate  or  mini-
 mize  these concerns.   A large buffer area around the sludge application
 area  is  usually desirable.

 3.6   References

 1.  Deese,  P.   L.,  J.  R.  Miyares,  and  S.  Fogel.   Institutional   Con-
    straints and Public Participation Barriers to  Utilization of Munici-
    pal  Wastewater and Sludge for  Land  Reclamation  and Biomass Produc-
    tion.  A Report to the President's Council on  Environmental  Quality,
    December 1980.  104 pp.   (EPA 430/9-81-013; July 1981) MCD-81.
4.
5.
    Gibbs, C.  V.   How  to Build Support for  Public  Projects.
    City and County, December 1982.  pp. 38-42.
                                                            American
Miller, R.  H.,  T.  L. Logan, D.  L.  Forester,  and D. K. White.  Fac-
tors  Contributing  to the  Success of Land  Application Programs for
Municipal  Sewage  Sludge:   The Ohio  Experience.    Presented  at the
Water Poll. Control Fed. Annual Conference, Detroit, Michigan, Octo-
ber 4-9, 1981.

Sagik, B.  P., B. E.  Moore,  and C. A. Sorber.  Public Health Aspects
Related to the Land  Application  of Municipal Sewage  Effluents and
Sludges.   In:   Utilization of Municipal  Sewage  Effluent and Sludge
on Forest  and Disturbed Land.   W.  E. Sopper, and  S.  M. Kerr,  eds.
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979.  pp. 241-263.

U.S.   EPA.   Process  Design Manual  for  Municipal  Sludge Landfills.
EPA 625/1-78-010,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1979.
                                 3-8

-------
                                CHAPTER  4  •    .   .

             TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY  PLANNING
4.1  General

The process  of  planning a  sludge  land application project  begins  with
the collection  and  assessment of basic data  on  sludge characteristics.
The  sludge  characteristics  in  conjunction  with  estimated  application
rates can then be compared to applicable federal, state, and local regu-
lations for an  initial  assessment  of  sludge  suitability  for any of the
options discussed in Chapter  2.  The public's perception and acceptance
of such a proposed project, as well as land availability, transportation
modes, and  climatic  conditions must all be considered  and evaluated to
determine the feasibility of the proposed program.

Figure 4-1  presents  a  simplified flow diagram ,of  the steps  that should
typically be  followed  during  the  early planning  phases  of  a  proposed
project.  This  chapter  addresses each  of the  sections shown  on the flow
diagram.  Additional sources of information which may be needed through-
out the various project planning and design phases are listed in Section
4.6 and 4.7.

4.2  Sludge Characterization
The
the
    characterization  of  sludge  properties is a  necessary  first  step in
...... design of  a  land application system.   Estimates  of  current  and fu-
ture sludge quantities and quality are needed to determine land area re-
quirements, site life, application rates, storage facilities, and cost.
Information  about  the physical  characteristics  of sludge  is  needed to
select transportation  and  application  methods.   Chemical  and biological
characterization is required  to  determine the suitability of sludge for
land application; the  land application option(s)  which may be appropri-
ate for  utilization  or disposal;  appropriate sludge  application rates;
and monitoring parameters.  Consideration should  be given to the feasi-
bility of future changes in sludge processing and/or system design which
would make the sludge more desirable for  a land application option.

Appendix A  provides  detailed  information about  sludge characteristics;
Appendix C summarizes sludge sampling and analytical procedures.

     4.2.1   Physical  Characteristics of Sludge

The physical  characteristics  of  interest are solids  content, expressed
as percent  solids.   This  affects  the  potential  land  application system
design since:

     •     The higher the  sludge  solids content, the,lower the volume of
           sludge that  will  have to be  transported,  stored,  etc., be-
           cause less water must  be  handled.
                                   4-1

-------
           DETERMINE SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS;
           CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL

                     (SECTION 4.2)
                          I
           REVIEW APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND
           GUIDELINES FOR LAND APPLICATION OF
            SLUDGE,  FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

                      (SECTION 4.3)
                          1
           COMPARE SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS TO
          REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATE
            SUITABILITY OF SLUDGE FOR A LAND
             APPLICATION OPTION (CHAPTER 5)
           ESTIMATE LAND AREA REQUIRED FOR
         SLUDGE APPLICATION, AND AVAILABILITY
                OF LAND AREA NECESSARY

                      (SECTION 4.4)
                          I
            ASSESS SLUDGE TRANSPORT MODES
                AND THEIR FEASIBILITY

                    (SECTION 4.5)
Figure 4-1.
Simplified planning .steps for a sludge land
application option.
                            4-2

-------
     •     The type  of  transport  which  can be  utilized, e.g.,  truck
           type,  feasibility of pipeline transport, etc. (see Chapter 10
           for discussion).

     t     The  method  of   sludge  application  and  sludge  application
           equipment needed, e.g.,  type of  sludge  application  vehicle,
           need for incorporating the sludge into the soil, etc.

     •     The methods available to transfer and store sludge.

In general,  it  is less  expensive  to transport sludge  which  has  a high
solids content,  i.e.,  dewatered sludge, than  sludge with a  low  solids
content,  i.e.,  liquid sludge.   This cost  savings  in  sludge transport
should be weighed against the cost of dewatering the sludge.

Typically, liquid sludge has a solids content of 2 to 10 percent solids,
and dewatered  sludge  has a  solids  content of 20  to 40 percent solids,
which includes the chemical  additives.   Dried  or  composted sludge typi-
cally has a solids content over 50 percent.

     4.2.2  Chemical  Characteristics of Sludge

The chemical composition of  sludge varies  greatly between sewage treat-
ment plants  (POTW's); also  over  time from  a single POTW.  Sludge compo-
sition depends principally on  the  characteristics  of the raw sewage in-
fluent entering the POTW and the treatment processes used.  It is gener-
ally true that the more industrialized a  community  is, the  greater the
possibility that  heavy  metals  and persistent organics  will  be  a poten-
tial  problem for land application of sludge.

Routine  sludge  analyses for  land application  purposes  should include
total N,  ammonia  N,  total  P,  K, Cu,  Zn, Pb,  Cd,  and Ni.  Other parame-
ters  which  should be  analyzed for,  at least initially,  to  screen for
abnormal  sludge characteristics  are  Cr, B,  As,  Al, Co, Mo, sulfate, and
PCB's.   If  the presence  of relatively high concentrations of other pri-
ority pollutants  is  suspected,  e.g., halogenated  hydrocarbons, polynu-
clear  aromatic  compounds,  etc., then  these  parameters  should  also be
measured.
Table 4-1 presents concentrations of macronutients (N, P, K), heavy met-
als of  primary  concern,  and PCB's in  sludges  from several  sources (see
                more  complete  sludge  composition  data).   The degree of
                the  individual  components  should be  noted.    The data
                4-1 and Appendix A are intended primarily for illustra-
                While the data are useful in preliminary planning, anal-
ysis  of the  actual  sludge to  be  land-applied  is  necessary  for  design
purposes.   As discussed  in Appendix A,  many  sludges show a wide  varia-
tion  in composition  over time.  Thus,  it  may  be necessary to analyze a
substantial  number of sludge  samples over  a period  of 2 to 6 months or
longer  to provide a reliable estimate of sludge  composition.
\
Appendix A  for
variability  of
shown in Table
tive purposes.
                                   4-3

-------
                                      TABLE 4-1
                  CHEMICAL COMPOSITION  OF SEWAGE  SLUDGES  (2)(3)'


Component
Total N
NH4*-N
N03"-N
P
K
Cu
Zn
Ni
Pb
Cd
PCB's
Number
of
Samples
191
103
43
189
192
205
208
165
189
189
14


Range
<0.1-17.6
5xlO-4-6.76
2xlO'4-0.49
<0. 1-14.3
0.02-2.64
84-10,400
101-27,800
2-3,520
13-19,700
3-3,410
<0. 01-23.1


Median
f ppprpni" ^ '
3.30
0.09
0.01
2.30
0.30
fmn/\tn^}
^my/sg ; - - -
850
1,740
82
500
16
3.90


Mean

3.90
0.65
0.05
2.50
0.40
1,210
2,790
320
1,360
110
5.15
                * Data are from numerous types of sludges (anaerobic, activated
                 sludge lagoon, etc.) in 15 states: Michigan, New Hampshire,
                 New Jersey, Illinois, Minnesota, and Ohio (2); California,
                 Colorado, Georgia, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
                 Washington (3); and Wisconsin (2)(3).

                t Oven-dry solids basis.
The  chemical characterization of the  sludge affects the  following design
decisions:

     •      Whether the sludge can be  cost-effectively applied to land.

     •      Which  land application options are  technically  feasible.

     t      The  quantity  of sludge  which  can be applied  per  unit area of
            application site,  both annually and cumulatively.

     •      The  degree  of  regulatory  control   and  system monitoring  re-
            quired.
                                      4-4

-------
      4.2.3   Biological  Characteristics

 A detailed  discussion  of pathogens which  may be  present  in sludge  is
 provided  in  Appendix A.   Generally,  sludge  intended  for  land  application
 must  be stabilized by  chemical  or  biological  processes.   Stabilization
 greatly reduces odor potential  and  the number  of  pathogens  in  sludge,
 including bacteria, parasites, protozoa, and viruses (4).   Nevertheless,
 most  stabilized sewage  sludge  will  still  contain  some pathogens, and
 safeguards  are necessary  to  protect against  possible contamination  of
 operating  personnel,  the  general  public,  and crops intended for  human
 consumption.    Usually,  sludge  biological  characteristics  are  not di-
 rectly  analyzed,  and the  project designer  relies on recommended opera-
 tional  controls and procedures to assure adequate pathogen  reduction.

      4.2.4   Data Sources

 The  wastewater treatment plant  represents the  most likely  source  of
 sludge  data.   If data  have not been collected, a procedure for sampling
 and  analyzing should be  instituted  to assure that representative  data
 are obtained, as discussed in Section 11.4.2 and Appendix C.

 4.3   Regulations and Guidelines

 Land  application of sludge may be regulated by federal,  state, and  local
 governments.  Federal legislative authority for regulating  land applica-
 tion  of sludge is  vested in the  EPA  by the  Resource  Conservation and
 Recovery Act  of 1976 (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act  of 1977 (CWA).  Under
 this  authority, the  EPA promulgates  and enforces regulations  and guide-
 lines which  represent acceptable practices.   The individual states  have
 the responsibility of developing programs to implement these regulations
 and guidelines.  In  addition,  some  state  and local  governments have de-
 veloped more  stringent regulations (5).  Some of the regulatory agencies
 which may have  jurisdiction over municipal  sludge land application pro-
 grams are shown in Figure 4-2.
It
It
   is beyond the scope of this manual
   is,  therefore,  necessary  for  the
current regulations  with
to detail all current regulations.
system planner/designer  to review
                          the cognizant regulatory  and  permitting agen-
                   area,  state,  and/or  region where the proposed project
        the local
        located.
For preliminary  guidance,  a brief summary of  some  of  the possible con-
straints applicable to a proposed land application project are presented
below.

     4.3.1  Floodplains

Land application  sites  generally should  not  be located where  the land
will be flooded, resulting in washout of the applied sludge from the ap-
plication area.  Appropriate construction of berms,  dikes, channels,
                                  4-5

-------
         AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION OVER LAND APPLICATION
                                        .OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS
                                         OPERATIONS— CONSTRUCTION
                                         GRANTS
                        NATIONAL'
              EPA
FEDERAL
                        REGIONAL-
                 OFFICE  OF  SOLID  WASTES

                 ENFORCEMENT  POLICY

                 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS REVIEW

                 SOLID WASTE  PROGRAM REVIEW

                 •ENFORCEMENT
               OFFICE  OF  SURFACE MINING—NATIONAL GUIDELINES
STATE
WASTEWATER PROGRAMS

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY  (SURFACE WATER,
GROUND WATER, SOILS, ETC.)

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

PUBLIC HEALTH

AGRICULTURE

•TRANSPORTATION
LOCAL
(RECEIVING
COMMUNITY)
LAND USE

 ONSERVATION/ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PUBLIC HEALTH

SOLID WASTE  MANAGEMENT
            Figure  4-2.   Institutional framework  (Ref.  5)
                                4-6

-------
etc.,
ever,
 can be implemented to protect against flooding, if necessary; how-
 increased costs are involved.

4.3.2  Surface Waters
The land application  project  should  not  cause unacceptable discharge of
sludge  pollutants  into  surface  waters.    In general,  land application
sites  should  be designed  to  prevent excessive  surface runoff reaching
rivers, streams, and  lakes.   If runoff  is  likely  to be a problem, then
appropriate controls  should  be employed to  protect  surface waters from
either point source or non-point source pollution from a sludge land ap-
plication site.   Sludge  soil  incorporation  practices  can  help to miti-
gate the potential  for surface water runoff.

     4.3.3  Ground Water

The land application  project  should not  contaminate  an existing  or po-
tential underground drinking water source (potable water aquifer) beyond
the application site boundary.  However,  a state with a solid waste man-
agement plan approved  by the EPA may establish  an alternative boundary
to be  used  in  lieu of the application site  boundary.   A state may spe-
cify such a boundary  only if it finds that  such a change would not re-
sult in  contamination of ground water which may be  needed  or used for
human consumption.  This  finding is  to be  based on analysis and consid-
eration of al1  of the following factors:

     •     Hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surround-
           ing land.

     •     Volume  and  physical   and chemical   characteristics  of  the
           leachate.

     •     Quantity, quality, and directions of ground water flow.

     •     Proximity and withdrawal  rates of ground water users.

     •     Availability of alternative drinking water supplies.

     •     Existing quality of the ground water, including other sources
           of  contamination  and  their cumulative  impacts  on the ground
           water.

     •     Public health, -safety, and welfare considerations.

In essence, the project designer must show that either the leachate from
the sludge  disposal   site  will  not  contaminate  the  adjacent underlying
ground water,  or  that it  is  of  no significance since  the ground water
affected is  not  useful  now  or  in  the future  (i.e.,  excluded aquifer).
As explained in  Chapters 6,  7, and  8, most  states will accept applica-
tion of sludge at agronomic rates as evidence that ground water contami-
nation will not occur.
                                  4-7

-------
     4.3.4  Odors and Air Quality

Generally, permit conditions will require that land application projects
do not create  nuisance  odors beyond  the application site boundary.  How
this is determined (measured) varies, depending on the regulatory agency
and the proximity of the application site to public use areas.  In addi-
tion, when liquid sludge  is  sprayed  on  the application site, it is usu-
ally a requirement that the public  not  be  exposed to aerosols, created
by the sludge application.

     4.3.5  Public Access

Land application  sites  are  generally required to  limit  exposure  of the
public to any  potential  health  and  safety  hazards.  The extent to which
public access  should  be limited depends on  (1) the degree to which the
sludge has been treated to reduce pathogens (see Section 4.3.6), (2) the
procedures used to apply and incorporate the  sludge  into  the soil, (3)
the remoteness of the sludge application site from public use areas, and
(4) the ownership of  the sludge application  site  area,  whether private
or public.   In  general,  if there  is an  aspect  of  the  operation that
could expose  the public  to  potential  health  and  safety  hazards, then
fences or  some  other positive  means  of  controlling public  access  is
needed.

     4.3.6  Sludge Treatment for Pathogen Reduction
Interim,
that the
    .11
         final  federal  regulations  (issued  in  September  1979)  require
         sludge be treated  by  a "process to  significantly reduce patho-
gens" prior to  land  application.   The processes considered satisfactory
to  meet this  requirement  are  the  standard  sludge  stabilization  pro-
cesses, such as aerobic digestion,  anaerobic  digestion,  air drying beds
for at  least 3  months, composting,  and lime  stabilization.  Since these
stabilization processes generally do  not sterilize  the sludge,  the fed-
eral regulations  require  that  public access be  controlled for  at least
12  months  after sludge application,  and that grazing by  animals whose
products are consumed by  humans be  prevented  for at least 1 month after
sludge application.

Crops  for  direct  human  consumption  are  a  special  case.   If there  is
direct contact between the sludge and the edible portion of a crop grown
for direct human  consumption, federal  regulations  require that  at least
an  18-month period must elapse  between the  sludge  application  and grow-
ing of  such crops, or that  the  sludge be subjected to further disinfec-
tion treatment  prior to  application.   Disinfection treatment  processes
may include composting, heat drying,  heat treatment,  thermophilic aero-
bic digestion, pasteurization,  and irradiation.

     4.3.7  Sludge Application  to Land Used for the Production of Food
            Chain Crops

The federal  regulations  cited  above  also include   interim  limits  on  Cd
and  PCB's,  and  set a  minimum  soil  pH  for  soils  used  for  sludge
                                   4-8

-------
application  which  produce food  chain  crops.   In  1982,  additional  guid-
ance was  issued by EPA/USDA/FDA  for  the  use of  sludge  in the  production
of  fruits and  vegetables.    (See Table  4-2  for  a  summary.)   Chapter  6
discusses these limits  in detail.
                                       TABLE 4-2
             SUMMARY  OF JOINT  EPA/FDA/USDA  GUIDELINES  FOR  SLUDGE
            APPLICATION FOR FRUITS  AND  VEGETABLES PRODUCTION (7)


         Annual  and Cumulative Cd Rates
         Annual  rate should  not exceed 0.5 kg/ha.  Cumulative Cd loadings should not
         exceed  5, 10, or 20 kg/ha, depending on soil  pH and CEC values of <5, 5 to 15,
         and >15 meq/100 g,  respectively.
         Soil  pH  (plow zone  - top 6 in)  should be 6.5  or greater at  time of each  s.ludge
         application.

         PCB's
         Sludges with PCB concentrations  greater than  10 mg/kg should be incorporated
         into the soil.

         Pathogen Reduction

         Sludge should be treated by pathogen reduction process before soil  applica-
         tion.  Waiting  period of 12 to 18 months before a crop is  grown may be  re-
        .quired, depending on prior sludge processing  and disinfection.

         Use of High-Quality Sludge

         High-quality sludge should not contain more than 25 mg/kg  Cd, 1,000 mg/kg Pb,
         and 10 mg/kg PCB (dry weight basis).

         Cumulative Lead Application Rate                   .       .    .  .

         Cumulative Pb loading should not exceed 800 kg/ha.

         Pathogenic Organisms

         A minimum requirement is that crops to be eaten raw should not be planted in
         sludge-amended  fields within 12 to 18 months  after the last sludge  applica-
         tion.  Further  assurance of safe and wholesome food products can be achieved
         by increasing the time interval to 36 months.

         Physical  Contamination and Filth

         Sludge should be applied directly to soil  and not directly to any .human food
         crop.  Crops grown for human consumption on sludge-amended fields should be
         processed with  good food industry practices, especially for root crops and
         low-growing fresh fruits and vegetables.

         Soil Monitoring

         Soil monitoring should be performed on a regular basis, at least annually for
         pH.  Every few  years, soil  tests should be run for Cd  and  Pb.

         Choice of Crop  Type

         The growing of  plants which do not accumulate heavy metals is  encouraged.
                                           4-9

-------
     4.3.8  Sludge Classified as Hazardous Hastes

In rare cases, a specific sludge may be so high in metal or organic con-
taminants that  it  would  be  classified  as  a hazardous waste under Subti-
tle  C  of RCRA.    If  the sludge being  considered for  land  disposal  or
utilization is  extraordinarily  high  in  one or more of the priority pol-
lutants  (see  Appendix A for typical  sludge  quality ranges),  then  the
planner/designer should  check the  RCRA hazardous  waste regulations.   If
a  specific  sludge  is found  to  be a hazardous waste  under RCRA defini-
tion, it must be disposed of at an acceptable hazardous waste facility."

The summary of regulations and guidelines provided in this manual is not
intended  to  be complete; it also  may  not  be current at  the  time that
this manual  is in  general   use. All  current federal,  state,  and local
regulations and  guidelines   should be  reviewed  during preliminary plan-
ning.

     4.3.9  Possible  Permits Required

The project  designer should investigate  pertinent  regulations early in
the,planning for planned sludge land application projects.  Depending on
local procedures, permits may be required from both state and local reg-
ulatory agencies.

As  in  all  cases  where  regulations are  promulgated  by  more  than  one
agency within  the  same  jurisdiction,  the most  stringent rule  must  be
followed  in each case.   It  is  therefore  essential  that the designer be
aware of  state  regulations  concerning  the facility or practice, as well
as any local regulations (county, municipal, or regional).

4.4  Estimate of Land Area Requirement

A  precise estimate  of  the  land  area  required  for  sludge  application
should be based on  design calculations provided in Chapters 6, 7, 8, and
9 for the land  application  option(s) under consideration.   However,  for
preliminary planning, a  rough  estimate  of  the  land  application  area
which might be necessary can be obtained from Table 4-3.  (Note that the
options may not necessarily  involve repeated annual applications.)

As an example,  assume that  the project is  intended to dispose 1,000 mt
(1,100 T),  dry weight,  of  sludge annually.   Using the  typical  rates
shown in Table 4-3, a very rough estimate of the area required for agri-
cultural   utilization  would  be  90 ha (220  ac),  plus additional area re-
quired,  if  any, for  buffer zones, sludge  storage,  etc.   For  the same
quantity  of  sludge  utilized for  land  reclamation, the  typical  values
shown in  Table 4-3  indicate that  9 ha (22  ac)  would  be  required each
year that the reclamation program is in operation.
                                   4-10

-------
                                  TABLE 4-3
         ESTIMATED  SLUDGE APPLICATION IN DRY WEIGHT FOR DIFFERENT
                            LAND DISPOSAL  OPTIONS
Disposal Option
Agricultural Utilization
Forest Utilization
Land Reclamation Utilization
Dedicated Disposal Site
Time Period of
Application
Annual
One time, or at
3-5 year intervals
One time
Annual
Reported Range of
Application Rates
mt/ha
Z-70
10-220
7-450
220-900
T/ac
1-30
4-1-00
3-200
100-400
Typical Rate
mt/ha
11
44
112
340
T/ac
5
20
50
150
      Note:  The rates shown are only for the sludge application area, and do not include
           area for buffer zone,  sludge storage, or other project area requirements.


4.5   Transportation of  Sludge

Chapter  10 of  this manual  discusses sludge  transportation  alternatives
and  costs.  Transport can be  a  major cost  of a land  application system,
and  requires  a thorough analysis.  This section is intended  only to pro-
vide  a  brief summary  of the alternatives which may be considered during
the  preliminary planning phase.

The  first  consideration is  the nature.of the sludge itself.   As shown in
Table  4-4, sewage  sludge  is classified for  handling/transport purposes
as either  liquid,  sludge cake,  or  dried, depending upon  its solids con-
tent.   Only  liquid sludge can  be pumped and transported ,by pipeline.  If
liquid  sludge  is  transported  by truck, rail,  or  barge, closed vessels
must  be used,  e.g.,  tank  truck,  railroad  tank cars,  etc.    Sludge cake
can  be transported in  watertight  boxes,  and  dry sludge can  be  trans-
ported  in  open  boxes  (e.g.,  dump trucks).
                                 TABLE 4-4
           SLUDGE  SOLIDS CONTENT AND  HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS
            Sludge Type

            Liquid
            Sludge cake
            ("wet" solids)
            Dried
    Typical
Solids Content (%)

    1 to 10
   15 to 30
                              50 to 95
     Handling/
  Transport Methods

Gravity flow, pump,
pipeline, tank trans-
port

Conveyor, auger, truck
transport (watertight
box)

Conveyor, bucket, truck
transport (box)
                                     4-11

-------
There are four basic modes of sludge transport:  truck, pipeline, barge,
and railroad.   In certain instances, combined  transport  methods (e.g.,
pipeline-truck, pipeline-barge)  are also used.   Some  practical  consid-
erations of hauling sludge are presented in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7.
                                                         staffing  needs,
                                                          For  a  detailed
A  rating of  transport  modes in  terms  of  reliability,
energy  requirements,  and costs is  given  in Table  4-7.
discussion of sludge transport, see Section 10.2.

4.6  Climate

Analysis  of  climatological   data  is an important  consideration  for the
preliminary planning phase.   Rainfall, temperature, evapotranspiration,
and wind may be important climatic factors affecting land application of
sewage  sludge,  selection of land application  option,  site management,
and costs.  Table  4-8  highlights  the  potential  impacts of some climatic
regions on the land application of sludge.

Meteorological data are  available for  most  major cities from three pub-
lications of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

     t     The Climatic Summary of the United States.

     •     The Monthly  Summary of  Climatic Data,  which  provides  basic
           data, such  as total  precipitation,  maximum  and  minimum tem-
           peratures, and  relative humidity for each day  of the month,
           and for every weather  station in the same given area.  Evapo-
           ration data are also given, where available.

     t     Local  Climatological  Data,  which provides  an  annual  summary
           with comparative  data  for  a  relatively  small  number of major
           weather stations.

This information can be obtained by written request to NOAA, 6010 Execu-
tive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland  20852.  Another excellent source is
the  National   Climatic   Center  in  Asheville,  North  Carolina   28801.
Weather  data  may  also  be obtained  from local  airports,  universities,
military  installations,  agricultural   and  forestry  extension  services,
agricultural   and  forestry  experiment stations,  and  agencies managing
large reservoirs.

4.7  Sources of Additional Information

Additional sources of information on land characteristics, cropping pat-
terns, and other relevant data include:

     t     U.S. Department  of Agriculture  -  Agricultural  Stabilization
           and Conservation  Service,  Soil  Conservation  Service,  Forest
           Service, and Extension Service.
                                   4-12

-------
                               TABLE  4-5
                 TRANSPORT  MODES  FOR  SLUDGES
    Sludge Type

    Liquid Sludge

    Rail Tank  Car


    Sarge



    Pipeline
    Vehicles
      Tank Truck
       Farm Tank Wagon
       and Tractor
                                  Transportation Considerations
100-wet-ton (24,000-gal) capacity; suspended solids
will settle while in  transit.

Capacity determined by waterway; Chicago has used
1,200-wet-ton  (290,000-gal) barges.  Docking facili-
ties required.

Need minimum velocity of 1 fps to keep solids in
suspension; friction  decreases as pipe diameter
increases (to  the fifth power); buried pipeline
suitable for year-round use. High capital costs.
Capacity - up to maximum load  allowed  on road, usually
6,600 gal maximum.  Can have gravity or pressurized
discharge.  Field trafficability can be improved.by
using flotation tires" at the cost of rapid tire wear
on highways.
Capacity - 800 to 3,000 gal.
for field application.
                                                   Principal use would be
    Semi sol id or Dried Sludge

    Rail Hopper Car
    Truck
    Farm Manure Spreader
Need special  unloading  site afld equipment for field
application.

Commercial equipment available to unload and spread on
ground; need  to level sludge piles if dump truck is
used. Spreading can be done by farm manure spreader
and tractor.
                                TABLE 4-6
        AUXILIARY  FACILITIES FOR  TRANSPORT  (11)
                                  Truck
                                               Transport Mode
                                            Railroad
  Loading storage             .      No*        Yes         Yes       .  Yes
  Loading equipment          '      Yes        Yes         Yes         Yes
  Dispatch office                   Yes        Yes         Yes         NAt
  Dock and/or  control  building     NA         NA          Yes         Yes
  Railroad siding(s)                NA         Yes         NA          NA
  Unloading equipment               Yes        Yes         Yes         NA
  Unloading storage*                No         Yes         Yes         Yes

Dewatered

  Loading storage                   Yes**     Yes         NA          NA
  Loading equipment                 Yes        Yes         NA          NA
  Dispatch office                   Yes        Yes         NA          NA
  Dock and/or  control  building     NA         NA          NA          NA
  Railroad siding(s)                NA         Yes         NA          NA
  Unloading equipment               Yes        Yes         NA          NA
  Unloading storage                 No         No          NA          NA


 * Storage required  for one or two truckloads is small  compared with normal
   plant sludge storage.

 t Not applicable.

 # Storage assumed to  be a part  of another unit process.

** Elevated storage  for ease of  gravity transfer to trucks.
                                   4-13

-------
                                            TABLE  4-7
                        EVALUATION  OF  SLUDGE TRANSPORT  MODES (11)
Transport Mode Alternatives
Characteristics
Reliability and Complexity*
Staffing Skills*
Staff Attention (T1me)#
Applicability and Flexibility
Energy Used**
Costs
Capital Investment
Operation, Maintenance, and
Overall**
Truck/Barge
2
3
4
3
7
High
Labor High
--
Pipe/Barge
2
3
3
3
3
High
Moderate
—
Barge
3
3
4
3
5
High
Moderate
--
Railroad
1
2
1
2
2
_
-
Generally
High***
Truck
1
1
3
1
8
Low
Fairly High
--
Pipeline
3
3
2
3
6
High
Low
—
  * 1  = most reliable, least complex; 2 = intermediate;  3 - least reliable,  most complex.
  t 1  « least skills; 2 = intermediate; 3 = highest skills.  '
  I Attention time  Increases with magnitude of number.
 ** 1  » wide applicability (all types of sludges);  3 = limited  applicability,  relatively flexible.
 It 1  - lowest;  8 = highest.

 II Overall costs are a function of sludge quantities and properties (percent  solids),  distance transported,
    and need for special  storage loading and unloading equipment.
*** Rail costs would generally be in the form of freight charges;  costs could  be lower  for large volumes
    of sludge.
                                            TABLE 4-3
                        POTENTIAL  IMPACTS  OF CLIMATIC  REGIONS ON
                              LAND APPLICATION OF  SLUDGE  (11)
Climatic Region
Impact
Operation Time
Operation Cost
Storage Requirement
Salt Buildup Potential
Leaching Potential
Runoff Potential
Warm/Arid
Year-round
Lower
Less
High
Low
Low
Warm/Humid
Seasonal
Higher
More
Low
High
High
Co Id/ Hum id
Seasonal
Higher
More
Moderate .
Moderate
High
                                              4-14

-------
     •     U.S.  Geological  Survey.

     •     U.S.  EPA.

     •     U.S.  Corps of Engineers  offices.

     •     Private photogrammetry and mapping companies.

     •     State agricultural  mining and geologic agencies.

     0     State water resources agencies.

     •     State universities and local  colleges.

     t     Local planning and health departments.

     *     Local water conservation districts.

     •     Ground water users (municipalities, water companies, individ-
           uals, etc.).

     •     State land grant universities and water resource centers.

4.8  References

  1.  McCalla, T.  M., J.  R.  Peterson,  and  C. Lue-Hing.   Properties of
     Agricultural and  Municipal  Wastes.   In:    Soils  for  Management of
     Organic  Wastes  and  Waste  Waters.   Elliott,  L.  F., et  al.,  eds.
     Soil  Science  Society of America,  Madison,  Wisconsin.   1977.   pp.
     11-43.

  2.  Sommers, L.  E.    Chemical   Composition of  Sewage and  Analysis of
     Their Potential   Use  as  Fertilizers.   J. Environ. Qual., 6:225-232.
     1977.

  3.  Furr, A. K., A.  W.  Lawrence,  S. S. C. long, M. C. Grandolfo, R. A.
     Hofstader,  C. A. Bache, W.  H.  Gutenmann,  and  D.  J.  Lisk.  Multi-
     element  and  Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Analysis  of Municipal Sewages
     of American Cities.  Environ. Sci. Techno!., 10:683-687.   1976.

  4.  Sagik, B. P., B. E. Moore, and  C.  A. Forber.  Public  Health Aspects
     Related  to  the  Land Application of  Municipal  Sewage Effluents and
     Sludges.   In:   Utilization of Municipal Sewage Effluent and Sludge
     on  Forest  and Disturbed Land.   W. E.  Sopper,  and S. M. Kerr, eds.
     Pennsylvania  State University  Press,  University  Park,  1979.   pp.
     241-263.

  5.  Deese,  P.   L.,  J.  R.  Miyares,   and  S. Fogel;    Institutional  Con-
     straints and Public Acceptance  Barriers  to  Utilization  of  Municipal
     Wastewater  and  Sludge for  Land Reclamation  and Biomass  Production;
     A Report to the President's Council  on Environmental Quality.  EPA
                                   4-15

-------
     430/9-81.
     MCD-81.
December 1980.   104  pp.   (EPA 430/9-81-013; July  1981)
 6.  Criteria for  Classification  of  Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
     Practices  (40 CFR,  Part  257),  Federal  Register, 44:55438-53468,
     September 13, 1979.  31 pp.

 7.  Land Application  of  Municipal  Sewage Sludge  for  the  Production of
     Fruits and Vegetables; A  Statement  of Federal Policy and Guidance.
     SW-905, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1981.  25 pp.

 8.  U.S. EPA.  Process Design Manual:  Municipal  Sludge Landfills.  EPA
     625/1-78-010, SCS  Engineers, Reston, Virginia, October  1978.   331
     pp.    (Available  from  National  Technical  Information  Service,
     Springfield,  Virginia, PB-299 675)

 9.  Miller, R. H.,  T.  L. Logan, D.  L.  Forester,  and  D. K.  White. Fac-
     tors Contributing  to the Success of  Land  Application  Programs for
     Municipal Sewage  Sludge:   The  Ohio Experience.   Presented  at the
     Water Pollution Control Federation, Detroit,  October 1981.

10.  Eckenfelder,  W. W.,  Jr.,  and C. J.  Santhanam,  eds.  Sludge Treat-
     ment.  Marcel Dekker, New York, 1981.  617 pp.

11.  Culp, G.  L.,  J.  A. Faisst, D. J. Hinricks, and B.  R. Winsor. Evalu-
     ation of Sludge Management Systems:   Evaluation Checklist and Sup-
     porting Commentary.   EPA  430/9-80-001,  Culp/Wesner/Culp,  El  Dorado
     Hills,  California,  February 1980.   248 pp.    (Available  from Na-
     tional  Technical  Information Service,  Springfield, Virginia, PB81
     108805)

12.  Knezek, B. D., and R.  H.  Miller, eds.   Application of  Sludges and
     Wastewaters   on  Agricultural  Land:    A  Planning  and  Educational
     Guide.   North Central Regional Research  Publication No.  235.   Ohio
     Agricultural   Research  and Development  Center,  Wooster,  1976.   88
     pp.

13.  U.S. EPA.  Principles and  Design Criteria  for Sewage  Sludge Appli-
     cation  on Land.   In:   Sludge Treatment and Disposal.  Vol. 2.   EPA-
     625/4/78-012, Environmental  Research  Information  Center,  Cincin-
     nati, Ohio,  October  1978.    pp.  57-112.   (Available from National
     Technical  Information Service,  Springfield, Virginia, PB-299 594)
                                  4-16

-------
                               CHAPTER 5

                SITE EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF OPTIONS
5.1  General

This chapter  is designed to  assist in the  identification,  evaluation,
and selection  of  sites for the  land application of sludge, and  in .the
selection of  a final  land  application option(s).   At this point,
user should have reviewed the preceding chapters and  have done the
lowing:
                                                                    the
                                                                   fol-
        Estimated the present  and  future quantity, physical  character-
        istics, and  chemical quality  of  the sludge(s) being considered
        for land application.

        Reviewed  the pertinent  federal,  state, and  local  regulations
        which  apply  to the  project under  consideration.   Preferably,
        this will have  included  a  discussion with the regulatory agen-
        cies involved.

        Compared  the data developed  above, and  determined  that there
        are no insurmountable problems with the sludge quality in terms
        of its suitability for land application.

     4.  Recognized that the public  participation process (Chapter 3) is
        critical  to  project  success,  and established a public partici-
        pation/education  program.
     1.
     2.
     3.
      5.
         Reviewed  the definitions  of  the four land application  options
         covered  by this manual,  and  the general advantages,  disadvan-
         tages,  constraints,  etc., applicable to each option  (see  Chap-
         ter  2 and  Table  2-1).    Based  on  this knowledge, the  designer
         should  have eliminated  the land  application  options that  are
         clearly  not feasible  for  the  local  situation.

         Made a  rough estimate of  the  land  area required  for  each of  the
         remaining land application options (see Section 4.4  and  Table
         4-3).

         Reviewed in  a  general  way  alternatives for sludge  transport,
         and recognized 'the impact of sludge  transport costs  upon  over-
         all  project costs.

The careful  identification,  evaluation, and  ultimate selection  of land
application sites can prevent future environmental  problems,  reduce mon-
itoring  requirements, minimize overall   program  costs,   and  moderate or
eliminate  adverse  public  reaction.  Poor  site  selection and management
practices  in the past have resulted in environmental  problems and public
resistance.
      6.
      7.
                                    5-1

-------
       5.1.1   Planning  Procedure

 As  shown in Figure  5-1,  a two-phase  planning  approach is suggested to
 avoid; unnecessary  effort  and  expense.    The  first  phase  involves  a
 screening process by  review of  available  information and experience.  If
 potential sites  are identified for any  of  the  land application options
 under  consideration,  the  process moves  into  the  second phase which in-
 cludes  field investigations of potential  sites and detailed evaluation
 of alternatives.

 If more than one site  and/or  application  option  seems possible,  a de-
 tailed  evaluation of  each concept and the  related costs will assist in
 determining  the optimum combination of site(s) and option(s).

 5.2  Land Use in the Area

 Prevailing or projected land use often exerts a significant influence on
 site selection, as well as  acceptance of a particular sludge application
 option.   It  is necessary to determine both current and future land use
 in assessing the land  area potentially  suitable and/or  available for
 sludge application.   Important considerations include zoning compliance,
 aesthetics,  and site acquisition.

      5.2.1  Current  Land Use

 Current  land use patterns will  help identify areas  where  land applica-
 tion  of  sludge may  or may  not be acceptable.   The local  Soil Conserva-
 tion  Service (SCS)  and Agricultural  Extension Service representatives
 have knowledge of local  farming, forestry,  mining,  and other  land use
 practices.   The  SCS  will,  in  many  cases,  have a  comprehensive  county
 soil  survey  with  aerial  photo maps showing the land area.

           5.2.1.1 Agricultural  Utilization

 To a great extent, prevailing farming  practices dictate the acceptabil-
 ity of this  option.    Small  land holdings  in a nonagricultural community
 may limit the agricultural  sludge application options.   An  area  devoted
 almost exclusively to  production of  human food crops restricts the  peri-
 ods when  sludge  can  be applied to  land.   Areas  with  row crops, small
•grains,   hay  crops,  and  pastures  make   it  possible  to  apply  sludge
 throughout much of the year.

           5.2.1.2 Forested Lands

 A  consideration in the application of sludge  to forest  lands  is  the po-
 tential  need  to control  public  access for a period  of time  after sludge
 application.   Therefore,  in screening  current land use data,  for poten-
 tial  sites to apply  sludge to forest land,  the  most  desirable sites are
 often those owned by or  leased to  commercial  growers, which  already  con-
 trol  public access.  Publicly owned  forest  land  has been used  for sludge
 application,  but  may   require  complex   inter-agency  negotiations   and
 greater  public  education efforts than the  use  of privately owned  land.
                                   5-2

-------
                   REVIEW LAND USE IN STUDY
                   AREA. IDENTIFY AGRICULTURAL
                   LAND, FORESTED LAND, DISTURBED
                   LAND AND/OR POTENTIAL DEDICATED
                   LAND DISPOSAL SITES. REVIEW
                   ZONING LAWS AND COMPLIANCE.
                   REVIEW PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
                   OF POTENTIAL APPLICATION AREAS.
                   IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS WITH GENERALLY
                   SUITABLE TOPOGRAPHY, SOIL CHARAC-
                   TERISTICS, MINIMUM DEPTH TO GROUND
                   WATER, AND MINIMUM DISTANCE TO
                   SURFACE WATER.
                              I
                   ELIMINATE UNSUITABLE AREAS BASED ON
                   LAND USE AND/OR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
                              1
                   SCREEN AND RATE REMAINING AREAS BASED
                   ON SUCH FACTORS AS DISTANCE FROM
                   POTW(S). ASSESSIBILITY VIA SUITABLE
                   TRANSPORT MODES, LAND OWNERSHIP AND
                   COST, AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE.
                   PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF POTENTIAL
                   SLUDGE APPLICATION SITES.
                   CONDUCT PRELIMINARY FIELD SURVEY OF
                   POTENTIAL SLUDGE1APPLICATION SITES.
                   VERIFY AND/OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
                   GENERAL INFORMATION PERTINENT TO
                   THE SITE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
                              I
                   SELECT THOSE POTENTIAL SITES WHICH
                   ARE OPTIMUM AND WORTH THE EXPENSE
                   OF DETAILED FIELD INVESTIGATIONS.
                              I
                   CONDUCT DETAILED FIELD INVESTIGATIONS;
                   SOIL TESTING, GROUND WATER ANALYSIS,
                   EFFECTS UPON SURROUNDING LAND, AND
                   CROPPING PATTERNS.
                              I
                   RATE POTENTIAL OPTIMUM SLUDGE
                   APPLICATION SITES AND OPTIONS
                   AND SELECT BEST SITE IS) AND
                   OPTION(S).
Figure 5-1
Two-phase  approach  to  sludge application site
identification, evaluation and selection.
                              5-3

-------
           5.2.1.3  Drastically Disturbed Lands

 Disturbed sites  are  relatively easy  to  identify in a  particular  local
 area.  The sludge  application  design  is  influenced  by  the potential  fu-
 ture use of the  reclaimed  land (i.e., agriculture,  silvaculture,  parks,
 greenbelts,  etc.).  The application of sludge is often  a one-time  opera-
 tion rather than  a repetitive  series of applications on  the same  site.
 It is therefore  necessary  that (1) the mining  or  other operations will
 continue to generate  disturbed land to which sludge can  be applied,  or
 (2) the disturbed  land area  is  of  sufficient size  to allow a continuing
 sludge application program over  the design life of  the project.   State
 and federal  guidelines may dictate  the criteria for sludge applications
 and subsequent management.

           5.2.1.4  Dedicated  Land Disposal

 Dedicated land disposal (OLD)  sites usually  receive  much  greater sludge
 application  rates than the other land application options,  so  land area
 requirements  are  smaller.   Since large quantities  of   sludge are  being
 transported,  stored,  and  applied in a  relatively small area, this option
 is  very  sensitive to  surrounding  land uses,  particularly  housing and
 commercial  uses.    OLD  sites  should generally be surrounded  by  areas  of
 limited  public use.

      5.2.2  Future Land Use

 Projected land use plans,  where they  exist, may  eliminate  certain  areas
 from  consideration for sludge application.   Regional planners and  plan-
 ning  commissions  should be consulted  to  determine  the   projected use  of
 potential  land application  sites and  adjacent  properties.    If the site
 is  located  in or  near  a  densely populated  area, extensive  control mea-
 sures may be  needed to overcome concerns and minimize potential aesthe-
 tic problems which  may  detract  from  the value of adjacent properties.

 Future  development  of potential  land application  sites  and  adjacent
 properties should  be  considered.  Master plans for the existing  communi-
 ties should be  examined.  The rate of  industrial  and/or  municipal expan-
 sion  relative  to  prospective  sites  can significantly affect  their  long-
 term  suitability.   For example,  land dedicated  for  sludge disposal   at
 high  rates might  not be appropriate for  either  agricultural use or for
 suburban  home  developments  due  to  the effect of accumulated metals  on
 garden food crops.   It is  often necessary to place  deed restrictions  on
future use of OLD sites.

     5.2.3  Zoning  Compliance

Zoning and land use planning  are closely  related, and zoning ordinances
generally reflect future land use planning.   Applicable  zoning laws,  if
any, which  may affect  potential  land  application  sites should be re-
viewed concurrent with land use evaluations.  Since it is unusual that a
community will  have  a specific  area  zoned for  sludge/waste disposal,
                                   5-4

-------
project proponents normally will have to  seek  a zoning change for a OLD
site.  The same is true for separate sludge storage facilities.

     5.2.4  Aesthetics

Selection  of  a land  application  site and/or  sludge  application  option
can  be  affected by  community  concern over  aesthetics, such  as  noise,
fugitive  dust,  and odors.   In addition  to application site  area con-
cerns, routes for  sludge  transport  vehicles  must be carefully evaluated
in  terms  of avoiding  residential  areas,  bridge  load  limitations, etc.
Disruption of the local scenic character and/or recreational activities,
should they occur, may generate strong local opposition to a sludge man-
agement program.   Obviously, every  attempt  must be made to keep the ap-
plication site compatible with its surroundings and, where possible, en-
hance  the beauty  of  the  landscape.   Buffer  zones are  often provided
around OLD  sites,  and are also usually required to separate sludge ap-
plication sites from  residences, water  supplies, surface waters,  roads,
parks, playgrounds, etc.

     5.2.5  Site Acquisition

Application  of  sludge to agricultural land  can usually be accomplished
without  direct  purchase  or  lease  acquisition of  land.   Well-prepared
educational  and  public   participation  programs  early in  the planning
stages normally identify  numerous  farmers willing to cooperate with the
city  in  a  land  application  program.   Experience  nationwide  has  shown
that cooperation  of  this  type  is  often  less disruptive within a commun-
ity,  and frequently  more likely  to  achieve  public  acceptability than
land purchase.

Several different  contractual  arrangements between  cities and  landowners
for  agricultural  utilization have been successfully employed,  including:

     •     The  city transports and  spreads  the  sludge  at  no expense to
          the landowner.

     •     The city transports  and  spreads the  sludge,  and pays the  land-
          owner for the use of his  land.

     •     The  landowner  pays  a nominal  fee for  the  sludge and for the
           city  to transport  and  spread  the sludge.  This is most  common
          for  agricultural  utilization where  there is local  demand for
           sludge  as  a fertilizer or soil  conditioner.

     «     The  city hauls  the sludge and the  landowner  spreads  it.

     t     The  landowner hauls  and  spreads the  sludge.

A written contract between the landowner and  the  sewage sludge applica-
tor is highly  recommended.    In some instances, the  applicator will be
the municipality; in  other cases,  it  will be a private applicator  who is
transporting and  spreading for the  municipality.
                                   5-5

-------
 The  principal  advantage  of  a written  contract  is  to  ensure  that  both
 parties  understand the agreement prior to applying the sludge.   Often,
 oral  contracts are  entered with the  best  of  intentions,  but  the  land-
 owner  and  applicator  have  differing  notions  of the rights and  obliga-
 tions  of each  party.   In some cases,  the  contract  may  serve  as evidence
 in  disputes  concerning the  performance of  either  the  applicator  or  the
 landowner.   Suggested provisions  of  contracts between  the applicator  and
 landowner are  shown  in Table 5-1  (4).
                                    TABLE 5-1
              SUGGESTED PROVISIONS OF  CONTRACTS  BETWEEN  SLUDGE
         GENERATOR,  SLUDGE APPLICATOR,  AND PRIVATE LANDOWNERS  (4)


        1.  Identification of the landowner,  the POTW, and the applicator spreading
           the sludge.

        2.  Location of land where spreading  is to  occur and boundaries of the appli-
           cation sites.

        3.  Entrance and exit points to application sites for use by spreading equip-
           ment.

        4.  Specification of the range of sludge quality permitted on the land. Para-'
           meters identified might include percent of total  solids and levels of In,
           Cu, Ni, Pb, Cd, N, P, K, and trace elements in the sludge.  The contract
           would specify who is to pay for the analysis and frequency of analysis.

        5.  Agreement on the timing of sludge application during the cropping season.
           Application rates and acceptable periods of application should be identi-
           fied for growing crops^ as well as periods when the soil is wet.

        6.  Agreements on the application rate.  This rate might vary throughout the
           year depending on the crop, the sludge  analyses,  and when and where appli-
           cation is occurring.

        7.  Restrictions on usage of land for root  crops, fresh vegetables, or live-
           stock production.

        8.  Conditions under which either party may escape from provisions of the con-
           tract.
The  use of  land  without  purchase  or leasing may  also find applicability
for  land  application  of sludge to  disturbed  and forested  lands.   How-
ever,  direct purchase  or  lease may be  necessary for  large city  sludge
programs regardless  of the land application option.   In  these instances,
site  acquisition  represents  a  major  cost  in  the implementation  of  the
land application program.

5.3  Physical  Characteristics of Potential  Sites

The physical  characteristics of concern  are:

     •     Topography.
     •     Soil  permeability, infiltration,  and  drainage  patterns.
                                       5-6

-------
     •     Depth to ground water.                                       .:
     •     Proximity to  surface water.                                     .

The  planner/designer  should  review state  regulations  or guidelines  that
place limits on these physical characteristics of  application sites.

     5.3.1  Topography

Topography  influences  surface and subsurface water movement which af-
fects the  amount of soil  erosion and  potential runoff  of applied  sludge.
Topography can indicate the kinds  of  soil  to be found  on a site.

Soils  on  ridge tops  and  steep  slopes  are  typically well  drained,  well
aerated,   and  usually  shallow.   Except on  very  permeable  soils,  steep
slopes  increase  the possibility of surface runoff of  sludge.  Soils on
concave  land  positions an'd  on  broad flat  lands  frequently  are  poorly
drained,  and may be waterlogged  during  part of the  year.  The  soils be-
tween  these two  extremes  will usually  have intermediate properties  with
respect  to drainage and runoff.

The  steepness, length,  and  shape  of  slopes influence  the rate  of runoff
from a  site.  Rapid surface runoff accompanied by  soil  erosion  can erode
sludge-soil mixtures  and transport them  to surface waters.   Therefore,
many existing  state regulations/guidelines stipulate  the maximum slopes
allowable for sludge  application sites under  various conditions,  such as
sludge  physical characteristics, application  techniques, and  application
rates.   Specific guidance should be obtained  from  the regulatory  agency;
for  general guidance,  suggested limits are  presented in Table 5-2.
                                  TABLE  5-2
            RECOMMENDED SLOPE  LIMITATIONS FOR  LAND APPLICATION
   OF SLUDGE  (COMPILED FROM TYPICAL EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS IN 1982)
                                    Comment

                  Ideal; no concern for runoff or erosion of liquid sludge or dewa-
                  tered sludge.

                  Acceptable; slight risk of erosion; surface application of liquid
                  sludge or dewatered sludge okay.

                  Injection of liquid sludge required for general  cases, except in
                  closed drainage basin and/or extensive runoff control.  Surface
                  application of dewatered sludge is usually acceptable.

                  No liquid sludge application without effective runoff control;
                  surface application of dewatered sludge acceptable, but Immediate
                  incorporation recommended.

                  Slopes greater than 15% are only suitable for sites with good
                  permeability where the slope length is short and is a minor part
                  of the total application area,;
30-6%


6-12%



12-15%



Over 15%
                                      5-7

-------
      5.3.2   Soil  Permeability,  Infiltration, and Drainage

The texture  of  the soil  and parent geologic material is one of the most
important aspects  of  site selection, because it influences permeability,
infiltration, and drainage.  Appendix  B  includes  a detailed discussion
of  soil  characteristics  relative to sludge application; it is important
that  a  cjualified soil scientist be involved  in  the assessment of soils
at potential sludge application  sites.

With  proper  design and operation,  sludge  can  be successfully applied to
virtually any soTT
If
ab
    However,  highly  permeable  soil  (e.g.,  sand),  highly
{e.g., clay), or poorly drained soils may  present  spe-
         problems.   Therefore,  sites with such  condi-
         given a lower priority during the preliminary
         Table  5-3 summarizes  typical  guidelines for
                                       (i.e.,  location,
                                       mitigation  mea-
impermeable  soil
cial  design  and operation
tions  should generally  be
site  selection process.
soil  suitability.   In some cases, the favorable aspects
municipal  ownership,  etc.)  may outweigh  the  costs of
sures.
          5.3.2.1  Soil Permeability and Infiltration

Permeability  (a property  determined  by  soil  pore space and size, shape,
and distribution) refers to the ease with which water and air are trans-
mitted through soil.  Appendix B discusses these soil characteristics in
detail.  Fine-textured soils generally possess slow or very slow permea-
bility, while those of coarse-textured soils range from moderately rapid
to  very  rapid.  A  medium-textured soil, such  as  a loam  or  silt  loam,
tends to have moderate to slow permeability.  The Soil Conservation Ser-
vice  (SCS) has defined permeability  classes  for use in describing  soils
(6), as listed in Table 5-4.

          5.3.2.2  Drainage Patterns

In selecting a site for sludge utilization, a landscape consisting  of or
approaching a closed drainage system may be desirable for containment of
the sludge (Figure 5-2).

The selection of a OLD site should be confined to a closed drainage sys-
tem.  Whether natural or man-made, a series of protective ridges, berms,
underdrains,  or  other physical barriers  should be  provided  to contain
the sludge within the site perimeter.

The U.S.  SCS  drainage  classes are  shown  in  Table  5-5.   Very  poorly
drained, poorly drained,  and  somewhat poorly drained classes  are seldom
suitable for  sludge application  unless  adequate  surface  or  subsurface
tile drainage is provided (2)(5).   These soils are prone to flooding and
surface ponding.   Moderately  well  drained,  well  drained,  and  somewhat
excessively drained  soils are  generally  suitable for waste application,
with  the well  drained soils  offering  the greatest  potential for  waste
renovation.  Typically, a well drained  soil  is  at  least moderately per-
meable (Table 5-4).
                                   5-8

-------

























1 *^~"*
<2

— i ^^
h- '-,
	 1 ~\
^™ h— H
og
So
oS2
5; <^
j"^
0 3
1 — z

UJ -1
0^
^J kl [

Zj h~
°°^
LU «x
5 a-
•~Z I t 1
3 M
UJ """J
^ d

c£ fc
££
LJ—
oo 2-
§S
EO
<£
i — ^
t— i _^
^~ ^~-
i — 1 1 	
— ' <:

rig
o rf
oo 5
*
















































c"
o

-p
re

•r—
E

r—
O
OO

t[
o

cu
cu
£_
CO
cu
Q

















^

<— i

CM .
,-) O
cu

cu

cu
00

c c
re re
i— <""
•p -P

CU CO
£_ CO
o cu
5: -i








E
cu
£_
cu
-a
o
s:
oo
&^ 1 — 1
00
i— 1 O
i *
o
-P IO
to CD





E

00
-[->
_c
a:
^— .
oo
&^ *
VO t-l
c c
re re

t— * 1— •
CO CU
to t-
cu o
_i s:





cu

cu
CO
~^

CO
c

1 ^
o
cu

t[
«^£

CO
cu

3

re
cu
u_

^_
tj—
o
oo
fs
re
4^

c.
cu

(Q
•5.

P_
re

o
CO
re
cu
co

0

<3c
cu -c:
Q. -P
0 Q.
i— O)
00 Q

^j
f
cu
3
cr
CO

t| 	

o
-P

r—
re
c
o
•P—
CO
re
o
o
0














cu
c.
0
2:













0)
c:
o
•z.














CO
c
.^
-o
c:
0
Q.

-o
c:


CO
c:
•r-
T3
O
O
i—
U-







^

f—H
to
•
0

c:
re
c~
4^

to
to
CU
_J








E
CM
t— 1

O
-P

CO
CD





E

oo
•
t— I
c:
T3
I ^
cu
£_
O



















\x
o
o
£_
•o
cu
JQ

0
p

r"
P
CL
CU
a



£_
g~
^^
E
O

oo
o
•
0

c:
re
C"
-p

CO
CO
0)
	 J





£_
<^
. "^^
o
•
CM

O
+J

00
•
CD




£_
^1
E
o

oo
*
0

o
_!.. *
oo
CD










4->
to
O
E

cu
_f^
-p

M-
O

>•
-P

i—
•r—
/^
re
cu


cu
CL.




i.
SI
^^
E
o

^~
•
CM

C
re
^"
•p

cu
t_
0
^"



£_
r-gT
"^x,.
E
0
«3-
oo
o

o
+->

oo
o
«
CD


























"cu
>
0
/~1
re

c_
a>

re


r~r^ g~
C3 -P
•r- CL.
-P CU
o -a
•I—
C- E
-p 1
CO r-l
cu
s- re







E .
O

oo
•
t— 1

cz
re
^"
-P

co
CO
cu
_J








o
^
00

0
.{_}

CM
^





^

«^J"
•
00
c:
re
1 %
cu
o
s:










>s ' -
-p
• r—
O
re
Q.
re
o

£_
cu
•p
re
3

cu

.a
re

•r-
re
>
=c
0 i|-
-P M-
O
CD C
3
C £—
O
E
CO 3
f— *i~
•r- -0
O CU
to E

P CO
to >
o re
s: .£=

>^
• i—
t_ i —
3 re
o c_
O CO
o c
cu
o o>
-p
CO
>5 CU
r- CL
CU O
•r- "cO
S^
CO 00
•T «— 1

-P O
re .p
JZ
-p vp

^— c
4- O
O
c: to
3 r—
£— fr—
a
O) t^
f"
[ ^ a n
q—
c o
•1— C~
C 3
CO O
-P i —
CO CO
-a
>,
c t_
•r- CO
>
O O
-p +->
o
re ,3
c^— o
i—
4J CO
• c
re co
-p >
t- re
O J=
Q.
E r—
•i— i—
•i^
1= -£
re
to
CO CU
•r- Q.
O
CO r—
a_ to
o
1 — &^
oo '-o

*





























a
4-
<4-
Q
3

~^y
•r-
CL
re
£_
;>>
£_
cu
>
o
-p
"0
• 1—
Q.
re
£_
CU

re
>>
"re
£_
cu
c:
0)
en
to
cu
0.
o
r—
to

£_ - •
CU
Q. . " •.-
CU ••
CU CO
^-> c:
to o
•r-
C CO
O t-
cu
CO >
(— C
•r- O
0 0
co
• o
-O -1-
C £_
re -P
cu
SI













































(


























E •
E
co o
^d" '
CD *^"
oo LO
• •
o oo

ii H

•P d:
M- -i-

r-l'i— 1


5-9

-------
                                                               in
                                                               £
                                                               (U
                                                               •*->
                                                               t/1
                                                               
                                                               (d
                                                               C
                                                               •r—
                                                               (d
                                                               J_
                                                               TJ

                                                               •o
                                                               CD
                                                               t/)
                                                               O

                                                               O

                                                               "O
                                                               {=
                                                               (d

                                                               c
                                                               O)
                                                               Q.
                                                               O
                                                               as
                                                               4>
                                                               c:
                                                               cu
                                                               01
                                                               O)
                                                               J-
                                                               Q.
                                                               cu
                                                               s-

                                                               o
                                                               rd
                                                               t-
                                                               10

                                                               o
                                                               CM
                                                                I
                                                               LT>

                                                                HI
                                                                S_
                                                                ZJ
5-10

-------
                             TABLE  5-4
       SOIL  CONSERVATION  SERVICE  (SCS)  PERMEABILITY
                CLASSES FOR SATURATED  SOIL (6)
            Soil Permeability
                 (cm/hr)
              <0.15
               0.15 to 0.5
               0.5 to' 1.5
               1.5 to 5.1
               5.1 to 15.2
              15.2 to 51
                   Class
                Very slow
                SI ow
                Moderately slow
                Moderate
                Moderately rapid
                Rapid
                -Very rapid
                              TABLE  5-5
   SOIL CONSERVATION  SERVICE  (SCS)  DRAINAGE CLASSES  (6)
       Drainage Class
Very poorly drained

Poorly  drained

Somewhat poorly drained

Moderately well drained

Well drained

Somewhat excessively drained

Excessively drained
             Observable Symptom
Water remains at or on the  surface most  of the
year.
Water remains at or near the surface much of
the year.                          '
Soils are  wet for significant portions of the
year.                     -'.;.'   • •    '
.Soils are  seasonally wet (e.g., high water •
table in spring).       '   .         '-.;•.:
Water readily removed from  the soil  either by
subsurface flow or percolation; optimum  condi-
tion for plant growth.
Water is rapidly removed from the soil;  char-
acteristic of many uniform  sands.
Very rapid removal  of water with little  or no
retention.
                                 5-11

-------
Excessively  drained  soils provide  rapid  water  flow, and  their  use for
sludge  application  may be restricted except  under  the  following condi-
tions:

     •    Sludge application at  very  low  rates.   Some states will allow
          sludge to be applied to any soil at very low ratess e.g., <2.2
          mt/ha (1 T/ac), dry weight.

     t    Sludge application sites  over  exempted aquifers.  Some ground
          water  aquifers are  considered  unacceptable for  potable uses
          because  of  poor quality, and  are  exempted from regulations
          protecting against ground water degradation.

     5.3.3  Ground Water Constraints

In preliminary screening of potential sites, it is necessary to consider
ground water information from the application area:

     •    Depth to ground water  (including historical highs and lows).

     a    Ground  water  quality  and  use  classification   by  regulatory
          authorities.

     •    An estimate of ground water flow patterns.

When a  specific site  or  sites  has  been  selected for sludge application,
a detailed  field  investigation may be necessary  to  determine the above
information.   During  preliminary screening,  however,  published general
resources may be located at local USGS or state water resource agencies.

Generally, the greater the depth to the  water table, the more desirable
a site  is for  sludge application.   Sludge  should  not be placed where
there is potential for direct  contact with the  ground water table.  The
actual  thickness   of  unconsolidated  material  above  a  permanent  water
table constitutes the  effective  soil  depth.   The desired soil depth may
vary according to  sludge characteristics,  soil  texture,  soil  pH, method
of sludge application, and  sludge   application rate.  Table 5-6 summar-
izes recommended criteria for the various sludge application options.

The kind and condition of consolidated material  above the water table is
also of major importance for high-rate sludge application  systems.  Frac-
tured rock may allow leachate to move rapidly with little  opportunity for
contaminant  removal.   On the other hand,  unfractured bedrock at shallow
depths  will  restrict  water movement,  with the potential  for ground water
mounding, subsurface  lateral  flow, or poor  drainage.   Limestone bedrock
is  of   particular  concern where  sinkholes may  exist.    Sinkholes,  like
fractured rock, can accelerate the  movement  of  leachate to ground water.
Potential sites with potable ground water in areas underlain by fractured
bedrock at shallow depths, or sites containing limestone sinkholes should
be avoided.  Major  ground water  recharge  zones  that recharge major aqui-
fers with existing or potential  use for drinking water should probably be
excluded from consideration.
                                    5-12

-------
                                TABLE 5-6
             RECOMMENDED LIMITS FOR DEPTH  TO GROUND MATER
Type of Site
Agricultural
Forest
Drastically Disturbed Land
Dedicated Land Disposal
Drinking Water
Aquifer
1 m
2 int..
1 m#
At least 3 m
Excluded
Aquifer*
0.5 m
0.7.ra
0.5 m
0.5 m
       * Clearances are to ensure trafficability of surface, not for ground water
         protection.            ' •    .

       t Seasonal (springtime) high water and/or perched water less than 1 m is not
         usually a concern (see design chapter for discussion of these limits).

       # Assumes no ground water contact with Teachate from operation.

       Metric Conversion:  1 m = 3.28 ft.                              • .
     5.3.4   Proximity to Surface Water

The number,  size,  and nature of surface  water bodies'on or  near a poten-
tial sludge application site are  significant factors  in site  selection
due to potential  contamination from  site runoff and/or flood events.  In
general,  areas subject  tb  frequent flooding  have severe  limitations for
disposal  of wastes.    Engineered  flood  control  structures  can  be  con-
structed  to protect a sludge application site against flooding.  Because
such structures  are expensive, this  use  is usually only applicable for a
high-rate,  long-term OLD site.   Table 5-7  presents typical  setback  dis-
tances for  sludge application operations.

5.4  Site Selection Process

The selection  process  for  sludge application sites involves the evalua-
tion of  physical,  chemical, economic,  and social  characteristics.   The
information is  organized  to progressively  eliminate  unfeasible sites.
There are five steps in the  procedure:

     •     Initial  site  screening.
     •    Field  site survey.
     t    Field  investigations and testing.          •
     o    Economic feasibility.
     •    Final  site selection.
                                     5-13

-------
                                     TABLE 5-7
         SUGGESTED SETBACK  DISTANCES  FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION AREAS  (16)


                              Distance from Feature to Sludge Application  Site
                               15 to 90 m
                   ,90 to 460 m1"
                                                                 >460
              Feature

          Residential development

          Inhabited dwelling

          Ponds and lakes

          Springs

          10-year high water
          mark  of streams,
          rivers, and creeks

          Water supply wells

          Public road right-
          of-way
Injection'   Surface  Injection**
                       Injection
               Surface  and Surface
: No
Yes
Yes
No
, No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes .
'Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
    Yes

    No


    Yes
No

No


No
Yes

Yes


Yes '
Yes

Yes


Yes
Yes

Yes


Yes
          * 50 to 300 feet.

          t 300 to 1,500 feet.

          # >1,500 feet.

         ** Injection of liquid sludge or surface application of dewatered sludge.
      5.4.1  Site  Screening

Site  screening requires:

      •    An  estimate  of  land area  required  for  each  utilization/dis-
           posal option considered.

      •    Elimination of  unsuitable  areas  due to  physical,  environmen-
           tal, social, or political  reasons.

           5.4.1.1   Estimate Land  Area Required

Preliminary estimates of  land  area  required  for  each  of the  alternate
sludge utilization/disposal  options  can  be  determined  from data  pre-
sented in Table  4-3  in  Chapter  4.    More  precise  land area  requirements
are needed for design.  The values  from Table  4-3  should  be  adequate for
preliminary planning.

           5.4.1.2   Eliminate Unsuitable Areas

Soil  survey reports  can be obtained from the local  SCS offices;  these
surveys  are  suitable for preliminary  planning.    When  some  potential
sites  are  identified,  field inspections and investigations are  necessary
                                     5-14

-------
 to confirm  expectations.   The SCS  mapping  units  cannot  represent areas
 smaller than  0.8  to 1.2 ha (approximately 2 to 3 acres).   Thus, there is
 a  possibility  that small  areas  of  soils  with  significantly  different
 characteristics may be located within a mapping unit but  not identified.

 Quadrangles published  by the U.S. Geological Survey may be useful  during
 preliminary  planning   and  screening  in estimating  slope,  topography,
 local  depressions  or  wet  areas,  rock  outcrops, regional  drainage  pat-
 terns, and  water table elevations.   These maps are  usually drawn  to a
 scale  of  1:24,000  (7.5-minute  series)  or   1:62,500 (15-minute series).
 Because of  their scale,  they  too cannot  be relied upon  for  evaluating
 small parcels,  and  do  not  eliminate the need  for field investigation of
 candidate sludge  application  sites.   The  use of regional  maps and  soil
 survey maps can  help eliminate potentially  unsuitable areas.   Table 5-8
 summarizes important criteria.
                                 TABLE 5-8
           POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE  AREAS FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION


       1.  Land adjacent to subdivisions,  schools, and other inhabited dwellings.

       2.  Areas bordered by ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams without appropriate
           buffer areas.

       3.  Wetlands and marshes.

       4.  Steep areas with sharp relief.

       5.  Undesirable geology (karst, fractured bedrock) (if not covered by a suf-
           ficiently thick soil column).

       6.  Undesirable soil conditions (shallow, permafrost).

       7.  Areas of historical  or archeologlcal significance.

       8.  Other environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplalris or intermittent
           streams, ponds, etc.                           ,

       9.  Rocky, nonarable land.
One  practical  screening technique  involves the  use of  transparent  (my-
lar)  overlays with concentric rings drawn  around the  POTW(s).  The  dis-
tance represented by the initial ring will  vary depending  on POTW loca-
tion,  sludge quantity,  proximity  of nearby  communities,  local  topogra-
phy,  and  the application option(s) being  considered.  A small community
might  start with  an  area 20  km (12.5 miles)  in diameter,  while a large
system may  initially screen a much  larger study  area.  Shaded areas  rep-
resenting  unsuitable  locations  are  marked on the  map or  the transpar-
ency.   If the  initial  ring does not have  suitable sites,  then  the  next
ring  with  a  larger  diameter should  be considered.   It  should be remem-
bered  that  areas which  are  unsuitable in  their existing  state can often
be modified to make them acceptable for  sludge application.   The neces-
sary  modifications (e.g.,  extensive grading,  drainage structures, flood
                                    5-15

-------
control, etc.) may be cost-effective if the site is otherwise attractive
in terms of location, low land cost, etc.

     5.4.2  Contact with Owners of Prospective Sites

When potential  sites are  identified,  ownership  should be  determined.
Often the  City Hall, County  Courthouse,  or  a real estate  broker  will
have community or  areawide  maps indicating the tracts  of  land,  present
owners, and property  boundaries.   The County  Recorder  and  title insur-
ance companies are also useful sources of information on property owner-
ship,  size  of tracts,  and  related information.   Contacting landowners
prematurely without adequate  preparation  may  result in  an  initial  nega-
tive reaction  which  is  difficult  to  reverse.   The public  information
program should be  prepared,  and local  political  support secured.   The
individuals  involved  in  making the  initial   owner contacts  should  be
knowledgeable  about  potential  program  benefits   and  constraints  (see
Chapter 3).

Initial contacts concerning the proposed project should be made with the
prospective landowners/site managers  through  personal  interviews.Ini-
tial contacts via  telephone are  not  recommended to avoid misunderstand-
ings regarding the benefits of any such program.

     5.4.3  Field Site Survey

When the map  study has  identified potential  sites,  a  field site survey
should be conducted.  A drive or walk through the  candidate areas should
verify or provide additional information on:

     •    Topography  -  Estimate of  slope both on  prospective site and
          adjacent plots.

     •    Drainage - Open or closed drainage patterns.

     t    Distance to surface water.

     •    Distance to water supply well(s).

     •    Available access roads - All-weather or  temporary.

     •    Existing vegetation/cropping.

A field survey form similar to  the one shown  in Table  5-9 which  records
the current condition of all  critical  factors is  recommended.   The  data
sets collected  from various  sites can then  be used to update  the map
overlay.
                                  5-16

-------
                             TABLE 5-9
           SAMPLE  FORM FOR  PRELIMINARY FIELD  SITE  SURVEY
A.  PROPERTY LOCATION
                               PROPERTY OWNER
    TOPOGRAPHY
    1.  Relief (sharp, flat, etc.)
    2.  Slope Estimate     	
    3.  Drainage Patterns
        - Open/Closed	
        - Drainage Class No.'
        - Any Underdrains	
    DISTANCE FROM SITE BOUNDARY TO:
    1.  Surface Water
    2.  Water Supply Well
    ESTIMATE OF SITE DIMENSIONS
    1.  Area
    2.
    3.
Natural Boundaries_
Fences
    AVAILABLE ACCESS
    1.  Road Types	
    2.  Other
    EXISTING VEGETATION/CROPS AND COMMONLY USED CROP ROTATIONS
    1.  On-Site              	       -   '
    2.  Neighboring Properties	
    SOIL
    1".  Texture	
    2.  Variability	'
* Refer to Table 5-5 for drainage class.
                               5-17

-------
5.5  Field Investigation and Testing

     5.5.1  General

The extent of field investigations will vary depending on:

     •    Land  application  option(s)  being  considered,  e.g.,  agricul-
          tural,  forest,  land  reclamation,  or dedicated  disposal  site
          (see Table 5-10).

     9    Regulatory requirements.

     a    Completeness and  suitability  of  soils,  topographic, hydrogeo-
          logic information obtained  from  other  sources,  e.g.,  the SCS,
          USGS, etc.

Table 5-10 provides a summary of the site-specific information required*;
This  information  is  of  a  general  nature and  can usually  be  obtained
without  field sampling  and testing.   Review  of  this information  may
eliminate some potential  sites from further consideration.

     5.5.2  Soil Testing

Soil test data  and  site  characteristics normally needed when evaluating
sludge land application options  are  summarized  in  Table 5-11.  Chemical
soil testing methodologies are discussed in Appendix C.  Additional pro-
cedural  information may  be obtained from the  local  SCS,  extension ser-
vices universities, laboratories, and consultants.   Appendix B discusses
soil properties in detail.

          5.5.2.1  Soil Chemical Properties

Determinations  of pH, lime requirement,  and  cation  exchange  capacity
(CEC)  are  generally  needed  to assess  appropriate  sludge  application
rates and site management practices.  Soil  pH and to some extent CEC in-
fluence  the  soil's  ability to attenuate heavy metal  cations (18).  The
CEC  is  determined to a  large extent by the organic  matter  content and
the  amount  and  kind  of  clay content  in  soil.    Generally,  soils with
higher CEC values are more  efficient  at retaining  heavy metals, and are
therefore more desirable for a sludge utilization/disposal site.

When  agricultural,  forestry,  and  reclamation  utilization  options  are
considered,  soil  fertility  tests are sometimes desirable  in determining
the  amount  of supplemental  fertilizer that may  be needed  to  optimize
crop  growth.   These analyses,  except for pH, are generally not needed
for  lands dedicated  for  disposal.  For  these  sites,  emphasis is placed
on  the  soil  physical  properties,  and engineering  design   is  usually
geared toward pollution control, rather than agricultural  productivity.
                                  5-18

-------
                               TABLE 5-10
  NECESSARY  SITE-SPECIFIC  INFORMATION  OF  A  GENERAL  NATURE
1.  Property Ownership
2.  Physical  Dimensions  of Site
    A.  Overall  boundaries
    B.  Portion  usable for sludge utilization/disposal  under constraints of
        topography,  buffer zones, etc.
3.  Current Land Use
4.  Planned Future Land  Use
5.  If Agricultural  Crops Are to Be Grown:
    A.  Cropping patterns
    B.  Typical  yields
    C.  Methods  and  quantity of fertilizer application
    D.  Methods  of soil  tillage                                    ,
    E.  Irrigation practices, if any
    F.  Final  use of crop grown (animal/human consumption,  non-food chain,
        etc.)
    G.  Vehicular access within site
6.  If Forest  Land:
    A.  Age of trees
    B.  Species'  of trees
    C.  Commercial or recreational  operation
•    D.  Current  fertilizer application
    E.  Irrigation practices   •     .
    F.  Vehicular access within site
7.  If Drastically Disturbed Land (i.e., for reclamation  option):
    A.  Existing vegetation
    B.  Historical causes of disturbance, e.g.,  strip mining  of coal, dumping
        of mine  tailings, etc.
    C.  Previous attempts at reclamation, if any
    D.  Need  for terrain modification
8.  Surface/Ground Water Conditions
    A.  Location and depth of wells, if any
    B.  Location of  surface water (occasional  and  permanent)
    C.  History  of flooding and drainage problems
    D.  Seasonal  fluctuation of ground water level
    E.  Quality  and  users of ground water
                                   5-19

-------
                                  TABLE  5-11
              SUGGESTED SOIL TEST DATA AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
                     FOR SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION OPTIONS
      Field Test
Forest
DDL
OLD
Soil Chemical Property








pH
Lime Requirement
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
Plant Available Nitrogen (N)*
Plant Available Phosphorus (P)
Plant Available Potassium (K)
Background Metal Analysis
Exchangeable Sodium % (ESP)a
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Ya
Y
Y
Y
-
-
-
Y
Ya
Y
Y
Y
-
-
-
Y
Ya
Y
Y
Y
-
-
-
Y
-
Soil Physical Property
t
•
•
Ground





Bedrock
•
•
•
Depth of Profile
Texture and Structure
Permeability
Water
Depth
Seasonal Fluctuation
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Quality
Uses

Depth
Types
Fractures
Y
-b
-b

Y
-
-
-
-

_
-
""
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

—
'-
™
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Notes:
* Soil tests for plant available N may not  be  available  or  required for all
  regions in the United States.
Y indicates that data are necessary for site selection and  design.
- indicates data are not critical.
a = ESP may be critical for arid western states  (see Reference  10 for discus-
    sion).
b = Assumed suitable for agronomic purposes.
                                  5-20

-------
           5.5.2.2   Soil  Physical  Properties

Appendix  B  discusses  the  relationship  between  soil  texture and  struc-
ture,  drainage,  and  stability  characteristics.   These  physical  proper-
ties are much less  important if the  site will be used for application of
sludge at low rates  (e.g., agricultural  utilization at agronomic  rates),
or  if  dewatered or  dry sludge will be applied,

     5.5.3  Ground  Water Testing

Field  data pertinent  to  ground water are listed  in  Tables 5-10  and 5-11.
Leachate formation  is  of little concern  for low-rate  agricultural  sludge
applications, and field  testing and/or operational  monitoring for  ground
water  quality may not  be required.

5.6  Preliminary Cost  Analysis

A preliminary estimate  of  relative  costs should.be made  as part  of  the
site  selection  process.   These  estimates  are  necessary  for  comparing
alternative  sites and/or application options.

Proximity of the sludge  application  sites to  the POTW(s)  is very  impor-
tant in the  decision-making  process  due to high transport  costs.   Fur-
ther,  the cost  of  sludge  dewatering equipment may be evaluated in  view
of  estimated  fuel  savings  through decreased  total  loads  and/or shorter
haul distances.   For  ease  of comparison, all  costs should be  expressed
in  dollars per dry  weight  of  sludge.  Capital costs  should be  estimated
over the life of  the  site, whereas  operating costs should be  estimated
annually.   Cost  factors that are  of prime  importance are summarized  in
Table  5-12.    These assessments should  be  based  on experience  and best
engineering  judgement.


                                 TABLE 5-12
           COST FACTORS TO  BE CONSIDERED DURING SITE SELECTION
           Capital Costs

              •  Land acquisition - purchase, lease, or use of private land.

              •  Site preparation - grading, roads, fences, drainage, flood control,
                and buildings (if needed).

              •  Equipment - sludge transport and application.

              •  Sludge storage facilities.

           Operating Costs
                Fuel for sludge transport and application.

                Labor (transport, application, maintenance, sampling, etc.).

                Equipment repair.

                Utilities.              -

                Monitoring,  if required (laboratory analyses, sample containers,
                shipping).

                Materials and miscellaneous supplies.
                                    5-21

-------
 5.7   Final  Site  Selection

 The  final  selection of the  site(s)  is often a simple decision based on
 the  availability of the best  site(s).   This is frequently the case for
 small  communities.   If, however, the site selection process is complex,
 involving  many  potential  sites and/or  several  sludge  utilization/dis-
 posal  options, a weighted  scoring  system may be useful.

 The  use  of  a quantitative scoring system is demonstrated in Section 4.4
 of the Process Design Manual for Municipal Sludge Landfills (11).  While
 the  criteria  for selecting site(s) for the land application options dis-
 cussed in  this manual   differ  somewhat from  those  provided in the land-
 fill  design manual, the weighting and  scoring system may be useful.

 Several  other considerations  should be integrated  into this decision-
 making process.   These  include:

      •   Compatibility, of sludge quantity and quality with the specific
          land application  option  selected (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2,
          for more detail).
      •   Public acceptance  of  both  the option(s) and site(s) selected.

      •   Anticipated  design  life,  based  on assumed  application rate,
          land  availability  (capacity),  projected  heavy  metal   loading
          rates,  and soil properties.

 5.8   Selection of Land  Application Options

 When  the most feasible land application options have  been identified,
 preliminary  estimates   of  site  life  expectancy  and costs  (capital  and
 O&M)  for the individual options  should  be made.   Potential  social  and
 environmental  impacts   resulting  from each  option  should also  be  as-
 sessed.  Comparison of these data should reveal  the most suitable option
which  fits  both  the needs of  the  POTW and local conditions.   The POTW
may  also consider adopting more than one  land  application  option (e.g.,
agricultural  and forested land  applications)  if the  combined  practice
appears  to  be cost-effective.   The  flow chart  shown  in Figure  5-3 sum-
marizes the procedure for selecting a land treatment option.

A checklist of relevant design features for each land application option
is usually  helpful  in  compiling information, and  provides  baseline data
for  cost estimates  (see Table 5-13).  Comparison and  evaluation  of  in-
dividual  options may be based  on both quantitative  and qualitative fac-
tors:
          Estimated costs.
          Potential environmental
          Potential public health
          Reliability.
          Flexibility.
          Land area requirements and availability.
impacts (adverse and beneficial).
impacts.
                                  5-22

-------
              CHAPTER 4t  TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
                 AND PRELIMINARY PLANNING

                FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION

                • REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
                  (FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL
                • PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE
                • SLUDGE SUITABILITY
                • TRANSPORT FEASIBILITY
                • LAND AREA REQUIREMENT
             CHAPTER Si SITE EVALUATION
                  AND SELECTION

              FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION

              • LAND USE (CURRENT AND FUTURE)
              • ZONING COMPLIANCE
              • AESTHETICS
              • SITE ACQUISITION
              • SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
              • HYDROGEOLOGY
   GO TO
 APPROPRIATE
PROCESS DESIGN
  CHAPTER
               REVIEWING SOME OF THE FOLLOWING
               CHAPTERS MAY BE NECESSARYl

               - PROCESS DESIGN CHAPTERS
                 (CHAPTER 6 THROUGH 9)
               - FACILITY DESIGN £ COST
                 GUIDANCE (CHAPTER 10)
               - OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
                 (CHAPTER 11)

                 FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION!

               •  COST EFFECTIVENESS
               •  LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
               •  OTHER QUALITATIVE IMPACTS]
                 - IMPLEMENTABILITY
                 - PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
                 - RELIABILITY
                 - FLEXIBILITY
                 - LAND-USE EFFECTS
                 - PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY
                 - LEGISLATION
I                                  LOOK FOR
                                OTHER ALTERNATIVE
                       1
                 / IMPLEMENT THE OPTION
                 \ OR THE COMBINATION
Figure 5-3.
Planning,  site selection, and  option
selection  sequence.
                           5-23

-------
                                TABLE  5-13

EXAMPLE  DESIGN  FEATURES  CHECKLIST  OF  CANDIDATE  OPTIONS


                                    Candidate Option or Combination  of Options
           Subject                  1.	 2.         3.         4.

  1.  Distance and travel  time from
     POTO to the candidate  site

  2.  Distance and travel  time from
     the storage facility to the
     candidate site

  3.  Distance from the nearest
     existing development,  neigh-
     bors, etc., to the candidate
     site

  4.  Sludge modification  require-
     ments, e.g., dewatering

  5.  Mode of sludge transportation

  6.  Land area required

  7.  Site preparation/construction
     needs:

     a.  None
     b.  Clearing and  grading
     c.  Access  roads  (on-site and
           off-site)
     d.  Buildings, e.g., equipment
           storage
     e.  Fences
     f.  Sludge  storage and transfer
           facilities
     g.  On-site drainage control
           structures
     h.  Off-site runoff diversion
           structures
     i.  On-site runoff storage
     j.  Flood control structure
     k.  Ground  water pollution
           control structure,  e.g.,
           subsurface drain system
     1.  Soil modification require-
          ments, e.g., lime addi-
          tion,  etc.

 8.  Equipment needs:

     a.  Sludge  transport vehicle
     b.  Dredge
     c.  Pumps
     d.  Crawler  tractor
     e.  Subsurface injection unit
     f.  Tillage  tractor
     g.  Sludge  application  vehicle
     h.  Nurse tanks or tracks
     1.  Road sweeper
     j.  Washing trucks
     k.  Irrigation equipment
     1.  Appurtenant equipment

 9.  Monitoring requirements:

     a.   Soil
     b.   Vegetation
     c.   Surface water
     d.   Ground water
     e.   Leachate (unsaturated soil
          zone)
     f.   Sludge analysis

 10.  Operational needs

     a.  Labor
     b.  Management
     c.  Energy
     d.  Repair
                                 5-24

-------
     •    Land use effects.
     •    Public acceptance.
     «    Legislation (local, state, and federal).

     5.8.1  Qualitative Impact Comparison

The qualitative  comparison  of  each land application  option  is based on
the  experience  and  judgement  of  the  project  planners  and designers.
This is more difficult than a cost comparison, because the level of each
impact  is  more  ambiguous  and subject  to  differences  of opinion.   An
example of  a  qualitative factor  comparison for a  hypothetical  city is
presented in Table 5-14.  An example of a scoring system is presented in
Section 4.4 of the Process  Design  Manual  for Municipal  Sludge Landfills
(18).   The  scoring system  should  permit an  "override"  when dominating
negative or positive factors exist.

5.9  Site Selection Example

Each of the process design  chapters  (Chapters  6 through  9) provides a
detailed example  of  the design of  a  specific  land  application option.
This section  provides  a brief example  of  the  site  selection procedure
that could be  used for a typical  medium-sized community.

     5.9.1  City Characteristics

     •    Population  - 34,000.

     •    Wastewater volume - 0.18 m3/s (4 M gal/day).

     •    Industrial  wastewater contribution - approximately 10 percent.

     t    POTW description  - conventional  activated  sludge, with primary
          and  waste activated sludge treated by  anaerobic digestion.

     5.9.2  Sludge Characteristics

     •    Daily sludge generation  - 2.36 dry mt/day  (2.6 dry T/day).

     •    Average solids content  - 4 percent.

     •    Average chemical  properties  (dry  weight basis):
          - Total  N - 3 percent.
          - NH4-N  - 1 percent.
          - Total  P - 2 percent.
          - Total  K - 0.5 percent.
- Pb - 500 mg/kg.
- Zn - 2,000 mg/kg.
- Cu - 500 mg/kg.
- Ni - 100 mg/kg.
- Cd - 15 mg/kg.
                                  5-25

-------

                                                     t_    U  U •>-
                                                     OJ  (O  QJ fO
                                                          "
                                                             1-    0)  -r
                                                                                                                Q O •»-
                                                                                                                ,
                                   "O       ^— ro
                                   —       01 3
                                     :•»-    a. o
                                                                                 O CT CL4J
                                                                                 C. C  10  C
                                                                                 •p ro  o
                                                                                 c +J 4->
                                                                                         ~
                                                                                 _!Oi—  o
                                                                                                           _
                                                                                                  O ^-  I-  ro
                                                                                                                o,- i- ^
    a.
  I  C/5
ID OS
_l O
CO  i—
                                                                           O   T-  O
                                                        J LO        U O *O
                                                         ^—-      •!— en.—
 U  OJ (
•r-  cn <
                                                                  i— T3 CL O    i— '
                                                                  O. 3 O (-     n.3MCJl
                                                                  O.r— t_ CD    Q.r— T- •!-
                                                                                                                ro    -Q i—
                                                                                                                CX •"" *^* *r~
                                                                                                                     -
                                                                 5-26

-------
     5.9.3  Regulations Considered

Assume that  agricultural  utilization  is  the only  option  being  consid-
ered, and that special permits  are  not required for sludge application,
provided that:

     1.  Annual  sludge  applications do  not  exceed either  the nitrogen
         recommendations for the  crop  grown  or the 2  kg  Cd/ha (1.8 lb/
         ac) limitation specified by the state agency.

     2.  Soil is maintained at pH 6.5 or above.

     3.  Annual program for routine  soil  testing  (N, P,  K)  and lime re-
         quirement (pH) is implemented.

     4.  Wastewater treatment plant measures the chemical  composition of
         sludge.
     5.  Records are maintained on the location and the amount of sludge
         applied.

     5.9.4  Public Acceptance

Assume that public acceptance of land application of sludge is judged to
be  very  good.   Several  nearby communities  have  previously established
agricultural utilization programs with excellent results.  Sludge charac-
teristics from these communities were similar as were their farm manage-
ment  and  cropping patterns  involving  corn,  soybeans,  oats,  wheat,  and
pastureland.

Several articles had appeared in the local newspaper indicating that es-
calating landfill costs were causing the  city  to study various disposal
alternatives.  No public opposition groups are known to exist.

     5.9.5  Preliminary Feasibility Assessment

The  above  preliminary information was  sufficiently encouraging  to war-
rant further study of the agricultural  use option.

     5.9.6  Estimate Land Area Required

An  application rate  of  22.4  mt/ha/year  (10  T/ac/year)  was used  as  a
first approximation  (see Table  4-3).   The acreage required for the city
was estimated as follows:
Acreage needed -
                 2.36
                                        days/yr  = 3g>4
Thus,  assume 40 ha (100 ac) for the preliminary search.
                                  5-27

-------
      5.9.7  Eliminate Unsuitable  Areas

 Figure 5-4 shows a general area map containing the town  and  surrounding
 communities.   Three  concentric  rings  of 10,  20,  and 30 km  (6.2,  12.4,
 and 18.6 mi) were  drawn around the POTW.   Areas  directly south of the
 POTW were immediately  excluded  because of the town  boundaries.   Simi-
 larly, areas  east  and southeast were excluded  because of  the  town's pro-
 jected growth pattern, the encroachment  of  a  neighboring city, and the
 municipal  airport.   Further investigations to identify potential appli-
 cation sites  were  thus  concentrated to  the west and northwest.

      5.9.8  Identify  Suitable Areas

 Soil  maps obtained from  the  local  SCS  office were examined within the
 three  radii.   Areas within the  10-km  (7-mi)  ring were given first pri-
 ority  because of their proximity to the POTW.  Sufficient land was lo-
 cated  within  this  distance, and  the  areas contained within  the second
 and third  radii  were  not  investigated.
Figure  5-5 is a  general  soil  map showing  one
for  sludge utilization.   A detailed soil  map
Figure  5-6, and the map legend is presented in
 potential area  available
 of the  area is shown  in
 Table  5-15.
 Information presented in the soil survey report included:  slope, drain-
 age,  depth  to seasonal water  table,  and depth to  bedrock.   Cation ex-
 change capacities were  estimated  from  texture,  and  a ranking was devel-
 oped to estimate soil suitability for sludge application.  The preferred
 candidate sites were further  examined  for the characteristics listed in
 Table 5-13.   The  rankings developed in  Table  5-15  are explained in the
 footnotes to the table.

 Since the  detailed  soil map  was  based on an  aerial  photo,  farm build-
 ings, houses, etc.,  were  usually  identifiable.   Certain portions within
 this area were excluded, including:
     a   Areas  in  close proximity to houses,
         ited buildings.                  •
schools, and other inhab-
     •   Areas immediately adjacent to ponds, lakes, rivers* and streams,

Those areas  were shaded  (Figure  5-6),  using a mylar overlay.   The re-
maining unshaded areas, covering about 930 ha (2,300 ac), were generally
pastureland  with some  fields  of corn  and  oats.   Within this  area  is
about 175 ha (432 ac) which ranks in Category 1 in Table 5-15.

The land in the site area was owned by three individuals.  Since the 175
ha (432 ac) was far in excess of the 40 ha (100 ac) required, no further
sites were investigated.
                                 5-28

-------
                                                    TOWN
Figure 5-4.   General  area  map  with  concentric  rings.
                        5-29

-------
                                                      KM
              LEGEND
                       DEEP, WELL-DRAINED TO POORLY DRAINED,
                       MEDIUM TEXTURED AND MODERATELY FINE
                       TEXTURED, NEARLY LEVEL SOILS THAT
                       FORMED IN ALLUVIUM
                       DEEP, SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED TO WELL
                       DRAINED, MEDIUM-TEXTURED, NEARLY LEVEL
                       TO STEEP SOILS THAT FORMED IN LOESS
                       AND THE UNDERLYING OUTWASH, IN LOESS
                       AND THE UNDERLYING GLACIAL TILL OR
                       IN GLACIAL TILL
                       MODERATELY DEEP AND DEEP,  WELL-DRAINED,
                       MEDIUM-TEXTURED, GENTLY SLOPING TO STEEP
                       SOILS THAT FORMED IN LOESS AND THE
                       UNDERLYING SANDSTONE AND SHALE RESIDUUM
Figure 5-5.
General soil map showing area selected for sludge
utilization.
                              5-30

-------
Figure 5-6.
Detailed soil survey map of potential site for
s.ludge application.  Areas not suitable for use
are shaded.  See Table 5-15 for ranking of
soil  types.
                             5-31

-------
                                            TABLE 5-15
                      RANKING OF SOIL TYPES FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION
Soil Type
AvA**
Ca**
CnB2**
CnC2
CnC3
Cn02
Cn03
Fe**
FoA**
FoB2
FoC3
Ge
Hh
La
MbA
Mb82
Md
NgA**
NgB2**
HnA
RnF
Ro**
Rp
RsB2
Sc
Sh**
Sra
Sz
We**
Wh«*
Slope
Percent
0-2
0.2
2-6
6-12
6-12
12-18
12-18
0-2
0-2
2-4
6-12
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
2-6
0-2
0-2
2-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
2-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
Depth to
Seasonal High
Water Table (ft)
1-3
>6
>6
>6
>6
>6
>6
3-6
>6
>6
>6
>6
1-3
>6
>6
>6
3-6
>6
>6
>6
>6
>6
>6
3-6
0-1
1-3
1-3
>6
0-1
1-3

Bedrock
(ft) Texture*
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 sil
>15 1
>15 1
>15 1
>15 1
>10 sil
>15 gsal
>15 1
>15 1
>15 sicl
>15 1
>15 1
>15 1
>15 gl
>15 sicl
>15 sicl
>15 sil
>15 sicl
>15 sil
>15 1
>15 sal
>15 cl
>15 1
Drainage
Classt
P
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SP
W
W
W
MW
W
W
W
E
W
W
MW
VP
SP
SP
W
VP
SP
Approximate
CEC
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
10-15
>5
10-15
10-15
>15
10-15
10-15
10-15
>5
>15
>15
10-15
>15
10-15
10-15
5-10
>15
10-15
Relative
Ranking^
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
 * 1,  loam; gsal, gravelly  sandy loam; sil,  silt, loam; sicl,  silty-clay loam;  cl, clay loam;  sal, sandy
   loam;  gl, gravelly loam.

 t E,  excessively drained;  W, well drained;  MW, moderately well  drained; SP,  somewhat poorly drained; P,
   poorly drained; VP, very poorly drained.

 I 1,  0-6 percent slope,  >6 ft to water table and >15 to bedrock.  2, 6-12 percent slope or 3-6  ft to water
   table.  3, 12-18 percent slope or 0-3 ft  to water table.

** Soil types present on  potential site (see Figure 5-6).
                                                 5-32

-------
Soils present  in the  area  were generally  silt  loams,  having a  CEC  of
approximately 10 meq/100  g.  Representative  soil  analysis was as  fol-
1 ows:

         CEC - 10 meq/100 g.
         Soil pH - 6.0 (1:1 with water).
         Available P - 16.8 kg/ha (15 Ib/ac).
         Available K - 84 kg/ha (75 Ib/ac).
         Lime necessary to raise pH to 6.5 - 5.4 t/ha (2.4 T/ac).

The three landowners were contacted individually to determine their wil-
lingness to  participate.  All expressed considerable interest in  parti-
cipating in the program.

     5.9.9  Site Survey and Field Investigation

These efforts  confirmed  the suitability  of the site selected.   Agree-
ments were thus made with each landowner to accept municipal  sludge.

     5.9.10  Cost Analysis

No  land  costs  were incurred  since  the landowners agreed  to  accept the
sludge.    Capital  costs  included:   transportation vehicle,  application
vehicle, sludge-loading apparatus with pumps,  pipes,  concrete pad, elec-
trical controls, and  storage  facilities.   Annual costs for  this  option
were  estimated  to  be $73/dry mt  ($66/dry T)  as compared  to  $85/dry  mt
($77/dry T) for landfilling the sludge at a site 25 km (15.5 m) from the
POTW.

     5.9.11  Final  Site Selection

The 175 ha (432 ac) of best quality land were  distributed  over seven in-
dividual  fields,   several  of  which  were not  serviced by  all-weather
roads.   These  fields  would only be used  if complicating  factors  (e.g.,
field or crop conditions) rendered  the  other  fields  unusable.  The con-
tractual  agreement with  the  three individuals  specified that  sludges
would be  applied  to certain  fields (to be determined  at  owner  discre-
tion) at rates commensurate with crop  nitrogen requirements,  and  to pre-
vent any adverse long-term effects of heavy metal accumulations.

5.10  References

 1.  Gulp, G. L., J. A. Fa-isst,  D. J.  Hinricks, and B. R.  Winsor.  Evalu-
     ation of Sludge Management  Systems:   Evaluation Checklist and Sup-
     porting Commentary.   EPA 430/9-80-001, Culp/Wesner/Culp, El  Dorado
     Hills,  California,  February 1980.   248  pp.    (Available from Na-
     tional  Technical  Information Service, Springfield,  Virginia,  PB81
     108805)

 2.  Loehr,  R. C.,  W. J.  Jewell,  J. D.  Novak, W. W.  Clarkson, and G.  S.
     Friedman.  Land Application  of Wastes, Vol. 1.   Van  Nostrand Rein-
     hold, New York.  1979.  308pp.
                                  5-33

-------
  3.   U.S.  EPA.   Principles and Design Criteria for  Sewage  Sludge  Appli-
      cation  on  Land.   In:   Sludge Treatment  and  Disposal.   EPA-625/4-78-
      012,  Environmental Research  Information Center, Cincinnati,  Ohio.
      October  1978.   pp. 57-112.   (Available  from  National  Technical  In-
      formation  Service, Springfield,  Virginia, PB-299 594)

  4.   Miller,  R. H., T.  J.  Logan,  R.  K. White, D..L. Foster, and J.  N.
      Stitzlein.   Ohio  Guide for Land  Application  of  Sewage  Sludge.   Bul-
      letin No.  598  (Revised).   Cooperative Extension Service,  Ohio State
      University,  Columbus.  June  1979.   16 pp.

  5.   U.S. Soil  Conservation Service.  Guide  for  Interpreting  Engineering
      Uses  of Soils.   U.S.  Government Printing Office, Washington,  D.C.
      1971.  87  pp.

  6.   U.S. Soil  Conservation Service.  Soil Survey  Manual.   USDA  Handbook
      No.  18.   U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Washington, D.C.   1951.
      503 pp.

  7.   Brunner,  D.  R.,  and  D.  J.  Keller.  Sanitary  Landfill  Design  and
      Operation.   SW65ts.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washing-
      ton, D.C.   1972.   17pp.    (Available from National Technical  Infor-
      mation Service, Springfield,  Virginia,  PB-227 565)
  8.
  9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
CHoM  Hill.   Initial Analysis  of  Candidate Systems and  Preliminary
Site  Identification:   LA/OMA  Project.   Newport Beach,  California.
April  1977.

Knezek,  B.  D., and R.  H. Miller,  eds.   Application of Sludges  and
Wastewaters on  Agricultural  Land:   A Planning and  Educational  Guide.
North  Central  Regional  Research Publication  No. 235.   Ohio  Agricul-
tural  Research  and Development Center, Wooster,  1976.   88 pp.

U.S.  EPA.   Process Design  Manual  for Land  Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater.   EPA  625/9-81-006, October  1977.   596 pp.   (Available
from National Technical Information  Service,  Springfield, Virginia,
PB-299 655)

U.S.  EPA.   Process Design  Manual   for Municipal  Sludge Landfills.
EPA 625/1-78-010, October 1978.   331 pp.  (Available from National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-299 675)

Olson,  G.  W.   Significance  of  Soil  Characteristics  of  Waste on
Land.   In:  Land  as a  Waste Management Alternative,  Proceedings of
the 1976 Cornell  Agricultural  Waste Management Conference.  Loehr,
R. C., ed.  Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan.   1976.  pp. 79-
105.
Keeney, D.R., K.W.  Lee,  and  L.M.
cation  of Wastewater  Sludge  to
Technical  Bulletin  88,  Wisconsin
Madison, 1975.  36 pp.
Walsh.  Guidelines for the Appli-
 Agricultural  Land  in Wisconsin.
 Department  of Natural Resources,
                                   5-34

-------
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
     Witty,  J.E., and K.W.  Flach.   Site Selection  as  Related to Utili-
     zation  and Disposal of  Organic Wastes.   In:   Soils for Management
     of Organic Wastes and Waste Waters.   Soil  Science Society of Amer-
     ica, Madison, Wisconsin.  1977.
     Soil  Conservation  Service.   Guide for Rating
                    " Waste.   Interim Guide, Advisory
     for Disposal
     ington, D.C.,
             of
              1973.
Limitations of Soils
   Soils, 14.  Wash-
     Sommers,  L.  E., 0.  W.  Nelson,
     Sludge in Crop Production.  AY20
     tension Service.  1980.
                                 and C.  D.  Spies.
                                 Purdue University,
       Use  of Sewage
     Cooperative Ex-
     CH?M  Hill.   Initial  Analysis of  Candidate  Systems and Preliminary
     Site  Identification:   LA/OMA Project.   Newport Beach, California,
     April 1977.
U.S. EPA.  Proceedings
Wastewater and  Sludge
California, Davis,  California.
July 1983).
                             of  the  Workshop  on Utilization of Municipal
                             on  Land, Denver,  Colorado.   University  of
                                                              (In Press,
                                      February 23-25,  1983.
                                   5-35

-------

-------
                               CHAPTER 6

              PROCESS DESIGN FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION
6.1  General

The purpose  of  this chapter  is  to  present detailed  design  information
for the utilization of sewage  sludge  on  agricultural  cropland.   The de-
sign example presented at  the end of this  chapter  assumes  that (1) the
agricultural  utilization  option has  been selected; (2) preliminary plan-
ning has been completed;  and (3) a transportation system has been chosen
to  convey  sludge to  the  application  site.   Primary emphasis  will  be
placed on  growing  crops  such  as  corn,  soybeans, small  grains, cotton,
sorghum, and forages.

The design approach presented in this chapter is based  on  the utiliza-
tion of sludge as a low-analysis replacement for commercial  fertilizers.
The application rate of sludge is typically designed for either the N or
P needs of the crop grown on a particular soil.  In  addition, the sludge
application  rate  must beconsistent  with existing  federal,  state, arid"
local   regulations  relative to pathogens, metals, or  organics contained
in the sludge.

The U.S. EPA promulgated  interim final regulations in 1979 for states to
use in limiting  the total  amount of  Cd  that  can  be applied to cropland
each year as well as over a period of years (10).  Many states have also
developed  regulations  or guidelines  concerning  annual  N and  Cd limits
and cumulative Cd limits  applied to agricultural  cropland.  If sludge is
applied to cropland at rates  greater  than the 1 i m i ts  established for N,
increased  monitoring  will  usually  be   required  for  potential  nitrate
movement into  drinking water aquifers.    Exceeding  the  allowable limits
for Cd applications may  result in restrictions on  crop  use (i.e., crop
use only for animal feed), and possibly restrictions on future land use.

The goal  of  the basic design approach  presented in  this chapter is to
optimize crop yields  generally on privately owned land through applica-
tions of both, sludge  and  supplemental fertilizers,  if needed.  However,
other  agricultural  use options involving sludge  application at rates in
excess of  crop  use rates  are possible  on  both  private  and municipally
owned  land.   The  information contained  in  Reference (10) will  be re-
ferred  to  as  the  "Criteria"  in  this  chapter.   These  regulations are
based  on a management rather than a  performance  approach  to minimizing
potential  problems  associated  with  applying  sludge  on cropland.   The
"Criteria" (10)  primarily  address pathogens,  Cd,  and  PCB's  contained in
sludges.   Prior  to  designing  a specific system,  pertinent current state
and local  regulations must be  obtained.    In  addition,  federal regula-
tions  should be examined  to  determine  if they  have  been  changed since
the publication of this manual.
                                   6-1

-------
The  design  example presented  at the  end  of this  chapter  assumes that
basic  sludge  and crop information has been  collected.   The sludge com-
position data required to ensure good design include:
          Total solids.
          Total N.
          NH4-N.
          NOo-N.
          Total P.
          Total K.
Total  PCB's,
Total  Pb.
Total  Zn.
Total  Cu.
Total  Ni.
Total  Cd.
Other concerns include the possibility of odors or potential exposure to
pathogens  due  to  inadequate  sludge  treatment or  poor  site management.
The  design  approach described in  this  chapter assumes  that  the sludge
has  been properly  stabilized to  reduce  pathogens and  odor  potential.
Objections by  rural residents to  landspreading might  be encountered if
they perceive a situation in which the urban community imposes its waste
disposal problem on the rural community.  A large city is more likely to
be seen as an outsider than a small city.  Rural  acceptance will be more
readily forthcoming if local autonomy is assured, and if the project has
the apparent flexibility to incorporate needed changes.

The  initial  task  for  obtaining  public support  (see Chapter  3) begins
with the  selection of  a project team whose  members  can offer technical
service and expertise.  Suggested personnel include:

     •    Representatives  of  the  city  engineering  or  public  works
          department to  direct  the project  and  coordinate  team activi-
          ties.

     •    The POTW superintendent  or  consultant  knowledgeable in treat-
          ment plant operations;  preferably,  a permanent sludge manage-
          ment person whom the public knows as the person to contact.

     •    Local SCS agent and agricultural extension service representa-
          tives to  advise on  site  selection,  management, soil  and vege-
          tation evaluation, and other matters.

     •    Local farm management firm.

Information must  also  be available on  the types of crops  to  be grown,
attainable yield level, and the relationship between soil tests and fer-
tilizer application rates.

6.2  Detailed Site  Investigations

An advantage of the agronomic utilization  option  is  the minimization of
detailed  site  investigations.   The design  approach  emphasizes  use of
sludge  as  a  low-analysis  fertilizer with  the application rates being
constrained by the  N requirements  or  P  requirements  (as in Ohio) of the
crop grown and  by the  accumulation of metals  in  the  surface  soil.   The
                                  6-2

-------
necessary  information  on general  site characteristics  can  be obtained
from a combination  of  soil  survey maps and  site visits.  The principal
soil chemical analyses  required  are  soil  tests which are routinely con-
ducted to develop recommendations for application of conventional ferti-
lizer materials.   Additional  information on  site  evaluation and selec-
tion can be found in Chapter 5.

     6.2.1  General Soil Properties

Following the selection of general areas, soil survey maps or equivalent
information can  be  used to delineate the specific  locations that could
be  used  for  sludge application.  Chapter 5  describes the screening and
selection procedures to be used.

          6.2.1.1  Physical Features

Several   states  have established  guidelines  or  regulations  for minimum
distances  between  an area  receiving sludge and adjacent  site features
such  as  residential  developments,   inhabitated  dwellings,  ponds  and
lakes, springs,  10-year high  water mark of  streams,  rivers  and creeks,
water supply  wells,  and public  road rights-of-way.   The  potential  for
surface  runoff  of  liquid sludge is  the primary  reason for  these guide-
lines.    If  liquid  sludge  is  immediately   incorporated  into  the  soil
rather than  allowed to  remain  on  the soil  surface,  it  can  then be ap-
plied at  a closer  distance.   Since the potential for runoff is signifi-
cantly  less  for dewatered  sludge than for  liquid  sludge,  the setback
distances for dewatered sludge applied to the  soil   surface are generally
the same  as those  for  liquid  sludge  incorporated into the soil.  In ad-
dition, very low sludge application  rates, e.g., less than 2-4 mt/ha (1-
2 T/ac),  reduce  the  risks  of  runoff, and may  allow reduction of setback
distances.   General  guidelines  for setback  distances from sites treated
with  liquid  and dewatered  sludges  by surface or  incorporated applica-
tions are presented  in  Chapter 5, Table 5-7.   Local and/or state regula-
tions must  be  consulted  when designing  a  specific  project,  since the
criteria  in  Table  5-7  may not be  as stringent as  particular local lim-
its.

          6.2.1.2  Topography

The  sludge application  rates employed  in  an agricultural  utilization
program  typically  range from 5 to  20 mt/ha  (2.2  to 9 T/ac)  on  a dry
weight basis.   For liquid sludge  at 5 percent solids, these rates cor-
respond to 100 to 400 nr/ha (0.4 to  1.5 acre-in).   The volumes of liquid
sludge applied  are therefore  far less than  the  natural  annual rainfall
in  nearly all regions of the  United  States.  Since  these volumes are not
excessive, use  of  appropriate  sludge application  techniques and runoff
control  measures for different  soil  slopes  will  minimize the potential
for  contamination  of surface waters.  General  slope  criteria are pre-
sented  in,  Chapter  5,  Table  5-2, for preliminary  site selection pur-
poses.
                                   6-3

-------
 The  measures  used  to  control  surface  runoff  from  soils  treated  with
 sludge  are the same  as those designed  to  prevent soil erosion.   These
 practices  include strip cropping,  terraces,  grassed waterways, and  re-
 duced  tillage systems  (e.g., chisel  plowing,  no-till  planting).    The
 presence  of  vegetation  and/or crop  residues  on  the soil surface is  ef-
 fective in  reducing runoff from steeply  sloping  soils.  For many  crop-
 ping systems  (e.g., corn,  soybeans,  small grains),  liquid sludge applied
 to the surface is incorporated into  the  soil by plowing  or disking  prior
 to crop planting, further  reducing the potential for  loss of sludge  con-
 stituents  via surface  runoff.   In  essence, selection of  the proper
 sludge application method  (surfaceTr incorporation)  in  conjunction with
                                            rpj
                                            il
 currently recommended  practices  for  control  of soil  erosion will essen-
 tially eliminate the potential  contamination of surface waters or adja-
 cent lands by sludge constituents.    ''                               ;	

           6.2.1.3  Depth to Ground Water

 The ideal sludge application  site would contain  a  deep and well-devel-
 oped soil to  protect the integrity of  ground  water  resources.  A basic
 philosophy inherent in  federal  and many state  regulations  is  to design
 sludge application  systems that are based on sound agronomic principles.
 "" that sludge  utilization  poses no greater threat  to  ground  water re-
 so
              f—  "_T._ _. • «-^ •>" • v »»  ^V^N^^J 11 v vji•___**•** \f\~i  i* i ii GH \f  \,\j  y | L/UIIU WuUCI  1C""
 sources than  current  agricultural  practices.Because  the ground water
 fluctuates on a  seasonal basis  in many soils,  difficulties  are encoun-
 tered  in  establishing an  acceptable minimum depth  to  ground  water for
 sludge application sites.   Usually,  the greater the  depth of soil  above
 ground water, the less potential for sludge constituents (primarily N0o~)
 to  migrate into water supplies.   Local  or state regulations often specify
 that  the minimum distance to ground  water should be 1 m  (3 ft).  However,
 this  type of regulation is often  difficult  to interpret in practice, be-
 cause many  productive agricultural   soils  have  naturally  occurring  sea-
 sonal  water tables within 1 m (3  ft) of the surface.   These soils can be
 ideal  sites  for sludge application,  because tile  drains  have  been  in-
 stalled to  improve  subsurface  drainage, and  because  the  soils  have  the
 fertility  to support excellent crop  yields.   The  perched water table be-
 neath these soils is normally not used  as  a water supply.  (See Table 5-6
 for general  guidance on depth to ground  water.)

 The primary sludge constituent that  can  leach into ground water  is  ni-
 trate nitrogen.   Following  application  of  sludge, nitrate is  formed  by
 nitrification  of the  ammonium  either added in  the  sludge or  released
 during  decomposition of sludge  organic  N.    Nitrate  is  a  water-soluble
 anion  that will  move downward  readily in  the  soil  profile.   Nitrate
 leaching will  occur if excessive  amounts of N are supplied to  soils  in
 the form  of  fertilizers,  animal  wastes,
 Nitrate leaching  is minimized by  applying
 sistent  with the  N  required by  the  crop
metals,  phosphorus,  and organics
                                           sludges,  or other materials.
                                           sludge  at  a  rate  and  time  con-
                                           grown.   Downward movement  of
                                        usually
metais.  pnospnorus,  and  organics  are usually  not encountered, because
these sludge constituents are relatively  immobile  in soils.Essentially
    of the applied metals, pathogens, phosphorus,  and organics  remain,in
    upper  15 to 30  cm (5 to  10 in) of  soil  (i.e.,  depth of  tillage).
ai I
the
                                    6-4

-------
The movement of metals  is  further  reduced by maintaining the soil at pH
6.5 or above, as currently required to minimize plant uptake of metals.

     6.2.2  Soil Sampling and Analysis

A soil  sampling  and analysis program is  needed  to establish limits for
cumulative metal  applications,  to  determine the  amounts of supplemental
fertilizer needed,  and  to  evaluate  soil  pH.  These data, in conjunction
with crop and  sludge  data,  will  allow calculations of annual sludge ap-
plication rates  and site life.   It  is  recommended that soil samples be
collected from each field  that  will  be  treated with sludge.  If a given
field exceeds 10 ha (25 ac), individual  soil samples should be collected
from each soil  series within the field.   Valid soil sampling procedures
are essential.   Information can be  obtained  from university or private
soil  testing  laboratories  on proper procedures  for  obtaining  and han-
dling soil  samples (also  see Appendix  C).   The  required soil  analysis
determines  (1)  plant  available  P  and K;  (2)  soil  pH  and lime require-
ment; and  (3) CEC.   Sampling  and  analytical methods ,are  presented in
Appendix C.   These tests,  except  for CEC,  are  routinely performed for
most farmers every  2 to 4 years.

In  many  regions  of the United  States,  a specific soil  test is not used
to  develop N fertilizer needs.   Some midwestern states relate N fertili-
zer applications  to soil  organic matter, while the nitrate contained in
the soil  profile is  considered  in  some  western  states  where crops are
grown under  irrigation.   Information presented  in this chapter assumes
that N application  rates are based on the N required by a crop at a spe-
cific yield level.

          6.2.2.1   Plant Available Phosphorus  and  Potassium

The amount of plant available P  is determined  by  analyzing the amount of
P  removed  from  soil  by a  particular extractant.   The extractant used
varies  in  different  regions of the  United States, but  is  typically  a
dilute  acid  or a bicarbonate solution.   Essentially,  all P taken up by
crops is present in  insoluble  forms in  soils rather  than  being in the
soil  solution.    In all  states, it has  been  determined  that there is  a
relationship  between the  amount  of extractable P in  a soil  and the
amount  of  P  fertilizer needed  for  various yields  of  different crops.
Such  information  can  be obtained from extension  services, universities,
etc.

As  with  P, an  extractant is  used to  determine  the plant  available K in  a
soil.   Potassium  available  for  plant  uptake is present in the soil solu-
tion, and  is also  retained  as  an  exchangeable cation on the cation ex-
change  complex of  the  soil.   The  amount of  plant  available  K is then
used  to  determine the K fertilizer  rate  for the  crop grown.   Sludges are
usually  deficient in  K,  relative to  crop  needs.
                                    6-5

-------
 These  test data are then  used  to calculate whether supplemental P or  K
 fertilizer is needed to optimize crop  yields following sludge  applica-
 tion.   Assistance on interpreting  soil  test data and fertilizer recom-
 mendations can  be obtained from local extension agents, farm management
 and  consultant  firms, and  fertilizer  dealers.

           6.2.2.2  Soil pH and  Lime Requirement

 Most states require  that  soils treated  with sludge be maintained at pH
 6.5  or  above  to minimize the uptake of metals by crops.  Soil pH is rou-
 tinely  determined by soil  testing  laboratories.   If  soil pH is less than
 6.5, a  laboratory test procedure  is used to  estimate the amount  of agri-
 cultural  limestone required to  adjust the  soil to pH 6.5.

 Soil pH control  has  been  practiced routinely in those areas of  the Uni-
 ted  States where leguminous crops  (e.g.,  clover,  alfalfa, peas, beans)
 are  grown.   Fortunately,  limestone  deposits' are  normally  abundant  in
 these  regions,  resulting  in minimal  costs associated  with liming soils
 to  pH 6.5.   However,  considerable  cost may be  associated  with liming
 soils  to pH 6.5 in other  areas of the  United States (e.g., eastern and
 southeastern  states).  Soils in these regions tend to be naturally acid,
 and  may require relatively large amounts  of limestone (12 to 20 mt/ha;
 5 to 8 T/ac) to  attain  pH 6.5.   Furthermore,  the  general trend toward
 increased  growth  of cash  grain  crops  (corn,  small grains)  has caused
 soil  pH to  decrease  because  of  greater  N fertilizer use.   Excellent
yields  of  corn, soybeans,  and  wheat can be  obtained at a  soil pH of 5.5
 to  6.0.    Most  soils  in  the western  United  States  contain free calcium
 carbonate,  and naturally possess  a  pH >6.5.

 Soil pH is buffered by  inorganic and organic colloids.   Thus,  it  does
 not  increase  immediately  after limestone  applications, nor  does it de-
 crease soon after sludge or N fertilizer additions.  It is strongly rec-
 ommended that soil pH be maintained at  6.5 or above after sludge appli-
 cations  cease to minimize  plant uptake  of  metals.   All calcareous soils
 naturally meet this recommendation.

           6.2.2.3  Cation  Exchange  Capacity

Many  states  have established  limitations  on  the total  (cumulative)
amounts  of Pb, Zn,  Cu, Ni,  and  Cd  that  can  be applied  to  cropland.
These limits then control  the total amount of sludge that can be applied
over a period of years (see Section 6.3.5).  Soil CEC is employed to re-
late total  metal  additions to  the  ability  of a  soil  to  minimize  metal
uptake by  plants.   The  CEC of  a  soil  is a  measure  of  the net  negative
charge associated with  both  clay minerals and organic  matter.   The CEC
determination is  a  routine analysis in  many soil  testing laboratories,
and will be done upon request in nearly all  other laboratories.
                                   6-6

-------
6.3  Constraints

The  constraints  associated with  application of  sludge  on agricultural
cropland are dependent on  the  type  of  crop grown, soil characteristics:,
and  specific sludge  constituents,  including pathogens, organics, N, Pb9
Zn,  Cu,  Ni,  and Cd.   Since state  regulations vary in different regions
of  the  United  States,'the following discussion  emphasizes  the general
constraints placed on the application of sludge on cropland by the "Cri-
teria" (10).

     6.3.1  Pathogens                !

Untreated  raw  sludges  contain  a variety of potential pathogens, includ-
ing  bacteria,  protozoa,  helminthic  parasites,  and viruses.   Additional
information  on  the  pathogen content of  sludges  and  their fate  in soils
is  contained in Appendix A.   Sludge treatment  processes can be used to
significantly  reduce the pathogen  content  of sludges.  Typical  stabili-
zation processes  include aerobic digestion,  anaerobic digestion, long-
term storage in a lagoon, extended  air-drying  on drying beds,  compost-
ing,  and  lime  (CaO)  treatment.  The "Criteria" (10)  refer to these pro-
cesses as  ones that "significantly  reduce  pathogens."   All  sludges ap-
plied to  agricultural  cropland must be  treated  by such a process, if  a
crop  that  enters  the  human   diet,  either  directly or  indirectly,  is
grown.   An example  of  direct  entry into the  human  diet would  be bread
derived from wheat grown  in sludge-treated  soils.  Corn  or forage fed to
livestock  would constitute a  route  for  indirect  entry.   The  "Criteria"
(10)  also  contain other  stipulations on sludge application to  cropland:
(1)  site  access must be  controlled for 12 months  after  application; (2)
no  animals  should be grazed on the  site  for  1 month  after  application if
the  animal  product  will  be  consumed by humans;  and (3) crops  consumed
raw  (e.g., root crops and  vegetables)  by  humans  cannot be grown for 18
months after the time  of sludge application, unless  there is  no contact
between  crop and  sludge  (e.g., peas or  corn  which are not  typically con-
sumed raw).                                        '

The   "Criteria"  (10) also  define  conditions for sludge treatment pro-
cesses  that "further  reduce  pathogen  content of sludge."  Examples of
these processes would  be high-temperature  aerobic   or anaerobic  diges-
tion, irradiation,  and  heat drying.   If one of  these processes is used
to further reduce the  pathogen content  of  sludge, crops  consumed raw can
be grown  within 18 months after application.  The pertinent  federal reg-
ulations,  along with state or  local  rules,  must  be consulted to design  a
specific system.

There have not been any serious disease problems reported .from the ap-
plication of stabilized  sludges on  agricultural  cropland.   Numerous  con-
cerns are always voiced by the  public whenever  sludge  utilization  proj-
ects are  discussed  at  public hearings.   The  emotional  arguments  pre-
 sented  are always difficult to counteract, because the imagined problems
 and aesthetic  considerations  (i.e., growing food for  human  consumption
 on soils treated with  human wastes) are not negated by merely  presenting
                                   6-7

-------
 facts.   In general,  the public wants a guarantee that not a single virus
 or  bacteria will  ever enter their food or  water supply.   Such  a  guaran-
 tee cannot be made  for any type of wastewater  treatment  or  sludge  man-
 agement program.

      6.3.2  Nitrogen

 Nitrogen is the nutrient that is required  in  the  largest  amounts by all
 crops.   The addition  of N to soils in excess of crop needs results  in
 the potential  for N03~ contamination  of ground water.   Nitrate  is  not
 adsorbed by soil  particles, and  will readily move  downward  as water  per-
 colates through  the  soil profile.  The ammonium-N either  initially  pre-
 sent  or released from  organic  N will  be  rapidly converted to  N03~  fol-
 lowing  addition  of  sludge  to  soil.   A similar  problem results from  ex-
 cessive applications of animal wastes  and conventional nitrogen fertili-
 zer materials.

 High  NOo"  levels  in water  supplies  may  result  in  health problems  for
 both  infants and  livestock. The maximum allowable concentration  of  N03~
 in  potable drinking  water  has been  established  at 10 mg N03~N/1  (45.mg
 N03/l).    The  amount of  plant available N applied  to  soils  in  sewage
 sludge  should  be  consistent with the  current N fertilizer recommenda-
 tions for  the  crop grown.  As a  result, the threat of N03  contamination
 of  ground  water at  a well  managed  sludge  utilization site should be  no
 greater  than that  caused  by the  use  of  conventional N fertilizers.   This
 approach places  a constraint  on the  amount  of  sludge  applied to  soil
 each  year, because N requirements of  different  crops can range  from  50
 kg  N/ha  (45 Ib N/ac) to over 350 kg  N/ha (312  Ib N/ac).

      6.3.3  Organics

 Most  sludges contain organic compounds, primarily chlorinated  hydrocar-
 bons, which are  relatively  resistant to decomposition in soils and may
 be  of concern  from a human health standpoint.    PCB's are the only group
 of  organic compounds addressed in the  "Criteria"  (10).

 These federal  regulations  require  that all sludges  containing  greater
 than  10 mg  PCB/kg must be  incorporated  into the soil  whenever animal
feed  crops are  grown.   The
direct  ingestion  by  animals
applied sludge.  Dairy  cattle
                               principal  problem  arising from  PCB's is
                              grazing  on  forages treated  with surface-
                               are most susceptible to PCB contamination
of forages, because  PCB's  in  the diet are readily partitioned into milk
fat.   Several studies  have shown  that  essentially no  plant  uptake of
               although PCB's can  be  adsorbed onto  the  surface  of root
              carrots.
PCB's
crops
occurs,
such as
The majority  of sludges  in the United
States
  limit
                                                contain
                                                the
                                                  less than  10 mg
PCB/kg; therefore,  PCB  restrictions  will limit the  use  of only a small
percentage  of  sludges.Since PCB's  are  no longer  manufactured,  PCB-
related constraints should  become  less common  in  the  future.   Other
organic compounds detected in sludges are summarized in Appendix A.
                                  6-8

-------
     6.3.4  Cadmium

From a  human  health  standpoint,  Cd is  the  sludge-borne metal that  has
received the greatest attention.   It has been estimated  that the current
dietary  intake  of  Cd by the  U.S.  population is less than 50  percent of
the  limit  set  by the  World Health Organization,  and that increased Cd
levels are sometimes observed following  application  of sludges to soils.
Cd contained in the diet, whether  derived  from soil or sludge sources,
accumulates in  the  kidneys,  and may cause a chronic  disease called pro-
teinuria (increased excretion of protein in  the urine).

It is difficult to predict the  effect of sludge application on Cd in  the
human diet for the following reasons:

     •    Crops  vary  markedly  in  Cd uptake  (e.g., leafy vegetables  are
          significantly higher  in  Cd than cereal crops).

     •    Cd uptake by crops  is  dependent  on  soil  properties  and  the
          amount of Cd applied.

     •    The  Cd  content of  the  current  human diet  is not   accurately
          known, and varies with each individual's diet  preferences.

     e    Projected  increases   in  dietary  Cd due  to sludge utilization
          are strongly influenced by the proportion  of land treated with
          sludge, the  types of crops grown, soil  properties,  and other
          factors.
The reader  is  referred to
Cd  by  crops  (14)  and the
(15).  Table  6-1 summarizes
crops.
recent publications discussing  the  uptake of
 impact  of sludge  application on dietary Cd
  relative accumulation of  Cd in common food
The "Criteria"  (10) specify  interim  final  limits for annual and cumula-
tive amounts of Cd  applied to  different crops, and require that soil pH
be maintained  at  6.5 or  above.   These  regulations  were developed from
considerations  of  allowable  increases  in  dietary Cd  for  a  worst case
situation,  e.g.,  a vegetarian growing  100  percent of  his food  on an
acid,  sludge-treated soil.  Even though application of most sludges will
increase the Cd content of some  crops,  the regulations were designed to
limit the  increases to  a  level where no  adverse effect  on human health
would result.  The crop Cd concentrations of concern to human health are
far below those where Cd decreases crop yields (i.e., phytotoxicity from
Cd), so phytotoxicity does not offer protection against excessive levels
of Cd in crops.   Some  states  have adopted more conservative limitations
on total  Cd applications to  cropland,  so  it is  imperative  to consult
state regulations when,designing, a specific system.
                                  6-9

-------
     6.3.5  Lead, Zinc, Copper, and Nickel

In addition to  Cd,  the cumulative amounts of Pb, Zn,< Cu, and Ni applied
to  soils  in sludge  can  be used  to  determine the  number  of years that
sludge  can  be utilized.   The recommendations in Table  6-2 for Pb, Zn,
Cu,  and Ni  were  developed  through the joint  efforts of researchers in
various Agricultural  Experiment Stations,  U.  S.  -Department of Agricul-
ture, and EPA,  and  were  adopted as guidelines by EPA in 1977 (6).  Some
states  have developed  regulations which are very similar.

Limitations on total metal additions to soils are needed to  protect soil
productivity and  animal health.  The majority of crops do not accumulate
Pb,  but there  is concern regarding  the  potential   ingestion  of  Pb and
possibly other trace elements  (Cu, Se, Mo) by animals grazing on sludge-
contaminated forages and  indirect  consumption of soil.   The surface ap-
plication of  sludge on forages can lead  to some sludge adhering to the
foliage, resulting  in  direct  consumption by  grazing animals.   Further-
more,  raindrop  splash can  cause contamination  of foliage  with   soil-
sludge  materials, and  animals typically consume some soil  when grazing.
The  total  amounts of  Zn,  Cu, and Ni  applied  are  limited,  because crop
yields  will decrease  (phytotoxicity)  if excessive amounts  of these met-
als  are added to soils.   In  general,  Zn,  Cu, and  Ni  will  be toxic to
crops before  their  concentration  in plant  tissues  reaches  a level that
poses a problem to  human  or  animal  health.The cumulative  metal  limits
(Table  6-2} assume that soil pH is maintained at 6.5 or above during and
after sludge application.

These cumulative  metal limits  are  a  function of soil CEC.   The use of
soil CEC in  establishing  metal limits  does  not  imply that metals  added
to soils in sludge  are retained by the exchange complex as  an exchange-
able cation.  It  has been shown experimentally that  nearly all metals in
sludge-amended  soils  are  not  present -as an  exchangeable  cation  (i.e.,
exchangeable with a  neutral  salt).  Thus,  CEC was chosen as  an indicator
of soil  properties, since it  is easily measured and  related  to soil com-
ponents that minimize  plant availability of sludge-borne metals in  soil.
In general, the CEC categories of <5,  5-15, and >15 meq/100  g correspond
to sands,  sandy loams, and silt  loams,  respectively; however, regional
differences in this relationship occur.

Sludge  applications should cease when any single metal limit is attained
(see Table 6-2).  If soil  pH is maintained at 6.5 or above,  cessation of
sludge  application  at  the limits presented should  enable  the  growth of
any  crop in  the future without adverse affects  on  yield.    In addition,
soil productivity will  be at  a level  equal  to,  and most likely greater
than, that which  existed prior to initiation of sludge application.

     6.3.6  Other Sludge Constituents

The yields of agronomic crops can be  influenced by other sludge consti-
tuents  in  certain regions of  the United States.   For  example,  in arid
regions where most  crops  are  irrigated,  soluble salts,  Mo,  and B  should
                                  6-10

-------
                             TABLE 6-1
            RELATIVE  ACCUMULATION  OF  CADMIUM  INTO
         EDIBLE  PLANT PARTS BY  DIFFERENT CROPS  (7)*
High Uptake
Lettuce
Spinach
Chard
Escarole
Endive
Cress
Turnip greens
Beet greens
Carrot
Moderate Uptake
Kale
Col lards
Beet
Turnip root
Raddish globes
Mustard
Potato
Onion

Low Uptake
Cabbage
Sweet corn
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Brtissel sprouts
Cel ery
Berry fruits


Very Low Uptake
Snapbean family
Pea
Melon family
Tomato
Pepper
Eggplant
Tree fruits


* The above classification is based upon the response of crops grown  on
  acidic soils  that have received a cumulative Cd application of 5 kg/ha.
  It should not be implied that the above higher uptake crops cannot  be
  grown on such a soil, or soils of higher Cd concentrations.  Such crops
  can be safely grown if the soil pH is 6.5 or greater at the time of
  planting, since the tendency of the crop to accumulate heavy metals is
  significantly reduced as the soil pH increases above 6.5.
                              TABLE  6-2
         RECOMMENDED CUMULATIVE  LIMITS FOR  METALS  OF
   MAJOR CONCERN  APPLIED -TO AGRICULTURAL CROPLAND (6) (9)'
                       Soil Cation Exchange Capacity, meg/100
                      <5
5 to  15
Pb
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
560 (500)
280 (250)
140 (125)
140 (125)
5 (4.4)
— --&y/na iiu/ai.;
1,120 (1,000)
560 (500)
280 (250)
280 (250)
10 (8.9)
2,240 (2,000)
1,120 (1,000)
560 (500)
560 (500)
20 (17.8)
      * See Table 4-2 in Chapter 4 for guidance on use of sludge for
        production of fruits and vegetables.

      t Interpolation should be used to obtain values in the CEC range
        5-15.

      # Soil must be maintained at pH 6.5 or  above.

     ** Ib/ac  shown in parentheses.
                                6-11

-------
be considered when determining sludge application rates.  The concentra-
tion of these components  in  the  irrigation water, along with the amount
applied in sludge, should be considered to minimize any potential prob-
lems.  Information on the quality of local irrigation water and the pre-
vailing irrigation management  systems  must be obtained to design sludge
utilization  systems  in irrigated regions  (16).   In nonirrigated areas,
soluble salts are  rarely a problem because  of  minimal  soluble salts in
sludge and low application rates.

Sludges may  also contain  other  trace  elements such as  Hg,  Cr,  As, and
Se.  These  elements  are  not included  in  the design criteria either be-
cause  of  the minimal  uptake by  crops  (4)(6)(8) or the relatively low
concentrations in most sludges.  The range and median concentrations for
elements commonly  found  in sludge are  shown  in  Appendix A.   Abnormally
high levels of specific chemical  species should be dealt with on a case-
by-case basis.   Pretreatment of  industrial waste streams  prior  to dis-
charge into the sewerage  system may be necessary prior to utilization of
sludge on cropland.  Further, sludges that are grossly contaminated with
metals or organics will  not likely pass  the  U.S.  EPA extraction proce-
dure for toxic and hazardous waste (17), and must thus be disposed of at
an approved hazardous waste disposal site.

6.4  Sludge Application Rate Calculations

Sludge application rates  are calculated from data on sludge composition,
soil test information,  N fertilizer need  of  the  crop  grown, and limits
on  annual  Cd additions.   In essence,  this  approach views  sludge  as  a
substitute for conventional  N fertilizers  in  crop  production.   The num-
ber of years  that  sludge can be  applied  is  based on recommended limits
for total  additions of Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, and Cd, as shown  in Table 6-2.

Since the majority of  sludges contain  roughly  equal  amounts of  total  N
and P while  crops  requirements for  N are two to five times greater than
those for P, a conservative  approach  to annual  sludge application rates
involves applying sludge  to  meet  the  P rather than  N needs of the crop.
Sludges could also be applied to agricultural cropland at rates that ex-
ceed the  N  requirements  of  crop  or  the  prevailing limitations  on Cd
additions.  These types of  systems  should be viewed as dedicated sludge
disposal  sites that  require more intensive  monitoring,  careful  control
of the end  use of any crop grown,  and possible  restrictions  on future
site use (see Chapter 9).
The  general  approach for determining
cropland can be summarized as follows:
application rates on  agricultural
          Nutrient  requirements  for the crop selected  are  based on the
          yield level and soil test data.  If sludge has been applied in
          previous  years,  fertilizer recommendations  are  corrected for
          carry-over of nutrients added by previous sludge additions.
                                  6-12

-------
     o    Annual sludge application  rates are  calculated based on N crop
          needs, Cd limitation, P crop needs,  and fixed rate  (may exceed
          N needed by crop or Cd limit).

     •    Supplemental fertilizer  is determined from N, P, and K needed
          by crop and amount applied  in sludge.

     •    Sludge  applications   are  terminated  when a  cumulative metal
          limit is reached.

     6.4.1  Crop Selection and  Nutrient Requirements

It  is  usually  advantageous to  maintain  or  utilize  the normal  cropping
patterns found in the community.  These patterns have evolved because of
local  soil,  climatic,  and economic  conditions,  and will  probably main-
tain certain advantages  in the sludge application  system  as well.   One
possible exception could occur  if the cropping pattern was restricted to
a single crop.   In this case, additional  crops could increase the oppor-
tunity of applying sludge during a variety of  seasons.

The crops grown in an area will influence the scheduling and methods of
sludge application.  Since sludge  applications are typically limited by
the  N  required by the crop,  forages, corn,  and soybeans  will  minimize
the amount of land needed and the costs associated with sludge transpor-
tation and application.   However,  corn and  soybeans  actively grow from
approximately  May  to  October or November,  limiting sludge applications
to  only  a  few months of  the  year.   Forage  crops,  legumes,  and grasses
are capable of  utilizing  large  amounts  of sludge-derived nutrients, but
only surface applications  are  practical   on  forages that  are  mowed and
baled  for  animal   feed.    Injection  of  sludge  into  permanent  pastures
might be  acceptable  if  the farmer  is willing  to  tolerate the negative
effects  on  trafficability.   In general,  the  constraints  discussed  in
previous sections will combine  to  favor  the  use of sludge on a mixture
of crops such as small  grains, cereals, and forages.

Fertilizer recommendations  for  crops are based  on  the  nutrients  needed
for the  desired yield  at a specific  level  of plant available nutrients
in the soil.   The amounts of fertilizer N, P, and K required to attain a
given crop yield have been determined experimentally for numerous soils
in each region  of the United States.   The crop response has been related
to  the  fertilizer  added and the  soil test  levels  for P, K,  and trace
elements  (Zn,  Cu,  Fe,  Mn).   As discussed  in  Section  6.2.1,  reliable
methods are not available  for  estimating the  plant  available  N content
in most soils.   As  a  result, fertilizer N recommendations are controlled
primarily by past  experiences  with crop  yields, and  secondarily  by the
carryover of  N from  the  previous  crop   grown.   This  latter point  is
illustrated by the greater plant  available N  levels'  in soil  if corn  is
grown after alfalfa  (a  legume  which  fixes  atmospheric N2)  versus  corn
grown after corn (where  no N2 fixation occurs).
                                  6-13

-------
For all crops, yield potential and soil fertility are controlled by such
factors as the amount and  distribution  of  rainfall,  soil  physical  prop-
erties  (drainage,  crusting,  water-holding  capacity,  and  compaction),
length of  growing season,  available heat units, and  incidence  of  weed,
insect, and disease problems.   All  of  these factors  are integrated into
the yield  level   observed  for each  crop.    For  example,  two silt  loam
soils located in  a specific county may have identical  soil fertility and
management levels, but different yield  potentials.   While one soil  his-
torically  produces  corn  at only  247 bu/ha  (100 bu/ac),  the  other  soil
may be capable of producing 445 bu/ha  (180 bu/ac).   To design  a sludge
utilization project,  it  is essential to obtain  local  yield information
on the potential   of crops grown on the specific soil  types to be used.

As an  illustration  of  the general approach  used,  typical  midwest  rela-
tionships  between yield  level, soil test  levels for plant  available P
and  K,  and P and  K  fertilizer  requirements  are shown  in  Tables  6-3
through  6-6  for  various  crops.   The  amount  of  supplemental  P and K
needed by crops increases as the yield level increases for a fixed range
of existing plant available P and K in the soil.  Conversely, fertilizer
needs decrease at a specific  yield  level  as plant  available P and K in-
crease.  The  amounts  of  N required  for  each yield level  are also  shown
in Tables  6-3 to 6-6.   The data  presented in  Table 6-7  can  be used to
correct the N requirements of  crops  for the amount of plant available N
remaining from previous sludge applications.  The crop nutrient require-
ments  presented  are step  functions  between yield and  fertilizer  addi-
tions, whereas nutrient uptake  is a  continuous function of plant avail-
able nutrients.   Some states  recommend fertilizer  application rates for
a specific yield, rather than a range of yields.

Information on fertilizer  recommendations  for  a specific  project can be
obtained from the  Agricultural  Experiment  Stations  in  each  state,  or
from local  extension personnel.

     6.4.2  Calculation of Residual  N, P, and K

When sludges  are applied to  soils  each year,  the N, P, or  K  added in
previous years which  are  not  taken  up  by  crops can  be partially avail-
able during the  current  cropping season.   For  example,  sludges applied
at a  rate  to meet  the  N needs  of  a crop  will  typically result in in-
creased soil  P levels.  This  same situation could  also exist for K with
the application of sludge containing high K levels.

The contribution  of  residual  N to plant available N can  be significant
when sludges  are  applied  each  year.   Although  the  largest percentage of
mineralizable organic N is converted to inorganic N during the year that
the sludge is applied, the  continued decomposition of organic N in suc-
ceeding years can provide a significant portion of the N needed for crop
growth.  The  amount of N  mineralized in sludge-treated soils is depend-
ent on the type  of sludge treatment processes  used,  the  ratio of  inor-
ganic to organic  N in the sludge, and the amount of organic N applied in
previous years.  A detailed discussion of  the N cycle is  presented in
Appendix B.
                                  6-14

-------











Q'
z:
^£

z.

o
0

o
Uu
00 H-
Z. 00
O LU
I— Q
< 1-1
Q 2:
Z.
I 1 1 ^| J
5
•r"
£1
£
cu
u_
!_
O
4-

CU
•o
c
cu
E

o
o
C£

CD
C\
^

XX

T3
to
• — •
U£
o
Cv
o_
'
-O-

£_
CU

^_
•r-
"fcj
CU
U_

JC
CO
•r—
;C
>5
£_.
^

1

1
1
,
1
,
1
1
. i
~O) '
•r- 1
"T" 1
1

1

1
,
E
.^
1 T3
^r*
2L.

1
1

to
e~
*^^_
CO
;^'
1
O
1 	 1
1

1
1

I

1
s
o
_l
^
c
OJ
>*
1

1
,

1

1
1

1
£_
CU
N
•i—
f-^
•r—
i ^
t!
cu
LL.

1

1

1
1

1



c~
CU "O ' — <
CO CU CU 03
o co -i- -c:
< !— ^"N,
-t-5 O Q. CO
•r- -4-> O-.xi
z =t^-











^— ^
o res
-o -i- -c:

cu •»-> co
•i- cu c:
s- s: o













0 0





00 >3-
oo oo

LO co
t-H CM





to r^
LO LO

LO 1^.
CM ^d-




0 CO*
co r-~-

LO LO
oo to





00 CM
i — I f_4
I— 1 1-H

C31 OO
•=}• en





• •
*— ^« • •
LO . — .
0 0
CM CM
CU XX

r^ vx







«^-
00
r-i






^~
.«
^.
|
^^
•
to




0 0





oo «st-
00 OO

LO CO
•— 1 CM





rs* r**1*
to to

en to
CM LO




<*~** t— H
0 0
en I-H

en •=*•
oo oo





OO LO
CM 00
r-< i— 1

«=J- CM
LO ^-l
t— 1




• •
^— ^ 0 •
LO - — -
0 0
CM CM
n XX

O XX







1^^
LO
1— 1






^}-
•
CO
1
«^-
•
r~-


,*^
CD
C!- °

"*



tO LO
•* •>!-

o r^.
CM OO





r>- co
to r^

en LO
CM to




OO LO
o oo
t— i i— i

LO CM
•=d- I— 1
1 — 1




to en
oo to
i— i t— i

en cz>
LO «sd~
1— 1




• •
f~^* • •
LO • — -
o o
CM CM
D- ^.

r\ xx







CD
en
i— i





i— i
»
CD
T-H
1
<^-
•
co


..— ^
CD
j l ^_^

"*



to t-^
LO tO

LO tO
CM LO




'~-
0 0
CO i-l

LO •sd"
oo co




OO [^
<-l LO
I— 1 I— 1

en CD
•vf OO
l— H




tO ,-H
*xl~ CD
i— i CM

*=r r-
to to
i-H




• •
*^^ • •
LO • 	 	
O CD
CM CM
Q_ xx

Q_ XX







«^f-
CM
CM




CO
•
l-H
^—1

I— 1
«
O
•r- 1


^— ^
O
d. °

**



to en
LO CO

LO •^~
CM r^-




'— -
CD OO
cn t-i

en CM
OO i— 1
1—1



to en
oo t^
,-H t— 1

en cn
LO "vh
• — i




cn "3-
to CM
i-H CM

^- to
r-. co
I — 1




• •
*^-*l • •
LO • 	 	
CD CD
CM CM
Q_ XX

Q- XX







co
LO
CM




«^-
•
OO
I— 1
1
oo
•
I— 1
1— 1








































-L.
,-H
LO c i CD OO
CO to 00 00 00
CO CO i-H CM OO
-£=
-^ o o o o
2*£ +J +J 4-> 4->
co CD cn to t-i
" ^xZ CO to OO
CO i— 1 CM
s
o
r—
r—
O
H-
CO «3 t— 1 CM OO r-~
(O ^: ^H CM oo r^
•*^ ^_
CU Q- O O O O OO
t— ^^ -I-* -(-* «4-3 -f-^ ^^
to cn
^, -P- ^= >>
•i- . •!- C. S T3 CO £_
O O CU O O) T- CO
oo GO >• —i s: 2: s>

•}e


































.
CO
cu
CO
cu
.J_J
c
cu
"3
Q.

c
•i—
j-
^
O
-C
CO

cu
£_
(O
o
CM
XX

T3
^*

-Q H

(O
en f
CO ^^

CD 0

H
o
res •!-
c- t
"^^ ^_>
CO CU
sx ^

^H r-H


6-15

-------
                                                                         cr>
                                                                         CM
                                                                                     CO
              0)
             U_
                       CU
                                                    O
                                                          cn
             oo
                                                                                                                CU
    CO
    LU
              CD
              CU
                                  OO
                                               co
                                               CO
                                               LO
                                                     CO
                                                     CO
                                                     LO
                                                            co
                                                                  CO
                                 co
                                 LO
                                                                         CO
                                                            LO
                                                            CM
                                             cn
                                             CO
                                                                         to
                                                                         LO
                   en
                   CO
              01
             ce
                                  co
                                         LO
                                                            oo
                                             LO
                                             co
   CO
   oo
 O
 CM
                                               CM
                                         CO
                                         LO
                                                                  co
en
co
                                                                               CM
                                                                                     co
                                                                                            CM
                                                                                                               CU
   oo
LU O
_i z:
CQ LU
•a: s:
   o
   LU
   LU
             cu
             M
             cu
                       cu
                       cu
                       N
                       cu
                                  CO
                                  CM
                                  CO
                                  CM
                                   LO
                                  o
                                   CM
                                        CO
                                               CO
                                               LO
                                               CO
       rH    O
                                                     o
                                                     co
                   CO
                                        en
                                               en
                                               co
                                                            co
                                                           co
                                                           en
                                                                  co
                                                                  CM
                                en
                                co
                                                                        co
                                                                        en
                                                            co
                                                            co
                                                                        en
                                                                               en
                                                                               co
                                                                               CM
                                                                               co
                                                                                     co
                                                                                     en
             co
             co
                                                                                     en
                                                                                            en
                                                          co
                                                          LO
                                                          CM
                                                          CO
                                                          00
                                                CM
                                                      CM
                           LO
                          O
                           CM
                                                                  O
                                                                   CM
                                                                                     CL.
                                                                                             CM
                                                                                                               as
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               CU
                                                                                                               CD
                                                                                         CU
                                                                                         >
                                                                                         cu
                                                                                                      CD
                                                                                                     i—    CU   (O
                                                                                                     •r-    «/l   N
                                                                                                      CU   4->   T-
                                                                                                     4-   C   -)->
                                                                                                          CU   £-
                                                                                                     r-   t-   CV
                                                                                                               cu
   oo
   LU
   LU
   Qi
CU    "O -
CO CU  CU   O  CL. cn
                    o
                -a -r-
                "aS 4->  01
                •r-  co  c
                >- 2:  o
                                              co
                                                           LO
                                                           CO
                                                                        CM
                                                   CO
                                                   CO
                                                   CO
CM
                                 CM
             CO
                                              CM
                                                                    COO
                                                                   •i-    CM  O
                                                                                                      CD
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                     cu
                                                                    cu
                                                                    cu
                                                                   oo
                                      JC   O LO
                                 -a   4->   ca t-i
                                  C   -r-   	
                                  (8    3   -Q  II

                                   LO T3       IO
                                 o    cu   cn jr
                                   CM -a   oo ^-»
                                 a.    c    •  c:
                                       cu   o  o
                                                                                                             O   (O •!—
                                                           CO
                                                                                                               eu
                                                                                                               =«=
                                                                                  cn cu
                                                         6-16

-------







I—
r^
CO
UJ
Q
i — i
S
UJ
;-*—

1 — 1
CO
1— 1
CS
1
— j
<
sz
CO

Qi
O
u_
LO CO
to o
ml
1
CO d
< 2=
1— LU

0
O
LLJ


[jj
h-J
H— 1
|
1— t

^y.
UJ
1 1

[^

t-H
=3!
i 	
^^
UJ
C/)
H Lj

CU
LiJ

LJL.















H-
i — _C 1
•r- CD *-*•
+J -r- 1 CO
£-^r CM
(U 1 * —
LL_ >>
t- 1 0
I — Q) • — 1
o
CO I
£_ |
o
co"
•O 1 CM
T3 01 1
C •!- O
a :n| i r-i
o
U 1
CD
E i oo
• — • 3 OO
oi -a
2*S O) *-^ LO
^-^ s: ro r-H
_r"

O)
"O -^
fr-t
* O
LO 1 VO
CM £ I
O^ Q ^^
* — • _J I CM
a, i


N 5 1 00
•r- O O
r— • _-] 1 r— 1

t! £ ' LO
CO O> 1 •=!-
u_ >•
1

1
c_
OJ 1
N *—*
•I- 1 LO
•— 0
•i-l CM
-£•> Q_
O)
U- 1 Q.





C
co -a ^— -
en  o a. 01 to
•r- -I-5 Q--i<;
<£^. 

2x£ Cl-







lO
LO CD
CD r-l








to to

^d~ ^J"
s\ s\
CQ C£
0 3






CD




^-j-
CO

co
CM


r--
to

to
LO




t-H
CD

<^-
co



LO
CO
r— 1

CM
r-l
r-l





^_^
O
CM
^

^.







to
o
r-l








-f-
t— 1
CO
r-l
DO
0
































•
to
OJ
cu

+J
to
O)
4->

f-~ -
•r—
O
«/>
4-
O

O

4^
•r—

•i—
^.—
cu
T3
C_
O
Ir-

CO
1
to
a>

<^>
re
I—

O)
01
CO
*
































•
to
d)
C/)
O)
•£^
-M
£1
^ >>
re co
a. i —
e
c re
•r- CO

d -a
3 c:
o re
jz:
to to
QJ re
£- 0
re
n
0
CM CQ
^ o

-a
C CD
re >,
c2
LO
o -a
CM C
a. re

o re
a>
t/i <~
4-> 3
c:
=3 II
O
£= C£
^ 3
-h- =tfc


































O)
C. •

-a a>
re s_
re
H-* -Q
re
co -a

S re

O +J
M~ re
o
o
re t-
— o
3 4-
n
O
oo re
• * """S^
U "=3" 3
re t-i .a
-Q II 11

re re
CTl g^ <-
CO ~^~^
« c c:
o o o
n
u o
re T- -r-
jr £_ £_

en a> cu
^ E E

i — 1 i-H i-H

6-17

-------
LU







1—
oo
LU
Q
1 — 1
S

LU
S
-,.
1 |

OO
LU
CD

t*y*
e*~\
LL.
OH
0
LL.
OO
•z.

l_l
}_
^£
t~\
•z.

^g"
s:
O
LU


LU

i — i
_J
i — i
t
r—
LU
U_

LU

h-
h-

LU
OO
LU

CL.
LU

















•X
•r—
t_
cu
u_
.,_
o
oo
£_
O
<*-
•a
cu
•a

CU
i
o
cu
C£.

^
C*

«^»«


-o
cz

••— N
u
o
o
CL.
v.^

Q.

£_
N

i—
»i—
t!
cu
LL.
















C
CD
cn
o
t_
-p
•r—
•z.












.c:
Ol 1

cu i
i

i
i

. i
f- 1
cnl i

iE i

i
i
i

E I
Z5
•r™ 1
-o
1 CU 1

*-~*
to
•^
cn
^,

i
> 3
O 1
1 — 1
1

1

1
31
i
O
_l t

>) I
S-
03 1
>
1

1
1
£_
CU 1

•I- 1
1 —
•r~* I
£- 1
0)
LL. I






-a *-*
QJ OJ fO
CO -e- J=
r— "^^,
O Q. CD
•»-> CXJul




, — .
o to
-a -r- .e
'cu •»-> "c/T
•r- cu c
>- s: o
«_ -* i \
•• —

CO
CM

O
t— 1



, — s
CO
CO

LO
I— 1




^-^.
<£)
LO

LO
CM




„ 	 ,
O
CD
Vv^

CTl
CO





CO
,— 1
i— 1
*^^
CD
«^-



..
^— ^
LO
O
CM
a.
O-










CM
i— i
1-1








oo
•
f~i
\s

O





^^ 	 s
CTl
CO

<^J-
^.



	 	 s
CD
to
t— 1

o

t— 1



«_J-
CM
CM
*^**

10
CO
I— 1




o
P-.
CM
^^
^
CM
CM



• •
^~**
O
CM
^£
^


























to

o
CM



. 	 ,
to
LO

LO
CM




^^s.
o
co

LO
CO




CO
1— i
1— i
SM**

CTl






to
CO
t~ 1
*~~*
CD
LO



, .
^-^s
LO
o
CM
Q_
Q.










«^j-
CM
CM






I~--
CM
|
CM
«
CM

LO
CO
t-H
'
CM
i— 1
t— 1



OJ
O
CM

CO

T-H


^_^
0

CM

^J-
CM
CM



1 —
CO
CO
*^^*

0
oo
CM




LO
O
«^-
^~^
to
CO
CO



• •
^— ^
o
CM
^
^


























to
LO

LO
CM



. — .
O
co

LO
CO



, 	 s
CO
o
<-<

LO
^~




10
CO
1— 1
*^^»

CD
LO





CD
LO
r-H
^^^
CD
VO



• •
^-^
LO
O
CM
Q-
D_










O
CD
CO








1 —
•
CM


o"
.CM
*~^
CM
CM



r-.
CO
CO

o
oo
CM


„ 	 ,
LO
C3
•*

to
CO
CO



CM
^^
«^-
V — ^

CM
CD
CO




0

LO
N — »*
OO
^J-
^"



• •
**- -s
o
CM
^
^































































C/)
r—
OJ
>
CD
I—
[ *
(/)
cu
4->
,_
•r—
O
(/J

4-
CZ
O
•n-
^)
•I—
c:
•r—
M-
CU
~O

c_
o
l^
co
1
to
d)
[Q
(0
I—
cu
cu
oo

*






































•
cu

cu
_£Z
c:
cu
c_
ns
Q.
C
•r—

d
3
O
"S
cu
£_
(O

o
C\J
*^

T3
c
(O

LO
0
CM
D_

O
CO
.|_3
c:
O
£
ec^

•f-






























































o
(O O
-^ to
-O ^^
r— h-
CTl LO
oo •*

C3 0
II II
to tO
.c: x:
"^^^^
^^ p~

t— 1 t-H


                           6-18

-------
















,^—s.
T— I
Q— .
UJ *""'

1 1 *
^C uj
f~\ ^^
LU ^-
M °"
— ^ ll
^^
Pi Q
^ UJ

s D~
^^
21 eC

o
2: Jj

CD Q
O^ * J-.
O J
^LJ-P
10°
UJ^S
	 1 t; l— l
oa = 	 i
i*||

^£
UJ
§ g?
^c
C/)
t/7 [_,j
UJ Q
f^ 5™*~
«-*• ^™
£E H-
r-
is£ t/^
UJ — ^
'C— ? ^^
UJ 5
O >
1 1 1
i~~ ^^
^£>
§ Lij

£§
III ~^
^^ __1





















-a
O)
-p
CO
o
Q.
E
O
o











>}
"-"
"re "a
O CO
•r- -p
-Q co
O CO
t- 01
Q) -r—
re Q
c







"O
CD
CO
d)
01
o

3?
^~
re
u
2
0
L_
CJ
^c




^> _^
^ "O
re cu
•^ ^
Q- •!—
4J
"O O
(U ec
N
•p- d)
>— -P
•r- CO
.0 re
re 3
CO T3
c: c
^3 re















0
^
ET £
^^ ^^
Ol
-^



o
21

LU Cf.
O

^•^



O


^^
5"^ aj"
E
01
v^



o
z:
1 1 t|
o

6-S.


0
f*^

.P >
2£ +J
CO
^^



O
z:
Lu n_
O

^^



^fe
4~
O
«
e +j"
i
4— 01 re t—
•< -a o re
3 -r- O>
CD i— •— >-
E f^ Q.^— ^
•i— Q.
1— «=C

O-5J-CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
<— 1 OO OO O O O O O








O 'IO CO OO OO OO CO CO OO CO
1 — 1









oovOr-io'cr>o>oooor-»
OOOCOCMCMr-Hi-lrHi— {,-)
CMOOOOOOOOO






o o LO coco oo co co co • co
CM r-H








O IT) LO t-HlOLO Lf> LO Lf) LO
OOi— IOOOOOOOO






Oir)co«d-cocococococo
CO t— )









OOCOCMCMCMCMrHt-lr-H









cooOLOcococococooo



•r™

1—

,J
3
o

CO

re

t_
0)

.,-

O)
c
•1^
•*•>
01
cz
t_
3
•a
-o

CO
O)
c.
Q.
, — »
o
^^
*>^»x

2:
o

re
01
t_ •
O CO
c:
4- 0
O T-
^J
a) re
05 3
re a-
-p CO
c:
O CO

•i- "3- ~~~~ re
•— 0 -P i—
Q-i —
CLI— o c:
re o i-i •!-

X £_
CO CO O

'CL-P -z. o
E re
re c ^^ 4—
X ••- 0
CO • • =
+J OO E

O 3 •> =
LU CO t— 1
CO CO
• re -p
co -a co
O5i — >- CO
•a 3 •!-
3 O • **
i— 2 re co
CO -C -t-

co .c 2: 1—
4-i -(-> O^
v^ *
co re
•r- r-\ 0 J=
z: -p z:
re ii
o o>
•r- 2: o j^
c •
re o CM oo
t- c. x o
o re t— i
01 re
5« t- -C II
0 ^^
t- -p vo
CO 5-9. CO
Q.CO O •
r-l O
"o 01
CO £= X X
i — £= ore
Q.T- 2: J=
a. re ^«.
re 4_> ^% .p
C CO
CO 0 0
Ol O « !-)
73 o
3 CO X
r- 01 S-
co -a re o
3 co 2:
4-1 — >-
O Wl &S
c -a •• co
o co c
-P -P O "
CO •!— CM
O CO -P
•r- CO re £_
t_ -i— N re
-P X> T- CO

E ^"re
t- £1 co re
co re c: _c:
Q. O -r- -v.
•r- E Z
-a -Q
co o 2: co
CO t_ ^.
re co 4— •
co re o •* co
r— C CM £=
co re co o
f _|j u >r.
C C -P
2: re 3 o re
O CO 3
054- E • cr
-i^ o re o co

H-


























































•
l—


.,_
re

_Q
0
o


CM
5^
r*i

-p
E

Ol


>.
^_
(~>

3
s:

=8=
6-19

-------
The approach proposed for evaluating residual N, P, and K is as follows:
          P and K - Assume that 50 percent of the
          for  plant  uptake.   If P  in excess  of
          applied  in  previous years,
          grown  in  the current  year
          test  data  are
          should be  used
          quirements.
                                        P applied is available
                                         plant needs  has  been
                             it  can  be  utilized  by  the  crop
                              If post-sludge  application  soil
               available  for  P and  K,  these  measured  values
               to  assess supplemental P and  K fertilizer re-
          N - The  portion of organic N  converted  to inorganic N varies
          for different  sludge types  during  the first year after appli-
          cation to  the  soil.   After the first year, the  amount  of  N
          mineralization decreases by approximately 50 percent each year
          until   the  N mineralization  stabilizes at about  3 percent of
          the remaining  organic  N.   For example,  if  20  percent of the
          organic  N  was  mineralized during  the  first  year, the amounts
          released in years 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be 10, 5, 3, and 3 per-
                               of the organic N  remaining  (see Table 6-
                               N  mineralization  rate  of  3  percent  was
                               is  often  observed  for  stable  organic  N
cent, respectively,
7).   The  ultimate
chosen,  because  it
fractions in soils.
     6.4.3  Calculation of Annual Application Rate

Recommended annual rates of  sludge  application  on  cropland are based on
the N,  P,  and Cd content of  the sludge and the N and  P  requirement of
the crop  grown.   As  discussed  in the previous section, the  N needs of
the crop  are  corrected  for  plant  available  N mineralized  from  prior
sludge additions.  There are  three  basic approaches  that  can  be used to
determine the annual  application rate:
          Approach 1  -  Annual  rate applies N
          and Cd less than regulatory limits.
                                    equivalent  to  crop N need
          Approach 2 - Annual  rate  applies  Cd equal  to regulatory limit
          and N less than crop N need.

          Approach 3  - Annual  rate applies  P  equal  to crop  P  need (N
          applied  <  crop  N  need  and Cd applied  <  current  regulatory
          limit).
For  all  three  approaches,  the  soil  pH  must  be  maintained  at
greater to minimize metal uptake by crops.
                                                       6.5  or
The following  section  summarizes the basic  calculations  used  to deter-
mine sludge application rates.  The basic calculations required are sim-
ilar for  all  three approaches.   The  design  examples  at  the end of this
chapter illustrate calculations for each approach.
                                  6-20

-------
          6.4.3.1  Calculation of Nitrogen Applied
The plant available N content in
organic N, NHA+-N, and NOo-N analyses.
                                  sludge is determined from the total or
                                        It is assumed that both NH/i+ and
             4
N0o~ present  in soil after  sludge application are  available  for 'plant
uptake during  the  cropping season of  sludge  application.   This assump-
tion is consistent with the  current  practices of  applying anhydrous am-
monia, ammonium nitrate, ammonium  sulfate, potassium nitrate, or urea as
nitrogen fertilizers.  In contrast to conventional fertilizer materials,
however, appreciable amounts of organic N are added to soils in sludges.
Mineralization of the organic  N  provides  a  slow release of plant avail-
able N during the growing season and in future years.

As shown in Table 6-7, the percent of organic N mineralized is generally
related to the sludge characteristics resulting from a particular treat-
ment process  (11).   In general,  the greater the  degree  of  sludge pro-
cessing within the  sewage treatment  plant,  the  lower  the  amounts  of
organic N  released  for  plant uptake after application  to soils.   The N
mineralization percentages shown  in  Table 6-7 can be employed to calcu-
late the plant  available  N content of  a sludge, and to correct the fer-
tilizer N  recommendation  for  previous  sludge  applications.   However,
there is a significant variation in conversion rates of organic N to in-
organic N  in  sludge receiving  similar treatment.   The  mineralization
rates shown on  Table 6-7  are  averages  only.   It is recommended that in-
cubation studies be  done on specific sludges to determine exact mineral-
ization rates.

The amount of plant  available sludge-borne N applied to soil  is also de-
pendent on the  application method  used.  Recent research  has shown that
approximately  50 percent  of  the NH4+ is  lost  to  the atmosphere through
volatilization of NH-D when liquid sludges are  applied to the soil  sur-
face and allowed to  dry before  being incorporated (see Appendix B).  As
a result,  only 50 percent  of the NH^+ applied is assumed to be available
for plant  uptake.   For  all sludges, the  plant  available  N content (ND)
is determined  using  the procedures defined below  (calculations  are per-
formed on  a dry weight basis).

The N  in  a particular year is the total of:
     •

     •
          All  of the nitrate (NOg)  present in the sludge.

          All  or a fraction  of  the  ammonia (NH4)  present  in  the sludge.
          If the sludge is  liquid  and  surface-applied, assume  that  only
          50 percent of the  NH4  is plant available, with the  remaining
          50  percent  lost  through  volatilization  during  application.
          However, if the sludge is  liquid  and incorporated (injected),
          or  dewatered  sludge  applied  in any manner,  assume  that  100
          percent of the NH^ is plant available.

          A fraction of the  organic  N (NQ)  present in the  sludge which
          is mineralized during the first year after application.   This
                                  6-21

-------
          fraction is represented by the  column  headed  "F"  in Table 6-7
          for the year 0-1.

     •    A  summation  of  the NQ  in  the sludge  applied  during  previous
          years  (if  any)  which  will mineralize during the  particular
          year  being  calculated.   This fraction is represented  by the
          column headed "F" in Table 6-7  for  the year(s) since the ear-
          lier sludge application.

A two-step  calculation  is recommended  to  determine Np  in  a  particular
year.

Step 1, represented by Equation 6-1 below, accounts for the N  available
from the sludge during the first year in which it is applied^


            Np  = S  [(N03)  + Kv  (NH4)  + F(yeap  0_1}  (NQ)]  (10)       (6-1)
where:
      Np  =Plant  available  N from this year's  sludge  application  only,
       p   in kg/ha.

       S = Sludge application rate, in dry mt/ha.

     N03 = Percent nitrate-N in the sludge, as percent (e.g., 1% = 1.0).

     Kv  = Volatilization  factor  =   0.5  for  surface-applied  liquid
           sludge, or  1.0 for incorporated  liquid  sludge  and dewatered
           sludge applied in any manner.

     NH/i  = Percent  ammonia  -N in  the  sludge,  as  percent  (e.g., 2%  =
           2.0).

     F/vear n i\  = Mineralization  factor  for organic  N in  the sludge in
      ^    the  'first  year  (from  Table  6-7),  expressed  as  a  fraction
           (e.g., 20% =  0.2).  For example,  in Table  6-7,  anaerobically
           digested sludge has an F factor for year 0-1 of  20% = 0.2.

      Nn = Percent organic N in the sludge, as percent (e.g., 3% = 3.0).
     Example  of  Step 1  Calculation:   Assume  an application rate  of  5
     mt/ha, dry  weight,  of anaerobically  digested  liquid  sludge,  which
     is surface-applied.   The sludge  chemical  analysis shows N03  =  0,
     NH4 = 1.5%, and NQ = 3%, all on a dry weight basis.
                                   6-22

-------
           Np = S [(N03) + Kv (NH4) + F(year Q_^ (NQ)] (10)

              = 5 [(0) + 0.5 (1.5) + (0.2) (3.0)] 10

              = '67.5 kg Np/ha

     The reader  should  note  that this calculation  computes  the  NR  only
     for this year's sludge application,  and does not include additional
     N  made  available  from  mineralization  of  previous  years'  sludge
     applications, if any.
Step  2  calculates  the  Np  available  in  subsequent years  from  "this
year's"  sludge application  due  to the slow mineralization of  NQ in  the
sludges  applied.   The mineralization calculations  for  subsequent years
are demonstrated in the following example.
     Assume the  same  sludge application  rate  and sludge quality  as  in
     the previous example,  i.e.,  5 mt/ha application rate  and  3% NQ  in
     the sludge on a dry weight basis.

     N0 in sludge applied = (0.03) (5 mt/ha) (1,000 kg/mt) = 150 kg/ha
     F factors for anaerobically digested sludge from Table 6-7 are:
                 Year

                 0-1
                 1-2
                 2-3
                      0.20
                      0.10
                      0.05
     NQ mineralized in year 0-1 = (0.20) (150) = 30 kg/ha

     NQ remaining in year 1-2 = (150) - (30) = 120 kg/ha

     N0 mineralized in year 1-2 = (0.10) (120) = 12 kg/ha

     NQ remaining in year 2-3 = (120) - (12) = 108 kg/ha

     NQ mineralized in year 2-3 = (0.05) (108) = 5.4 kg/ha
A  simpler  alternate method of  calculating  the N0 mineralized  and  made
plant available in  the first year  and  succeeding  years  is to use the Km
factor in Table 6-7 as shown in Equation 6-2 below:
Nm =
                                          (5)
(6-2)
                                   6-23

-------
where:
        = Quantity of N0 mineralized  in the year under consideration, in
          kg/ha.

        = Mineralization  factor  for  the year  under consideration (from
          Table 6-7), in kg/mt/% NQ.
     Nrt = Percent organic N originally present  in the sludge, as percent
          (e.g., 3% = 3.0).
'o


S =  Sludge  application  rate,  in mt/ha.
     Example:  Assume the same sludge quality and application rate as in
     the previous  examples,  i.e.,  5 mt/ha application rate and 3% NQ in
     the sludge on a dry weight basis.
     From Table 6-7 for anaerobically digested sludge:

                 Year
                                                 K,
                 0-1
                 1-2
                 2-3

     Nm first year = (2.0) (3) (5) = 30 kg/ha

     Nm second year = (0.80)  (3)  (5) = 12 kg/ha

     Nm third year = (0.36) (3) (5) = 5.4 kg/ha
                                                 2.0
                                                 0.80
                                                 0.36
If the  sludge  is only applied one  time,  the N_ available in subsequent
years is  the amount calculated  in  Equation 6-2.   Programs  which apply
sludge  annually  are more complex,  because  the NQ  mineralized  from all
previous years' sludge applications must be included.
     Example:  Assume  annual  application  of  the same quality sludge and
     sludge application  rate  as  used in the  previous  examples,  i.e., 5
     mg/ha application  rate  and  3% N0 in  the sludge.   Calculate the ND
     available during each of the first 3 years.                       v

     Year 0-1 (from Equation 6-1)

          Np = S [(N03) + Kv (NH4) + F(yeap 0_1} (NQ)] (10)

             = 5 [(0) + 0.5 (1.5) + (0.2)  (3.0)] 10

             = 67.5 kg/ha
                                   6-24

-------
     Year 1-2 (from Equations 6-1 and 6-2)

          N  = N  from second year plus Nm from first year

          Np = 67.5 + (Km) (N0) (S)

             = 67.5 + (0.80) (3) (5)

             = 79.5 kg/ha

     Year 2-3 (from Equations 6-1 and 6-2)

          ND = ND from third-year application plus Nm from second-year
           v   application plus Nm from third-year application

          Np = 67.5 + (0.80) (3) (5) + (0.36) (3) (5)

             = 84.9 kg/ha
The amount of plant available  N  applied  to soil  in sludge is determined
as  described  above  for all  three annual  application  rate  approaches
listed at the beginning of Section 6.4.3.   For  Approach 1,  and usually
Approach 2,  the  amount of plant available N applied in the sludge equals
the N required by the crop  grown.

          6.4.3.2  Calculation Based on Metal Limitations

The "Criteria" limit the Cd  application  on an annual  basis,  and Cd, Pb,
Zn, Cu,  and Ni   on  a total  cumulative basis for  the site.    In either
case, the  amount of  sludge  that can  be  applied  (dry weight  basis)  is
calculated with  the same basic equation:
                         .  _
                         Sm -
(1,000 kg/mt)
(6-3)
                               m
where:
     Sm = Amount of sludge, in mt/ha,  that  can  be applied for the metal
          and time interval selected (e.g., annual for Cd, or total cum-
          ulative for Cd, Pb,  Zn, Cu, Ni).

     L  = Metal  limitations,  in  kg/ha;  see Table  6-8  for  annual  Cd
          limit, Table 6-2 for cumulative limits.

     Cm = Concentration, in mg/kg, of the metal  of concern in the sludge
          being applied.

See sample calculation at end of this chapter.
                                   6-25

-------
                                TABLE 6-8
               SUMMARY OF ANNUAL CADMIUM LIMITATIONS (10)
Type of Crop Grown

Tobacco, root crops,
leafy vegetables

Other food chain crops
(e.g., corn, small
grains, forages)

Animal feed only
         Annual
        Cd Limit
      kg/ha (Ib/A)

      0.5 (0.45)
      2.0 (1.78).
      1.25 (1.11V
      0.5 (0.45)#

      None
     Comments

     pH 2.6.5


     pH >6.5
    pH_>6.5 '
Detailed manage-
ment plan will
also be required.
* Present to 6/30/84.
t 7/1/84 to 12/31/86.
# After 1/1/87.
          6.4.3.3  Calculation of Phosphorus Applied

The annual  sludge  application  rate may also be  based on the P require-
ments of the crop grown.  It is assumed that the P contained in a sludge
is 50 percent  as available for plant  uptake as  the phosphates normally
applied to soils in commercial  fertilizers (e.g., super and triple super
phosphate, diammonium phosphate, etc.).   As  previously discussed, the P
fertilizer needs of the crop grown are determined from the soil test for
available P and the yield level of the crop grown.  The amount of sludge
applied is then equated to the P fertilizer requirement:
Sp =
                                 (1,000 kg/mt)
              (6-4)
where:
     Sp = Application rate of sludge,  in  mt/ha,  to satisfy P fertilizer
      H   need of crop.

     Cp = Plant P needs, in kg/ha.

     Pn = Concentration  of P in sludge, in mg/kg.
                                   6-26

-------
Because the P needs  of most  crops  are approximately 25 percent of the N
requirement, the amounts of sludge applied each year with Approach 3 are
considerably less  than  those used with  the two  other  approaches.   For
nearly all sludges, supplemental N fertilization will be needed to opti-
mize crop  yields  (except for N-fixing  legumes).   A major  advantage of
this approach is that the  amounts  of  Cd  applied to soils each year will
be less than the Cd limits for nearly all sludges.  This approach is the
most conservative alternative presented.

     6.4.4  Calculation of Fertilizer N,  P, and K

The amounts of.N,  P, and K applied in the  sludge should be compared to
recommended additions  of fertilizer  N,  P,  and K  to achieve the yields
desired (see Tables 6-3 through 6-6).   If this comparison shows that one
or more nutrients will be  suboptimal, the appropriate amount of commer-
cial fertilizer can  be  applied.  Maximum yields  will  not result unless
all essential  plant nutrients  are present  at  recommended  levels.   In
some systems, additional fertilizer may  not  be applied because of econ-
omic considerations.

     6.4.5  Termination of Sludge Applications Based on Metal Additions
                                                                      s
To protect the productivity of soils and to minimize long-term accumula-
tion of Cd in crops, sludge applications  are terminated when the cumula-
tive amounts of  Pb,  Zn,  Cu, Ni, or Cd exceed  a specific limit based on
the CEC of the soil.  Recommended cumulative metal loadings developed in
1977 for  privately  owned agricultural cropland are  shown  in Table 6-2.
It is imperative that the reader determine if there have been subsequent
modifications to these recommendations.   As  shown, soils are subdivided
into three categories based  on  CEC.   Additional  comments on total metal
limits are presented in Section 6.3.5.

The amounts of Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, and Cd applied each year are recorded and
added to  the cumulative  metal  additions from  previous years.   Sludge
applications cease  when  any one  of  the  metal   limits  is  reached.   When
more  intensive  management  and  monitoring  are  employed,  and  potential
crop yield reductions  and  use  restrictions  are  acceptable,  the metal
limits  shown  in  Table  6-2  may be  exceeded.    The  dedicated  disposal
option discussed in Chapter 9 is an example of such a case.

6.5  Monitoring Requirements

The conservative  design  approaches presented reduce  the  need  for moni-
toring of  soils,  crops,  and surface  and  ground water.   Since the basic
rationale is to utilize sludge as a substitute for commercial fertilizer
materials, monitoring of  ground  water is not usually required, provided
that the soil is maintained at pH_MJ-5.

Typical  monitoring  requirements for  agricultural  utilization  of sludge
at agronomic rates are summarized in Table 6-9.  State and local regula-
tory agencies must be contacted  to obtain monitoring requirements for a
specific project.
                                   6-27

-------
                                  TABLE  6-9
               TYPICAL SITE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR SLUDGE
                   APPLICATION AT OR  BELOW AGRONOMIC RATES


                                    Monitoring of:

Soil
pH
Soil Test
for P
and KT
N03~ in
Ground
Water

Cd 1n
Crop
                         Yes (2)#    Yes (2)
No
        No
                  * Numbers in parentheses refer to frequency of analy-
                    sis:  2 = every 2 years.

                  t Soil test for available N can be used, if appropri-
                    ate.

                  # Frequency depends on amount of N applied, depth to
                    ground water, and amount of leachate.  Regulatory
                    agencies will dictate frequency.
The  major parameters of  concern are (1) pH maintenance at 6.5 to  reduce
potential  metal migration,  and (2)  soil  P and  K  if  optimum crop yields
are  a project goal.  Nitrate in ground  water  is generally only a problem
when the sludge application(s) exceed  the N needs of  the crop.    If the
applied  N  equals  crop  fertilizer  requirement,  then  potential   ground
water contamination from  sludge is no greater  than  from  the use of con-
ventional  fertilizers.

     6.5.1   Soil  pH
The  "Criteria"  (10) require maintenance  of  pH 6.5 or greater to minimize
Cd uptake by crops.   This pH  also reduces the  potential  for phytotoxi-
city  and  leaching  of  Zn, Cu,  and  Ni.    If  soil  pH is  less  than 6.5, an
appropriate  buffer method  is used to  determine the  amount
or equivalent required  for adjusting  the  soil to  pH 6.5.
performed on  a  routine basis by soil testing  laboratories.

     6.5.2  Soil  Test  for P and K
                   6.5,
              of limestone
              Analyses  are
Analyses  are required  to  determine the  amounts  of  P and  K fertilizer
needed  to optimize  crop yields.    These analyses  are standardized for
each  region  of the  United- States.   In  some states,  recommendations for
fertilizer  N are based  on  soil organic  matter or NOo" in  the soil pro-
file.  These analyses should be conducted as needed.

     6.5.3   Nitrate  in  Ground Water

A potential  off-site environmental  impact  following  sludge application
on land may  be  N03~  leaching into ground water.   Ground water monitoring
is needed only when  the amount of  sludge-borne N applied  exceeds the N
                                    6-28

-------
needs of  the  crop grown.   If  the N applied  equals  crop  fertilizer re-
quirement, the threat of N0o~  contamination  of  ground water from sludge
application is no greater  tnan from the  use  of conventional  N fertili-
zers.  Additional information on ground water monitoring is presented in
Chapter 11.

     6.5.4  Cadmium in Crops

Cd analysis is usually needed  only  when the  annual  or cumulative appli-
cation rate exceeds either the limitations presented in Section 6.3.4 or
state or  local regulations.   Cd  analysis is  recommended when unforeseen
land  development  results  in conversion  of  non-food chain  land  to food
chain  cropland,   and  where past  sludge applications  have  exceeded the
limitations.   The plant  part  sampled  will   depend  on the  crop  grown.
Typically, the harvested portion  (fruit,  grain, tuber, or leaf)  will be
sampled and  analyzed  for  Cd.   The actual concentration  of  Cd in plant
materials  is  somewhat meaningless  in  that the Food and Drug Administra-
tion  (FDA) has (in 1983) not established acceptable levels of Cd in var-
ious  crops.   If  excess  Cd is applied,  it is strongly recommended that
the  same  crop be grown  on  an adjacent non-sludge-treated  soil  of the
same  type  to  evaluate the  relative  increase  of Cd in  the crop caused by
sludge application.  The same  cultivar  (variety) of crop should be grown
at the two sites, because Cd uptake can vary  for different cultivars.

      6.5.5  Other Analyses

Additional site-specific analyses may be needed to monitor the status of
some  land application  systems.  For example,  soils  may need to be ana-
lyzed  for soluble salts  and/or boron in  semiarid  regions where irriga-
tion  is  planned.   The movement  of  metals  and N can also be assessed by
periodically  obtaining soil  samples to  a depth  of 2 to 3 m  (6 to 10 ft),
and  analyzing each 30-cm  (12-in)  increment.   Appendix  C contains more
detailed  information.

6.6   Sludge Application Methods  and Scheduling

      6.6.1  Methods of Application

Methods of  sludge application  on agricultural land are dependent on the
physical  characteristics  of  the sludge and  soil  and  the  crops grown.
Liquid  sludges  can be applied by surface spreading or subsurface injec-
tion.   Surface application  methods include  spreading by farm tractors,
tank  wagons,  special  applicator vehicles equipped with flotation tires,
tank  trucks,  portable or  fixed irrigation systems, and ridge and furrow
irrigation.

Surface  application  of  liquid sludge is  normally  limited to soils with
<6  percent slopes.   It is  the  normal  procedure when forage crops are
grown.  After sludge  has been  applied to  the  soil  surface and  allowed to
partially dry,  it is commonly incorporated  by  plowing or disking  prior
to  planting  the  crop  (i.e., corn, soybeans,   small grains, cotton,  other
                                   6-29

-------
 row  crops).   Ridge  and  furrow  irrigation  systems can  be designed to
 apply  sludge during the crop  growing  season.   Spray irrigation  systems
 generally  should not be used to apply sludge to forages  or to  row crops
 during  the growing season.   The adherence of sludge to plant vegetation
 can  have a detrimental  effect  on  crop  yields by reducing  photosynthesis.
 In  addition, spray irrigation tends to  increase  the potential  for  odor
 problems.   Surface application of  liquid  sludge  by ,tank trucks  and ap-
 plicator vehicles  is  the most  common method for agricultural croplands.

 Liquid  sludges  can also be  injected below the  soil surface.   Available
 equipment  includes  tractor-drawn  tank  wagons with  injection shanks (ori-
 ginally developed  for liquid animal wastes)  and tank trucks fitted  with
 flotation  tires  and injection  shanks (developed for  sludge  application).
 Both  types of equipment minimize any  odor problems  and  reduce  ammonia
 volatilization by  immediate mixing  of soil  and sludge.   Sludge can be
 injected  into soils  with up to  12 percent slope.  Flotation tires are
 advantageous  to  reduce soil  compaction and to allow application  on  soft
 ground.   Incorporation can  be used either before  planting  or after  har-
 vesting  all  crops  with the  exception  of forages.    This application
 method  is  likely to be unacceptable for  forages which are cut and baled,
 because some  injection  shanks  can either ruin the  forage  stand  or create
 deep  ruts  in the field.  Specialized  equipment  for injection  in forage
 is available.

 Dewatered  sludges  are applied to  cropland by handling equipment  similar
 to that used for applying animal manures,  limestone,  or  solid fertili-
 zers.   Typically,  the dewatered sludge will  be surface-applied and  then
 incorporated  by  plowing or  disking.  Incorporation is not  used when de-
 watered  sludges  are applied  to  growing  forages.   Sludge application
 methods are  discussed  in greater  detail  in Chapter  10.

     6.6.2   Scheduling

 The timing of sludge  applications must correspond  to farming operations,
 and is  influenced  by crop,  climate, and soil  properties.    Sludge cannot
 be applied  during  periods of inclement weather.    In some states, sludge
 cannot be  applied  to soils  that  are frozen or  covered  with snow.   Soil
 moisture is  a major  consideration which  impacts the timing.of sludge ap-
 plication.   Traffic on wet   soils during  or  immediately following heavy
 rainfalls may result  in compaction  and reduced  crop yields; muddy soils
 also make  vehicle  operation  difficult.  Application to frozen  or snow-
 covered ground with greater than  3 percent slope may result  in excessive
 runoff into  adjacent  streams.   In addition,  sludge applications must be
 scheduled  around the  tillage,  planting, and harvesting  operations  for
the  crops  grown.   A general  guide  to allowable   times for surface  and
 subsurface  applications of  sludge for  North Central States is  shown in
 Table 6-10.   Individual states or local  extension  personnel can  provide
 similar information.

 Split applications  of  sludge  may  be required  for  rates  of  liquid sludge
 in excess  of 11 mt/ha (5  dry T/ac).    Split  application  involves  the
addition of  smaller  quantities of sludge at  different  times of the year
                                   6-30

-------
                                 TABLE  6-10
                GENERAL  GUIDE  TO  MONTHS AVAILABLE FOR SLUDGE
          APPLICATION TO DIFFERENT CROPS IN NORTH CENTRAL STATES*
Small Grains'*"
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Corn
S*
s*
S/I
S/I
P, S/I
c
c
c
c
H, S/I
S/I
S*
Soybeans
S*
S*
S/I
S/I
P, S/I
P, S/I
C
C
H, S/I
S/I
S/I
S*
Cotton^ Forages
S/I
S/I
s/r
P, S/I
C
C
C
C
C
S/I
S/I
S/I
s*
s*
s
c
c
H, S
H, S
H, S
S
H, S
S
S*
Winter Spring
C
C
C
C
C
C
H, S/I
S/I.
S/I
P, S/I
C
C
S*
S*
s/i
P, S/I
c
c
H, S/I
S/I
s/i
s/i
S/I
s*
 * Application may not  be allowed  due  to  frozen  or  snow-covered soils
   in some states; S/I, surface or incorporated  application;  S, surface
   application; C, growing crop present;  P,  crop planted;  H,  after crop
   harvested.

 t Wheat, barley, oats, or rye.

 # Cotton, only grown south of  southern Missouri.

** Established forages, legumes (alfalfa, clover, trefoil,  etc.), grass
   (orchard grass, timothy, brome, reed canary grass,  etc.),  or legume-
   grass mixture.
                                   6-31

-------
 to attain the desired total  rate.   If the sludge contains 4 percent sol-
 ids,  the volume of sludge applied at  a  rate  of 11 mt/ha (5 T/ac) is ap-
 proximately 89,000 1/ha  (23,500 gal  ac  or about  0.9  ac-in).   Realizing
 that  surface runoff depends  on soil  properties (e.g.,  infiltration rate)
 and slope, the likelihood of  runoff from  relatively flat soils (<5 per-
 cent  slope) is increased when application rates approach 100,000 1/ha (1
 ac-in)  of  liquid  sludge.   Obviously, subsurface  application  will  mini-
 mize  runoff from  all  soils.   An  advantage of split  application  is  the
 increased efficiency of N utilization by the  crops grown.

      6.6.3  Storage

 Storage  facilities are required to hold  sludge  during periods  of incle-
 ment  weather,  equipment breakdown,  frozen or  snow-covered ground,  or
 when  access would  damage the field or  crop.  Liquid sludge can  be stored
 in  digesters, tanks,  lagoons,  or  drying  beds;  dewatered sludge  can  be
 stockpiled.   Volume  requirements  will  depend on  individual systems  and
 climate.

 The amount of storage capacity needed can  be  estimated  from the follow-
 ing data:
      •     Sludge  volume  and  physical
      •     Climatological  data.
      •     Cropping  data.
characteristics.
An  ultraconservative  design  of storage capacity is for I year's produc-
tion.  A more  realistic storage volume  can be  computed from climatologi-
cal and cropping  data.

          6.6.3.1  Climatological Data

Sludge  applications  may be  restricted  or prohibited  in  some states on
days  when  >2.5 mm  (0.1  in)  of rainfall  occurs, or when  the soils are
frozen or snow-covered.  For a specific site,  the average number of  days
in  each  month  with  these or  other weather conditions  can  be obtained
from  the  National   Climatic  Center,   NOAA,  Asheville,   North Carolina
28801, or from  local  sources.

          6.6.3.2  Cropping Data

Except for forages, sludge application to cropland  is usually  limited to
those months  of the  year  when a  crop  is not  present.   The application
schedule shown  in Table 6-10 is  a general  guide for common crops in the
North Central  States.  The availability of  sites used to grow a variety
of  crops  clearly facilitates  the application  of  sludge  throughout the
year.   For  example,  a  site  containing forages,  corn,  and winter wheat
would permit  sludge  application  during  nearly all  months of  the year.
Chapter 10 contains  additional  information  on evaluating sludge storage
needs.
                                   6-32

-------
6.7  Design Example of Sludge Application Rate Calculations

A detailed design  example  will  be developed  for  a midwestern city with
20 dry  mt/d  (22 T/d)  of  sewage sludge requiring  disposal.   The sludge
has undergone  anaerobic digestion,  and has  the  following characteris-
tics:
          Solids - 4.0 percent
          Total N - 2.5 percent
          NH4-N - 1.0 percent
          Total P - 2.0 percent
          Total K - 0.5 percent
          Pb - 500 mg/kg
»
«
Zn - 2,000 mg/kg
Cu - 500 mg/kg
Ni - 100 mg/kg
Cd - 50 mg/kg
PCB's - 0.5 mg/kg
Climatological data were collected for the application area as described
in Chapter 4.  Sludge application will be limited during periods of high
rainfall and high soil moisture conditions, because of the potential for
surface  runoff  and the  inability  to use  sludge  application equipment.
Sludge application will  also  be  limited  during periods of extended sub-
freezing temperatures due to. frozen soils.

For this site, assume that:

     •    Annual  sludge  applications  can not  exceed  either the  N re-
          quirement for the crop grown or 2 kg Cd/ha (1.78 Ib Cd/ac).

     •    Soil must be maintained at pH 6.5 or above.

     t    If the  nutrient  content  of  the  sludge is not sufficient, then
          supplemental fertilizer  will  be used to optimize crop produc-
          tion.

     •    Annual  monitoring is  not  needed other than routine soil test-
          ing to  establish fertilizer recommendations  and lime require-
          ment.

     t    The  sewage  treatment  plant monitors chemical  composition of
          the sludge.

     •    Records are maintained on the amount of sludge applied to each
          area.

Ground water  monitoring  will  be  needed  if N  applications  exceed the N
needs of the crop grown.   If the Cd applied exceeds the regulatory limit
(either  annual or cumulative), only animal feed can be grown on the site
(10).

Soils  in the site area  are generally sandy  loams,  having  a  CEC of 10
meq/100  g.  Representative soil analyses are as follows:

     *    CEC - 10 meq/100 g
     •    Soil pH (in water) - 6.0
                                  6-33

-------
     •    Available P - 17 kg/ha (15 Ib/ac)
     t    Available K - 84 kg/ha (75 Ib/ac)
     •    Lime (to pH 6.5) - 5.4 mt/ha (2.4 T/ac)

Crops grown in the area include corn, soybeans, oats, wheat, and forages
for hay  and  pasture.   One half of  the  site  is cropped with forages re-
quiring  390  kg/ha  (350 Ib/ac)  of available  N  per  year,  and one half is
cropped with corn  requiring  190 kg/ha  (170 Ib/ac)  available N per year.
Crop fertilizer requirements were obtained from Tables 6-2 and 6-5.

Fertilizer recommendations for the two crops are as follows:

                                             N       P      K
     Crop

     Corn
     Forage
Yield (T/ha)

  8.4-10.1
    2.7
   (kg/ha/year)
190
390
45
59
140
336
P and K recommendations are based on the soil test data shown above.

     6.7.1  Calculation of Initial Annual Sludge Application Rates for
            Nitrogen

The ND  in  the anaerobically digested sludge  is  calculated  based on 100
percent availability  of  NH4-N and 20 percent availability  of  organic N
(F = 0.20)  during  the year of  sludge application  (see  Table 6-7).   The
sludge  does not  contain  detectable amounts  of NOo-N,  so  only NH^-N and
total  N are needed to determine the Np.   Equation  6-1  is used for this
calculation:


            Np = S [N03  +  Kv  (NH4)  + F(year  Q_1}  (NQ)]  (10)


Let S (sludge application rate) = 1 mt/ha, then:

           Np  =  (1) [(0)  + (1)  (1) -i- (0.20)  (2.5 - 1.0)]  (10)

              = 13 kg/mt  sludge applied to corn

The above calculation is  for corn where the sludge is incorporated, mak-
ing the Ky volatilization factor = 1.

Sludge  will  be  surface-applied on the  forage   crop,  so  there  will  be
volatilization losses (Ky = 0.5).  For this case:

          Np = (1)  C(O) + (0.5) (1) + (0.20)  (2.5 - 1.0)]  (10)

            = 8  kg/mt sludge  applied  to forage
                                   6-34

-------
The sludge application rate required to  deliver  this  amount of N to the
crop in the initial year  of application  can  be calculated by substitut-
ing the appropriate N values in Equation 6-3.
                                c  _
                                SN -
Corn (190,kg N/ha/year):
                        SM =
     190 kg/ha/yr
  13 kg N /mt sludge
Forage (390 kg N/ha/year):
                            =  14.6  mt  sludge/ha
                            _   390 kg/ha/yr
                              8 kg N /mt sludge


                           = 48.8 mt sludge/ha
These values  are  the  N-limiting  rates  for the first year only.  In sub-
sequent  years,  a portion  of the  previously  applied organic  N  will  be
mineralized  and  will  become  available  for plant uptake.   (See Section
6.4.3.1  for a discussion and  sample calculation.)
     6.7.2  Calculation of
            Limitation
Annual Sludge Application Rates Using Cadmium
 In addition to considering the annual rate of N addition, the rate of Cd
 application must  be below the prevailing  limit  if a food chain crop is
 grown.   Assume  that the application  regulations  state that the maximum
 amount  of Cd applied  is limited  as shown  in  Table  6-8.   The maximum
 annual  sludge application rate is  calculated using Equation 6-3 with the
 appropriate Cd values:
                               "Cd

                               :Cd
       (1,000 kg/mt)
                        Ccd = 50 mg/kg
 Present to  June  30,  1984:
                        Lcd = 2.0 kg/ha/year
                                   6-35

-------
                       cd
                = (2)
                                        = 40 mt/ha/year
July 1, 1984, to December 31, 1986:
                      Lcd = 1.25 kg/ha/year


                      SCd (1.25^(1,000) . 25 mt/ha/year
After January 1, 1987:
                      LCc( = 0.5 kg/ha/year
                                             «t/ha/year
These Cd  limits apply to  both  the corn  and  forage
assumed that the latter will enter the food chain as
crops,
animal
                                                  since
                                                  feed.
                                                                   it is
A comparison of the sludge application rates based on N and Cd indicates
the following:
Corn - Application of 14.6 mt/ha will
limit until  January 1, 1987.
                                                not exceed the annual Cd
          Forage  -  Application  of  48.8 mt/ha  exceeds the  current  and
          future Cd  limits.   Sludge use on forage  is  limited to 40 mt/
          ha,  resulting  in  the  need  for  additional  N fertilizer  to
          attain optimum  yields.   The annual application  rate will  de-
          crease to 25 mt/ha and ultimately to 10 mt/ha.
In all  cases,  the soil
the sludge is applied.
              pH must  be maintained at 6.5  or  above  whenever
     6.7.3  Calculation of Annual Sludge Application and Supplemental
            Fertilizer Rates for Multi-Year System

The annual  application rate based  on  N required by the  crop  is calcu-
lated after correction of the amount of organic N mineralized from prior
sludge applications.  The application rate based on N and the associated
amount of Cd applied is then compared to the prevailing limitation on Cd
additions.  The  smaller  application rate of the  two  is selected and is
used to compute amounts of fertilizer needed to optimize crop yield.
                                  6-36

-------
         6.7.3.1  Calculation of Annual  Application Rate with Correction
                  for Residual Mineralized N

         N required by corn = 190 kg N/ha/year

         Plant available N in sludge = 13 kg N /mt sludge

The mineralized N calculation results are shown for the first 5 years of
a sludge utilization system.  Assume  that  initial  sludge application is
made in  1982,  so residual N  must  be  evaluated in 1983.   The  method is
described in Section 6.4.3.1.

For example,  if the sludge  loading  rate =  14.6 mt/ha,  initial  organic
N = 1.5  percent, mineralization rate first year  ("F"  factor from Table
6-7) = 0.20, and mineralization rate second year = 0.10, then:

     Initial organic N in sludge = (0.015) (14.6 mt/ha) (1,000 kg/mt)
                                 = 219 kg/ha

     Amount mineralized during application year = (219) (0.20)
                                                = 43.8 kg/ha

     Residual at end of application year = 219 - 43.8
                                         = 175.2 kg/ha

     Mineralized in second year - (175)  (0.10)
                                = 17.5 kg/ha.        '   •    '••

The same  results can be  obtained  by  using the (kg  N/mt  1% N_) factors
(Factor  Km)  in Table 6-7.   For example, the  second year  1^ factor for
this sludge would be 0.8,  and the  amount of organic N mineralized would
be:                                              ;   ,
   Mineralized  N  =   (Sludge  Loading, -^)  (%  Organic, N  in  Sludge)  (Kj


            (14.6 mt/ha) (1.5% organic N) (0.8) = 17.5 kg/ha
                   Mineralized
                      N in

                      1982
                      1983
                      1984
                      1985
                      1986.
Mineral ized
 N (kg/ha)

      0
    17.5
    23.7
    27.1
    30.3
                                  6-37

-------
          6*7.3.2  Fertilizer P Needed for Optimum Corn Crop
Corn needs  45 kg P/ha.   Assuming 50 percent of  sludge  P  is available,
then:
         P available = (0.02 P) (0.50 available)  (1,000 kg/mt)
                     = 10 kg P available/mt sludge
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Sludge
Applied
(mt/ha)
14.6
13.2
12.8
12.5
12.3
                              Calculation
                 45
   kg P/ha - (14.6 mt/ha x 10 kg Pp/mt)
45 kg P/ha - (13.2 mt/ha x 10 kg P /mt)
45 kg P/ha - (12.8 mt/ha x 10 kg Pp/mt)
45 kg P/ha - (12.5 mt/ha x 10 kg Pp/mt)
45 kg P/ha - (12.3 mt/ha x 10 kg P /mt)
Fertilizer
P (kg P/ha)
   -101
    -87
    -83
    -80
    -78
The minus (-) value indicates that P additions from sludge are in excess
of crop requirements.
         6.7.3.3  Fertilizer K Needed for Optimum Corn Crop
Corn needs  140  kg K/ha.  Assuming  all  K in sludge is  available to the
crop, then:
                  K available = (0.005) (1,000 kg/mt)
                              = 5 kg Kp/mt sludge
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Sludge
Applied
(mt/ha)
14.6
13.2
12.8
12.5
12.3
                             Calculation
                  140 kg K/ha - (14.6 mt/ha x 5 kg Kp/mt)
                  140 kg K/ha - (13.2 mt/ha x 5 kg !


-------
          6.7.3.4  Forage - Sludge Application Rate Limited by Cd
It was determined that the initial  application rate of sludge on forages
would be  48.8  mt/ha, based on  N need.   In  1982,  this  application  rate
would exceed the Cd limitation of 2 kg/ha.   Since the Cd limit decreases
in 1984 to  1.25  kg/ha  and  then  to  0.5 kg/ha in 1987, it is obvious  that
sludge use  on  forages  will provide only a  portion  of the  N required to
optimize yield.  The amount of  sludge applied,  based on Cd limits of 2,
1.25, and 0.5  kg/ha,  are 40,  25, and 10 mt/ha,  respectively.   The  ini-
tial   limit  will  apply  to  1982 and  1983,  while the  intermediate limit
will  be used for 1984 to 1986.  Fertilizer N, P, and K applications  will
be computed for a 5-year system.

        N required by forage = 390  kg N/ha

        Plant available N in sludge = 8 kg Np/mt
        (surface application)

     Mineralized kg N/ha = mt  sludge/ha x % organic N in sludge x kg Np
                           mineralized/metric for sludge/% organic N

The fraction of organic N mineralized is obtained from Table 6-7, Factor
K.  The amount mineralized each year is summarized below:
 m.
              Mineralized
                 N in

                 1982
                 1983
                 1984
                 1985
                 1986
Mineralized
 N (kg/ha)

      0
     48
     70
     65
     69
          6.7.3.5  Fertilizer N Needed for Optimum Forage Crop

Fertilizer N needs can  be  determined  by  correcting the N requirement of
forage for mineralized organic N and sludge N applied as shown below.

                                             (C)                (A)-(B+C)
                                                             ,
                                                           v    Fertilizer
                                   Sludge N Applied (kg N/ha)    (kg N/ha)

                                   40 mt/ha x 8 kg N /mt = 320       70

                                   40 mt/ha x 8 kg Np/mt = 320       22

                                   25 mt/ha x 8 kg Np/mt = 200      120

                                   25 mt/ha x 8 kg N /mt = 200      125

                                   25 mt/ha x 8 kg N /mt = 200      121
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
(A)
Crop
Requirement
(kg N/ha)
390
390
390
390
390
(B)
Mineralized
(kg N/ha)
0
48
70
65
69
                                  6-39

-------
     6.7.3.6  Calculation of Fertilizer P and K Needs for Optimum
              Forage Crop
P needed by forage = 59 kg/ha
Plant available P in sludge = -    x 0.5 x 1,000
                                     x 0.5 x 1,000
                            =10 kg Pp/mt
kg fertilizer P/ha = kg P needed/ha - (mt sludge/ha x kg P /mt)
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Sludge
Applied
(mt/ha)
40
40
25
25
25
                      Calculation
             59 kg P/ha - (40 mt/ha x 10 kt Pp/mt)
             59 kg P/ha - (40 mt/ha x 10 kg P /mt)
             59 kg P/ha - (25 mt/ha x 10 kg Pp/mt)
             59 kg P/ha - (25 mt/ha x 10 kg Pp/mt)
             59 kg P/ha - (25 mt/ha x 10 kg Pp/mt)
K needed by forage = 336 kg/ha
Plant available K in sludge =
                                  x 1,000

                                                       Fertilizer
                                                       P (kg P/ha)
                                                           -341
                                                           -341
                                                           -191
                                                           -191
                                                           -191
                            = 5 kg  Kp/mt
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
Sludge
Applied
(mt/ha)
40
40
25
25
25
                       Calculation
             336  kg/ha  -  (40 mt/ha  x  5  kg  Kp/mt)
             336  kg/ha  -  (40 mt/ha  x  5  kg  K  /mt)
             336  kg/ha  -  (25 mt/ha  x  5  kg  Kp/mt)
             336  kg/ha  -  (25 mt/ha  x  5  kg  Kp/mt)
             336  kg/ha  -  (40 mt/ha  x  5  kg  K  /mt)
                                                        Fertilizer
                                                        K (kg  K/ha)
                                                            136
                                                            136
                                                            211
                                                            211
                                                            211
                             6-40

-------
     6.7.4  Sludge Application Rate Limited by Phosphorus

The annual rate of  sludge  application  can  also be calculated from the P
crop needs (some states require  this  approach).   For the soil selected,
the fertilizer.?  needs  of  corn and forage  are 45 and 59 kg/ha, respec-
tively.   The  annual  rates  are  calculated as  follows  from  the  plant
available P content of the sludge:
             ""available  =  (%  p  1n  slud9e)  (50%  availability)
(Note:  Assumes that 0.5  of  the  total  P in sludge is equivalent to con-
ventional  P fertilizers with respect to plant availability.)
For this sludge:
                  Pp  =  (0.02)  (0.50)  (1,000)  = 10 kg/mt
Equation 6-3 then gives the annual sludge rate as follows:

                                     C_

                                SP = P
For corn:
For forage:
                              _ (45 kg P/ha)
                            )    (10 kg/mt)


                             =4.5 mt/ha
                            S,, =
59 kg P/ha
 10 kg/mt
                               = 5.9 mt/ha
The  amounts  of  Cd  applied  to  corn  and  forage would  be 0.1  and  0.14
kg/ha,  respectively.    These Cd  additions  are significantly  less  than
both the 1982 and future Cd limitations.
                                  6-41

-------
          6.7.4.1  Calculation of N and K Fertilizer Needs for
                   Phosphorus Limiting Design

The annual application  rates  limited  by  the P needs for corn and forage
are 4.5  and  5.9 mt/ha, respectively.  Since  these  rates  are very simi-
lar, the  calculation  of fertilizer  N  and K will  be shown  for only corn.
In addition, a  precise  calculation  of fertilizer N  would  include a cor-
rection for  residual  N  released  from  previous sludge  applications.   The
data needed are:

     Annual application rate =4.5 mt/ha

     N required by corn = 190 kg N/ha

     Plant available N in sludge = 13 kg Np/mt sludge

     K required by corn = 140 kg K/ha

Since the sludge application rate is a constant,  the amount of N applied
will be the same each year:


                 13 kg Np/mt x 4.5 mt/ha = 58 kg Np/ha


The mineralized N and fertilizer N needed are calculated from:


     Mineralized kg N/ha = mt/ha x % organic N in sludge x (kg Np
                           mineralized/mt sludge/% organic N)


The fraction (Km)  of  organic  N mineralized is obtained from Table  6-7.
The amount mineralized each year is summarized below:
                   Mineralized
                      N in

                       1982
                       1983
                       1984
                       1985
                       1986
Mineralized
 N (kg/ha)

     0
     5
     7
     8
     9
Fertilizer N calculations would then involve:
       kg fertilizer N/ha = kg N required by crop/ha - kg sludge
                            N  added/ha - kg residual N/ha
                                   6-42

-------
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
N Needed
by Crop
(kg N/ha)
   190
   190
   190
   190
   190
 SI udge
Inorganic
 N Added
(kg N/ha)
    58
    58
    58
    58
    58
 Residual
.•N  (kg/ha)
      0
      5
      7
      8
      9
Fertilizer
N Needed
 (kg/ha)
   132
   127
   125
   123
It is obvious that the amount of fertilizer N needed each year is essen-
tially constant,  and  will average  approximately 125 kg  N/ha/year.   In
view of  the uncertainties involved in  establishing  N fertilizer recom-
mendations,  the  residual  N  correction  does  not  need  to be  used  when
annual  application rates are based on the P needs ,of the crop.
A  single  calculation  is  used  to  determine  the amount  of  fertilizer K
needed because the sludge application rate is constant:
     Fertilizer K/ha = kg K needed by crop/ha -
                       x mt sludge/ha
                                                % K
          = 140 kg K/ha -
          =140-22
          = 118 kg/ha
                                         x 4.5 mt/ha x 1,000
     6.7.5,  Calculations
            Application
              of Total Cumulative Amount of Sludge
The total amount of sludge that can be applied for the life of a site is
based  on the cumulative  metal  loadings,  as  calculated from  the metal
content  of the  sludge  and the cumulative metal  limits shown in Table 6-
2.  The  maximum amount of sludge  which can be applied during the design
life of  the site is calculated with Equation 6-3:
               m
                            = ^L (1,000 kg/mt)
                               m
For lead:
                         >Pb
                               Pb
                        (1,000 kg/mt)
                                   6-43

-------
                                    (1,000 kg/mt)
                           =  2,240 mt/ha
 For the  sludge in this example:


Metal
Pb
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
Total
Metal
Limit
(kg/ha)
1,120
560
280
280
10
Metal
Content
of Sludge
(rag/kg)
500
3,000
500
200
50


Calculation
luir x 100°
folio x 100°
280 x ionn
500 x iuuu
280 x innn
200 X iUUU
f£ x 1000
                                                          Total Amount
                                                           of Sludge
                                                            Al 1 owed
                                                            (mt/ha)

                                                              2,240
                                                                187
                                                                560
                                                              1,400
                                                                200
In this  case,  Zn will limit the  total  cumulative sludge loading to 187
mt/ha.  The site life is then a function of the loading rates previously
derived.

For corn, the average rate after the first 2 years is about 12 mt/ha per
year.  The useful life would then be 187/12, or 15.6 years.

For forages, the rate was controlled by Cd and ranged from 40 mt in 1982
to  10 mt in  1987.    On  that basis,  the  useful  life  would be  about  8
years.

          6.7.5.1  Phosphorus Limiting Design

The sludge  loading  rate was 4.5  mt/ha  for corn  and 5.9  mt/ha  for for-
ages.  The useful life is then as follows:
         Corn


         Forages
= 41.5 years


 = 31.7 years
                                  6-44

-------
     6.7.6  Area Requirement

The amount of sludge produced  per  year is 6,600 mt, of which 50 percent
is to be applied to corn and 50 percent to forage.

          6.7.6.1  N and Cd Basis

     a.  Corn - Incorporated Application
Area needed .
                                • 275 ha
     b.  Forage - Surface Application

     From 1982 to 1983:


     Acreage needed! « 3,>30° m,t/y,r = 82.5 ha
                       40 mt/ha/yr


     In 1984 and 1985:


     Acreage needed = 3.300 mt/yr = 13£ ha
                       25 mt/ha/yr


          6.7.6.2  P Basis

     a.  Corn - Incorporated Application
     Acreage needed                - 767 ha
     b.  Forage - Surface Application
Acrea9e needed .

6. 7.7  Storage
                                   -559 ha
As  with virtually  all  agricultural  land sludge  application programs,
sludge  storage facilities  will  be required  for this  design example.
Chapter  10 contains  a  discussion  of  the factors used  to estimate re-
quired  sludge storage  capacity.   State  regulatory  agencies  will  some-
times stipulate the minimum number  of days of sludge storage. required.
                                   6-45

-------
     6.7.8  Application Scheduling and Operations

Table 6-11 presents a possible schedule for a typical midwestern city to
apply sludge  to  corn and forage  crops.   The  table shows that no sludge
application  can  be  made  during  the  period  December  through February.
Sludge  application  to forage can be  made from  March  through November,
and  sludge  can be applied to corn  in  March,  April, October, and Novem-
ber.
                               TABLE 6-11
              TYPICAL MONTHS OF THE  YEAR WHEN SLUDGE CAN BE
             APPLIED TO CORN AND FORAGE FOR  DESIGN  EXAMPLE
      Month
Corn
Forage
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
NA
NA
SI
SI
C
C
C
C
C
SI
SI
NA
NA
NA
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NA
  NA = no application (e.g., frozen ground); S = surface application;
  SI = surface or injection application; C = growing crop present.
          6.7.8.1  Transportation and Application Methods

After deciding upon an area for sludge application, the various alterna-
tives  for  transportation  and  application methods  can be  considered.
Costs for transportation can be estimated from data presented in Chapter
10.
          6.7.8.2  Monitoring
This  design  example  is  based  on  minimizing  both  NOg-N movement  into
ground water and  Cd uptake by plants.   Therefore,  monitoring for these
parameters should  not  be necessary.   The  monitoring  program  would con-
sist of continuing  soil  analysis every  2 to 4 years for plant available
P and K and  lime  requirement.   To  preclude excessive plant availability
of metals, primarily Cd, the soil must be maintained at pH >6.5.
                                   6-46

-------
          6.7.8.3  Additional Cropping Patterns

To simplify  the  design example,  only  two crops  were  considered.   How-
ever, in many situations,  sludge  can  be  applied to more than two crops.
It is suggested that application rate calculations be made for all crops
grown when a detailed plan is developed.   For this design example, addi-
tional crops could be wheat, oats, barley, and soybeans.  Crop rotations
are  commonly used in  many areas :(e.g.,  corn-soybeans, soybeans-winter
wheat, and forage-corn-oats-forage).
6.8  References

 1.  Land Application of Waste  Materials.
     America, Ankeny, Iowa, 1976.  319 pp.
Soil  Conservation Society of
 2.  Knezek, B. D.,  and  R. H. Miller,  eds.   Application of Sludges and
     Wastewaters  on  Agricultural   Land:    A  Planning  and Educational
     Guide.   North  Central Regional Research  Publication  No.  235, Ohio
     Agricultural  Research and Development  Center,  Wooster,  1976.   88
     pp.

  3.  Jacobs,  L.  W.,  ed.   Utilizing  Municipal  Sewage  Wastewaters  and
     Sludges on Land  for Agricultural  Production.   North Central Region
     Extension Publication No. 52, Michigan State University, East Lans-
     ing, November 1977.  79 pp.

 4.  Elliott, L. F.,  and F. J.  Stevenson,  eds.  Soils for Management of
     Organic Wastes  and Wastewaters.   Soil Science  Society  of America
     Madison, Wisconsin.   1977.

  5.  Conference on  Recycling  Treated  Municipal  Wastewater  and Sludge
     Through Forest and  Cropland.  Sopper, W. E., and L. T. Kardos, eds.
     EPA  660/2-74-003,  Pennsylvania State  University Press,  University
     Park, 1973.  471 pp.

  6.  U.S.  EPA.    Municipal  Sludge  Management:    Environmental   Factors.
     EPA 430/9-77-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
     D.C., October 1977.   (Available from National Technical Information
     Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-277 622)

  7.  Keeney, D.  R.,  K.  W. Lee,  and  L. M.  Walsh.    Guidelines  for the
     Application of Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land  in Wisconsin.
     Technical   Bulletin  88,  Madison  Department  of  Natural  Resources,
     Wisconsin.  1975.   36pp.

  8.  Council for  Agricultural  Science  and  Technology.   Application  of
     Sewage  Sludge to Cropland:   Appraisal  of  Potential  Hazards of the
     Heavy Metals to  Plants and  Animals.   EPA 430/9-76-013, Ames, Iowa,
     November 1976.   (Available from National Technical Information Ser-
     vice, Springfield,  Virginia, PB-264 015)
                                  6-47

-------
 9.  U.S. EPA.  Sludge Treatment and Disposal.  Volume 2.  EPA 625/4-78-
     012, U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, Octo-
     ber 1978.  155 pp.   (Available from National  Technical Information
     Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-299 594)

10.  Criteria for  Classification  of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
     Practices  (40 CFR,  Part  257),  Federal  Register,  44:53438-53468.
     September 13, 1979.
11.
12.
13.
     Sommers, L.  E.,  C. F.  Parker,  and 6. J.  Meyers.   Volatilization,
     Plant Uptake  and Mineralization of Nitrogen  in  Soils Treated with
     Sewage Sludge.   Technical  Report  133, Purdue  University Water Re-
     sources Research Center, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1981.

     Sommers, L.  E.,  D.  W.  Nelson,  and  C.  D.  Spies.    Use  of Sewage
     Sludge in  Crop  Production.  AY-240,  Purdue University Cooperative
     Extension Service, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1980.
     Pratt,  P.  F.,  F.  E.  Broadbent,
     Wastes as Nitrogen Fertilizers.
and J.  P.  Martin.   Using Organic
Calif. Agric., 34:10-13, 1973.
14.  Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.  Effects of Sewage
     Sludge  on  Cadmium and  Zinc Content  of  Crops.   EPA 60018-81-003,
     Ames,  Iowa, February  1981.   91  pp.   (Available from National Tech-
     nical  Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB81 181596)
15.  Ryan,  J.  A.,  and  H.  Pahren.    Factors  Affecting
     Heavy Metals from Land Application  of  Residuals.
     of the National Conference on Disposal  of Residues
     ber 1976, St Louis,   pp. 98-105.

16.  Irrigation of Agricultural Lands.  R. M. Hagan, H.
     M. Edminster,  eds.   American  Society of Agronomy,
     sin.   1967.
                                                        Plant  Uptake of
                                                        In:  Proceedings
                                                        on Land, Septem-
                                                        R. Haise, and T.
                                                        Madison, Wiscon-
17.  Hazardous  Water  Management  System  -  General   (Federal  Register,
     45:33066-33082), and Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes
     (Federal Register, 45:33084-33133), 1980.

18.  Land Application  of  Municipal  Sewage Sludge  for  the Production of
     Fruits and Vegetables,  a  Statement of Federal Policy and Guidance.
     SW-905.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.,
     1981.  25 pp.
                                  6-48

-------
                                CHAPTER 7

               PROCESS DESIGN FOR FOREST LAND UTILIZATION
7.1  General

The  purpose of this  chapter is  to  present design  information  for the
utilization  of  sewage sludge  on forest  land.   All  of  the information
provided was  derived from  research,  demonstration  projects, experience
with agricultural  crops,  and extrapolation of  research  experience.  In
1982, there were  no operating  full-scale sludge-to-forest land programs
identified  in  the  United  States.   However,  the cities  of  Seattle and
Bremerton,  Washington,  were in  advanced planning stages  for  such pro-
grams, and  the interested reader may wish to contact these cities in the
future for  operational information.  Operational research and demonstra-
tion projects were also located in Washington, Michigan, and South Caro-
lina (see Table 7-1).

In 1982, no federal regulations existed which specifically addressed the
application of sludge to forest lands beyond the general requirements of
40 CFR 257.  Several  states (e.g.,  Michigan,  New York, Minnesota, Wash-
ington, and Oregon) were developing proposed regulations.  Project plan-
ners and designers  are advised  to obtain applicable regulatory informa-
tion from  appropriate  state and federal  agencies.   The  design approach
taken in this chapter assumes that  the  chemical, biological, and physi-
cal  reactions  of  sludge  and soil  in forest applications  are  generally
similar to  those in agricultural applications (see Chapter 6).

Based on  demonstration  and research  results,  properly managed applica-
tion of  sludge  to forest  lands  is  feasible.   Trees  have  been shown to
respond positively  to nutrient additions,  especially  when forest soils
are  low in  N, and  surface  litter layers have  comparatively high N stor-
age  (immobilization)  capacity.   Because forests  are perennial, applica-
tion scheduling is  often  more  flexible,  and less  sludge  storage is re-
quired than with  the  agricultural  option.   Finally, in  many regions,
forest land is  extensive,  and  provides  a reasonable sludge application
alternative to agricultural cropland.

Application  of  sludge  to  forest  land  is feasible on  commercial  timber
and  fiber  production lands,  federal and state forests,  and  privately
owned woodlots.   Sludge use  in  nurseries, green belt management,  and
Christmas tree production  is also possible, but will  not be specifically
addressed in this  chapter.

Sludge applications  to  forest  land  will  be discussed for  three common
situations:  (1) recently  cleared forest land  that has not been planted,
(2)  young  plantations  (planted  or coppice), and  (3)  established forest
stands.  Each of these cases presents  different  design problems and op-
portunities which  must be  considered.
                                   7-1

-------
                                TABLE  7-1
         SELECTED SLUDGE-TO-FOREST LAND RESEARCH  AND
                   DEMONSTRATION  PROJECTS  (1982)
 Locations and
Agency Contacts

Atlanta, Michigan
(Department of Natural
Resources, Municipal
Wastewater Division
Lansing, Michigan)

Cadillac, Michigan
(USDA Forest Service
1407 S. Harrison Road
E. Lansing, Michigan)
Elbert County, Georgia
(USDA Forest Service
Carl ton Street
Athens, Georgia)
Savannah River Laboratory
(Alken, South Carolina
Savannah River Lab
733-11A
Alken, South Carolina)
Pack Forest
(College of Forest Resources
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington)
Seattle, Washington
(Municipality of Metro-
politan Seattle)

Zanesville State Tree
(Nursery, Ohio Dept.  of
Forestry
OARDC
Wooster, Ohio)

City of Hagerstown
(Hagerstown, Maryland)
Bremerton, Washington
(College of Forest
Resources, University of
Washington, Se.attle,
Washington)
    Brief Description

1 application  of  11  mt/ha
sludge to 6 ha (15 ac)  nor-
thern hardwoods,  aspen
sprouts, jack  pine plantation
and pole-size  oak.

1-2 applications  of  a range
of sludge dosages to exper-
imental  plots  in  aspen,  pine
plantings, and clearcuts.

Single application at 10
mt/ha to 24 ha (60 ac)  of
cutover jack pine, 1978-
1979.

Single sludge  application  in
1980 to 5 ha (12  ac) cutover
jack pine for  wildlife  habi-
tat effect studies.

Sludge application to an
eroded forest  site,  approxi-
mately 2 ha, at varying
rates up to 69 mt/ha, species
are loblolly and  short  leaf
pine.

Extensive sludge  application
R&D program, site is approxi-
mately 15 ha,  using  various
ages and species  of  trees,
varying types  and application
rates of sludge up to 700  kg
N/ha dry weight.

Sludge application to Pack
Forest as well as exten-
sive green house  studies
species native to the Paci-
fic Northwest.

Application of sludge to test
plots in forest lands since
1973.

Sludge application to Christ-
mas tree production  plots.
Sludge application to hybrid
poplars, to be used for
electricity production.

Sludge application to forest
land (53 ha) research pro-
gram begun in 1971.
   References

Study in  progress
   12,  23,  84
                                                                   23
                                                            Study  in  progress
       24
                                                                   22
                                                                   63
       52
Pilot-scale proj-
ect and scale-up
in progress
                                   7-2

-------
Public participation  considerations are  a critical  aspect  of planning
for forested systems.  Chapter  3  contains a detailed discussion on this
topic.

7.2  Site Investigations and Selection Criteria

Chapter 5 of this manual  discussed in detail the process involved in the
identification, evaluation, and selection of  sites  for land application
of sludge.   This chapter  will  discuss those  special  aspects  unique to
use of forested  lands for  sludge.   Data sources are  the  same as those
described in  Chapter  5,  and typically  include topographic maps,  soil
surveys and maps, soil chemical  characteristics, and site observations.

     7.2.1  Physical Features

The physical features to consider  include:

     •    Proximity to public  access,  e.g.,  recreational  areas,  inhab-
          ited dwellings,  public  roads,  hiking trails, etc.   The sludge
          application  site(s)  should be  as distant  from  normal  public
          access as practical.   Many states have regulations for minimum
          setbacks  (buffer  zones) which  were  developed for agricultural
          sludge application.  Applicable state and/or local  regulations
          should be  reviewed.   Table  5-7 in  Chapter  5  summarizes  sug-
          gested setback  distances  for  agricultural  sludge  application
          sites.  Except perhaps in  the case of cleared land, forest ap-
          plications are virtually  always surface  applications, and the
          criteria  in  Table 5-7  for  that  case  can generally  apply  to
          forested sites.

     •    Proximity  to  surface  waters  (e.g.,  ponds, lakes,  springs,
          creeks,  streams,  rivers,  etc.).    The  sludge  application
          site(s) should be located and  managed to avoid  contamination
          of surface waters.   Various  states  require  setbacks  of  90 to
          450 m  (300  to  1,500 ft)  from  the 10-year  high  water mark of
          such existing  surface waters.   The  purpose  of the  setback is
          to prevent  sludge constituents  from  migrating  from the appli-
          cation site  to the surface waters.   If   the  application  site
          has  steep  slopes  and/or  relatively  impervious  soil,  runoff
          will  be  greater  and  setback  distances  should be  increased.
          Conversely, a  flatter site  (e.g., less than  6 percent  slope)
          with good  soil  permeability and  heavy vegetation will  limit
          sludge constituent movement,  and less setback is  necessary.

     •    Proximity  to  watersheds  used  for   drinking water  supplies'.
          These  areas  should  generally  be  avoided for  sludge applica-
          tion.  Where conditions dictate use  of water supply  sensitive
          sites, special  provisions should be  made in the  program  for
          sludge quality  control,  minimization of  sludge  constituent
          migration, and  monitoring  of  surface and  ground water quality.
                                    7-3

-------
     •    Proximity to  water  supply wells.   Depending  upon  the geology
          in the area, a minimum setback distance of 90 to 450 m (300 to
          1,500 ft) is suggested.

     •    Distance to ground  water  table.    It  is  suggested  that appli-
          cation sites  have a minimum ground water table  of 1m (3 ft)
          average, and 0.7 m  (2 ft)  minimum below the soil surface.  The
          purpose  of  this stipulation  is  to prevent  seasonal  surface
          flooding  (i.e.,  boggy conditions),  which could cause sludge
          migration.  If  the  ground water  is a  drinking  water aquifer,
          it is suggested that the minimum  distance to the seasonal high
          water table be increased to 2 m (6 ft) below the soil surface,
          in order to minimize  leaching  of  sludge contaminants into the
          aquifer.

     7.2.2  Topography

The slope  of  the land surface  is a  major  factor influencing the poten-
tial  for  surface  runoff  following  sludge  application.   Table  5-2  in
Chapter 5 presents recommended slope criteria.

     7.2.3  Soil Characteristics

          7.2.3.1  Soil  pH

Forest soils are typically more acidic  than agricultural  sites; soil  pH
values of  5.5 and  lower are common.   For agricultural  applications, the
EPA and many  states  require that the pH must be at or above 6.5.  This
pH  limit  is  stipulated because trace  metal  availability  in  the soil
rapidly increases as soil pH decreases.  Increased metal availability in
agricultural soils  increases  crop .uptake  of metals,  possibly resulting
in  plant  phytotoxicity  and/or  the  unsuitability of the  crop  for human
consumption.   In  addition, metal  migration  into  aquifers could result
when soil  pH is low.
                                                        established for-
                                                        to lower soil pH
                                                                (45)(84).
Experience with  sludge  applications  to forest soils in
ests indicates that the  increased  metals  available due
do not cause phytotoxicity in most forest plant species
In addition, because forest products are not food chain crops, increased
metal  content of  the  plants  themselves  is not  a concern  for  public
health.   For these  reasons,  the  appropriate regulatory agency  can  be
asked  to  waive  the 6.5  soil  pH lower  limit,  if there  is  no danger of
trace metal migration to u-seful aquifers.

          7.2.3.2  Nutrient Availability

Forest soils, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, can be deficient in
organic nutrients, and  are low in available N.   In some special  cases,
it may be possible to make up  this  original deficit with an additional
amount of sludge organic N without adverse impacts  on the ground water.
                                   7-4

-------
7.3  Constraints

The  major constraints  associated  with application  of  sludge to forest
lands  are related to specific sludge constituents,  including pathogens,
N,  and metals.   Each  of these sludge  constituents  is  discussed in the
following  subsections in relation to proper  system design and management
needed to  protect public health  and application site ecology.   The con-
straints  discussed herein are adapted,  where applicable, from  agricul-
tural  sludge  application criteria,  experience  with demonstration proj-
ects, and  opinions of experts involved in preparation and review of this
manual.

     7.3.1  Pathogens

Pathogens  are  discussed  in  Appendix A.   Sludge application  to forest
soil, following the criteria in Section 7.2.1, should pose minimal path-
ogen contamination danger to ground water supplies.

Prevention of  surface  water contamination depends  on  the selection and
proper operation  of application sites.  Desirable characteristics are as
fol1ows:

     •     Distant from sensitive surface water resources.

     •     Experience little surface runoff because of:

           - Relatively flat slopes
           - Permeable soil
           - No steep clearcuts
           - Forest canopy which
           - Forest debris layer
intecepts rainfall
at the soil  surface.
Another  pathogen-related  concern  involves  windborne  contamination  re-
sulting from spray  application  of  liquid sludge on forest lands.  It is
suggested that  the  following constraints be  used  during spray applica-
tion of sludge to forest lands:

     •    The public  be restricted from  an  area at  least  490 m (1,500
          ft) downwind  during  the spray application,  and  for  several
          hours  after spraying is completed.

     •    Sludge spraying not be performed  during  winds  of  more than 24
          km/hr  (15 mi/hr); windless conditions are preferred.

It is obvious that aerosols will not travel  far in an established forest
that is  not  dormant,  because of interception  by  the leaves and breakup
of wind currents, and the suggested constraints listed above may be mod-
ified.   Public  access  to  the application  site has been limited  for  a
period of 12 months following liquid sludge  application  at  projects in
Michigan and Washington.
                                   7-5

-------
     7.3.2  Nitrogen

          7.3.2.1  General

The  application  rate  calculation  based  on  N  involves the  following
steps:

     1.  Calculate the quantity of  inorganic  N  (NH4 and  N03)  per ton in
         sludge (Section 6.4).

     2.  Calculate the quantity of  organic  N  per  ton in  sludge, and es-
         timate the  mineralization  rate of the  organic  N in  the first
         year after application and in succeeding years (Section 6.4).

     3.  Tabulate the N additions represented by Items 1  and 2 above.

     4.  Estimate the N  uptake by trees and  other  forest  vegetation in
         terms of kg/ha (Ib/ac) (Table 7-2).

     5.  Estimate the ammonia  volatilization  in  terms of percent of am-
         monia N  (NH3) applied (Chapter 6).

     6.  Tabulate the N removals represented by Items 4 and 5 above, for
         the  first  year and  succeeding years in terms  of  kg  of  N re-
         moved/ha (Ib/ac).

     7.  Determine  the  allowable nitrogen  input  to  the  groundwater at
         the  project boundary.   In  special  cases,  drinking  water limits
         may prevail.

     8.  Calculate  the  quantity  of sludge  which  can be applied  to the
         site without exceeding  the capacity  of the  site to  remove the
         necessary  amount  of  N in  the  applied sludge.   In  cases where
         ground water  is  not  used  for  human  consumption, or  where the
         aquifer  is  large  enough  to quickly dilute  nitrates  leaching at
         the  application  site,-.the N  loading  to  the  site  may  be in-
         creased.  Each case should be evaluated in a site-specific man-
         ner.

          7.3.2.2  Nitrogen Uptake by Trees and Other Forest Vegetation

There  is a  significant  difference between tree  species  in  their uptake
of available  N.   In  addition,  there is  a large difference between the N
uptake by seedlings,  vigorously  growing trees, and  mature trees.   Fin-
ally,  the extent  of the vegetative understory on the forest  floor will
affect the  uptake of N, i.e., dense  understory  vegetation markedly in-
creases N uptake.

In a forest  ecosystem, much  of the  N uptake by the trees is returned to
the soil as  needle,  leaves,  and  litter  fall.   Thus, the  net N uptake is
usually significantly less than the gross  N uptake  by the growing trees
and understory.
                                   7-6

-------
                                       TABLE 7-2
             ESTIMATED  ANNUAL  NITROGEN REMOVAL BY  FOREST TYPES (81)'
                Eastern Forests
                Mixed Hardwoods
                Red  Pine
                Old  Field with White
                  Spruce Plantation
                           r'
                Pioneer Succession
                Aspen Sprouts
                Southern Forests
                Mixed Hardwoods
                Southern Pine with No
                  Understory#
                Southern Pine with
                  Understory#
                Lake State Forests
                Mixed Hardwoods
                Hybrid Poplar
                Western Forests
                Hybrid Poplar
                Douglas Fir Plantation
                                          Tree Age
                                          (years)
40-60
 25

 15
5-15
40-60

 20

 20
 50
  5
 4-5
15-25
              Average Annual
             Nitrogen Uptake
               (kg/ha/yr)t
200
100

200
200
100
280

200

260
100
150
300
200
                 * Uptake rates  shown are for wastewater irrigated forest stands.
                 t Conversion factor kg/ha = 0.89 Ib/ac.
                 # Principal southern pine included in these estimates  is loblolly
                   pine.
                ** Short-term rotation with harvesting at 4 to 5 years; represents
                   first growth  cycle from planted seedlings.
Table 7-2 provides  estimates of  annual  N uptake  by the  overstory and  un-
derstory  vegetation  of fully established and vigorously  growing forest
ecosystems  in selected regions of  the United  States.  The average annual
N  uptakes  reported  vary  from 100 to  400  kg/ha/year  (89  to 356 Ib/ac/
year),  depending upon species,  age,  etc.    Note  that  all  of  the trees
listed  in the  table are  at  least  5 years  old,  and  that  during initial
stages  of  growth,  tree  seedlings  will  have relatively lower  N uptake
rates than  shown.    Net  N  uptake may be  only   5  to  50 percent  of that
shown in  Table 7-2.
                                        7-7

-------
          7.3.2.3  Nitrification-Denitrification Reactions

Nitrogen loss by denitrification is discussed in detail in Appendix B of
this manual.  Generally, little N removal by denitrification is expected
in typical well drained forest soils.

          7.3.2.4  Ammonia Volatilization

For design  purposes,  volatilization  losses can be  estimated  at  50 per-
cent of the ammonia N applied to the soil surface in liquid sludges; the
entire  loss occurs  in the  first year  after  application.    If  liquid
sludge  is  incorporated  or if dewatered  sludges  are applied,  the design
should not assume any specific losses via volatilization.

However, based on wastewater irrigation experience, it can be shown that
10  to  15 percent  of  the  inorganic  N applied  each year  cannot  be ac-
counted for.   The assumed pathways  are  volatilization and denitrifica-
tion losses.   It is  reasonable  to expect a similar  level  of loss from
sludge applications.  However, these losses are hot additive, so that if
a 50 percent credit has already been taken for volatilization of ammonia
in  liquid sludge,  this additional  credit is  not  appropriate.    If  no
credits are taken  for volatilization or other  gaseous losses,  it would
be  conservative to  assume  that  10 percent of the inorganic N in sludges
is  lost during the application year in forested systems.

     7.3.3  Cumulative Metal Loadings

          7.3.3.1  General

The interaction of  metals  in sludge  with soils is discussed  in Appendix
B.  Generally, metals in  sludge  are  considered less a potential  problem
in  sjudge application to  forest  lands than in  application  to agricul-
tural  crops,  because forest vegetation  is .not  part  of  the  human food
chain.  For proposed  forest  land applications, it may  be possible to ob-
tain regulatory waivers of annual metals limits.

          7.3.3.2  Calculation of Cumulative Metal  Loadings

For  very conservative  designs,  it  is suggested that cumulative metal
loadings to forest lands adhere to the same Criteria stipulated in Chap-
ter  6  for  agricultural  lands.   These  limits  are  shown  in  Table 6-2.
However,  for  forest application, the  stipulation in  Table 6-2 that the
soil must  be maintained  at  pH 6.5  or above should be  waived.   The Cd
limit  need  not be  applied to forest  lands since food chain crops would
not be  grown, and Cd  toxicity to forest  vegetation  is  not a serious con-
cern.   Note  that Table  6-2 relates  the  metal  loading  limits  to soil
cation  exchange capacity  (CEC). For forest application, the .designs will
generally use  the  middle  column  of Table 6-2 (applicable to  soil CEC of
5 to 15 meq/100 g), as repeated below.
                                    7-8

-------
             Metal

              Pb
              Zn
              Cu
              Ni
                       Maximum Cumulative
                         Loading (kg/ha)

                              1,120
                                560
                                280
                                280
There was  insufficient  data  available at the  time  that this manual was
prepared to  determine  limits  of metal  phytotoxicity  for  various tree
species, although research does indicate that limits can be more liberal
than for agricultural  crops.   Based  on  agricultural  crop  limits, it is
probable that the cumulative metal  limits  can  be exceeded for most tree
species without creating phytotoxic conditions.

7.4  Effect of Sludge Additions on Tree Growth and Wood Properties

Accelerated tree growth (200 to 300 percent) resulting  from sludge addi-
tion has the  potential  for  changing basic  wood characteristics, includ-
ing  specific  gravity,  shrinkage,  fibril  angle,  and  certain mechanical
properties.   Research to  date  indicates  that both positive and negative
effects on  wood quality  occur in  trees  grown  on  sludge-amended soil.
The  static bending  tests  which show  the combined effects  have shown no
significant change  when the  strength properties of  specimens  cut from
trees grown on sludge-amended  soils were compared with  specimens of wood
produced without sludge.
7.5  Comparison of
     of Growth
Sludge Application to Forest Land in Various Stages
The  designer  may  have  the
sludge addition which are:
          option  of  selecting  forest land  sites  for
     t    Recently cleared prior to replanting.
     •    Young plantations in the range of 2 to 5 years old.
  .7- t    Established forests.

There are advantages  and  disadvantages  to  be considered in each type of
forest site.  These are summarized in Tables 7-3 to 7-5.
                                   7-9

-------
                                   TABLE  7-3
              SLUDGE APPLICATION  TO RECENTLY CLEARED  FOREST  SITES
Advantages

   1.  Better access for sludge application equipment.  Also, optimal access
       can be established for additional sludge application in the future.

   2.  Possible option of incorporating the sludge into the soil  (versus a
       surface application) if the site is sufficiently cleared.

   3.  Possible option of establishing ridge and furrow, or flooding sludge
       application system (versus spray application) if the site  topography is
       favorable.

   4.  Option to select tree species which show good growth and survival char-
       acteristics on sludge amended sites.

   5.  Often easier to control public access to the site because  cleared areas
       are less attractive than wooded areas for typical forest recreational
       activities.

Disadvantages

   1.  Seedlings of some tree species show poor survival when planted directly
       in freshly applied sludge.  It may be necessary to let the sludge age
       for 6 months or more, to allow salt leaching, ammonia volatilization,
       etc.  However, deciduous species and many conifers,  including Douglas
       fir and Sitka spruce, have shown excellent tolerance to sludge in
       demonstration projects.

   2.  Seedlings have low nitrogen uptake rates.  If nitrate contamination of
       an underlying potable aquifer is a potential  problem, initial  sludge
       applications must be small relative to the volume of sludge application
       to established forests.

   3.  An intensive program of weed control is necessary since the weeds grow
       faster than the seedlings, and compete for nutrients, space, light,
       etc.  Use of herbicides and cultivation between tree rows  is usually
       required for the first 3 to 4 years.

   4.  Intensive browsing by deer and damage to young trees by voles and other
       pest species may require special  control  measures,  since these animals
       may selectively feed upon trees grown on sludge-amended sites due to
       their higher food value.
                                     7-10

-------
                                   TABLE  7-4
       SLUDGE APPLICATION TO  YOUNG  FOREST PLANTATIONS  (OVER  2  YEARS  OLD)
Advantages

   1.  Seedlings are established and more tolerant of fresh sludge applica-
       tions.

   2.  Weed control is less of a problem than with cleared sites because of
       established trees and vegetation.

   3.  Nitrogen uptake by the trees is rapidly increasing and acceptable
       sludge application rates can be higher on sites over sensitive aqui-
       fers.

   4.  Access for sludge application equipment is usually still good.

   5.  Rapid growth response from most deciduous and many coniferous tree
       seedlings can be expected.

Disadvantages

   1.  Sludge application by spraying over the canopy may be restricted to
       those periods when the trees are dormant, to avoid the problem of
       sludge clinging to foliage.  If application can be planned shortly
       before heavy rainfall, this problem can be circumvented by the washing
       effect of the rain.

   2.  Some weed control will still probably be necessary.

   3.  Plant nitrogen uptake rate is less than that of a well-established
       forest cover.
                                      7-11

-------
                                 TABLE  7-5
       SLUDGE  APPLICATION  TO  CLOSED ESTABLISHED FORESTS
                          (OVER 10  YEARS  OLD)
Advantages

   1.  Established forest land is often more readily  available in sufficient
       area (size) and closer distance to sewage  treatment plants than cleared
       sites or young plantations.

   2.  Established forests are less susceptible to  sludge-induced changes in
       vegetation (e.g., weed growth).

   3.  Plant nitrogen uptake is higher, allowing  more sludge to be applied
       without exceeding nitrogen limits necessary  to prevent nitrate leaching
       to sensitive aquifers.

   4.  Excellent growth response can be expected  to result from the increased
       nutrients.  This is not true of old  trees, however.  What 1s "old"
       varies between species, but generally lies between 30 and 60 years.

   5.  Sludge application by spraying  can be done under the tree foliage, so
       it is not necessary for the trees to be dormant.

   6.  During precipitation, rapid runoff of storm water containing sludge
       constituents is unlikely, because the forest canopy breaks up the rain,
       and accumulated organic debris  on the forest floor absorbs runoff,

   7.  Forest soils under established  forests usually  have high C-to-N ratios
       resulting in excellent capability to immobilize (store) nitrogen for
       slow release in future years.   Consequently, it is often feasible to
       make an initial heavy application of sludge, e.g., 60 kg/ha (54 T/ac),
       and achieve excellent tree growth response for  up to 5 years without
       subsequent sludge applications.

Disadvantages
   1.
   2.
   3.
Access by sludge application vehicles  into  a mature  forest is often
difficult.  The maximum range of sludge  spray  cannons  is about 40 m
(120 ft).  To obtain fairly uniform coverage,  the  spray application
vehicle requires access into the site  on a  road  grid,  spaced at approx-
imately 75-m (250-ft) intervals.  Most established forest sites are not
provided with grid-like roads.   As a result, access  roads must be cut
through the forest, or the selected sludge  application area(s) are
largely 'restricted to narrow 36-m (120-ft)  strips on both sides of
existing roads.  Access into commercial  forests  is usually easier than
into publicly owned forest lands.

Control of public access is usually more difficult in an established
forest.  If the sludge is  applied to narrow strips adjacent to existing
roads, the potential  problem may be of more concern.  Again, use of
commercial  forest may mitigate  the control of  public access.

In an established publicly owned forest,  it may  not be advantageous to
accelerate vegetation growth with  sludge applications.  In contrast,
commercial  forest operations desire faster growth of trees.
                                   7-12

-------
7.6  Design Example of Sludge Application to Forested Lands

Part of this  design  example is developed to  demonstrate the procedures
needed to ensure protection  of  drinking  water aquifers  during an annual
sludge application program.  As a  result,  the values are very conserva-
tive.  In the general case, it is more typical to apply a single, larger
quantity of  sludge every  3 to 5 years.  The  total  amount of sludge ap-
plied is based  on  the nutrient needs  of the  forest vegetation over the
3- to 5-year  period.   However, this may result  in  nitrate migration to
ground water  during  the first year.   If site conditions  allow such an
impact to  occur,  it  will  usually  be more economical to  apply a larger
quantity of sludge every.3 to 5 years (see the design example in Chapter
8 for this case).  The criteria used for this example are as follows:
         Nitrogen  application  not
         plants  to utilize  the  N
         losses.
to exceed  the  ability of  the  forest
applied  with  appropriate  credit  for
     2.  Cumulative metal  loading  limits not  to  exceed those generally
         allowed for  cropland.   The  major  departure  for this  case is
         that forest  soil  pH can  be  lower than  the  pH 6.5 recommended
         for agriculture.   In  addition, if the site  is ever to be con-
         verted to food chain agriculture, then the cumulative Cd limits
         will also apply.  If the site will always remain a forest or be
         used for  other  non-food chain purposes,  then  Cd limits should
         not apply.

     7.6.1  Sludge Quantity and Quality Assumptions

The sludge  generated  by  the hypothetical  community in  this  example is
assumed to have the following average characteristics:

     •    Anaerobically digested sludge generated in  the average amount
          of 18.2 mt/day (20 T/day),  dry  weight,  by an activated sludge
          sewage treatment plant.

     •    Liquid sludge averages 4 percent  solids by  weight; its volume
          is 445,600 I/day (117,600 gal/day).

     •    Average sludge  analysis on a dry weight basis is:

              Organic N                    3 percent by weight
              NH^N                         1 percent by weight
              NOg                          None
              Pb                           500 mg/kg
              Zn                           2,000 mg/kg
              Cu                           500 mg/kg
              Ni                           100 mg/kg
              Cd                           50 mg/kg
                                   7-13

-------
      7.6.2.  Site Selection

The hypothetical community is located  in the Pacific Northwest.  A large
commercial  forest  is  located  24 km  (15 mi)  from  the sewage treatment
plant.  The grower believes that he can expect a  significant  increase in
tree  growth  rate resulting from the  nutrients  in the sludge.  Prelimi-
nary  investigations of the grower's property shows that a total of 3,000
ha  (7,400  ac)  are  available,  of which 1,200 ha (3,000 ac) have the fol-
lowing desirable characteristics:

      •     Convenient  vehicle  access  from public and private  roads, plus
           an in-place network of logging roads within the area.

      •     No surface  waters  used for  drinking or recreational purposes
           are  located within the  area.    Intermittent  stream locations
           are mapped, and 90-m  (290-ft) (or greater) buffer zones can be
           readily established around the stream beds.

      •     Ground water  under  one portion of the  site  has the potential
           to serve as a drinking water aquifer.

      •     Public access is limited by signs  and fences adjacent to pub-
           lic roads.

      •     Topography  is satisfactory,  in  that  the area consists largely
           of slopes less than 6 percent, and slopes steeper than 30 per-
           cent  can be  readily excluded from  the sludge application pro-
           gram.

      •     There are no residential  dwelling units within the  area.

      •     The area is  roughly equally divided  between young plantations
           2 to  4 years  old  and  an  established  forest.    However,  the
           1,200 ha (3,000 ac) contains an area of 200 ha (500 ac), which
           contains  tree  species  which  have  undocumented  response  to
           sludge addition.  This area is excluded.

           7.6.2.1  Soil and Hydrological  Properties of the Site

The soils  are  of two  types:   glacial  outwash,  and residual  soil  devel-
oped  from  andesitic bedrock.  The  glacial  outwash is located largely on
terraces with slopes  less than  10 percent.   Infiltration  is rapid.  The
soil  pH ranges  between 5.5 and  6.0,  and  CEC  is 14 meq/100 g.  A 2.5- to
5.0-cm (1- to 2-in) litter layer exists  in  the established forest.  The
ground water table is approximately 9 m (30 ft) below the  soil surface.

Residual  soil  is found  on slopes  ranging up  to  40  percent.   Slopes
steeper than 30 percent were eliminated from further consideration.
                                  7-14

-------
     7.6.3  Calculate the Sludge Application Rate

Assume that the sludge is to be applied on an annual  basis,  and that the
quantity of sludge applied is limited by N.  The purpose of  the calcula-
tion is to have the  plant-available  N  in  the applied sludge equal  the N
uptake of the trees  and  understory,  plus  assumed denitrification  losses
discussed in Section 7.3.2.4.   This  is  a  conservative  approach intended
to prevent leaching of nitrate to the ground water aquifer.

a.  Step  1  - Calculate  the  amount  of available  N per  ton  of  sludge
    applied in the first year.  Available  Np = (NH4-N)  - (1%-N volatil-
    ized) +  (organic N  x %  mineralization  rate in the  first year)  -
    (losses unaccounted for), all on a dry weight basis.
where:
b.
 c    NH4-N = 1% by weight = 10'kg/rot (20 Ib/T).

 •    Organic N =3% by weight = 30 kg/rat (60 Ib/T).

 •    NH4-N volatilized =  50% of  NH4  in sludge, an  assumption  for
      surface-applied liquid sludge.

 •    Percent organic N mineralized =  20%  in  the first  year,  an  as-
      sumption (see Table 6-7).

 t    Percent of  losses  unaccounted for is  assumed  to be  zero  for
      surface-applied liquid  sludge, for which we have  already  sub-
      tracted 50 percent of the NH4-N during application.

 •    Available N in first year  =  10  - (10 x 0.5) +  (30 x 0.2)  = 11
      kg/mt (22 Ib/T) of applied sludge.

Step 2  -  Calculate the amount  of  available N per ton  of sludge ap-
plied in succeeding years, including the effect of organic N mineral-
ization from  previous  years'  sludge  applications.    Available  N  =
(NH4-N) -  (NH4-N volatilized) +  (organic N x % mineralization rate in
first year) - (losses unaccounted for) + (organic N applied in previ-
ous years  x % mineralization rate for  previous  years), all  on  a dry
weight basis.
where:
     Assumed organic N mineralization  rates  from  previous years'  sludge
     applications are taken from Table 6-7, as follows:
                  Year

                  0-1
                  1-2
                  2-3
                  3-4
                  4-5
                                          Rate

                                          0.20
                                          0.10
                                          0.05
                                          0.03
                                          0.03
                                  7-15

-------
     First Year

     Np = 11 kg/mt (22 Ib/T) of sludge applied.  See Step 1 calculation.

     Second Year
     Np * 11 +  (30 x 0.1) = 14 kg/mt (28 Ib/T) of sludge applied

     Third Year
     Np = 11 + (30 x 0.1) + (30 x 0.05) = 15.5 kg/mt (31 Ib/T) of sludge
     applied.

     Fourth Year
     Np = 11 + (30 x 0.1) + (30 x 0.05) + (30 x 0.03) = 16.4 kg/mt (32.8
     Ib/T) of sludge applied.

     Fifth Year

     NQ = 11  + (30 x 0.1) +  (30 x 0.05) +  (30 x  0.03)  + (30 x 0.03) =
     17.3 kg/mt (34.4 Ib/T) of sludge applied.

c.  Step 3  -  Calculate the  annual  quantity of sludge which  can  be ap-
    plied to  the established  forest  portion of the  sludge application
    site.  Assume that the plant  uptake  of  N for  the established forest
    remains  constant at 168 kg/ha (150 Ib/ac) each year.

     First Year - Established Forest
Sludge application rate =
                                    = 15.3 mt/ha (6.8 T/ac)
     Second Year - Established Forest
     Sludge application rate =
                                168
                               = 12 mt/ha (5.4 T/ac)
     Third Year - Established Forest
     Sludge application rate =
                                168
                                = 10.8 mt/ha (4.8 T/ac)
     Fourth Year - Established Forest
                                168
     Sludge application rate =  j"".  = 10.2 mt/ha (4.6 T/ac)
                                 7-16

-------
     Fifth Year - Established Forest
     Sludge application rate =
                                168
= 9.7 mt/ha (4.3 T/ac)
d.  Step 4  -  Calculate the  annual  quantity of sludge which  can  be ap-
    plied to  the  young plantation  portion  of  the  sludge  application
    site.   Assume  that the plant N uptake  for the young plantation in-
    creases  each year  during the  5 years  because  of tree growth,  in the
    following manner:
               Year

               0-1
               1-2
               2-3
               3-4
               4-5
  Young Plantation Plant N
       Uptake (kg/ha)

             20
             30
             45
             65
             90
     First Year - Young Plantation
                                20
     Sludge application rate =  -^ = 1.8 mt/ha (0.8 T/ac)
     Second Year - Young Plantation
                                30
     Sludge application rate =   r = 2.1 mt/ha (1.0 T/ac)
     Third Year - Young Plantation
                                 45
     Sludge application rate =   * K = 2.9 mt/ha (1.3 T/ac)
                                xO» 0
     Fourth Year - Young Plantation
     Sludge application rate =
                                 65
= 4.0 mt/ha (1.8 T/ac)
     Fifth Year - Young Plantation
                                 90
     Sludge application rate =  -^ ~ = 5.2 mt/ha (2.3 T/ac)
                                1 / » O
                                  7-17

-------
e.   Step  5  - Summarize the  sludge application  rate  calculations, as fol-
     lows:
    Year

     0-1
     1-2
     2-3
     3-4
     4-5
Established Forest
      (mt/ha)	

       15.3
       12.0
       10.8
       10.2
        9.7
   Young Plantation
        (mt/ha)

          1.8
          2.1
          2.9
          4.0
          5.2
     7.6.4  Calculate the Quantity of Sludge Which Can Be Applied to
            the Site

The site  has  1,000  ha  (2,471 ac) suitable for sludge application, which
is roughly  equally  divided  between  established forest and young planta-
tion (assume  500  ha [1,235 ac]  of  each).   The quantity of sludge which
can be applied is summarized below:
                Established Forest
     Year              (mt)	

      0-1              7,650
      1-2              6,000
      2-3              5,400
      3-4              5,100
      4-5              4,850
                 Young Plantation
                       (mt)

                         900           8,550
                       1,050           7,050
                       1,450           6,850
                       2,000           7,100
                       2,600           7,450
The community  generates  18.2 mt/day (20 T/day),  dry  weight,  of sludge,
or 6,643 mt/year  (7,307  T/year), so the hypothetical  site is of suffi-
cient  area.    If  possible,  the  portion  of  the site  area  overlying the
drinking water aquifer should be excluded so that the final design would
not be constrained by nitrate limits.  If that is not possible, then the
final  design should include an allowance for permissible nitrate concen-
trations (10 mg/1)  at the project boundary,  and  raise the sludge load-
ings  accordingly.   The  preliminary calculations  above do  not include
this allowance.

     7.6.5  Determine Cumulative Metals Loadings
         Metal

           Pb
           In
           Cu
           Ni
kg/mt Sludge

     0.5
     2.0
     0.5
     0.1
Limits (kg/ha)
 (Table 6-2)

   .  1,120
       560
       280
       280
                                   7-18

-------
     7.6.6  Cumulative Sludge Loadings
ExamPle:   Pb -
                                 = 2'24° mt/ha
             Metal

               Pb
               Zn
               Cu
               Ni
                                   rot Sludge/ha

                                       2,240
                                         280
                                         560
                                       2,800
Since it is a commercial forest, and there is no intention to convert to
food chain  crop  production,  the Cd limit  does  not apply.   The Zn limit
of 280 mt  is  adopted  as a conservative control.   The phytotoxic effects
are not well known, but it seems likely that the forest vegetation could
accept much higher levels without harm.

At 280 mt/ha, the useful design life of the sites  is as follows:
     Established Forest:
     New Plantation:
                              280 mt/ha _
                               11 mt/yr ~
                                                  yr
                                   280
                                  = 56 yr
     7.6.7  Application Scheduling

Scheduling sludge application  requires  a consideration of both the soil
and age of the forest.  High rainfall periods and/or freezing conditions
can limit sludge applications  in  almost all  situations.   Vehicle access
to the  steeper  soils  could potentially  be too  difficult during the wet
parts of  the  year.    All  applications to the young  plantations will  be
done during the  late  fall, winter,  and  early  spring when the trees are
dormant.  An  application  schedule  for  a 1-year period  is  shown  in the
Table 7-6 for this design example.

It would  be  feasible  with  the  schedule in Table 7-6  to avoid any need
for storage.    However,  because  adverse climatic conditions  cannot  be
predicted, ,it is  recommended  that a  1-month  (30-day)  storage lagoon  be
constructed.   Such a.lagoon would hold approximately 550 dry mt (600 T).
At 4 percent solids,  the  liquid  storage capacity required would be 13.3
mil 1  (3.4 mil  gal).

     7.6.8  Sludge Application Equipment
In  1982,  the  City of
Washington)  developed
                   Seattle  (Municipality  of Metropolitan  Seattle,
                  specifications  for,  and  procurred,  a  specially
                                  7-19

-------
equipped  and  modified sludge application  vehicle  for forest sludge ap-
plications  (63),  as shown  in  Figure 7-1.   The vehicle is articulated,
four-wheel drive, and  capable  of  traversing a 25 percent side slope and
tight turn  radii.  Maximum vehicle width  is  2.74 m (9 ft), since 3.05-m
(10-ft) tree spacings are common on timber plantations.  Additional spe-
cial equipment includes a 7,570-1 (2,000-gal) sludge tank, a sludge can-
non able to project 757 1 (200 gpm) of sludge a minimum distance of 30 m
(100 ft),  flotation tires, and  a  lightweight  dozer  blade  and winch to
move stumps,  fallen trees, and  other obstacles which  might  be encoun-
tered.   Vehicle cost in early 1983 was $175,000.   It is assumed that ve-
hicles similar to  this would be used  for the hypothetical  design exam-
ple.

7.7  References

 1.  Allaway, W.  H.  Agronomic Controls  Over  the  Environmental  Cycling
     of Trace Elements.  Adv. Agron., 20:235-274,  1968.
  2.
 3.
 4.
 5.
Anderson,  D.  A.   Response of  the Columbian  Black-Tailed  Deer to
Fertilization of  Douglas-Fir  Forests with Municipal Sewage Sludge.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of  Washington, Washington, 1981.

Antonovics, J.   Metal Tolerance  in Plants:   Perfecting  an Evolu-
tionary Paradigm.  In:  International Conference on Heavy Metals in
the Environment,  Toronto,  Canada, 1975.   Vol.  2,  Pt.  1.   pp.  169-
185.

Archie, S. G.,  and M.  Wilbert.   Management of Sludge-Treated Plan-
tations.   In:   Municipal  Sludge  Application  to  Pacific Northwest
Forest Land.  C. S. Bledsoe, ed.   Contribution No. 41, Institute of
Forest Resources, University of Washington, 1981.  155 pp.
Bagdasaryan, 6.  A.   Survival  of  Viruses of  the
(Poliomyelitis,  Echo,  Coxsackie)  in Soil and  on
Epidemiol. Microbiol. Immunol.
Enterovirus Group
Vegetation.  Hyg.
 6.  Berry, C. R.  Initial  Response of Pine Seedlings and Weeds to Dried
     Sewage Sludge in Rehabilitation of an Eroded Forest Site.  Research
     Note SE-249, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.  1977.

 7.  Bledsoe, C.  S.   Composted  Sludge as a  Plant Growth Medium.   In:
     Municipal Sludge Application to  Pacific  Northwest Forest Land.   C.
     S.  Bledsoe,  ed.   Contribution  No.  41,  Institute  of   Forest  Re-
     sources, University of Washington, Seattle, 1981.

 8.  Bledsoe, C.  S.,  and R. J.  Zasoski.   Seedling  Physiology  of Eight
     Tree Species Grown in Sludge-Amended  Soils.   In:  Municipal  Sludge
     Application to Pacific Northwest  Forest  Lands.   C.  S.  Bledsoe,  ed.
     Contribution No. 41,  Institute of Forest  Resources,  University of
     Washington, Seattle, 1981.   pp. 93-100.
                                  7-20

-------
                                  TABLE  7-6
                 MONTHLY  APPLICATION  SCHEDULE FOR  A DESIGN
                          IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST*
                         Glacial Soil
                                                 Residual Soil

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Young
Plantation
A
A
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
A
A
Established
Forest
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Young
Plantation
LA
LA
LA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LA
LA .
LA
Established
Forest
.LA
LA
LA
A
A
A
A
A
A
LA
LA
LA
          Abbreviations:

          A  = Site available,  no limitations.

          NA = Not available, damage will be caused by sludge on growing
              foliage.

          LA = Limited availability, periods of extended rain are to be avoided due to
              vehicle access problems.
Figure  7-1
Forest  land  sludge  application  vehicle  (courtesy
of  City of Seattle).
                                     7-21

-------
  9.  Britton,  6.
     York, 1980.
14.
15.
16.
               Introduction  to Environmental
             326 pp.
         Virology.   Wiley,  New
10.  Britton,  G.,  B. Damron,  G.  T. Edds,  and  J.  M.  Davidson.   Sludge-
     Health  Risks  of Land Application.   Ann Arbor  Science, Ann Arbor,
     Michigan, 1980.  367 pp.

11.  Breuer, D. W., D. W. Cole, and P. Schiess.  Nitrogen Transformation
     and  Leaching  Associated with Wastewater Irrigation in  Dpuglas-Fir,
     Poplar, Grass,  and  Unvegetated Systems.   In:   Utilization of Muni-
     cipal Sewage  Effluent and Sludge  on Forest and Disturbed Land.  W.
     E.  Sopper and  S.  N.   Kerr,  eds.   Pennsylvania  State University
     Press, University Park, 1979.  pp.  19-34.

12.  Brockway, D.  G.  Evaluation  of  Northern  Pine  Plantations  as Dis-
     posal  Sites   for  Municipal  and   Industrial  Sewage Sludge.   Ph.D.
     Thesis, Michigan State  University,  1979.
13.  Chaney, R. L., M. C. White, and P. W. Simon.  Plant Uptake of Heavy
     Metals from  Sewage  Sludge Applied to Land.   In:  Proceedings, 2nd
     National  Conference on  Municipal  Sludge  Management  and Disposal,
     Washington, D.C., 1975.  pp. 169-178.
Chaney, R.  L.   Health Risks Associated  with Toxic Metals in Muni-
cipal  Sludge.   In:   Sludge-Health Risks of  Land  Application.   G.
Britton, B.  L.  Damron, G.  T.  Edds,  and J.  M.  Davidson,  eds.  Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980.  pp. 59-83.
Chaney,  R.  L., and  P.  M.  Giordano
Plant Deficiencies  and  Toxicities.
Organic Wastes and Wastewaters.  L.
eds.  American Society  of  Agronomy,
235-279.
   Microelements as  Related  to
  In:   Soils for Management  of
F. Elliott and F. J.  Stevenson,
 Madison,  Wisconsin,  1977.   pp.
     Chaney, R. L., and  C.  A.  Lloyd.   Adherence
     Digested Sewage  Sludge  to Tall Fescue.   J.
     411, 1979.
                                            of Spray-Applied
                                             Environ.  Qual
                         Liquid
                      .,  8:407-
17.  Chaney, R.  L.,  P. T.  Hundemann,  W.  T. Palmer,  R.  J.  Small,  M. C.
     White, and  A.  M. Decker.   Plant Accumulation  of  Heavy Metals and
     Phytotoxicity  Resulting  from  Utilization  of  Sewage  Sludge  and
     Sludge Composts on Cropland.   In:   Proceedings, 1977 National Con-
     ference on  Composting of Municipal  Residues  and Sludges, Washing-
     ton, D.C., 1977.  pp. 86-97.

18.  Christenson, T. H.   Cadmium  Sorption onto Two Mineral  Soils.  Ph.D.
     Thesis, University of Washington, 1980.

19.  Clark, D.  R.,  Jr.   Lead Concentration:   Bats  Versus  Terrestrial
     Small Mammals Collected Near a Major Highway.  Environ. Sci. Tech.,
     13:338-341, 1979.
                                   7-22

-------
20.  Cole, D. W.  Response of Forest Ecosystems to Sludge and Wastewater
     Applications - A Case Study  in  Western Washington.  In:  Land Rec-
     lamation  and  Biomass  Production  with  Municipal  Wastewater  and
     Sludge.  W. E. Sopper, E. M. Seaker, and R. K. Bastian, eds.  Penn-
     sylvania State  University  Press, University Park,  1982.   pp. 274-
     291.

21.  Cole, D. W., and P. Schiess.  Renovation of Wastewater and Response
     of Forest  Ecosystems:   The Pack Forest Study.   In: State of  Knowl-
     edge in Land Treatment  of  Wastewater.   H. L. McKim, ed.  'U.S. Army
     Corps  of   Engineers  Cold  Region Research  Engineering Laboratory,
     Hanover, New Hampshire, 1978.   pp. 323-331.
22,
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Cole, D.  W.,  W.  I. B.  Crane,  and C. C. Grier.   Effects of Forest
Management Practices on Water Chemistry in a Second-Growth Douglas-
Fir Ecosystem.   In:   Forest Soils  and  Forest Land Management.  B.
Bernier and C. H. Winget, eds.  Presses de TUniversite Laval, Que-
bec, 1975.  pp. 195-207.

Cooley, J. H.  Applying Liquid Sludge to Forest Land:  A Demonstra-
tion.  Presented at Fifth  Annual  Madison  Conference of Applied Re-
search and Practice on  Municipal  and Industrial  Waste.  University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, September 22-24,  1982.

Corey, J. G.,  G. J. Hollod,  V.  M. Stone,  C. G. Wells, W. H. McKee,
and S. M. Bartell.  Environmental Effects  of Utilization of Sewage
Sludge for Biomass  Production.    In:   Land  Reclamation and Biomass
Production with Municipal  Wastewater and  Sludge.   W. E. Sopper, E.
M.  Seaker, and R.  K.  Bastian, eds.   Pennsylvania State University
Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 265-273.

Council for Agricultural Science  and Technology.   Effects of Sewage
Sludge on the Cadmium and Zinc Content of  Crops.  EPA 600/18-081-
003, Ames, Iowa,  February 1981.   91 pp.   (Available from National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB81 181596)

Decker, A. M., J.  P.  Davidson,  R. C. Hammond, S.  B. Mohanty,  R. L.
Chaney,  and  T.  S.  Rumsey.   Animal  Performance   on  Pastures  Top-
dressed  with  Liquid  Sewage  Sludge   and Sludge  Compost.   In:   Na-
tional  Conference  on  Municipal  and  Industrial  Sludge Utilization
and Disposal,  Washington, D.C., May  1980.  pp. 37-41.

Doyle, J. J.   Effects of Low Levels  of Dietary Cadmium in Animals -
A Review.  J.  Environ. Qual . , 6:111-116, 1977.
Drewry, W. A., and R. Eliassen.  Virus Movement
Water Poll. Control Fed., 40:257-271, 1968.
                                                 in  Groundwater.  J.
Edmonds, R.  L.   Survival  of Coliform Bacteria in
plied to a Forest Clearcut  and Potential Movement
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.,  32:537-546,  1976.
                                                  Sewage Sludge Ap-
                                                  into Groundwater.
                                   7-23

-------
 30.   Edmonds,  R.  L.   Microbiological  Characteristics of Dewatered Sludge
      Following Application  to  Forest  Soils  and Clearcut  Areas.    In:
      Utilization  of Municipal Sewage  Effluent and Sludge on  Forest  and
      Disturbed Land.  W.  E. Sopper and  S.  N. Kerr, eds.   Pennsylvania
      State  University  Press, University Park,  1979.   pp.  123-136.

 31.   Edmonds,  R.  L.,  and D.  W.  Cole.   Use  of  Dewatered Sludge as  an
      Amendment for  Forest  Growth:   Management  and Biological  Assessment.
      Vol.  I.   Center  for Ecosystem  Studies,  University  of  Washington,
      Seattle,  Washington,  1976.

 32.   Edmonds,  R.  L.,  and D.  W.  Cole.   Use  of  Dewatered Sludge as  an
      Amendment for  Forest  Growth:   Management  and Biological  Assessment.
      Vol.  II.   Center  for  Ecosystem  Studies,  College  of  Forest  Re-
      sources,  University  of  Washington, Seattle,  Washington,  1977.

 33.   Edmonds,  R.  L.,  and D.  W.  Cole.   Use  of  Dewatered Sludge as  an
      Amendment for  Forest  Growth:   Management  and Biological  Assessment.
      Vol.  III.   Center  for Ecosystem Studies,  College  of  Forest  Re-
      sources,  University  of  Washington, Seattle,  Washington,  1980.

 34.   Edmonds,  R.  L.,  and  W. Littke.   Coliform Aerosols  Generated from
      the  Surface  of  Dewatered  Sewage Applied  to   a  Forest  Clearcut.
      Appl. Environ.  Microbiol.,,  36:972-974,  1978.

 35.   Edmonds,  R.  L.,  and  K.  P.  Mayer.   Survival  of  Sludge-Associated
      Pathogens  and  Their  Movement  into  Ground Water.    In:    Municipal
      Sludge  Application to Pacific  Northwest Forest  Lands.  C. S. Bled-
      soe, ed.   Contribution  No.  41, Institute  of Forest  Resources, Uni-
      versity of Washington,  Seattle, Washington,  1981.

 36.   Ernst,  W. H.  0.   Physiology of  Heavy  Metal Resistance in  Plants.
      In:   International  Conference on  Heavy Metals   in the Environment.
      Toronto,  1975.  Vol.  2,  Pt. 1, pp. 121-136.

 37.   Fox, M. R. S.   Effect of Essential Minerals on  Cadmium Toxicity;  a
      Review.   J. Food  Sci.,  39:321-324, 1974.

 38.   Fox, M.  R.  S., R. M. Jacobs,  A.  0.  L. Jones,  and B. E. Fry.   Ef-
     fects  of  Nutritional Factors  on   Metabolism  of  Dietary  Cadmium at
      Levels Similar to Those  in Man.  Environ.  Health Perspect.,  28:107-
      114, 1979.

39.   Garba,  C.  P.,  C. Wallis,  J.  L. Melnick.   Fate of Wastewater Bac-
     teria and  Viruses in  Soil.   J. Irrig. Drainage  Div.  ASCE, 101:157-
      174, 1975.

40.   Garcia-Maragaya,  J.,  and A.  L.  Page.  Sorption  of Trace Quantities
     of Cadmium by  Soils  with Different Chemical  and Mineralogical Com-
     position.  Water, Air,  Soil Pollut., 9:289-299,  1979.
                                   7-24

-------
41.  Haschek, W. M., D. L. Lisk, and R. A.  Stehn.   Accumulations  of  Lead
     in Rodents from Two Old Orchard Sites  in  New  York.   In:  Animals  as
     Monitors  of  Environmental  Pollutants.   National  Academy  of  Sci-
     ences, Washington, D.C., 1979.  pp.  192-199.

42.  Healy, W.  B.,  P.  C.  Rankin,  and  H.  M. Watts.  Effect of Soil  Con-
     tamination on  the1 Element  Composition of  Herbage.  N.  Z.  J.  Agr.
     Res., 17:59-61, 1974.

43.  Helmke, P. A.,  W.  P. Robarge, R.  L. Korotev, and P. J. Schomberg.
     Effects of Soil-Applied Sewage Sludge  on  Concentrations  of Elements
     in Earthworms.  J. Environ. Qual. 8:322-327,  1979.

44.  Jacobs, R. M.,  A.  0. Lee  Jones,  M.  R. Spiney  Fox,  and B.  E.  Fry,
     Jr.   Retention of Dietary  Cadmium  and the  Ameliorative Effect  of
     Zinc, Copper,  and Manganese in Japanese  Quail.   J.  Nutr.,  108:22-
     32, 1978.

45.  Jones, S.  C.,  K. W.  Brown,. L., E.  Deuel,  and  K. C. Donnelly.  Influ-
     ence  of  Rainfall  on  the  Retention  of Sludge  Heavy  Metals  by the
     Leaves of Forage Crops.  J. Environ. Qual., 8:69-72, 1979.

46.  Kelley, J. M., G. R.  Parker,  and  W.  W. McFee.  Heavy Metal Accumu-
     lation and Growth of Seedlings of Five Forest  Species as Influenced
     by Soil Cadmium Levels.  J. Environ. Qual., 8:361-364, 1979.

47.  Kittrick,  J.  A.   Control  of  Zn+2 in  Soil  Solution  by  Sphalerite.
     Soil Sci. Soc. Amer.  J., 40;314-317, 1976.

48.  Korcak, R. F.,  F.  R. Gouin,  and  D.  S. Fanning.   Metal  Content  of
     Plants and Soil  in  .a Tree  Nursery  Treated  with  Composted Sludge.
     J. Environ. Qua!., 8:63-68, 1979.

49.  Koterba,  M.  T., J.  W. Hornbeck,  and  R. S.  Pierce.    Effects  of
     Sludge  Application   on  Soil . Water  Solution   and  Vegetation  in  a
     Northern Hardwood Stand.  J. Environ. Qua!., 8:72-78.

50.  Kreuz, A.   Hygienic  Evaluation of the Agricultural  Utilization  of
     Sewage,  Gesundheitsung, 76:206-215, 1955.

51.  Kuo, S., and  A. S.  Baker.   Sorption  of Copper, Zinc, and Cadmium  by
     Some Acid Soils.  Soil Sci. Soc.  Am. J.,  44:969-974, 1980.

52.  Lambert, D. H., and  C.  Weidensaul.  Use  of  Sewage Sludge for Tree
     Seedling and Christmas Tree Production.   In:   Land Reclamation and
     Biomass Production  with  Municipal   Wastewater  and  Sludge.    W.  E.
     Sopper, E. M.  Seaker,  and R. K.   Bastian, eds.'  Pennsylvania State
     University Press,  University Park, 1982.  pp. 292-300.
                                   7-25

-------
53.   Lamorex,  R. J.,  and W. R.  Chaney.    Growth  and Water Movement  in
      Silver  Maple  Seedlings  Affected  by  Cadmium.   J.  Environ.  Qual.,
      6:201-204,  1977.

54.   Levine,  P.  F.   Sorption of  Zinc, Lead,  and  Cadmium on a  Glacial
      Outwash Soil.  'M.S.  Thesis,  University of  Washington, 1975.

55.   Lisk,  D.  J.   Trace  Metals  in  Soils, Plants,  and  Animals.   Adv.
      Agron., 24:267-325,  1972.

56.   Mallmann, W.  L.,  and W. Litsky.   Survival of Selected Enteric  Or-
      ganisms in  Various Types of Soil.   Am. J. Publ. Health, 41:38-44,
      1951.

57.   Mayer, K. P.   Decomposition  of  Dewatered Sewage  Sludge Applied  to a
      Forest Soil.   M.S. Thesis, University  of Washington,  1980.

58.   Mayland, H. F., G. E. Shewmaker,  and R.  C.  Bull.  Soil Ingestion  by
      Cattle  Grazing Crested  Wheatgrass.    J.  Range  Mgmt., 30:264-265,
      1977.

59.   McCormick,  L.  H.,  and K. C.  Steiner.  Variation  in Aluminum Toler-
      ance Among  Six Genera of Trees.   Forest  Sci.,  24:565-568, 1978.

60.   McKim,  H.   L., W.  E.  Sopper,   D.  Cole,  W.  Nutter, D.  Urie,  P.
      Schiess, S.  N. Ker'r, and  H. Farqubar.   Wastewater Application  in
      Forest Ecosystems.   CRREL Report 119, U.S.  Army Cold Regions  Re-
      search  Engineering 'Laboratory,  Hanover, New  Hampshire,  May 1980.
      29 pp.

61.   Mineral Tolerance of Domestic  Animals.   National  Academy   of  Sci-
      ences, Washington, D.C., 1980.   577 pp.

62.   Munshower,  F.  F., and D. R.  Neuman.  Metals in Soft Tissues  of  Mule
      Deer  and  Antelope.   Bull.   Environ.  Contam.  Toxicol., 22:827-832,
      1979.

63.   Nichols, C.    Seattle  Sludge and  Silvaculture.   Water  Eng. Man.,
      129(1):36-37,  1983.

64.   Nichols, C.  G.  Engineering Aspects of Dewatered  Sludge Land Appli-
     cation to  Forest  Soils.  M.S. Thesis, University  of Washington,
      1980.

65.  Page, A.  L.,  A.   A.  Elseewi, and J.  P.  Martin.   Capacity of Soils
     for  Hazardous  Inorganic Substances.   In:   Proceedings,  Fifth Na-
     tional  Conference   on  Acceptable   Sludge  Disposal  Techniques,
     Orlando, Florida, January 1978.  pp. 97-105.
                                  7-26

-------
66.
67
68.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Pahren,  H.  R. ,  J.  0. Lucas,  J.  A.  Ryan, and G. K. Dotson.   Health
Risks 'Associated with  Land  Application  of Municipal  Sludge.    J.
Water Poll. Control Fed., 51:2588-2599,  1979.

Pound, C.  E., and  R.  W.  Crites.   Wastewater Treatment  and  Reuse  by
Land  Application.    Vol.  2.   EPA 660/2-73-006,  Metcalf and Eddy,
Palo  Alto,  California,  August 1973.   261  pp.   (Available  from Na-
tional Technical Information  Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,  PB-225
941)
Reddy, C. N., and W. H. Patrick, Jr.  Effects of Redox
the Stability of  Zinc  and Copper Chelates  in  Flooded
Sci. Soc. Amer.  J., 41:729-731, 1977.
                                                        Potential  on
                                                        Soils.   Soil
69.  Reiners, W.  A.,  R.  H. Marks, and  P.  M.  Vitousek.  Heavy Metals  in
     Subalpine  and  Alpine Soils  of  New Hampshire.   Oikos, 26:264-275,
     1975.
Riekerk,  H.   The Behavior
Soil  with Sewage  Sludge.
1978.
                            of  Nutrient
                             Soi1  Sci.
 Elements  Added
Soc. Amer.  J.,
to a Forest
42:810-816,
Riekerk, H., and R. J. Zasoski.  Effects of Dewatered Sludge Appli-
cations  to  a Douglas-Fir  Forest Soil  on  the  Soil,  Leachate, and
Groundwater Composition.   In:   Utilization of Municipal Sewage Ef-
fluent and Sludge  on  Forest  and Disturbed Lands.  W. E. Sopper and
S.  N.  Kern,  eds.  Pennsylvania  State University, University  Park,
1979.  pp. 35-45.
Roy,  D.     Microbiology-Detection,  Occurrence,  and  Removal
Viruses.  J. Water Poll. Control Fed., 52:1839-1847, 1980.
                                                                 of
Rudolfs,  W.;  L.
Vegetables Grown
ies on Endamoeba
                 L.  Falk,  and R.  A. Ragotzkie.   Contamination of
                 on Polluted Soil.   II.  Field and Laboratory Stud-
                 Cysts.  Sewage Works J., 23:'478-485, 1951.
Sagik, B. P., B. E. Moore, and C. A. Sorber.  Public Health Aspects
Related  to  Land  Application  of  Municipal  Sewage Effluents  and
Sludges.   In:   Utilization  of  Municipal  Sewage Effluent and Sludge
on  Forest  and Disturbed Land.   W.  E. Sopper and  S.  N. Kerr, eds.
Pennsylvania  State University Press,  University  Park,  1979.   pp.
241-253.

Scanlon,  P.  F.   Lead  Concentration  of Mammals  and  Invertebrates
Near Highways with Different Traffic Volumes.  In:  Animals as Mon-
itors of  Environmental  Pollutants.    National  Academy  of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., 1979.  pp. 200-218.

Sidle,  R.  C., and L.  T.  Kardos.   Transport of Heavy  Metals  in a
Sludge-Treated Forested Area.  J. Environ. Qual.,  6:431-437, 1977.
                                  7-27

-------
77.   Sidle,  R.  C.,  and  L.  T.  Kardos.    Nitrate  Leaching  in  a  Sludge
      Treated Forest  Soil.  Soil  Sci.  Soc.  Amer.  J.,  43:278-282,  1979.
78.
79,
80.
81.
82.
Sommers,  L.  E.   Toxic Metals  in  Agricultural  Crops.  In:  Sludge-
Health  Risks of  Land Application.   6.  Bitton,  B.  Damron,  6. T.
Edds, and J. M. Davidson, eds.  Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Mich-
igan, 1980.  pp. 105-140.

Sommers,  L.  E.,  D.  W.  Nelson,  and  C.  D.  Spies.    Use  of Sewage
Sludge  in  Crop  Production.   Cooperation Extension Service  Publica-
tion AV-240, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1980.

Sorber, C. A., B. P. Sagik, and B. E. Moore.  Aerosols from Munici-
pal  Wastewater  Spray  Irrigation.    In:   Utilization  of  Municipal
Sewage  Effluent  and Sludge  on Forest  and  Disturbed Land.   W. E.
Sopper  and S.  N.  Kerr, eds.   Pennsylvania  State  University Press,
University Park, 1979.  pp. 255-263.

Stone,  E.  L.  Microelement  Nutrition  of Forest  Trees:   A Review.
In:  Forest  Fertilization  -  Theory and  Practice.   Tennessee Valley
Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, 1968.  pp. 132-175.
Stumrn, W.,  and  J.  J. Morgan.   Aquatic Chemistry.
ence, New York, 1970.  598 pp.
                                                    Wiley-Intersci-
83.  Task  Group on  Metal  Accumulation.   Accumulation  of  Toxic Metals
     with  Specific  References to  Their  Absorption,  Excretion, and Bio-
     logical Halftimes.  Environ.  Physiol. Biochem., 1973.

84.  Urie, D. H., J.  H.  Cooley,  and A. R. Harris.   Irrigation of Forest
     Plantations with Sewage  Lagoon  Effluents.   In:   State of Knowledge
     in Land Treatment  of  Wastewater; International  Symposium, Hanover,
     New Hampshire, August 1978.   Vol. 2, pp. 207-213.

85.  Williamson, P., and P. R.  Evans.  Lead:  Levels in Roadside Inver-
     tebrates  and  Small   Mammals.   Bull.  Environ. Contam.  Toxicol.,
     8:280-288, 1972.

86.  Zasoski, R. J.   Heavy Metal  Mobility in Sludge  Amended Soils.   In:
     Municipal  Sludge Application  to  Pacific Northwest Forest Lands.  C.
     S.  Bledsoe,  ed.    Contribution  No.  41,   Institute  of  Forest   Re-
     sources, University of Washington, Seattle, 1981.  pp. 67-92.

87.  Zasoski, R. J., S. G.  Archie, W. C. Swain, and J. D. Stednick.   The
     Impact  of  Sewage  Sludge on  Douglas-Fir  Stands Near  Port  Gamble,
     Washington.   Municipality  of Metropolitan  Seattle  METRO, Washing-
     ton, 1977.  42 pp.
                                  7-28

-------
                                CHAPTER  8

                    PROCESS  DESIGN  FOR DISTURBED  LAND
8.1  GENERAL

This  chapter  presents  design  information  for  application  of  sewage
sludge to  disturbed  land.   It is assumed  that  the preliminary planning
discussed  in  earlier  chapters has been done, that  a  sludge transporta-
tion system has been  selected, and that  disturbed lands are potentially
available within a reasonable distance from  the POTW.   Primary emphasis
is upon the revegetation of the  disturbed  land  site with grasses and/or
trees.   If future  land use for agricultural  production is planned, the
reader should  also  refer to Chapter 6,  "Process  Design for Agricltural
Utilization."

Disturbed land can result from both surface and underground mining oper-
ations, as  well  as the  deposition  of ore processing wastes.   The Soil
Conservation Service  reported that as  of  July 1,  1977,  the minerals in-
dustry had disturbed  a total  of  2.3  mil  ha (5.7 mil ac), of which about
50  percent  was associated  with  surface mining  (65).    Only  about one-
third of the disturbed area is reported to have been reclaimed.

Extensive  areas  of disturbed land  exist throughout the United States.
As a  result  of mining for  clay,  gravel,  sand, stone,  phosphate, coal,
and  other minerals.   Also  fairly  widespread  are  areas  where  dredge
spoils or  fly ash have  been deposited,  and construction  areas  (e.g.,
roadway cuts, borrow pits) (55).

Most disturbed lands are difficult to revegetate.   These sites generally
provide a  harsh  environment  for  seed germination  and  subsequent plant
growth.  Major soil problems may  include a lack of nutrients and organic
matter, low pH, low water-holding capacity, low rates of water infiltra-
tion  and  permeability,  poor  physical properties,  and  the presence  of
toxic levels of trace metals.   To correct these conditions, large appli-
cations of lime and fertilizer may be required, and organic soil  amend-
ments and/or mulches also may be  necessary.

Pilot- and  full-scale demonstration  projects have shown  that  properly
managed sludge application  is a  feasible  method of reclaiming disturbed
land, and can  provide  a  cost  effective option for municipal sludge dis-
posal.  Table 8-1 lists selected  projects.

The  sludge  application is  usually a  one-time application,  i.e.,  sludge
is not again applied  to  the same  land area at periodic  intervals in the
future.   Where this  is true,  the project  must  have a continuous supply"
of new disturbed land  upon  which  to  apply  sludge  in future years.  This
additionaldisturbed  land  can be created  by ongoing mining  or mineral
processing operations, or may consist  of  presently existing large areas
of  disturbed  land  which are  gradually reclaimed.   In   either  case,  an
                                  8-1

-------
                          TABLE 8-1          .    •  - .
SELECTED LAND RECLAMATION PROJECTS  INVOLVING  MUNICIPAL  SLUDGES
State
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Ohio
Maryland
Kentucky
Delaware
Tennessee/
South Carolina
Alabama
Florida
Illinois
26,
49,
Michigan
Wisconsin
Colorado
Oklahoma
Type of
Disturbed Land
Acidic strip-
mine and deep
mine refuse
Acidic strip-
mine spoil
Acidic strip-
mine spoil
Acidic strip-
mine spoil
Acidic strip-
mine spoil and
gravel spoils
Acidic strip-
mine spoils
Dredge spoils
Copper mine,
borrow pit,
kaolin spoil
marginal land
Stripmine
spoils
Phosphate
mining
spoils
Both acidic
and calcareous
stripmine
spoil ; coal
refuse
Quarry spoils
Iron ore trail -
ings; tacom'te
tailings
Molybdenum mine
spoils and coal
mine spoils
Zn smelter out-
fall area
Type of
Vegetation Used
Various grasses,
legumes, and
tree species
Virginia pine
and grasses
and legumes
Blueberries
and tall fescue
Tall fescue and
forage
Grass, legumes,
and row crops
Various tree
species and
row crops
Various grasses
Loblolly pine
and other tree
species; grasses
Various grasses
Various grasses
Various grasses,
legumes, and
tree- species;
forage, row
crops, and small
grains
Various grasses
and tree species
Native prairie
grasses and
forbes; various
grasses and
legumes
Grasses and
native vegeta-
tion
Various grasses
and legume
Type of
Sludge Used References
D1g-D,L,C 24, 31, 32, 33, 38, 54,
55, 56
Dig-D 24, 27, 51, 67
C
Dig-D, C 37, 64
D
Dig-D 23, 67
D
Dig-C 22, 28
C
Oig-D 17, 52
Dig-D
Dig-D 6, 12
Dig-D
Dig-D
Dig-D, L 8, 9, 18, 19, 21, 25,
D 29, 30, 35, 36, 45, 46,
50, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66
D
Dig-D 10, 40
Dig-D
Dig-L 20
                              8-2

-------
TABLE  8-1 (continued)
   State
 Montana
 New Mexico
   Type of
Disturbed Land

  Surface mine
  spoils
  Coal mine
  spoils
    Type of          Type of
Vegetation Used    Sludge Used

  Various grasses   C
  and native vege-
  tation

  Various grasses   Dig-0
                                                                     References
 California
 Washington
 Clear cut
 forest and
 construction
 areas

 Strip mine
 spoils, con-
 struction
 areas and
 clear cut
 forest
 Various grasses   Oig-D,C
 and tree species
 Various tree
 species cind
 grasses
                                                    Dig-D
7, 11,  15
 Dig = Digested
   L = Liquid
   D = Dewatered
   C = Composted
                                       8-3

-------
arrangement  is  necessary  with  the  land owner to allow for future sludge
application throughout the life of the sludge application project.

8.2  Public  Participation Considerations

Public participation aspects are discussed in Chapter 3.

8.3  Post Sludge Application Land Utilization

If  sludges  are used  in  the reclamation  process  there are two  sets  of
guidelines  and  recommendations that should  be  considered.   First there
are  federal  and state mining  regulations  concerning  revegetation under
the  Federal  Surface Mining Control  and Reclamation Act  of  1977 (PL 95-
87)  (44, 60).   Secondly,  there are  the federal  and state guidelines and
recommendations related to land application  of  sludge.   Prior to begin-
ning a reclamation  project,  the final  use of the  site after it has been
reclaimed must  be  considered in relation  to  compliance with these regu-
lations.

     8.3.1  Mining  Regulations

Prior  to mining,  a plan  must be  submitted to the  appropriate agency
stating  the method of  reclamation and  post-mining   land  utilization.
Under these  regulations, the potential  post-mining land use must be of a
level  equal  to  or  higher  than the  pre-mining land use.  From a mining
engineer's  point  of view, there are five  general  levels  of involvement
for  post-mining  land  use.   They  are in  increasing order  of  beneficial
use:

     1.  Wilderness or unimproved use.

     2.  Limited agriculture or recreation with little development, such
         as forest!and, grazing, hunting, and fishing.

     3.  Developed  agriculture or  recreation, such as  crop  land, water
         sports, and vacation  resorts.

     4.  Suburban dwellings or light commercial  and industry.

     5.  Urban dwelling or heavy commercial and industry.

Many of these land  uses are compatible  with sludge application.

The  post-mining use of the site must be  considered when determining the
sludge application  rate.   If the  post-mining land  use is to be agricul-
tural  production  or  animal  grazing,  agricultural   sludge  utilization
practices and restrictions should  be considered.   If  the site is to  be
vegetated primarily for  erosion control, a  single large  application  of
sludge is desirable for rapid  establishment  of  the vegetative cover.   A
majority of the reclaimed mine areas in the humid  regions have been
                                   8-4

-------
   planted  to  forests,  some  of  which  are  managed  for  lumber  or  pulp  produc-
   tion,  while others  are allowed to  follow natural succession  patterns.
   If the  reclaimed  area  is  to  be  turned  into forestland,  larger  sludge  ap-
   plication rates can  be considered  since  the products  from the  forest  are
   not generally a  factor in the  human  food chain.    In  all  cases,  post-
   mining  land use  must  be  considered prior  to  the  use of sludge  in land
   reclamation.      .         .

   8.4  Detailed  Site  Investigation

   Disturbed  or marginal  land areas differ in their  physical,  hydrological
   and soil  chemical characteristics.  These  differences are the  result of
   variations  in mining  operations,  ore extraction   processes,  length of
   time since  the area was  disturbed,  climate,  soil  and geological  varia-
   tions,  and  other  factors.  When the  land has been  severely disturbed, it
   is often necessary to conduct  relatively  extensive site  investigations.
   Available soil survey  maps,  topographic  maps,  etc.  are  often useless  be-
   cause of the  changes made  to  the site's  original characteristics.

   There may be  areas  at  a disturbed  site that, due to  physical,  hydrologi-
|   cals or  chemical  characteristics,  are  unsuitable for  sludge  application.
;   Areas  suitable for sludge application should  be surveyed and  boundaries
   staked.

   Both federal  and  many  state  mining  regulations in  effect  in  1982  require
   that areas  disturbed  by  mining operations must be  restored to the  ap-
   proximate  original  contour and  productivity  (44).  However, many  older
   abandoned mine sites have never been reclaimed.   In  any  case,  an  accur-
   ate topographic  contour  map of the site  area is needed to  provide a
   basis for  (1)  delineating the areas with  slopes which are too  steep  for
   sludge  application,  (2) regrading the areas if this  expense is cost  ef-
   fective,  and  (3)  designing  surface  runoff  water  improvements,  e.g.,
   ditches,  terraces,  berms,  etc. Table 5-2 presents  general  recommenda-
   tions  for  slope   limitations.   The  designer should consult with the  ap-
   propriate regulatory agencies to determine applicable slope  criteria  for
   the site.

   A  secondary consideration is the future  use  of the  site.   If agricul-
   tural use  is planned,  slopes of less  than 6 percent are desirable.  If
   the area is to be returned to forest and/or native  vegetation  to  prevent
   erosion, slopes in  excess  of  12 percent  can be utilized,  within applica-
   ble regulatory limitations.

        8.4.1   Ground  Water  Protection

   The detailed  site investigation should determine the  following:

        •    Depth to  ground  water, including seasonal variations.
        «    Quality of existing ground water.
        t    Present and  potential  future use of  ground  water.
                                     8-5

-------
     •    Existence of perched water.
     •    Direction of ground water flow.

The general regulatory philosophy is that the application of sludge to a
site should not  degrade  useful  ground water  resources  beyond  the boun-
dary of  the sludge  application  site.   Occasionally, it  is  found that
ground waters  adjacent  to the disturbed  site are already  severely de-
graded by  previous  mining operations and the aquifer can  be "exempted"
from non-degradation regulations.  Suggested depth to ground water limi-
tations are presented in Table 5-6.

     8.4.2  Disturbed Soil Sampling and Analysis

Disturbed soil  sampling and analysis are necessary to:

     •    Establish sludge application  rates, both periodic and accumu-
          lative.

     •    Determine amounts  of  supplemental  fertilizer, lime,  or other
          soil  amendment required to obtain desired vegetative growth.
          Determine the infiltration and permeability characteristics
          the soil.
                                 of
          Determine  background  soil
          to sludge application.
pH, metals,  nutrients,  etc.,  prior
A major  factor  in determining the chemical  characteristics  of the soil
at a site  is that standard soil  sampling procedures for undisturbed and
agricultural soil will not be applicable in many cases (see Appendix C).
Soil survey maps  will  usually only provide  an  idea of the type of soil
present  prior to  the  disturbance.   Often,  the only soil profile present
on a surface  mined site is the  mixture  of soil  and geologic materials.
A field  inspection will  have  to  be made to
cation of samples necessary to characterize
analyses may vary from location to location
regulations covering  both  the  reclamation
pects.
       determine the number and lo-
       the materials.  The specific
       based on the state and local
       and  sludge  utilization  as-
          8.4.2.1  Disturbed Soil Sampling Procedures

Disturbed sites  that have had  topsoil  replaced can  often  use standard
soil sampling procedures employed on agricultural fields.  For abandoned
sites  more  intensive sampling  is often  necessary.   On  either  type of
site,  because  of the extensive  soil  horizon mixing  that occurs during
the  removal  and  replacement  of the topsoil  and overburden,  the surface
material may vary greatly within a small area.

Although the disturbed  surface  materials  are often  not  soil  in the gen-
eric sense,  soil  tests  on disturbed lands  have proven  useful. However,
soil tests on drastically disturbed sites do have some limitations which
                                   8-6

-------
should be  taken into consideration.during  site  evaluation.   Guidelines
vary widely on  the  number of samples to  be taken.   Recommendations for
sampling heterogeneous strip mine  spoils  in the  eastern  U.S.  range from
4 to 25 individual  samples  per  ha  (1.5  to 10 per ac).  It has also been
suggested that  one  composite sample made up of  a  minimum of  10 subsam-
ples for each 4 ha  (10 ac) area may be adequate (3).  However, many dis-
turbed lands  are  not heterogeneous,  and  the range  and  distribution  of
characteristics of the surface material  is often more important than/the
average composition.   In  general,  it is  recommended that material  that
is visibly different in color or composition should be sampled as separ-
ate units (areas)  if large enough to be treated separately in  the recla-
mation program.

          8.4.2.2   Soil pH and Lime Requirements

Most grasses  and  legumes,  along with many  shrubs  and  deciduous  trees
grow best  in  the  soil  pH range  from  5.5  to 7.5,  and pH  adjustments may
be necessary.

Where sludge is to  be applied to land, several  states have adopted regu-
lations which state that  the  soil  pH  must be adjusted to 6.0  or greater
during the  first  year  of initial  sludge  application and 6.5  during the
second year  (43).   In addition, the  soil pH of 6.5 must be  maintained
for two years  after the  final sludge application.   This is recommended
since trace metals  are more soluble under  acid  conditions  than neutral
or alkaline conditions.  If the soil pH is not maintained above 6.0, but
is allowed to  revert  to  more acid  levels,  some  trace metals  applied  in
the sludge  may  become soluble  and once  in  solution would  be available
for plant  uptake.   In coal  spoil  banks, iron,  aluminum, and manganese
present in  the  spoil  become  mobile at  low pH's and contribute to acid
mine drainage problems.   Phytotoxicity  problems  may be encountered from
both the  trace  metals applied  in  the sludge and  native toxic elements
found in the spoil, if the  spoil pH becomes highly acid.  Liming recom-
mendations can usually be obtained  by sending samples to a qualified la-
boratory or the agricultural  experiment station  soil  testing  lab at the
nearest land  grant  college or  university.   Common  soil  tests  for lime
requirements often  seriously underestimate the lime requirement for sul-
fide-containing disturbed lands.  In addition,  the application of sludge
on disturbed lands will  cause further acidification.  This must be taken
into consideration  in calculating lime requirements.

          8.4.2.3  Cation Exchange  Capacity (CEC)

Recommended limits  related to the  CEC of  the soil  (Table 6-2) have been
developed for the maximum amounts of trace metals that should  be applied
to agricultural soils  via sewage sludge  additives  (41).   Even though a
particular site will not  be  returned  to  agricultural utilization,  these
recommendations are often used in state requirements for disturbed land.
Several states  have established  different limits  for maximum  amounts  of
trace metals that may be  applied to the land via sludge based  on the CEC
of the soil.
                                  8-7

-------
          8.4.2.4  Disturbed Soil Fertility

During mining and  regrading  operations,  the original  surface layers are
usually buried  so  deeply  that  the  soil  nutrients present are not avail-
able to the  plants  in  disturbed  soil.   Therefore, fertility of the soil
is important in deciding what soil  amendments are necessary to establish
vegetation.

Nitrogen  and phosphorus  are  generally  deficient  on  disturbed  lands.
Sludge is  generally  an excellent source "of  these nutrients,  and recom-
mendations can  be obtained from the local  agricultural  experiment sta-
tion or Cooperative  Extension  Service  for  the additional  quantity of N,
P, and K required to support the vegetation  planned for the site.

Phosphorus is often  the most limiting fertility  factor  in  plant estab-
lishment on drastically disturbed land (5).  Soil tests used for P anal-
ysis reflect the chemistry of soils, and thus are more regionalized than
tests for  other major nutrients.  A number of  soil  tests have been de-
veloped for  use on  acid  soils  in  the eastern  United States  and others
for use on neutral  and calcareous soils in the west.  However, drasti-
cally disturbed lands  do  hot always reflect  the  local  soils.   Thus, if
disturbed  spoil  material  is  going  to be analyzed for P, the local rou-
tine  analysis   procedure  may not  be  appropriate  and other  P analysis
might be  required.  Recommendations  should be obtained  from  the local
agricultural experiment station.

     8.4.3  Chemical Characteristics of Drainage  Water

Water pollution  problems, such as  acid  mine drainage, have been associ-
ated with  mining activity.   Therefore,  it  is necessary to document the
quality of both the  surface and ground water prior to use of sludge on a
disturbed  site.   In many instances, the water  quality on, and adjacent
to, disturbed sites  has already been adversely affected.

8.5  Constraints

When  designing  a  sludge  utilization  project on  drastically  disturbed
land, there are often two sets of criteria that must be followed.  If it
is an  active mining site, the project  should  comply with the criteria
set forth  in  Public Law 95-87 and any  pertinent state regulations (5).
Additionally, if sludge  is  to be used  as a soil  amendment,  there are
also federal and usually  state guidelines  and  regulations  that must be
considered (14, 41,  43).

     8.5.1  Constraints Related to Sludge Applications

           8.5.1.1  Single Application Versus Annual Application

A major difference between  the application  of  sludge to disturbed land
and the  other  sludge  land application  options  is  that  sludge is often"
applied to disturbed land in  a  one time,  single large application, as
compared to annual or periodic smaller applications.
                                   8-8

-------
Drastically  disturbed  lands can  be  divided into two  categories,  those
requiring topsoil enhancement and those without  topsoil.   On sites with
topsoil, an agricultural utilization rate might be used with small  quan-
tities of sludge being  applied  annually  (discussed  in  Chapter 6).   How-
ever, on  abandoned  sites or  sites  without topsoil   replacement, a much
larger  application  of  sludge  may be  necessary  in  order  to  establish
vegetation and improve  the  physical  status of  the soil.   Soil fertility
is also  increased  by adding  sludge  nitrogen and phosphorus  as  well  as
many of the micro-nutrients necessary for plant growth.,  ...
          8.5.1.2  Constraints Associated
                   tics of the Sludge
with the Physical Characteris-
The  physical  characteristics  of sludge  are  discussed in Chapter  4 and
Appendix A.   If  liquid  sludge  is to be applied to mined land, it should
be  remembered that in  some cases  the  infiltration  rate for disturbed
soils is lower than that  for  undisturbed soils.   The solids in the liq-
uid  sludge tend  to fill  in  the surface pores and lower the  infiltration
rate.  After  the surface  is clogged,  it may  be necessary to temporarily
halt  sludge  application and  loosen the  surface  material.    Soils  will
also  regain  permeability when  sludge dries.   Since liquid  sludge can
contain 90 to 99 percent water, the soils hydraulic loading  capacity may
often  become  the  limiting  factor  when determining  sludge  application
rates.  In order to supply an adequate continuous supply of  plant nutri-
ents  with  liquid sludge additional applications may  be  necessary.   Ap-
plication  of  dewatered,  dry,  or composted sludge does  not  pose the po-
tential soil  clogging problem discussed above, since there is less water
that  has to infiltrate or evaporate.

      8.5.2  Pathogens and Parasites

If  the  disturbed  area  to be  reclaimed  is  to be used  for  agricultural
production, then use of  agricultural  sludge guidelines  should  be fol-
lowed.  If state and  federal  criteria are met, the system managed prop-
erly, and  the sludge treated  properly,  there should be  minimal  health
risk  associated  with  agricultural  use of the reclaimed  areas.  See Sec-
tion  6.3.1, and  Appendices A and B.

Public access should  be  restricted for a sufficient period  after sludge
application to prevent  public  contact with viable  pathogens.   This per-
iod  may  vary  from 30 days  to  12  months,  depending  upon the extent to
which the  sludge has  been treated  for pathogen destruction.

      8.5.3  Organics

If  the  land is to be used  for agricultural  purposes, see Section 6.3.3
for  discussion of constraints pertinent to persistant organics.  Persis-
tent  organics  are generally not  a  concern providing that the site design
and  operation prevents migration  of  sludge  constituents into drinking
water supply  sources.
                                  8-9

-------
     8.5.4  Nitrogen

The  amount  of nitrogen  needed to  establish  vegetation on  a  disturbed
area is  dependent  on the type of  vegetation  to  be  grown  and the amount
of nitrogen available in the soil.  The designer should have information
on:

     •    The amount and type  of  nitrogen  in  the sludge (organic N, am-
          monium, and nitrates).

     •    The plant  available  nitrogen  content  of the existing soil, if
          available.

     •    The fertilizer nitrogen  requirements of the vegetation planned
          for the site.

This  information is  utilized  to  determine  sludge  application  rate so
that sufficient  nitrogen  is applied for the  vegetation,  but  not in ex-
cessive  amounts  that may cause unacceptable  levels  of  nitrate leaching
into the surrounding ground water.

The post reclamation land use should also be considered when determining
the  amount  of nitrogen needed to  supply the vegetative needs.   If the
vegetation  grown is  to be  harvested and removed from the site, supple-
mental nitrogen applications may be needed periodically to maintain ade-
quate productivity.  If the reclaimed  area  is reforested  or the vegeta-
tion  grown  is not  harvested,  most of  the  nitrogen will  remain  on the
site and be recycled by means of leaf fall  and vegetation  decomposition.

An advantage of using sludge is that it is a slow-release  organic nitro-
gen  fertilizer source  that  will  supply  some  nitrogen  for  3 to 5 years.
Most of  the original  nitrogen  is  in the organic form and therefore not
immediately available  for  plant  use until  it is converted  to  available
plant forms by mineralization.   This process is discussed  in Appendix B.

     8.5.5  Total Metal Applications

Metal constraints depend on the future use of the reclaimed land. If the
land is to  be used  for agricultural  crops  entering  the human food chain
the limits discussed in Section 6.3.4 and 6.3.5 apply to sludge applica-
tion.   If,  however,  the land is to be  reforested or planted in vegeta-
tion not entering  the  human food  chain, the  metal  accumulation is lim-
ited  by potential   phytoxicity  to  the  trees and  vegetation.    Copper,
zinc, and nickel are the  elements  of  most  concern  in plant phytoxicity.
If the soil  pH is maintained above 6.0 to 6.5, these elements should not
be taken up by the  vegetation  in  amounts great  enough to  cause phytoxi-
city.
                                  8-10

-------
8.6  Vegetation Selection

     8.6.1  General

Many species and varieties  of  plants  have  been shown to be valuable for
use in  the  reclamation of  drastically  disturbed lands.   However,  each
site should be considered unique,  and  plant  species or seed mixtures to
be used  carefully  selected.  Local authorities  should  be  consulted for
recommendations of  appropriate  species  and varieties of plant materials
and establishment  techniques.   Revegetation  suggestions for various re-
gions of the United  States are presented in this  section  (Tables 8-2
through 8-12).  Agricultural food crops are not covered here, since they
were discussed in Chapter 6.

If the aim of the  reclamation  effort  is to establish a vegetative cover
sufficient to prevent erosion, a perennial  grass and legume mixture is a
good crop  selection.   It  is important  to select species that  are not
only compatible, but  also grow  well when sludge is  used as the fertili-
zer. The rationale for the  selection  of  grass  and  legume seeding  mix-
tures is that the  grass  species  will  germinate quickly  and  provide a
complete protective  cover during the  first year, allowing time  for the
legume species to  become established and develop into the  final  vegeta-
tive cover.  The grasses will  also take up a large amount of the nitro-
gen, preventing  it from leaching  into  the ground  water.   Since legume
species  can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, additional sludge nitrogen
additions are often unnecessary.
Plant species to be
grow under droughty
alkaline soil
       used  should  be  selected  because of their ability to
       conditions,  and their tolerance for  either  acid or
material.  Salt tolerance is also desirable.
If a  site  is  to be reforested, it  is  still  generally  desirable to seed
it with a mixture  of  grasses  and  legumes.   The initial grass and legume
cover helps to  protect the  site from  erosion and surface runoff, and to
take  up  the nutrients  supplied  by the  sludge.    Planting  slow growing
tree species is generally not  recommended  because  they generally do not
compete well with  the  initial  herbaceous  cover.   Fast  growing hardwoods
such as  hybrid  poplars seem  to  survive  and grow  well  because  they can
usually compete successfully.

     8.6.2  Seeding and Mulching

Herbaceous species can be seeded by direct drill  or broadcast, hydro, or
aerial seeding.   However, disturbed sites are often too rocky and irreg-
ular for drill  seeding.   Broadcast seeding  is generally  more desirable
because the stand  of  vegetation produced  is  more natural  in appearance,
with a more uniform and complete cover, and effective in erosion preven-
tion  and  site  stabilization.   Broadcasting also achieves  a  planting
depth which  is  better  suited to the  variety  of  different-sized  seeds
usually found in mixtures of species.   Aerial broadcast seeding may also
be useful for large tracts.   It  is  generally not necessary to cover the
                                  8-11

-------
 seed,   since  the  first  rainfall  will   normally  push  the  seed  into the
 loosened surface spoil  and  result  in adequate  coverage.

 On  sites that have good topsoil, agricultural  seeding rates  can  be used.
 However,  on  abandoned  sites,  it  may  be  necessary  to  apply  much  larger
 amounts of  seed  (54).

 Mulching  is  generally  not  necessary except  on specific  sites.    Mulches
 are  defined  as  organic  or  inorganic materials applied  to the soil  sur-
 face to  protect  the  seed,  reduce  erosion,  modify  extremes  in  surface
 spoil  temperatures,  and  reduce evaporation.   Mulching  is generally ad-
 visable on  steep  slopes and on  black  anthracite  refuse or  fly ash banks
 in  order  to  protect  germinating   vegetation  from  high  surface tempera-
 tures  which may  be lethal  to most  plants.   Mulching  may also be  required
 by  some  state  regulatory  agencies  for  specific  situations.   Materials
 used for  mulching  are  straw,  hay,  peanut  hulls,  corn  cobs,   bagasse,
 bark,  sawdust, leaves,  and  wood chips.
                                      TABLE  8-2
                         HUMID EASTERN REGION  VEGETATION
Various grasses, legumes, trees,  and shrubs  have been evaluated for use on disturbed  lands in the
humid  regions  of the United States.  Grass species  that have shown promise for  use on  low  pH soils
in the eastern United States include weeping lovegrass, bemtudagrass  varieties, tall  fescue, chew-
ings  fescue,  switchgrass, red top,  colonial  bentgrass, creeping  bentgrass, velvet bentgrass, deer-
tongue, big bluestem, little bluestem,  and  brown  sedge bluestem (4).

Some  of the more agriculturally important grass  species  adapted to  better soil conditions on dis-
turbed  sites  include:   bromegrass, timothy,  orchardgrass, perinnial  rye grass, Italian  ryegrass,
Kentucky bluegrass, Canadian bluegrass, Reed canarygrass, Dallisgrass,  bahiagrass,  and in special
situations, lawn grasses  including  Zoysia japonica  Steud  and Zoysia  matrella.  In  addition to the
common grasses, several of the  cereal  grains, such  as rye, oats, wheat,  and barley have been used,
but mainly as companion crops (4).

Legume species  tested on  disturbed  sites  in eastern United  States include alfalfa, white  clovers,
crimson clover, birdsfoot trefoil, lespedezas,  red clover, crownvetch, and  hairy vetch. 'Other spe-
cies  that have been successfully  tested include  flat pea,  kura clover, zigzag clover, sweet clover,
and yellow sweet clover (4).

Several grass  and legume mixtures have  been used  successfully in Pennsylvania to reyegetate  drastic-
ally  disturbed  lands amended with municipal sludges.  The  primary mixture and seeding rate  used for
spring and summer seeding  is:
     Kentucky-31 tall fescue
     Orchardgrass
     Birdsfoot trefoil

     Total

Metric conversion factor:

  1 kg/ha -  0.89 Ib/ac.
Amount
kg/ha

  22
  22
  _n

  55
                                        8-12

-------
 TABLE 8-2  (continued)
For late summer and early fall  seeding the following mixture has  been  used  successfully:
      Kentucky-31 tall fescue
      Orchardgrass
      Winter rye (1 bu/ac)

      Total

Metric conversion factor:

  1 kg/ha = 0.89 Ib/ac.
Amount
kg/ha

  11
   5
  jji

  79
This mixture  has  usually been sufficient to  establish  a vegetative cover to protect  the  site  over
the winter season.  The  following spring, an  additional seed mixture, consisting of orchardgrass (11
kg/ ha; '9.8 lb/ ac) and  birdsfoot trefoil  (11 kg/ha;  9.8 Ib/ac),  is applied.  Other seeding mixtures
for spring, summer, and fall  seeding  are  found in  Ref.  (48).

Several tree  and  shrub  species  have been utilized  on  disturbed land  areas  in the  eastern  United
States.  However,  in general, trees and  shrubs have been planted either after the soil has  been  sta-
bilized with  herbaceous  species, like  grasses and legumes,  or has  been planted  with  them.   On  cer-
tain drastically disturbed areas, trees  may be the  only  logical  choice  of  vegetation  where a  future
monetary return is expected.   They do provide  long-term cover and protection with little or no addi-
tional  care and maintenance.   The same precautions should be exercised in selecting tree species for
use on  disturbed  land  sites  as  in  selecting  grasses and  legumes.   The  soil  acidity,  plant nutrient
requirements,  chemical  and physical  properties of the soil,  site topographical influences,  and other
environmental  factors  snould  be  considered.

Common  tree  and  shrub  species  grown  successfully  on disturbed  land  sites  in  the  eastern  United
States  include  black locust,  European  black  alder,  autumm olive, white pine, scotch  pine, Virginia
pine,  short  leaf  pine,  red  pine,  Norway spruce, European  and  Japanese larch,   and bristly  locust.
Other suitable hardwoods  not  as  commonly used include yellow  poplar, hybrid poplars,  red oak,  syca-
more, river birch, maples, cottonwoods, and aspens.
                                           TABLE 8-3
                    DRIER MID-WEST AND WESTERN REGION  VEGETATION
A  large  number  of  plant species have been tested on  disturbed  lands  in the Intermountain Region of
the  United  States  (6).   Fewer species have  been  evaluated  for  reclamation  use in the drier regions
of the United States.   The  objective  in  many reclamation plantings  in the drier regions is to return
the  area  to climax vegetation.   In almost every  instance,  the  soils  are not  the  same as before the
disturbance occurred, and  it  would seem  in many cases that  species lower in  the  successional  stage
may  be  better  adapted and  more  easily  established  on these  sites.  Whether  a single  species  or a
mixture  is  selected  depends on  several  factors,  including  the planned  future use of  the site, the
desire to have  the planting blend  with the surrounding vegetation,  and  the adaptability and compati-
bility of the  species  selected.   The factors limiting the successful  establishment  of vegetation on
disturbed areas may be  different on  a site being  reclaimed than on  adjacent undisturbed areas,  where
a  plant  species may  be growing together in  what  appears  to be a stable  community.   Even after the
species have been  selected, the  proportionate amounts of seeding are not easily determined. The suc-
cessful  experiences  of  the past  40 years from  seeding  range mixtures  and planting  critical  areas
appears to  be  the  best  guide  to the  opportunities  for success  of  either single  species or mixtures
(5). '
                                              8-13

-------
                                         TABLE 8-4
                                   WESTERN GREAT LAKES
   This  region  includes  Wisconsin,  eastern  Minnesota,  and  the  western  upper peninsula of Michigan.  The
   common  grasses,  generally used in mixtures with a  legume,  are  tall  fescue,  smooth brome, and timo-
   thy.   Kentucky bluegrass and  orchardgrass  are also well adapted.   "Garrison"  creeping  foxtail  and
   reed  canarygrass  perform well on  wet  sites.   The  most commonly  used  legumes  are birdsfoot trefoil
   and crownvetch.   Numerous species  of woody  plants  can  be used depending on specific site conditions.
   Siberian  crabapple,  several  species  of poplars,  tatarian and Amur honeysuckles, silky dogwood, red-
   osier  dogwood, European  black alder,  black  cherry, and  green ash perform  well. Autumn  olive  is
   adapted to the southern portion of this area.
                                         TABLE 8-5
                            NORTHERN  AND CENTRAL  PRAIRIES


 This is the region known as the Corn Belt.. Grasses adapted to the area are Kentucky bluegrass,  tall
 fescue, smooth brome,  timothy, and  orchardgrass.   Reed  canarygrass  is  adapted  to  wet  areas.  Switch-
 grass, big bluestem, and Indiangrass are well  adapted warm season natives.  Birdsfoot trefoil,  crown-
 vetch, and alfalfa are commonly used legumes.

 Wooay  species  that  have been successful include autumnolive, European black alder, poplar  species,
 tatarian honeysuckle, Amur honeysuckle, black  cherry, eastern red cedar, pines, oaks',  black  walnut,
 green ash, black  locust, black haw,  and  osage-orange.
                                         TABLE 8-6
                                 NORTHERN GREAT  PLAINS
 Tnts  region  includes  most of the Dakotas and  Nebraska west  to  the foothills  of  the Rocky Mountains
 and  includes  northeastern Colorado.   The native wheatgrass (western, thickspike, bluebunch,  stream-
 sant.,  and  slender)  are used extensively in  seeding mixtures.   Western wheatgrass should  be included
 in most  mixtures,  although for special  purposes thickspike or streambank wheatgrass are  more appro-
 priate.  Green  needlegrass is  an  important  component  of  mixtures  except  in  the drier  areas.   On  fa-
 vorable  sites big  bluestem, little  bluestem,  and switchgrass provide opportunities  for color or  for
 a different season  of  use.   Prairie  sandreed  is  adapted  to sandy  soils throughout the region.  "Gar-
 rison" creeping foxtail and reed canarygra-ss are adapted  to wet  sites.

 Crested  wheatgrass  has been used extensively  and  is  long-lived in  this  climate.   Intermediate  and
 pubescent wheatgrasses are  useful in establishing pastures.  Tne use of smooth brome and  tass fescue
 1s limited to the  eastern portions  of the  Northern Great  Plains  where  the  annual  precipitation  ex-
 ceeds  50 cm  (19.7 in).   Alfalfa  and  white sweetclover  are  the only legumes  used  in  most  of the area
 for reclamation plantings.

 Many  native and  introduced woody  plants are adapted for conservation plantings.   Fallowing  to pro-
 vide  additional  moisture is required for  establishment  of  most  woody plants and  cultivation must
 generally be continued for  satisfactory  performance of all  but a few native  shrubs.   These practices
may not  be compatible with  certain reclamation objectives,  thereby limiting  the use  of woody  species
to areas with favorable moisture situations.   Some woody plants useful in this area, if moisture  and
management  are provided, are Russian-olive,  green ash, skunkbush, sumac, Siberian  crabapple, Manchur-
 lan  crabapple,  silver  buffaloberry, tatarian  honeysuckle,  chokecherry, Siberian  peashrub, Rocky
Mountain juniper,  and  willow species.                          ,
                                            8-14

-------
                                          TABLE  8-7
                                  SOUTHERN  GREAT  PLAINS
   The  Southern  Great  Plains  are considered  to be the area from southcentral  Nebraska  and  southeastern
   Colorado  to  central  Texas.   The most common native grasses  of  value  in  reclaiming  drastically dis-
   turbed  lands  include  big  bluestem, little  bluestem,  Indiangrass,  switchgrass, buffalograss, blue
   grama,  sideoats  grama,  and  sand lovegrass.   Introduced bluestems  such as yellow bluestem,  Caucasian
   bluestem,  and  introduced Kleingrasss blue panicgrass,  and buffelgrass are  important  in  the  southern
   and  central  portions  of this plant growth  region.  Alfalfa  and white sweetclover are the most com-
   monly  used legumes.   Russian-olive is a satisfactory woody species  in  the  northern portions and
   along  the foothills  of the Rocky Mountains.  Junipers, hackberry, and skunkbush sumac are  important
   native  species.   Osage-orange is well  adapted  to the eastern part  of this  area.    Desirable woody
   plants  require special management for use  on most  drastically disturbed lands.
                                          TABLE  8-8
                                      SOUTHERN  PLAINS


  This area  is  the Rio  Grande  Plains  of south and  southwest Texas.   The  characteristic  grasses  on
  sandy soils are  seacoast  bluestem,  two-flow trichloris,  silver bluestem, big  sandbur,  and  tangle-
  head.  The dominant grasses on clay and clay loams are silver bluestem, Arizona cottontop,  buffalo-
  grass,  curlymesquite,  and  grama grasses.  Indiangrass, switchgrass,  seacoast bluestem,  and  crinkle-
  awn are  common  in the oak savannahs.

  Old World bluestems,  such  as yellow and Caucasian bluestems, are satisfactory only  where additional
  moisture is made available.  Natalgrass and two-flower trichloris  have  shown promise in reclamation
  plantings.
                                          TABLE  8-9
                                     SOUTHERN PLATEAUS


 The area is made up of the 750- to 2,400-m (2,450-. to 7,875-ft) altitude plateaus  of  western  Texas,
 New Mexico, and Arizona.   The area includes a large  variety  of  ecological  conditions  resulting  in
 many plant associations.   Creosote-tarbush desert shrub,  grama grassland, yucca and  juniper  savan-
 nahs,  pinyon  pine,  oak,  and  some  ponderosa  pine  associations occur.   Little bluestem,  sideoats
 grama,  green  sprangletop,  Arizona  cottontop,  bush  muhly, plains  bristlegrass,  vine-mesquite,  blue
 grama,  black grama,  and many other  species are common and are useful  in reclamation  plantings, de-
 pending  on  the site conditions and elevation.
                                         TABLE  8-10
                             INTERMOUNTAIN  DESERTIC  BASINS
This region occupies the extensive intermountain  basins  from  southern Nevada and Utah, north through
Washington, and includes the basin areas  of  Wyoming.   The  natural  vegetation ranges from almost pure
stands of  short  grasses  to  desert shrub.   There  are  extensive area dominated by big  sagebrush  or
other sagebrush species.

A wide variety of species of grasses is available for  this area.   Among the most commonly used spe-
cies are the  introduced  Siberian wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass,   intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent
wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass,  and  hard fescue.   Native  grasses used include  bluebunch  wheatgrass,
beardless  wheatgrass,  big  bluegrass,   Idaho  fescue,  and  Indian  ricegrass.   Four-wing  and  Nuttall
saltbush have performed well in planting trials.   Available woody species are limited,  though juni-
pers, Russian-olive, skunkbush sumac,   and other  native  and introduced  woody plants  are  adapted  to
the climate where moisture is adequate.
                                             8-15

-------
                                    TABLE 8-11
                                 DESERT SOUTHUEST
 This is  the desert of southwestern  Arizona, southern Nevada, and southern  California.  Creosotebush
 may occur in almost pure stands or  with tarbush.   Triangle  bur-sage, white bur-sage, rubber rabbit-
 brush, and ocotillo are prominent on some sites.   Large numbers of annual and  perennial forbs  are
 present. Saltbushes, winterfat, and  spiny hopsage are common.  The few grasses present in the under-
 story are largely big galleta, desert saltgrass, grama grasses, and species of threeawns.

 Only minor success  has  been obtained  in establishing  vegetation on disturbed lands  in  the desert
 southwest.  Irrigation for establishment may be essential in some areas, and the longevity of stands
 when irrigation is  discontinued  is not  known.   Big galleta and bush  muhly show promise.  Native
 shrubs such as creosotebush, fourwing saltbush, and catclaw have also  been established.  Reseedlng
 annuals such as goldfields,  California poppy, and  Indianwheat have also shown promise.
                                    TABLE 8-12
                                CALIFORNIA  VALLEYS


 The  climate of  the central  California Valleys  is classified as semiarid to arid and warm  and the
 moisture is deficient at  all seasons.  The largest area of  grassland  lies around the edge of the
 central valley and is dominated by annual  species.  The only  areas remaining in grass  in the valley
 are  usually too alkaline for crop production.  The grasses remaining in these sites are desert salt-
 grass and alkali  sacaton.

 Recommended for seeding in the  area of more than  40 cm  (15.8 in) annual precipitation  is a mixture
 of "Luna" pubescent wheatgrass, "Palestine" orchardgrass,  and rose clover.  Crimson clover, Califor-
 nia  poppy,  and "Blando" brome can  be added.

 Inland in the 30 cm (12 in) precipitation areas, a mixture of "Blando"  brome,  Wimmera  ryegrass, and
 "Lana" woolypod vetch is recommended.  In the 15- to 30-cm (6 to 12 in)  precipitation  zone "Blando"
 brome (soft chess) and rose clover are generally used.
8.7   Sludge Application Rates

      8.7.1  General

Determining  sludge  application  rates   for  reclaiming  disturbed  lands
often presents  a conflict  for the  designer.  When  sludge  is applied only
once,  as  is  the  case  with  reclamation  of most  drastically  disturbed
lands, the many important  limiting factor is usually the  addition of  po-
tentially toxic heavy  metals.    With  a  one-time  sludge application,  the
goal  is to create a  large  pool   of  nutrients to supply the  vegetation  for
more  than  one  year  so  that  additional   fertilizer  amendments  are  not
needed.   This  makes  it  necessary to  exceed the  annual  nitrogen require-
ment of  the  vegetation, and  potentially  results  in  nitrate  movement  to
ground water.   The  designer  may  seek  a temporary exemption  for  the  ni-
trogen limits  from the applicable  regulatory agency, because:

      •     The  large  one-time sludge  application  is  necessary to  provide
            a pool  of  nutrients to ensure  future  vegetation  growth on  the
            disturbed  land   site.    Without  the  large  sludge  application,
            vegetation may not  sufficiently establish  itself, resulting  in
                                       8-16

-------
          future erosion and surface water  pollution.   The large appli-
          cation also  provides  organic matter which  improves  the  long-
          term fertility of the soil.

     •    The  potential  for  nitrate  degradation  of  ground  water  is
          slight because of  favorable  hydrogeological  conditions at the
          site  (great  depth to ground  water, intervening  impermeable
          soil layers,  high evaporation compared to precipitation rates,
          high  dilution  in  the  aquifer,   non-drinking water  aquifer,
          etc.).

     •    If  commercial  fertilizers  are used  instead  the  potential  for
          ground water  degradation  may be  greater than if  sludge  were
          used.  Sludge is  a slow release fertilizer because the organic
          nitrogen is mineralized over many years (see Appendix B).

If  approved,  the one-time  sludge  application rate  is then based  upon
total metal  loadings.   If nitrogen controls,  however, then the proce-
dures  in  Chapter 6  or 7  apply for  calculation  of  sludge  application
rates.

     8.7.2  Calculation of  Sludge Application Rate Based'on Metal
            Loading

To  make  a one-time sludge application  rate calculation based  on  metal
loadings the designer needs the following information:

     •    Current  cumulative metal  loading  limits  applicable  to  the
          site.  Although the limits shown  in Table 6-2 are used in  this
          example, it is possible that different limits will  be applica-
          ble at the location and time the  designer is making his calcu-
          lations.

     •    The cation exchange  capacity  (CEC) (see Table 6-2)  and  pH of
          the soil, which should be made 6.5 or  higher through lime ad-
          dition, if necessary.

     •    The metal  analysis of the sludge  for Pb, Zn, Cu,  Ni,  and Cd.

With the above information, and using  Table 6-2 as an example of the as-
sumed total metal limits, a calculation of  loading rate is  made for each
metal:
                             ka
     Metric tons sludge/ha =  a
  metal allowed/ha (Table 6-2)
mg metal/kg in sludge x.0.001
     Tons sliiHap/ar - lb metal  aTlowed/ac (Table 6-2)
     Tons sludge/ac -  mg metal/kg in Slud^e x 0.001'
                        x 0.4
                                  8-17

-------
The lowest  value  generated from the five  calculations  (Pb,  Zn,  Cu,  Ni,
or Cd) determines the  maximum  one-time  sludge  application  rate  based on
metal   loadings.   The  design  example in  this  chapter  provides  example
calculations.

8.8  Monitoring Requirements

     8.8.1  General

In order to comply  with  state,  local, and federal  requirements  for land
application of sludge, both the sludge to be utilized and the site char-
acteristics must be evaluated.   If  the  land application system  complies
with applicable criteria,  it can generally be assumed that  the  sludge
will pose little probability for  adverse  effects  on  the environment  and
minimal monitoring  should be  necessary.   However,  some  states  require
additional site monitoring after the sludge has been applied.

     8.8.2  Suggested Minimal Monitoring Program

          8.8.2.1  Background Sampling (Pre-Sludge Application)

Composite soil samples should  be  collected from the  site for the deter-
mination of pH, liming requirements,  CEC,  available  nutrients and trace
rnetals prior  to  sludge addition.   Water samples  from  surface  streams,
lakes, etc.,  and private  household  wells  in the  area should be  analyzed
for nutrients  and  trace  metals prior to  sludge application.   Composite
sludge samples should  be  collected  and  analyzed to provide data  for use
in designing loading rates.

          8.8.2.2  Sampling During Sludge Applicable

As the  sludge is  delivered, grab samples should  be  taken  and  analyzed
for moisture content to adjust the delivered amount of sludge to  the de-
sign rate if  there  is  variation  in  the  sludge  moisture content.   Compo-
site sludge samples should be collected  as the sludge is applied, to do-
cument the actual  nutrient and trace metal application rate.

          8.8.2.3  Post-Sludge Application Monitoring

Monitoring of the sludge  application  site  after sludge  has been  applied
can vary  from none to extensive,  depending on state  and  local  regula-
tions  and site-specific conditions.   Generally, it is desirable  to ana-
lyze the soil  after 1  year for soil  pH  changes and heavy metals  (if re-
quired).   In  addition, surface and  ground water  analysis  for  nitrogen
forms  and trace metals may be needed.

Some states have  very  specific requirements for monitoring,  so  the  de-
signer should consult the appropriate regulatory agency.  Monitoring re-
quirements by the State of Pennsylvania  are given  (43), as an example:

The monitoring system  for each contiguous  parcel   (up  to  40 ha;  100 ac)
of land  to receive  sludge consists of  one down-gradient  ground  water
                                  8-18

-------
well   and  on-site lysimeters.    The  well  location  is  selected  after  the
ground  water flow  pattern is  determined.   Lysimeters  are  installed  at
four  locations  selected  to be  representative of overall  site conditions.
Two  lysimeters  are  installed at  each location.   Lysimeters  are  installed
to  collect  soil  percolate water at  the  90 cm   (36  in)  depth.    It is  de-
sirable  to  have  a  minimum  of three  samples  from  each  site  for  statisti-
cal  evaluation.  The fourth  installation  is a  safeguard.  Wells of near-
by  private  homes are sampled periodically  before  and  after  sludge is  ap-
plied.    Large  diverse  sites  (over  40  ha;  100 ac)  are subdivided  into
smaller  parcels  for monitoring   purposes.   Sets  of  lysimeters  (4  sta-
tions) are  installed in  each parcel.

Table  8-13  is  a minimum  list of  parameters that  should be  included  in
the  routine  analysis of  water, soils,  and  vegetation.  Additional  parame-
ters   may  be  included  in   the analyses  if  specified  on a  case-by-case
basis  (43).
                                     TABLE  8-13
                             WATER SAMPLE COLLECTION


1.  A minimum of three samples  are collected from each ground water well  and lysimeter station prior
   to sludge application on the site.

2.  After sludge application, water samples  are collected monthly for a period of 1 year.

3.  Samples  collected prior to  sludge application and for the first ,3 months following sludge appli-
   cation are analyzed for pH, Cl, N03-NS  NH4-N, Org-N, Fe, Al, Mn, Cu,  Cr, Co, Pb, Cd, Ni, Zn, and
   fecal coliforms.

4.  Water samples collected during the 4th  month to  the  llth month following sludge application are
   analyzed only for pH,  nitrogen forms  (NH4-N,  NQ3-N), trace metals  (Zn, Cu,  Pb, Co,  Ni, Cd, Cr),
   and fecal coliforms.

5.  Water samples collected during the 12th month following  sludge application are analyzed for con-
   stituents listed in No. 3, above.

6.  Water sampling is  terminated  after one  year unless  results  of the third quarterly  report indi-
   cate a need  to continue sampling.  If further sampling  is required,  samples are collected quar-
   terly until sufficient data are collected to formulate a  conclusion on the problem.

7.  The monitoring well  is maintained past  the initial year  of  sampling  to allow for the collection
   of samples at a later date, if deemed necessary.

   Soil Sample Collection

1.  Soil samples are collected  on the site  prior  to  sludge application.  Surface soil samples of the
   topsoil  material are  collected throughout the site and  analyzed  for  buffer  pH to determine lime
   requirements to raise the  soil pH to  6.5 and  to  determine the cation  exchange capacity.  Samples
   from the complete  soil profile are collected from the pits  excavated to install  the lysimeters.
   Soil samples are collected  from the 0 to 15 (0 to 6  in), 15 to 30 (6 to 12 in), 30 to 60 (12 to
   24 in),  and 60 to 90 cm (24 to 36  in) soil depth.

2.  Soil samples  are again collected  one year  following sludge application.   Samples are collected
   at the 0 to 15 (0 to 6 in), 15 to  30 6 to 12 in), and 30  to 60 cm (12 to 24  in) depth.

3.  All soil samples are  analyzed for pH, Bray P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, Fe, Al,  Mn, Cu, Zn, Cr, Co, Pb, Cd,
   Ni, and Kjeldahl nitrogen.

4.  At  the  end  of  the second year after  sludge application,  surface  soil  samples are collected and
   analyzed for pH to determine if it  is still at pH 6,5.
                                        8-19

-------
TABLE 8-13 (continued)

    Vegetation Sampling

 i.  Vegetation samples are collected for foliar analyses at the end of the first growing season fol-
    lowing  sludge application.  Separate samples are  collected  for each of the seeded  species.  All
    samples are analyazed for N, P,  K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Al, Mn, Cu, Zn, Cr, Co, Pb, Cd, and Ni.

 2.  For sites seeded in the fall, vegetation samples are collected at the end of the following grow-
    ing season.
8.9   Sludge Application Methods  and  Scheduling

      8.9.1  Transportation

Chapter 10 of this manual  discusses sludge  transport in detail.  A  spe-
cial  consideration in transport  of sludge to  reclaim mined land is  that
the   potential  may  exist  to  backhaul  sludge,  i.e., to  use  the   same
trucks,  railcars, etc.,  which transport the  mined ore to the city  for
transport  of  the sludge  from the  city  back  to  the mining  area.    For
example, in 1981-82, the city of Philadelphia  backhauled about  54,432 mt
(60,000 T) of  sludge  annually in coal trucks  a  distance  of 450 km  (280
mi) to  help reclaim strip mine sites in  western Pennsylvania  (56).

      8.9.2  Site Preparation Prior to  Sludge Application

Under federal  and state  mining  regulations,   the disturbed  mine sites
generally  must be graded  after  mining to the  approximate  original   con-
tour  of the  area.   Abandoned areas  where  no regrading has  been done,
should  also be  regraded  to a  relatively uniform,  slope of less than  15
percent  prior to sludge application.

           8.9.2.1  Scarification

Prior to sludge application, the  surface should be roughened or loosened
to  offset  the  compaction  caused during  the leveling or  grading opera-
tion.   This will  help to improve  the surface water infiltration and  per-
meability,  and slow the movement of any surface  runoff and erosion.  A
heavy mining disk or  chisel  plow is  typically necessary  to roughen  the
surface.   It  is advisable  that this be done  along contour.

           8.9.2.2  Erosion and Surface Runoff  Control Measures

Surface  runoff and soil erosion  from the sludge  application site should
be contolled.   These measures may include erosion control  blankets,  fil-
ter fences, straw bales,  and  mulch.   It may  be  necessary to construct
diversion  terraces and/or  sedimentation  ponds.  The local  Soil Conserva-
tion  Service can  be  contacted to aid in the  design  of the erosion  and
surface  runoff control plans.   In addition, see  Chapter 10 of this  man-
ual .
                                    8-20

-------
     8.9.3  Methods of Application

Methods of sludge application to land are discussed in Chapter 10.

     8.9.4  Scheduling

The  timing  of sludge  application depends  on  the climate,  soil  condi-
tions,  and  growing  season.   It  is  generally  not  advisable to apply
sludge to frozen or  snow-covered  ground,  since it cannot be immediately
incorporated  and  seeded.   If the sludge  is  applied to  frozen  or  snow
covered ground and allowed to remain on a sloped surface, the chances of
surface runoff are increased  as the  snow melts or if a heavy rain storm
occurs.  The  sludge  should  not  be applied during periods of heavy rain-
fall since this greatly increases the chances of surface runoff.   Sludge
should not  be applied in periods  of  prolonged extreme heat or dry  con-
ditions, since considerable  amounts  of  nitrogen  will  be lost before the
vegetation has a chance to establish itself.  If sludges are applied and
allowed to  dry  on  the soil  surface,  from  20  to  70 percent of the NH^-N
will be volatilized and lost to the atmosphere as NHU.  The exact amount
of NH4-N lost will  depend on soil, sludge, and climate conditions (53).

Sludge applications  should  be scheduled to accommodate the growing  sea-
son  of the  selected  plant species.   If the soil  conditions are  too wet
when sludge is applied,  the soil  structure may be damaged, bulk  density
increased,  and  infiltration  decreased  due to heavy  vehicle  traffic on
the  wet  soiU   This may increase the  possibility of  soil  erosion and
surface runoff.  Also the tractors or  trucks  may experience difficulty
driving on the wet soil.

If  the  area to receive sludge  is  covered  under federal or state mining
regulations, the sludge application must be scheduled to comply with the
revegetation  regulations.  For example, in  Pennslvania mined land can be
seeded in the spring as soon as the ground is workable, usually early in
March, but  seeding must terminate  by May 15.   Late summer seeding season
is  from August  1 until September  15.   In Pennsylvania, sludge applica-
tion and  seeding of  mined land covered by these regulations must comply
with these  requirements.  The designer  should check on requirements for
his  locale.

          8.9.4.1  Storage

Some  need  for sludge  storage  will  be likely.   It may  be either at the
treatment plant and/or at the application site.  In general, when liquid
sludge is used, storage  is  provided at  the  treatment  plant  in digesters,
holding tanks, or  lagoons.   At application sites where large quantities
of  sludge are utilized,  storage lagoons may be built at the utilization
site.

If  dewatered  sludge  is used,  storage may  be more advantageously stored
at  the application  site.    Small  storage areas  are  desirable  at the
treatment  plant  for times  of  inclement weather or equipment breakdown.
                                  8-21

-------
At  currently mined  sites,  it may be necessary to transport and stockpile
dewatered  sludge at the  site while the area is being backfilled and top-
soiled.   This  would allow large quantities of sludge to be applied in a
relatively  short period  of time.   Stockpiling  of sludge at  the site
prior to  application  would allow for more efficient utilization of man-
power and  equipment  for  spreading  large  quantities of sludge in a short
period of time.  Some  states have specific regulations concerning sludge
stockpiling  on the  site for  short  periods  of time.   For  example,  in
Pennsylvania,  the  sludge storage area must be  diked to prevent surface
water from running into  or  out  of the storage area.

          8.9.4.2  Other Conditions

Some  states  have included  various conditions that  must  be met in order
to  be granted  a  permit to apply sludge to disturbed land.  For example,
some  states  do not allow sludge to  be  utilized for the revegetation of
inactive mines  or  active coal   refuse piles on  slopes  exceeding 15 per-
cent.   Dairy cattle may  not be allowed  to graze the  land  for at least
two months after sludge  application.   Many states have regulations con-
cerning buffer  areas  where sludge cannot  be  applied.   Pennsylvania re-
quires that sludge  cannot  be applied  within  30 m (98 ft) of streams, 90
m  (300 ft)  of water supplies,  8 m  (26 ft) of bedrock  outcrop, 15 m (50
ft) of property lines, or 90 m  (300 ft) of occupied dwellings.  In addi-
tion to sludge management  regulations, if the site is an actively mined
area, all  mining regulations concerning  revegetation  must  also  be con-
sidered in the design of the sludge utilization project.

8.10  Design Example for Sludge Application to Disturbed Land

It  is  intended to  reclaim  on  a trial  basis a  portion  of  a drastically
disturbed areas with a one-time application of sludge.  The single large
application should  provide  organic  matter and nutients required to sup-
port establishment  of  a  mixture of grass  and legumes.   The  site may in
the future be  used  for agricultural  purposes,  so  the cumulative (total)
metal loadings  are a  design  concern.   The  state  regulatory  agency  is
aware that the  one-time  heavy  application of sludge may  result  in tem-
porary leaching  of excess  nitrates  to the  ground water, and requires
monitoring to quantify the  impact.

     8.10.1  Sludge Characteristics

The sludge to be applied is an anaerobically  digested, dewatered sludge
with an average analysis on a dry weight  basis,  as follows:
     Solids - 54%
     Total N - 1.5%
     NH4-N - 0.6%
     Total P - 0.5%
     Total K - 0.1%
Pb - 500 mg/kg
Zn - 2,000 mg/kg
Cu - 500 mg/kg
Ni - 100 mg/kg
Cd - 50 mg/kg
                                  8-22

-------
     8.10.2  Site Characteristics
Location:  Mid-Atlantic
Area:  2 ha (5 ac)
Soil pH:  3.9
Soil CEC:  13 meq/100 g
Soil Permeability:  0.2
Depth to Ground Water:
Annual Precipitation:
                             State
                             cm/hr
                             5 m (16 ft)
                            80 cm (31.5 in)
     8.10.3  Calculation of Maximum Sludge Application Rate Based on
             Metal  Loadings

Table  6-2  presents  suggested  cumulative  limits  for metals  applied  to
agricultural  cropland as a function of soil CEQ.   For convenience, these
suggested limits are repeated below  for  soil  CEQ  in  the range 5-15 meq/
100 g, typical of the design site soil:

     Pb - 1,120 kg/ha (1,000 Ib/ac)
     Zn - 560 kg/ha (500 Ib/ac
     Cu - 280 kg/ha (250 Ib/ac)
     Ni - 280 kg/ha (250 Ib/ac)
     Cd - 10 kg/ha (8.9 Ib/ac)

Combining the above metal loading limits with the sludge characteristics
in the  equation below allows  determination  of the  maximum  loading for
the limiting metal :
            mt sludge/ha =
                                  kg/ha metal allowed
                            (0.001) (mg/kg metal in sludge)
For zinc:
       mt
                                                 =  28°  mt/ha
Using similar calculations, the loading limits for all of the metals are
as follows:
     Metal

       Pb
       Zn
       Cu
       Ni
       Cd
                  Maximum Sludge Application  Rate

                      Mt/Ha              T/Ac
                      2S240
                        280
                        560
                      2,800
                        200
  999
  125
  250
1,250
   89
                                   8-23

-------
 Cadmium  is the  limiting  metal  in this  case,  allowing  a maximum sludge
 application of  200 mt/ha  (89 T/ac).

      8.10.4   Lime Application Determination

 Based upon appropriate soils  tests,  it was determined that agricultural
 lime  application of  12.3 mt/ha  (5.5  T/ac)  is sufficient  to  raise the
 soil  pH to 6.5.

      8.10.5  Calculation  of Nutrient Application

 The  nutrient  content  of  the  200 mt/ha  (89  T/ac) of sludge  applied  is
 calculated as follows:
     Nutrient Applied  in kg/ha = % Nutrient in Sludge x Application
     Rate x 10
     Using a similar calculations for the other nutrients:

     Total N = 3,000 kg/ha (2,670 Ib/ac)
     NH4-N = 1,200 kg/ha (1,068 Ib/ac)
     Organic N = 3,000-1,200 = 1,800 kg/ha (1,602 Ib/ac)
     Total P = 1,000 kg/ha (890 Ib/ac)
     Total K = 200 kg/ha (178 Ib/ac)

          8.10.5.1  Calculation of Potential  Nitrate Leaching into the
                    Ground Water

It  is  possible to make  a  conservative estimate of the  quantity  of  ni-
trates potentially leaching into the ground water by (1) calculating  the
available nitrogen added by  the  sludge application,  (2) subtracting  the
estimated nitrogen  uptake  by the vegetation and other  nitrogen  losses,
and  (3)  calculating the maximum  potential  concentration of  excess  ni-
trates percolating from the site into the underlying aquifer.

Step 1 is to calculate the available nitrogen in the first year and suc-
ceeding years from a one-time sludge application of 200 mt/ha (89 T/ac):


     NH4-N applied = 1,200 kg/ha (1,068 Ib/ac)
     Organic N applied = 1,800 kg/ha (1,602 Ib/ac)


All of the NH4-N  applied is assumed to be available  in  the  first year.
As discussed in Section 6.4.3.1, a  fraction  (percentage)  of  the  organic
nitrogen applied mineralizes during the first year  after sludge applica-
tion, and each year  thereafter.   Referring to  Table  6-7,  it  is  assumed
for this  design  example that  the organic N mineralization  rates are:
first year -  20%;  second year - 10%; third year - 5%;  succeeding  years -
3% each year.
                                  8-24

-------
Experience with wastewater irrigation indicates that  about  10  to 15%of
the nitrogen available is lost by unaccounted for means (13).  The path-
ways suggested are  volatilization and denitrification.   It  is  conserva-
tive to  assume that  similar  unaccounted for  losses  of 10% will  occur
with incorporated sludges applied on a  one-time  basis,  since the miner-
alization of organic  N will make ammonia-N  available  for volatilization
or nitrification.  This nitrogen reduction applies only to the  inorganic
nitrogen fraction in  the  sludge/soil mixture mixture,  and  should not be
taken  if  specific  reductions  for volatilization  and/or denitrification
have previosuly been deducted.                        -:

First Year Calculation:
NH4-N     1,200 kg/ha
Organic N (1,800 kg/ha)
  x 20% mineralization rate

  Subtotal

Deduct for unaccountable losses (10%)
Deduct for vegetation uptake

  Total excess available N
  in the first year

Second Year Calculation:

NH4-N     0 kg/ha
Organic N remaining (1,440 kg/ha)
  x 10% mineralization rate

  Subtotal

Deduct for unaccountable losses (10%)
Deduct for vegetation uptake
                                            360  kg/ha

                                          1,560  kg/ha

                                          (156)  kg/ha
                                          (300)  kg/ha

                                          1,104  kg/ha  (983  Ib/ac)
                                            144  kg/ha

                                            144  kg/ha

                                           (14)  kg/ha
                                          (300)  kg/ha
  Total excess available
  in the second year
                                           -170  kg/ha


(There is a deficit,  not  an  excess  in  the  second year)
Ground water contamination from leaching of excess available nitrogen is
only a  concern  during  the first year after  sludge  application.   A very
conservative estimate  can be made  of the concentration of  nitrates  in
the percolate from the site during the first year.  This calculation as-
sumes that  all   of  the  excess  nitrogen  is  converted to nitrates,  and
there is no dilution of percolate by existing ground water.

     Assume 80 cm annual net precipitation.
     Assume 12% evaporation losses.
                                  8-25

-------
If  all  of the  excess  nitrogen  in the sludge applied  is  mobile  (an un-
likely  and  very conservative assumption), the  concentration  of  nitrate
in the  percolate is calculated below:
(1.104 kg/ha)  (106 mg/kg)  (1.000 cm3/!)  =

     (108 cm2/ha)  (80 cm)  (0.80)
                                                         mg/]
A potential concentration  of  172  mg/1  of nitrate nitrogen in the perco-
late from the site during the first year after sludge application may be
unacceptable to the  regulatory  agency,  even  though  the contamination is
a temporary 1-year  effect, and there is  no  extraction of potable water
from the aquifer.

          8.10.5.2  Recalculation of Sludge Application Rate Based on
                    Percolate Nitrate Concentration

Assuming that  the regulatory  agency allows  no  higher than 10  mg/1  of
nitrate concentration in the percolate from the site, the maximum excess
available nitrogen application rate which will achieve this limit can be
calculated:
              Max.  Excess  Avail.  N  =


 (10 mg/1)  (103  cm2/ha)  (80 cm)  (0.80)  =

      (106  mg/ha)  (1,000 cm3/!)
Maximum allowable excess N
  (from above calculation)

Vegetation nitrogen uptake
  (determined previously)

  Subtotal

Unaccountable nitrogen losses
  (assumed previously)

Total allowable available N application
                                                       kg/ha
                                64  kg/ha


                                300 kg/ha

                                364 kg/ha


                                36  kg/ha

                                400 kg/ha  (365 Ib/ac)
The  sludge  application rate corresponding  to application of 400  kg/ha
(356  Ib/ac)  of  available  nitrogen  is  calculated  using the  following
equation:


      Mr  
-------
As previously  noted,  the above calculation procedure  results  in  a very
conservative  sludge  application rate.   See the  Venango,  Pennsylvania,
case study  in  Appendix D for  first year  and  long-term nitrate measure-
ments  in  the ground  water  at  an actual  site  similar to that  used for
this design example.

8.11  References

  1.  Aldon,  E.  F.   Use of  Organic Amendments  for Biomass  Production on
     Reclaimed  Strip  Mines  in  the  Southwest.   In:  Land Reclamation and
     Biomass  Production  with  Municipal  Wastewater  and  Sludge.   W.  E.
     Sopper,  E.  M.  Seaker,  and R.-'K.  Bastian,  eds.   Pennsylvania State
     University Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 317-320.

  2.  All away,  W.  H.   Agronomic Controls  Over  the Environmental Cycling
     of Trace Metals.  Adv. Agron., 20:235-271, 1968.

  3.  Barnhisel,  R.   I.    Sampling  Surface-Mined  Coal  Spoils.   AGR-41,
     University  of  Kentucky Department of Agronomy,  Lexington, 1975.  4
     pp.

 4.  Bennett, 0. L., E. L. Mathias, W. H. Armiger, and
     Plant Materials and Their Requirements for Growth
     In:   Reclamation  of Drastically  Disturbed Lands.
     and P. Sutton, eds.  American Society of Agronomy.
     sin, 1978.  pp. 285-306.
J. N. Jones, Jr.
in Humid Regions.
  F.  W.  Schaller
 Madison, Wiscon-
  5.  Berg,  W.  A.   Limitations  in the Use of  Soil  Tests on Drastically
     Disturbed  Lands.   In:   Reclamation  of Drastically Disturbed Lands,
     F.  W.  Schaller and P. Sutton,  eds.   American Society of Agronomy,
     Madison, Wisconsin, 1978.  pp.  653-664.

  6.  Berry,  C.  R.   Sewage  Sludge Aids Reclamation  of Disturbed Forest
     Land  in  the Southeast.  In:   Land  Reclamation and Biomass Produc-
     tion  with  Municipal Wastewater and Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper,  E. M.
     Seaker,  and  R.  K.  Bastian, eds.   Pennsylvania  State  University
     Press, University  Park, 1982.   pp. 307-316.

  7.  Bledsoe, C.  S., ed.  Municipal  Sludge Application to Pacific North-
     west Forest  Lands.  Contribution 41, Institute of Forest Resources,
     University  of  Washington, Seattle, 1981.  155 pp.

  8.  Blessin, C.  W., and W. J.  Garcia.   Heavy Metals in the Food Chain
     by  Translocation  to Crops  Grown on  Sludge-Treated Strip Mine Land.
     In:   Utilization  of Municipal  Sewage Effluent and Sludge on Forest
     and  Disturbed Land.   W.  E.  Sopper  and S.  W.  Kerr, eds.   Pennsyl-
     vania  State  University Press.   University Park,  1979.  pp. 471-482.
  9.  Boesch,  M.  J.   Reclaiming the Strip Mines at Palzo.
     15(l):24-25, 1974.
    Compost Sci.,
                                  8-27

-------
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
17
18.
19
Cavey, J.  V., and J.  A.  Bowles.   Use of  Sewage  Sludge to Improve
Taconite Tailings as a Medium for Plant Growth.  In:  Land Reclama-
tion  and  Biomass Production with Municipal  Wastewater  and Sludge.
W. E.  Sopper,  E. M.  Seaker, and  R.  K.  Bastian,  eds.  Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 400-409.

Cole, D. W.  Response of Forest Ecosystems to Sludge and Wastewater
Applications:  A Case  Study in  Western  Washington.  In:  Land Rec-
lamation  and  Biomass  Production  with   Municipal  Wastewater  and
Sludge.  W. E. Sopper, E. M. Seaker, and R. K. Bastian,  eds.  Penn-
sylvania  State  University Press,  University  Park,  1982.   pp. 274-
291.

Corey, J. C., G. J.  Hollod, D.  M. Stone, C. G. Wells, W. H. McKee,
and S. M. Bartell.   Environmental  Effects of Utilization of Sewage
Sludge for  Biomass  Production.   In:  Land Reclamation  and Biomass
Production with  Municipal Wastewater and  Sludge.   W.  E. Sopper, E.
M. Seaker,  and  R.  K. Bastian, eds.   Pennsylvania State University
Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 266-273.
     U.S.  EPA.    Process  Design  Manual,  Land  Treatment
     Wastewater.  EPA 625/1-81-013, October 1981.
                                                       of  Municipal
14.  Criteria for Classification  of  Solid  Waste Disposal  Facilities and
     Practices  (40  CFR  Part  257).   Federal  Register,  44:53438-53468,
     September 13, 1979.
Domenowske,  R.  S.   Seattle  (Metro)  Sludge  Utilization  Research.
In:   National Conference  on  Municipal  and Industrial Sludge Utili-
zation and Disposal, Washington, D.C., May 1980.  pp. 76-89.

Edmonds, R. L., and D. W. Cole, eds.  Use of Dewatered Sludge As an
Amendment for Forest Growth.  Center for Ecosystem Studies, Univer-
sity of Washington, Seattle, April 1976-January 1983.  4 Volumes.
Feuerbacher, T. A.,  R.
of Sewage  Sludge  As a
Surface Mined  or  Coal.
face  Mining Hydrology,
of Kentucky, Lexington,
                             I*  Barnhisel,  and  M.  D.  Ellis.   Utilization
                            Spoil Amendment in the  Reclamation  of Lands
                              In:  Proceedings of the  Symposium on Sur-
                             Sedimentology, and  Reclamation,  University
                             1981.  pp. 187-192.
Fitzgerald, P. R.   Effects  of Natural  Exposure of Cattle and Swine
to Anaerobically  Digested  Sludge.   In:   Land  Reclamation and Bio-
mass Production with  Municipal  Wastewater and Sludge.   W.  E. Sop-
per, E. M. Seaker, and R. K. Bastian, eds.  Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 353-367.

Fitzgerald, P. R.   Recovery and Utilization  of Strip-Mined Land by
Application of Anaerobically Digested Sludge and Livestock Grazing.
In:  Utilization  of Municipal  Sewage  Effluent  and Sludge on Forest
and Disturbed  Land.   W. E.  Sopper and S. N.  Kerr,  eds.  Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, University Park, ,1979.  pp. 497-506.
                                  8-28

-------
20.  Franks, W. A., Persinger, A.  lob.,  and  P.  Inyangetor.  Utilization
     of Sewage Effluent and Sludge to Reclaim Soil Contaminated by Toxic
     Fumes from a Zinc  Smelter.   In:   Land Reclamation and Biomass Pro-
     duction with Municipal Wastewater and Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper, E. M.
     Seaker,  and  R.  K.  Bastian,  eds.   Pennsylvania  State  University
     Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 219-251

21.  Gaffney, 6.  R.,  and  R. Ellertson.   Ion  Uptake  of Redwinged Black-
     birds Nesting on Sludge-Treated  Spoils.   In:   Utilization of Muni-
     cipal Sewage Effluent  and Sludge on  Forest and  Disturbed Land.  W.
     E.  Sopper  and  S.  N.  Kerr,  eds.    Pennsylvania  State  University
     Press, University Park, 1979.  pp. 507-515.

22.  Griebel, G.  E., W. H.  Arminger,  J.  F.  Parr, D.  W. Steck, and J. A.
     Adam.   Use  of  Composted Sewage  Sludge  in  Revegetation of Surface-
     Mined  Areas.   In:   Utilization  of  Municipal   Sewage  Effluent and
     Sludge on Forest and Disturbed  Land.   W. E. Sopper and S. N. Kerr,
     eds.   Pennsylvania State University  Press,  University Park, 1979.
     pp. 293-305.            :

23.  Haghiri,  F., and  P.  Sutton.   Vegetation  Establishment  on  Acidic
     Mine Spoils  as Influenced by  Sludge  Application.   In:  Land Recla-
     mation and Biomass Production with Municipal Wastewater and Sludge.
     W.  E.  Sopper,  E.  M.  Seaker,  and R.  K.  Bastian, eds.   Pennsylvania
     State University Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 433-446.

24.  Hill, R. D., K.  R. HinkTe,  and' R. S. Klingensmith.  Reclamation of
     Orphan  Mined Lands  with  Municipal  Sludges:    Case  Studies.   In:
     Utilization  of  Municipal  Sewage Effluent  and Sludge  on  Forest and
     Disturbed Land.   W.   E.  Sopper  and S.  N.  Kerr, eds.   Pennsylvania
     State University Press, University Park, 1979.  pp. 423-443.

25.  Hinesly, T.  D., K. E.  Redborg, E. L. Ziegler, and  I. H. Rose-Innes.
     Effects  of  Chemical  and   Physical  Changes  in  Strip-Mined  Spoil
     Amended with Sewage  Sludge  on the Uptake of Metals by Plants.  In:
     Land  Reclamation  and  Biomass Production  with  Municipal  Wastewater
     and  Sludge.   W. E.  Sopper, E.  M. Seaker,  and  R.  K.  Bastian, eds.
     Pennsylvania State University  Press,  University  Park,  1982.   pp.
     339-352.

26.  Hinesly, T.  D., E. I.  Ziegler, and G. L. Barrett.  Residual Effects
     of  Irrigating  Corn with Digested Sewage  Corn  with Digested Sewage
     Sludge.  J.  Environ. Qual., 8:35-38, 1979.

27.  Hinkle, K. R.   Use of Municipal  Sludge in the  Reclamation of Aban-
     doned  Pyrite Mines in  Virginia.   In:   Land Reclamation and Biomass
     Production with Municipal Wastewater  and Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper, E.
     M.  Seaker,  and  R.  K.  Bastian,  eds.   Pennsylvania State University
     Press, University Park, 1982.  'pp. 421-432.
                                  8-29

-------
28
29
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Hornick,  S.  B.   Crop Production  on  Waste Amended  Gravel  Spoils.
In:  Land Reclamation and Biomass Production  with Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge.   W. E.  Sopper,  E.  M.  Seaker,  and R. K. Bastian,
eds.   Pennsylvania State  University  Press,  University Park, 1982.
pp. 207-218.

Jones, M., and R.  S.  Cunningham.  Sludge Used for Strip Mine Resto-
ration at Palzo:   Project Development and Compliance Water Quality
Monitoring.    In:    Utilization  "of  Municipal  Sewage  Effluent  and
Sludge on  Forest and  Disturbed  Land.   W. E.  Sopper and S. N. Kerr,
eds.   Pennsylvania State  University  Press,  University Park, 1979.
pp. 369-377.

Joost, R.  E.,  J. H.  Jones, and  F. L. Olsen.   Physical and Chemical
Properties of Coal Refuse As Affected by Deep Incorporation of Sew-
age Sludge and/or  Limestone.  In:   Proceedings  of the Symposium on
Surface  Mining Hydrology, Sedimentology,  and  Reclamation,  Univer-
sity of Kentucky,  Lexington, December 1981.  pp. 307-312.

Kardos,  L.  T., W.-E.  Sopper,  B. R.  Edgerton, and  L.  E. DiLissio.
Sewage Effluent and Liquid Digested Sludge Sludge as Aids to Reveg-
etation  of Strip  Mine Spoil Anthracite Coal  Refuse  Banks.   In:
Utilization  of Municipal  Sewage Effluent  and Sludge  on  Forest and
Disturbed  Land.   W.  E.  Sopper  and S. N.  Kerr,  eds.   Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park, 1979.  pp. 315-331.

Kerr, S.  N.,  and W.  E. Sopper.   One Alternative to Ocean Disposal
of Sludge:  Recycling Through Land Reclamation.   In:  Land Reclama-
tion and  Biomass  Production with  Municipal  Wastewater and Sludge.
W.  E.  Sopper,  E.  M.  Seaker, and  R.  K.  Bastian,  eds.   Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 105-117.

Kerr, S.  N.,  W.  E. Sopper, and  B. R. Edgerton.   Reclaiming Anthra-
cite Refuse Banks  with Heat-Dried Sewage Sludge.   In:   Utilization
of  Municipal  Sewage  Effluent  and  Sludge  on Forest  and Disturbed
Land.  W. E.  Sopper  and  S.  W.  Kerr,  eds.   Pennsylvania ,State Uni-
versity Press.  University Park, 1979.   pp. 333-351.

Kerr, S.  N., and W. E. Sopper.  Utilization of Municipal Wastewater
and Sludge  for Forest Biomass Production on  Marginal  and Disturbed
Land.  In:   Land  Reclamation and Biomass .Production with Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge.   W. E. Sopper, E. M.  Seaker, and R. K. Bas-
tian, eds.   Pennsylvania  State  University Press,  University Park,
1982.  pp. 75-87.

Lejcher,  T. R., and  S. H. Kunkle.  Restoration  of Acid Spoil Banks
with  Treated  Sewage  Sludge.    In:    Recycling Treated  Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge Through Forst and Cropland.  W. E. Sopper and
L. T. Kardos, eds.  Pennsylvania State University Press, University
Park, 1973.  pp. 165-178.                                      .
                                  8-30

-------
36.  Lue-Hing,  C.,  S. J.  Sedita,  and K.  C.  Rao.   Viral  and Bacterial
     Levels Resulting from the Land Application of Digested. Sludge.  In:
     Utilization of  Municipal  Sewage Effluent and Sludge  on  Forest and
     Disturbed  Land.   W. E.  Sopper  and S. N. Kerr,  eds.   Pennsylvania
     State University Press, University Park, 1979.  pp. 445-562.

37.  Mathias, E. L.,  0.  L.  Bennett, and P.  E. Lundberg.   Use of Sewage
     Sludge to  Establish Tall  Fescue on Strip Mine  Spoils in West Vir-
     ginia.  In:  Utilization of Municipal  Sewage Effluent and Sludge on
     Forest  and Disturbed  Land.    W.  E.  Sopper  and  S.  N.  Kerr,  ,eds.
     Pennsylvania State  University Press,  University Park,  1979.   pp.
     307-314.

38.  McCormick, F. Y., and  L.  H.  Borden.   Percolate  from Spoils Treated
     with Sewage Effluent and Sludge.   In:   Ecology and Reclamation of
     Devastated  Land.    R.  J. Hutnick  and 6. Davis,  eds.   Gordon and
     Breach, New York, 1973.  Vol. 1, pp. 239-250.

39.  Melsted, S. W.   Soilr-Plant Relationships.   In:   Proceedings of the
     Joint  Conference  on Recycling  Municipal  Sludges and  Effluents on
     Land, Champaign, Illinois, July 1973.   pp. 121-128.

40.  Morrison, D. 6., and J. Bardell.  The Response of Native Herbaceous
     Prairie Species  on  Iron-Ore Tailings  Under  Different  Rates of Fer-
     tilizer and Sludge  Application.   In:   Land  Reclamation and Biomass
     Production with Municipal Wastewater  and  Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper, E.
     M. Seaker,  and  R.  K.  Bastian, eds.   Pennsylvania State  University
     Press, University Park, 1982.  pp. 410-420.

41.  Municipal Sludge Management:   Environmental  'Factors.  EPA 430/9-77-
     004, Washington, D.C., October  1977.   152 pp.   (Available from Na-
     tional Technical Information Service,  Springfield, Virginia, PB-277
     622)

42.  Paone, J., P. Struthers, and W. Johnson.  Extent of Disturbed Lands
     and Major Reclamation Problems in the United States.  In:  Reclama-
     tion of Drastically Disturbed Lands.  F. W.  Schaller and P. Sutton,
     eds.  American  Society of Agronomy, Madison,  Wisconsin,  1978.   pp.
     11-22.

43.  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,  interim,Guide-
     lines for  Sewage  Sludge  Use  for Land Reclamation.   In:   Rules and
     Regulations of  the  Department of Environmental  Resources, Common-
     wealth of  Pennsylvania,  Chapter  75,  Subchapter  C,  Section  75.32,
     1977.

44.  Permanent  Regulatory  Program  Implementing  Section  501(b)  of  the
     Surface Mining  Control and Reclamation Act  of 1977;  Final  Environ-
     mental Statement.   OSM-EIS1,  U.S.  Department  of Interior,  Washing-
     ton, D.C., 1979.
                                  8-31

-------
45.  Peterson, J.  R.,  C.  Lue-Hing,  J. Gschivind, R. I. Pietz, and D. R.
     Zenz.  Metropolitan Chicago's Fulton County Sludge Utilization Pro-
     gram.  In:   Land  Reclamation and Biomass Production with Municipal
     Wastewater and  Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper,  E. M. Seaker, and R. K. Bas-
     tian,  eds.    Pennsylvania State  University  Press, University Park,
     1982.  pp. 322-338.

46.  Peterson, J.  R.,  R.  I.  Pietz,  and C. Lue-Hing.   Water,  Soil, and
     Crop  Quality  of   Illinois   Coal  Mine  Spoil   Amended  with  Sewage
     Sludge.   In:   Utilization of Municipal  Sewage Effluent and Sludge
     on  Forest  and Disturbed  Land.   W.  E.  Sopper  and S.  N. Kerr, eds.
     Pennsylvania  State University Press,  University Park, 1979.   pp.
     359-368.

47.  Plummer, A. P.  Revegetation of Disturbed Intermountain Area Sites.
     In:  Reclamation and Use of  Disturbed Land in the Southwest.  J. L.
     Thames,  ed.   University of Arizona Press,  Tucson,  1977.   pp. 302-
     339.

48.  Rafaill,  B.  L.  and W.  G.  Vogel.  A Guide  for Vegetating Surface-
     Mined  Lands   for  Wildlife in Eastern  Kentucky and  West  Virginia.
     FWS/OBS-78-84, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978.  89 pp.
49.
50.
51.
     Roth, P.  L.,  B.  D. Jayko, and  G.  T.  Weaver.   Initial Survival and
     Performance of Woody  Plant  Species on Sludge-Treated Spoils of the
     Palzo Mine.    In:    Utilization of  Municipal  Sewage  Effluent and
     Sludge on Forest and  Disturbed  Land.   W. E. Sopper and S. N. Kerr,
     eds.   Pennsylvania State University  Press,  University Park,  1979.
     pp. 389-394.

     Roth, P.  L.,  G.  T.  Weaver,  and M. Morin.   Restoration  of a Woody
     Ecosystem on a Sludge-Amended Devastated Mine-Site.  In:   Land Rec-
     lamation  and  Biomass  Production  with  Municipal  Wastewater  and
     Sludge.   W. E. Sopper, E. M. Seaker, and R. K. Bastian, eds.  Penn-
     sylvania  State University Press, University Park,  1982.   pp.  368-
     385.
     Scanlon, D. H., C. Duggan, and S. D.
     Compost for Strip Mine Reclamation.
                                          Bean.  Evaluation of Municipal
                                          Compost Sci.} 14(3):4-8, 1973.
52.  Schneider, K.  R.,  R. J.  Wittwer,  and S. B.  Carpenter.   Trees Re-
     spond to  Sewage  Sludge  in Reforestation of Acid  Spoil.   In:   Pro-
     ceedings  of  the  Symposium on Surface Mining Hydrology, Sedimentol-
     ogy, and  Reclamation,  University of  Kentucky,  Lexington, December
     1981.  pp. 291-296.

53.  Sludge Treatment and Disposal.  Vol. 2.  EPA-625/4-78-012, Environ-
     mental Research Information Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1978.
     pp.  57-112.    (Available  from National  Technical  Information Ser-
     vice, Springfield, Virginia, PB-299 593)
                                  8-32

-------
54.  Sopper, W. E., and E. M. Seaker.  A Guide for Revegetation of Mined
     Land in the Eastern United States Using Municipal Sludge.  Pennsyl-
     vania State University Institute for Research on Land and Water Re-
     sources, May 1983.

55.  Sopper, W.,  and  St  N. Kerr.   Mine  Land Reclamation with Municipal
     Sludge - Pennsylvania Demonstration Program.  In:  Land Reclamation
     and Biomass  Product  with Municipal Wastewater  and,Sludge.   W.  E.
     Sopper, E. M.  Seaker, and R.  K. Bastian,  eds.   Pennsylvania State
     University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1982.  pp. 55-74.

56.  Sopper, W.  E.,  S. N. Kerr,  E.  M.  Seaker,  W. F. Pounds,  and  D.  T.
     Murray.   The Pennsylvania  Program  for Using Municipal  Sludge for
     Mine Land  Reclamation.   In:    Proceedings  of  the Symposium on Sur-
     face Mining  Hydrology,  Sedimentology,  and  Reclamation,  University
     of Kentucky, Lexington, December 1981.  pp. 283-290.

57.  Stucky, D. 0., and T. S. Newman.  Effect of Dried Anaerobically Di-
     gested Sewage Sludge on Yield and Element Accumulation of Fall Fes-
     cue and Alfalfa.  J. Environ. Qual., 6:271-273, 1977.

58.  Stucky, D. J., and J. Bauer.  Establishment, Yield, and Ion Accumu-
     lation  of  Several Forage Species  on  Sludge-Treated  Spoils  of the
     Palzo  Mine.    In:    Utilization  of Municipal  Sewage  Effluent  and
     Sludge on Forest  and  Disturbed Land.   W.  E. Sopper and S. N.  Kerr,
     eds.   Pennsylvania  State University  Press,  University Park,  1979.
     pp. 379-387.                                          .         -

59.  Sundberg,  W.  J., D.  L.  Borders, and  G.  L. Albright.   Changes  in
     Soil Microfungal  Populations in  the Palzo  Strip Mine Spoil Follow-
     ing Sludge Application.   In:  Utilization  of  Municipal  Sewage Ef-
     fluent and Sludge on  Forest  and Disturbed  Land.   W.  E.  Sopper and
     S.  N.  Kerr,  eds.  Pennsylvania  State  University Press,  University
     Park, 1979.  pp. 463-469.

60.  Surface Coal Mining  and  Reclamation  Permanent Program Regulations:
     Revegetation (30  CFR  Parts  816 and 817).   Federal  Register,  March
     23, 1982.

61.  Sutton, P.,  and J.  P.  Vimmerstedt.    Treat Stripmine Spoils  with
     Sewage Sludge.  Ohio Report, 58:121-123, 1973.
62.
Svoboda, D., G. Smout, G.  T.  Weaver,  and P.  L. Roth.  Accumulation
of Heavy  Metals  in Selected Woody  Plant .Species  on Sludge-Treated
Strip Mine Spoils  at the  Palzo  Site,  Shawnee National  Forest.   In:
Utilization of Municipal  Sewage Effluent and  Sludge on  Forest  and
Disturbed Land.   W. E. Sopper  and S. N. Kerr, eds.   Pennsylvania
State University Press, University Park, 1979.  pp. 395-405.
63.
Thornthwaite, C.  W.   An Approach Toward
of Climate.  Geogr. R., 38:55-94, 1948.
a Rational Classification
                                  8-33

-------
64.  Tunison, K. W.,  B.  C.  Bearce, and H. A.  Menser,  Jr.   The Utiliza-
     tion of Sewage Sludge:   Bark  Screenings  Compost  for  the Culture of
     Blueberries on Acid  Minespoil.   In:   Land  Reclamation  and Biomass
     Production with Municipal Wastewater and  Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper, E.
     M. Seaker, and R.  K. Bastian, eds.  Pennsylvania State University
     Press, University Park, 1982.   pp. 195-206.

65.  U.S.  Soil  Conservation Service.    The  Status of  Land  Disturbed by
     Surface  Mining  in  the  United  States.    SCS-TP-158.   Washington,
     D.C., 1977.  124 pp.

66.  Urie, D. H., C.  K.  Losche,  and F. D.  McBride.  Leachate Quality in
     Acid Mine-Spoil  Columns and Field Plots Treated with Municipal Sew-
     age  Sludge.   In:    Land Reclamation and Biomass Production  with
     Municipal Wastewater and Sludge.   W.  E.  Sopper,  E.  M.  Seaker, and
     R. K.  Bastian,  eds. 'Pennsylvania State  University  Press, Univer-
     sity Park, 1982.   pp. 386-398.

67.  Younos, T. M., and  M.  D. Smolen.  Simulation of Infiltration in a
     Sewage Sludge Amended Mine Soil.   In:   Proceedings of the Symposium
     on Surface Mining  Hydrology,  Sedimentology,  and Reclamation, Uni-
     versity of Kentucky, Lexington, December 1981.  pp. 319-324.
                                   8-34

-------
                                CHAPTER  9

             PROCESS DESIGN FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION TO LANDS
                         DEDICATED FOR DISPOSAL
9.1  General
A OLD project has the following general characteristics:
     4.
     5.
         The primary  purpose of  the  site is  long-term  sludge applica-
         tion,  i.e., it is a  dedicated  disposal  site for land spreading
         of sludge.  Any additional site activities or benefits, such as
         growing of agricultural  crops or improvement of soil character-
         istics, are secondary to the primary sludge application activ-
         ity.

         Typically,  sludge  application  rates are  substantially higher
         than used  for the  agriculture,  forest and  disturbed  land op-
         tions  discussed in previous chapters.   There may be some over-
         lap, however,  in specific  cases,  especially  where  crops  are
         grown  on the site.  Higher application rates reduce the area of
         land required and may also simplify sludge distribution.

         Typically, the  agency  which  is  implementing the  project  owns
         the site,  or has a long-term lease which allows the agency sub-
         stantial  discretion  in   use  of  the  land for  sludge  spreading
         purposes.
         The  site  is  more  carefully  designed,
         than are sites using other options.
managed,  and  monitored
         Site  design  and operations are  focused  upon containing within
         the  site  any environmentally  detrimental  sludge constituents.
         Surface runoff,  ground  water  leachate,  and harvested crops (if
         any)  are  controlled  to prevent  adverse effects.   Regulatory
         agency limits  and  controls are  virtually  always required, and
         permitting procedures often involve many governmental agencies.

Sludge for OLD site application  should  be stabilized to minimize odors,
vector breeding,  and pathogen transmission.  Once stabilized, sludge can
be applied to the dedicated site either in liquid or dewatered form.

This chapter  discusses  the OLD  process design,  and includes regulatory
considerations, site  investigation,  determination of application rates,
site preparation,  application  methods,  monitoring  needs,  and site clo-
sure.  A design example  is  provided  at  the end of the chapter.  Most of
the  discussion pertains  to sites  where  the  sludge  application  rates
greatly exceed agricultural  utilization rates.
                                  9-1

-------
9.2   Regulatory  Considerations
Regulations  pertinent  to
Chapter  4, Section  4.3.
sludge  application  to  land are detailed  in
Usually,  the use  of land  as a OLD  must be  recorded in  the property  deed
so future owners  will  know that the  site soil  characteristics have  been
altered.   This  should be  checked with the  appropriate  local  authorities
agency.

A number  of regulatory agencies  may be involved in the  site approval  and
permitting process.  As an  example, Table 9-1 lists eight agencies which
were  involved in  permit approvals  prior to  construction of a OLD project
at  Sacramento,  California.  A  typical  OLD project requires  substantial
interaction with  many  agencies,  and  the designer  must  keep appraised of
all   applicable   regulations  through  early   coordination  with  agency
staffs.
                                   TABLE  9-1
             PERMITS  AND APPROVALS  NEEDED  PRIOR  TO CONSTRUCTION
               OF A OLD PROJECT  AT  SACRAMENTO,  CALIFORNIA  (1)
                 Agency

        California Regional Water Quality
        Control Board, Central Valley Re-
        gion

        State Department of Water Resources
        U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


        State Department of Fish and Game


        State Solid Waste Management Board


        County Division of Water Resources


        County Water Agency

        County Planning Department
                 Approval

          Waste discharge requirements
          Dam safety permits may be required
          depending upon sludge storage pond
          volume above grade

          Section 404 permits for filling wet-
          lands

          Stream alteration permit and filling of
          wetlands

          County Solid Waste Management plan
          amendment

          Approval for modifications to flood-
          plain

          Approval for drainage modifications

          Special use permit prior to construc-
          tion
9.3   Public Participation

The  principals  of  public participation programs for  sludge to land  proj-
ects are  detailed  in  Chapter  3.   Virtually all  proposed  OLD projects
will  undergo  an extensive  public  participation  process,  and the  project
proponents should  show that the OLD option  is the most  suitable in  terms
of economics, technical feasibility, and  environmental  impact.
                                      9-2

-------
9.4  Basic Types of Dedicated Land Disposal Site Designs

Figure  9-1  shows the basic  alternatives for consideration  in  OLD
design.  A brief description of each alternative is provided below:
site
Alternative  1  - All surface  water runoff is  contained  within the site
through use of dikes, lagoons, etc., and disposed through evaporation.

     •    All ground water leachate is contained beneath the site due to
          natural  impervious  geological  barrier (e.g., impervious clay,
          bedrock, etc.) between the  site  and  useful  aquifers.  In some
          site specific  cases,  the aquifers  potentially affected by the
          site may already contain useless water and protection of these
          aquifers is of no concern.

     •    Sludge liquid removal is entirely by evaporation.

     •    Sludge constituent removal is by utilization, bacterial activ-
          ity, and chemical/physical reactions with the soil.

     •    Sludge constituents not  removed by the above mechanics accumu-
          late in the soil  profile.

Alternative  2  -  Same as 1 above,  except  crops  (e.g., grasses, clover,
etc.)are  planted to  enhance moisture  removal  through  evapotranspira-
tion.  The crops, in addition, remove a portion of many sludge nutrients
and other constituents through plant uptake mechanisms.  Harvesting, re-
moval, and controlled use  or  disposal  of crops can remove from the site
those sludge constituents incorporated into the crops.

Alternative 3 -  Same as  1  or  2 above, except provision is made for con-
trolled discharge  of  surface  runoff off-site.   Controlled  discharge is
achieved by  adequate storage,  treatment if necessary,  monitoring,  and
other requirements of the NPDES permitting procedure.  In some cases, it
may be feasible  to provide a controlled discharge  back  into the sewage
treatment system.

Alternative  4  -  Same  as  1,  2, or  3 above,  except  that  ground  water
leachate is  intercepted and  not  allowed to  percolate to  ground  water
aquifers.   Interception  mechanisms are  usually  subsurface  drain tiles.
Under  favorable  geological  conditions, interceptor  ditches,  well  point
systems, deep  well  pumping,  or other  ground water  interception systems
may also  be feasible.   In any case,  the  intercepted leachate  is  col-
lected, stored,  treated  (if  necessary),  and removed.   Leachate removal
may be through  evaporation,  or discharge to a  sewage  treatment system.
With adequate treatment  the  collected leachate may be used to irrigate
site vegetation or discharged into surface waters under NPDES permit.
                                   9-3

-------
                                                   a:
                                                o  ui i-
                                                I-  I- w
                                                   <
                                                UJ  s a;
                                                     ui
                                                a:  ui a.
                                                <  o
                                                x  <
                                                o  u. ui
                                                en  a: a
  UJ UI U)
    _ o
  to j a.
  ui o in
  > o: M
  o: (-
  < z
  I O CC
    o o
  0.
  o a ui
  u. z tn
  o <
                                                                       c

                                                                       CD

                                                                      •r-

                                                                       t/)

                                                                       (U

                                                                      T3


                                                                       O)
                                                                       


                                                                      T3
                                                                       3
                                                                      •o
                                                                       O)
                                                                      •»->
                                                                       (O
                                                                       o
                                                                      •r~
                                                                      •a
                                                                       CD
                                                                      T3
                                                                       C

                                                                       O
                                                                       rtV

                                                                       1-
                                                                       CD

                                                                      T3
C
O
u
                                                                       d)
rcl
s-
a>
                                                                       cu
                                                                       t.
9-4

-------
Which design alternative is best  for  any specific new project is depen-
dent on site-specific factors, such as:

     •    Climate, which affects timing of sludge application, and hence
          sludge  storage  required, crops  (if  any) which  can  be grown,
          etc.

     «    Site soil and hydrogeology,  which  affect the extent of ground
          water  leachate  control  needed,  soil  surface  preparation,
          method  of  sludge  application,  crops  (if  any)  which  can  be
          grown, amount of runoff, etc.

     •    Site  size  and  topography,  which  affect   sludge  application
          rates,  feasibility  of   constructing  large storage  lagoons,
          method  of  sludge  application, runoff  control,  size of buffer
          zone, etc.

     t    Availability of a sewerage  system, which can be used for con-
          trolled disposal  of surface runoff and/or leachate.

9.5- Site Investigations

Chapters 4 and 5 discussed the procedures and data necessary in the site
selection and  evaluation process.    Because  a  OLD  site  is  normally  a
long-term operation,  sludge  application rates are high,  and since con-
tainment of sludge contaminants is  necessary,  the designer is often re-
quired to conduct more  extensive  site investigations  than are necessary
for agriculture and other types of applications.

Ideally, the area selected for the dedicated disposal  site would:

     •    Be near the  treatment  pi ant(s) so as  to reduce sludge trans-
          port costs.

     •    Have easy transport (e.g., road, pipeline, etc.) access.

     •    Be underlain with an impervious geological  barrier, e.g., bed-
          rock, continuous thick  clay layer, etc, or be  underlain with
          an exempted aquifer, i.e., an aquifer which is useless because
          of existing poor water quality.

     •    Have a  large buffer area  interspersed  between  it and areas  of
          public dwellings, public use areas, etc.

     •    Be distant  from  surface  waters,  e.g.,  lakes,  ponds,  rivers,
          streams, etc.

     t    Have gentle  slopes  (e.g., <3 percent)  to minimize site grad-
          ing,  and other improvement costs.

     *    Be in an area of temperate,  arid climate with high net evapo-
          ration.
                                   9-5

-------
     •    Have  convenient access  to  an existing  sewer  system for con-
          trolled discharge of collected surface runoff and/or leachate.

     •    Have  heterogeneous  soil with  adequate drainage permeability,
          high cation exchange capacity  (CEC), and pH of above 6.5.

As a minimum, the designer will require the following data:

     t    Climate history, e.g., precipitation (annual, monthly, maximum
          year  storms,  number of  days  with rainfall above  0.3  cm (0.1
          in),  evaporation  (annual, monthly), and temperatures (number
          of  days  below freezing).   See Section  4.7 for  discussion  of
          sources of climate data.

     •    Sludge  data,  present   and  future,  i.e.,   quantity,  physical
          characteristics,  chemical  characteristics, transport  method,
          etc.

     •    Topography  of the  site and  surrounding  area,  i.e.,  slopes,
          surface  waters (streams,  ponds,  etc.), roads,  wells,  struc-
          tures,  improvements,  drainage,  flooding  potential,  existing
          vegetation, etc.

     •    Soil properties of the site, physical  and  chemical.

     •    Hydrogeological properties, i.e., depth to ground water, depth
          to  aquifers,   quality  and  use  of ground  water,  ground  water
          flow  direction,  existence  of  impermeable  or  low permeability
          layers (e.g., bedrock, clay).

     •    Site ownership, land use zoning,  restrictions, etc.

All  of  the  above  site  investigation  data  are  discussed in  detail  in
Chapters  4  and 5.   Table 9-2 lists typical  siting criteria  for  a OLD
site.

9.6  Environmental Constraints in Dedicated Land Disposal Site Design

     9.6.1  General

Various potential  contaminants in  sludge  are discussed  in  Appendix  A.
The  interaction  of these contaminants  with soil and their  fate  in the
environment are  discussed in  Appendix B.   The  principal  potential  con-
taminants of  concern are excess  nitrogen   (in the nitrate  form),  heavy
metals, persistant  organics,  and  pathogens.   By definition,  it  is the
intent of the OLD  site  to contain these contaminants within the site or
manage their  movement  off-site  in a  controlled,  environmentally accept-
able manner.  Therefore, virtually all  state regulatory agencies in 1982
considered proposed  OLD projects  on a case by  case  basis.   Regulations
for agricultural utilization and other "beneficial"  uses of sludge are
                                   9-6

-------
generally  not applicable  to OLD sites.   Restrictions on the use  and man-
agement  of  OLD  sites  are  generally  more  severe  than  for  "beneficial"
uses.   The proponents must demonstrate  that  the design and management  of
the  project provides the  necessary safeguards.
                                    TABLE  9-2
                SITING CRITERIA  FOR DEDICATED  LAND  DISPOSAL
        Parameter          Unacceptable Condition"

        Slope          Deep gullies,  slope >12%

        Soil           Permeability >1 x 10"5 cm/sec"1"

                      <0.6 ra  (2 ft)  in-situ thickness
        Surface Water   <92 m (300 ft) to any pond or lake
        (distance to)   used for recreational or livestock
                      purposes, or any surface water
                      body officially classified under
                      state law

                      In special  flood hazard areas or
                      recognized wetlands

        Ground Water    <3.1 ra (10 ft) to ground water
                      table (wel^s tapping shallow
                      aquifers)

        Wells          Water supply wells within 305 m
        (potable)       (1,000 ft)  radius
Ideal Conditions

<3%*

_< 1 x 10"7 cm/sec*

>3ra (10 ft) in-situ
  thickness

>305 m (1,000 ft) from any
  surface water body
>61 ra  (200 ft) from inter-
mittent streams

>15.3  ra (50 ft) to ground
water  table
No wells within 610 m
(2,000 ft) radius
         * Ideal  slope depends on solid content (TSS) and  sludge  application method.
           See Table 5-1 for general  slope limitations.

         t Pervious soil can be used  for DLO if appropriate engineering design pre-
           venting OLD leachate from  reaching the ground water is feasible.

         # When low-permeable soils are too close to the surface, liquid disposal
           operation can be hindered  due to water ponding.

        ** If an  exempted aquifer underlies the site, poor quality leachate may be
           permitted to enter ground  water.


      9.6.2   Nitrogen Control  at  Dedicated  Land Disposal   Sites

One  of the  keys to an acceptable OLD  site  is  control  of  nitrates  to pre-
vent contamination of ground water aquifers.   The possibilities are:

      1.   There  is no  useful  ground  water aquifer  below the  site  which
           can be affected;  either the aquifer(s)  is exempt  (of such poor
           quality  that  it  is  not  subject  to  non-degradation  regulations)
           or  none  exists at  potentially useful  elevations.

   ,   2.   The local  climate  is arid with a  high net  evaporation, and use-
           ful  aquifers are  deep.   For  example,  at  the  OLD site used  by
                                       9-7

-------
     3.
     4.
     5.
Denver, Colorado,  it  was  found that precipitation, which aver-
ages  36  cm (14 in) annually,  is insufficient  to  percolate to
any  significant depth,  and potable water  is  from  100 to 300 m
(330 to 980 ft) below the ground surface.

An impervious  geological  barrier,  e.g.,  bedrock or thick clay,
lies  between  the OLD  site and the  useful  aquifer effectively
preventing  significant volumes  of  leachate  from percolating
into the aquifer.

A  below  ground  leachate   interception  system  is  constructed,
e.g., drain tiles, well points,  etc.,  which collect the leach-
ate before it can percolate into the aquifer.
It can be shown that the volume
reaching the  aquifer  is such a
water aquifer  flow  volume  that
gible.
of leachate containing nitrates
small  percentage  of the ground
potential  degradation is negli-
If  none  of the  above  possibilities is feasible,  singly or in combina-
tion, then a OLD site will probably not be feasible.

     9.6.3  Sludge Metals at Dedicated Land Disposal Sites

The safeguards discussed in Section 9.6.2 for protection of ground water
for nitrate contamination will serve for metals also.  The long-term ac-
cumulation of  metals  on a OLD site will  eventually have an adverse ef-
fect on most crops.

     9.6.4  Sludge Pathogens at Dedicated Land Disposal Sites

Ground water protection measures  described  in Section 9.6.2 should ade-
quately contain  pathogens also.   A OLD site is designed to prevent sur-
face  runoff  so  there  is no  potential  contamination  from this  source
either.   Vectors  (flies, rodents, etc.) control  is  needed  to prevent
off-site  migration and on-site  breeding.   Adequate  buffer  zones  will
control aerosols and  odor complaints.   Control  of  public  access to the
site is essential.

     9.6.5  Persistent Organics Control at Dedicated Land Dis-
            posal Sites

As discussed in Appendix A,  most sludges contain only  low concentrations
of  persistant   organics.    Further,  persistent  organics  contained  in
sludge are generally not very mobile in soil, e.g., they are adsorbed in
the upper  soil  layers.   Therefore, unless the  sludge  is unusually high
in toxic persistent organic  compound concentrations and the site soil is
very permeable (e.g., sand) and  leachate  controls  are  not  adequate, the
containment  of persistent  organics  within the  site  should  be readily
achieved.
                                   9-8

-------
     9.6.6  Aesthetics at Dedicated Land Disposal Sites
The major aesthetic concern
sludge application sites is
                      at  most OLD
                      discussed in
sites is odor.
Chapter 11.
Odor control  at
Basically, odor problems from  sludge  are  always  the result of anaerobic
(septic),  conditions.   When applying  large  quantities  of  liquid sludge,
the soil should be maintained in an aerated condition via surface drain-
age  (no ponding), subsurface  drainage,  and/or  tillage  (if necessary).
Subsurface injection  by  sludge application  vehicle(s)  provides another
alternative to reduce odors.

Liquid  sludge  storage lagoons are  a  potential  source of  odor.   If the
sludge is well stabilized, odor problems are usually infrequent, but may
occur (e.g., during a spring thaw after extended cold weather, or during
a major  disturbance  of the  sludge  lagoon as would  occur  during bottom
sediment  cleanout).   Typical  attempts at  controlling  odors from sludge
lagoons  involve  (1)  locating the  sludge  lagoon  in the OLD site as far
from public  access areas  as  possible,  (2) providing  as  large a buffer
area around  the  site  as  possible, and  (3)  adding lime to the lagoon.
Use of a facultative lagoon (see Chapter 10)., if properly designed, will
reduce the potential  for odors.  Obviously, if the POTW sludge treatment
process  is having  problems,  e.g.,  a sour  digester, the resulting poorly
stablized sludge should, if possible, not be added to the OLD site stor-
age lagoon.
Dust and  noise  may  result from use  of  heavy equipment (e,
subsurface injector vehicles, etc.)  at  sludge  application,
agricultural  area dust  and  noise  should be  no  worse than
normal  farming  operations,  and  should create no  problems.
area, use of buffer zones and vegetative screening (trees,
around the site) may be necessary to mitigate public impact,
                                                    g., tractors,
                                                    sites.  In an
                                                    expected from
                                                      In an urban
                                                    shrubs, etc.,
Table
site.
9-3  lists  criteria  adapted at  the Sacramento,  California, OLD
9.7  Preliminary Design of Dedicated Land Disposal Sites

     9.7.1  General

Chapter  10  of  this manual  covers  design of many  of  the facilities and
improvements involved  in  a OLD site,  e.g., clearing,  grading,  roads,
fencing, buildings, lights,  storage facilities, surface water drainage,
etc.  This  section covers  those  aspects which  are of special importance
to OLD sites.  .   ,
                                   9-9-

-------
                                    TABLE 9-3
           ODOR, DUST, AND HAZARD  DISTANCE CRITERIA ADOPTED FOR
                  THE SACRAMENTO,  CALIFORNIA,  OLD SITE (4)
     Regional  Plant
      Process  Unit

     Sludge storage basins
     Dedicated land disposal
     Ash disposal (grit and
     Screening Emergency
     Disposal)
Potential  for Adverse Effect

Odor potential Is significant.
After studies and mitigation
measures it appears that  these
units can meet the criteria in
all but a few instances each
year.

Odor measurements on subsurface
injection show minimal  odors.
Surface spreading and subsequent
incorporation would have  some
odor potential. Also,  infre-
quent summer rain could cause
odor.  There is slight  poten-
tial for dust, less than  typi-
cal farming operations.

Slight odor from grit and
screenings disposal.  Dust
will be generated from  land-
fill-type disposal operation.
Distance Criteria Used

610 m (2,000 ft)
305 m (1,000 ft)  due to
dust, slight odor po-
tential, and acciden-
tial spillage of  sludge
on land surface.
610 m (2,000 ft)
     Note:  Two odor units at  site boundary or fence line under maximum conditions is  the
           basic odor criteria used.  Distances have beep developed through the
           following:

           •  Odor potential of source.
           •  Mitigation potential.
           •  Case histories in other locations.
           •  Distance availability.


      9.7.2  Climate Considerations

Climate  is particularly  important  in the  design of  dedicated  land  dis-
posal  sites.   The designer should obtain the following historical  infor-
mation for the  past 20  years:

      1.   Precipitation, by month  and year,  average and maximum.

      2.   Twenty-five year storm  intensity;  also 50 and 100 year storms.

      3.   Evaporation rate from  water surface, by month and year, average
           and  minimum.

      4.   Annual  number  of days  of  precipitation  over  0.3  cm  (0.1  in),
           average and maximum.

      5.   Annual  number  of days  below freezing,  average and maximum.

See  Section 4.6  in  Chapter 4  for  climate information  services.
                                        9-10

-------
In addition, it is useful  to  know the local  evaporation rate from soils
(usually about 70 percent of that from water surfaces) and evapotranspi-
ration rate estimated from  the  types  of  local  vegetation (if any) being
considered for planting on  the  site.   This information may be available
from local university agricultural extension services, or federal assis-
tance agencies.

The climate information listed above is used in many aspects of the site
design including:

     •    Designing  surface  runoff  collection,   storage,   and  control
          structures.

     «    Determining necessary sludge storage capacity.

     t    Determining the area requirements for sludge spreading.

     •    Determining any necessary leachate collection and  storage sys-
          tems.

Figure 9-2 depicts the major pathways for  water entering a project which
the designer should attempt to quantify in design of a OLD site.

     9.7.3  Vegetation Considerations at Dedicated Land Disposal
            Sites

Table  9-4 presents  the  major  advantages  and disadvantages of growing
vegetation on a OLD site.   OLD sites surveyed during preparation of this
manual were about equally divided between  bare land operation and use of
vegetation.

     9.7.4  Surface Runoff  Storage Volume  Required

OLD  sites usually require  that  storage  be provided  for surface runoff
resulting  from  precipitation.   Figure  9-3 illustrates various  alterna-
tives for disposing of surface runoff.  These can range from disposal by
evaporation only  in  an arid area  such  as  Arizona, to combined  disposal
by  evaporation,  controlled discharge,  and return  for reapplication to
the  site, such  as is  practiced at  the   Fulton  County,  Illinois,  site
which receives sludge from  the city of Chicago.

It  is  beyond  the  scope  of this  manual to develop  all the  hydrological
calculations  which may enter into making  an  accurate assessment of the
maximum  runoff  which  can be expected  from a specific site.  An experi-
enced hydrological designer is necessary and should develop  curves for  a
maximum  precipitation year which plot precipitation, runoff,  evapora-
tion,  etc., for  the  site  area.   Based upon the curves, an  estimate can
be made  of the runoff  storage volume  and surface  area  needed.
                                   9-11

-------
               LU
               K
               LU
    in
 UJ  19
 x  a
 z  co
 W
    a
 a:  LU
 UJ  W
 i-  _i
 <  a.
0
UJ
O
O
CO
                                           CO
                                           Q.
                                                                             (U
                                        u.
                                  UJ
                                                                          a:
                                                                          o
                                                                          H
                                                                          co
                                                                          CO
                                        o:
                                        ui
                                       CO
                                       to
                                       UJ
                                       o
                                       X
                                       UJ
                                                                            •O


                                                                             (U

                                                                             CD

                                                                            "O
                                                                             -  a:
                               <  D
                               _l  CO
                               UJ  ffl
                               D  D
                                  CO
                                                                                                                    a>
                                                                                                                    a>
                                                                                                                    (O
                                                                                                                    O)
                                                  _l u.
                                                  < O
                                                  I- Z
                                                  O D
                                                                                                                    ai
                                                   9-T2

-------
                               TABLE  9-4
    ADVANTAGES  AND  DISADVANTAGES OF GROWING  VEGETATION
                ON DEDICATED LAND  DISPOSAL  SITES
A.  Advantages

    1.  If surface  soil  is "tight" and drains poorly, the plant  root  structure
        may improve soil drainage.

    2.  Plants  will  enhance water removal through evapotranspiration.

    3.  Plants  will  help to reduce surface runoff volume from precipitation.

    4.  Plants  will  take up a portion of the nitrogen, metals,  and  other
        sludge  constituents applied by incorporating them during growth.   If
        the plants  are  harvested and used or disposed in a controlled  manner,
        the constituents incorporated in the plants are removed  from  the  site.

    6.  The OLD site will more closely resemble a normal farming operation and
        be more visually pleasing to the public.

    7.  Some of the sludge nutrients will be recycled into vegetation  and may
        serve as a  positive public relations factor to many citizens.

  .  8.  Harvesting  of the plants and their sale may provide a monetary return.

B.  Disadvantages

    1.  Sludge  application scheduling is more complex since it usually must
        operate around  the seeding, cultivation, and harvesting  operations.
        Planted areas may be  "off limits" for high rate sludge application
        during  many months, often the best months for sludge application  from
        an operations viewpoint.

    2.  Planting, cultivation, and harvesting of plants can be labor  and
        equipment intensive.  Capital equipment and operating costs are in-
        creased over those for a OLD site which does not grow and harvest
        vegetation.  Management is more complex since agronomic  considerations
        are added to the primary mission of sludge management.

    3.  The area required for sludge application site may be larger with  vege-
        tation  involvement than for a project with no vegetation.

    4.  Planted areas attract animals which could become a nuisance or serve
        as vectors.

    5.  Planted areas may result in more unauthorized public entry, e.g.,
        children climbing fences.

    6.  Harvested plants may  contain metal concentrations too high  for human
        or animal consumption necessitating controlled disposal.

    7.  After years of  heavy  sludge application, the soil may become  phyto-
        toxic to plants effectively ending any potential for agricultural
        operations at the sita.
                                   9-13

-------
                                   EVAPORATION
                                        t
       SITE
                     SURFACE
                     RUNOFF
                                     LAGOON
      CASE  1  -  SURFACE  RUNOFF  DISPOSAL  BY  EVAPORATION
               FROM  LAGOON  SURFACE  ONLY.
                                   EVAPORATION
                                        t
       SITE
                     SURFACE
                     RUNOFF
                                     LAGOON
       RETURN FLOW FOR APPLICATION  TO  SITE
      CASE  2  -
  SURFACE  RUNOFF  DISPOSAL  BY  EVAPORATION
  FROM  LAGOON  TO  SURFACE PLUS RETURN  OF
  STORED RUNOFF TO  THE  SITE FOR  APPLICATION.

                      EVAPORATION
                                       t
SITE
SURFACE
RUNOFF


LAGOON
CONTROLLED
DISCHARGE *"
HFF STTF
     CASE 3 - SURFACE RUNOFF DISPOSAL BY EVAPORATION FROM
              LAGOON SURFACE PLUS CONTROLLED DISCHARGE
              FROM LAGOON TO SURFACE WATER, SEWER, ETC.
                                   EVAPORATION
       SITE
                    SURFACE
                     RUNOFF
                                     LAGOON
                                                CONTROLLED
       RETURN FLOW FOR APPLICATION TO SITE
                                                DISCHARGE
                                                OFF SITE
    CASE 4 - COMBINATION OF CASE 2 AND CASE 3 ABOVE
Figure 9-3.
Alternate considerations for disposal of surface
run-off stored in lagoons.
                             9-14

-------
The hydrologic
his design:
designer will typically use the  following  information  in
     •    Area of the site.              ,

     t    Historical  precipitation  records;  normally the  designer  se-
          lects  the "wettest"  period  expected  over  a period  of years
          (possibly 10, 25, 50, or 100 years), depending upon the degree
          of safety desired.   The degree of  safety  desired or required
          by local  regulatory  officials  will  vary for particular sites,
          depending on  the economics  associated with  increased safety
          and  the  potential   for  environmental  damage  that  would  be
          caused by an overflow of the storage lagoon.

     •    Site runoff; a  function  of  soil  type, infiltration, amount of
          previous  recent precipitation,  soil  moisture  retention,  and
          vegetation (if  any) at the site.

     t    Evaporation; from the lagoon surface and the soil surface.  If
          vegetation  is present,  then  evapotranspiration  is also a fac-
          tor.

     •    Controlled  discharge or  expected  seepage,  if  any,  from  the
          storage lagoon.

     9.7.5  Sludge Application Rate Calculations

          9.7.5.1  General

Unlike agricultural and forest sludge  application options, the applica-
tion rate of sludge to dedicated disposal sites  (as defined in this man-
ual) is not limited by plant uptake (nitrogen fertilizer) and cumulative
metal totals, but is limited by the following factors:

     •    The  rate  of  sludge  which can  be  applied  during each applica-
          tion while  still  maintaining  aerobic  conditions  in the soil.
          The  method  of sludge application, soil drainage, soil  charac-
          teristics,  sludge  moisture  content,  and  climatic  conditions
          all  influence this factor.
          The number of  days  during  the year when sludge can be applied
          as dictated  by weather conditions,  ability  of  the sludge ap-
          plication equipment  to operate with existing soil conditions,
          any vegetation  planting/harvest,  etc., restrictions (if vege-
          tation  is grown  on  the   site),  and  equipment  breakdown  and
          maintenance requirements.
          Evaporation
          liquids.
       rates  if that  is the  design, pathway for  sludge
                                  9-15

-------
           9.7.5.2  Sludge Application Rates
 Annual  sludge application rates  to OLD sites reviewed during preparation
 of this manual ranged  from  12 dry rot/ha (5 T/ac) up  to  2,250  dry  mt/ha
 (1,000  T/ac).  The  higher  application rates are practiced  at  OLD  sites
 which:
      •     Receive dewatered  sludge.
      t     Mechanically  incorporate the sludge  into the soil.
      •     Have relatively low precipitation.
      •     Are not  faced  with leachate  contamination of  ground  water
           problems  because  of site conditions  or  project  design.
 A  conservative approach is to match  sludge  application and  net  soil  eva-
 poration  rates.   Sludge application  is  intensive  during  warm and  dry
 periods, and  reduced during  wet  or cold periods.
 Net  soil evaporation is calculated by the use  of:
                               EN = ES - P
 (9-1)
                            EN = (f x E, ) - P
(9-2)
where:
     EM = net soil evaporation
     £5 = gross soil evaporation
     EL = gross lake evaporation
      P = precipitation
      f = factor expressing the relationship of soil and lake
          evaporation (dimensionless).
Typically, gross soil evaporation  in  an area is estimated as a fraction
(e.g., f  = 0.70)  of the lake  evaporation.   Estimates  can  be obtained
from local agricultural  information services.  Table 9-5 illustrates the
calculation of  net  soil  evaporation  on  a  monthly basis for  Colorado
Springs,  Colorado (9).
                                   9-16

-------
                                 TABLE 9-5
                 NET MONTHLY SOIL EVAPORATION AT  COLORADO
                           SPRINGS,  COLORADO (9)

Gross Soil
Month Evaporation (era)*
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
.
-
_
9.16
11.45
13.55
14.69
12.43
9.58
7.34
_
-

Precipitation (cm)
1.80
1.85
3.96
4.85
5.44
5.49
7.62
5.89
3.94
2.82
2.41
1.70
Net Soil
Evaporation (cm)
_
-
-
4.31
6.01
8.06
7.07
6.54
5.64
4.52
-
-
         Annual
     78.20
                                       47.78
                                                       42.15
         * Estimated based on 70 percent lake evaporation.
         t Gross soil evaporation less precipitation.
         # 1 in = 2.54 cm.
Having  estimated net  soil  evaporation
application  rates  on  a  monthly basis
moisture  in the  applied  sludge against
                                         (EN)
                                         are
                             for each  month,  the  sludge
                             calculated by  matching  the
                           as shown in Equation  (9-3):
                                 LN x TS  x  C
                            KM    100 - TS
                                        (9-3)
where:
     RM = monthly  sludge application rate  (dry mt/ha/mo)  or (dry
          T/ac/mo).

     EN = net  soil  evaporation (cm/mo) or  (in/mo)

     TS = total  solids content of the sludge  (%) by weight

      C = a  conversion factor which equals 100 mt/cm in metric
          units  or 113.3 T/in in English  units.

     Table  9-6  shows  monthly sludge  application rates for the Colorado
Springs,  Colorado, site, based on a sludge with  4.85 percent solids con-
tent  and the  net  monthly  soil  evaporation  rates  shown  in  Table 9-5.
Sample  calculations for April are:
Engl1sh
                          1.70 x

                                               - 9.8 T/ac
                                    9-17

-------
                                   TABLE 9-6
                     MONTHLY SLUDGE  APPLICATION RATES AT
                  COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO,  OLD SITE  (9)
                  Month

                January
                February
                March
                Apn'1
                May
                June
                July
                August
                September
                October
                November
                December

                Annual
	Monthly Application Rate	

(dry rat/ha)1"           (dry T/ac)f
   22.0
   30.7
   41.1
   36.1
   33.4
   28.8
   23.1
                                   215.0
                    9.8
                   13.7
                   18.3
                   16.1
                   14.8
                   12.8
                   10.3
                                                      95.8
                * Total solid content in the sludge is assumed to be 4.85
                 percent.

                t Using Equation (9-3) and data from Table 9-5.


 Refering to Table 9-6, an annual  average  total  of 215 mt/ha (95.8 T/ac)
 dry weight of sludge  could be applied  at  this site using net soil  evapo-
 ration as a basis.

 The use of net  soil evaporation as  a basis for calculating  sludge  appli-
 cation rates  is obviously conservative since it  makes  no  allowance for
 moisture removal  from  the sludge through  infiltration into  the soil.  If
 infiltration  is allowed,  sludge application  rates  can  be  calculated by
 the following equation:
                          R  -
                          RM ~
+ I) x TS  x  C
100 - TS
                          (9-4)
where:

      I  = infiltration  rate (cm/mo) or  (in/mo),  and all other  terms are
          the same as in  Equation (9-3).

           9.7.5.3  Drying  Period Between Sludge Applications

Drying  (rest) periods  between sludge  applications  allow  the  soil  to re-
turn  to its natural aerobic  condition.  Applications should be  scheduled
to prevent excessive moisture in the soil for long periods, and  to mini-
mize  odors and the breeding  of vectors.
                                    9-18

-------
It is difficult to provide exact guidelines for the length of the drying
period because so many factors are involved, e.g.:

     •    Quantity and moisture content of sludge applied.

     •    Method of sludge application.

     «    Net  soil  evaporation  rate and  precipitation  occurring during
          the days following application.

     •    Soil texture and infiltration rate.

Generally, if dewatered sludge  is  applied and/or the sludge is incorpo-
rated into the  soil  during  application,  drying periods  between applica-
tions can be  short,  e.g., 2 to  3  days,  providing the weather is favor-
able.   When  liquid  sludge  is  applied to the  soil  surface without soil
incorporation,  the  drying periods between  application  should be longer
(e.g.,  5  to  20 days), depending upon  the quantity applied, topography,
soil  properties,  and the weather.   Figure 9-4  shows  suggested periods
between sludge  applications ,as  a function of  the type of sludge (liquid
or dewatered), whether the sludge is incorporated into the soil, and ap-
plication rate.   Figure 9-4 is  based  on  experience at  a limited number
of OLD  sites reviewed and is provided for general guidance only.

Aerobic conditions in the soil are more easily maintained by lighter ap-
plications of  sludge  at more  frequent  intervals.  For example, refering
to  the  upper  curve  in Figure  9-4 for liquid  sludge,  not incorporated
into  the  soil, application of  11  mt/ha  (5 T/ac)  at 7-day intervals is
generally preferable  to the application  of  31 mt/ha (14 T/ac) at 20-day
intervals.   The heavier sludge  application is  more likely to cause an-
aerobic soil conditions conclusive to odors and vector breeding.

      9.7.6  Land Area Requirements

          9.7.6.1  General

Land  area requirements for a OLD site comprise the  total land needed for
sludge  disposal,  sludge storage,  buffer  areas,  surface runoff control,
and  supporting  facilities.   In  the  following  subsections  each of these
needs is  discussed.   The prudent  designer  will  incorporate appropriate
safety  factors  into  the  design  to  allow for necessary future expansion,
and additional  facilities.

          9.7.6.2  Land Area Requirement  for Sludge  Disposal

As  discussed in  Section  9.6.2, acceptable sludge  application  rates to
OLD  sites are highly variable depending on sludge  characteristics, cli-
mate, soil  characteristics,  and other site specific factors.   When the
annual  sludge  application rate  has been determined, it is a  simple cal-
culation  to divide this rate into the present  and future estimated
                                  9-19

-------
      \
                 \
                       ;s


                         ^\
*\
 ^
                                0>
                                 <_ >
CM
             10
                           i
                          o
                                          ^\
                                          W)»

                                        10
                                                       U)
                                                       (VI
                                                     _ o
  (•NI  3*0 d3AO NOIlVlI-dID3ad JO AVQ HDV3 HOd AVQ  3NO
      aav> sNoiJivonddv  NSSMISS sAva 9NiAaa asissosns





z
o

j;
u
HI
_l
DL
Q.
<

^i'
(ja
"*•!
UJJ
^
l_
j£
U)
n
UJ
3

>^
o:
Q

• M
Q
LU
H4
_J
0.
Q.
^

III
O
o
D
-I
0)

[j_
O

o

•a-
•*
•
O

1

Z
o
t-H
CO
a:
UJ
>
z
o
o

o
HI
Of
1-
UJ
s:






0
to
at
to
t-

(0
S- •
o o
t- e
*^^
w •
C E
O -r-
•r*
•«-> CM

vt a)

C 4-*
a> a)
0) C
3
4-> ((«.
a» o
i .0
t/>
W "O
>> 0
(ti "r-
•a s-
CL)
D> Q.
C
•r- T3
>> c
^- (O
"O
(/>
•a c
 
OJ -r-
O>"O
D1 C
3 O
co o
0)
S-
3
cn
                                 9-20

-------
quantity  of  sludge which  must  be  disposed  in  order to  calculate  the
sludge disposal area required, as shown below:
Area required =
Maximum annual  design sludge generation in dry weight
  Annual application rate in dry weight/unit area
          9.7.6.3  Land Area Requirement for Sludge Storage

Design of sludge storage facilities  is  discussed in Chapter 10.  Sludge
storage  is  virtually always  required  because adverse weather  or other
factors  prevent  the  continuous application  of  sludge to  the  OLD site.
Storage may be located at the POTW, at the OLD site, or both.  As a min-
imum, the  sludge storage facilities should  have sufficient capacity to
retain  all   sludge  generated  during  nonapplication  periods.    Liquid
sludge is typically  stored  in lined lagoons  or  metal  tanks.  Dewatered
sludge is typically stored by mounding in areas protected from runoff.

Calculation of the volume required for liquid sludge storage is detailed
in Chapter  10.   The  procedure   takes into account volume of sludge gen-
erated,  precipitation,  evaporation,  and  other pertinent  factors.  Often
the  regulatory  agency will  stipulate  a required  sludge  storage volume
which reflects  a time period, e.g., one month  storage,  two month stor-
age, etc.

In any case, once the necessary storage volume has been established, the
land area required for  either  liquid sludge lagoons or dewatered sludge
stockpiles  can  be determined,  based on depth,  height,  freeboard, berm
construction  area,  etc.   As a rough  approximation, the  land  area re-
quired equals three  times the  volume of  the sludge to be stored divided
by the  depth (or  height)  of the  material  stored.   For  example, assume
that one million L (35,310 ft3) of liquid sludge storage is required and
the  liquid  depth of the lagoon is  3 m (9.8  ft).   Approximate area re-
quired equals 1,000 m2 (10,800 ft^).

          9.7.6.4  Land Area Requirement for  Surface Runoff Capture
                   and Storage

Storage  lagoon design is discussed in Chapter 10.

Once  the required storage  volume has been  determined  (Section 9.7.4),
the  necessary land area  can  be easily calculated based on  lagoon depth,
freeboard,  and  berm  construction.   As  noted in Section 9.7.6.3, a rough
approximation of land area  required can be derived by  multiplying by
three the  volume of  the runoff to  be  stored, and dividing by the depth
of the lagoon.

The  land area  required for  surface runoff  collection,  e.g., drainage
ditches, etc.,  is normally only a small percentage of the total OLD site
area  (e.g., 2 to 5 percent).
                                   9-21

-------
           9.7.6.5  Land  Area  Required  for Buffer  Zone

 The  desired width of  an  acceptable  buffer zone  will  vary,  depending  upon
 surrounding land use,  and  the potential  for  odor,  dust,  noise,  etc.,  re-
 sulting  from site design and  operation.

 A minimum buffer of 150 m (500 ft) is suggested  around  any  OLD site.   A
 minimum  buffer of  600 m  (2,000 ft) is  suggested around OLD sites  when
 one  or more of the following  conditions  will  exist:

      §     Liquid sludge  is stored at the site in  open  lagoons.

      •     During application  liquid sludge is spread on  the  soil  surface
           and not quickly  incorporated by disking.

      •     During  application  liquid sludge is  sprayed by  use of a  wide
           coverage spray device(s).

      t     Residential  dwellings  or  other heavy  public use areas  are  ad-
           jacent  to the  OLD site.

      t     Sludge  application  rates  are heavy and it is  anticipated  that
           anaerobic soil conditions will  periodically result.

 While difficult  to quantify, the  desirable  width of a buffer zone is
 also  a  function  of the size  of  the  operation,  e.g., volume of sludge
 disposed,  application  area, etc.  The larger  the  operation the more  buf-
 fer area  is  desirable  simply  because the  magnitude of potential nuisance
 to surrounding  property  is greater.

           9.7.6.6  Land  Area  Required for Supporting Facilities

 Support facilities  may include roads, buildings, etc.  Compared to other
 land  area requirements previously  discussed,  the area for these  facili-
 ties  is  usually  very  small,  e.g.,  less   than 3 percent  of the OLD site
 total.

      9.7.7   Ground  Water Leachate Collection  and Control

 As discussed in  Section 9.5,  the  ideal  location for a  OLD  site  is  one
where ground  water contamination from  leachate  is of no  concern because
 of favorable  site  conditions.  However, if the OLD site  is located where
 it could  contaminate  potable  ground  water aquifers, the  designer  must
consider means to  intercept the percolating leachate.

Subsurface  drainage systems may  be needed when  natural  drainage  is  re-
stricted  by  relatively impermeable  layers in the  soil profile  near  the
soil   surface,  or by high ground water.   As  a result of  the restrictive
layer, shallow ground water tables can extend close to the soil  surface.
Such a high ground water table may create serious problems in sludge  ap-
plication  because of ponding,  anaerobic  soil  conditions, and muddy  sur-
faces.
                                   9-22

-------
Buried plastic pipe or clay tile,-10 to 20 cm (4 to 8 in) diameter, are
normally used for  underdrains.   Concrete pipe is  less  suitable because
of the sulphates in leachate from sludge amended soils.   Underdrains are
normally buried 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft) deep, but can be as deep as 3 m
(10 ft) or as shallow  as  1m  (3 ft).  Spacing of drains typically range
from 15 m  (50  ft)  in  clayey soils up to  120  m  (400 ft)  in sandy soils.
Procedures for determining  the  proper depth.and  spacing  of  drain liner
are found  in Section  5.7  of "The Process  Design  Manual  for Land Treat-
ment of Municipal  Wastewater," EPA,  October 1981 (17), and in References
(18) and (19).

If a subsurface drainage  collection  system  is installed  beneath the OLD
site, the  leachate collected  from the  system must  be  treated, stored,
and/or disposed of.  Alternatives for disposal were shown in Figure 9-1.

9.8  Methods for Application of Sludge to Dedicated Land Disposal Sites

     9.8.1  General

The designer has a number of alternatives in  selecting the method of ap-
plying the sludge to the soil.  These are:

     •    Subsurface application of  liquid sludge.
     •    Surface application  of liquid sludge.
     •    Application of dewatered sludge.

A detailed explanation of sludge application methods is  found in Chapter
10 of this manual.

     9.8.2  Application of Liquid Sludge

Liquid sludge can  be  applied  either by  surface  spreading or subsurface
injection methods.   The  latter  is  often more desirable  since  it mini-
mizes potential  odor and runoff problems.

Surface spreading  of  liquid sludge, or  flooding  without  subsequent in-
corporation, is  less  expensive  than subsurface  injection  in  terms  of
equipment  and  labor.    However,  the  dedicated  land disposal sites re-
viewed during  preparation of  this manual had experienced problems when
using  surface  spreading  methods.  Difficulties that  may  be encountered
with the  method  include odors,  uneven  distribution  of  sludge,  clogging
of soil surface, and difficult vehicle access into the area.

     9.8.3  Application of Dewatered Sludge

The application of dewatered sludge  (20 percent solids or more)  is simi-
lar to  that  of solid  or  semisolid  fertilizer, lime, or  animal manure.
Sludge can be spread with bulldozers, front end loaders, graders, or box
spreaders,  and  then  incorporated  by plowing or  disking.    The  spiked
tooth  harrows  used for  normal  farming  operations  may  be too  light  to
bury sludge adequately and  heavy-duty mine  disks  or disk  harrows may be
required.
                                  9-23

-------
9.9  Monitoring Requirements

     9.9.1.  Criteria Pertaining to Water Resource Protection

Regulations promulgated under Sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) of the Re-
source Conservation  Recovery  Act,  and Section 405(d) of the Clean Water
Act, require the  following standards for ground  and surface waters for
all solid waste disposal facilities and practices (12):

Ground Hater Standards:  A facility or practice must not contaminate an
underground drinking water source  beyond  the waste  site boundary or be-
yond an  alternative boundary specified by  the state which  has an EPA-
approved solid waste management plan.

Surface Water Standards;   A facility  or practice must not:

     •    Violate  the  requirements of the  National  Pollutant Discharge
          Elimination System  (NPDES).

     •    Cause a discharge of dredged material or fill material to wat-
          ers of the United States.

     •    Cause  non-point  source   pollution  of  waters  of  the  United
          States or border bodies of water.

     9.9.2  Monitoring Needs

A OLD system  should be designed in such  a  manner that  it will  not con-
taminate surface  and ground water  sources.   Monitoring programs should
basically be  designed to  insure that the  OLD system  functions  as in-
tended.  Chapter 11 of this manual  discusses monitoring requirements for
various types  of   sludge  to land  treatment  alternatives.   In  general,
monitoring requirements  for dedicated land  disposal  sites  are  more ex-
tensive than for other types of sludge land  application options, and may
include:

     •    Monitoring of applied sludge quantities and characteristics.

     •    Monitoring of  changes  in site  soil  characteristics,  physical
          and chemical.

     •    Monitoring of ground water  quality beneath the site and adja-
          cent to the site in the  direction  of ground water flow; moni-
          toring of both saturated and unsaturated zones, and at various
          depths may be required.
                                                i
     •    Monitoring of surface water runoff from the site.

     •    Monitoring of surface waters potentially affected by the site.

     •    Monitoring of  odor, dust,  and/or  aerosol   emissions  from the
          site.
                                  9-24

-------
     9.9.3  Closure and Post-Closure Care Plans

Closure  and  post-closure plans  of a retired  OLD site' may  be  the last
phase of waste management at the site.  Acceptable closure practices are
generally similar to those of landfills (12) and should be:

     t    Technologically  sound  with   respect  to  protection  of  local
          water resources.                            '

     e    Compatible with  the projected  future use of .the  site  (i.e.,
          golf course, park, parking Tot, etc.).

The  designer  should identify  any  post-closure requirements  of  the re-
sponsible regulatory agency in the area where the OLD site is located.

9.10  Design Example

The  design  example  is  for  a  community  of  400,000 located  in Central
California.   A specific  site  has been tentatively  selected, cognizant
regulatory agencies have been contacted, and a public participation pro-
gram initiated.

The existing POTW utilizes a conventional  activated sludge process which
generates a mixture  of  primary and waste activated  sludge.   The sludge
is  anaerobically  digested.   Approximately 25  percent  of  the wastewater
treated  is  from  industry, primarily seasonal  food  processing wastewat-
ers.

     9.10.1  Sludge Generation and Characteristics

Table 9-7 projects sludge production from 1980 through 1999.  Table 9-8
shows characteristics of the sludge.

     9.10.2  Climate

Average  climatological  data for  the area  is  presented  in  Table 9-9.
Evaporation is recorded at locations 17 miles  to  the east, and 12 miles
to  the west.   High daytime temperatures  and  low  humidity in the summer
account  for the  pronounced  evaporation rates.  Average  annual  rainfall
is 42 cm (17 in), but varies from a minimum of 12 cm (5 in) to a maximum
of  92 cm (36  in)  with maximum 1-hour and 24-hour rainfalls  recorded at
4.19 cm  (1.65 in) and 8.94 cm (3.52 in), respectively.

     9.10.3  State and Local  Regulations of Concern

The  appropriate  regulatory  agencies  have advised  that  the  site  would
probably be subject to the following regulations:

     •    Off-site wastewater  discharge:   none would be  preferred.  If
          necessary to  have  a  discharge,  the  NPDES  permit  would stipu-
          late essentially drinking water quality.
                                   9-25

-------
                         TABLE  9-7
        PROJECTION OF DIGESTED SLUDGE PRODUCTION
                    FOR  DESIGN EXAMPLE
Year
1980
1985
1992
1999

(Wet) m3/yr
756 x 103
786 x 103
936 x 103
1,007 x 103
Digested Sludge Production
Dry mt/yr M gal/yr
17,000 197.9
18,000^ ' • 205.7 . .
22,300 245.0
25,100 263.6

Dry ton/yr
18,700
19,800
24,500
27,600
1
TABLE 9-8
TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIGESTED
AND LAGOONED SLUDGE FOR DESIGN EXAMPLE

Constituent
Total solids, %
Volatile solids,
Total nitrogen, ;
Phosphorus, %
Arsenic, mg/kg
Cadmium, mg/kg
Chromium, mg/kg
Copper, mg/kg
Lead, mg/kg
Mercury, mg/kg
Nickel, mg/kg
Selenium, mg/kg
Silver, mg/kg
Zinc, mg/kg
Concentration
2.68
% , 1.54
I 7.5
2.5
6-13
27-51
52-213
280-560
96-210
11-16
72-193
3-9 ,,
7-14
1,080-1,723
*
* All concentrations are exressed  on a dry weight basis.
                             9-26

-------
          Ground water  leachate  percolation:   None would  be preferred.
          If necessary  to  have  leachate, monitoring is  required  to en-
          sure that ground water at  the  project  boundary meets drinking
          water standards.

          Flood control  facilities  heed to protect against site flooding
          by the maximum 100-year storm.

          Sludge must  be incorporated into  soil during  or immediately
          after sludge application  to prevent/minimize odors.

          A minimum of  3 months  of  sludge storage capacity must be pro-
          vided*  If sludge storage is in open ponds,  a minimum distance
          of 610 m  (2,000  ft)
          ponds to the nearest
                    must  be provided
                    site  boundary.
                       from the sludge storage
     9.10.4  Characteristics of the Site
The area  selected  for the OLD  site has flat topography  with  a maximum
elevation difference of 6 m  (20  ft)  within the  240 ha (600 ac) investi-
gated.  The surrounding area is predominantly farm land.

Results of  soil  borings are shown  in  Table 9-10.  While  this is obvi-
ously  a  simplified version  of  an extensive  soils report,  the summary
notes that the upper 3 to 6 m (10-20 ft) of the site consist of soils of
very low permeability, including  a  central  layer  with permeability of 1
x 10~9 cm/sec,  or  less,  which appears  continuous  at  depths  of 3 to 6 m
(9 to 20 ft).  The free ground water is confined below this layer, which
provides  an  essentially impermeable barrier to,  downward migration  of
surface leachate.  Soil is  dense and slowly permeable.

     9.10.5  Determination  of Sludge Application Rates

For this design example sludge application rates will  be estimated based
upon  positive  net  soil evaporation  rates,  as was  discussed  in Section
9.6.2.  It may be  preferable to  conduct tests on  experimental  plots for
several years to determine  more optimum sludge application rates.

Table  9-11  shows the  monthly  net  soil  evaporation rate  for  the area.
Table 9-12 shows the monthly sludge application rate based upon Equation
(9-3):
                            „     EN  x TS x  C
                            KM      100  - TS
presented in Section 9.6.2.  An example calculation for the month of May
follows:
(Metric)   RM


(English)   Rh
 13.17  x  2.68  x  100
   (100)  -  (2.68)

  5.19  x  2.68  x  113
"  (100)  -  (2.68)
                                               36.3 mt/ha/mo


                                               16.1 T/ac/mo
                                  9-27

-------
                            TABLE  9-9
         AVERAGE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR  THE SLUDGE
             APPLICATION  AREA  FOR  DESIGN EXAMPLE


Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Air

(°C)
7.3
9.6
11.9
14.7
17.8
21.4
24.1
23.4
22.0
17.5
10.5
8.0
-
Temperature

(°F)
45.2
49.2
53.4
53.4
64.0
70.5
75.4
74.1
71.6
63.5
50.9
46.4
-

Precipitation
(cm)*
8.08
7.59
5.99
3.56
1.50
0.25
0
0.05
0.48
1.96
4.58'
8.23
42.24
Evaporation

Low
2.24
3.73
8.18
12.98
20.96
24.28
27.99
25.07
19.08
11.63
4.45
2.29
162.88
(cm)

High
4.52
5.77
12.27
19.66
28.35
32.39
33.43
29.49
24.03
16.23
6.60
3.86
216.46
 * Long-term average data.
 t Metric conversion 1 cm = 0.
 39 in.
                            TABLE 9-10
               SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF  DEDICATED
            LAND DISPOSAL SITE FOR  DESIGN  EXAMPLE*
Depth From Surface
0 - 3 m
(0 - 10 ft)
3 - 6 m
(9 - 20 ft
Dominant Unified
Soil Classification
Silty clays (CL)
Organic clays (OH)
Clayey silts (ML)
Cemented soils in
two layers. Upper
Vertical
•Permeability .
cm/sec
1 x 10~J° to
5 x 10"8
1 x 10"9 to
1 x ID'10
    6 - 13 M
   (19 - 40 ft
layer is silty clay
(CL) and lower layer
is fine sandy silt
(ML) and silty fine
sand (SM)

Clean fine to medium
sands
3 x 10'5 to
                          1 x 10
     ,-6
* Ground water surfaces range from 4 to 15 m (13 to 46 ft) below surface.
                               9-28

-------
                                TABLE 9-11
                 NET SOIL  EVAPORATION AT DEDICATED  LAND
                    DISPOSAL  SITE FOR DESIGN EXAMPLE
Lake
Evaporation
Month (cm*)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
2.24
3.73
8.18
12.98
20.96
24.28
27.99
25.07
19.08
11.63
4.45
2.29
162.88
Soil
Evaporation
(out)
1.57
2.61
5.73
9.09
14.67
17.00
19.59
17.55
13.36
8.14
3.11
1.60
114.02
Precipitation
(cm#)
8.08
7.59
5.99
3.56
1.50
0.25
0.60
0.05
0.48'
1.96
4.58
8.23
42.24
Net Soil Evaporation
cm
(6.51)
(4.98)
(0.26)
5.53
13.17
16.75 '
19.59
17.00 ,
12.88
6.18
(1.47)
(6.63)
71.78
in
(2.56)
(1.96)
(0.10)
2.18
5.19
6.60
7.72
6.70.
5.07
2.43
(0.58)
(2.61)
28.28
        * Uses lowest evaporation from Table 9-9.
        t Uses 70 percent of lake evaporation.
        # Uses average from Table 9-9.
       ** Metr,irc conversion = 1 cm = 0.39 in.
Based  upon  this theoretical  approach,  the  annual cumulative  sludge ap-
plication rate  to  the site shown  in Table 9-12  is  250 mt/ha (112 T/ac),
dry  weight.  No  sludge  would be  applied  during the  "wet" season from
November through March.

Based  on  an  annual   sludge  application  rate  (dry  weight)  of  250 mt/ha
(112 T/ac), and annual  sludge generation in  1980 of  17,000 mt/yr (18,700
T/yr) per Table 9-7,  a  simple division  determines that the sludge appli-
cation area required  in  1980 is  68 ha  (167 ac).

Referring to  future  estimates of  sludge generation shown  in  Table 9-7,
the sludge  application  area  required increases as follows:
          Year

          1980
          1985
          1992
          1999
Area Required

 Ha        Ac
 68
 72
 89
100
167
177
219
247
                                   9-29

-------
                        TABLE 9-12
    MONTHLY SLUDGE  APPLICATION  RATES FOR  DESIGN
       EXAMPLE BASED ON NET SOIL EVAPORATION
            Net Soil Evaporation*
Monthly Application  Rate,
	Dry Weight'	
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
cm
(6.51)
(4.98)
(0.26)
5.53
13.17
16.75
19.59
17.00
12.88
6.18
(1.47)
(6.63)
71.78
in
(2.56) ..
(1.96)
(0.10)
2.18
5.19
6.60
7.72
6.70
5.07
2.43
(0.58)
(2.61)
28.28
mt/ha/rao
_
-
-
15.2
36.3
46.1
53.9
46.8
35.4
17.0
-
-
250.7
T/ac/mo
.
-
-
6.8
16.1
20.5
24.0
20.8
15.8
7.6
-
-
111.6
* From Table 9-11.

t Uses Equation  (9-3) in Section 9.6.2:

  R = EN x TS x C
   H    100 - TS

  where:

    RM « monthly sludge application rate.

    EN = net soil evaporation (from Table 9-11).

    TS » total solids content of the sludge, equals 2.68 percent
        (Table 9-8).

    C « A conversion factor which  equals 100 mt/cm in metric
        or 113 T/in in English units.
                           9-30

-------
      9.10.6  Sludge Storage  For Design Example

Sludge  storage  volume  is required  for  the  period  when  sludge  is  not
applied  to  the  site,  i.e.,   the  5-month  "wet"  season  from  November
through March.    This is  2  months  longer than  the  3-month  storage  "re-
quired" by  the  state.    Table  9-13 shows  the  calculation  for required
monthly'Sludge  storage.   As  can  be  seen  in  the last  column,  a  sludge
storage volume  in 1980 of  283,000 m3  (75 M  gal)  is required.
                                   TABLE  9-13
                 CALCULATION  OF SLUDGE  VOLUME STORAGE NEEDS
                FOR 1980 SLUDGE  GENERATION  FOR DESIGN  EXAMPLE
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Annual
1980
Wet Sludge
Vol ume*
m3 x 103
63
56
51
50
51
52
57
69
71
80
80
76
756
SI udge
Application
Ratet
(mt/ha/mo)
,17
-
-
-
-
-
15.2
36.3
46.1
53.9
46.8
35.4
250.7
Wet Sludge
Vol ume
Applied*
m3 x 103
51
-
-
-
-
-
46
110
139
163
142
107
758
Change
in
Storage
m3 x 103
12
56
51
50
51
52
11
-41
-68
-83
-62
-31

Cumulative
Storage
m3 x 103
12
68
119
169
220
272
283
242
174
91
29
-2

          * Wet  sludge volume generated from example city records.  Summer increase due
           to seasonal food processing industrial wastewater.

          t Sludge application rate from Table 9-12.

          # Wet  sludge volume applied equals sludge application  rate in dry metric
           ton/ha x application area of 68 ha x 44.5 m3 of wet  sludge per metric ton  of
           dry  sludge solids (see Table 9-7).

         ** Conversion factors:  i m3 = 255 gal; one mt/ha/mo =  0.446 T./ac/mo.
                                     9-31

-------
The  sludge  storage volume required  increases  proportionately to sludge
volume generated in subsequent years as shown in Table 9-7, as follows:
     Year

     1980
     1985
     1992
     1999
Sludge Storage Volume Required

m3 x 103                 M gal
  283
  294
  350
  377
 75
 78
 93
100
This is a preliminary  calculation.   It is necessary to check the effect
of precipitation and evaporation on the proposed sludge ponds before de-
sign finalization, as shown in the following subsection.

     9.10.7  Sludge Storage Design

Design  of  sludge storage  facilities is  discussed  in Chapter  10.   For
this example, the designer  decided  to  provide  open  storage lagoons with
diked sides and  heavy  clay  lining  to prevent seepage.  Four lagoons are
provided with a  capacity of 94 x 103  m3  (25 million  gal)  each.  Figure
9-5 shows the general arrangement of the four lagoons.

To obtain the final  sludge  storage  volume required  for design purposes,
it  is   necessary  to check  the  effect of  evaporation from  the  liquid
sludge  surface  and precipitation falling on the liquid  sludge surface
and the exposed  inside  slopes  of  the containment berms.   Seepage is as-
sumed to be  negligible.  Table 9-14 shows  these data.  By coincidence,
the necessary final maximum storage  volume  for  1980 calculated in Table
9-14 is the same as was preliminarily determined in Table 9-13.  Had the
precipitation been higher and evaporation lower, as it is in much of the
country, the  final  storage  volume  determined  would   have  been greater
than the preliminary calculation  in Table 9-13,  and  the  designer would
have had to adjust the  sludge  pond  depth  to accommodate the excess pre-
cipitation.

Many considerations other than volume  required  enter  into  design  of the
sludge storage lagoons, including:

     •    Piping  and  appurtenance  involved  in  adding  and  removing
          sludge, as well as interconnections between  sludge ponds.

     •    Construction   of sludge  ponds,  including lining  of wetted por-
          tion,  erosion control on dike slopes, dike construction, etc.

     •    Number and size of storage ponds.
                                   9-32

-------

A
E
0>
in
ro
k

^ 	 	 ' . 	 -r
i-OUTSIDE BEAM SLOPE 1 1 m
^ TYPICAL ALL AROUND






+•



1









131 X 131
BOTTOM
TYPICAL

>«

»•
"-INSIDE DIKE SLOPE 16.5 m
TYPICAL WITHIN EACH 'POND
PLAN VIEW
                                          ACCESS ROAD
                                          3 m TYPICAL
14.1 m TYPICAL
3 m ACCESS ROAD, TYPICAL

   L  m FREEBOARD
                                             5.5 m INSIDE
                                             DIKE HEIGHT
3.7 m OUTSIDE
DIKE HEIGHT
                L 4.6 m SLUDGE
                  DEPTH
              TYPICAL SECTION VIEW
                                 3:1  SLOPE,
                                 ALL  DIKES
TYPICAL
    Figure  9-5.   Sludge  storage  ponds,  conceptual  design
                            9-33

-------
    cn
    CD
    eC
    o:
    oo

    LU
    CD
       LU
    t-H LU
    LU
       03
01 O LU
    > Q
LU
—i LU ce.
CO CD O

    1— O
    oo oo
    2= O
    O LU
    U_
                              a!   ^
                                           r^.  «3-  o  -H  ro  ro  t-H
                                           •-<  r-.  ro  cc  co  CM  m
                                           *-«  t-<  CM  C\J  CM  CM  ^-l
                                                                       CO  LO  OO
                                           CM  C^J  CO  CO  CO
                                                           ^-1  CM  CM  CM  CM  «-<
CO  LO  CT*
                                                       i-H  CTt  C7>  CM
                                   .-t  ^3-  CM  CM  CO  CO  CM
                                               CT*  CQ
                                                               CM  CM  CM  CM
                                                               CM  O  O  O
                                                       to  co  «—i
                                                                 £_ O cr 3 c
                                                                 Z3 CL ••— ^~ '*•*
                                                                                                           O OJ O   »t-

                                                                                                 CO X CU X
                                                                                                 t_ o t- o cr s- cr
                                                                                                  i  i  i   i
                                                                                                 c cz cz c
                                                                                                 O O O O O  O O
                                                         9-34

-------
 It  is  assumed that the designer will utilize accepted  engineering  prac-
 tices  in preparation  of the final  storage  pond(s)  design.

 9.10.8 Surface Runoff Control  for  Design  Example

 The  basic  objectives  of  surface water control design is to minimize the
 volume of  runoff water which contacts the  disposed sludge, and  to manage
 the  runoff water which has contacted the sludge/soil mixture.

 Chapter 10 of this manual, and  standard  hydrological  design texts dis-
 cuss  various  methods of  surface  water  drainage  control.  This design
 example will  focus  on storage and management  of the surface runoff  which
 has  contacted  the  sludge/soil mixture and  must be  managed in an  environ-
 mentally exceptable manner.

          9.10.8.1  Surface Runoff  Storage Volume  Required

 The  stored  runoff  water  will  be  discharged  to  a   collection sewer  which
 returns to the POTW.  However, the  sewer has  limited capacity, and  it is
 necessary  to store the  runoff  and bleed  it into  the  sewer  over  time.
 Design criteria for this case are:

     •    Maximum  100-year  storm = 8.94  cm  (3.52 in)  in  24  hours and
          14.48 cm  (5.70 in) in 72  hours.

     •    Maximum runoff for the site = 37 percent  of precipitation.

     t    Sludge application area in 1980  = 68 ha  (167 ac) and in 1999 =
          100 ha (247 ac).

     •    Sewer capacity  for  discharge of stored  runoff  =  7,600 m3/day
          (2 M gal/day).

For  preliminary  design purposes,  the  surface runoff storage  volume  is
calculated as follows for 1999:
                  SR = [(P72) x (SA) x (% RD)] - (D72)
where:
  SR = Runoff storage required
       Maximum 72-hour precipitation
       Sludge-amended (application) area
% RD = % runoff from site soil, expressed as a fraction
       Quantity which can be bled off to sewer in 72 hours
      D
       72
                                  9-35

-------
            (14.48  cm  x    * "*   x  100  ha  x  10,000 m2/ha  x  0.37)
                        JLUU CHI

                        3
                      rn
                   24  hr
                                                      gfll
Assuming one rectangular, open basin, with banned side slopes of 3:1 and
effective liquid depth of 3 m  (10 ft),  the total  basin area required is
approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac).

     9.10.9  Other On-Site Improvements Area Required

For preliminary  design  purposes,  it  is  assumed that  the  land  area re-
quirements for other improvements are as follows:

     t    On-site drainage  collection:  3 percent  of  sludge application
          area = 0.03 x 100 ha = 3 ha (7.4 ac).

     •    On-site roads,  structures,  fencing:   5  percent  of  sludge ap-
          plication area = 0.05 x 100 ha = 5 ha (12.4 ac).

     9.10.10  Total  Site Area Required

Site area required excluding buffer  zone  is  totaled as followed for the
ultimate design to the year 1999.

          Sludge application area = 100 ha (247 ac).
          Sludge storage basins = 13 ha (32 ac).
          Surface runoff storage basin = 1.6 ha (4 ac).
          On-site drainage collection = 3 ha (7.4 ac).
          On-site roads, buildings, etc. = 5 ha ( 12.9 ac).

The total site area excluding buffer zone = 122.6 ha (303 ac).  However,
the responsible  regulatory agency  has  indicated that  a minimum distance
of 610  m (2,000 ft) must be  provided from the sludge storage  ponds to
the site  boundary,  and a minimum  distance of  305 m  (1,000  ft)  be pro-
vided from the sludge application area to the site boundary.  Assuming a
square  site,  the minimum  total  site  dimensions,  including  the  buffer
zone, are 1,720 m x  1,720 m  (5,642 ft x 5,642 ft)  as shown in Figure 9-
6.  Total area required is 296 ha  (731 ac).

     9.10.11  Sludge Application Method

Sludge will be  pumped  via pipeline from the POTW  to  the sludge storage
ponds  located  near  the center  of  the  dedicated  land  disposal  site.
Sludge  will  be  applied  from  May  through October.    Dredged  sludge is
pumped from  the sludge storage  pond  to the application  area through a
buried  pipeline  to  field hydrants,  and subsequently  to  flexible  hoses
which  are connected  to  subsurface  injectors  (Figures  9-7 and  9-8).
While  dragging   the  hose,  the  subsurface injector  will traverse  the
length of the disposal  site, turn 180° at each end, and return in a path
                                  9-36

-------

A




E
o
r-l







1
k














r
^ • • • 	 — ~v

A



E
(f>
O
TH




T
k










r














A
c
1





4
E
O\
in
ro
^





k
H09m ^
-.. ^
350 m /
^ k. /



k


r
•^ ^



SLUDGE
STORAGE
PONDS


V SLUDGE APPLI


CATION
(^ AREA' PLUS
^ RUNOFF STORA'GE,
DRAINAGE, Po'NDS
AND STRUCTURES









L





>/— 305 . 5 m
TYPICAL
ALL AROUND <<^) ,
^ - / l
k
O
z
D
_J O
< o:
o <
M
0 Q. _|
03 >- _J
VO 1- <
^










                                          
-------
                           SEWAGE
                          TREATMENT
                           PLANT
                       SLUDGE STORAGE
                           PONDS
                                 ^	 HYDRANTS  LOCATED
                                      IN  SLUDGE APPLICATION
                                      AREA  (TYPICAL)

                           FLEXIBLE HOSE  CONNECTED TO HYDRANT
                              TRACTOR  AND  INJECTION  UNIT
Figure 9-7.   Schematic diagram of sludge pumping and application
             method.
                              9-38

-------
Figure 9-8.   Tractor and injection unit.
                  9-39

-------
adjacent to  the preceding pass.   In normal  operation,  freshly applied
solids remain unexposed to the  atmosphere.   However, regular disking of
the site will be  used  to  break  up the soil/sludge surface and to expose
more of the  sludge-soil mixture to the  atmosphere to enhance drying and
degradation.

Generally, during  June,  July,  and  August,  sludge will  be  removed from
the storage  ponds, and applied to the same  site twice a week,  and in
May, September, and October, once a week.

     9.10.12  Monitoring Requirements for Sample  Design

Monitoring requirements  and  methods  are  discussed  generally in Chapter
11  of  this manual.   For  this  sample design, locations, frequency, and
parameters analyzed or recorded are shown in  Table 9-15.
In  addition  to the
and odor monitoring
sponse team will be
residents, to  track
written record.
               monitoring  shown in  Table  9-15, micrometerological
               will be  routinely  conducted.   An odor complaint re-
               formed,  to  check on all  odor complaints from nearby
                them to  the  source, if possible,  and  to  provide a
     9.10.13  Cost Estimates

Preliminary estimates (1982 costs) for capital and operational cc
the system  presented  in the sample design  are  presented in Tabl
and 9-17.   Table 9-16 estimates  capital  costs
including  transport  of  sludge  to  the  site, as
transport to  the site is not  included because  it  is a site unique
tor.
                                       are  presented  in Tables 9-16
                                            including  land, but not
                                              $12,676,000.    Sludge
Annual  operational  costs  are estimated  in  Table 9-17  at $619,000/yr.
Utilizing  reasonable  equipment life and  amortization  factors,  the unit
costs  represented  are aproximately  $109/ dry metric  ton  ($99/ton),  or
$26/wet m3 ($0.10/wet gal) of  sludge disposed.

9.11  References

  1.  Sacramento  Area  Consultants.    Sewage  Sludge  Management  Program.
     Vol.  1:  SSMP  Final  Report,  Work  Plans and  Source  Survey.   Sacra-
     mento Regional County Sanitation District.   Sacramento, California,
     September  1979.    (Available  from   National  Technical  Information
     Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB80 166739.)
 2.
 3.
U.S. EPA.   Water  Quality Criteria, 1972.   EPA R3-73-033, National
Academy of Science, Washington, D.C., March 1973.  606 pp.  (Avail-
able from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Vir-
ginia, PB-236 199)
Alexander, M.   Introduction  to Soil
New York, 1977.  pp. 225-271.
Microbiology.  2d  Ed.   Wiley,
                                  9-40

-------
                                             TABLE 9-15
         MONITORING PROGRAM  FOR SLUDGE,  SOIL,  AND WATERS,  DESIGN  EXAMPLE


Parameter
General and. Mineral
Total flow
Total solids
Volatile Solids
Specific conductance
pll
Total alkalinity
Chloride
Soluble sulfage
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Total phosphate
Total nitrogen
Nitrate
Ammonia nitrogen
COO
Dissolved oxygen
Temperature
Turbidity.
Hardness
Heavy Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver'
Zinc
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Pesticides
ecu's
Total Organic Halogen's
Fecal Collform
Sludge
Dally Storage
Pond, Discharge Twice
Pumps Annually'

* X
* X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X





X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Soils

Annually


X

*
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X





X
*
*
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Ground Mater

Every Other
Month ' Annually*




X X
X X
X X
X X





X X
X X
X X
X X
X *



X X


*
*
X
*
*
X
*
*

*
*
,
*
Creek Hater

Every Other tt
Month Annually




X X
X X
X X
X X





X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
Surface Runoff

Automatic
Sampler"




X
X
X
X





X
X
X

X



X















 * Monitoring of this parameter Is required by regulatory agency.

 X This parameter is monitored.

 9 Front each sludge storage pond.

 t Analyze In March.

** Analyze in June.

tfff Analyze daily when sample is collected.
                                                 9-41

-------
                             TABLE  9-16
       ESTIMATED  CAPITOL COSTS (1982)  FOR DEDICATED
         LAND  DISPOSAL  SITE USED  AS  SAMPLE  DESIGN
Item
No.
  6
  7

  8

  9
 10
 11

 12
 13

 14

 15
 16
 17
 18
             Description
Sludge pump station  at  sewage treatment plant
and pipeline from sewage  treatment plant to the
sludge storage ponds located at the dedicated
land disposal  site.
Land purchase, 296 ha (731 ac) at $4,446/ha
($l,800/ac).
Land grading 296 ha  (731  ac) at $2,706/ha
($l,100/ac).
Construction of sludge  storage ponds, clay lined
with riprap erosion  protection, 377,000 m3
(100 M gal) at $10.56 M3  ($0.04/gal).
Construction of surface runoff storage pond
30,776 M3 (8.1 M gal) at  S11.88/M3 ($0.045/gal).
On-site drainage control  structures
On-site roads, gravel,  15,000 m (49,200 ft) at
$38.40/m ($11.70/ft).
Fencing, chain link, 1.83 m (6 ft), 4,436 m
(14,550 ft) at $49.20/M ($15/ft).
Sludge pump station  at  sludge storage ponds,
200 hp.
On-site piping, valving,  hydrants, etc.
Four subsurface sludge  injectors, tractors, and
flexible hoses at $160,000 each.
One tillage tractor.
Miscellaneous  onsite improvements, including
office, workman facilities, lighting equipment
warehouse,  etc., 558 mz (6,000 ft2) at $7.00/mz
($65/ft2).
Total  estimated capitol cost, including land, but
not including  transport of sludge to the disposal
site.
Miscellaneous  and contingencies
Engineering costs
Interest during construction
Total  estimated capitol cost
Capital  Cost
   1982  S
Not included  in
the cost total,
See Chapter  10
  1,316,000

    801,000

  3,981,000

    366,000

    250,000
    576,000

    218,000

    350,000

    890,000
    640,000

    125,000
    391,000


  9,904,000

    990,000
    990,000
    792,000
 12,676,000
                                    9-42

-------
                              TABLE  9-17
      ESTIMATED  OPERATIONAL  COSTS (1982)  FOR  DEDICATED
           LAND  DISPOSAL  SITE USED AS SAMPLE  DESIGN
Item
No.                  Description

  1      Labor 6.5 man-years annually at $27,000/man-
        year, including fringe  benefits

  2      Repairs and  supplies for mobile equipment

  3      Repairs and  supplies for stationary  equipment
        and structures

  4      Energy costs, electricity and fuel

  5      Sampling, monitoring, and anaysis costs

  6      Estimated direct operational costs

  7      Management cost at 45%

  8      Total annual operational cost, 1982
Operational Cost
     1982 $

     176,000
     175,000

     120,000


      43,000

      24.000
     538,000

      81,000

     619,000
                                  9-43

-------
  4.  Sacramento Area  Consultants.   Sewage  Sludge Management  Program.
      Volume 7A:  Draft Environmental  Impact Report.  Sacramento Regional
      County Sanitation District, Sacramento,  California, September 1979.
      (Available from  National  Technical  Information   Service,  Spring-
      field, Virginia,  PB80 166820)

  5.   U.S.  EPA.   Process  Design Manual  for Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
      EPA-625-1-79-011, Center  for Environmental  Research  Information,
      Cincinnati,  Ohio, September  1979.    1135  pp.   (Available  from  Na-
      tional Technical  Information Service, Springfield,  Virginia,  PB80
      200546)

  6.   Brown  and  Caldwell.   Corvallis Sludge Disposal  Study.  City of  Cor-
      vallis,  Oregon, April  1977.

  7.   Brown  and Caldwell.   Con/all is  Sludge  Disposal  Predesign  Report.
      City of  Con/all is,  Oregon,  March  1978.

  8.   Brown  and Caldwell.   Amendment  to  Corvallis Wastewater  Treatment
      Program.   Environmental Assessment Dedicated  Land Disposal  Project.
      City of  Corvallis,  Oregon,  April  1978.

  9.   Brown  and Caldwell.   Preliminary  Draft:    Colorado Springs Long-
      Range  Sludge Management Study.  City of  Colorado Springs,  Colorado,
      April  1979.

10.   Knight,  R. 6., E. H.  Rothfuss, and K.  D. Yard.  FGD Sludge  Disposal
      Manual.    EPRI  CS-1515,   Michael  Baker  Jr.,  Beaver,  Pennsylvania,
      September  1980.   710  pp.

11.   American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers.   Sanitary  Landfill  Manual.
      ASCE Manuals of Practice  39,  New  York, September 1976.  61  pp.

12.   Criteria for  Classification of Solid Waste Disposal  Facilities  and
      Practices  (40  CFR,  Part  257).   Federal  Register,   44:53438-53468,
      September  13, 1979.

13.   U.S. EPA.  Process Design Manual:  Muncipal Sludge  Landfills.  EPA-
      625/1-78-010.   October 1978.   327  pp.    (Available from  National
      Technical  Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,  PB-299 675)

14.   Geswein, A.  J.   Liners  for   Land Disposal Sites,  An Assessment.
      EPA-530/SW-137.   U.S.' Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,
     D.C.,  March  1975.  (Available from  National  Technical Information
     Service, Springfield,  Virginia, PB-261 046)

15.  Lutton, R. J., G. L.  Regan, and  L.  W. Jones.  Design and Construc-
     tion of  Covers  for Solid Waste  Landfill.    EPA  600/2-79-165,  Army
     Engineer  Waterways   Experiment  Station,   Vicksburg,  Mississippi,
     August 1979.  276 pp.   (Available from National  Technical  Informa-
     tion Service, Springfield,  Virginia,  PB80 100381)
                                  9-44

-------
16.  Sacramento  Area  Consultants.    Dedicated  Land  Disposal  Study  -
     Sacramento  Regional  County Sanitation  District,  Sacramento,  Cali-
     fornia, September 1979.  pp. 403.  (Available from National Techni-
     cal  Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB80 166804)

17.  U.S. EPA.   Process Design  Manual  for Land Treatment  of Municipal
     Wastewater,  EPA   625/1-89-013.     U.S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Center  for  Environmental  Research Information, Cincinnati,
     Ohio.  October 1981.

18.  Drainage of Agricultural Land:   A  Practical  Handbook for the Plan-
     ning, Design,  Construction,  and Maintenance  of Agricultural  Drain-
     age  Systems.    U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture.   Soil  Conservation
     Service.  October 1972.
19.  Van  Schilfgaarde,  J.,  ed.    Drainage  for  Agriculture.
     Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.  1974.
                                                                American
                                  9-45

-------

-------
                               CHAPTER 10

                  FACILITIES  DESIGN  AND  COST  GUIDANCE
10.1  General

This chapter is intended to  aid  in  design and preliminary cost estimat-
ing for:

     •    Sludge transport equipment.
     •    Sludge storage facilties.
     •    Sludge application methods.
     t    Application site preparation.
     •    Supporting facilities.

Reference is frequently made  in  this chapter to two documents that con-
tain  additional  specific cost  and  guidance information,  and  should be
obtained and used in conjunction with this chapter.  These are:

     •    Process Design  Manual  for  Sludge  Treatment  and Disposal U.S.
          EPA, MERL, ORD, September  1979, EPA-625/1-79-011.

     •    Transport of Sewage Sludge, U.S. EPA, MER, ORD, December 1977,
          EPA-600/2/77-216.

The  selection and  design  of any  individual   component  of  the   system
should  take  into  consideration  the  impact  of  these decisions  upon the
overall system efficiency, reliability, and cost.  For example, the most
economical  sludge  transportation method  may  not  result  in  the   lowest
overall system  cost  because of  resulting higher costs  at the treatment
plant and/or land application site.   The  overall system should always be
kept in mind when designing its  individual components.

10.2  Transportation of Sludge

     10.2.1  Transport Modes

Potential modes of  sludge  transportation  include truck, pipeline, rail-
road, barge, or various combinations  of these four modes  (Figure 10-1).

The method  of  sludge transportation  chosen  and its  costs are dependent
on a number  of factors, including:

     t    Characteristics and quantity of sludge to be transported.

          The distance from the  POTW  plant to the application site(s).
•

•
          The  availability  and proximity of the transportation modes to
          both  origin  and  destination,  e.g.,  proximity  of  railroad
          spurs, barge waterways, roads, etc.
                                 10-1

-------
z >
UJ (-
< w
UJ o
OL <
I- U.
                                                                         I
                                                                        (O
                                                                        o
                                                                        Q.
                                                                        O.
                                                                        rO

                                                                       •o
                                                                        c
                                                                        (O
                                                                        in
                                                                        c.
                                                                        a
                                                                       •r-

                                                                        ro
                                                                        o
                                                                        o

                                                                       T3
                                                                        {=
                                                                        rtf

                                                                        V)
                                                                        
                                                                       s_
                                                                       o
                                                                       Q.
                                                                       CO
                                                                       c:
                                                                       CL)
                                                                       O W)
                                                                          O)
                                                                       W -P
                                                                       O) -I-
                                                                      r— W
                                                                       Q.
                                                                       E t=
                                                                       tO O
                                                                       X -r-
                                                                      UJ 4->
O
                                                                       O)
                                                                       S-
         1-0-2

-------
•    The  degree  of
     method chosen.
                           flexibility  required   in  the  transportation
     •    The estimated useful life of the sludge land application site,
          and site  characteristics (topography, vegetative  cover,  soil
          type,  area available).

     •    Environmental and public acceptance factors.

To minimize  the  danger of spills, liquid  sludges  should be transported
in closed  tank  systems.   Stabilized, dewatered  sludges can  be  trans-
ported  in  open  vessels,  such as  dump  trucks and  railroad  gondolas  if
equipped with water tight seals and anti-splash guards (11).

     10.2.2  Vehicle Transport

          10.2.2.1  Vehicle Types Available

Trucks  are  widely  used  for  transporting  both  liquid and  dewatered
sludges  and  are  generally  the most  flexible means  of  transportation.
Terminal points  and  haul  routes  can  be  readily  changed  with  minimal
cost.   Trucks can be  used for hauling  sludge either to the final  appli-
cation  site(s)  or to  an  intermediate transfer  point such  as railroad
yards or a barge  loading  area.   Access  to sludge  within a  site  is usu-
ally adequate for truck loading.

Many truck configurations are available ranging from  standard tank and
dump bodies  to specialized  equipment  for hauling and spreading sludges.
Depending on  the type of sludge to be hauled, the following types of ve-
hicles can be used.

a.  Liquid Sludge (Usually Less Than 10 Percent Solids, Dry Weight)

     •    Farm tractor  and  tank wagon,  such as  used  for livestock man-
          ure.  Normally  used only for  short  hauls,  and by small rural
          communities.

     •    Tank truck,  available in  sizes from  2,000 to 24,000 1  (500 to
          6,000 gal)

          - Tank truck  adapted  for  field application  of  sludge in addi-
            tion to road hauling.

          - Tank truck  only  used  for road hauling  to  the land applica-
            tion  site(s)  and  sludge  subsequently transferred to field
            sludge application  vehicle  or irrigation  system.  Such tank
            trucks are often termed "nurse trucks."
                                 10-3

-------
 b.   Dewatered  or  Composted  Sludge  (e.g.,  Usually  20  to  60  Percent
     Solids,  Dry Weight)

      •     Dump truck,  available  in  sizes  from  6 to 23 m3  (8 to  30 yd3).

      t     Hopper  (bottom .dump) truck, available  in  sizes  from 12 to  19
           m3 (15  to  25 yd3).

      •     Either  of  the  above types of truck  can be used  only  for haul-
           ing  the sludge  to  the  land application  site(s),  or  can  be
           adapted to both haul the  sludge and  spread the sludge.

 Figure  10-2 shows  photographs  of  typical types  of the  trucks listed
 above.

           10.2.2.2   Vehicle Size and  Number Required

 To properly  assess the size and  number of vehicles needed  for transport-
 ing  sludge from the  treatment  plant to the application  site(s), the  fol-
 lowing factors should  be considered:

      •     Quantity of  sludge,  present and future.

      •     Type of sludge, liquid, dewatered, or composted.

      •     Distance from  treatment  plant  to application site(s) and  tra-
           vel time.

      t     Type and condition of  roads to  be traversed,  including maximum
           axle load  limits and bridge loading  limits.

      t     Provisions for vehicle maintenance.

      •     Scheduling of  sludge application.    In many  areas,  there  is a
           large seasonal  variation (due  to  weather, cropping patterns,
           etc.) in  the  quantity  of sludge  which  can  be  applied.   The
           transport  system  capacity  should  be  designed   to  handle  the
           maximum  anticipated  sludge  application  period, taking   into
           consideration any interim sludge storage capacity available.

      •     Percent of time when the  sludge transport  vehicles  will  be  in
           productive use.   A 1977 study  (1) of  truck  sludge  hauling  at
           24 small to  medium  size  communities  showed that liquid sludge
           haul trucks were in productive  use an average of 48 percent  of
          the time (range 7 to 90 percent) based upon an 8-hr day and  5-
           day week.  Average use for dewatered sludge haul truck was re-
           ported even less at 29 percent.

Tables 10-1  and  10-2  provide  a  guideline for estimating  the number  of
trucks  needed  for  transporting  liquid   and  dewatered sludge,  respec-
tively.  While the tables provide a means  for making preliminary compar-
isons, they are only a starting point in the decision making process for
                                  10-4

-------
Figure 10-2A.  6,500-galTon liquid sludge tank truck (courtesy of
               Brenner Tank Co.).
 Fi gure  10-2B,
3,300 gallon liquid sludge tank truck with 2,000-
gallon pup trailer (.courtesy of Brenner Tank Co..)
                               10-5

-------
Figure 10-2C8-
25-cubi c-yard dewatered
of Converto Mfg.  Co.).
                                      sludge haul  truck (courtesy

Figure 10-2D.
 12-cubic-yard dewatered sludge spreader vehicle
 (courtesy of Ag-Chem Equipment Co.).
                             10-6

-------
to
UJ
CD
Q
_J
OO
Q
l — 1
o- -.
i — i
1-1 — J
o «
i-) >-
Q;
UJ <=£
co 2:
£3
•zz
•=£.
C£.
UJ
a.
0
o
o;
i—
in >-
O (n
4-> t-
i ro
o -a -~
3 -~. L.
!_ I- -C
1— Si
OJ
CO C\J
*— ^
 o>
CM
Is
g^
in 03
. 01
in
o
O r—
in 
CM
g_
;~.S
re) c: 10
3 re 4J
 S
CO LO P- O 1 —
O O O rH rH
CO O VO CO CO
O t-H rH OJ CO
vo I-H oj co cn
i— 1 O CO ^t* 1 — .
CO VO rH CO IO
O r-H CO VO OJ
CO P*. CO P^ CO
i-H OJ LO O rH
rH OJ
• OJ LO rH OJ *3-
CO VO rH OJ <3"
r-l OJ <3-
VO OJ «* CO tO
CO tO O CD O
rH OJ LO O O
rH OJ
ctd-d-c!.^

,_«,_<,_<,_<,-)
rH rH rH rH OJ
rH rH OJ OJ «3*
CO CO CO CO CO
CM OJ OJ OJ OJ
.00000
o o o o o
o o o o o
LO LO LO LO LO
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
---<-<'-'
LO O CD O CD
rH OJ ^J- CO
2
OJ LO «* LO CO
rH rH OJ CO LO
LO «*• OJ P^. P-.
OJ CO LO f** OJ
OO rH CO CD LO
LO P^ 0 VO VO

OJ LO O O rH
rH OJ «tf-
^" Cn CO VO rH
«3- CO r*. LO rH
f-H CO P-*>
CO "d- rH OOJ
cn co P"^ ^i" co
rH CO P-» «$•
rH
cn co vo co LO
rH CO P*. tf
rH
O O O O O
CM ^r co vo oj
rH CO
OJ CO P-«. CO p*^
^* CO VO CO VO
rH CO LO
^cuzidd-

rH rH rH OJ OJ
rH OJ CO CO VO
OJ CO *T VO OJ
rH
gen cn cn cn
0 O O O
cn cn cn cn cn
o o o o o
o o CD CD o
O O O 0 0
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
2S222
LO O O O O
rH CM «* CO
LO
LO VO O LO CO
co  cn
P
"re
cn • I-H
O U II
o • c
LO 4-J (O r™ O
it- re
. O t- OJ r-f
V **
re to o o •*'
j ^i O) C
i — o cn o
QJ 3 ^ t_ 7n
>» 0 0 C
re in o
-o -a TD 3 vj
OJ OJ O
O to to r— u
CO CQ CQ 
-------






RY, DEWATERED SLUDGE (6
g
c/>
OPERATK
o
rs
t—





L.
itki a
10 >•
0 ifl
4-> I-
-
ts ™
3 O
t- 0
1—0
t_
ai
"U ~~,
t/1 (/)
=3 OJ
o
r-4
*
*
•<~* o
•X t- ra
•a a t-
ai a. a
•o O ca
OJ CO
ca >>
Trucks 1
8 Hours/Di
\ Hours/Daj
£i

c.
to
01
1
in
•r-
t-
>~

e
r- OJ
to cn
3 -o
C r— [
T,
:
a
co :
c
T
C
•t
C
T
C
T
C
*c
C
•c
C
TJ
C
CO ™

°
U
0*
CO 3

) U
rD C 01
3; (O flj
1 .M —
D J r- * CM co *d- to
>J CM co. ITS r-^ CM
•J CM CO tO t-H CO
)l
•J CM ^1- O1 CO U3
I O O O r-l CO
1
•J CO r-* CO f*» CO
O O rl CM it)
1 "^
J O r-« CM «3- OO
1 —< CM «3- CO «5
1
J ".
1 rH CO ^O CM «*
r-l CM


| -< r-, _, r-, ,-,

! LO LO tO LO IO
1
0 O O 0 O
a o o a o
r- t T-l r-l r-< r-l

O CD O O O
tn in tn 10 to
i-H r—4 rH rH T— 1

-H OJ -3- CO
to
OJ CO "tf- tO rH
O O O O rH
«s- to cn co rH
O O O i-H r-H
.^-^-^-s^-^.»-^.


to to to to to
i-H r— 1 rH t— ( r-H
CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO

O O O CD O
O O CD O O
tO LO tO tO LO

LO O O O O
rH CM *** CO
to
to cn co cn CM
O O rH rH CO
co P-N. to co *3-
rH rH OJ CO ^t"
CM oj co LO cn
T-H
«3" cn r>. ^j- cn
rH OJ LO rH OJ
rH OJ
oj «tf- cn co to
r-l «3- CO f^ CO
r-H CO
co r-» co r^ co
co to co to co
i— * OJ tO
to o o o o
r-H OJ ^r CO
O CD CD O O
»— 1 OJ "^ CO tO
rH
IO O CD O O
rH CO to CM *3"
rH OJ
dddcLc!.
	


O CD O O 0
LO tO LO LO LO
o o o o o
O O O CD O
CD O O 0 0
i-H ,-H rH rH i-H
o o o o o
o o o o o
LO tO LO LO LO
rH rH rH rH t-H
to o o o o
rH OJ rr CO
to
rH
rH CO CO «3- tO
OJ OJ «tf* tO O
rH
CM P-^ '*O CO OJ
«3- LO CO OJ rH
rH rH
co LO cn oj co
tO CO CM CJ> rH
T-H i— 1 CO
cn ^~ r-H o co
^~ cn cn co to
rH CO r-v
co cn to co •«*•
!*••• *3~ cn cn co
rH i-H tO rH
(— «
rH OJ ^3- 0s! CO
rH oj 
-a
3
u
O r-^
CO
CO
o •
i+- CO
en it
n.
fO
LO cn
.00 rH
-a ••>
c: e
« cn
J* O
u to
3 •
£_ • rH
U 11
>)-rJ C7J (U
c c —
3 0)  OJ •!- I-H
-o o s
•T3 O 3
CO 4- O
O 3
CX 'O tO
t_ -a i^
O 01 •
4- t_ L. O
en o ex ;i
cn i, >,
LO c: 3
• -i- O 3
<3- j-> x: u
rO
• O O)
03 ^ 3 ^£ O) C
r— O Cn O
C. QJ 3 (Q "r-
 0)
tn c c n3 >
>. o o c:
TJ i/1 O
"*3 "O T3 3 O
a» cu o
O Ul v) r— U
CO CO CQ «C t_
*<_**!
10-8

-------
a specific  project.   For  example,  they can be  used  to  quickly compare
vehicle needs as a function  of  whether  to truck transport liquid sludge
at 5 percent solids or an equivalent quantity of dewatered sludge solids
at 25 percent solids.  Assuming a  liquid sludge quantity of 57 mil 1/yr
(15 MG/yr),  58,000 mt/yr  (64^000  T/yr),  and an equivalent  quantity  of
dewatered sludge  of  11,470 m3/yr  (15,000 yd^/yr),  12,000 mt/yr (13,000
T/yr), and  a  one-way  distance of 32 km (20 mi)  from treatment plant to
application  site,  Tables  10-1  and 10-2  indicate  that for  an  8 hr/day
operation, approximately six  9,450  1  (2,500 gal) tank trucks are neces-
sary to transport the liquid sludge, and only one 11.5 rrr (15 yd"3) truck
is necessary to transport  the dewatered sludge.   The difference in fuel
purchase  is 202,000  1/yr   (53,500  gal/yr)  versus  50,300  1/yr (13,300
gal/yr),  and  in driver  time is 15,500 hr/yr  versus 2,600  hr/yr.   The
above savings  in  transportation cost of  dewatered  sludge versus liquid
sludge can then be compared to the cost of dewatering the sludge.

The reader  should  be aware  that the above  example  is  obviously highly
simplified in that it assumes that  the  sludge  transport operation takes
place 360 day/yr,  provides an average  of  only  10  percent plus 2 hr/day
for truck  idle  and maintenance  time, and  gives  no  consideration to ef-
fects of  sludge type  upon  operating   costs at  the  sludge  application
site(s).

          10.2.2.3  Other Considerations

The haul  distance  should be minimized  to  reduce costs,  travel time and
the potential for  accidents  en  route to the application site(s).  Unfa-
vorable  topographic  features,  road load limits,   population  patterns,
etc., may influence routing  such that  the shortest  haul  distance is not
the most favorable.

Effective speed and travel  time can be  estimated from the haul distance,
allowing for differences in  speed  for  various  segments of the route and
the anticipated traffic  conditions.   Periods of heavy traffic should be
avoided from a  safety  standpoint,  for  efficiency of  operation, and for
improved public acceptability.

The existing highway conditions  must be considered  in the evaluation of
truck  transport.    Physical  constraints,  such  as  weight,  height,  and
speed limits,  may limit truck  transport and will .definitely influence
vehicle and  route  selection.  Local  traffic congestion and traffic con-
trols will  not  only  influence routing,  but should  also be considered in
determining the transport  operation  schedule.  Public opinion on the use
of local  roadways, particularly residential  streets may have a signifi-
cant effect on truck transport operations and routing.

Fuel availability  and costs  can have a profound impact on the operation
and economy of sludge hauling activities.  Larger trucks tend to be more
fuel efficient than  smaller  ones.   Also, short  haul distances over flat
terrain will have lower fuel requirements than long distances and hills.
Manpower  requirements  can  be  determined  from   the  operating  schedule.
                                  10-9

-------
 Truck drivers and mechanics  as  well  as loading and  unloading  personnel
 will  be required for large sludge hauling operations.   Small  operations
 may combine these roles  into  one or  two persons.

 The operating program for sludge hauling can be simple  or  very complex.
 An  example of a  simple  hauling  operation would be a case  where  all  the
 sludge  generated each day  is hauled to  a  dedicated land  disposal  site
 and discharged into  a large capacity  sludge  storage  facility.   In such  a
 simple  case, the designer can easily develop an operating schedule  for
 sludge  hauling based upon the following:

      •     Quantity of sludge  which will, be hauled.

      t     Average round  trip  driving  time requirement.

      •     Sludge  loading and  unloading  time  requirement.

      •     Truck maintenance downtime.

      •     Estimated  truck idle  time, in addition  to maintenance  down-
           time.

      •     Haul truck capacity.

      •     Length  of  working  shifts  and number  of  laborers   (drivers,
           etc.) working.

      »     Safety  factor   for  contingencies,  e.g., variations  in  sludge
           quantity generated, impassible roads due to weather,  etc.

At  the  opposite  extreme  from  the simple case described above is  the  de-
velopment  of  a complex sludge hauling schedule for an agricultural uti-
lization program  involving  many  privately owned farms.   Such  a  program
is  complicated by the  need to take into account the following additional
factors:

      t     The  variation  in distance  (driving time)  from the POTW to  the
           privately  owned farms  or forests accepting the sludge.
          No  sludge
          sites.
storage capacity provided at the sludge  application
          Weather, soil  conditions,  and
          limit the  number  of days when
          be applied to farmland.
                    cropping patterns that  severely
                     and locations where sludge  can
As an example  of  the  large  variations in sludge hauling schedules for a
complex agricultural utilization program, Table 10-3 shows the projected
monthly sludge distribution for the Madison, Wisconsin, "METROGRO" proj-
ect.  As can be  seen,  projected sludge volume distribution in the maxi-
mum sludge utilization months (e.g.,  September) is six times that of the
                                 10-10

-------
miminum sludge utilization months  (e.g.,  February).   The  designer  should
provide for the necessary sludge transport,  application,  etc.,  equipment
and  labor  to handle the  maximum  sludge  distribution months.  This  re-
sults  in  under utilization  of equipment  during the low demand  sludge
distribution  months,  as well  as  the potential  problem of shifting  em-
ployees (e.g., drivers) to other productive  work.   Some cities  have sup-
plemented their forces  with  private haulers during peak  periods to help
overcome this problem.

                               TABLE 10-3
               PROJECTED MONTHLY SLUDGE DISTRIBUTION  FOR
    AGRICULTURAL SLUDGE UTILIZATION PROGRAM, MADISON, WISCONSIN (4)
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
% of Annual
2.5
2.5
2.5 .
7.5
7.5
5
10
12.5
15
15
15
5
Gal /Month
(x 1,000)
1,250
1,250
1,250
3,750
3,750
2,500
5,000
6,250
7,500
7,500
7,500
2,500
Gal /Day*
J2.500
62,500
62,500
187,500
187,500
125,000
• ' 250,000
312,500
375,000
* 375,000
375,000,
125,000
            * Based on 20-day/month operation.

            Metric conversion:

              1 gal =3.78 1
a.   Contract Hauling  Considerations

Many cities,  both  large  and small,  use  private contractors  for  sludge
hauling,  and  sometimes sludge application as well.   The economic  feasi-
bility  of private contract hauling versus use  of  publically owned vehi-
cles and  public  employees,  should be  analyzed for  most new projects.  If
a  private contractor  is used, it  is  essential  that  a comprehensive con-
tract be  prepared which considers the total management  plan  and  avoids
city liabilty for  mistakes by the contractor.  As  a  minimum,  the con-
tract should  cover  the following  responsibilities:

      •     Liability and .insurance for equipment and employees.
           Safety  and  public health
           ments.
protection procedures  and require-
                                  10-11

-------
      •    Estimated sludge quantities and handling procedures.

      t    Methods  for  and  responsibility  for  handling  citizen  com-
           plaints,  and other public relations.

      •    Accident, spill, violation, etc., notification  and mitigation
           procedures.

      •    Monitoring procedures,  record  keeping and  reporting  require-
           ments.

      •    Responsibility for  obtaining  and  maintaining permits,  licen-
           ses,  and  regulatory agency approvals.

      •    The usual  legal  document  provisions  for non-performance  re-
           lief, termination,  etc.

 In  some  instances, sludge  is  hauled away  from the  POTW  by  the  user,
 e.g.,  farmer, commercial  forest  grower,  etc.  Again, the city should  ob-
 tain  competent  legal council  to avoid potential liability  due to  negli-
 gence  by  the  private user/hauler.

 b.  Additional  Facilities  Required for Hauling  Operation

 Sludge loading  facilities  at  the POTW should be  accessible  and in  a con-
 venient location.   Depending  on the type of  sludge being hauled, hop-
 pers,  conveyor  belts,  or pipelines are needed to load  the trucks.   Vehi-
 cle  storage and  a  maintenance/repair shop may  be  located at the  plant
 site.   Equipment  washdown,facilities  and  parking should be  nearby.

 Similar facilities  for truck  unloading,  etc.,  may  be necessary to  the
 sludge application  site(s)  and/or  sludge  storage facility.

           10.2.2.4   Cost Estimation  Factors

 Capital  as well  as  operation  and  maintenance  (O&M)  costs for  truck
 transportation  are   highly  variable and   dependent  on  the  physical form
 and quantity  of the sludge, hauling distances,  labor costs, fuel  costs,
 and  other transport  rate  structure factors (10).   Generalized  capital
 and O&M costs include  the  cost of the vehicles plus the loading and  un-
 loading facilities  (see Tables  10-4 through 10-6), and can  be  used to
 roughly  compare  costs.    Based  on  the  example   provided in  Section
 10.2.2.2, the one-way transportation for  32 km  (20 miles) of 57 mil 1/yr
 (15 MG/yr)  of liquid sludge can  be compared  to an equivalent 11,470 m3/
yr (15,000 yd^/yr)  of dewatered  sludge.   Using Tables  10-4 through 10-6,
these  estimated costs  (1980) are compared below:
          Liquid sludge

          - Capital  cost of  six  9,450 1  (2,500 gal)  tank  trucks
            $65,000 each (Table 10-4), $390,000
at
                                  10-12

-------
                              TABLE  10-4
     CAPITAL AND  OPERATING  COST OF  SLUDGE  HAULING  TRUCKS
Capital
Cost
Type of Sludge
Liquid


Dewatered







Type of Truck
Tank truck


Dump truck, 2 axle
Dump truck, 3 axle
Dump truck, 3 axle
(plus transfer trailer)
Dump truck, 3 axle
(plus pup trailer)
Bottom dump truck
(hopper)
Capacity
1,200 gal
2,500 gal
5,500 gal
8-10 yd3,
10-15 yd:?
15-25 ydj
n
15-25 ydj
Q
25 ydj

x 1
35
60
90
35
65
80

80

95

,000
- 40
- 65
- 100
- 40
- 70
- 85

- 85

- 110

Opera£ign
Costs
$/mi 1 e
0.30
0.38
0.45
0.30
0.38
0.45

0.45

0.54

 * Includes operator, fue.U, maintenance (labor  and supplies) and insurance;
   does  not include loading^,  Engr. Cons. Cost  Index 3237.  Cost estimates for
   mid 1980.

 Metric  conversions factors:
   1 gal  = 3.78 1  ,
   1 yd-3  = 0.764 mj
   1 mile = 1.609 km.
                             TABLE  10-5
          TRUCK  FACILITIES:   CAPITAL,  OPERATION AND
              •MAINTENANCE  DATA,.LIQUID  SLUDGE*
                                Annual  Sludge Volume, Million Gallons
    Item

Capital Cost1"

Loading pump, pipe, hose

Enclosed .truck loading
                             1.5
                                     ,5
                                               15
11,250,   11,250   12,750
                                                         50
21,000
                                                                   150
30,000
facility^ :-
Truck ramp for unloading
Unloading truck facility
and office
Subtotal Capital Costs
Operation & Maintenance,
$/yr
7,500
-22,500
15,000
56,250
11,000
10,500
22,500
15,000
59,250
14,000
15,000
45,000
22,500
95,250
18,000
30,000
75,000
30,000
156,000
28,000
37,500
112,500
45.000
215,000
41,000
* Assumptions:  Pumps and piping  sized to fill truck in 20 minutes; use  plant
               sludge storage;'gravity unloading at disposal site.

t All  costs updated to mid-1980  using Engineering-Construction Cost Index.

# Based  on $41/ft2 for office and $25/ft2 for truck enclosure.

Metric conversion factors:
  1 mil gal = 3.78.mil  1
  1 ft2 =  0.0929 mz.
                                10-13

-------
                              TABLE  10-6
           TRUCK FACILITIES:   CAPITAL,  OPERATION  AND
              MAINTENANCE  DATA, DEWATERED SLUDGE*
Annual Sludge Volume,
Item
Capital Cost1"
Conveyor
Loading; hopper
Enclosed truck loading
facility
Truck Ramp
Unloading truck facility
and office
Subtotal Capital Costs
Operation & Maintenance,
$/yr
1.5
15,000
15,000
7,500
22,500
15.000
75,000
7,000
_5
15,000
15,000
7,500
22,500
15,000
75,000
8,000
_15
15,000
. 15,000
7,500 ,
22,500
15,000
75,000
9,000
1,000 cu
50
30,000
22,500
15,000
30,000
1 22.500
120,000
17,000
yd
150
30,000
30,000
15,000
45,000
37,500
157,500
25,000
* Assumptions:  Equipment sized to fill truck in 20 minutes; loading  hopper
               sized for one truck load and gravity discharge into truck;
               gravity unloading at disposal  site.

t All  costs updated to mid 1980 using Engineer Construction Cost Index.

$ Based on $41/ft2 for office and'$25/ft2 fr truck enclosure.

Metric conversion factors:
  1,000 yd3 * 764 m3
  1 ft* = 0.0929 mz
                                10-14

-------
          - Capital  cost of loading and  unloading  facilities  (Table 10-
            5),  $95,250

          - Estimated total  capital  costs  of liquid  sludge  transport,
            $485,250

          -Truck operating  costs, $0.24/km  ($0.38/mi)  (Table  10-4)  x
            386,000  km (240,000 mi) (Table 10-1), $91,200

          - Loading  and unloading  facility  operating  cost  (Table 10-5),
            $18,000

          - Estimated annual  O&M costs for liquid sludge $109,200.

     •    Dewatered  sludge

          - Capital  cost of one  11.5  m3  (15 yd3)  dump truck  (Table 10-
            4),  $85,000                            •""            .

          - Capital  cost of loading and  unloading  facilities  (Table 10-
            6) $75,000

          - Estimated total capital cost for dewatered sludge, $160,000

          - Truck operating  costs, $0.28/km  ($0.45/mi)  (Table  10-4)  x
            64,400 km (40,000'mi)  (Table 10-2), $18,000

          - Loading  and unloading facility operating costs (Table 10-6),
            $9,000

          - Estimated annual  O&M costs for dewatered sludge, $27,000.

This  example  indicates that dewatered  sludge could be  transported for
approximately 30 percent of the cost of transporting an equivalent quan-
tity of liquid  sludge.  Similar  analyses could be  conducted to approxi-
mate  relative costs  of  contract  hauling  versus public agency purchasing
and operating its own vehicles.

     10.2.3  Pipeline Transport

Generally,  only liquid  sludge  of 8 percent solids,  or  less,  can be
transported by  pipeline (17).   However,  sludges  with  higher solids con-
centrations have been pumped,  e.g., the  city  of  Seattle, Washington, is
reported to be pumping sludge containing up to 18 percent solids.  Other
important factors include:

     e    Availability  of land  for  sludge  application for  projected
          long-term periods.   Pipeline transport is not usually feasible
          if  there  are  multiple, widely separated  land  application
          sites, or if the application site(s) has a short useful life.
                                 10-15

-------
      •    Sufficient sludge volume to justify the  high  capital  costs of
           a pipeline,  pump  station(s)  and  appurtenances.    Generally,
           municipal  sewage treatment plants  sized  below  19 mil  I/day (5
           mgd)  do not generate sufficient  sludge volume  to justify pipe-
           line  transport,  unless  the distance  to  the  land  application
           site  is short,  e.g., less than 3 km (2 mi).

      •    Existence  of  a  relatively undeveloped  and flat pipeline right-
           of-way  alignment between the  sewage  treatment plant  and  the
           land  application site.   It is  very  expensive to  construct  a
           new pipeline  through developed residential/commercial  areas or
           through hilly terrain.

 If  factors such as those  listed above are  favorable,  sludge transport by
 pipeline  often  can  be less expensive than truck  transport per  unit vol-
 ume of sludge.

           10.2.3.1   Pipeline  Design

 The effect of solids  concentration  on the  sludge  flow  characteristics is
 of  fundamental  importance  to  economic pipeline design.   Digested  sludges
 have been  observed to exhibit  both  newtonian  and  plastic  flow character-
 istics.   Figure 10-3  shows  the influence of sludge  solids concentrations
 on  minimum velocities required for  full  turbulent flow.   The  figure also
 indicates  the frictional  head loss  and the range of velocities for eco-
 nomical transportation.   Below about  5  percent  solids,  the  sludge flow
 shows  newtonian nature, whereas at  concentrations above  5 percent, plas-
 tic flow  characteristics  are  observed.  At solids  concentration  below  5
 percent, the economics of  sludge transport will resemble  water transport
 costs  with respect to  frictional  head loss and power  requirements.   The
 most   cost-effective  pipeline  design  usually  assumes   operation  just
 within  the upper  limits for newtonian flow  (8)   (approximately 5.5 per-
 cent  solids).   An  extensive   discussion  on  head loss  calculations   and
 equations  for sludge  pipelines and  sludge  pumping can be found in Chap-
 ter  14 of the  Process  Design Manual  for  Sludge Treatment and Disposal
 (16).

 Various pipeline  materials are used  for transporting  sludge. These  in-
 clude  steel, cast iron, asbestos-cement, concrete,  fiberglass, and PVC.
 For  long-distance,  high-pressure sludge pipelines, steel pipe  is most
 commonly used.  Corrosion  can be a  severe problem  unless properly con-
 sidered during  design.  External corrosion is a function  of the pipe ma-
terial and  corrosion  potential of the soil,  and  can  be  controlled by a
 suitable  coating  and/or cathodic protection  system.   Laboratory tests
 simulating  several digested sludge  lines indicated  that  with  proper de-
 sign only moderate internal corrosion rates  should  be expected in long-
 distance  pipelines  conveying   sludge.   If most  of the   grit  and other
abrasive materials  are removed  from  the  digested  sludge, wear  due  to
friction is not  a  significant  factor in pipeline  design (16).
                                 10-16

-------
H-
Ul
UJ
IL

O
o
1-1
N
H
UJ
LU
LL
o
_l
o
til
z
o
I— I
J-
U
u.
    10.0
    5.0
    1.0
    0.5
    0.1
     O.I
              LEGEND

              MINIMUM VELOCITY FULLY
              TURBULENT FLOW FOR SOLIDS
              CONCENTRATION  RANGE
              INCREASING
               'LASTICITY
                           0.5
                                     1.0
5.0
                       VELOCITY FEET/SECOND
                                                                  10.0
                           METRIC  CONVERSIONS:


                                   ONE FT/SEC.  =  0.3048 m/SEC.
 Figure  10-3.  Hydraulic  characteristics  of sludge solids (5)
                                10-17

-------
           10.2.3.2   Pipeline Appurtenance Design

Commonly  used  sludge pipeline appurtenances are briefly discussed below
(19)(20).   More  extensive discussion is found in Chapter 14 of the Pro-
cess Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal  (16).

a.  Gauges

Pressure  gauges  are  installed  on the discharge side of all pumps.  They
may also  be installed on the suction side of pumps for purposes of head
determination.   Protected, chemical-type gauges  are  generally used for
sludge pumping.

b.  Sampling Provisions

All sludge  pumps,  either on the  pump  itself  or in the pipe adjacent to
the pump,  are  usually provided with 2.5  to 3.8 cm (1 to 1-1/2 in) sam-
pling cocks with plug valves.

c.  Cleanouts and Drains

Sludge pipelines  should  be provided with separate cleanouts  and drains
for easy  clearance of obstructions.   Blind  flanges and cleanouts should
be provided at  all  changes of direction  of 45 degrees or more.  Valved
drains should be  provided at all  low  points  in the pipeline.   Pressure
vacuum relief valves  should  be provided at  all high points in the pipe-
line.  Minimum size at cleanouts is  10 cm (4 in), with 15 cm (6 in) size
preferred for access of tools.

d.  Hose Gates

A liberal number of hose gates should be installed in the piping, and an
ample supply of  flushing water under high pressure  should  be  available
for clearing stoppages.

e.  Measuring Sludge Quantities

Pump running  time totalizers  provide  a simple method  of approximating
the quantities  of sludge pumped.   For more  sophisticated  measurement
Venturi meters,  flow tubes or magnetic meters  with  flushing  provisions
are used.  Sludge meters  should have provision for bypassing.

          10.2.3.3  Pump  Station Design

Pump stations used to pump sludge through long-distance pipelines should
be carefully designed by  experienced engineers.  This  section  is not in-
tended to be a comprehensive guide to design of such stations,  but
                                 10-18

-------
rather to highlight important design considerations, and to make  refer-
ence to more extensive information.   Factors of importance when design-
ing long distance sludge pump station design include:

     •    Characteristics of  the sludge,  e.g., type  of  sludge,  solids
          content, how well  stabilized,  abrasive particle content, vis-
          cosity, etc.

     •    Quantity of  sludge, and  type  and capacity  of  sludge storage
          ahead  of  the  sludge  pumps  and  receiving the  sludge  at  the
          pipeline terminus.      ,

     •    Pressure which the pumps must overcome, both pipeline friction
          loss and static (elevation difference) head.

     •    Need for standby reliability, i.e., how long can the pump sta-
          tion be  out  of service for maintenance,  power  failure, etc.,
          as determined  by  available sludge storage alternate means of
          sludge transport,  etc.

     •    Anticipated pump station life.

     •    Need  for  future  expansion  of  capacity,  e.g., provision  of
          space for future pumps, power sypply, piping, etc.

     •    Ease of operator operation and maintenance.

Each of  the above factors  is  briefly discussed  in  the  following para-
graphs.

The sludge most  easily pumped  long  distances has a solids content below
6 percent,  is  well  stabilized (relatively  low in volatile  solids),  is
low in abrasive  grit,  and is free  of  large  particles  and stringy mate-
rial.   Sludges possessing other characteristics can be dealt  with during
design, but will  normally cause  increased  construction,  operation, and/
or maintenance costs.

The quantity of sludge to be pumped obviously determines the  capacity of
the pumps arid the pump station.   Capacity  is measured  by maximum sludge
pumping rate required; therefore, it is desirable to provide  for as con-
stant  an output  pumping  rate as  possible over  long  periods  of the day.
Ideally,  the sludge pumps will  withdraw the sludge  from  a large volume
storage  facility (e.g.,   a  digester) at  a  steady  rate.   If  possible,
avoid  small pump  supply  storage  tanks which  require  the  sludge pumps to
frequently start  and  stop.    An  additional  important  point  is that  the
pump supply storage should have a liquid level  higher than the elevation
of the pump suction intake.   Sludge pumps work much more efficiently and
reliably if they have  a positive  suction head.
                                  10-19

-------
The  pressure  which  the sludge pumps must overcome is the elevation dif-
ference  between the  pump  station  and  the highest  point  of the sludge
pipeline to the application  site, plus  the  friction  loss in  the pipe and
fittings at  the maximum sludge pumping rate.   The elevation difference
(static head) is fixed  by the topography  of the pipeline alignment.  The
head loss due to friction, however, will  vary  and  can be expected to in-
crease with  time  due to gradual  deterioration of  the pipeline, buildup
of  internal  sludge deposits, and  other  factors.   The  designer, there-
fore, should  provide  a safety factor in  calculating total  pressure loss
due  to  friction in the pipe and fittings.   An  excellent  discussion of
sludge pipeline head  loss  due to  friction  is  found  in Chapter 14 of the
Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment  ,and Disposal (16)."

Various types of  pumps  are  used  to pump  sludge.   "Pumps  currently uti-
lized for  sludges  include  centrifugal,  torque, plunger, piston, piston/
hydraulic diaphragm,  ejector and  air  lift, pumps.   Table 10-7 presents a
matrix which  identifies various types  of" sludges,  and provides guidance
to the suitability of each type of  pump for handling these" sludges.  See
Chapter 14  in the  Process  Design Manual for  Sludge Treatment  and Dis-
posal  (16)  for  a  more  detailed  description  of  each pump  type listed
above.  Centrifugal pumps are commonly  selected for  long distance sludge
pumping because they  are more efficient (i.e., use less energy), and can
develop high  discharge pressures.  Centrifugal  pumps  are  not generally
used  for  heavy  primary sludges,   however,  because  they  cannot  handle
large or fibrous solids.

The  number  of pumps installed in a pump  station will  depend largely on
the  station  capacity and  the  range  in  sludge volumes  which  will  be
pumped.   It is customary  to provide a total  pumping  capacity  equal  to
the maximum  expected  inflow  with  at least  one of  the pumping units out
of service.   In stations handling small flows two pumps are usually in-
stalled, with each pump capable of meeting  the maximum inflow rate.  For
larger stations, the  size and number of pumps  should be selected so that
the  range of  inflow can be  met without starting and stopping pumps too
frequently (19).

Proper design must provide a means to add wastewater effluent (or water)
to the sludge pumping system for purposes of diluting the sludge and for
flushing the pipeline.

It should be assumed that the pump station  will occasionally be inopera-
tive due to  maintenance,  power  failure,  etc.   The designer should pro-
vide sufficient storage capacity for sludge and/or standby power to han-
dle  at  least two  days  of  sludge  pumping  station shutdown.   Emergency
tank truck  hauling  by a private firm is  one  alternative  which  could be
contracted for beforehand.

Unless the designer  is  certain  that future pump station  expansion will
not be necessary,  space, fittings,  etc.  should be provided  in  the pump
station for future additions of additional  pumping capacity.
                                  10-20

-------
































OO
r-H

Q_
s:
Q-

r-~ CD
1 O
0 =>
1— 1 	 1
UJ
_i o;
CQ o
^C ' *
I—
c/o
0
1— I
e£>
0
t— 1

D_
Q.
"^
































•c
QJ 0)
c cr
o -o
O =!
Dli—
03 CO
CU
•o

CO
•o
o>
t/1

cn

o


0)
0) c:
cn 01

3 0
to J=
1—
£_
(O
•o
o
o
o>
LO









LO
0)
en
~o
CO
^
re
E

t.
o_




















































OJ
cr

to
























i?
o
LO
I aneous
QJ
U
'—
s_















t/l


a
i
tj




>•> LO
t_ ~
O XX


4-> O
0) — 1
-o
a;
c
QJ
a v
IE
I —
*o
GJ
X.  Q)
TO cn
> -o
O t/>
***
cn
c
f— QJ
Jx£ 4-*
O r—
£- U-
1—
T3
QJ QJ
c cn
QJ "CJ
-ii 3
U r-
^
1
"S QJ
r- cn

4-> 3
QJ i —
oo to
QJ
cn
a.
QJ
to
3
U
CD
cn
c
c
QJ
QJ
O
to




QJ
,^>
i —


3
c-
U " •"
QJ C O
•r- O C
U — TO

4- C * QJ
QJ 4-> 4_! c
S  OOO OOO



*^" CO ^" CO LO CO fO CO CO O O


< — !fo~o cOLT>'co*i-ro cooo




^d~«3~*3'fo^- COLOCO rooo




•"-< ^" ^" CO LO CO LD CO (O O O

ID re u
o o t— i ro ID comco moo



^-•a-^roLO cocnro «-o










C\J CO ^f i"-* tO CO LO *~H rO O O







»— iLO^r-icn CM«sJ-O COOO
^

«—* O •* i—l LO O =^3- ^ CO O O
»-H •* O t-H i— C OOO -p- -1-5 T-3
«d- CM i— 1
•-H LO O ?— 1 Ol O^fO -p- OO
«3- «5j-



4J £_
•^0 0
TO f— O
03 QJ
TO 'n
i — S QJ t_ E UJ
TO o > "o cn
cn r— *t— >j TO E (J
4— i— to *«^ f- 03 ^j t]_

§_) &_
QJ
OJ O r— •!? L. •!? -r^ "o C -^ *TO
cj I— a_ o- a_ a. ooc cu«scs
















QJ
(J
TO

u
L-
o c
o
TO 4-i

O 4->
QJ T—
a. E
VJ C •!- OJ
t- •"- 3
QJ 4-> -=
"^ 3 4-» O
C TO T- 4-5
QJ 3 U 5
r— QJ
-Q >)-C QJ QJ O.
03 r- 4J r— »— >.
4-> C -n- J=> JD 4J
•r- O S TO TO
3 4-) -M 4->
V) QJ QJ ^- -r- VI
C tf> W 3 3 QJ
=3 ID ID GO CO CO
>l 1 1 I 1 t I
QJ
i«£ O i— 1 CM CO *3~ LO






i
, 	
O
i>
c -a
0 0
0 0
4-
O OJ
^- cn
QJ » ( 	

•i— C

"«/) "c "CJ
O •!-
a. t_ t_
cn o
to 4-.
t- QJ *
•i~ c cn*o
TO -t- C QJ
•f- C O OJ
o j= i^ §
*>- 40 -a o
4-» • -r- C QJ
•r- cn 3= O t-
-o • c o
" C >» -r- -O QJ
cn o i — -a QJ i — o_
CO C C CO TO >s
.r- 0 -r- 3 0 4J
-a *o • t- T-
C TO to QJCnOJCL-
•i- QJ 5 I- _Q TO O
J2 JD O 3 >> J= 4->
i — (/) J2l >^ O O •

TOTOS"D(-QJ CD^
O "- O.T3 V) f— O
QJ >>i — i — QJ Q. TO U
C/>4-> OOJOE-r-'t-QJ
TOf—4J ^ L- Q.QJ"TO c
Ore a^TOQ. Q.ETO
3-OLOJT QJl/)34-i
>»CTQJ»-H(JQJt. QJV3
E O> O E 'i~ *** QJ ("> "O
CT-3T3-0 I-

10 >,4->T-J='= Cfl'5'o'u
O t- Ul X Cn O t- 0-4-> O
f~ n3 a) (o-r-jr re cv TO.E

rejs u~o CUM- cn.C'r-'p-3
10-21

-------
          10.2.3.4  Cost Estimation Factors

Pipeline transportation is  a  capital  intensive system. The  cost  of the
major facilities  is  directly  related  to the  capacity  and  length  of the
pipeline system.   Variables affecting the  cost  of  pipeline transporta-
tion of sludge include:

     t    Type of sludge.

     •    Sludge volume.

     t    Solids content and viscosity.

     •    Transportation distance.

     •    Pipeline alignment.

     §    Topography  of  the area  through  which  the  pipeline is  to be
          constructed.

Table 10-8 provides estimated pipeline costs relative to pipeline diame-
ter, and Table 10-9  shows the  estimated  unit cost of different types of
crossings that may be encountered when installing pipelines.

Pump station costs were developed from information developed for the EPA
(5).   Since costs  were required  for  numerous pumping stations  with a
wide range  of  capacities,  capital cost for  each  pump  station was based
on  a  cost  of $110,000 for  capacities  of  up to 25 horsepower and $1,800
for each additional horsepower above 25.

The cost approximations provided for  sludge  pump  stations  in the para-
graph above,  and for pipelines  in Tables 10-8 and  10-9,  are very sim-
plistic.  They can,  however, be  used  to provide initial gross cost com-
parisons for pipeline  transport versus  other alternatives  for  sludge
transport.   Assume,  for  example, that the sludge volume  generated is
56.7 mil 1/yr  (15 MG/yr)  and the  land  application  site is  only 3 km (2
mi) distant.   Preliminary  engineering  calculations  indicate a pipeline
diameter of 20.3  cm (8  in)  and  a  pump  station  of  50  horsepower are
needed.   Using  cost  noted  earlier,  it  is  estimated  that  the pipeline
cost would be 3,219 m x $85/m ($26 x 10,560 ft) = $275,000, and the pump
station cost is $110,000 +  24 add. horsepower  x $1,800  = $155,000, for a
total  of $430,000 in capital  costs.   This  cost compares  favorably with
the cost of truck transport (Tables 10-1 through 10-6), and the engineer
should  proceed  to conduct  a  more thorough evaluation of  the pipeline
transport alternative.
                                 10-22

-------
                     TABLE  10-8
      ESTIMATED  PIPELINE COST  (1980)  (6)
Pipeline Diameter (in)
        4
        6
        8
       10
       12
       14
       16
       18
       20
Pipeline Costs  ($/LF)
         22.4
         23.7
         26.0
         28.1
         30.3
         34.7
         41.2
         47.8
         64.6
Assumes:   No rock and no major problem; one major highway
          crossing per mile; one single rail crossing per
          five miles; nominal number of driveways and minor
          roads ENR-Cons.  Cost Index 3237.
* Costs for installed pipelines buried 3 to 6 ft, for 6 to
  10 ft depth add 15%, for hard rock excavation add  70%.
Metric conversion factors:
  1 in = 2.54 cm
  1 ft = 0.3048 m
                       TABLE  10-9
  ESTIMATED PIPELINE CROSSING  COSTS  (1980)  (6)
         Crossing                     Unit Cost ($)
Highway, two-lane                        16,000
Highway, four-lane                       19,000
Highway, divided multiple-lane            32,000
Railroad crossing (per track)             12,000
Small river                              73,000
Major river                '             290,000
                         10-23

-------
          10.2.3.5  Decision Making Factors

The major factors to  consider  in  the  initial  evaluation of sludge pipe-
line transport include:

     •    Lack of flexibility compared to truck transport.  The pipeline
          has a fixed  alignment and terminus.   It is necessary that the
          land application site(s) have a sufficient useful life to jus-
          tify the capital expense of the pipeline and pump station(s).

     •    Sufficient  sludge  volume  generation to  justify the  initial
          capital cost.   Even  a  small pump  station and  pipeline will
          cost at  least  $400,000 to  build.   If  one  or  two  tank trucks
          can do  the job  instead,  truck transport  will  often  be more
          cost effective.

     •    Need  to  acquire  pipeline  right-of-way.    Possible  pipeline
          alignments that avoid  probable  right-of-way easement problems
          should be  evaluated.   Condemnation,  when  necessary,  is expen-
          sive and  time  consuming,  and may cause problems in  community
          acceptance.

If pipeline transport is selected, the following paragraphs briefly dis-
cuss some major design considerations.

a.  Alternate Routes Considered

Preliminary planning  should  be used  to  reduce the  number of  potential
pipeline routes.   Generally, one route  will  be  clearly favorable over
the  others,  however,  due  to  unknown or  hidden  conditions,  a  certain
amount  of  flexibility should  be  maintained until  the   final  design  is
begun.  Crossings can  add  significantly  to  the cost of  the pipeline and
to the complexity of construction.  The shortest distance with the least
elevation difference and fewest crossings should be the primary goal.

b.  Operating Program

A comparison of constant versus variable speed pumps is  important in de-
termining the  design flow through the pipeline.    Variable  speed pumps
allow for continuous operation and lower storage requirements.   Although
constant speed pumping will  require more  storage, for peak flow dampen-
ing by  equalization,  it  is usually more  energy  efficient.  The maximum
and minimum  flow velocities  are an important  consideration  in pipeline
design.   For sludge transport,  1  mps (3 fps) is a satisfactory value;
slower rates can promote solids settling and decomposition, while higher
rates can cause scouring and increase head loss.  Since pipelines repre-
sent a  significant  investment  and have long service  lives,  they should
be  sized  to permit  efficient  operation under existing  conditions,  yet
also provide adequate capacity for future growth.
                                  10-24

-------
c.   Pipeline Design

Pipeline  friction  losses  should be minimized since they contribute sig-
nificantly  to  the pumping  requirements.   Abrupt changes  in  slope and
direction  should  be  minimized.   Depending on the  nature  of the sludge
and  the  characteristics of the  soil,  corrosion  control  features should
be  incorporated  in the pipeline design.   Air  and  vacuum relief valves
should be provided at  high points  in  the line, drains  at low points,
clean-outs  at  abrupt  changes  in direction, and frequently spaced isola-
tion valves to allow shutdown in case of pipe failure and repair.

d.   Pumping Facilities

More  than one pump  station may be  needed if the  pipeline distance is
long.  The  number  of  pump  stations should be balanced with the size and
number of  pumps  required  to determine  the most  cost effective combina-
tion.  Pumps  should  be appropriate  for  the type of sludge to be pumped
and  standby pumping units must be provided.
e.  Emergency Operation

Several  days  storage should be  provided in
Digesters  can  be used  for this  purpose,  if
should normally be  provided  if  there are not
electricity to the pump stations.  Additional
for standby  power under certain  conditions,
tion is preferable.

f.  Excavation Condition Verification
                                 case  of  equipment failure.
                                  available.   Standby power
                                  two independent sources of
                                  storage may be substituted
                                  although continuous opera-
Field tests
conditions.
established
to  isolate
 should be used  to
  Borings  should be
but  prior  to final
areas  where  special
establish or  verify  the subsurface soil
taken  after  the  pipeline route has been
design.   The field tests should be used
 design  considerations  are needed.   If
highly  unusual  localized conditions  exist,  they should be  avoided,  if
possible, or additional field tests made.

Existing  or  other planned  underground  utilities should be  located and
field verified, if possible.   If  exact  locations cannot be established,
the contractor should be held  responsible  for  locating them during con-
struction.

g.  Acquisition of Right-of-Way

Right-of-way easements  must be acquired for pipelines  on  private prop-
erty.  This process should be initiated in the early stages of the proj-
ect.   The preferable  method  is  to  obtain  access  rights  on  easements
owned or  controlled  by other  utilities  when possible, or  to  negotiate
with  landowners.   Condemnation  is a  lengthy,  complex procedure which
should be avoided if  possible.
                                 10-25

-------
     10.2.4  Other Transport Methods

Rail  car  and barge  transport  are  other  transport methods  for sludge.
These methods are normally only considered by large cities for long dis-
tance transport to land application sites.  In 1982, the city of Chicago
operated the only major sludge barging operation in the United States to
a land application site,  though  several  large cities  still barge sludge
for ocean  disposal.   No  cities  use rail  transport.   Because potential
systems for using barge or rail transport of  sludge are so large, expen-
sive, and unique, this manual  provides  only a brief discussion of these
transport methods in the following sections.

          10.2.4.1  Rail Car

Rail transport of sludge  is  rare and  considered only if the quantity of
sludge is large,  the transport distance  is long,  and rail lines are in
the vicinity of  the  treatment plant and  land application  area.  Liquid
sludge can be hauled by tank cars,  while dewatered sludge can be hauled
in  either open  or closed  hopper  cars.   Specially designed tank cars of
75,000 1  (20,000 gal)  capacity  are  available for  transporting liquid
sludge.   The hauling  of  liquid  sludge  is similar to  moving  any other
liquid commodity by  rail.   However,  due to the properties of the liquid
sludge, problems  could arise  from  the  separation of  liquid  and solid
phases during transit.  Hauling  dewatered sludge  by rail  closely resem-
bles  hauling  coal  or ore  (8).   Bridging  of  dewatered sludge  may  be a
problem.   Hopper  cars that  could be used for  dewatered sludge transport
typically have a capacity of about 76 m3  (100 yd3).  For a more detailed
discussion on  rail  transport, refer to Chapter 14,  Section  14.3.2, in
the Process Design Manual  for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (16).
          10.2.4.2  Barge Transport
Barges  can  also be  used for  hauling  liquid or
suitable waterways exist.  Although barging is a
tation, it offers high capacity with low cost primarily
dewatered  sludge  where
slow means of transpor-
           to
due
                                                               the large
volumes hauled  and low investment.   For more  information  on different
types and sizes of barges and the number of barges required to haul dif-
ferent  sludge  quantities, refer  to Chapter  14,  Section 14.3.3  in  the
Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal  (16).

          10.2.4.3  Cost Estimation Factors

               10.2.4.3.1  Rail Car

Cost  information  for different types of  rail  cars,  including operating
costs are presented in Chapter 14, Section 14.3.2, in the Process Design
Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (16).
                                 10-26

-------
               10.2.4.3.2  Barging

Costs for barge hauling can be significantly influenced by:

     •    Volume hauled.
     «    Tug speed.
     •    Travel distance.
     •    Existing water conditions.

See Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (Chapter 14,
Section 14.3.3]) (16) information for detailed barging costs.

10.3  Sludge Storage

     10.3.1  Storage Requirements

Sludge storage  is  necessary to accommodate  fluctuations  in sludge pro-
duction  rate,  breakdowns  in  equipment, agriculture  cropping  patterns,
and adverse  weather conditions which  prevent  immediate sludge applica-
tion to  the land.   Storage can  potentially be provided  at  either the
treatment plant, the  land application site(s), or  both.   Chapter 15 in
the Process  Design  Manual for  Sludge Treatment and  Disposal  (16) pre-
sents methods for estimating sludge storage capacity and describes vari-
ous storage facilities.   In  addition,  Chapter  9 of this manual includes
sections  covering   sludge  storage  volume  calculations  and preliminary
storage facility  design considerations for  the  dedicated land disposal
option, which  may  be  helpful  in the  design of any  large volume, open
lagoon type sludge storage facility.

Long-term storage of sludge in lagoons for 5 years or more is not uncom-
mon.  When the lagoons are near capacity, the city contracts with a pri-
vate contractor to  remove the sludge  and  utilize  it  in a land applica-
tion program.   Several  private firms  specialize  in  this  service,  and
supply all of the labor, equipment, and put-lie relations required.

     10.3.2  Storage Capacity

          10.3.2.1  Sludge Volume and Characteristics

Sludge characteristics  vary  with sludge origin,  retention time (sludge
age), and the type  of  sludge  treatment.   Data  on the typical  quantities
of  sludge produced from  various treatment  processes are  presented  in
Chapter 3,  Table  3-4,  in the  EPA  Process Design  Manual  for  Municipal
Sludge Landfills  (18).   The different types of  storage,  the  methods by
which the sludge can be  stored,  and applicable detention times for each
type of storage are summarized in Chapter 15, Table 15-1, in the Process
Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal (16).
                                 10-27

-------
          10.3.2.2  Climate Considerations in Evaluating Sludge Storage

The designer should consider all the following factors:
          Historical  precipitation
          plication site area.
and temperature  records  for the ap-
     •    Regulatory  agency  requirements  pertinent to the land applica-
          tion of sludge on frozen, snow covered, and/or wet soil.

     •    The ability  of  the  sludge application equipment being used to
          operate on wet or frozen  soil.

     •    The  drainage characteristics  of  the application  site(s)  as
          they affect  the  time  required  after precipitation to dry suf-
          ficiently to accommodate  equipment.

Clearly, the  sludge  storage  capacity  required due to climate considera-
tions is greatly  influenced  by  site specific factors.  A review of land
application system  designs -in  the United States  indicates  that  sludge
storage  volume  provided  ranges  from  a minimum of 30 days  in  hot, dry
climate up to 200 days in cold, wet climates.

The  U.S.  EPA  conducted a  computer analysis  of  approximate  storage re-
quirements  for  wastewater  to  land application  systems  in  the  United
States (10), as shown  in Figure 10-4.  No similar analysis exists (1982)
for  sludge application systems.   Figure  10-4 is included in this manual
to show general regional  variations in  storage requirements due to cli-
mate.  For most sludge application systems,  the actual  storage require-
ment will usually exceed the days  shown in Figure 10-4.
          10.3.2.3  Sludge Application Scheduling Considerations
                    Evaluating Sludge Storage
                             in
The majority  of  existing sludge land  application  systems  in the United
States  are  applying sludge  to privately  owned  land.   This requires a
flexible  schedule  to conform with  local  farming  practices.   Scheduling
limitations will  result from  cropping patterns,   and  typically  the de-
signer  will  find that  much  of the agricultural   land  can  only  receive
sludge  during  a  few months of the  year.   (The Madison, Wisconsin, pro-
gram [Table 10-3] applies over 68 percent of its sludge to farmland dur-
ing the 5-month period from July through November.)

The sludge  application  to forest  sites  should be  scheduled to  conform
with tree grower  operations  and the annual  growth-dormant  cycle of the
tree species.

Sludge  application  for  reclamation of disturbed  land must  be scheduled
to conform to vegetative seeding and growth patterns and also to private
landowners operational  schedules.
                                 10-28

-------
                                                              188
                            SHADING DENOTES REGIONS WHERE
                            THE PRINCIPAL CLIMATIC CONSTRAINT
                            TO APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER
                            IS PROLONGED WET SPELLS
                            BASED ON O °C  (32  °F)
                            MEAN TEMPERATURE
                            1.25 Cm/d PRECIPITATION
                            2.5 cm OF SNOWCOVER
                                      500
                                             1000
                                 SCALE
                                       KILOMETERS
Figure 10-4.
Storage days required as estimated  from the use of
the EPA-1 computer program  for  wastewater-to-land
systems.  Estimated storage  based  only  on  climatic
factors.
                               10-29

-------
 The  dedicated land  disposal  option is  usually  only limited by  climate
 considerations  and soil  conditions, and not by  other scheduling  limita-
 tions.

           10.3.2.4  Calculation  of  Sludge  Storage  Capacity  Required

 A  simple method  of estimating  sewage storage capacity required  is  to  es-
 timate  the maximum number  of  days of  sludge  volume  generation which
 should  be  stored.   The estimate  of the maximum number of days is based
 on climate and  scheduling considerations discussed  in the previous sub-
 sections,  plus  a  safety factor.   Often,  the  responsible regulatory
 agency  will stipulate the minimum number of days of  sludge  storage which
 must be provided.  Calculations for  this  simple approach are  shown below:

 Assume

     1.  Average  rate of  dry sludge solids generated by POTW is  589  kg/
         day  (1,300 Ib/day).

     2.  Average  sludge contains 5  percent solids.

     3.  One  hundred days  storage to be  provided.

 Solution

     1.    S^kg/day = 11,778 kg/day (26,000 Ib/day) of liquid
     2.
     3.
11,778 kg/day  =
produced.
   11,778 I/day  (3,118 gal/day) of liquid  sludge
11,788 I/day
required.
x 100  days  = 1.2 mil  1  (312,000 gal) of  storage
A more sophisticated method of calculating sludge storage required is to
prepare  a  mass flow  diagram of  cumulative  sludge generation  and pro-
jected cumulative sludge application to the land application site(s), as
shown in Figure 10-5.  The figure uses data from Madison, Wisconsin (see
Table 10-3),  and  shows  that the  minimum  sludge  storage requirement for
the system  is approximately 1.2 x 10°  gal  (4.54 x 10° 1),  which repre-
sents 84 days of sludge volume storage.  The project designer should in-
crease the  minimum  storage requirement by  a safety factor  of  20 to 50
percent to cover years with' unusual weather and other contingencies fac-
tors.

Even  more   accurate  approaches  can   be taken  to  calculating  required
sludge storage volume.  For example,  if open lagoons are used for sludge
storage, the designer can calculate volume additions resulting from pre-
cipitation, and volume subtractions  resulting  from evaporation  from the
storage lagoon surface.
                                 10-30

-------
      a . 0
      S.O '
    X
    a
    s
    N
    -I
    O
  4..0-
    S
    _J
    a
    > 3 . 0'
    3
!£ 2.0
    S
    =3
    "1.0
                                   TOTAL ANNUAL SLUDGE
                                   VOLUME GENERATED
          LINE A
          CUMMULATtVE SLUDGE
          VOLUME GENERATED 'x'
          BY THE POTW
SLUDGE
STORAGE
VOLUME
REQUIRED
1 .2
                                               LINE 3
                                               CUMMUUATIVE SUUOG5
                                               VOLUME APPLIED TQ
                                               THE SLUOGS APPLICATION
                                               SITE (5)
                                   LINE C, SAME SLOPE
                                   AS LINE A, LOCATE
                                   TANGENT TO LINE B
                           M   J    J
                            MONTHS
            METRIC CONVERSION
             1 GAL = 3.73 i.
Figure 10-5.
           Example of mass flow  diagram using cumulative genera-
           tion  and cumulative sludge application  to  estimate
           storage requirement.
                                10-31

-------
      10.3.3  Location  of  Storage

 Chapter 15, pages 15-4 through  15-58,  of the EPA  Process  Design  Manual
 for Sludge Treatment and  Disposal  (16),,  contains  a  comprehensive  discus-
 sion of sludge  storage options  and  should be consulted  for  more details.
 In  general, the  following factors  in  siting sludge storage  facilities
 should  be  considered:

      •     Maximize  use  of  potential  storage in  the  existing   sewage
           treatment plant  units.   If the treatment plant has  aerobic  or
           anaerobic digestion tanks,  it  is  often  possible to  obtain  sev-
           eral  weeks  storage capacity  by separating the digestor(s)  to
           increase  solids  content and increase surge storage.  In addi-
           tion,  older  POTW's often have phased out tanks,  sludge  drying
           beds,  etc.,  which  are  idle, and could be  used  for sludge stor-
           age if  properly  modified.

      •     If possible,  locate long-term  sludge storage facilities  at the
           POTW  site because  of the  proximity of operating personnel  ease
           of vandalism  control, and  the  possibility of sludge  volume re-
           duction during storage  which will  reduce  transportation  costs.

      •     If  the dedicated disposal  site option  is being  utilized, the
           long-term sludge storage facilities are  often located  at the
           sludge  application site.   The sludge  storage facility  should
           be located as far  as possible  on the site from residential and
           other  public  access   areas,   since  occasional odor problems
           should be anticipated.  The location of long-term sludge stor-
           age facilities at  sludge  application sites which  are privately
           owned, e.g., farms, forestlands, etc.,  should  be  avoided.  Ex-
           perience  has shown that  problems  such  as  odors, controlling
           public  access,  etc.,  may  create  significant   public relations
           problems.
     f    Generally,  minimize the  number of  times
          handled,  e.g.,  transferred, stored,  etc.
          each time the sludge is handled.

     10.3.4  Storage Design

Storage capacity can be provided by:
                                            the sludge  must be
                                             Costs  are incurred
     1.
     2.
     3.
     4.
Stockpiles.
Lagoons.
Tanks, open
Digesters.
top or enclosed.
         10.3.4.1  Stockpiles
Stockpiling is  a process for
been stabilized  and  dewatered
                     the  temporary storage of  sludge  that has
                      or dried to  a  concentration  (about 20 to
                                 10-32

-------
60 percent  solids)  suitable  for  mounding with  bulldozers  or  loaders.
The sludge  is  mounded into stockpiles  2 to 5 m  (6  to 15 ft) high,  de-
pending on the quantity of sludge  and the  available  land  area.   Periodic
turning of the sludge  helps to  promote drying and maintain  aerobic  con-
ditions.  The  process is most  applicable  in arid and  semiarid  regions,
unless the stockpiles are covered  to protect against  rain.   Enclosure of
stockpiles may be  necessary to  control  runoff.   For  more information on
stockpiling as a method of storage, see  Chapter  15,  Section  15.3.2.3, in
the Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal  (16).

          10.3.4.2  Lagoons

Lagoons are usually the least expensive  way  to store sludge.  With  proper
design, lagoon  detention will  also  provide additional stabilization of
the sludge  and  reduce  pathogens.    Several  types of lagoons have  been
used for sludge  storage, including:

     •    Faculative Sludge Lagoons.
     e    Anaerobic Liquid Sludge  Lagoons.
     •    Aerated Storage Basins.
     •    Drying Sludge Lagoons.

For details  of  each,  see Chapter  15  in  the  Process Design Manual  for
Sludge Treatment and Disposal (16).

          10.3.4.3  Tanks

Various types  of  tanks  can be  used to  store sludge.   In most  cases,
tanks are an integral part of the  sludge treatment processes of  the  POTW
and their  design includes  storage capabilities.  The three types  dis-
cussed  in Chapter  15 of the  Process  Design Manual  for Sludge Treatment
and Disposal (16) include:

     •    Imhoff and Community  Septic Tanks.
     •    Holding Tanks.
     •    Unconfined Hoppers and Bins.

          10.3.4.4  Treatment Plant Digester Capacity
Many sewage treatment plants do  not  have  separate  sludge retention capa-
       J-vij-4-  itstl w  r\n  r\r\ r»-f- -i r\tn c? r»-F  -I- l*i£i  rlTriQclr^r* wstl i imc»  "For* c4"i*\ r» a no    Ixftian

available,
city, but  rely on  portions of the  digester volume  for  storage.   When
           an  unheated sludge  digester may  provide short-term  storage
capacity.  In  anticipation of periods  when  sludge cannot be applied  to
the land, digester supernatant withdrawals can be  accelerated to  provide
storage for several weeks of sludge volume (17).
     10.3.5  Cost Estimation Factors
Detailed  cost  information on
previously  discussed  can  be
Sludge Treatment  and Disposal
                              the  different
                               found in  the
                               (16).
types of  storage  facilities
 Process  Design  Manual  for
                                 10-33

-------
 10.4   Sludge-to-Land Application Methods

      10.4.1  Current Status

 The technique  used  to  apply  sludge to the land can be influenced by the
 means  used to transport the sludge from the POTW(s) to the land applica-
 tion  site(s).  Commonly used methods  include the following:

      •   Same transport  vehicle both hauls sludge  from  the POTW(s) to
          application site(s) and applies sludge to land.

      §   One type of transport vehicle, usually with a large volume ca-
          pacity,  hauls  sludge from the  POTW(s)  to  the  application
          site(s).   At the application site(s) the  sludge haul  vehicle
          transfers the sludge  either to  an application  vehicle or into
          a storage facility, or both.

      •   Sludge  is pumped and  transported  by  pipeline  from the POTW(s)
          to a  storage facility at  the application  site(s).  Sludge is
          subsequently  transferred  from  storage  facility(s)  to  sludge
          application vehicle(s).

As  a   broad  classification,  sludge  application  methods  involve  either
surface  or  subsurface application.   Each has advantages  and  disadvan-
tages  which  are  discussed in the following subsections.   In all  of the
application techniques, the  sludge  eventually  becomes incorporated into
the soil, either immediately by mechanical means or over time by natural
means.

As a  second broad  classification,  sludge  is  applied either  in  liquid
form or in dewatered form.  Methods and equipment used are different for
land  application  of  these two  sludge forms,  and again each has  advan-
tages  and disadvantages which are  highlighted  in  the specific  following
subsections.

Application of sludge  to  land  in  liquid  form is  attractive because of
its simplicity.   Dewatering  processes are not required,  and the  liquid
sludge  can  be  readily pumped.   Liquid  sludge  application  systems  in-
clude:

     t    Vehicular surface application

          - Tank  truck spreading
          - Tank  wagon spreading.

     •    Subsurface application

          - Plow  furrow or disking  methods
          - Subsurface injection.
                                  10-34

-------
     •    Irrigation application

          - Spray application
          - Gravity flooding.

     10.4.2  Vehicular Application of Liquid Sludge

          1.0.4.2.1  Vehicle Types Available:

Tables 10-10 and  10-11  describe  the  methods, characteristics, and limi-
tations of applying liquid  sludge  by surface application and subsurface
injection, respectively.

          10.4.2.2  Vehicular Surface Application

Liquid sludge  can be  surface spread with  application  vehicles equipped
with splash plates, spray bars, or nozzles.

Uniform application is  the most important  criterion  in  selecting which
of the three attachments are  best  suited to an individual  site.  Figure
10-6 depicts a tank truck  equipped  with a  splash plates.   Figure 10-7
depicts a tank truck with  a rear mounted "T" pipe.  For these two meth-
ods, application  rates  can  be  controlled either  by valving the manifold
or by varying  the speed of  the truck.   However,  a much heavier applica-
tion will  be made from a full  truck than from a  nearly empty truck  or
wagon unless the  speed  of  the  truck  or wagon advancing across the field
is  steadily  decreased  to   compensate  for  the steadily decreasing  hy-
draulic head (1).   Figure  10-8 depicts a spray nozzle mounted on a tank
truck.   By spraying the  liquid  sludge  under pressure, a  more uniform
coverage is obtained.                   ,

          10.4.2.3  Subsurface Application

Soil incorporation  (subsurface application)  of liquid  sludge has a num-
ber  of  advantages over surface  application.  Potential odor  and other
nuisance problems  can generally  be avoided,  nitrogen  is conserved since
ammonia volatilization  is  minimized, and public  acceptance  may be bet-
ter.   However, soil incorporation has  a number  of  potential  disadvan-
tages as  well, compared to  liquid  sludge surface application:   (1)  it
may  be  more  difficult   to  achieve  even distribution of  the  sludge,  (2)
for  agricultural  use the  annual  periods when  sludge  can  be applied  are
restricted to before planting and after harvesting crops, and (3) higher
fuel consumption  (cost)  are required for sludge  application.   Soil  in-
corporation of  sludge  can  be  done in  a number of ways.   The principal
methods are subsurface injection and plow or disc cover.

Figures 10-9 and  10-10  illustrate  equipment  specifically  designed  for
subsurface injection  of sludge.   This  equipment includes  tank trucks
with special injection  equipment  attached.    Tanks  for the  trucks  are
generally available with 6,000, 7,500, and 11,000 1 (1,600, 2,000, and
                                 10-35

-------
                                             TABLE  10-10
            SURFACE  APPLICATION METHOD AND EQUIPMENT  FOR  LIQUID  SLUDGES (4)
Method

Tank truck
Farm tank wagon
              Characteristics

Capacity 500 to more than 2,000 gallons;
it is desirable to have flotation  tires;
can be used  with temporary irrigation
set-up; with pump discharge can achieve
a uniform application rate.

Capacity 500 to 3,000 gallons;  it  is desir-
able for wagons to have flotation  tires;
can be used  with temporary irrigation set-
up; with pump  discharge can achieve a uniform
application  rate.
       Topographical and
      Seasonal Limitations

Tillable land; not usable at'all  times with
row crops  or on very wet.ground.
Tillable  land; not usable at  all times
with row  crops or on very wet ground.
Metric conversion factor:

  1 gal « 3.78 1.
                                           TABLE  10-11
         SUBSURFACE  APPLICATION METHODS,  CHARACTERISTICS,  AND LIMITATIONS
                                    FOR  LIQUID  SLUDGES  (9)
        Method

Flexible irrigation hose
with plow or  disc cover
Tank truck  with plow or
disc cover
Farm tank, wagon with
plow or disc cover
Subsurface injection
                             Characteristics

           Use with pipeline or tank truck with pressure dos-
           discharge; hose connected to manifold discharge on
           plow or disc.

           500-gal commercial  equipment available;  sludge
           discharge in furrow ahead of plow or disk mounted
           on rear on 4-wheel-drive truck.

           Sludge discharged into furrow ahead of plow mounted
           on tank trailer; application of 170 to 225 wet tons/
           ac; or sludge spread in narrow band on ground
           surface and immediately plowed under; application
           of 50 to 120 wet tons/acre.

           Sludge discharge into channel opened by  a chisel
           tool mounted on tank truck or tool bar;  application
           rate 25 to 50 wet tons/ac; vehicles should not
           traverse injected area for several days.
                     Topograhic and
                   Seasonal  limitations

                 Tillable  land; not usable
                 on very wet  or frozen
                 ground.

                 Tillable  land; not usable
                 on very wet  or frozen
                 ground.

                 Tillable  land; not usable
                 on very wet  or frozen
                 ground.
                 Tillable  land; not usable
                 on very wel: or frozen
                 ground.
Metric conversion factors:

  1 gal  3.78 1
  I ton/ac = 2.24 mt/ha.
                                                10-36

-------
Figure 10-6.   Splash plates on back of tanker truck (17).
Figure 10-7.   Slotted T-bar on back of tanker truck (17).
                          10-37

-------
Figure 10-8.   Tank truck with side spray nozzle  for  liquid  sludge
              surface application  (17).
                              10-38

-------
 Figure 10-9.  Tank truck with liquid sludge tillage injectors
               (courtesy of Rickel Mfg. Co.).
Figure 10-10.   Tank truck with liquid sludge grassland injectors
               (courtesy of Rickel  Mfg.  Co.),
                              10-39

-------
3,000  gal)  capacities.  Figure 10-11  shows  another type of unit, a trac-
tor  with  a  rear mounted  injector unit.   Sludge  is pumped from a storage
facility  to the  injector unit  through a flexible hose  attached to the
tractor.   Discharge flow capacities of 570 to 3,800  1/min (150 to 1,000
gpm) are  used.   The tractor requires  a  power  rating of 40 to 60 hp.

It  is  usually not  necessary to  incorporate (inject)  liquid  sludge into
the  soil  when the  sludge is applied  to  existing  pasture or  hay fields;
however,  injection  systems are available  that  can  apply liquid sludge to
these  areas with a minimum  of  crop and soil  disturbance (see Figure 10-
10).

The  plow or  disc  cover  method  involves  discharging  the sludge  into a
narrow furrow from  a wagon or flexible  hose linked to  a storage facility
through a manifold  mounted on the plow  or disc,  which  immediately covers
the  sludge  with  soil.   Figure 10-12 depicts a  typical  tank wagon with an
attached  plow.    These systems  seem to be  best  suited  for  high loading
rates, i.e.,  a  minimum of 3.5  to 4.5 mt/ha (8 to  10  dry T/ac) of 5 per-
cent slurry (9).

     10.4.3  Vehicle Application of Dewatered  Sludge

          10.4.3.1   Vehicle Types Available

Spreading of dewatered sludge is similar  to surface application of solid
or semisolid fertilizers, lime, or animal manure.   Dewatered  sludge can-
not  be pumped or sprayed;  spreading  is done  by box  spreaders, bulldoz-
ers, loaders  or graders,  and then  plowed or  disked into  the soil.   The
box  spreader is most commonly used, with  the  other three equipment items
generally being used only for high sludge application  rates.

The  principal  advantages of using  dewatered  sludge  are  reduced sludge
hauling and storage costs,  and the ability  to  apply higher sludge appli-
cation rates  with one pass  of  the  equiment.   Potential  disadvantages of
applying  dewatered  sludge are  that, generally,  substantial  modification
of conventional spreading equipment is  necessary to apply sewage sludge,
and  more  operation  and maintenance is generally  incurred in  equipment
repairs  as  compared to  many liquid sludge application systems.   Table
10-12  describes  methods  and equipment  for  applying dewatered  sludge to
the  soil.

                               TABLE 10-12
           METHODS AND EQUIPMENT  FOR APPLICATION OF DEWATERED
                       SEMISOLID AND SOLID SLUDGES

       Method                       Characteristics
       Spreading        Truck-mounted or  tractor-powered box spreader (commercially
                     available); sludge spread  evenly on ground; application rate
                     controlled by PTD and/or over-the-ground  speed; can be  in-
                     corporated by disking or plowing.
       Piles           Normally hauled by dump truck; spreading  and  leveling by
                     bulldozer or grader  needed to give uniform application.
                                  10-40

-------
                                                           ^^^^™^^»«lBl
                                                         -450C 
-------
          10.4.3.2  Surface Application

Figures 10-13 and 10-14 illustrate the specially designed trucks used to
spread  dewatered sludge.    For small  quantities  of  dewatered sludge,
tractor-drawn conventional  farm manure spreaders  may  be adequate (10).
Surface spreading of dewatered  sludge on tilled land is usually followed
by incorporation of the sludge  in the soil.  It is not usually necessary
to incorporate dewatered sludge with the soil when the sludge is applied
to existing pasture or hay fields.  Standard agricultural discs or other
tillage equiment pulled by  a tractor  or bull dozer can incorporate liq-
uid  or  dewatered  sludge  with  soil.  There  are  three  different  types:
disk  tillers,  disk plows,  and disk  harrows (Figures 10-15  and  10-16)
(13).

      10.4.4  Cost Estimation Factors

Precise capital and operation and maintenance costs are difficult to es-
timate due to site  specific  variables.   To obtain  current cost informa-
tion, the various equipment  manufacturers  should  be contacted.  Typical
cost  ranges (1982)  of  liquid and  dewatered sludge  hauling and spreading
trucks are shown in Table 10-13.                     ,

      10.4.5  Irrigation Application              '

Irrigation  application of  liquid  sewage  sludge  has  been  accomplished
using spray irrigation and  flood  irrigation.  Spray irrigation has been
used  primarily for  forest  land sludge applications and occasionally for
application of sludge  to  dedicated land disposal   site".   Flood irriga-
tion  of  sludge  has generally  not  been successful,  and  is  usually dis-
couraged by regulatory agencies.

          10.4.5.1  Spray Application

Spray irrigation application has been used to disperse liquid sludges on
clearcut openings,  dedicated  land  disposal  sites,  and  in forest stands.
Liquid sludges are  readily  dispersed  by  use of properly designed  equip-
ment.  Sludge solids must  be relatively  small  and  uniformly distributed
throughout the  sludge in  order to achieve uniform application  and  to
avoid system clogging.   A typical spray application  system consists of
the  use  of a  rotary  sprayer  (rain gun)  to disperse  the  liquid  sludge
over the application site.  The sludge, pressurized by a pump, is  trans-
ferred from  storage to the  sprayer  via a  pipe system.   Design  of  the
system can  be  portable or permanent  and  either  moving  or stationary.
Available spray irrigation systems include  (10):

      1.   Solid set,  both buried and above ground.
     2.   Center pivot.
     3.   Side roll.
     4.   Continuous  travel.
     5.   Towline laterals.
     6.   Stationary gun.
     7.   Traveling gun.
                                     10-42

-------
Figure 10-13.   7.2 cubic yard dewatered sludge spreader (courtesy
               of Big Wheels Inc.).
 Figure 10-14,
Large dewatered sludge spreader (courtesy of BJ
Mfg.  Co.).
                              10-43

-------
Figure 10-15.   Example of disc tiller.
 Figure  10-16.   Example  of  disc  plow.
               10-44

-------
                             TABLE  10-13
           APPROXIMATE 1982  LIST PRICES FOR SLUDGE
                   HAULING  AND  SPREADING TRUCKS
                (TELEPHONE SURVEY, DECEMBER  1982)


                              LIQUID SLUDGE
Capacity  (Gal]

1,600,
2,000^
3,000
3,500
4,000
6,000
                  Base Price Range
                      ($1.000)

                       60-80
                       80-90
                     .  90-105
                      110-130 '  '
                      120-140
                      130-160   '•
 Price Range with Typical
Sludge Accessories (Sl.OOO)

            65-85
            85-100
            95-115
           120-140
           130-150
           140-175
                             DEWATERED SLUDGE
Capacity  (yd3)
                  Base Price Range
                      ($1.000)
  Base  Price Range with
Typical  Sludge Accessories
         ($1.000)
7
9
10
15
17
18
25
36
60-70
70-80
80-100
100-130
130-150
150-160
150-180
180-210
70-80
80-90
90-110
115-145
145-165
165-175
. 170-200
200-230
(a)   The city of Seattle took bids for a specially equipped sludge  applica-
     tion truck for forest application in late 1982.  Tank capacity is 2,000
     gallons and truck  is equipped with flotation tires,, articulated chassis,
     sludge spray cannon with 120-ft  range, and dozer blade.  Cost  was
     $160,000.

Metric conversions:
1 gal = 3.
1 yd1* = 0.
1 ft = 0.305 m
              781
              765 nr
                                 10-45

-------
The  utility of  these systems  within the  application  site  depends upon
the  application schedule  and management  scheme utilized.   All  the sys-
tems listed,  except for the  buried  solid  system are designed to be port-
able.   Main  lines  for systems are usually  permanently buried.  This pro-
vides  protection from freezing weather  and runover by heavy vehicles.

The  proper design  of sludge spray  application systems requires through
knowledge  of the  commercial  equipment  available, and  its  adaptation to
use with liquid sludge.  Few sludge  spray  irrigation systems are in use,
and  these  are  generally associated  with  dedicated  land  disposal  sites.
It  is   beyond  the  scope  of  this  manual   to  present engineering  design
data,  and  it is suggested  that qualified  irrigation engineers and expe-
rienced irrigation system manufacturers be consulted.

Figures 10-17,  10-18, and  10-19  illustrate a  few  of the systems listed.
Table  10-14  presents a cost comparison  of  the  most widely used spray ir-,
rigation systems,  in terms of. characteristics  important to sludge appli-
cation.                  < , ;.•'.. '.  ' •"';'   • '  '".. '-,.,«. -, • -   .,.;,,.  •••

                        •-1-     TABLE  10-14      " .
                  APPROXIMATE CAPITAL COST  OF  DIFFERENT
                          SPRINKLER SYSTEMS  (12)
Type of System
Portable solid set*
Buried solid set
Side wheel roll
Traveling gun
Center pivot
Approximate
Cost ($/ac)f
540
, 540
130
160
' 240
- 1,200
- 1,'350
-•400
- 340
- 470 "
Size of Single
System (ac)
No
No
20
40
40
limit
limit
- 80
- 100
>- 160
Labor Required
(hr/ac Irr.)
0.20
0.05
0.10
0.10
"0.05-
- 0.50
- 0.10
- 0.30
- 0.30
-,0.15
       * Towline lateral system is same, except that'field shape  is not as flexible.

       t Does not include cost of water supply, pump, 'power unit, and-mainline.
                                 -  •           '   • .  i       <'•,''•
       xx Costs are updated to 1980.                    •    '  :    ,   i

       Metric conversion factor:                            '''.'.''     , ,   " • ',

         ac = 0.4047 ha.

         1                '        ,                 ',       •'"'.,             »
                                                ! '        " .        -
         10.4.5.2  Gravity Irrigation
                                                           -'            &*

In general, }and application by gravity'-flooding  of  sludge  has not been
successful  where attempted, and  is discouraged  by  regulatory agencies
and  experienced  designers.    Problems1 arise  from   (1) .difficulty  in
achieving  uniform sludge application'rates,, (2) clogging, of soil pores,
and (3) tendency  of the sludge to turn  septic  with resulting odors.
                                 10-46

-------
Figure 10-17.   Center pivot spray application system (courtesy of
               Valmont Ind. Inc.).
 Figure  10-18.   Traveling gun  sludge sprayer (courtesy of Lindsay
                Mfg.  Co.).
                              10-47

-------
     IRRIGATION
    GUN & STAND
BOOSTER
 PUMP
3" BALL VALVE
            PRIMARY
             PUMP
TEMPORARY
 HOLDING
  POND
     4" PIPELINE   3" LEVER ACTION  5" PIPELINE     MESH.
                  VALVE (2)                 STRAINER
                                         PLASTIC LINER
                                   (AS REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS)
Figure 10-19.   Diagram of  liquid  sludge spreading  system in
                  forest land  utilizing  temporary  storage  ponds  (19)
                                    10-48

-------
10.5  Site Preparation

     10.5.1  General

In general, for agricultural  sludge  utilization systems where sludge is
applied  to  privately  owned  farms at  low agronomic  application  rates,
site modifications  are  not  typically cost effective.   At  forested sys-
tems, there is usually much  more  forest land available within the local
area than  is  needed for  sludge  application, so  unsuitable  land  can be
avoided, not modified.

In the case of sludge  utilization for  disturbed land reclamation, it is
common that  extensive site  grading  and soil preparation  is necessary.
However,  these  site  preparation  costs  are  usually  borne  by  the land
owner (e.g., mining company,  ore  processor,  etc.),  and not by the muni-
cipality (see Chapter 8 for discussion).

Extensive sludge application site modification and improvement costs may
be acceptable to the municipality only where the dedicated land disposal
site option is being utilized for high rate sludge application over long
periods of time, since the costs can be amortized over many years of ap-
plication site life.

The site improvements for OLD systems will require:

     •   Topographic map,  scale  of 1:1200 or less,  with  contour  inter-
         vals of 0.6 m (2 ft) or less.

     •   Soil  map.

     •   Drainage map.

     t   Ground water or piezometric contour map.

     0   Drawing showing location of existing structures.

     •   Knowledge of design criteria imposed by (1) regulatory require-
         ments  (2)  proposed  sludge  transport and  application  methods,
         (3) size  and  location of buffer  areas  needed,  (4)  application
         site  sludge  storage  requirements, and  (5)  off-site  access
         roads.

     10.5.2  Grading

The  purpose  of establishing  surface  grades is  to  ensure  that  runoff
water and/or liquid  sludge  do not pond.   Emphasis  in planning  is given
to filling depressions with soil  from adjoining  ridges and mounds. If an
excessive amount of filling is required for low  places, or if sufficient
soil  is  not  readily available, field  ditches can be  installed and the
surfaces warped towards  them  (14).   In areas with  little or  no  slope,
grades  can  be  established  or increased  by grading between  parallel
ditches with cuts  from the  edge  of  one ditch and fills from  the next.
                                 10-49

-------
Terraces may be needed to  protect  lower lands from surface flows. These
are generally dug across a slope, or at the toe of a slope with the bor-
row material diked on the  lower  side for efficient use of the material.
Diversion terraces are  generally graded  and  grass covered so  that  the
collected water may be delivered at  non-erosive  flows  to a control dis-
charge point.
     10.5.3  Subsurface Water Control
See Chapter  9,  Section  9.7.7, for information on  subsurface  drain con-
struction which may be used to prevent ground water pollution.
     10.5.4  Cost Estimation Factors
Site preparation costs are very  site-specific,  and the information pro-
vided in this section is only presented as an example.
         10.5.4.1  Dike Costs
     The following assumptions were made for the designed dike;
     (a)  Dikes consist of a  1.2 m  (4  ft)  wide  clay  core surrounded by
          granular borrow.
     (b)  Borrow is available on site, while clay is purchased off-site,
     (c)  Compaction  in 20 cm (8 in) lifts.
     (d)  Material  amounts to be purchased are measured as installed and
          compacted volumes.
     (e)  Dike is 1.2 m (4 ft) high with 2:1 side slopes.
Construction cost  for a  dike such  as  described  above.  (1982  dollars)
would range  from  $13 to  $20  per linear  m  ($4 to $6  per  linear  ft) of
dike length  in  most  parts of the  country.   In terms  of  area,  if dikes
are constructed at 18 m (60 ft) intervals, the cost of dike construction
is about $8,650/ha ($3,500/ac).
          10.5.4.2  Dike Costs
The following assumptions were made for this example:
Assumptions:                                         l
     1.  Borrow pit for soil  material is located on site.
     2.  Compaction  in 30 cm (12 in) lifts to 95 percent compaction.
     3.  Berm is 1 m (3 ft) high with 2:1 side slopes.  „.
The cost (1980 dollars  of berm  as  described  would  be  about  $3,50/m^
(2.70/yd-3), or $52.50 per linear m ($16 per linear ft)  of berm.
                                10-50

-------
,.,,...",.-  ;,  ,1 0,5,, 4. 3  Site Gracing Costs ...,,..

 The following ^assumptions are made for, site grading:

, '.'   ;1. , AH  soil .moved is on site.  ,  ,

      2.  Minimum number of trees.

      3.  No rock blasting necessary.
4.
          Average of  3,000 >3/ha  (1» 5^3 yd3/ac)  of  dirt is  moved and
          graded, e.g., an average of 0.3 m (1 ft) of depth.
 The costs (1980 dollars) for clearing'and grubbing will be approximately
 $2»22,0/ha ($900/ac)..  Grading will cost  approximately $1.30/m3  ($1.20/
 yd3),'  or $4,700/ha  ,($l,900/ac)  using  the  assumptions   listed  above.
 Total  rough  estimate costs for grading is $6,900/ha ($2,800/ac).  If the
 topography is  highly irregular,  grading  costs can greatly  exceed this
 estimate.   For  example,  a  city in Texas  spent ten times  the estimate
 above to  grade  a  dedicated  land disposal  site located  on  drastically
 disturbed, highly eroded soil.

 10.6  Supporting Facilities Design

 Th,e,cost of .supporting  facilities,  such  as  permanent  all-weather access
 roads, fences,' etc. ,  can normally only be justified for high rate sludge
 application  sites which will  be used , over a long project life.  They are
 rarely applicable  to  privately owned  agricultural sludge  utilization
 sites.

      10.6.1   Access Roads

 A permanent  road should be provided from the public road system to dedi-
 cated land  disposal  sites.    For  large sludge  application  sites,  the
 roadway' should be"- 6. '5 to 8 m (20 to 24 ft)  wide for two-way traffic; for
 smaller  sites, a  5 m (15 ft) wide road should  suffice.   To  provide, "at 1
'Weat;her  access, the  roadway, as a  minimum,  should be  gravel  surfaced.
"Asphalt  pavement* is preferable.  Grades should not exceed equipment lim-
 itations.  For loaded vehicles, uphill grades should be less than 7 per-
 cent.                                      ,....-.,.

      10.6.2   Site Fencing and Security           .....

 Access to dedicated land sludge disposal sites  should  be  limited to one
 or two entrances  that  have  gates which  can  be locked when  the  site  is
 unattended.   Depending on the topography and  vegetation on the site and
 adjoining areas', entrance gates may suffice  to  prevent unauthorized ve-
 hicular  access.   At some sites, it  is necessary to construct peripheral
 fences to restrict trespassers a'nd animals.
                                 10-51

-------
Fencing  requirements  are  influenced by  the  relative  isolation  of  the
site.   Sites  close to residences require  fencing.   Facilities that are
in  relatively isolated  rural  areas, may  require a  less sophisticated
type of  fence or only fencing at the entrance and other places to keep
unauthorized vehicles out.

To  discourage  vandalism and trespassing,  a 2 m  (6 ft)  high chain link
fence topped  with  barbed  wire  guard is  desirable.  To screen the facil-
ity from view, a wood fence or hedge may be used  (18).            /

     10.6.3  Equipment and Personnel Buildings

At larger facilities or where climates are extreme, buildings may be ne-
cessary for office space, equipment, and employee facilities.  Since ap-
plication  sites  may be operated year  around, some protection  from the
elements for the employees and equipment may be necessary.  Sanitary fa-,
cilities  should  be provided  for both  site and-hauling  personnel.   At
smaller facilities where  buildings  cannot  be  justified, trailers may be
warranted  (18).                 •;"-',.,      •'

     10.6.4  Lighting and Other Utilities

If  application  operations occur at night, portable  lighting  should be
provided at the  operating  area.   Lights may be affixed to haul vehicles
and on-site equipment.  These lights should be situated to provide illu-
mination to areas not covered by the regular headlights of the vehicle.

If the  facility  has structures  (employee  facilities, office buildings,
equipment repair or storage sheds), or if the access road is in continu-
ous use, permanent security lighting may be needed.

Larger  sites  may  need  electrical,  water,  communication,  and  sanitary
services.  Remote  sites may  have to extend existing services or use ac-
ceptable  substitutes.   Portable chemical  toilets can be used  to avoid
the high cost of extending sewer lines; potable water may be trucked in;
and an  electrical  generator may be used instead  of  having  power lines
run on site.

Water should  be  available for drinking, dust  control,  washing  mud from
haul vehicles before entering public roads, and employee sanitary facil-
ities.   Telephone  or  radio communications may be necessary  since acci-
dents or  spills  can  occur that necessitate  the  ability to  respond to
calls for assistance (18).

     10.6.5  Cost Estimation Factors

          10.6.5.1  Road Construction Costs

Road  construction  costs  vary  widely depending  upon  local  conditions.
Typical  1980 costs for rough estimating purposes are given below.
                                10-52

-------
          Cleaning and grubbing, $1.72/m2  ($0.16/ft2).

          Grading and compacting subbase,  $2.15/m2  ($0.20/ft2).

          Base Material, in-place, 30 cm  (12 in), $6.45 m2  ($0.60/ft2).

          Wear  coarse  material,  10 cm  (4 in)  crushed  stone, $3.00/m2
     •    Bituminous paving, 7.5 cm  (3 in), $5.38/m2  ($0.80/ft2).

     •    Miscellaneous drainage culverts, etc., $5.38/m2  ($0.50 ft2).

Typical  1980  costs  for an all w&ather  road  are the total  of the above,
which  equals  $27.55/m^ ($2.50/ft^).   If  a 8  m (24 ft) wide all weather
road is constructed, the cost is aproximately $186,000/km  ($300,000/mi).
A  5  m  (15 ft)  wide  all  weather  road  is   approximately  $124,000/km
($200,000/mi).

A less expensive, gravel  only  road can  be constructed for approximately
40 percent of the above costs for a bituminious paved road.

          10.6.5.2  Fence Construction Costs

Typical  1980  unit  costs of  installed  fences  are  approximately as  fol-
lows:

     t    Two m (6 ft) high chain link with barb wire topping strands is
          $33/1inear m ($10/1inear ft),  plus $900 for each gate.

     •    Other types  of  fences  range in cost  from  $16  to $40/lirrear m
          ($5 to $12/linear ft).

          10.6.5.3  Lighting Costs

Typical  1980  lighting costs  for  fixed  pole  mounted lights  of various
types are as follows:

     •    Mercury vapor, $415 for 400 watt;  $520 for 1000 watt.
     •    Metal halide, $455 for  400 watt; $595 for 100 watt.
     •    High pressure sodium, $490 for 400 watt;  $720 for 1000 watt.

          10.6.5.4  On-Site Structure Costs

Typical 1980 structural costs for  rough estimation  purposes  are as  fol-s
1ows:                                                                   '

     t    Office type  structure,  $590/m2 ($55/ft2).
     a    Maintenance/warehouse type structure, $330/m2 ($31/ft2).
                                 10-5.3

-------
Trailers cost approximately $430/m2 ($40/ft2), or rent for approximately
$43/m2/month ($0.40/ftVmonth).

          10.6.5.5  Ground Water Monitoring Costs

In  many  cases,  regulatory  agencies will  require monitoring  of  ground
water quality beneath and adjacent  to  sludge  to land application sites.
Typical 1980 costs for monitoring well  construction are as follows:

     t    Well material  and construction, $106/m ($32/ft) of depth.

     •    Sampling pump and accessories, $1,700 each.

     •    Typical 1980 costs for sampling and analysis are approximately
          $200/sample.

A typical monitoring installation may have four monitoring wells 9 m (30
ft) deep, and be sampled four times annually.  In such a situation, mon-
itoring capital cost would be approximately $10,600.

          10.6.5.6  Other Monitoring Costs

Monitoring costs involved in sludge, soil, and plant analyses can be es-
timated by contacting local  commercial  laboratories that can conduct the
analyses required.

10.7  References
 1.
Anderson, R. K., B. R. Weddle, T. Hillmer, and A. Geswein.  Cost of
Land Spreading and  Hauling  Sludge From Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants - Case Studies.   EPA-530/SW-619,  U.S.  Environmental
Protection  Agency,  Office of Solid Waste Management Program, Wash-
ington,  D.C.,  October Ohio,  1977.    149 pp.    (Available  from Na-
tional  Technical  Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-274
875)
 2.
     Hill.  Wastewater  Solids  Process,  Transport,  and Disposal/Use
Systems Task Report.  Oakland, California, 1977.  156 pp.
CH2M
     Cooley, J. H.  Applying Liquid Sludge to Forest Land:  A Demonstra-
     tion.   Proceedings of the  Fifth  Annual Madison  Conference  of Ap-
     plied  Research  and  Practice  on  Municipal  and  Industrial  Waste,
     September  22-24,  1982.   University  of  Wisconsin, Madison, Wiscon-
     sin.  9 pp.

     Cunningham, 0., and M.  Northouse.   "Land Application of Liquid Di-
     gested  Sewage  Sludge (METROGRO)  at  Madison,  Wisconsin."   Seminar
     Proceedings, "Land Application of Sewage  Sludge."   Virginia Water
     Pollution  Control  Association,  Inc.,  Richmond,  Virginia, October
     29, 1981.  pp. 111-145.
                                 10-54

-------
  5.  Ettlich,  VI.  F.    Transport  of  Sewage Sludge.   EPA-600/2-77-216,
     Culp/Wesner/Culp,  El  Dorado  Hills,  California   1977.    85  pp.
     (Available  from  National  Technical  Information  Service,  Spring-
     field, Virginia, PB-278 195)

 6.  Ettlich, W. F.  What's Best for Sludge Transport?   Water Wastes En-
     gin., 13(10);20-23, 1976.

 7.  Gorte, J.  K.   Cost of Forest  Land  Disposal  of Sludge.  Ph.D. The-
     sis, Michigan State University, 1980.  196 pp.

 8.  Haug, R. T., L.  D.  Tortorici,  and S. K.  Raksit.  Sludge Processing
     and  Disposal.
     282 pp.
                 LA/OMA Project,  Whittier,  California,  April  1977.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
     Keeney, D. R., K.  W.  Lee,  and L. M. Walsh.  Guidelines for the Ap-
     plication of  Wastewater Sludge  to  Agricultural  Land in Wisconsin.
     Technical  Bulletin No.  88,  Wisconsin Department  of  Natural  Re-
     sources, Madison, 1975.  36 pp.
 Loehr,  R.  C.,  W. J. Jewell, J. D.  Novak,  W.  W.
 Friedman.   Land  Application  of Wastes.   Vol.  2.
 hold,  New  York,  1979.   431 pp.
                            Clarkson,  and  G.  S.
                             Van  Nostrand  Rein-
 Metcalf  and Eddy.
 Reuse.   McGraw-Hill,
Wastewater  Engineering:
New  York,  1979.   920 pp.
Treatment, Disposal,
 Pound,  C.  E.,  and R. W. Crites.   Wastewater  Treatment  and Reuse by
 Land  Application.   Vol.  2.   EPA-660/2-73-006b,  Metcalf  and  Eddy,
 Palo  Alto, California, August  1973.   249 pp.  (Available from  Na-
 tional  Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,  PB-225
 941)

 Phung,  H.  T. ,  L.  K. Barker, D. E.  Ross,  and  D. Bauer.   Land  Culti-
 vation  of Industrial  Wastes  and  Municipal Solid Wastes:  State-of-
 the-Art Study, Volume  1.   EPA-600/2-78-140a,  SCS Engineers,  Long
 Beach,  California,  October  1978.   220  pp.  (Available from National
 Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield, Virginia, PB-287  080)
                                          Land.
                                           pp.
 U.S.  Soil  Conservation  Service.   Drainage  of  Agricultural  L
 Water  Information Center,  Port  Washington,  New York,  1973.   430

 U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Municipal Construction  Divi-
 sion.   Evaluation of  Land Application Systems.    EPA-430/9-75-001,
 Washington,  D.C.,  March 1975.   182 pp.   (Available from  National
Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield,  Virginia, PB-257 440)
U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
ington, D.C.  September  1979.
          Agency.   Process  Design Manual for
           EPA 625/1-79-011.  MERL, ORD,  Wash-
                                 10-55

-------
17.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Sludge Treatment  and  Dis-
     posal, Volume 2.  Contract No. EPA-625/4-78-012.  Cincinnati, Ohio,
     1978.  155 pp.

18.  U.S. EPA.  Process Design Manual:  Municipal Sludge Landfills.  EPA-
     625/1-78-010.   October 1978.   331 pp.   (Available  from  National
     Technical Information Service, Springfield,  Virginia, PB-279 675)

19.  Water  Pollution  Control  Federation.    Design of  Wastewater  and
     Stormwater Pumping Stations.  Manual  of  Practice  FD-4.   Water  Pol-
     lution Control Federation, Washington, D.C., 1981.  152 pp.

20.  Water Pollution Control Federation.  Wastewater Treatment Plant De-
     sign.  Lancaster Press Company,  Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1977.   560
     pp.
                                 10-56

-------
                               CHAPTER 11

                        OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
11.1  General

For all  systems,  a planned  operation  and management  program  should be
prepared  (many  state  regulatory agencies  require  such a plan)  and re-
sponsibility clearly  defined  for its implementation. Essential  elements
of the operation and management program include the following:

     t    Operations  at  the  POTW to ensure  that the  treated  sludge is
          adequately  stabilized  and  monitored to meet the  requirements
          for land application.

     •    Flexible scheduling of sludge transport, storage,  and applica-
          tion activities to  allow for  both  the  need of the POTW to re-
          move sludge, and the ability to apply the  sludge to  the land
          application site(s).

     •    Design, operation,  management,  and maintenance of  the sludge
          transport  system  to  minimize  potential  nuisance  and  health
          problems.   Included  should be an in-place procedure for rapid
          response to accidents,  spills,  and other  emergency conditions
          arising during routine sludge transport operations.

     •    Design, operation,  management,  and maintenance of  the sludge
          application site(s)  and  equipment to  minimize  potential  nui-
          sance and health problems.   Where privately owned  and operated
          land is  involved  (e.g., farms,  commercial  forest land, mined
          lands, etc.),  the  owner/operator is a key  participant  in the
          overall application site management and operation  program.

     «    Monitoring and Reporting - monitoring of sludge generation and
          analyses  of sludge,  soil,  plant,  surface  water,  and  ground
          water as  needed  for compliance  with  stipulations,  standards,
          and  regulatory requirements.   The extent  of monitoring  re-
          quired will vary  greatly depending on the  sludge application
          rate and location.

     •    Recordkeeping   -  adequate  documenting  of   program activities,
          monitoring, etc.

     •    Health and Safety - necessary steps must be routinely employed
          to protect the general public, operations  personnel, etc.

11.2  Nuisance Issues

Minimizing adverse aesthetic  impacts of a sludge land application system
will aid  in  maintaining public  acceptance of the  project.   Continuous
                                  11-1

-------
efforts should be  made to avoid or  reduce  nuisance problems associated
with sludge  hauling,  application,  and related  operations  (13).   Poten-
tial nuisances of concern include noise, odor, spillage, mud, and dust.

     11.2.1  Odor

All sludge management  systems must  consider  objectionable  odor as a po-
tential problem.    Objectionable  odors  could  result in an  unfavorable
public reaction and reduced acceptance of land application options.  Po-
tential for odors can be reduced or eliminated:

     •    Proper sludge  stabilization  at the POTW,  and  a defined proce-
          dure for  managing  sludge which  is  not  properly  stabilized,
          e,,g., additional treatment, alternate disposal means, etc.

     •    Incorporation of sludge as soon as possible after delivery and
          application to the site.

     t    Daily  cleaning  (or  more  frequently, if  needed)  of  trucks,
          tanks,  and other equipment.

     •    Avoiding  sludge application  to waterlogged  soils,   or  other
          soil or  slope  conditions which would  cause  ponding  or poor
          drainage of the applied sludge.

     •    Use of  proper  sludge  application  rates  for  application site
          conditions.

     •    Avoiding or  limiting  the  construction and use of sludge stor-
          age facilities  at  the land  application  site(s), or  designing
          and  locating the  sludge  storage  facilities  to prevent odor
          problems.  Experience has shown that sludge storage facilities
          are a major cause of odor problems at land application sites.

     t    Subsurface injection  of  sludges.   After subsurface injection,
          the soil should  not be disturbed  for several  weeks,  if possi-
          ble; a  second tillage operation  a  few  days  later  may cause
          odors.

     •    Isolation of  the sludge  application site(s) from residential,
          commercial, and other public access areas.

Prevention  of  odor problems  using  the  recommendations  listed  above is
important to  public acceptance of  land  application programs.    If, and
when, odor  problems resulting  in citizen complaints do  occur,  the proj-
ect management  should  have  established  procedures for correcting the
problems and responding to complaints.
                                 11-2

-------
     11.2.2  Spillage

All trucks  involved  in  handling  sludge over highways and streets should
be designed to prevent sludge spillage.  Liquid sludge tankers generally
do not present a problem.  For sludge  slurries (10 to 18 percent solids)
specially designed  haul  vehicles with anti-spill  baffles  have been ef-
fectively employed.  Sludge spillage on-site can  generally  also be best
controlled using vacuum transfer systems.   If mechanical or human errors
during, transport, or at  the  application  site  do  result  in  spillage of
sludge, cleanup procedures should be employed as soon as possible.

     11.2.3.: Mud

Both tracking of mud from  the  field on to  highways, and field or access
road  rutting  by sludge  transport  or  applicator  equipment  are nuisance
concerns.   Mud  can  be a particularly  severe  problem in areas with poor
drainage, but  can  occur  at  any  site  during  periods  of heavy  rain  or
spring thaws.    To   minimize  these  problems,  the  following  management
steps should be considered.

     •    Choose all-weather  site  access  roads  or  modify  access roads
          with gravel or other acceptable weight-bearing material.

     •    Use vehicles with flotation tires.

     t    Use vehicles with smaller capacity  or  temporarily reduce vol-
          ume of sludge being  hauled.

     0    Mud tracked on roads should be removed.

     0    Vehicles  should  be  washed down  regularly  when moving between
          sites to  prevent tracking of  mud on highways.   This process
          also improves the public  image of sludge hauling  and handling
          systems and improves continued community acceptance.

     11.2.4  Dust

Dust movement off-site is  enhanced  by  wind or  the movements of haul ve-
hicles and  equipment.    To minimize dust  generation,  access  roads  may
need to be graveled, paved, oiled, or watered.

     11.2.5  Road Maintenance

The breakup of roads by  heavy  sludge hauling  vehicles  can be a problem,
particularly  in  northern  climates, and can  cause public  complaints.
Project management  should,make  provisions to repair roads  or  to have a
fund available to help  finance cost of road repairs resulting from proj-
ect activity.
                                 11-3

-------
     11.2.6  Selection of Haul Routes

Routes for sludge  haul trucks should avoid residential  areas to prevent
nuisance  caused  by truck and air brake  noise,  dangers  to children, and
complaints because of frequency of hauling.

11.3  Safety Concerns

The  safety  of  everyone  involved  in  a sludge  application  program  is of
paramount importance.  This  concern  encompasses individuals working di-
rectly  with  sludge  (POTW  personnel,  sludge  haulers,  farmers,  heavy
equipment operators, etc), as well as  persons living or  working near an
application site, or who are  visiting the  site.

Safety features  should be incorporated  into every facet  of  the system
design.   Certain practices  should be followed  routinely  to assure safe
working  conditions.    An official  operations  plan  should  be  adopted,
which contains specific safety guidelines  for each operation and feature
of the system.

The  operation  of sludge  hauling and application  equipment presents the
greatest potential for accidents.  Equipment should  be  operated only by
fully trained  and  qualified  operators.   Regular  equipment  maintenance
and operational safety checks should be conducted.

The  stability  of the soil  can present a  potential  safety problem, par-
ticularly when operating large equipment.  Vehicles should approach dis-
turbed or  regraded  sites, muddy  areas,   or  steep slopes  cautiously to
prevent tipping or loss of control.

As with any construction  activity, safety methods should be implemented
in accordance  with  OSHA  (Occupational  Safety  and  Health Act  of  1979)
guidelines.    In  accordance  with OSHA guidelines,  the  following precau-
tions and procedures  should  be  employed for  sludge land  application
projects:
          A safety manual  should be available for  use  by employees
          they should be trained in all safety procedures.
and
          Appropriate personal  safety  devices such as hardhats, gloves,
          safety glasses, and footwear should be provided to employees.

          Appropriate safety devices, such as rollbars, seatbelts, audi-
          ble reverse warning devices, and fire extinguishers, should be
          provided on  equipment used to  transport,  spread,  or incorpo-
          rate sludge.

          Fire extinguishers should be provided for equipment and build-
          ings.
                                 11-4

-------
     •    Communications equipment should be available on site for emer-
          gency situations.

     •    Work areas and access roads should be well marked to avoid on-
          site vehicle mishaps.

     •    Adequate  traffic control  should  be provided  to  promote  an
          orderly traffic  pattern to and  from  the land application site
          to maintain  efficient  operating conditions  and  avoid traffic
          jams on local highways.

     •    Public access to the sludge application site(s) should be con-
          trolled.  The  extent of the control  necessary will  depend on
          the sludge application  option being  used, time interval  since
          sludge was last applied, and other factors.  See the appropri-
          ate discussion  in the  applicable  process  design  chapters (6
          through 9) for the sludge application option being considered.
          In general,  public  access to dedicated  disposal  sites should
          be controlled at all times, while public access to application
          sites  using  other  land  application options  should  be  con-
          trolled during sludge application operations and for an appro-
          priate time period after the sludge is applied.

11.4  Health Concerns

     11.4.1  General

A detailed  discussion  of  pathogens  and vectors which  may  be associated
with  sewage sludge  is contained  in  Appendix A.    Although  bacteria,
viruses,  and  parasites  are generally present  in  sludge,  studies  con-
ducted through  1982 by the EPA,  and others,  have  shown  no significant
health problems for personnel  who experience regular contact with sewage
sludge at POTW's and/or sludge to land application sites (25)(28).   Fur-
thermore, epidemiological  studies have shown no significant health prob-
lems to  humans  associated  with living or working  in  proximity to  sites
receiving  land   application  of.  sludge or  wastewater  (26)(27).   This
health effects  research  is continuing  in attempting  to fully document
any potential  health risks involved in direct or incidental  contact with
sewage sludge.

     11.4.2  Personnel  Health  Safeguards

Project  management  should  include  health safeguards  for  personnel  in-
volved with sludge transport and handling, as follows:

     t    Receive regular  typhoid and  tetanus  inoculations  and poliovi-
          rus and adenovirus vaccinations.

     •    Limit  direct contact with aerosols as much  as  possible  where
          liquid sludge application techniques are used.
                                11-5

-------
      •     Encourage proper personal  hygiene.

      •     Provide annual employee health  checkups.

      •     Record  reported  employee  illnesses,  and  if a pattern  (trend)
           develops of  illnesses potentially associated with  sludge path-
           ogens, investigate and take appropriate action.

11.5  Monitoring

      11.5.1  General

Sampling  and  analysis methods for  sludge,  surface
soil, and crops are  covered  in  Appendix C.   This
the need  for monitoring and frequency of  sampling.

      11.5.2  Sludge Monitoring
                           water, ground  water,
                           section will  discuss
As  discussed in  Appendix  A, there  may be  a wide variation  in sludge
physical and  chemical  characteristics between different POTW's, and, in
addition, there are seasonal variations in the characteristics of sludge
generated by  a  particular  POTW.   Therefore,  analysis  of the sludge on a
regular basis is  necessary to  know exactly what is being applied to the
land and to ensure acceptability of the sludge for land application, re-
gardless of  the land  application  option that is being used.  The analy-
tical data generated  provide a quality control  tool,  a record of sludge
variability, and a warning of the presence of high concentrations of un-
desirable constituents.  In addition, data on plant nutrients (N, P, and
K) are  necessary  to  allow sludge  users  (e.g.,  farmers,  commercial  tree
growers,  etc.)  to  make efficient  use  of  nutrients  and  to  calculate
sludge application rates.
The frequency of  sludge
tion of the following:
sampling and analysis necessary will be  a  func-
          System  size;  in general,  the larger  the  system in  terms  of
          sludge  generated, the more  frequently  the  sludge will be sam-
          pled and analyzed.  A very large system (e.g., serving a popu-
          lation of over 200,000)  may sample daily, while a small system
          (e.g.,  under  5,000 population)  may  only  sample  sludge  quar-
          terly.

          Historical  variations  in sludge characteristics;  in  general,
          the  greater  the variability  which  has  been found in  sludge
          physical and/or  chemical  characteristics,  the more  often the
          sludge should  be analyzed.   Factors to be considered include
          contributions  of wastewater  from  seasonal   industries,  POTW
          operational  reliability, the  dampening effect of large volume
          sludge storage,  and the  "normal" quality of  the  sludge,  i.e.,
          how seriously  will  fluctuations  in the sludge characteristics
          affect the  land application option feasibility?
                                11-6

-------
     •    The  land application  option  being  utilized  influences  the
          necessary frequency  of  sludge sampling.   In  general, options
          which  require  accurate  knowledge  of  sludge  characteristics,
          e.g.,  agricultural   utilization,  may  require  more  frequent
          sludge  sampling  than   would  an  option   not  involving  crop
          growth, e.g., dedicated land disposal without crops.

     •    An overriding factor usually is  the sludge sampling frequency
          required by the cognizant regulatory agency.

The sludge  parameters  analyzed will  also  vary  depending  on the factors
listed above,  e.g., system  size,  historical  sludge  variability, type of
land application option used,  and  regulatory agency requirements.   Gen-
erally, as a minimum, sludge will be analyzed for pH, percent solids, N,
P, K,  and  the  heavy metals.   In  addition, if the system used is poten-
tially sensitive to pathogens  and/or  priority organics these parameters
may also be measured.

     11.5.3  Soil Monitoring

The need for soil monitoring depends on the  site  characteristics and the
sludge application  option  being  utilized.    Each  of the  design chapters
discusses  soil  monitoring needs  for the specific option being covered.
In general, routine annual soil tests will  provide  the data required for
monitoring purposes.

     11.5.4  Vegetation Monitoring

Periodic  analysis   of  the  harvested  portions  of  crops  grown on  the
sludge-treated  soil  will  aid  in  preventing  accumulation of potentially
phytotoxic  materials.   Vegetation monitoring will   also  signal  the ap-
proach of increased levels well in advance of permanent damage to either
soil or crop (15).  Plants can also serve  as effective indicators of ex-
cessive or insufficient levels for many soil constituents.

The need for,  and  frequency'-'of,  vegetation monitoring will vary depend-
ing on system  specific factors.  Generally,  if  sludge is applied at low,
agronomic  rates  there  is  little need  to sample and analyze the vegeta-
tion.   If,  however,  sludge is being  applied at high rates (e.g., dedi-
cated  land  disposal  with  crop growth), the  crop should be tested prior
to  harvesting  for human  or animal  consumption.   Tables  in  Appendix C
provide suggested crop monitoring parameters  and  sampling procedures.

     11.5.5  Ground Water Monitoring

Appendix C  includes  a  discussion of  ground water monitoring procedures.
If  ground  water monitoring is  needed, a  hydrogeologist  should be con-
sulted during  the  initiation  and implementation of  a ground water moni-
toring program.  Detailed ground water monitoring procedures can also be
found  in Reference (24).
                                  11-7

-------
 Systems  which  apply  sludge  at  low  rates  for  agriculture  generally  do  not
 monitor  ground water quality.   Conversely, dedicated  land  disposal  sites
 are usually required  to  monitor ground water  quality  by the  cognizant
 regulatory  agency.  If the  forest  land or  land  reclamation  option  is
 being  utilized, ground  water  monitoring will  probably  be required  for
 these  application  sites which  could  affect sensitive  aquifers,  e.g.,  the
 decision- is made on  a case-by-case basis by the  operating agency  and/or
 regulatory  agency.

     11.5.6 Surface Water  Monitoring

 Appendix C  includes  a section  on surface water  monitoring  procedures.

 11.6   Recordkeeping

 Operational  and monitoring  data may  be required by local, state,  and/or
 federal  regulatory agencies.  Consequently,  any municipality implement-
 ing  a  sludge application  system, should develop an adequate recordkeep-
 ing program.

 Management  and reporting  activities  may include equipment use and  main-
 tenance  records,  performance records, required regulatory reports, cost
 records,  and public  relations  activities (e.g., complaints).  These rec-
 ords can also  be used as the  basis  for scheduling site development  and
 gauging  the  efficiency of operations.

 Records  on  the  sludge application portions of the  program  should contain
 at least  the following:
          Sludge
          tions.
characteristics and  amounts  applied to specific  loca-
     •    Major operational problems, complaints, or difficulties.

     •    Qualitative and/or  quantitative  data related to the operation
          of  the  land  application site,  including ground  and  surface
          water, soils, and crops.

Figure 11-1 depicts  the  sampling  and  analytical  data form used by Defi-
ance, Ohio.   They utilize  a  map for the application area (Figure 11-2).
The coding of each field allows the equipment operator to record the lo-
cation and quantity of sludge applied on a daily basis.  Figure 11-3 de-
picts the  daily log  sheet identifying  sludge  distribution information
with specific land areas used in conjunction with this program.

Agricultural   utilization projects must  also be  concerned  about  cumula-
tive metal loadings.  This type of data should be maintained on a regu-
larly scheduled basis to provide  an early  warning when cumulative metal
loadings begin to approach the recommended maximum levels.
                                 11-8

-------
CE U5
s. o
a. cj
       COO
        OOi
 SOd
 UOJJ
C.
S
                                               e
                                               a
                                               tn •<
av
Nu
Co
(O
                                                                               I. C
                                                                               0 O
                                                                              *r I
a  IB



11
                                                                                C.
                                                                                O
                                                                                a
                                                                                s
                                             11-9
                                                                                                         -o
                                                                                                          c:   •
                                                                                                          (O  O)
                                                                                                             a>
 cu -c
 E  o
-4->  00
 s-
 (C i—
 Q. (O
 cu  o
Q -r-
   •P
i-  >5
 Oi—
 S-  fC
-P  c
 E  (O
 O
o -a
    c
 E  (C
 o
•r^  OV
4->  E
r—  CX
 O  E
Q_  (O
   00
 s-
 OJ
4J  ..
 n?  E
3  (O
    S-
 OJ  CD
 O  O
 E  S-
 as  Q-
•r—
H-i  E
 CU  O
Q v-
   -P
q-  n3
 O  O
                                                                                                         •P  Q.
                                                                                                         •i-  Q.
                                                                                                         CJ  tO
                                                                                                         CU
                                                                                                         s-
                                                                                                         3
                                                                                                         C7)

-------
                                                      T3
                                                      C
                                                      CO
                                                      O)
                                                      o.
                                                      a)
                                                      o
                                                      s-
                                                      o
                                                      •r~
                                                      +->
                                                      o
                                                      O-
                                                      s-
                                                      0)
                                                      3   U
                                                           01
                                                      0)  •<-.
                                                      O   O
                                                      c   t-
                                                      CXJ  'O-
                                                      O)  o
                                                      a  •!-
                                                      if-
                                                      o
                                                      O
                                                      CM
                                                       I
                                                      at
                                                      s_
                                                      3
                                                      CT)
                                                          o
                                                          Q-
                                                          O.
11-10

-------
                            >  ~
                            I-  >
                            II  (-
                            u  «
                            <  u
                            0.  <
                            O  2
                            -J  O
                            O
                            o  o
                            o  o
                            tr
                            UJ
D:   a.
Ill   UJ
                     2  Q
                     O  <
o
u
                            u  m
o   in
o
o   o
CM   UJ
—   U)
    (0
a   uj
UJ   U
M   O
2   K
<   D.

    O
>-   a
E   a.
    N

    n

    N
    Z
    UJ
UJ   £
(9   £
a   o
3   u

to   ui
    ID
D   (0
UI   ~

w   a
UJ   UJ
15   I
n   I-
Q   O
                                            Q  O
                                                           w
                                                           K-
                                                           Z
                                                           111
                                                           s
                                                           s
                                                           o
                                                           o
                                                                                                                                  _£=
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                                   O)
                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                            (O
                                                                                                                            a>
                                                                                                                            Q
                                                                                                                                   a>
                                                                                                                                   ai
                                                                                                                                   en
                                                                                                                                   O
UJ
UJ
I
19
D
       o
a:
UJ
D.
o
       UJ   U.
       H   M
       <   I
       Q   m
a
UJ <
a. ui
. tr
< \
u.
1 i i
< X
H in
o
i-
cn
• Q
D <
z o
_J
UJ
UJ 13
a. Q
>- D
Q.
l-l Q
D UJ
O U)
UJ D
Q <
Z UJ
< tr
_J <























<























OJ























ro























<























in























1-1
to























OJ























CO
00























CD























O























OJ
(J























ro
u























PLANT
LAND























y























3HJ























LO
                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                    I
                                                              11-11

-------
 11.7  References

 1.   U.S.  EPA.   Process Design Manual:  Municipal  Sludge Landfills.  EPA-
     625/1-78-010,  October 1978.   (Available  from  National  Technical  In-
     formation  Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-279 675)

 2.   Blakeslee, P.A.   Site  Monitoring Considerations.   In:   Application
     of Sludges  and  Wastewaters on  Agricultural  Land:   A  Planning  and
     Educational  Guide, B.D. Knezek and R.H.  Miller,  Eds.   Ohio Agricul-
     tural  Research  and Development  Center,  Wooster,  Ohio, 1976.   pp.
     11.1-11.5.

 3.   U.S.  EPA.    Process Design  Manual  For Land  Treatment  of  Municipal
     Wastewater.     EPA  625/1-77-008,  October   1977.    pp.  5.94-5.99.
     (Available from  National  Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield,
     Virginia,  PB-299 655)

 4.   Loehr,  R.C., W.J.  Jewell,  J.D.  Novak,  W.W.  Clarkson, and 6.S.  Fried-
     man.   Land Application  of Wastes.  Vol.  2.   Van Norstrand Reinhold,
     New York,  1979.   431 pp.

 5.   U.S.  EPA.   Process Design Manual for  Sludge Treatment  and  Disposal.
     EPA  625/1-79-011.   Center for  Environmental  Research  Information,
     Cincinnati,  Ohio,  September 1979.  (Available from  National Techni-
     cal Information  Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,  PB80 200546)

 6.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Municipal  Sludge Management:
     Environmental Factors.  EPA 430/9-77-004, Washington,  D.C., 1977.  30
     PP.

 7.   Keeney,  D.R., K.W.  Lee  and L.M. Walsh.   Guidelines  for  the Applica-
     tion of  Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land  in Wisconsin.   Tech-
     nical  Bulletin 88.   Wisconsin Department  of Natural  Resources,  Madi-
     son, 1975.  36 pp.

 8.   U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency, Office of  Program Operations.
     A  Guide to Regulations and  Guidance for the Utilization  and Disposal
     of Municipal Sludge.  EPA 430/9-80-015,  Washington, D.C.,  1980.   48
     pp.  (Available  from National Technical Information  Service, Spring-
     field, Virginia, PB81 108508)

 9.   Baker, D.E. and  L.  Chesnin.  Chemical  Monitoring of Soils  for  Envi-
     ronmental  Quality and Animal and  Human Health.   Adv. Agron., 27:305-
     374, 1975.

 10.  Petersen, R.G.  and L.D.   Calvin.   Sampling.    In:   Methods of Soil
     Analysis.   C.A.  Black, ed.  American Society of Agronomy, Madison,
     Wisconsin, 1965.  pp. 54-72.

11.  Ellis, R.  Sampling and  Analysis of  Soils, Plants  Waste Waters and
     Sludge:   Suggested  Standardization  and  Methodology.  North Central
                                 11-12

-------
     Regional  Publication  230,  Agricultural Experiment  Station,  Kansas
     State University, Manhattan, December 1975.  20 pp.

12.   Phung, H. T., L. K. Barker,  D.E.  Ross  and D. Bauer.  Land Cultiva-
     tion  of  Industrial  Wastes  and  Municipal  Solid Wastes:   State-of-
     the-Art Study.   Vol.  1.    EPA  600/2-78-140a, SCS  Engineers,  Long
     Beach, California, October 1978.  220 pp.  (Available from National
     Technical  Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-287 080)

13.   Diefendorf, A. F., and D.  Ausburn.   Ground Water Monitoring Wells.
     Public Works, 7:48-50, 1977.

14.   Ho, L. V.,  R.  D. Morrison,  C. J.  Schmidt,  and J.  R. Marsh.   Moni-
     toring of  Wastewater  and  Sludge  Application Systems.   SCS Engi-
     neers, Long Beach, California, 1978.  303 pp.

15.   Baker, D.  E., M.  C.  Amacher, and  W.  T.  Doty.   Monitoring Sewage
     Sludges,  Soils  and Crops  for Zinc  and  Cadmium.   In:   Land  as  a
     Waste Management Alternative.   R.C.  Loehr,  ed.  Ann Arbor Science,
     Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976.   pp. 261-281.

16.   Standard Methods for the Examination of Water  and Wastewater.  14th
     Edition.    American  Public  Health Association,  Washington, D.C.,
     1976.  1193 pp.

18.   Environmental  Protection  Agency   National  Primary  Drinking Water
     Regulations.  40 CFR 141.

19.   Environmental  Protection Agency  National  Secondary Drinking Water
     Regulations.  40 CFR 143.

20.   La  Conde,  K.  V., R. J.  Lofy,  and R. P.  Stearns.   Municipal Sludge
     Agricultural  Utilization Practices  -  An  Environmental Assessment,
     Volume I.  SCS Engineers,  Long Beach,  California, 1978.   150 pp.

21.  U.S.  Soil  Conservation  Service.    Drainage  of  Agricultural Land.
     Water  Information Center,  Port Washington,  New York, 1973.   430  pp.

22.  Council  for Agricultural  Science and Technology.   Application  of
     Sewage Sludge  to Cropland:   Appraisal of Potential Hazards of  the
     Heavy  Metals  to  Plants and Animals.  EPA 430/9-76-013, Ames, Iowa,
     November 1976.   (Available  from National  Technical  Information Ser-
     vice,  Springfield, Virginia, PB-264  015)

23.  Land  Application of Municipal Sewage  Sludge for the  Production  of
     Fruits and Vegetables, A Statement of Federal Policy  and Guidance,
     U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Washington, D.C.,  1981.   21
     pp.
                                 11-13

-------
24.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.     Procedures   Manual  for
     Groundwater  Monitoring  at  Solid  Waste Disposal  Facilities.   EPA/
     530/SW-611.    U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency,   Cincinnati,
     Ohio, 1977.

25.  Burge, W. D.,  and  P.  B.  Marsh.  Infections Disease Hazards  of  Land
     Spreading Sewage Wastes.  Journal of Environmental Quality,  Vol.  7,
     No. 1, 1978.  pp. 1-9.

26.  Kowal, N.  E.   An Overview  of  Public  Health Effects.   Presented  at
     Workshop on  the Utilization of Municipal  Wastewater  and Sludge  on
     Land, Denver, Colorado.  February 23, 1983.       ,  •  . .

27.  Pahren, H.  R.,  et  al.   Health  Risks  Associated with Land Applica-
     tion of Municipal Sludge.   Journal  of  Water Pollution Control  Fed-
     eration.  Vol. 51, 1979.  pp. 2588-2601.

28»  Clark, C. S.,  et al.   Occupational Hazards  Associated with Sludge
     Handling.   Health  Risks of  Land  Application.   6.  Bitton,  et  al.,
     eds.  Ann Arbor Science, 1980.  pp. 215-244.
                                11-14

-------
                               APPENDIX'A

                    CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
A.I  Introduction

Reliable information on sludge composition is needed when designing land
application systems in order to minimize the potential for environmental
or health problems.

A wide  range  in  concentrations  for many sludge constituents is found in
the tables of data presented in this Appendix.  A variety of factors in-
fluence  the  composition of sludges, including  the  proportion  of indus-
trial and residential  input, the  amount of urban runoff, and the combi-
nation  of treatment  processes  used.   Thus, sludge composition is varia-
ble from one city to another, and  even over time at a specific treatment
plant.

The  variability  of sludge  composition  emphasizes the need  for  a sound
sampling and analysis  program.  The use of flow weighted sampling proce-
dures  is strongly  encouraged to  obtain   representative  samples  of the
sludge(s) produced.   The reliability of  sludge  composition data is im-
proved  by obtaining samples of sludge over a  1 to 2 year period,  if pos-
sible.   In addition,  after a land application  program  has been initi-
ated, an ongoing sludge sampling  and analysis program is needed  to ver-
ify that appropriate  application  rates  are used so that these rates can
be adjusted if any  significant changes  in  sludge  composition are  encoun-
tered.
 A.2   Characteristics  of  Raw  Sludges
                                       raw
Table A-l  presents  typical  ranges of
ated by common wastewater treatment processes
in Table A-l  should be viewed as  general
be  used  in  preliminary  planning.
always treated  by  a  stabilization
Stabilization processes  include
         sludge characteristics  gener-
               The  sludge volumes shown
         estimates and, at best, could
   Furthermore,  sludges  are  virtually
   process prior  to  land application.
aerobic and  anaerobic  digestion, com-
 posting, drying,  storage in a lagoon,  etc.   Stabilization  processes  will
 reduce the volume of raw ..sludge by 25 to 40 percent  because  much  of the
 volatile solids are degraded  to  carbon  dioxide, methane,  and other end
 products.  The actual  amounts of  stabilized sludge  produced in a given
 treatment plant  are dependent on  operational   parameters  (temperature,
 mixing, detention time) and the process  used.
                                    A-l

-------
                                TABLE A-l
                 QUANTITIES OF RAW SLUDGES PRODUCED BY
                     VARIOUS TREATMENT PROCESSES (2)
      Treatment Processes

      Primary settling

      Activated sludge

      Trickling filters (low
kg Dry Solids/
   103m3
  108-144

   72-108
  m3/106m3
Sewage Treatedt

 2,500-3,500

15,000-20,000
Percent Water
 in Sludge

   93-95

   98-99
loading)
Trickling filters (high
loading)
Chemical precipitation
(raw sewage)
18-60
72-108
360-540
400-700
1,200-1,500
4,000-6,000
93-95
96-98
> 90-93
      * 1 kg/103m3 = 8.33 lb/106 gallons.
      t 1 m3/:o6m3 = 1 gal/106 gal.


A.3   Sludge Composition Data

Several  studies have been conducted to  compile  data on the chemical com-
position  of municipal  sludges produced  by  POTW's in  various  states (7)
(12)(29)(33).    The  data  presented  in Tables A-2 through A-5 summarize
the  composition of  sludges from  within eight  states, primarily  in the
midwest.   Composition  data  are  tabulated for sludges  subjected to aero-
bic  digestion,  anaerobic digestion  and other  processes  (i.e.,  lagoon,
primary,  trickling  filter, etc.).   The relationship between  volume  of
wastewater  treated  and  sludge  composition  has  been  evaluated  for se-
lected  communities in  Indiana (Table A-6).   Similar  data are presented
in  Table A-7  for  sludge  produced by selected  communities in  Iowa, but
population  ranges rather than volumes  of  wastewater  treated  are given.
The  composition of sludges  from  16  large cities  in  the  United States  is
shown in  Table A-8.

The  composition of sludge  components  does  not follow  a  normal  distribu-
tion  because  of variability  in  the  specific nature  of industrial  and
other nondomestic  inputs into the sewage treatment  plant.  Several  stud-
ies  have  shown  that  a  log-normal   distribution  adequately  describes
sludge  composition data.   As  a result,  the median  or gometric mean are
better  measures of  "typical"  concentration  than  the arithmetic  mean.
Wherever  possible, median values have  been  incorporated into  Table A-2
through A-7.   The following sections will  elaborate on the  composition
data.

     A.3.1  Organic  Carbon in  Sludge

The organic C  content  of sludges can range from 6.5  to 48  percent (Table
A-2).  The median  concentrations of organic C are relatively  constant  in
most  sewage sludges,  ranging  from 26.8 to 32.5  percent.   A  variety  of
                                   A-2

-------
                                  TABLE A-2
                CONCENTRATIONS  OF ORGANIC  C, TOTAL N, P, AND  S
                     NH4+ AND N03"  IN  SEWAGE SLUDGE  (29)*

Component
Organic C, %



Total N, %



NH4+-N, mg/kg



NO-.--N, mg/kg
*j


Total P, %



Total S, %



Sludge
TypeT
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All

Number
31
10
60
101
85
38
68
191
67
33
3
103
35
8
3
45
86
38
65
189
19
9
__
28

Range
18-39
27-37
6.5-48
6.5-48
0.5-17.6
0.5-7.6
<0. 1-10.0
<0. 1-17.6
120-67,600
30-11,300
5-12,500
5-67,600
2-4,900
7-830
—
2-4,900
0.5-14.3
1.1-5.5
<0. 1-3.3
<0.1-14.3
0.8-1.9
0.6-1.1
—
0.6-1.5

Median
26.8
29.5
32.5
30.4
4.2
4.8
1.8
3.3
1,600
400
80
920
79
180
•
140
3.0
2.7
1.0
2.3
1.1
0.8
—
1.1

Mean
27.6
31.7
32.6
31.0
5.0
4.9
1.9
3.9
9,400
950
4,200
6,540
520
300
780
490
3.3
2.9
1.3
2.5
1.2
0.8
—
1.1
* Concentrations and percent composition are on a dried  solids  basis.

t "Other" includes lagooned, primary,  tertiary, and unspecified sludges.
  "All" signifies data for all  types of sludges.
                                    A-3

-------
                           TABLE A-3
           CONCENTRATIONS OF K, Na, Ca, Mg, Ba, Fe,
               '  AND Al  IN SEWAGE  SlUDGE (29)
Component
K, %



Na, %



Ca, %



Mg, %



Ba, %



Fe, %



Al, %



Type"*"
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
Al 1
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
ATI
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Number
86
37
69
192
73
36
67
176
87
37
69
193
87
37
65
189
27
10
23
60
96
38
31
165
73
37
23
133
Range
0.02-2.64
0.08-1.10
0.02-0.87
0.02-2.64
0.01-2.19
0.03-3.07
0.01-0.96
0.01-3.07
1.9-20.0
0.6-13.5
0.12-25.0
0.1-25.0
0.03-1.92
0.03-1.10
0.03-1.97
0.03-1.97
<0. 01-0. 90
<0. 01-0.03
<0. 01-0. 44
<0. 01-0. 90
0.1-15.3
0.1-4.0
<0.1-4.2
<0.1-15.3
0.1-13.5
0.1-2.3
0.1-2.6
0.1-13.5
Median
0.30
0.39
0.17
0.30
0.73
0.77
0.11
0.24
4.9
3.0
3.4
3.9
0.48
0.41
0.43
0.45
0.05
0.02
<0.01
0.02
1.2
1.0
0.1
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.4
Mean
0.52
0.46
0.20
0.40
0.70
1.11
0.13
0.57
5.8
3.3
4.6
4.9
0.58
0.52
0.50
0.54
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.06
1.6
1.1
0.8
1.3
1.7
0.7
0.3
1.2
* Concentrations on a dry solids basis.

t "Other" includes lagooned, primary, tertiary, and unspecv
  fied sludges.  "All" signifies data for all  types of
  sludges.
                           A-4

-------
                           TABLE A-4
         CONCENTRATIONS OF Pb,  Zn,  Cu, Ni, Cd, AND Cr
                     IN SEWAGE SLUDGE  (29)
Component

Pb, mg/kg



Zn, mg/kg



Cu, mg/kg



Ni, mg/kg



Cd, mg/kg



Cr, mg/kg



Type1"

Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All . -
Number

98
57
34
189
108
58
42
208
108
58
39
205
85
46
34
165
98
57
34
189
94
53
33
180
Range
_ _ _ _ '_
58-19,730
13-15,000
72-12,400
13-19,700
108-27,800
108-14,900
101-15,100
101-27,800
85-10,100
85-2,900
84-10,400
84-10,400
2-3,520
2-1,700
15-2,800
2-3,520
3-3,410
5-2,170
4-520 ,
3-3,410
24-28,850
10-13,600
22-99,000
10-99,000
Median

^uiy/ ^y ;
540
300
620
500
1,890
1,800
1,100
1,740
1,000
970
390
850
85
31
118
82
16
16
14
16
1,350
260
640
890
Mean


1,640
720
1,630
1,360
3,380
2,170
2,140
2,790
1,420
940
1,020
1,210
400
150
360
320
106
135
70
110
2,070
1,270
6,390
2,620
* Concentrations are on a dried solid basis.

t "Other" includes lagooned, primary, tertiary,  and unspecified
  sludges.  "All" signifies data for all  types of sludges.
                             A-5

-------
                                  TABLE A-5
                  CONCENTRATIONS OF Mn, B, As, Co.. Mo.
                            IN SEWAGE SLUDGE (29)
AND Hg
Component

Mn, mg/kg



B, mg/kg



As, mg/kg



Co, mg/kg



Mo, mg/kg



Hg, mg/kg



Type*

Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Other
All
Number

81
38
24
143
62
29
18
109
3
—
7
10
4
—
9
13
9
3
17
29
35
20
23
78
Range

58-7,100
55-1,120
18-1,840
18-7,100
12-760
17-74
4-700
4-760
10-230
--
6-18
6-230
3-18
,
1-11
1-18
24-30
30-30
5-39
5-39
0.5-10,600
1.0-22
2.0-5,300
0.2-10,600
Median

280
340
118
260
36
33
16
33
116
__
9
10
7.0
—
4.0
4.0
30
30
30
30
5
5
3
5
Mean

400
420
250
380
97
40
69
77
119
—
11
43
8.8
—
4.3
5.3
29
30
27
28
1,100
7
810
733
* Concentrations on a dry solids basis.

* "Other" includes lagooned, primary, tertiary, and unspecified sludges.
  "All" signifies data for all types of sludges.
                                   A-6

-------
                            TABLE A-6
       RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER TREATED
        AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF  SLUDGES IN INDIANA (7)

Component
Total N
NH4-N
Zn
Cd
Cu
Ni
Pb
Cr
PCB

4-10.
(20)
8.94
1.76
1,155
9
610
84
350
440
8.1
Flow
10-20
(12)
6.00
1.11
1,655
22
1,320
180
480
690
4.5
Treated, m3/day
20-40
_(9i_
	 *t _ .
7.05
1.34
1,800
18
640
80
380
590
6.7
x 103
40-80
(10)
6.81
1.10
2,410
36
790
280
450
1,140
6.7

780
III
5.36
1.08
1,980
62
510
-
-
885
14.5
* Number of treatment plants studies.
t Median concentrations on a dry solids basis.
English conversion factor:
  1 m3 = 264.2 gal.
                              A-7

-------
                            TABLE A-7
           RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POPULATION IN SANITARY
        DISTRICT  AND  CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF SEWAGE SLUDGES
             FROM DIFFERENT SIZE CITIES IN  IOWA (33)
Component      <2
                           Population of City x 103*
                         2-10
10-25
25-60
>60
Organic C
Total N
NH/-N
NOjj-N

S
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Fe
39.2
2.55
0.085
0.018
1.12
0.75
5.19
0.58
0.18
0.24
1.72
28.4
3.19
0.057
0.014
1.43
1.34
8.22
0.59
0.54
0.28
1.94
- - v*; •- •
35.4
2.81
0.080
0.018
0.95
0.98
• 5.75
0.52
0.17
0.21
1.79
28.0
1.52
0.082
0.011
1.55
1.16
9.25
0.88
0.09
0.19
1.66
28.5
2.28
0.072
0.015
1.22
1.10
8.08
0.73
0.21
0.31
2.13
Ag
As
B
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Hg
Mn
Mo
N1
Pb
Se
V
Zn
9
169
100
18
18
38
294
1.2
194
13
25
183
<25
25
1,000
18
163
226
27
25
250
407
2.9
557
13
38
175
<25
25
1,750
- v"'y/">a;
9
175
78
14
21
369
225
0.8
232
13
25
213
<25
28
575
25
163
88
20
18
150
225
1.5
288
13'
38
325
<25
26
1,175
11
171
130
28
24
213
200
0.4
363
13
38
300
<25
38
1,625
* Concentrations and percent composition are on a dry solids
  basis.

t Median concentration in sewage sludge from city with a popula-
  tion x 10.
                              A-8

-------

















o
f— 1
00
UJ
CI3
Q
^3
00
UJ
U3
^
UJ
oo

f-H
oo
1 —

UJ
OO :=>
=C ti
UJ 00

CQ O
«=c o
Q
UJ
1—
C_3
UJ
UJ
oo
u_
0
oo
o

1—
C£.
1—
'ZL
UJ
o
o
o













O)
OO |
r
1
1

.0 1
1
t
1
1

5 i
1
1
O 1

(
*i ;
1
si '<
1
i
,
I! 1
0 1
*
<
en
£_ £
CJ ^-"
1
1
O 1
o
1
1
s| ;

i
i
CO 1
1
1
1
in
<. i
I

i
i
w i
a.
i
i
i
•r- I
t-
r—
OJ !
O t






4->
0
CM CM CM. ^- 1 LOenoO^CMCO^OOCOLOCOCMCM

-•-->, • - -•'.>:•'

LO "  »-» f-*,1-* rHCMOO.CMOO
•• -
r*^ rH to «^-' •stfr 
OOrHCOOOOOOCOOOOOCDO'CO
^J-COLOOOLOCOCOCMCM -CO < ^O CO rH O <*
rH rHrHrHCMf— IrHrHCM fHrH

o en i*^ .rH o *3-o CMCO cM^,r' 5o rH
CO rH ^f rH to f^* LO ^T CO Cn CM ovo<-HO'ovo ^3
CMrHCM CMrH. rH CMCOCM
VI
•a
o
OCTVOOLOOOOO OrHOO-O LO
CO C-^ *O IJ3OOOOOLOCM' COOrH LO tO
OOO«-HrHO«^-"3-COCM «i-OOOO«O t.
rH \/ CM' t3
03

o
'wOoo^r^oco^oToou^ •o'^'OLO qj
CMOCMrHCMO**^-Oi,CMOOr- 
-------
organic components are present in sludges, including microbial cells and
their decomposition products, chemical compounds present in the wastewa-
ter  influent  (proteins,  polysaccharides,  greases,  and  fats),  and com-
pounds synthesized during the wastewater and sludge treatment processes.
The chemical composition of sludge organic C has not been completely de-
fined.  Recent  studies  indicate  that  phthalate esters,  waxes, and fatty
acids are contained in the nonaqueous solvent  (e.g., hexane) extractable
fraction  of sludges (32).   It  was also  shown that a  variety  of ami no
acids and two sugars  (glucose and xylose) were released from the sludge
solids  by  acid hydrolysis.    Some   priority  pollutants  (e.g.,  PCB's,'
chlorinated hydrocarbons) can also be present  in the organic fraction of
sludges, but their concentrations are typically well under 100 mg/kg.

Most of the organic C found in  sludges  is insoluble  in water,  and con-
sists of various proteinaceous,  polysaccharide, and lipid-type materials
in  various  stages  of  decomposition.   The  insoluble  nature of  sludge
organic C means that it  is  not  appreciably removed  by dewatering pro-
cesses.  The organic C  content  of sludges placed on sand-drying beds or
composted,  however,  can be markedly  reduced  because of  the additional
microbial  decomposition which occurs during these processes.

     A.3.2  Nitrogen Compounds in Sludge

The  concentrations  of organic nitrogen,  NH^ and NOg in  sludge  are af-
fected  by  the  type of  sludge  treatment  and  handling  processes  used.
Most of the organic N  in  sludges is associated with the sludge  solids.
and thus organic N levels are not appreciably altered by sludge dewater-
ing  or  drying  procedures.   In  contrast, the  inorganic  forms  of  N (NI-L
and NO,) are water  soluble, and  their concentrations  will  decrease dra-
maticafly  during  dewatering  steps,  e.g.,  drying-beds,  centrifuges,
presses, etc.   Either heat or air drying will  reduce the NH. because of
ammonia volatilization, but not the NOo level.
Usually, over 90 percent of the inorganic N will be as NH., unless aero-
bic conditions  have prevailed during sludge treatment.  For  most liquid
sludges collected  from  an  anaerobic  digester,  essentially all  the inor-
ganic N will  be present as Nt-L, and will  constitute  from 25 to 50 per-
cent  of  the  total  N.   The  NH^  concentration  in  the liquid  phase  of
sludge is relatively constant at a specific treatment plant.   Dewatering
of liquid sludges will substantially lower the NH. content, resulting in
a sludge with less  than  10 percent  of  the total N being present as NH*.
Since the inorganic N content  of  sludges  is  significantly influenced by
sludge handling procedures, it is  essential  that  nitrogen  analysis  be
conducted on the actual  sludge being considered for land application.

The organic N content of sludges can range from 1 to 10 percent on a dry
weight basis.   The organic  N  compounds found  in  sludges  are  primarily
amino acids,  indicating the  presence  of  proteinaceous  materials  (26)
(30).   It is  likely that the  proteins  have been partially degraded, and
can be incorporated into stable, humic-type materials.  Small amounts of
hexosamines  and amides  are also  found  in  the  organic  N  fraction  of
                                   A-10

-------
sludges.  After  application to soils, soil microbes  will  decompose the
organic  matter  contained in  the  sludge,  resulting  in release  of  NH/1"
which can be assimilated by the vegetation grown.

The amount of inorganic N mineralized in soils is affe.cted by the extent
of  sludge  processing  (e.g.,  digestion,  composting)  within the  sewage
treatment plant.   The  amounts of N mineralized  in  soils  will  generally
be less for well  stabilized sludges.  The amounts of N mineralized after
sludge application to soils are discussed in Chapter 6.

     A.3.3  Other Components in Sludge

Sewage  sludges  contain varying concentrations  of the other macro- and
micronutrients and other components  required  for plant growth,  as shown
in Tables A-2 through A-5,  which include data on sludge levels  for P, K,
S, Ca,  Mg,  Na,  Cu, Zn, B,  Mo,  Fe,  Mn,  and Co.   Several  generalizations
are  possible  concerning  the  expected  concentrations  and behavior  of
these elements in sludge or sludge soil  systems.
Many elements enter  the
not readily form  either
with particulate  materials.    Elements  in this  group  include K+,  Na,
NH^+, Mo, and Co.  As  a  result,  the majority of these  elements entering
a treatment plant are discharged in the treated effluent, unless  special
advanced treatment processes are used to  remove  them.   Since these ions
are water-soluble, sludge dewatering by centrifuges or  presses will
matically lower their concentrations in sludge  solids;  air  or heat
ing will result  in  increased levels because those  ions,  which are
volatile.
                         sewage treatment plant as  soluble  ions,  and do
                         sparingly  soluble  compounds or stable complexes
                                                                    dra-
                                                                    dry-
                                                                    non-
Another  group  of elements  readily  forms insoluble compounds  with  con-
stituents which  are  either  initially present in the sewage  or produced
during sludge treatment.  Included  are  both  inorganic  anions (P,  S,  and
As) and cations  (Ca, Mg, Fe, ATI, Mn, Zn, Cu,  Ni, Pb, Cd,  Cr,  and Hg).   A
variety  of  inorganic  precipitates  can  form,  including  hydroxides,
oxides, carbonates,  phosphates,  and sulfides; pH,  redox  potential,  and
solution composition will determine  which precipitates are formed.   The
black color associated with  anaerobically digested sludges is attributed
to the formation of insoluble FeS.
Many trace metals, such as Cd, coprecipitate to form insoluble compounds
in sludges.  For example, Cd may be trapped within A1(OH)3 or CaCOo sol-
    phases during  the  precipitation process.  In  addition,  metals (Cu,
ids
                   the
Zn, Cd, etc.)  and  anions (H^O^", H2As04~) can  be  adsorbed  on  the  sur-
face of organic matter or precipitates (CaC03, A1(OH)3) in sludges.   Be-
cause these chemical reactions remove the  ion  from  solution  and concen-
trate it  in  the  solid  phase, sludge  dewatering  has  a  minimal  impact on
their concentration in  the final  sludge.
                                  A-11

-------
     A.3.4  Trace Organics in Sludge

A  variety  of  organic  compounds,  primarily  of industrial  origin,  have
been receiving greater emphasis as potential  pollutants of soils, crops,
and  waters  following land  application  of sludges.   Initially,  chlori-
nated  hydrocarbons,  pesticides,  and polychlorinated  biphenyls  were  the
major  organics  studied.   Data collected  in the mid-70's  on the concen-
trations of dieldrin (a pesticide) and PCB's  were  shown in Table A-8 for
selected large cities  in the United  States.   Dieldrin  concentrations
were generally less than 0.3 mg/kg while PCB's ranged from under 0.01 to
23 mg/kg.   A survey of sludges  produced  by  treatment plants in Indiana
indicated that the median  PCB concentrations ranged  from 4.5  to  14.5
mg/kg  (Table  A-6).   The  levels  of PCB's in sludges  should decrease in
the future because these compounds are no longer being manufactured.

More  recent  research has  concentrated  on characterizing  the  myriad of
trace  organic compounds  that are  entering  municipal  sewage  treatment
plants (4).   Analysis of  sludges from  25 cities  has indicated that sev-
eral phthalate esters  (i.e., diethyl,  dibutyl) are  present  in  13 to 25
percent of sludges  at concentrations above 50  mg/kg (Table A-9).  Tolu-
ene, phenol,  and  naphthalene were  also  found  in  11 to 25 percent of the
sludges at higher than  50 mg/kg  levels.   Chlorinated methanes, ethanes,
and benzenes  were found in  3 to  36 percent  of the sludges at concentra-
tions  above  1 mg/kg, but  they were found in  relatively .few sludges at
above  50 mg/kg.   Trace organics have also been  surveyed  in 238 sludges
generated by  treatment  plants in Michigan (Table  A-10).   The compounds
detected in  these sludges included acrylonitrile, chlorinated hydrocar-
bons,  chlorinated benzenes,  chlorinated phenols,  styrene, and hydroqui-
none.   Compounds found in  over  25 percent of the sludges include 1,2-
and 1,3-dichloropropane, 1,3-dichloropropene, tetrachloroethylene, 2,4,-
dinitrophenol,  hydroquinone,  pentachlorophenol, phenol, and 2,4,6,-tri-
chlorophenol.   Of  these  compounds, median  concentrations  were  below 5
mg/kg, except  for tetrachloroethylene  (29 mg/kg).   Styrene was found in
6  of  219  sludges,  ranging   in  concentration  from  99 to  5,858 mg/kg.
Chlorobenzene  and  chlorotoluene  were  present  in  6  sludges  at levels
ranging from 60 to  846 mg/kg.  These data suggest that most trace organ-
ics  will  be present in most sludges at  concentrations of less  than 10
mg/kg.   However,  industrial   in-put of  a  specific organic compounds  can
dramatically increase sludge  concentrations.   Both of these studies have
shown  that there  is a  weak relationship between  the proportion of total
flow contributed  by industries and the  concentration  of  trace organics
in sludges (4-)(25).

A.4  Effect of Sludge Treatment and Chemical  Amendments on Sludge
     Characteristics

The sludge treatment processes used can have a significant affect on the
chemical composition of  sludge.   Sludge stabilization processes such as
aerobic  and anaerobic  digestion  result in decomposition  of sludge  or-
ganic  matter  and  the  release of  carbon  dioxide,  ammonium, hydrogen sul-
fide,  and  phosphate.    Thus, the  organic  C,  N, S,  and P  content in
                                   A-12

-------
                            TABLE  A-9
           ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED.IN SLUDGES (4)'
Percent Occurrence at
Concentrations
Compound
Methane, dichloro-
Methane, trichloro-
Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-
Ethane, trichloro-
Ethane, tetrachloro-
Benzene, 1,4^-dichloro
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Phenol , . ; .
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phthalate di ethyl
Phthalate, di-n-butyl
Phthalate, bis (2-ethyl hexyl )
Phthalate, butylbenzyl
All others
>1- mg/kg
':• .41 .
3
5
26
: 27
36
33
59
63
65
60
43
63
75
50 ,
<50
>10 mg/kg
12
0
3 .
9
8
18
3
35
25
33
20
23
25
63
35
<25
Indicated
>50 mg/kg
3
0
0
3
3
5
; 0
11
13
15
8
13
13
25
18
<15
* Survey of 25 cities located throughout the United States.
  Plant treated from 13,200 md/day to 1S170,000 m3/day and
  percentage of industrial  flow varied from 0 to 60 percent.

t Dry solids basis.
                            A-13,

-------
                             TABLE  A-10
            CHARACTERIZATION OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS  IN
238  SLUDGES COLLECTED  FROM TREATMENT PLANTS  IN MICHIGAN  (25)

Compound
Acrylonltrile
Chlorobenzene
p-chlorotoluene
o-di chl orobenzene
m-d1 chlorobenzene
p-dichl orobenzene
1 , 2-di chl oropropane
1,3-dlchloropropane
1,3-di chl oropropane
Ethyl benzene
Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
Styrere
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
1, 2, 3~tr1 chl orobenzene
1, 2, 4-trichl orobenzene
1 ,3, 5-tri chl orobenzene
I,2,3~tr1chl oropropane
1, 2, 3-trichl oropropane
o-chlorophenol
m-chlorophenol
p-chlorophenol
o-cresol
2, 4-di chl orop henol
2, 4-d1raethyl phenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-din1trophenol
Hydroqui none
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-tn'cnlorophenol
Detection Limit
4 (25/155)
60 (3/158)
59 (6/158)
6 (15/215)
5 (44/216)
10 (18/216)
0.08 (91/157)
0.5 (40/158)
0.1 (119/157)
0.08 (14/220)
3 (1/217)
0.05 (40/217)
0.4 (5/199)
90 (6/219)
10 (108/128)
1 (7/216)
3 (17/217)
50 (0/217)
4 (2/141)
3 (21/137)
0.03 (20/231)
0.03 (16/231)
0.03 (19/231)
0.03 (16/231)
0.03 (17/230)
0.03 (41/231)
0.06 (20/229)
0.18 (66/228)
0.07 (61/229)
0.03 (155/223)
0.03 (178/229)
0.06 (66/223)
Range Mean1"
4-82
60-846
93-324
6-809
6-1,651
10-633
0.09-66
0.6-309
0.1-1,232
1.2-66
_
0.05-16.5
0.4-9.2
99-5,848
1-1,218
1-152
3-51
-
9-19
3-167

0.1-93
0.1-90
0.2-183
0.2-203
D. 09-87
0.2-187
0.3-500
0.1-223
0.2-8,495
0.05-288
0.2-1,333
16±19
3371441
153+87
89±209 •
119+327
77±151
1.91±7.36
18+51
24+116
25±22
4
0.7.+2.6
2.7±3.7
1,338±2,249
68±132
25±56
14+12
-
14±7
23+47
13±23
9+24
18±30
25+52
25+54
6.5+14.9
12.7+41
24±81
8+29
81+685
9+29
42+178
Median
7
106
.121
16
22
23
0.66
3.2
3.9
20
-
0.2
1.3
405
29
1
13
-
14
6

0.9
3.6
2.0
4.8
2.2
2.3
5.0
2.6
5.0
2.0
4.3
 * Number in parenthesis is the number of sites having concentrations less than
   detection limit/total number of sites analyzed.

 t Mean ± standard deviations.

 I Concentrations on a dry solids basis.
                                 A-14

-------
 stabilized  sludges  will  be lower than the  raw  sludge entering the sta-
 bilization  unit.  Composting  of  sludges  results in further decreases in
 the organic constituents  found in  sludges.   In  addition, composting may
 involve mixing sludge with a bulking agent (e.g., wood chips) to facili-
 tate aeration and rapid stabilization of the sludge.  In some cases, the
 majority  of the  bulking  agent is  removed from  the  finished compost by
 screening;  but  even in these  cases  a portion  of  the bulking agent re-
 mains in  the  compost resulting in dilution  of  sludge components (e.g.,
 nutrients,  metals).   The  extensive biological  activity occurring during
 composting  results  in further decreases  in  the  organic N,  C, and S con-
 tent of  the sludge.   In  general,  the organic  N content of  sludges de-
=creases in  the  following  order:   raw, primary  or  wasted activated, di-
 gested, and composted.

 Wastewater  and sludge treatment  processes  often involve  the  addition of
 ferric chloride, alum, lime,  or  polymers.   Obviously, the  concentration
 of the elements added will increase their concentration in  the resultant
 sludge.  In addition, the compound added can have other indirect effects
 on sludge  composition.   For example, alum precipitates  as aluminum hy-
 droxides,  which  can subsequently adsorb P and  coprecipatate with  trace
 metals such as Cd.   Lime  (calcium oxide  or  hydroxide) used  as a sludge
 stabilization  agent  will   ultimately  precipitate in  sludges  as  calcium
 carbonate  which  can also  retain P  and  metals.   Lime  addition  may  also
 result in alkaline hydrolysis of  organic N compounds and  cause losses of
 ammonia through volatilization.

 A.5  Variability of Sludge Composition

 The data  discussed  previously have emphasized  the  variability  that can
 be encountered  in  the  composition  of   sludges  generated  in  different
 municipalities.   The composition  of sludges can  also vary with time  at a
 given  treatment  plant.   Several  studies  have  been conducted to assess
 the variable nature  of sludge characteristics  (6)(15)(31).   Representa-
 tive  data  on the  variability  of  total N, P, and K (Figure A-l)  and Zn,
 Cd, and Cu  (Figure-A-2)  in sludges are  shown for  samples  obtained  from
 two treatment plants  in  Pennsylvania during a  two year  period.  It  is
 apparent  that  significant variations  in sludge  composition can  occur
 both  for constituents that are primarily  soluble (K) or insoluble (P and
 metals), but this may  differ  between POTW's.   The  volume  and frequency
 of industrial  metal  in-puts are  probably  responsible  for the variations
 found  in the Zn,  Cd,  and Cu concentrations.  Also,  operational  parame-
 ters  within the treatment  plant  can  alter the  solids  content  and other
 sludge  characteristics.   Not all  cities  generate sludges as  variable  as
 those  depicted  in Figures  A-l  and A-2.

 The data  shown  on  the variability of  sludge composition emphasize  the
 need  for a  sound  sampling program.   The use of flow-weighted  sampling
 procedures  is strongly  encouraged  to obtain representative   samples  of
 sludge  produced  at a specific treatment  plant.   An  on-going  sludge  sam-
 pling  and  analysis  program is essential  to assure  the  integrity   of  a
 land application  system.   Only through proper monitoring  can  significant
                                  A-15

-------
       5.0-r
H-
r
yj
>-<
UJ
3

>
Di
Q

J-
Z
UJ
u
o:
ILJ
CL
z
o
l-<
H
<
CC
H
z
LU
U

0
U
       3.0 -
       2.0 -
      1.0 -
                  TOTAL N
                               TOTAL  P
                                                TOTAL K
                23
                             23

                          CITY ^0.
                                                23
Figure A-l.  Variability of N, P,  and K-in sewage  sludge (6)
                                           _2   COPPER  X  10
                                                           -2
o 18°-
^ 160 -
(3
s. 140-
Z 120-
o
CONCENTRATI
>-*
M f- O\ CO O
JO O O O O
1 1 1 1 1




ZINC X 10
T
f
f
2 3

V-MUI"! iUI'l /S 1 U


•4
-2
I
I




* fl ««d

















•
23 2.3
CITY NO.
Figure A-2,
          Variability of Zn, Cd, and Cu in  sewagesludge
          from  two  POTW's in Pennsylvania over  a  2-year
          period  (6).
                            A-16

-------
 changes  in the  concentration of  limiting nutrients  or metals  be de-
 tected,  so that  sludge  application  rates can be altered  accordingly.

 A.6   Pathogens Potentially Associated with Sludge

      A.6.1  General

 Pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and  para-
 sitic worms  are  almost always present  in  raw sewage.   The number and
 types of organisms  present in  raw sewage, however, varies from community
 to community,  depending upon urbanization, population density, sanitary
 habits,  season of the year,  rates of disease in the contributing commun-
 ity  (13).  Table A-ll lists  disease-causing bacteria and parasites  which
 have  been identified  in raw  sewage and  sludge,  and Table A-12  lists
 human enteric viruses which  have been isolated from sewage  (11).  Sludge
 stabilization  processes  destroy  the  great majority  of  the pathogens
 listed in Tables A-l and A-2, as discussed in Section A6.6.

      A.6.2  Bacteria

 Enteric  bacilli,  which naturally inhabit  the  gastrointestinal  tract of
 man,  have been classified into three  general  categories:    pseudomonas,
 salmonella,  and -shigella  species.    None of  the  enteric  bacilli  form
 spores.   Spores  are resistant  bodie"sproduced within  the  cells  of a
 large number of  bacterial species which  enables them to  withstand unfav-
 orable  environmental  conditions  such  as  heat,  cold,  desiccation, and
 chemicals (12).   Since  enteric bacilli are non-spore formers, their sur-
 vival  outside  their normal  environment  is usually measured in  days or
 months,  compared to years for spore-forming bacteria.   The most common
 bacterial  pathogens associated  with  sewage  are  Salmonella. Shi gel!a,
 Vibrio,  and  Campylobacter (Table A-ll).   More  than  110 different  virus
 types may be present in raw  sewage  (Table A-12).  The list  of pathogenic
 human enteric viruses  has   continued  to grow  during  the  last  decade.
 Rotaviruses are  now recognized as  a major  cause  of child  gastroenteri-
 tis,  and also cause diarrhea in adults (11).  Other major pathogenic en-
 teric viruses  are  the  Polioviruses,  Coxsackievi ruses,   Echovi ruses, and
•the  Hepatitis  virus.   These  viruses are shed  from the  body through the
 feces,  and fecal-oral  spread  is   probably  the most  common method  of
 transmission.   For  man, the  enteric virus of greatest potential  concern
 appears  to be Hepatitis A.

      A.6.3  Parasites

 Parasites  include  protozoans,  nematodes,  and  helminths  (Table  A-ll).
 Intestinal protozoans are transmitted by a cyst, the nonactive and  envi-
 ronmentally insensitive form of the organism.  Their life cycle requires
 that  a cyst be  ingested  by  the  host.    The cyst is  transformed  into an
 active  feeding  organism  (trophozoite)  in the intestines,  where  it ma-
 tures and reproduces, releasing cysts in the feces (25).
                                   A-17

-------
                              TABLE A-ll
        BACTERIA  AND  PARASITES IN  SEWAGE  AND SLUDGE
Group
Bacteria
Protozoa
Helminths
Pathogen
Salmonella  (1700 types)

Shi gel la
Enteropathogenic Escherichia
coli
Yersinia enterocolitica
Campy!obacter  jejuni
Vibrio cholerae
Leptospira
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia lamblia
Balantidium coli
Ascaris lumbricoides
  (Roundworm)
Ancyclostoma duodenale
  (Hookworm)
Necator americanus
  (Hookworm)
Taenia saginata
  (Tapeworm)
Disease Caused
Typhoid, paratyphoid,
salmonellosis
Bacillary dysentery
Gastroenteritis

Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Cholera
Weil's disease
Amebic dysentery, liver
abcess, colonid  ulceration
Diarrhea, malabsorption
Mild diarrhea, colonic
ulceration
Ascariasis

Anemia

Anemia

Taeniasis
                                   A-18

-------
                              TABLE  A-12
                HUMAN ENTERIC VIRUSES  IN  SEWAGE
Virus
Enterovi ruses:
Poliovirus
Echovirus
Coxsackievirus
Coxsackievirus
Number
of
Types
3
31
23
6
Diseases Caused

Meningitis, paralysis, fever
Meningitis, diarrhea, rash, fever,
respiratory disease
Meningitis, herpangina, fever,
respiratory disease
Myocraditis, congehtial heart
New enteroviruses
  (Types 68-71)

Hepatitis Type A
  (enterovirus 72?)
Norwalk virus
Calicivirus
Astrovirus
Reovirus
Rotavirus
Adenovirus
        anomalies, pleurodynia,  respiratory
        disease, fever, rash, meningitis
        Meningitis, encephalitis,  acute
        hemorrhagic conjunctivitis,  fever,
        respiratory disease
        Infectious hepatitis
 1      Diarrhea, vomiting, fever
 1      Gastroenteritis
 1      Gastroenteritis
 3      Not clearly established
 2      Diarrhea, vomiting
37      Respiratory disease,  eye infections
                                  A-19

-------
Of the common  protozoa  which  may be found in sewage, only three species
are of major  significance for transmission  of  disease  to human:   Enta-
moeba histolytica,  Giarda Iambi a,  and  Balantidium coli.  All  of these
organisms are known to cause mild to severe  diarrhea (11).

Although helminth infections are still prevalent in the U.S.  population,
the occurrence  of  disease due to three  agents  in  the United States has
been extremely low during the last  few decades.  The presence and levels
in wastewater  of helminth eggs  depend  on the  levels of  disease  in the
population (11).  Helminths (worms) include  the subgroups, nematodes and
trematodes.    The  intestinal   nematode,  Ascaris  lumbricoides,  is  fre-
quently mentioned as a potential problem to  human health.PaTasitic ova
are generally quite resistant to disinfectants and adverse environmental
conditions (12).   The ova of Ascaris have  been shown to survive sewage
treatment.  Since  a portion of  animal waste reaches municipal  sludges,
parasites of  animal  origin are also of  concern.   The nemathodes, Toxa-
cara can is arid T. cati, found in the dog and cat population,  have a life
cycle which is nearly identical to that of Ascaris in man (28).

     A.6.4  Fungi

Fungi are secondary pathogens in sludge.  A  large number have been found
growing in  sludge  undergoing composting.   The pathogenic fungi  are  of
most  concern  when  the  spores  are  inhaled  by  people  who  are  already
stressed  by  a disease  such  as  diabetes  or by  immunpsuppressive  drugs
(20).

Fungi spores,  especially  those  of Aspergillus fumigatus, are ubiquitous
in the environment,  and have  been  found  in  pastures,  haystacks,  manure
piles, and the basements of most homes.   This fungus grows exceptionally
well  at  human  body  temperature,   and   causes  asthmatic   symptoms  in
allergy-prone individuals.

Although  there  is  a  greater  potential  of transacting  pathogenic fungi
and actinomycetes during composting, there  is  also a possibility  of in-
haling such spores  while applying  sludge to land.   However, there have
been no reports involving such cases at  sludge-to-land sites  (3).

A7.0  Reduction of Pathogens by Sewage and Sludge Treatment Processes

Sewage and sludge treatment processes significantly reduce the number of
pathogens originally  present  in the raw sewage.   Table A-13 shows per-
cent removal of  pathogens  by  various  sewage  treatment processes.   It is
clear, however,  that  some pathogens may  survive  sludge  stabilization
processes.  Table A-14  lists  reported concentrations of enteric viruses
in sludge receiving various types  of  treatment.   As shown in the table,
sludge which has been stabilized (e.g.,  digested, lagooned) has  very low
concentrations of viruses compared to raw sludge.
Table  A-15 shows
sludge.  As  shown
reported  parasite  concentration  in  raw  and  treated
in the table,  parasite  eggs  ^iave high survival  rates
                                   A-20

-------
                                TABLE A-13
                  PERCENT REMOVAL OF  PATHOGENS BY VARIOUS
                      SEWAGE TREATMENT PROCESSES (9)
Treatment
Primary !
Sedimentation
Trickling
Filter*
Activated
Sludge*
Oxidation
Ditch*
Waste Stabilization
Ponds (three cells
with >25 days'
retention)
Enteric
Viruses
0-30
90-95
90-99
90-99
99.99-100
Bacteria
50-90
90-95
90-99
90-99
99.99-100
Protozoan
Cysts
10-50
50-90
50
50
100
Helminth
Eggs
30-90
50-95
50-99
50-99
100
With sedimentation, sludge digestion,  and  sludge  drying.
                                   A-21

-------
                              TABLE A-14
               REPORTED CONCENTRATION OF ENTERIC
                     VIRUSES  IN  SLUDGES  (11)
Type of Sludge
Raw
Mixed liquor
suspended solids
Aerobically digested
Lagooned sludge
applied to land
Raw
Digested
Lagooned
Raw
Anaerobi c-mesop hi lie
Raw
Anaerobic-mesophilic
digestion
Aerobic-therraophilic
digestion
Anaerobic high rate
digestion
Anaeroblcally
digested lagoon
Anaerobic digestion
Raw
Anaerobic-mesophil ic
Aerobic-thermophilic
Anaerobic-mesophil ic
Aerobic digestion
Concentration
5-145 pfu/ral
5 TCID50/g

1.7 to 5.2  TCID
0.02 to 4.6
50
6.9 to 215 pfu/g
0.2 to 17 pfu/g
1.2 pfu/g
17.9 TCID50/100 ml
0.85 TCI050/100 ml
40 to 1,419 pfu/g
6 to 210 pfu/g

10 to 65 pfu/g

1.1 to 17 pfu/g

1.2 pfu/g

5.0-6.7 pfu/g
141-1,060 pfu/100 ml
4-100 pfu/100 ml
0-14 pfu/100 ml
0.8 pfu/ml
14 to 260 TCID50/g
            Location
            Cincinnati
            Florida
            England
             United States
                                   A-22

-------
                                  TABLE A-15
               PARASITE CONCENTRATION  IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
                  SLUDGE AS COMPARED TO TREATED SLUDGE  (25)
                                               Number of Viable and Nonviable
                                                Eggs/Kg Dry Height of Sample
Parasite
Ascaris spp.
(human and pig
roundworm)
Tri churis
trichiura (human
whipworm)
Trichuris vulpis
(dog whipworm)
Toxocara spp.
(dog and cat
roundworm)
Type
Primary
Treated
Primary
Treated
Primary
Treated
Primary
Treated
of Sludge*
and Secondary
and Secondary
and Secondary
and Secondary
Average
9,700
9,600
800
2,600
600
700
1,200
700
Percent Viable Eggs
45
69
50
48
90
64
88
52
* Primary and secondary sludges include sludges from primary clarification,
  Imhoff digestion, activated sludge, contact stabilisation, and extended
  aeration.  Treated sludges include sludges from mesophilic aerobic and an-
  aerobic digestion, vacuum filtration, centrifugation, lagoons, and drying
  beds.
                                    A-23

-------
through  common sludge  stabilization  processes.   The  level  of pathogen
reduction  achieved  during  sludge treatment  varies with the process used
and  numerous  other  variables (e.g., time, temperature,  pH,  etc.).   De-
tailed  studies of  the mechanisms  of  virus inactivation  during  sludge
treatment  have shown  ammonia and  detergents  play a  significant role.
Drying and  loss of  moisture  from sludge can result in significant inac-
tivation1 of viruses.   There  is  a 4 to 5 logiQ decrease in virus numbers
when the final sludge  solid is above 90%.  Dewatering causes the release
of viral RNA  and  inactivation appears to be  due to the dewatering pro-
cess itself (34).

In sludge  composting,  sludge  is  mixed  with  other organic materials such
wood chips  or leaves,  and is allowed  to  decompose for a period ranging
from 3 to  4 v/eeks.   Aerobic  conditions are  maintained either by pumping
air  into the  compost pile, or by  regularly turning the pile.   Compost-
ing, being  a  thermophilic  process  with temperatures ranging from  60° to
70°C under  ideal conditions, generally results in inactivation of patho-
genic microorganisms.   Protozoan  cysts,  helminth  eggs,  and pathogenic
bacteria are  effectively  inactivated  during this  process.   Experiments
with model  viruses  (bacterial virus  f2)  have revealed that  a properly
operated Nindrow  compost  system may result in total  virus inactivation
in approximately 50 days.   Enteric virus monitoring of a windrow compost
system has  revealed their presence  during  the windrow phase,  but  none
after the curing period (1).

Recent studies have also been conducted on the concentration of helminth
in domestic sludges  in  the United  States.   Significant numbers of these
parasites may  survive  both aerobic and anaerobic  sludge  treatment.   As
in the  case  of viruses,  sludge drying  (i.e.,  loss of moisture)  has  a
great influence on the inactivation of parasites in sludges (30).

Radiation processing of sludge by exposure to high-energy electrons pro-
duced by an  electron  accelerator  or  radiation  sources  appears  to  be
highly effective against pathogenic microorganisms and helminths (8).

A.8  Survival  of Pathogens Applied to Land

Survival  of pathogens contained in sludge after the sludge is applied to
the land is obviously  an  important  consideration in deciding how  long a
period of time must  be allowed after the  last  sludge application  before
permitting  access to the  people  and/or  animals, and  the  harvesting  of
crops intended  for  human  consumption.   In  addition,  pathogen  survival
may affect  the possible contamination  of  surface or ground water.  Fac-
tors known  to influence  bacterial  and viral  survival in the  soil  are
listed in Table A-16.

Temperature is an  important factor  in  the  survival  of bacteria  and
viruses.   Their survival is greatly prolonged at  low temperatures; below
4°C, they can  survive  for  months  or even  years.   At higher temperatures
inactivation or die-off is fairly rapid.   In the  case of bacteria,  and
probably viruses, the  die-off rate  is approximately  doubled  with  each
10°C rise in temperature between  5° and 30°C (24).
                                   A-24

-------
                               TABLE  A-16
       FACTORS  THAT  INFLUENCE  THE  SURVIVAL OF BACTERIA
                      AND  VIRUSES IN SOIL  (11)
Factor

Temperature


PH




Cations
                           Bacteria
                                                            Viruses
      Longer  survival at low temperature;
      longer  survival in winter than in  summer
Shorter survival time in
acid soils  (pH  3-5) than
in alkaline soils
Desiccation
and soil
moisture
Sunlight

Antagonism from
soil  microflora
Organic matter
Greater survival time in
moist soils  and  during
times of high  rainfall.
Survival time  is less
in sandy soils with lower
waterholding capacity.
May indirectly  affect
virus survival  by con-
trolling their  adsorp-
tion to soils

May also indirectly in-
fluence virus survival
by increasing their ad-
sorption to  soil (vi-
ruses appear to survive
better in the sorbed
state)

One of the most proven
detrimental  factors.
Increased virus reduc-
tion in drying  soils.
      May be  detrimental at the soil  surface
Increased survival time
sterile soil
Increased survival and
possible regrowth whe'n
sufficient amounts of
organic matter  are
present
No clear trend with
regard to the effect of
soil  microflora  on
viruses

Unknown
                                   A-25

-------

The  survival  of  bacteria  on plants, particularly  crops,  is especially
important, since these may be eaten raw by animals or humans, may conta-
minate hands of workers touching them, or may contaminate equipment con-
tacting them.  Such ingestion or contact would probably not result in an
infective  dose  of a  bacterial  pathogen;  but if  contaminated  crops are
brought into the  kitchen  in an unprocessed  state,  they  could result in
the  regrowth of  pathogenic bacteria (e.g.,  Salmonella)  in  a food mate-
rial affording suitable moisture, nutrients, and temperature.

Pathogens  do not  penetrate into vegetables  or  fruits  unless their skin
is  broken; and many  of the  same  factors affect bacterial  survival  on
plants as  those  in  soil,  particularly sunlight  and desiccation.   The
survival   times of bacteria  on  subsurface  crops  (e.g.,   potatoes  and
beets) would be similar to those in soil (2).

The  survival of enteric bacteria  on  crops  has  been  extensively studied,
and  reviewed.   Reported  survival times  for common  bacteria  pathogens
range from less than  1 day to 6 weeks.

Virus survival  on exposed plant surfaces would be expected to be shorter
than in  soil  because of the exposure to  deleterious  environmental  ef-
fects, especially sunlight, high temperature, and drying.  Reported sur-
vival time of viruses  on  crops  is  similar to  those of  bacteria,  and
likewise appears to support a 1-month waiting period after last wastewa-
ter  application before  harvest.   Because of their  exposure to the air,
desiccation, and  sunlight,  protozoan cysts  and  helminth eggs  deposited
on plant surfaces would also be expected to die off rapidly.

Land application  of digested  sludges  has  shown  little impact of bacter-
ial  contamination of  ground  water, provided  that  the ground water table
is not too high and the soil is well  drained (17)(36).

A.9  References

  1.  Bitton, 6.    Introduction  to Environmental  Virology.   Wiley,  New
     York, 1980.

 2.  Bryan, !:.  L.   Disease Transmitted by Foods Contaminated by Wastewa-
     ter.   J., Food Protect., 40:45-56, 1977.

 3.  Burge, W.  D., and P.  B. Marsh.  Infectious Disease Hazards of Land-
     spreading Sewage Wastes.  J. Environ. Qual., 7:1-9,  1978.

 4.  Cohen, J.  M., L.  Rossman,  and  S. A.  Hannah.   National  Survey  of
     Municipal  Wastewaters  for Toxic Chemicals.   Presented at  the 8th
     U.S./Japan Conference,  Cincinnati, on  Sewage Treatment Technology,
     October 1981.

 5.  Criteria for Classification of  Solid  Waste  Disposal Facilities and
     Practices.  Federal Register, 44:53438-53468, September 13, 1979.
                                   A-26

-------
 7.
Doty,, W. T., D.  E.  Baker,  and  R.  F.  Shipp.   Chemical  Monitoring of
Sewage Sludge in Pennsylvania.   J. Environ.  Qual.,  6:421-426, 1977.

Echelberger, W.  F., Jr.,  J.  M. Jeter, F. P.  Girardi,  P.  M.  Ramey,
G.  Galen,  D.  Skole,  E.  Rogers,  J.  C.  Randolph,  and  J.  Zogaski.
Municipal  and  Industrial   Wastewater  Sludge Inventory  in  Indiana.
Chemical Characterization  of  Municipal  Wastewater Sludge  in Indi-
ana, Part  1.   School  of Public and  Environmental  Affairs, Indiana
University, Bloomington, 1979.
 8.
Epp, C.,
Sludge.
Abt. I:
 and  H. Metz.   Virological  Analyses of  Irradiated  Sewage
  Zentralbl.  Bakteriol.   Parasitenk.  Infektionskr.  Hyg.
Orig. Reihe B, 171:86-95, 1980.
 9.   Feachem, R. G.,  D. J.  Bradley,  H.  Garelick,  and D.  D.  Mara.   Appro-
     priate Technology for Water Supply and  Sanitation:   Health  Aspects
     of  Excreta  and   Si 11 age  Management:    A State  of  the Art  Review.
     World Bank, Washington,  D.C.,  1980.

10.   Furr, A. K., A.   W.  Lawrence, S. S. C.  long,  M. C.  Grandolfo, R.  A.
     Hofstader, C. A. Bache,  W. H.  Gutenmann,  and D. J.  Lisk.   Multi-
     element and  Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Analysis of Municipal  Sewage
     Sludges of  American Cities.   Environ. Sci.  Techno!.,  10:683-687*
     1976.

11.   Gerba, C.  P.  Pathogens  Presented at a Workshop on  Utilization  of
     Municipal  Wastewater and Sludge on Land, Denver, February 1983.

12.   Gleason, T. L.  Ill, F. D, Kover, and  C. A.  Sorber.   Health Effects:
     Land Application of Municipal  Wastewater and Sludge.   In:   Proceed-
     ings  of the  National  Conference  on  Disposal  of Residues on Land,
     St. Louis, September 1976.   pp. 203-210.

13.   Hoadley, A. W.,  and S.  M.  Goyal  (1976) Public Health Implications
     of the Application of Wastewaters  to  Land.   In:  Land Treatment  and
     Disposal of Municipal and  Industrial  Wastewater.  R. L.  Sanks  and
     T. Asano, eds.   Ann Arbor  Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan,  1976.  pp.
     101-132.

14.   Kalinske,  A.  A.   Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant  Sludge  and
     Liquid  Sidestreams.    EPA-43Q/9-76-007, Camp,  Dresser  and  McKee,
     Boston, June 1976.  123 pp.
15.  Kelling, K. A., A.  E.  Peterson,  L.  M.  Walsh,  J.
     Keeney.  A Field Study  of  the Agricultural  Use
     Effect on  Crop Yield  and Uptake  of  N and P.
     339-345, 1977.   (Available  from  the National
     Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-255 769)
                                                 A. Ryan, and D. R.
                                                  of Sewage Sludge:
                                              J. Environ. Qua!., 6:
                                              Technical Information
16.  Kowal, N.  E.   Health Effects of  Land  Treatment:   Microbiological.
     EPA-600/1-82-007,  Health  Effects Research  Laboratory,  Cincinnati,
                                   A- 27

-------
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
May  1982.   (Available from the National Technical Information Ser-
vice, Springfield,  Virginia,  PB82 253949)

Liu, D.  The Effect  of Sewage  Sludge Land Disposal on the Microbio-
logical Quality of  Groundwater.  Water  Res., 16:957-961, 1982.

U.S.  EPA.   Process  Design  Manual  for  Land  Treatment  of Municipal
Wastewater.   EPA-625/1-77/008, October  1977.   596 pp.   (Available
from the  National  Technical Information Service,  Springfield, Vir-
ginia,  PB-299 655)
Metcalf  and  Eddy.   Wastewater Engineering:
and Disposal.  McGraw-Hill, New York.
Collection, Treatment,
Moore,  B.  E.,  B.  P.  Sagik, and C. A. Sorber.  An Assessment of Po-
tential  Health Risks Associated  with  Land Disposal  of Residential
Sludges.   Presented  at the Third  National  Conference on Sludge Man-
agement and Utilization, Miami, 1976.

Page,  A.  L.    Fate  and Effects of Trace  Elements  in Sewage Sludge
When  Applied  to  Agricultural  Lands;   a  Literature  Review Study.
EPA-670/2-74-005,  University  of  California,  Riverside,  January
1974.   107 pp.

U.S.  EPA.   Wastewater  Treatment and  Reuse by  Land Application.
Vol.  II.    EPA 660-/2-73-006,  August   1973.   (Available  from  the
National  Technical   Information Service,  Springfield,  Virginia,  PB
225 941)

Process Design  Manual  for  Sludge  Treatment and Disposal.    EPA-625/
1-79-011,  Center  for  Environmental  Research  Information,  Cincin-
nati,  September 1979.  1135 pp.   (Available  from the National Tech-
nical  Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB80 200546)
Reddy, K. R.,  R.  Khaleel,  and M. R. Overcash.
port  of  Microbial  Pathogens  and  Indicator
Treated with Organic Wastes.  J. Environ. Qual
   Behavior and Trans-
  Organisms  in  Soils
  ,  10:255-266, 1981.
Reimers., R. S., M. D. Little, A. J. Englande, D. B. Leftwich, D. D.
Bowman, and R.  F.  Wilkson.   Parasites in Southern Sludges and Dis-
infection  by  Standard  Sludge Treatment.   EPA-600/2-81-166.  Tulane
University  School  of Public  Health,  New  Orleans,  September 1981.
203  pp.    (Available  from the National  Technical  Information Ser-
vice, Springfield, Virginia, PB82 102344)

Ryan, J. A.,  D. R. Keeney, and  L.  M. Walsh.   Nitrogen transforma-
tions and availability of an anerobically digested sewage sludge in
soil.  J. Environ. Qual., 2:489-492,  1973.

Salle, A.  J.   Fundamental  Principles  of Bacteriology. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1973.
                                   A-28

-------
28.  U.S. EPA.  Sludge Treatment and Disposal.   Volume 2:   Sludge Treat-
     ment.   EPA-625/4-78/012-Vol-2,  Cincinnati,  Environmental  Research
     Center, October 1978.  160 pp.   (Available from  the  National  Tech-
     nical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, PB-299 594)

29.  Sommers, L. E.  Chemical  Composition of Sewage Sludges and Analysis
     of  Their  Potential  as Fertilizers.  J. Environ.  Qual., 6:225-239,
     1977.

30.  Sommers,  L.  E.,  D.  W. Nelson,  J.  E. Yahner, and  J.  V. Mannering.
     Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludge from Selected Indiana Cities.
     Proc. Indiana Acad.  Sci., 82:424-432, 1972.

31.  Sommers,  L.  E.,  D.  W. Nelson, and K.  J.  Yost.   Variable Nature of
     the Chemical  Composition  of  Sewage Sludge.   J.  Environ.  Qual., 5:
     303-306,  1976.

32.  Strachan,  S.  D.,  D.  W.  Nelson,  and L. E.  Sommers.   Sewage Sludge
     Components  Extractable  with  Nonaqueous   Solvents.    J.  Environ.
     Qua!., 12:69-74, 1983.

33.  Tabatabai,  M.  A., and W. T. Frankenberger,  Jr.  1979.   Chemical
     Composition of  Sewage Sludges in Iowa.   Res.  Bull.  No. 586,  Agri-
     cultural  and  Home Economics  Experiment Station,  Iowa State Univer-
     sity, Ames, 1979.

34.  Ward, R.  L.,  and  C.  S. Ashley.   Inactivation of  Enteric Viruses in
     Wastewater  Sludge Through Dewatering by  Evaporation.   Appl.  Envi-
     ron. Microbiol. 34:564-570, 1977.

35.  Zabik, M.  J.,  L.  W.  Jacobs,  and J. H.  Phillips.   Concentrations of
     Selected  Hazardous  Chemicals in Michigan  Sewage  Sludges and  Their
     Impact on  Land Application.  Unpublished data.  Michigan State Uni-
     versity,  East Lansing, 1981.

36.  Zenz, D.  R., J. R. Peterson, D. L. Brooman, and C. Lue-Hing.  Envi-
     ronmental  Impacts of  Land Application  of  Sludge.   J. Water Pollut.
     Control Fed., 48:2332-2342, 1976.
                                  A-29

-------

-------
                               APPENDIX B

       EFFECTS OF SLUDGE APPLICATIONS TO LAND ON SOILS AND PLANTS


B.I  General Properties of Soils

Soil is  a complex mixture  of  inorganic and organic  constituents.   The
inorganic fraction  may consist partially of clay  minerals,  other sili-
cate minerals,  oxides,  and carbonates.   The  organic  fraction  usually
contains both humic and  nonhumic  substances.   The  proportions and prop-
erties of  inorganic and organic  components  in soils are  a  function of
time, climate, topography,  vegetation,  and parent  material.   In  a well-
aggregated  soil,  soil  particles  and  pore space usually  constitute about
50  percent  each  of the volume.   Optimum  conditions for plant  growth
exist when the soil pore space is about half occupied by air and half by
water.   With  respect  to the solid phase,  the  texture of  a  soil  is de-
fined by  the  relative  proportion of particles found  in  the  sand (>0.05
mm),  silt  (0.002  to  0.05  mm),  and clay  (<0.002 mm)   size  fractions.
Through use of a  texture triangle (Figure  B-l),  a  soil  horizon contain-
ing  a  certain percentage  of  sand,  silt, and  clay is assigned  a name,
such as sandy loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, etc.

Clay minerals, one  of  the  more important inorganic fractions of a soil,
are  composed  of  layered  sheets of tetrahedrally  and/or  octahedrally co-
ordinated cations.   The  sheets  of  Si  tetrahedra  and Al  octahedra are
present in  a  1:1  or 2:1  configuration.   Kaolinite  is a typical 1:1 clay
               montmorillonite and  vermiculite  are  typical   2:1  clays.
               aluminum or  iron (+3) is substituted for tetravalent sil-
               divalent  magnesium or iron  (+2)  for  trivalent aluminum
mineral while
When trivalent
icon  (+4)  and
(+3), a permanent net negative charge results on the surface of the clay
mineral.   This  negative charge  is  satisfied by  surface  retention  of a
cation  such as H+,  K+,  Na+,  Ca  ,  Mg  ,  Al   ,  etc. The magnitude of the
negative charge  is  measured  by determining  the  cation exchange capacity
(CEC),  commonly  expressed  in  meq/100  g.   The  CEC arising  from isomor-
phous substitution  is not  pH-dependent.   However, clay minerals possess
some  pH-dependent CEC,  arising from  the  dissociation of hydroxyl  groups
(-OH) present at the edges of  broken clay crystals.  The ability of clay
minerals to attract and retain cations is  a very important property in
soils.

Soil  CEC will  be discussed later in  detail.   In  addition to CEC, addi-
tional  properties of clays include a high surface area, the capacity to
sorb  metals  and  some  organic  compounds, and  the ability to  swell  or
shrink  depending on Water content.

Other silicate minerals  are  less  important  than the clay minerals, pri-
marily  because  of their minimal CEC and  low surface area.   Included in
this  category are minerals such as quartz, feldspars, and amphiboles.
                                  B-l

-------
I
                                             ,mCCKT SAND
                               U. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS

                               JO ZO 4O 80   300
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1
SAND
UI
UJ<
>o
o

OARSE
o

EDIUM
I

UJ
z
UL


>U1
K. z
UJ —
>M-



SILT



CLAY


                                I	I
                                            J—I—1	I	I	I   I
                                        N.    o   o.   q  , 9  o  S  o
                                        o       o   o  o  P  P  °.
                                           GRAIN SIZE, mm    o  o  o
                Figure B-l.
Soil  textural  classes  and general  terminology
used  in  soil  descriptions.
                                              B-2

-------
The predominant oxide minerals  are  compounds  of  Fe,  Al,  and Mn.  A sig-
nificant part of  the  Fe and Al oxides in  soils  may  be  present as amor-
phous  rather  than crystalline compounds, depending  on soil  pH, organic
matter  content,  and  other  properties.   Amorphous compounds  possess  a
higher  surface area and  greater chemical  reactivity  than their crystal-
line counterparts,  and can  sorb  trace metals such  as  Cd,  Cu,  Ni,  Zn,
etc.   It has  been  well  established  that  Fe and Al compounds in soij  are
important  sites  for  P  fixation.    The solubility of  Fe   and  AT5   in
soils  is depressed with increasing pH.  Since Fe and Mn can undergo oxi-
dation-reduction  reactions,  the forms and subsequent solubility  of Fe
and Mn are influenced by soil aeration.  Both Fe and Mn are more soluble
under  reduced than under oxidized conditions.

The presence  of  alkaline earth carbonates in  soil  influence its pH  and
buffering  capacity.    The  pH  of  soils  which contain excess  carbonate
ranges from about 7.5 to 8.2 and is buffered at this level until carbon-
ates dissolve and  leach downward in the  soil  profile.   This results in
soils  becoming  acidic,  and  additional liming  materials  (limestone)  may
have to be applied to promote crop growth, or, in the case of sludge  ap-
plication, to maintain a pH at or above 6.5.

Organic matter  is another  important  component of soils  (i.e., humus).
There  are two major categories of soil organic matter, namely, humic and
nonhumic substances.    Nonhumic  substances are the  intact  or partially
degraded compounds  from plant, animal, or microbial  residues.   In gen-
eral,  non-humic substances  account  for less  than 25  percent of soil  or-
ganic  matter.  With time these constituents  decompose,  and a portion of
the degradation products becomes incorporated into humic substances.

Humic  substances  are  complex, high-molecular weight  organic materials
that result from chemical and enzymatic reactions of organic degradation
products  from plant,  animal,  and  microbial   residue.   Humic substances
are subdivided  into the following  categories:   fulvic  acids  (acid  and
alkali  soluble), humic acids (acid insoluble, alkali soluble), and humin
(acid  and alkali insoluble).  Although quantitative differences exist in
chemical composition,  all  three fractions are characterized by a nonpo-
lar  (aromatic rings)  core  with  attached polar functional  groups.   The
nonpolar nature  of humics accounts for  the  strong affinity of soil  or-
ganic  matter  for added organic compounds such as herbicides, pesticides,
etc.   Functional groups  found  in soil  organic matter include carboxyl (-
COOH),  phenolic and alcoholic  hydroxyl (-OH), amino (-NH2), and sulfhy-
dryl  (-SH)  groups.   All of  these  functional groups  exhibit acid-base
character, and soil organic matter  is thus involved in the buffering of
soil  pH.   Furthermore,  the ionization of the weakly  acidic functional
groups  results  in soil  organic matter possessing  a  net  negative charge
or CEC.  Soil pH strongly influences the CEC of soil organic matter with
increasing  pH resulting  in increasing CEC.   Metals may  also interact
with functional groups through  chelation and  ion exchange mechanisms.
Clay  minerals and  organic  matter account  for virtually all. soil  CEC.
The CEC of soil  organic matter  normally ranges  from 100 to 300 meq/100
g,  whereas the CEC  of  clay  minerals varies, according  to the mineral
type,  from 5  to 170 meq/100 g.  Therefore, the relatively small fraction
                                   B-3

-------
of  organic matter  present  in  a soil may exert a large influence on total
CEC.

A  more  comprehensive  treatment  of the  items  discussed  under general
properties of  soils can be obtained from  a  number of text books on the
subject  (5, 14).

B.2  Nitrogen Transformations

A  simplified  schematic  of the nitrogen  cycle  is shown  in  Figure B-2.
Both organic  and inorganic nitrogen are added  to soils by sludge addi-
tion.  While the inorganic nitrogen (NH^+ and N03~) is  readily available
for  plant  uptake,  the organic nitrogen is not  and must be converted to
inorganic forms to  render  it  plant available.  The rate at which organic
nitrogen is mineralized to plant-available inorganic nitrogen is highly
variable,  and  depends  upon the physical and  chemical  properties of the
sludge  applied,  the  physical and  chemical  properties  of the  soil  to
which the  sludge is applied, the temperature,  and the water content of
the soil.  Laboratory studies for net nitrogen mineralization rates dur-
ing  the  first growing  season for  different  sludge types  showed rates
which range from no net mineralization of the applied organic N (wet air
oxidation treated) to 58 percent (waste-activated  sludge)  (30).  In gen-
eral,  N  mineralization  rates were  greatest  for  undigested  primary and
waste-activated  sludges   and  least  for  composted  and  heat  treated
sludges.   Essentially no  net mineralization  occurred  where  the carbon-
to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the sludge was greater than  approximately 20.

Important soil properties  influencing the mineralization rate of organic
nitrogen  include temperature, water  content,  soil  pH, and  C/N ratio.
For  mineralization,  soil -water content  of approximately  50  percent  of
the water-holding  capacity of the soil, soil pH  values between 4.5 and
9.0, and C/N ratio  in  the  amended  soil  less  than about 20, are optimum.
Carbon-to-nitrogen ratios  of  the soil-sludge mixture of about 10 or less
are optimum for maximum N mineralization.  In many sludge treated forest
soils the  rate  of. nitrification  may be  very  slow,  presumably because
these soils frequently have low'-soil pH and C/N ratios much greater than
20.  Likewise,  the rate of nitrification  of  sludge  treated drastically
disturbed acid soils may be slow if the pH remains less than 4 following
sludge application.

Because of the wide variety of factors affecting nitrogen mineralization
rates for sludge applied to  soil,  it  is advisable to determine rates on
a site- and sludge  source-specific  basis.  As a guideline, for agricul-
tural  soils,  nitrogen  mineralization  rates,  expressed  as   percent  of
sludge organic N, are given in Table 6-7 (the "F" factor).

Ammonium-N  (NH^-N)  is  a  nitrogen  compound  added to  soils  in  liquid
sludge applications.  It may be held on the clay surface as an exchange-
able cation.  In soils containing micaceous minerals, NH
between the  mineral  plates,  causing  collapse of  the mineral  and
fixation.    This form  of NH^-N  is  less reactive than  exchangeable
 *   may
mineral
                                                               penetrate
                                                                     H4+
                                                                     and
                                   B-4

-------
                                                        o


                                                        c:
                                                        •i—

                                                        HI

                                                        o

                                                        o
                                                        0)
                                                        en
                                                        o
                                                        S-
                                                        2:
                                                        CM
                                                         I
                                                        CO


                                                        O)
                                                        S-


                                                        cn

                                                        LL.
B-5

-------
soluble forms, but does in time undergo chemical and, microbial transfor-
mations.
Of  importance,  especially  when  considering  surface  application  of
sludges, is  NH3  volatilization.   In  situations  where liquid sludges are
applied  and  not incorporated  into the  soil  by injection,  disking,  or
plowing, essentially  all of  the NH^-N  may  be  lost  by  volatilization.
Even where liquid sludge is incorporated into the soil, some of the NH*-
N may be lost by NH3 volatilization (28).  The extent of NH3 volatiliza-
tion can  not be generalized  since it depends on any  number of factors
including  soil  pH,  soil CEC,  climate  (temperature,  relative humidity),
and soil conditions (water content, rate of infiltration) and time lapse
between application and incorporation (30).
Laboratory experiments indicate that the extent of NH3 volatilization is
related inversely  to CEC and directly to  pH.   Unfortunately,  quantita-
tive data are  not  available  concerning  the magnitude of NH3 volatiliza-
tion under field conditions.  At present, recommendations based on N ap-
plication rates assume .that  50  percent  of  the plant-available  N i's lost
via NH  volatilization when sludge is surface-applied.
After addition to soil, a large portion of the NH/1" will be converted to
nitrate (NOg").  This .process, called nitrification, involves two steps.
First, NH^"1" is oxidized to  NO-"  by the bacterium Nitrosomonas, followed
by oxidation  of  N02~ to N03~ T>y  Nitrobacter.   In  neutral  aerated soils
at temperatures  greater than 15°C,  essentially  all NH/1" added  will  be
converted to  N03~ within  2  to 4  weeks after application.  Depressed ni-
trification rates may occur in soils at temperatures less than 10°C.
The formation of  N03~  is  significant,  because N03~ can be lost from the
soil through leaching  and  denitrification.   In humid regions,  N applied
to  soils  in excess  of crop requirements  can leach and  result  in  N03~
contamination of  ground water.  Systems  developed  for land application
of  sludges are based on the premise  that  a growing crop will  reduce the
N03~ concentratipn  in  the soil solution to  levels  which  will  result in
minimal environmental  risks.   Thus,  in  agricultural  applications,  the
annual  amount of N in sludge applied to soils is based on the N required
by the crop grown.
In addition to  leaching,  N03"  may  be lost from soils through denitrifi-
cation.  Denitrification occurs when facultative anaerobic bacteria uti-
lize N03~ as a terminal electron acceptor in place of 02 under anaerobic
conditions in the soil, i.e., saturated or excessive water contents.  In
an  "aerobic"  soil,  it  is  also  possible that  denitrification can  be
occurring, because the  center  of  soil  aggregates  may be water-saturated
and  anaerobic.    The  end  products of  denitrification  are NoO  and No.
which diffuse into the atmosphere.  Denitrification may be a significant
mechanism  for  N  loss  in  soils  treated  with  liquid sludge  because  of
localized increases in  soil HUD content.   Thus,  NH4+ may be oxidized  to
     in  an aerobic zone,  followed  by diffusion
microsites where denitrification occurs.
of
N03-
into anaerobic
                                   B-6

-------
Certain adverse effects of overfertilization of soils with sewage sludge
may occur.  The use  of  excess  N can cause luxury consumption of N03" by
many  plants,  resulting  in  potential animal  health problems  when  high
NOo" feedstuffs are  consumed.   The leaching of  NOg" from the soil  pro-
file could contaminate ground waters.  Also, excessive nitrogen fertili-
zation may cause  lodging of small  grains  resulting  in  harvesting prob-
lems and' reduced productivity.

The two areas of concern involving high concentrations of NOg" in waters
are direct health effects and surface water eutrophication.  Excessively
high levels of  nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water may  present a health
hazard.   Winton,  Tardiff,  and  McCabe described  the  circumstances which
may induce methemoglobinemia or cyanosis in infants  (35).  The main con-
trolling factor in this  disease is  the  daily  nitrate intake; hence, the
nitrate concentration of drinking water plays an important role.  Drink-
ing water standards in the United States specify the maximum permissible
concentration of nitrate-nitrogen as 10 mg NOg-N/l.

Livestock may suffer  from  a number of  symptoms  caused  by excessive ni-
trate-nitrogen  levels  in the drinking water,  including  vitamin A defi-
ciency,  reproductive  difficulties  and  depressed milk  production.   In-
creased concentrations of N  in  surface  water  may also cause eutrophica-
tion, i.e., nutrient enrichment.  Eutrophication results in rapid growth
of the nuisance aquatic plants, most commonly phytoplankton blooms.  The
exact  factors  responsible  for  eutrophication are  still  insufficiently
understood; however,  P  concentrations below 0.01 mg/1  and N concentra-
tions below 0.2  to 0.3 mg/1 appear  to  minimize  algal  blooms in surface
waters.

B.3  Phosphorus Interactions

The  behavior  of phosphorus  in  soils is  controlled by  chemical  rather
than biological  reactions.  The interactions of the phosphorus cycle, are
illustrated in  Figure B-3.   The  majority of phosphorus  in  sludges is
present  in  inorganic  compounds,  about  70 to 90  percent of  the total
phosphorus.  Even though mineralization of the organic phosphorus occurs
during decomposition,  inorganic reactions of  phosphorus  are of greater
importance in sludge application.

The  available P  for plants is  present  in  the  soil  solution.  As plants
deplete the soil solution P, the equilibria with sorbed P and P minerals
are  shifted,  resulting  in  replenishment  of  the soluble  P  pool.   Thus,
the concentration  of  soluble P  in soils may not be  related to the abil-
ity of a soil  to supply P to crops throughout the entire growing season.
Soils possess the  ability to  "fix"  P through  sorption and/or precipita-
tion reactions.  As a result, a concentration of <0.1 mg P/l in the soil
solution generally results  in minimal leaching losses  of P.  It has oc-
casionally been inferred that excess  P  in the soil   impairs plant growth
via  indirect  action.   For  example,  symptoms of  Zn deficiency  can be
traced to  P  inhibition  at the  root  surface when soluble phosphates are
present.  However, sludge applications add both P and Zn to minimize any
potential P-Zn interactions.
                                   B-7

-------

Figure B-3.   Phosphorus cycle in  soil.
                 B-8

-------
B.4  Reactions of Metals in Soil

Land application of sludges will add appreciable amounts of trace metals
to soils.   The metal  content of  soils  and plants  is quite variable de-
pending on  the soil  type and plant  species.   Trace elements such as B,
Co, Cu, Mn,  Mo,  Fe,  and Zn are essential  for plant growth; however, if
excessive concentrations  are  applied to soil,  metal  toxicities may de-
velop and crop yields  may decrease. Often, the interpretation of metal
toxicity  to  plants is  not  straightforward because  of  interactions be-
tween nutrients,  e.g., P-induced  Zn deficiency.   Nonessential metals,
e.g., Cd, Ni,  under certain conditions  may be harmful to plants and de-
crease yields.  Of greater concern is the enrichment of food chain crops
with metals  potentially harmful  to humans  and animals (As, Cd, Pb, Hg).
Because As,  Pb,  and  Hg are not taken up  by most plants from soils, the
element of greatest concern is  Cd.  In  general, the rationale  of sludge
application  guidelines  is  to minimize  phytotoxicity  and decreased crop
yields  caused  by metal additions  to soil,  and excessive concentrations
of nonessential  metals,  e.g.,  Cd, in the  plant part  consumed  by man or
animals.  The  fate of sludge metals in soils and  plants has been exam-
ined in a number of review articles  (8, 9, 20,  22).
             . <*\- \J I  IIH*. UUI.2 UVAVJ^-NA \f\J OI/11.J  III .J ^YKW VJti OIUU^V.  1 -J VJ. C LJ I V> lr G VJ  111
             Metals  available  to  plants and susceptible to leaching are
             he  soil  solution  as  the  free metal ion  (M  ),  complexes
The chemistry of metals  in  soils is quite complex and difficult to pre-
dict.  The fate of metals added to soils in sewage sludge is depicted in
Figure B-4.
present  in  the
(MOH , MCI , etc.) and  chelates  (M-Fulvic  acid, etc.).  As plant uptake
or  leaching  occurs,  the soil solution  re-equilibrates with  the solid
phase, resulting in  a relatively constant  concentration in the soil  so-
lution.  The equilibrium concentration  will  be controlled by soil prop-
erties such as  pH,  Eh,  and  solution composition.  In  general, the solu-
bility and  plant availability of most metals  decrease  with increasing
pH.

Metals in the soil  solution  are  continuously interacting:   forming pre-
cipitates  (carbonates,  hydroxides, phosphates,  etc.), interacting with
soil organic matter, being  sorbed by clay minerals,  and being retained
by hydrous oxides.    Furthermore,  the properties of clay minerals in soil
are influenced  to a  great extent by interaction with  organic matter and
hydrous oxides.  In  general, the  organic  matter  complexed with clay is
more resistant to decomposition than "free" organic matter, resulting in
the  clay  and organic matter contents  of soils  increasing proportion-
ately.  The presence of  acidic functional  groups in soil organic matter
is  responsible  for  metal retention through  both  exchange  and chelation
mechanisms.  Considerable evidence is accumulating concerning the impor-
tance  of  metal  retention by  Fe  and Al  hydrous oxides.   Even  where  hy-
drous  oxides are sorbed  onto  clay minerals,  they still retain the abil-
ity to sorb metals.   The Fe  and Al  hydrous  oxide content  of soils also
tends to increase with increasing  clay content.

The trace  metal retention  capacity and CEC  of soils both tend  to  in-
crease as the clay,  hydrous oxide, and organic matter  contents increase.
                                   B-9

-------

Figure B-4.
                              p J.
Reactions of metals in soil (M   represents
Cu, Zn, Ni,  Cd, Pb, etc.).
                         B-10

-------
Because of these relationships, the CEC has been used as an index of the
metal  retention  capacity of  a soil.   This  does not imply  that metals
added to  soils  are  retained through an ion  exchange  mechanism.   Metals
present'in soil as exchangeable cations are  available for plant  uptake,
but  only  a small  fraction  of metals added  to  soil  are  present  as ex-
changeable ions.

B.5  Trace Element Phytotoxicity and Plant Accumulation

Trace  elements  are  ubiquitous in the  geochemical  environment.    Their
concentrations in soils vary widely, and depend upon the chemical compo-
sition  of the parent material, degree  of mineral weathering, and  soil
texture.   In  terms  of their  phytotoxic effects,  the  amounts present in
plant-available form  are seemingly more important than  the  total  quan-
tity in soils.  The soil pH is the most important factor influencing the
availability of trace elements to plants.   Except for Mo, the availabil-
ity  of  trace  elements for plant uptake increases as  the pH  of the  soil
decreases.  Consequently, trace element phytotox.icities and accumulation
by plants  are much  more common on acid than neutral, alkaline,  or  cal-
careous  soils.    Plant  species differ  markedly  in  their tolerance  to
trace elements.  Therefore, it is not possible to develop criteria asso-
ciated with levels in soils that are applicable to all plant  species.
Trace  element  accumulation  may  cause
health  hazards  to  animals,  including
Trace  elements  identified  as
elements whose concentration
hazardous to humans and animals
Hg, Mn,  Mo,  Ni,  Se, Sb, and Zn
and Zn are considered  to  pose
crops  or  the food  chain  (8).
soil in the form of sludge are considered
ard to crops and the food chain.
          reduced  crop  yield  or  may  pose
          man,  who may  consume  the  crop.
 potentially  harmful  to  plant growth  or  as
in crops may reach levels considered  to  be
   include:  -AT, As,  B,  Cd,  Cr, Cu,  Fe, Pb,
   (33).  In general, only Cd, Cu,  Mo, Ni,
   a  potentially  serious hazard to  either
   The  remaining  elements  when applied  to
             to  pose  relatively little haz-
     B.5.1  Manganese, Iron, and Aluminum

The concentrations  of  manganese  in most soils, and  Fe  and Al  in virtu-
ally  all  soils,  far  exceed  concentrations  which may  be  applied  from
sludges.  Toxicities of Al  and  Mn  occur only in acid soils, and are re-
lated  to  the  concentrations  of these  elements  in  the  soil  solution.
Where  plants  suffer  from  either  Mn  or Al  toxicity,  the  condition  is
easily  corrected  through  liming  the soil to pH greater than  5.5.   Iron
is considered to pose potential  problems only when it occurs in elevated
levels  in  an  active  form  and  induces  a deficiency of  other  essential
elements  (P,  Mn).   Because current  regulations require that  the  pH  of
the sludge-treated  soils  used to produce food  chain crops (except for-
est)  be maintained  at levels of 6.5  or greater,  Al, Fe,  and  Mn should
pose no hazard.
                                  B-ll

-------
     B.5.2  Chromium

Total  chromium in  soils usually  varies  from  50  to 3,000  mg/kg,  with
typical levels being  about  100 mg/kg  (22).   The Cr naturally present in
soils  is  quite inert.   Most crops (except for  a  few indicator plants)
grown  on  soils which contain high levels of  Cr do not  appear to absorb
Cr much in  excess  of those  grown on  soils low in Cr.  The two principal
oxidation states  of Cr are Cr(III) and Cr(VI)  forms.   The Cr(III)  form
is most common in  soils, and when Cr(VI)  (as CrO^~ and CrpOy=) is added
to soils, it is rapidly  reduced to the Cr(III) form.  Cr(Vi) in soils is
absorbed  by plants,  and  has been shown  to be phytotoxic (26).  The phy-
totoxic effect, however, is temporary and related  to the  rate at which
Cr(VI) is reduced to Cr(III).   Studies involving cropland application of
sewage sludge  containing substantial  quantities of Cr have not resulted
in  reduced  crop  yield,  or  substantially  increased the  concentration of
Cr in  plant tissue  (10).  Based on available information, it is doubtful
that Cr  added to  soil  from sludges  will  damage crops,  and no problems
have been reported in the literature.

     B.5.3  Arsenic and Antimony

Inorganic arsenicals  have been used  as insecticides  and herbicides for
many years, and  certain soils have been  seriously contaminated  with
these  elements.     Inorganic  arsenical  pesticides were  banned  in  the
United States  in  1967 and have been  replaced  by the organic arsenicals
(monosodium  methanearsonate,  disodium  methanearsonate,  and  cacodylic
acid).  Most  information on the  potential detrimental  effects  of As in
soils  comes from  the  study of  sites highly contaminated  by pesticide
use.   Soils of apple and pear orchards where trees have been treated re-
peatedly  with  large amounts of arsenical  pesticides  contain sufficient
As to  damage  many  plant  species  (3).  The residual As  in  the contami-
nated  soils where phytotoxicities were observed was usually greater than
100 kg As/ha, and in many cases was greater than 200 kg As/ha.  However,
phytotoxicity was not necessarily directly related to the total As pres-
ent in the  soil,  but  to  available Fe, Al, Ca, organic matter, soil  tex-
ture,  and susceptibility of the plant variety.   Phytotoxicities associ-
ated with As are more likely to occur in coarse-textured soil with a low
capacity  to adsorb As.   When  grown  on these soils, legumes  have  been
shown  to  be sensitive to elevated  levels of As  in the soil.   Rye and
sudangrass, on the  other hand,  were  quite tolerant.  The concentrations
of As  in  sewage  sludge  range from 3  to 30 mg/kg (see Appendix A, Table
A-6).  If one assumes a concentration of 25 mg As/kg  sludge and 100 kg
As/ha to cause phytotoxicity,  4,000 tons  of  sludge would have to be ap-
plied  before  levels in  soil associated with  phytotoxicity  are reached.
It is  doubtful, therefore,  that As levels in  sludge-treated soils would
reach  potentially harmful levels unless sludge were applied continuously
                          century.  The amounts of As absorbed by plants
                          soils  are  not  considered to  be  sufficiently
                 a hazard to consumers.
at high rates for about a
grown  on  sludge  amended
great to present
                                  B-12

-------
Concentration ranges  of  Sb  common to natural soils  are  not well  estab-
lished.  In the earth's crust, concentrations are usually less than 1 mg
Sb/kg.   Concentrations of  Sb in sewage  sludges  from 16 cities  in  the
United States vary from 2.6  to  44.4 mg  Sb/kg sludge, "with a median con-.
centration of 10.8 mg Sb/kg  (12). These concentrations are quite similar
to concentrations of As which occur in the same sewage sludges.  Because
the chemistry of Sb is quite similar to that of As, and their concentra-
tions in sewage sludges are approximately the same, a phytotoxic problem
produced by Sb is also highly unlikely.

     8.5.4  Lead and Mercury

Lead is a nonessential element which typically occurs in soils at a mean
concentrations of  10  to  15 mg Pb/kg of  soil  (22).   It  has  been applied
to soils in very large amounts (greater than 500 kg/ha) with no apparent
phytotoxic effects  (2,  29).   Soluble forms  of  Pb  added  to  soil rapidly
react with other chemical constituents  in soils  to form  quite insoluble
compounds; hence,  leaching  of Pb through soils to  ground waters  is  un-
likely.    Typically,   Pb  concentrations  of  sludges are  substantially
greater than in soils; with repeated applications,  enrichment of surface
                       When  ingested in  excessive  quantities by humans,
                       However,  it  is unlikely  that Pb  applied to soil
                      absorbed by plants  and subsequently by humans.   A
                         poisoning of large animals caused by the inges-
                         particles  contaminated  by industrial  emissions
soil with Pb  occurs.
Pb  is  highly  toxic.
with sludges  will  be
number of cases of  lead
tion of  forage  and soil
of  Pb  have  been  reported  (6,  13).   Since  repeated applications  of
sludges may  cause substantial  enrichment of  surface  soils,  care should
be taken to  ensure that  foraging  animals  avoid excessive  consumption of
soil.
Mercury, like Pb, can  be  harmful  to the health of human beings when ex-
cessive amounts are  ingested.   Although aboveground  parts  of plants can
be injured by Hg  vapor, there  is  no evidence linking soil-applied Hg to
phytotoxicity.  Crops absorb only trace amounts of Hg through their root
systems, therefore Hg absorption by plants grown on sludge amended soils
is of little concern.

     B.5.5  Selenium and Molybdenum

Selenium concentrations of  sludges  are frequently below levels detected
by routine analytical procedures.  Therefore, data for the Se content of
sludges are  not  readily  available.   Its  concentration  in  soil normally
ranges  from  0.1  to  2 mg Se/kg, with the  typical  level  being 0.2 mg Se/
kg.  Although Se  applied  to soils  is readily absorbed by crops, it does
not appear to adversely affect crop growth.

Plants  tend  to  respond to Mo applications to  soils  in  a manner similar
to their response to Se.   It has  been  reported that large quantities of
Mo may  be added to soils with little effect on growing plants  (18).
                                   B-13

-------
Elevated concentrations of Mo and Se in foods are not considered harmful
to the  health  of human beings.  High  concentrations  in livestock feed,
however,  can  be harmful  to  the health of  animals.   A number  of crops
grown in soils high in Mo and Se will absorb sufficient amounts of these
elements to cause  either  impaired  health  or metabolic imbalance in ani-
mals that consume the plants.

As a micronutrient element,  Mo is required  in  small  amounts by plants,
and is  also essential  at  low concentrations in  the diet of animals.  In
animal   diets,  particularly of ruminant  animals,  concentrations  of Mo as
low as  5  mg Mo/kg may be toxic  (1).   The  occurrence  and  severity of Mo
toxicity are directly  related to the amounts of Mo ingested relative to
that of Cu  and SO^.   High Mo and low Cu levels in forage  constitute the
most serious combination.   In fact, Mo toxicity,  molybdenosis,  is fre-
quently referred to as  an  Mo-induced Cu  deficiency.   It is not possible
to specify  levels of  Mo  in  soils that  would produce  forage  unfit for
animal   consumption,  because   the amounts  of  Mo  absorbed  by crops vary
with soil  properties.   Generally, the  availability  of Mo  to  crops in-
creases as the pH of the soil increases; the availability  of Cu to crops
usually decreases  as the  pH  of  the soil  increases.  Molybdenum toxicity
to livestock animals  is therefore more commonly  associated with forage
grown on alkaline soils.

Sewage  sludge  contains Mo  in amounts which  range from 5  to  39 mg/kg,
with typical levels  being 28 mg/kg.  Although  repeated applications of
sludge  to  soils might potentially produce  forage  unfit for consumption
by livestock,  no  reports  of  this effect appear  in the literature.  For
Mo toxicity to develop in animals,  high Mo  and  low Cu forage  must be
their sole  source  of feed.   Since  it is unlikely that feed from sludge-
treated soils would comprise the entire diet of an animal, the possibil-
ity of  Mo  toxicity to animals traced to  forage  grown on  sludge-treated
soils seems remote.

While  Se  is not  considered   to  be essential for  the  growth of higher
plants, it  is  required in small amounts  in the diet  of animals.   Like
Mo, the margin between Se deficiency and  toxicity  in animal  diets is
narrow.   Malnutrition  in  animals, caused  by deficient levels  of Se in
their diets, is frequently reported in the United States and other parts
of the  world.   Levels in  animal diets  which range from 0.04 to 0.2 ug
Se/g have  been associated with  a  deficiency (1).   Selenium deficiency
levels   depend  upon the kind  of  animal  and the type of diet.   Selenium
deficiency is frequently associated with a Vitamin E deficiency and cor-
rection of  Se  deficiency  in  lambs  and  calves has  routinely involved in-
jections of Se and Vitamin E.

In areas where soils are naturally high in Se, certain plant species are
capable of  accumulating Se to levels considered unsafe for animal  con-
sumption.   Selenium levels  in  forage  exceeding  4  mg Se/kg  (oven-dry
weight, 70°C)  are  considered potentially toxic (1).   Concentrations of
Se in  soils  normally  range from 0.01 to 2.0  mg  Se/kg  soil.  At compar-
able levels in  soil,  amounts of Se  absorbed  by  plants grown on neutral
                                  B-14

-------
and  calcareous soils  are usually
plants grown on acid soils.
                                    greater than  quantities  absorbed by
The  data  base to quantify concentrations  of  Se in sewage sludge is too
limited to be generalized.  Published data on sludges from 16 metropoli-
tan  areas suggest  that Se  concentrations in  sludges  generally exceed
those  typically  found in  natural  soil  (12).   Prolonged  use of certain
sludges on soils would therefore be expected to cause some Se enrichment
to  soil.   However,  no indication 'of sludge-borne enrichment  of  Se in
soil leading to crop or animal health problems  have been  reported in the
literature.                                                       '

     B.5.6  Copper and Nickel

The  concentrations  of  both Cu and Ni  in  natural  soils  are highly vari-
able.  Because of their ubiquitous nature and common use, these elements
are  always present in sewage sludges.

Copper concentrations  in  soils range from 2 to 100 mg  Cu/kg soil, with
typical  levels  being  40  mg  Cu/kg soil.   Copper  is  essential to  the
growth of  plants,  and  occurs in plants at  concentrations which usually
range  from  5  to 20 mg  Cu/kg.   In acid soils which  have  naturally high
levels of plant-available  Cu,  and  in  soils where Cu has been applied in
large  amounts,  it  can  be phytotoxic.  The tolerance  of plants  to Cu in
soil,  as with other elements,  varies  among species.   It has been recom-
mended that Cu additions to soil in the form of sewage sludge not exceed
125, 250, and 500  kg Cu/ha in soils with CEC's of <5,  5  to  15, and >15
meq/100  g,  respectively  (33).    The  input  limits are  recommended  fbr
soils maintained at pH >6.5.

Although chronic Cu poisoning may occur in animals under natural grazing
conditions, the  problem  is related to the dietary intake of Cu as well
as Zn, Fe,  Ca,  Mo, S, and Cd  (1,  32).  Also,  it  is  not necessarily re-
lated  to  Cu  intake from forage alone, since considerable quantities of
soil material may  be  ingested by grazing  animals,  and  contributions of
Cu from this source may be substantial (15).   Sheep appear to be the do-
mestic animal  most sensitive  to  excessive  amounts of  Cu in  the  diet
(32).  No instances of Cu poisoning of animals grazing on sludge-treated
soils,have been  reported.   However, because copper  could accumulate in
the surface of highly sludge-treated soils, it may be possible that ani-
mals could ingest sufficient Cu to cause toxicity.
Nickel contents of  natural
                            'soils vary from about  10  to 4,000 mg Ni/kg,
with typical levels being  40  mg  Ni/kg (22).   While Ni
to be essential for the growth of higher plants, it
growth of animals.  Like Cu, Ni
on  acid  soils.   Yield  reductions
sludge  applied to  acid
United States  (25,  34).
sensitivities  to  Ni  concentrations in  soil,  levels greater than  40 kg
Ni/ha in soils  with  pH values less than 5.5  may  damage some crops such
                                                       is not considered
                               -.  ....,.._.  r	, ,. is essential  for the
                              i toxicities to plants normally occur only
                              ;ions . associated  with  Ni ,in  the  form  of
                          soils  have  been  reported  in  England  and  the
                          Although plant species .vary  markedly in their
                                  B-15

-------
as oats, clover, potatoes, turnips, cabbage, and beets (25).   Toxic
els  for  neutral,  alkaline, and  calcareous  soils  are much higher.
soils with  pH  values  greater than 6.5,  it  has
additions to soil in the  form  of sludge  not
Ni/ha in  soils with CEC's  of  <5, 5 to  15,
tively (33)..
                 Toxic lev-
         	    „	   For
   been recommended that Ni
exceed 125, 250, and 500 kg
and >15  meq/100 g, respec-
Nickel is a relatively nontoxic element to animals, and Ni  contamination
of foods does not present a serious health hazard (32).

     B.5.7  Cadmium and Zinc

Cadmium  and  Zn  may reach  phytotoxic  levels under a wide  range  of soil
chemical conditions.  Plants grown on all soils appear to respond to the
increased concentrations  of these metals in soils with  accelerated ab-
sorption.  Cadmium  and  Zn  phytotoxicity  usually  occurs at  lower  concen-
tration  levels in acid  than in  neutral  or calcareous soils.   Because Cd
has the potential   to  present  more problems  in  soils than  other  trace
metals  and  Zn-Cd interactions  and associations  are common,  these have
been studied extensively.

Concentrations of  Cd which occur in  native  soils normally  range from
0.05 to  1.5 mg Cd/kg soil,  with a typical level of 0.3 Cd/kg  (23).   Cer-
tain  soils in California and elsewhere  derived  from  shale parent  mate^
rial, however, contain  unusually  high levels  of indigenous  Cd  (5  to 20
mg Cd/kg)  (21).   Although  the  Cd absorption  characteristics  of plants
are not  completely  understood, available information shows  that the con-
centration of Cd in the leaf tissue  of  plants tends  to increase as the
amount  of Cd added  to  soil  increases.  The reproductive parts of plants
(flowers, fruits,  seeds) usually  contain lesser  concentrations  of Cd,
and  respond  less rapidly  to Cd  additions  to  soils than  do vegetative
parts.   The  phytotoxic tolerance  of  plant species to Cd  added  to soil
and the amounts  accumulated  by various  plant species are  also highly
variable.

Both the annual  and cumulative  total  Cd input  limits (0.5  to 2.0 kg Cd/
ha,  and 5 to 20 kg Cd/ha, respectively) that have been  suggested for
cropland application of sludges were  intended to prevent elevated levels
of Cd in food,  and are  much  more conservative than  levels associated
with  possible  phytotoxicity.  Available  information  indicates  that the
limits  suggested by the EPA to  stop  the entry  of Cd into the food chain
are adequate to  protect against Cd phytotoxicity to all crops.

The entry  of Cd into  the  human and  animal  food chain from  the use of
wastewater sludges  on  agricultural land  is  considered  by many to be the
most  critical  problem  related  to the  trace  metal content  of  sludges.
According to various  estimates  and surveys, the  estimated  daily dietary
intake  of  Cd in the  United States is  approximately  1/3 to  1/2 of the
maximum  daily intake of Cd  proposed by the Food and Agricultural  Organi-
zation  and the  World Health  Organization (36).    Although there are no
documented human health problems  traced to sludge  application to soils,
                                  B-16

-------
there  is  clinical  evidence  from Japan  that  links Cd  poisoning  to the
consumption of rice grown on soil contaminated by wastewater originating
from nearby Zn smelting operations (31).  Persons suffering from chronic
Cd poisoning consistently derived a substantial percentage of their die-
tary rice from the contaminated fields, and consumed this rice daily for
30 to  50  years.   Daily, exposure  to  food containing elevated concentra-
tions  of  Cd  resulted in gradual  accumulations  in  the bodies of the af-
fected population so that  symptoms  of Cd toxicity  later became evident.
Preventive measures  taken  since  the  peak of the  epidemic  in  the early
1950's have substantially  reduced the number  of new cases of Cd poison-.
ing in the affected regions.

A number  of  studies in the  United  States and other  parts  of  the world
have shown that where  sewage  sludges  containing Cd are applied to agri-
cultural  soils, the concentration of Cd in many crops grown on the sites
is increased (7, 8, 9, 20, 22).  However, the percent of cropland in the
United States  that  has received  sewage  sludge is  very  small.   Even if
all  sludges generated  in  the United  States were to be used on agricul-
tural  soils as  a  source of nitrogen  fertilizer, less than  1 percent of
the agricultural land  in the  United  States  would be affected (8).  Sta-
tistically, there is only a remote probability that any one person would
consume foods elevated  in  Cd  from the marketplace  over a period of time
sufficient to cause  excessive  exposure.   However,  misuse of sludge con-
taining relatively  high concentrations .of Cd could conceivably  lead to
excessive Cd in food, and subsequent health problems.

Typical levels of  Zn  in soils are 50 mg  Zn/kg.  Zinc is an element es-
sential for the growth of plants, and deficiencies of plant-available Zn
in soil are frequently encountered.   Sludge applications could therefore
be beneficial  in correcting Zn deficiencies in some soils.

Although high concentrations of Zn in any soil could result in phytotox-
icities,   the  occurrence and  impact  of  Zn  toxicity is  most  severe for
plants grown  on  acid  soils.   Suggested limits  for Zn  application  to
soils from sludge application are 250, 500, and 1,000 kg Zn/ha for soils
with CEC's of <5, 5-10, and >15 meq/100 g, respectively (33).

Among the divalent metals, Zn  is  of  a relatively low toxicity.  Chronic
toxicity to man from dietary sources of Zn is highly unlikely (32).
     B.5.8  Boron

Relative to  the other
application  of  sludge
largely in the form of
                       trace  elements  discussed, the role of  B  in land
                       is  somewhat  unique.    In  wastewaters, B  occurs
                                                        Being uncharged,
undissociated boric acid
                                                noL>UO •
it passes through  soils  much more readily than  do  €ne  other trace ele-
ments.   Although  B is essential  for crop growth,  when  present  in soil
solutions at concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/1, it is highly toxic to
many  plants.   The margin  between  levels considered essential to  plant
growth and  those  considered  phytotoxic is usually  very  narrow.   Plants
grown on  soils  whose  level of water-soluble boron  is less  than  0.04 mg
                                   B-17

-------
B/l often  exhibit  B deficiency symptoms while  at  concentrations  in ex-
cess of  1.0  mg B/l, B is toxic to  sensitive  species  (4,  11).   The,con-
centrations  of B  in  saturation extracts  from  soils  known to  damage a
wide variety  of crops are  quite  well  documented, and  tolerance  levels
are readily available (27).

Although the  other elements previously  discussed  (Cr,  Fe, Mn,  Ni, Cu,
Zn, Se,  Mo,  As, Hg, Pb, Sb, Cd,  and Al) all  tend to accumulate  in the
surface  of soils  following  application,  B is  only  weakly adsorbed by
soils, and readily passes through them with leaching water.  In arid and
semi arid regions,  the B  in the sludges may  have an adverse  impact on
plant growths,  but  cumulative effects are not as marked as with the other
trace metals.   In  humid  and semihumid  regions,  rainfall is usually suf-
ficient to leach applied B from the root zone to harmful levels.

Boron  has  a  low  order of  toxicity when administered  orally  (32). The
possibility  that  crops grown  on  sludge-treated  soils  would  accumulate
concentrations  of  B  potentially harmful  to animals and  humans is highly
remote.

B.6  Organics

The  concentration  of  organics,  such as chlorinated  hydrocarbon  pesti-
cides and  polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCB's), can be elevated above back-
ground levels  (<10 ppm)  in sewage  sludges  from cities  receiving  wastes
from  industrial  discharges of  these organic compounds.   The potential
impact of  organic  compounds  on  land application practices has been dis-
cussed  recently by  Pahren, et a!., and  Jelinek  and  Braude  (24,  19).
Very  little  research  has  been conducted  on  the  uptake  of  organics by
crops  growing  on  sludge-treated soils;  the following discussion  empha-
sizes  data obtained  from  related  experiments.   Pesticide and PCB levels
in sludges are  shown in Table B-l.

In  general,   a minimal  amount  of  pesticides  is  sorbed by  plants and
translocated to aerial parts.   For  example, the foliage of corn contains
less than  3  percent of the dieldrin  applied  to soil, while the concen-
tration  in the roots is  appreciably greater.   Nearly all pesticides are
relatively nonpolar molecules  which are strongly  bound by soil organic
matter and to the  surface  of  plant roots.   Thus, the  concentration of
pesticides in  root tissue does  not  result from typical  uptake mechanisms
where the  molecule must permeate the membranes of  root  cells.

The  uptake of  PCB's  has  been  evaluated using  carrots  as the test crop
(16).   Soils  treated  with Aroclor  1254 at  100  mg/kg  produced carrots
containing from 2  to 30 mg  PCB/kg,  depending upon  the examined component
of the PCB mixture.  More  significantly,  97  percent  of the PCB residue
was found  in  carrot  root peelings,  only 14  percent of the carrot weight.
These  results  suggest  that PCB's are not  actually taken up by carrots,
but are  physically adsorbed on  the surface of carrot roots.  Additional
evidence supporting the inability  of plants  to accumulate organics was
obtained by  Jacobs,  Chou,  and  Tiedje,  who  grew orchardgrass and carrots
in  soils  treated  with  10 and 100 mg/kg  of  polybrominated biphenyls
                                   B-18

-------
 (PBB's)  (19).   At these rates, the  amount  of uptake of PPB's was essen-
tially  nondetectable (20 to  40  ug/kg) in carrots,  and nondetectable in
orchardgrass.    It  should  be emphasized  that the  rates used  in these
studies  far  exceed  those expected from  sludge  application.   In general,
plants  exclude  the  majority of  organics added  to soils,  resulting in
minimal  impact  on the quality of forages and grains.   Furthermore, even
though  PCB's and  related compounds  resist  microbial  degradation,  they
are  slowly decomposed after  incorporation in soils.
                              TABLE  B-l
            PESTICIDE AND PCB CONTENT  OF  DRY SLUDGES (24)
                          Range (mg/kg)
                                                 Number of
Compound
Aldrin*
Dieldrin#
Chlordane*
DDT + DDD*
PCB's**
Minimum
NDt
<0.03
3.0
O.I
ND
Maximum
•16.2
2.2
32.2
1.1
352.0
Sludges Examined
5
21
7
. 7 '
83
          * Examined in 1971.

          t Nondetectable.

          # Examined in 1971, 1972, 1973.

          ** Examined in 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1975.
A potential  problem  arising from organics  in  sludge  is direct ingestion
by  animals  grazing  on  forages  treated  with  a  surface application  of
sludge.    Most  organics  are  concentrated  in  fatty  tissues  and  fluids
(butterfat).  Even though rains  may  remove  the majority of sludge adher-
ing  to  forages  after  a  surface  application  of  sludge,  a  sufficient
amount of  sludge may remain,  resulting  in  direct  ingestion  of  organics
by cattle.   For  this  reason,  Pahren,  et  al.,  suggested that sludges sur-
face-applied  to  grazed  forages  contain  no more  than  10 mg/kg  of PCB's
(24).   This  problem  can  be  eliminated  for  sludges containing  over  10
mg/kg PCB  by  incorporation  of  the  sludge into  the soil  prior to  planting
forage crops.

B7.0  References

  1.  Allaway, W. • H.   Agronomic  Controls Over the  Environmental  Cycling
     of Trace Elements.   Adv.  Agron.,  20:235-274, 1968.

  2.  Baumhardt,  G.  R.,  and L.  F. Welch.   Lead  Uptake and Corn  Growth
     with  Soil Applied  Lead.   J. Environ. Qual.,  1:92-94,  1972.
                                    B-19

-------
 3.  Benson, N.  R.   Effect of  Season,  Phosphate, and Acidity on  Plant
     Growth in  Arsenic-Toxic Soils.   Soil  Sci.,  76:215-224,  1953.

 4.  Bingham, F.  T.   Boron in  Cultivated Soils and  Irrigation  Waters.
     In:    Trace  Elements  in Environment.  Adv.  Chem.  Ser.,  123:130-138,
     1973.

 5.  Brady, N.  C.   The  Nature and Properties of  Soils.   Macmillan,  New
     York, 1974.

 6.  Chaney, R.  L.   Agents of Health Significance:   Toxic Metals.   In:
     Sludge-Health Risks of Land Application.   G.  Bitton, B.  L.  Damron,
     G. T. Edds,  and J.  M. Davidson,  eds.   Ann Arbor Science,  Ann Arbor,
     Michigan,  1980.  pp.   59-84.

 7.  Chaney, R.  L., and  P.  M.  Giordano.   Microelements as  Related  to
     Plant Deficiencies  as Related to Plant Deficiencies  and  Toxicities.
     In:   Soils  for Management  of Organic Waste and Wastewaters.   L.  F.
     Elliott and F.  J.  Stevenson,  eds.  Soil  Science Society  of America,
     Madison, Wisconsin, 1977.  pp.  234-279.

 8.  Council for Agricultural  Science  and Technology.    Application  of
     Sewage Sludge  to Cropland:   Appraisal of  Potential   Hazards of  the
     Heavy Metals on Plants and Animals.   EPA-430/9-76-013,  Ames,  Iowa,
     November 1978.   141  pp.  (Available  from National Technical  Infor-
     mation Service, Springfield,  Virginia, PB-264 015)

 9.  Council for Agricultural  Science and Technology.  Effects of Sewage
     Sludge on  the Cadmium and Zinc Content of Crops.  EPA-600/8-81-003,
     Ames, Iowa, February  1981.  91  pp.   (Available from National  Tech-
     nical Information Service,  Springfield,  Virginia, PB81  181596)

10.  Cunningham, J. D., D. R.  Kenney, and J. A.  Ryan.   Yield and  Metal
     Composition of  Corn  and Rye Grown  on Sewage  Sludge Amended  Soil.
     0. Environ. Qual.,  4:455-460, 1975.

11.  Eaton, F. M.   Deficiency, Toxicity,  and Accumulation  of Boron  in
     Plants. J. Agric.  Res., 69:237-277, 1944.

12.  Furr, A.  K.,  A. W.  Lawrence,  S. C.  Fong,  M. C. Grandolfo,  R.  A.
     Hofstader,  C.  A. Bache,  W. HY.  Gutenmann,  and  D. J. Lisk.   Multi-
     El ement and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon  Analyses of Municipal  Sewage
     Sludges of  American  'Cities.    Environ.   Sci.  Techno!.,  10:683-687,
     1976.

13.  Hammond, P.  B.,  and  A.  L. Aronson.   Lead  Poisoning in  Cattle  and
     Horses in the  Vicinity of  a  Smelter.  Ann. N.Y. Acad.  Sci., 3:595-
     611, 1964.
14.  Hausenbuiller, R. L.  Soil Science - Principles and Practices.
     C. Brown Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 1972.
                                                                     Wm.
                                   B-20

-------
15.  Healy, W. B.  Ingested Soil as a Source of Elements to Grazing Ani-
     mals.   In:   Trace Element Metabolism  in  Animals.   W. G.  Hoekstra,
     J. W.  Suttie,  H. E.  Ganther,  and W.  Mertz, eds.   University Park
     Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1974.  Vol. 2, pp.  448-450.

16.  Iwata,  Y.,  F.  A. Gunther, and  W.  E.  Westlake.   Uptake of  a PCB
     (Arochlor 1254) from Soil by Carrots Under Field Conditions.  Bull.
     Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 11:523-528,  1974.

17.  Jacobs, L.  W.,  S.  Chou,  and J.  M.  Tiedje.   Fate of Polybrominated
     Biphenys  ,(PBB's)  in  Soils:    Persistence  and  Plant  Uptake.   J.
     Agric. Food Chem., 24:1198-1201, 1976.

18.  Jarre! 1, W. M.,  A.  L. Page, and A.  A. Elseewi.   Molybdenum in the
     Environment.  Residue Rev., 74:1-43, 1980.

19.  Jelinek,  C.  F., and  G.  L.  Braude.    Management  of Sludge Use  on
     Land, FDA Considerations.   In:   Proceedings of  the Third National
     Conference on Sludge Management, Disposal, and  Utilitization,  Miami
     Beach, Florida, December:1976.  pp. 35-38.

20.  Kirkham,  M.  B.   Trace  Elements in Sludge  on   Land:   Effects  on
     Plants, Soils, and  Groundwaters.  In:   Land as  a  Waste Management
     Alternative.  R. C.  Loehr, ed.  Ann Arbor Science,  Ann Arbor,  Mich-
     igan, 1977.   pp.  209-247.

21.  Lund, L.  J.,  E.  E.  Betty, A.  L. Page, and R.  A.  Elliott.-  Occur-
     rence of  Naturally  High  Cadmium Levels in Soils and  Its  Accumula-
     tion by Vegetation.   J. Environ. Qual., 10:551-556, 1981.

22.  Page, A.  L.   Fate  and  Effects of Trace  Elements  in  Sewage Sludge
     When Applied  to Agricultural  Soils:   A  Literature Review.   EPA-
     670/2-74-005,   University  of  California,  Riverside,  January  1974.
     107  pp.   (Available  from  National  Technical Information Service,
     Springfield, Virginia, PB-231 171)

23.  Page, A. L., A. C.  Chang,  G.  Sposito,  and S.  Mattigod.  Trace Ele-
     ments in Wastewater:  Their Effects on  Plant Growth and Composition
     and Their Behavior  in Soils.   In:   Modeling Wastewater Renovation
     Land Treatment.  I.  K. Iskander, ed.  Wiley Interscience,  New  York,
     1981.   pp.  182-222.

24.  Pahren. H.  R., J.  B.  Lucas,  J. A. Ryan,  and G.  K.  Dotson.  Health
     Risks Associated  with Land  Application  of  Municipal  Sludge.   J.
     Water Pollut.  Control  Fed., 51:2588-2601,  1979.

25.  Patterson, J.  B.  E.   Metal  Toxicities Arising from  Industry.  G.  B.
     Ministry of Agric.,  Fish., and Food. Tech. Bull., 21:193-207,  1971.

26.  Pratt, P. F.   Chromium.   In:   Diagnostic Criteria for Plants  and
     Soils.  H. D. Chapman, ed.   Riverside, California,  1965.   pp. 136-
     141.
                                   B-21

-------
27.  Richards,  L.  A.,  ed.    Diagnosis  and  Improvement  of  Saline  and
     Alkali Soils.   Handbook  No.  60, U. S.  Dept.  of Agriculture,  Wash-
     ington, D.C., 1954.

28.  Ryan, J. A., and D. R.  Keeney.  Ammonia Volatilization from Surface
     Applied Sewage  Sludge.   J. Water  Pollut.  Control  Fed.,  47:386-393,
     1975.

29.  Sabey, B.  R.,  and  W.  E.  Hart.  Land  Application  of Sewage Sludge.
     I.   The Effect on  Growth  and Chemical  Composition of  Plants.   J.
     Environ. Qual., 4:252-256, 1975.

30.  Sommers, L.  E., C. F. Parker,  and G.  J.  Meyers.   Volatilization,
     Plant Uptake, and  Mineralization  of Nitrogen  in Soils Treated with
     Sewage Sludge.   Technical  Report  133,  Purdue  University  Water Re-
     sources Research Center,  West Lafayette, Indiana, 1981.

31.  Tsuchiya, K., ed.   Cadmium Studies  in Japan:   A Review.  Elsevier/
     North Holland Biomedical  Press, New York, 1978.

32.  Underwood,   E.  J.    Trace Elements  in  Human  and  Animal  Nutrition.
     4th ed. Academic Press, New York,  1977.
33.  Municipal  Sludge  Management  -  Environmental  Factors.
     Register, 41:22531-22543, 1976.
Federal
34.  Valdares, M. 6., M. Gal, U. Mingelgrin, and A. L. Page.  Some Heavy
     Metals in Soils Treated with  Sewage  Sludge;  Their Effects  on Yield
     and Their Uptake by Plants.  J. Environ. Qual.  (In Press).

35.  Winton, E. F.,  R.  G,  Tardiff,  and  L. J. McCabe.'  Nitrate in Drink-
     ing Water.  J. Am. Water Works'Assoc., 63:95-98, 1971.

36.  World Health  Organization.   Environmental  Health Criteria  for Cad-
     mium.  Amsterdam, 1975.
                                   B-22

-------
                               APPENDIX C

                     SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
C.I  General

This  appendix  provides guidance  in selecting methods  for sampling and
analysis  of  sludge,  soils, plants,  ground water, and  surface  water as
may be necessary for,design and/or monitoring of  sludge to land applicar
tion systems.  The person selecting methods should also consult with the
cognizant  regulatory  agency and  with knowledgeable  individuals  at the
local  University  Agricultural  Extension Service, since  regulatory re-
quirements and  applicable methods  for  local  conditions vary geographi-
cally.
As discussed in Chapter  11,  and  elsewhere in
ber, frequency, etc., of samples and analyses
between  different  projects.    This  appendix
should  constitute the  sampling  and  analysis
cusses methods  available  if certain types of
required.

C.2  Soils,
 the manual, the type, nurn-
 necessary will vary widely
   does  not  stipulate  what
  program;  rather,  it  dis-
  sampling and analysis are
     C.2.1  Purpose of Soil Sampling and Analysis

Soils can be sampled  and  analyzed  at potential  sludge application sites
as part  of  the site selection process  (see  Chapter 4).  .More extensive
soil  testing may  be conducted after a  final  site(s) selection has been
made in  order  to  establish baseline data.  -In addition, soil monitoring
is periodically conducted  at  many  sludge application sites after sludge
application has been initiated and the program is in full operation.
The purpose of soil testing  prior  to sludge
help determine  site  suitability.  The  soil
usually include the following:
application is primarily to
characteristics of interest
          pH; a  soil  pH of  6.5,  or above, is  desirable,  and often re-
          quired by regulatory  agencies,  to minimize migration of heavy
          metals.

          Lime requirement; if soil pH is too low, lime additions can be
          used to  raise soil  pH  to a  proper  level.   The  soil  can be
          tested to determine the quantity of lime required.

          Plant  available  nutrients,  i.e., N,  P, and K;  existing  soil
          nutrient levels  which  are plant  available  is  useful  informa-
          tion in calculating sludge application rates to the sludge ap-
          plication site when growing vegetation on the site.
                                    C-l

-------
     •    CEC;  is  an indication of  the soil's ability  to  tie up heavy
          metals and prevent their migration.   Regulations existing in
          1982, use  soil  CEC as a guide  in  setting limits upon cumula-
          tive  heavy metal  loading  in the sludge  application to sites
          used  for crops.

     a    Soil  permeability  and texture   (particle  size distribution);
          provides guidance  in  determining the site drainage  character-
          istics.  As discussed  in Chapter 4 and Appendix B,  it is gen-
          erally desirable that  a  sludge  application site is  moderately
          permeable, i.e., not  so  impermeable, as to cause surface mois-
          ture  ponding  and not  too permeable which  may  -result in rapid
          subsurface migration of sludge constraints.

     •    C:N ratio; it  has  been suggested that for forest soils, which
          often have a  high  C:N  ratio, this  ratio is useful in estimat-
          ing the tnitrogen storage capacity  of the soil  as  it effects
          the  sludge application rate calculation.   See discussion in
          Chapter 7.

After the sludge application program is underway, it may  be necessary or
desirable to monitor the changes occuring  in the soil characteristics of
the application site.  This is usually  not done for typical agricultural
utilization  projects where  sludge is  applied to  farmland, at agronomic
rates, or below.  Nor is routine post  sludge application  soil  monitoring
usually done for forest land or land reclamation sludge  utilization when
a one-time application  is  used,  or  sludge applications are at low rates
commensurate with vegetation nutrient  requirements.  Generally, periodic
soil monitoring of the  sludge  application site is  done primarily when
one or more of the following situations exist:
     1.
2.
3.
    The sludge contains significant quantities of one or more heavy
    metals or priority persistent organics.  In this case, the soil
    concentration of the sludge constituents of concern can be mon-
    itored.
         Heavy  sludge  application  rates  are used, as  with
         disposal site,  and  there is concern that  the  .soil
         phytotoxic to vegetation grown on the site.
                                                        a dedicated
                                                        will  become
         The cognizant  regulatory  agency requires certain periodic soil
         monitoring.  For example, the regulatory agency may require an-
         nual pH analysis to ensure that the soil pH remains above 6.5.
     4.  Research  purposes.    If  demonstration  projects,   test  plots,
         etc.,  are  being implemented,  extensive soil  testing  is often
         conducted  to  increase knowledge  of  the  interaction   between
         sludge constituents and soil systems.            ,
                                    C-2

-------
     C.2.2  Soil  Sampling Procedures

Soils expertise  is  required to  conduct  and interpret  an  adequate soil
sampling program because  of  the  potential  variables involved, including
horizontal   and  vertical  soil  variations,  size  of  the  application
site(s), and the objectives of the soil sampling program.  Advice should
be  obtained  from the  University Cooperative Extension Service, County
Agricultural Agents, and/or others with expertise in sampling and analy-
sis of soils in the sludge application site(s) locality.

The number and location  of  samples  necessary to adequately characterize
soils prior to sludge application is primarily a function of the spatial
variability of the  soils at the site.   In heterogenous materials, such
as mine spoils, an adequate determination of conditions may require sam-
pling on  a grid  pattern of  some  30 m  (100 ft) over  the  entire site.
Conversely, if the  soil  types  occur  in simple patterns sampling of each
major type can provide an accurate  picture of the soil characteristics.
Often,  existing  soils maps  (e.g.,  from the  Soil  Conservation Service)
and field  visual observations  provide  an  indication of the variability,
location, and extent of each.major soil type at the site.

In  some states,  the  state  regulatory agency stipulates the minimum num-
ber of  soil  borings which  must  be analyzed.   New  Jersey,  for example,
stipulates the minimum number of soil borings required  based on proposed
sludge  application  site area,  ranging from  a  minimum of  3  borings on
small sites  (up  to  4 ha; 10  ac) to  24 borings  on  large  sites (over 80
ha; 200 ac).

The depth  to  which  the soil  profile  is  sampled and the extent to which
each  horizon  is  vertically subdivided depend largely  on the parameters
to  be  analyzed,  the  vertical   variations  in  soil  character,  and  the
objectives of  the  soil  sampling program.   Typically,  samples are taken
from each distinct soil horizon  down to a depth of 120  to 150.cm (4 to  5
ft).  For example, samples may be taken from four soil  depths (horizons)
as  follows: 0  to 15 cm (0 to 6  in), 15 to  45 cm (6 to 18 in), 45 to 75
cm  (18  to  30  in),  and 75 to 120 cm  (30 to 42 in).   Usually,  as a mini-
mum, samples,are at least taken  from the upper soil layer, e.g., 0 to 15
cm  (0 to  6 in),  and a deeper  soil horizon,  e.g.,  45  to 75 cm (18 to 30
in).   Samples taken  from  similar soil horizons  are  usually composited
for  several  borings located  near  each other in  homogeneous  soil.  The
composited samples are subsequently analyzed.

The proper  selection  of tools for soil  sampling depends in part on the
texture  and  consistency  of  the soil,  the presence or absence  of  rock
fragments, the depth  to  be  sampled,  and the degree of  allowable surface
soil disturbance.   Soil  samples  are most accurately taken from a freshly
dug  pit.   However,  where field  plots are  to  be  sampled periodically,
preferable  sampling tools are those  which disturb the plot  the  least.
Cutaway  soil  sampling tubes,  closed cylinder augers,  and tiling  spades
(sharp-shooter)  may  be  used  depending  upon the  size of  the  plot and
allowable disturbance.  The cutaway  soil sampling tube  creates the least
                                     C-3

-------
disturbance,  and  works well in  the  plow layer and the upper  subsoil  of
moist, stone-free  friable  soils.   Each  sample  collected should represent
the cross  section  of the soil  layer  being  sampled.

In sampling  subsurface soils,  care must be taken to  remove  loose  parti-
cles  or  sludge  residue on  the soil  surface around the hole  prior  to  and
during sampling.   In  addition, any  surface soil/sludge residue  attached
to the top and  side of the core samples from  lower depths should  be  re-
moved  by  slicing  with a  knife.   It  is recommended that  the  holes  be
sealed by  filling  with bentonnite pellets and tap water.  A map showing
samples  points should  be made.

     C.2.3 Soil Sample Preservation

Samples  should  be  air-dried  (at temperatures  less  than  40°C), ground,
and passed through a  2-mm sieve as  soon  as  possible after collection.
Chemical  analyses  are  generally performed  on  air-dried  samples, and  do
not require special preservation for most parameters.  However, samples
collected  for nitrate, ammonia, and pathogen  analyses  should be  refri-
gerated  under field moist  conditions and analyzed as  soon as possible.

     C.2.4 Soil Analysis
Table  C-l  lists possible
which may be of interest.
tract  the  element of  interest
                           soil  surface  layer  and subsurface parameters
                           Table C-2 lists methods which are used to ex-
______  -.._  __________  -.  ______ __-  from  soil.   Table  C-3 lists analytical
methods  for  measuring chemical  constituents of  interest  after extrac-
tion.   Table C-4 lists  methods,  used to  analyze soil physical proper-
ties.   Table 6-9 in Chapter 6  presents  suggested monetary requirements
for sludge applied at agronomic rates for crop production.

C.3  Vegetation

Vegetation monitoring is usually only  done  if one, or more, of the fol-
lowing situations exist:
     1.
     2.
3.
         Heavy  sludge  application  rates  are used, as  with  a dedicated
         disposal site, and there  is  concern that food chain vegetation
         being grown on the site may be accumulating potentially harmful
         quantities of  heavy  metals  (particularly Cd)  from  the sludge
         amended soil .

         For public relations  purposes, it  is  desirable  to  assure pri-
         vate owners  of farms,  tree  farms,  etc., that their  crops are
         not being adversely affected by their use of sludge.
         Research
         etc.
                  purposes,  e.g.,  demonstration  projects,  test  plots,
                                    C-4-

-------
                           TABLE  C-l
     POTENTIAL  SOIL SURFACE  LAYER AND SUBSURFACE
                  PARAMETERS  OF  INTEREST
Surface Layer
PH
Electrical  conductivity
Lime requirement (acid soils)
Plant available P and K

CEC
Permeability
Particle size distribution
  (texture)
C:N ratio (forest lands)
Prior to Sludge Application
                    Subsurface Layers
                  PH
                  Electrical conductivity
                  Permeability
                  Particle size distribution
                  (texture)
                  Monitoring After Sludge  Application
PH
Electrical  conductivity
Moisture content
Plant available P and K
NH4-N
Organic-N
Organic matter
Permeability
Particle size distribution
  (texture)
Heavy metals  (Cu, Ni, Pb, In)
Cd
Persistant  organic.s (PCB, DDT,
  dieldrin, etc.)
                  PH
                  Electrical conductivity
                  N03-N
                  NH4-N
* If present  in the sludge in significant quantity.
                                 C-5

-------
I
                                                          TABLE  C-2
                                              EXTRACTION METHODS  FOR SOIL
                             Element                      Method

                             Nitrogen (N)       Total N:  Kjeldahl  digestion
                                                  method

                                                NH4+ (ammonium):  extract
                                                  with 2N KC1

                                                N03~ (nitrate)  and N0?"
                                                  (nitrite):   extract
                                                  with 2N KC1

                             Phosphorus         Total P:  digest in per-
                               (P)                chloric acid

                                                Organic P:  extraction with
                                                  hydrochloric  acid

                                                Available P:
                                                a) Extract  with 0.03N NH4F +
                                                     0.025N HC1
                                                b) Extract  with dilute HC1 +
                                                     H2S04
                                                c) Extract  with 0.5M NaHC03
                                                d) Extract  with water

                             Sulfur (S)          Total S: Johnson  and Nishita
                                                  digestion method

                                                Organic S:
                                                a) Extract  with IN  HC1
                                                b) Extract  with IN  Ca(OAc)2
                                                c) Extract  with water

                                                Available S:  Use extracting
                                                  solution
                                                  (39 g NHrfOAc  [ammonium acetate]
                                                  in 1 1 of 0.25N acetic acid)

                             Chloride (C1~)      Extract with water
                                 Reference
                                  Number
                             Cation Exchange
                               Capacity
                               (CEC)

                             Exchangeable
                               Cations
Extract with IN NaOAc
  (sodium acetate)
Extract with lN,NH4OAc
  (ammonium acetate)
Page


1162


1191


1191



1036


1038



1040

1040
1040
1043


1104


1108




1112



 193



 899


 903
                                                               C-6

-------
TABLE  C-2 (continued)
              Element

              Soluble
                Salts

              Electrical
                Conductivity

              PH

              Carbon (C)
             Cobalt (Co)
              Selenium (Se)
          Method

Water saturation extract
Water saturation extract
1:1 soil/water

Total  C: • digestion with 60:40
  concentrated H2S04/85% HjP04

Organic C:
a) IN  K9Cr907 (potassium dichro-
    mater '
b) Concentrated H?S04
c) Water

Inorganic C:  digestion with  con-
Reference
 Number
d) IN NH4CT

Extract with solution  A  (Na^
  6N HC1,  boiling water)  anc
  dithizone solution

Digest with nitric acid-
  sulfuric acid  and
                  Page*

                   935



                   935

                   920


                  1350



                  1374

Boron (B)
Aluminum (Al )
Arsenic (As)
centrated H2S04 and FeS04 7H20
Extract with hot water
Extract with ammonium acetate
(NH4OAc) adjusted to pH 4.8
Extract with:
a) 0.5 N NH4F
b) 0.1 N NaOH
c 0.5 N HoSO*
1
2
2
3
1386
185
185
254
                                                                                   1072

Molybdenum (Mo)

Heavy Metals
(Cu, In, Mn,
Fe, Ni, Pb,
Cr, Hg, Sr,
Cd, Sb, Ag,
Ba)

mercuric oxide (HgO)
Extract with anion exchange
resin (Dowex-l-X4)

Total: extract with strong
acids (HNO,-HC10,,, HNO,-HoS04,
HC1-HNO,)
Available: DTPA;
water, dilute HC1 ,
IN NH4OAc (pH 4.8, pH 7.0)
1

2

1
7
1

1118

17

*
84
t

             * Acids selected will depend on, the metal(s)  of interest.

             t Different extractants have been used for a  single metal  or  a  group of
               metals.  No single extractant is universally applicable  to  all'metals.
                                               C-7

-------
TABLE C-3.  ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR ELEMENTS IN SOLUTION
Measurement
Acidity
Alkalinity
Arsenic (As)
BOO
COD
Chloride
Dissolved
Oxygen
Hardness
MBAS
Metal s :
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Zinc (Zn)
Copper (Cu)
Cadmium (Cd)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Lead (Pb)
Method
Phenolphthalein
or methyl orange
titration
Potentiometric
titration
Silver diethyl-
dithio-carbamate
method
Dissolved oxygen
determination
Classical reflux
method
Potentiometric
method
Membrane elec-
trode method
EDTA titrametric
method
Methyl ene blue method

Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Flameless atomic
absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Std. Method
Number (4)
402
403
404A
507
508
408C
422F
309B
512A

301A
301A
301A
301A
301A
315A
30 1A
301A
Page
273
278
283
543
550
306
450
202
600

144
144
144
144
144
229
144
144
                         C-8

-------
TABLE C-3 (continued)
Measurement
Chromium (Cr)
Manganese (Mn)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Iron (Fe)
Cobalt (Co)
Aluminum (Al)
Boron (B)
Antimony (Sb)
Nitrogen (N):
N -ammonia
412
N-organic
N-nitrate
N-nitrite
Oil and
Grease
PH
Phenol ics
Phosphorus (P)
Residue:
Filterable
Nonf ilterable
Method
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Colorimetric (Curcumin)
Atomic absorption

Distillation;
nesslerization
Kjeldahl digestion
Electrode method
Colorimetric method
Soxhlet extraction
pH electrode
Distillation; chloro-
form extraction
direct photometric
Digestion; Colori-
metric

Glass fiber filtra-
tion, evaporation
Glass fiber filtration
Std. Method
Number (4)
301A
30 1A
301A
301A
301A
301A
405A
301A

418A, B
421
419B
420
5020
424
510A,B,C
425C,D,E,F

208B.C
2080
Page
144
144
144
144
144
144
287
144

410,
437
422
434
519
460
576
474

92
94
                                  C-9

-------
TABLE C-3  (continued)
Measurement
Total
Volatile
Settleable
Matter
Selenium (Se)
Silica
Specific
Conductance
Sulflde
Turbidity
Method
Evaporation
Ignition method
Imhoff cone method
Diaminobenzidine
method
Gravimetric method
Conductivity mea-
surement
Methyl ene blue or
titrimetric method
Nephelometric method
Std. Method
Number (4)
208A
208E
208F
3 ISA
426A
205
428C,D
214A
Paga
91
95
95
238
485
73
503
132
                  TABLE  C-4.   PHYSICAL  ANALYSIS  FOR  SOILS
             Parameter
                                    Method
Reference
  Number
Partfcle Size
Aneilysis
Permeability:
Soil -to-air
Soil-to-water
Aggregates
(structure)
Hydrometer method/
sieving


Dry sieve method
1

1
1
1
545

524
528
500
                                    C-10

-------
     C.3.1  Plant Sampling Procedures

Plant tissue may  be  sampled during several  growth  stages,  although ma-
ture leaves  or stalks growing  on  main branches  or stems  are generally
preferred.   Table C-5 presents  data  indicating the  portion  of various
plants typically  sampled,  and  provides  an indication of the  number of
separate leaves or stalks  necessary for a  representative sample.   Por-
tions of  plants  covered by  dust or adhering  soil, damaged by insects,
mechanically damaged, or diseased should not be sampled.

The basic principles underlying  plant tissue sampling are common to both
forestry  and  agricultural  crop  species,  but  specific  methodologies
unique to foliar  samples of tree species are given  below (13):

          Sample conifer foliage during the dormant season.
          Sample  deciduous leaves at maturity.
          Sample  both dominant and codominant trees.
          Sample  upper portions  of the crown for foliage samples.
          Sample  current-year foliage.
          Do hot  sample foliage  or twigs bearing cones.

     C.3.2  Plant Sample Handling and Preservation

All  plant  samples should be washed with  deionized, distilled water be-
fore drying  to remove any  surface  contamination  unless the contaminant
is  of  analytical  concern.   In  some cases,  it  may  be necessary to wash
the plant samples with a detergent solution  or  a  very weak  acid solution
before the final  rinse with deionized water.

Samples  should be dried  (65°C  maximum)  as  quickly as  possible, finely
ground,  and  stored for  analysis.  If the undried samples cannot be pro-
cessed  immediately,   they   should  be  placed  in  polyethylene  bags and
stored under refrigeration.

Prior to chemical analysis, the plant tissue  sample(s)  must be treated
by  one of  three  digestion  methods  to bring elements  into solution.  The
methods  of digestion depend on  the element  to  be  analyzed.

     •    Wet  digestion -  for all elements  except nitrogen  (N)  and  boron
           (B).     Digest  with  nitric-perchloric   (HN03-HC104)  acids.
          Treatment with hydrofluoric  (HF)  acid may be necessary for re-
          covery  of  some  of the heavy metals from  the silica which pre-
          cipitates in the  digest.

     •    Dry  ashing - ash  at low temperature  (450° to 500°C).  Dissolve
          ash  in  hydrochloric acid  (HC1).   This is  the only method  to be
          used for  B analysis;  not suitable for  Hg, S, Se, As, Cu, Ag,
          Fe,  Sb, and N.
           Kjeldahl  (H2S04) digestion  -  for  total
           ence  (4),  Page  1162,  for  procedure).
P, and K (see Refer-
                                    C-ll

-------
                  
o
a:
a.

a
UJ

CO
UJ
CD
CD

CO
                O)
                c

                I
                o

o
I1
OT
                      !l
                                             &
              «   £  E   S E     i5
              O   a  2   5 jg     O

            ii   I  I   li??!
                                    o
                                    o
^ b o o
OT a! OT CL ol OL  duo!
                cs*s
                g o o 2

                w .2
                                   -
                               .    .g
                               a. Q. a.
                         o 2 2 2 2 S
                               1jr'!;
                                o 5
                                a. d.
                       .g 3
                      . a. S
S


I
CM
          Q.
          o
                        CO
                        E
              I
              f
              CO
                              £ TJ
                           I  II  -


i



0>
g
2.
2



                           CO

                           CO
                                                   I
                                                   o>
                                                   c
                                                             Q)
                                                             
-------
Table  C-3
tion.
listed  the  specific  analytical  methods for  elements in  solu-
     C.3.3   Plant Sample Analysis

It is not common to routinely  monitor crops  or  other vegetation  grown on
sludge-to-land application sites.  In those  cases  where plants are  moni-
tored,  they  are  generally  analyzed  for  selected  heavy  metals  and/or
plant nutrient content.  Table C-6 presents  a list of potential  monitor-
ing  parameters for agricultural  crops.   Actual  parameters monitored  may
vary from this list, depending on the sludge constituents of concern.
           TABLE  C-6.   POTENTIAL  CROP  MONITORING PARAMETERS
        A.  Heavy Metals

           Cadmium
           Copper
           Molybdenum
           Nickel
           Zinc

        C.  Other Elements or Constituents*

           Antimony
           Arsenic
           Chromium
           Iron
           Manganese
           Mercury
           Selenium
           PCB's
                                B. Macronutrients (Optional)

                                  Nitrogen
                                  Phosphorus
                                  Potassium
        * The other elements or constituents listed under C are analyzed only
          if there are significant quantities of those contained in the sludge
          being applied, and the crop may enter the food chain.
C.4  Ground Water Monitoring

Ground  water monitoring may  be  required to  ensure that  the project  is
not contaminating useful ground water aquifers  in the sludge application
site or sludge  storage area.   Regulatory  agencies  often  require  ground
water monitoring for dedicated sludge disposal  sites, and may also occa-
sionally  require  ground water monitoring  for  forest land  or  disturbed
land sludge utilization over  sensitive aquifers.   Rarely is ground water
monitoring   required  for  projects  using  the  agricultural  utilization
option,  since   by  definition  this  option  balances  sludge application
rates with  crop nutrient requirements.
                                     C-13

-------
     C.4.1  Ground Water Monitoring Design

If  a  ground  water  monitoring  program  is  required,  a hydrogeologist
should be consulted during the initiation and  implementation of the pro-
gram.   Detailed ground water monitoring  procedures  can be  found in the
U.S.  EPA publication  (EPA/530/SW-611)  entitled,  Procedures  Manual  for
Ground Water Monitoring at Solid Waste  Disposal Facilities (14).

Monitoring wells  are  constructed to provide representative ground water
samples.  The number  of wells needed and their proper  placement depends
on  the  location  of  the water table  and the  direction of  ground water
flow.   If several  aquifers  could be affected, a set of monitoring wells
is  required for each  aquifer.  The depth of the monitoring wells is de-
pendent on the  depth  of the aquifer(s)  being sampled,  and the predicted
pathway  of  potential   migrating  contaminants.   A  qualified hydrologist
should be involved in making  these decisions, based on  specific geologic
and hydrologic  conditions at  the site.  Consideration should be given to
such factors as the following (9):

     t    Soil  and rock formations existing on the site.
          Direction
          ment.
of ground water  flow and anticipated rate  of  move-
     •    Depth of seasonal  high  water table,  and an indication of sea-
          sonal variations  in  ground  water depth and direction of move-
          ment.   This  should not be  a problem with dewatered sludge or
          liquid sludge at agronomic  rates.

     •    Nature,  extent,   and  consequences of  ground  water mounding,
          which may occur above the naturally occurring water table.

     t    Depth of impervious layers.

It may  be  necessary  to establish baseline  site ground  water conditions
through  installation  of simple  observation wells  prior to  the  actual
selection of locations and depths for  permanent monitoring.

Generally, if monitoring is required,  three or more monitoring wells are
installed, as follows:

     •    One background well located  upstream, and not affected or con-
          taminated by sludge application.

     •    One  or  more  (depending on  site  size  and  hydrogeological  fac-
          tors) wells  located  off-site downgradient from  the site, and
          used to detect leachate migration.

     •    One  or  more  on-site wells  located   in the  zone  of  maximum
          leachate concentration.
                                    C-14

-------
Often, monitoring  wells  are installed during  the  site selection and/or
design investigations.   It  is  desirable  to start monitoring 6 months to
a  year before  any sludge  applications  to establish  background ground
water quality including any seasonal fluctuations.

Figure C-l shows a typical  monitoring  well.   Important features include
an impermeable backfill, PVC piping, well screen, and gravel fill
                                                      around
                                                      ground
                                                      should
                                                      chemi-
the well  screen.   The composition of  the  materials selected for
water monitoring well construction, sample collection and storage
be examined  for  possible  contamination and interference with the
cal analysis.    For  example,  galvanized  pipe  should  not be  used when
testing for trace metals.  Inert materials such as ABS or PVC reduce the
possibility  of erroneous  readings,  although the glues  used  on  the fit-
tings  can  also  contaminate samples.   Disinfection  of  wells, equipment,
and containers by chlorination or other means is required if bacteriolo-
gical   examination  is  included (8).   However,  no  residual  chlorine must
remain after disinfection or microbial  counts will  be reduced.

A dry drilling method (e.g., augering)  is preferred for the construction
of  monitoring well   boreholes,  since  it  eliminates   contamination  of
ground  water with  drilling  mud  and  offers  lower  installation  costs.
Coring, with hollow- or solid-stem augers, and hydraulic rotary drilling
are the most common dry and wet drilling methods, respectively.

The boreholes are  normally backfilled  by  packing  with gravel  and sand
around the screened area of the pipe.  A low-permeability material, usu-
ally bentonite or  a sand-bentonite  mixture,  is then packed  to prevent
surface water from  channeling down  the side  of  the casing.   A concrete
support is built around the  above-ground  portion of the well to protect
it from damage or vandalism.

     C.4.2  Ground Water Sampling Collection Methods and Frequency
Ground water sampling can be collected using a bail, air lift, submersi-
ble  pump,  or vacuum,  depending  on the  analyses  to be  performed.   For
example, when sampling  of ground water  for  reduced  species (e.g.,  H2S)
the  possibility of  air contamination or C^  injection  into  the sampling
system.   To the  extent  possible,  collection techniques should  remain
consistent throughout the monitoring program.
Recommended
(10):
precautionary procedures at the wells  include  the  following
          A measured  amount  of  water  equal  to  or  greater  than  three
          times  the  amount  of water  in  the  well  and/or gravel  pack
          should be  exhausted from  the well  before  sample collection.
          In the case of very  low-permeability soils,  the well  may have
          to be exhausted and  allowed  to  refill  before a sample is col-
          lected.
                                  C-15

-------
           LAND SURFACE
           SLOPED AWAY
           FROU WELL
           BOREHOLE
           SCHEDULE 40 PVC
           CASINO
           SLOTTED SCHEDULE
           4O PVC SCREEN
                                          LOW PERMEABILITY
                                          BACKFILL
                                          GRAVEL PACK
                                             WATER TABLE
Figure  C-l.   Typical  monitoring  well  screened over
                a  single vertical   interval.
                            C-16

-------
     9    Pumping  equipment  should  be  thoroughly rinsed  before use in
          each monitoring well.   Water pumped from each monitoring well
          should be discharged to the ground  surface away from the wells
          to avoid recycling of flow in high-permeability soil areas.

     •    Samples  should  be collected,  stored, and  transported to the
          laboratory in a manner  to avoid contamination or interference
          with subsequent analyses.

The frequency of sample collection is dependent upon the goals of a par-
ticular  ground  water monitoring  (i.e.,  whether  it  is long-  or short-
term).   The  estimated  rate  of  pollutant  travel in a given hydrogeologic
setting  will  indicate  intervals  of  time which  will  show a  change in
water quality.  Careful analyses  of the  initial and later samplings may
warrant  adjustment  of the  sampling frequency.   Arbitrary  selection of
sampling frequency may not reveal  the true picture of ground water qual-
ity at the disposal site.

     C.4.3  Ground Water Sample Preservation

It is impossible to maintain complete stability for every constituent in
a water  sample.   Preservation  techniques can  only  retard  the chemical
and biological changes that inevitably continue after the sample is col-
lected.  Table  C-7 presents methods of preservation  for  water samples,
volume required, container type, and storage time, as recommended by the
U.S. EPA (6).  Refrigeration at temperatures near freezing (2 to 4°C) is
the best available preservation technique.   Water pH  should  be deter-
mined on site, while other  analyses  should be made as soon as practical
in the laboratory.

     C.4.4  Ground Water Parameters

The constituents  included  in the .analysis of  ground water  samples  are
dependent on  such  factors  as monitoring  goals, budgetary restrictions,
waste composition,  uses  of ground water,  regulatory  requirements,  etc.
If the  ground water involved  is  an  actual  or potential  potable  water
supply parameters  for  which drinking  water standards  have  been estab-
lished should be measured  (11,  12).   If  high concentrations  of certain
heavy metals,  toxic chemicals,  or  fecal  bacteria  are present in  the
sludge, they should be included in the ground water monitoring list.   No
single list of parameters  applies  to all  cases.

As an  illustration of  parameters which  are  often  analyzed  in  ground
water samples taken in connection with  sludge application site(s)  moni-
toring, the following list  is presented:

          PH.
          Electrical  conductivity  and/or TDS.
          Total  hardness.
          Alkalinity.
          Chlorides.
                                  C-17

-------
               TABLE C-7
SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLE  PRESERVATION3  (6)
Measurement
Acidity
Alkalinity
Arsenic
BOO
Bromide
LOU
Chloride
Chlorine Req.
Color
Cyanides

Dissolved
Oxygen
Probe
Uinkler
Fluoride
Hardness
Iodine
H8AS
Hetjli
Dissolved
SUM-MI.).*!
luUI
Mercury
Dissolved




Total




Nitrogen
Atnnonia

Kjeldahl
Hitrate
Nitrite
NTA
Oil & Grease

Organic Carbon

pH

Phenol ics


Vol.
reg.
(ml)
100
100
100
1,000
100
'jO
50
50
50
500



300
300
300
100
100
250

200

IUU

100




100





400

500
100
50
50
1.000

25

2S

500


Container
P,Gb
P,G
P.G
P.G
P.G
I'.C
p. a
P,G
P.G
P.G



G only
G only
P.G
P.G
P.G
P.G

P.G



P.G




P.G





P.G

P.G
P.G
P,G
P.G
G only

P.G

P.G

G only


Preservation
Cool , 4*C
Cool. 4°C
HN03 to pH < 2
Cool , 4°C
Cool. 4°C
H2i04 to P" < 2
None Req.
Cool, 4eC
Cool, 4°C
Cool , 4°C
NaOH to pH 12


Det. on site
Fix. on site
Cool. 4'C
Cool . 4°C
Cool, 4"C
Cool , 4°C

Filter on site
HNOj to pH < 2
filter on s(l.»
IINU3 La pll < 2

Filter
HN03 to pH < 2



HN03 to pH < 2





Cool . 4°C
H2S04 to pH < 2
Cool , 4°C
IbSOn to pll < 2
Cool . 4"C
H2SCool° SV Z
Cool , 4°C
Cool . 4°C
H2S04 to pH < 2
Cool , 4°C
HzS04 to pH < 2
Cool . 4°C
Det. on site
Cool . 4°C
HiPOa to pH < 4
1.0 g CuS04/l-
Standard
Holding Method
tinic1* Number^
24 hrs
24 hrs
6 mos
6 hrsc
24 hrs
/ days
7 days
24 hrs
24 hrs
24 hrs



None
None
7 days
7 days
24 hrs
24 hrs

6 months
6 months


38 days
(glass)
13 days
(hard
plastic)
38 days
(glass)
13 days
(hard
plastic)

24 hrsd

24 hrsd
24 hrsd
24 hrsd
24 hrs
24 hrs

24 hrs

6hrsc.

24 hrs


402
403
404
507
406
!>UU
400
4)2
204
413

402



414
309
416
512
301



315










417
418

421
419
420
--
502

505

424

574


                  C-18

-------
TABLE C-7  (continued)
Measurement
I'liuiphurui
Ortho-
phosphate,
dissolved
Hydrolyzable

Total
Iota),
dissolved

Residue
Filterable
Non-filterable
Total
Volatile
Settleable
matter 1
Selenium
Silica
Specific
conductance
Sul fate
Sulfido

Sulfite
Temperature 1
Threshold
odor
Turbidity
• Vol.
rey.
(ml)


50

50

50

50


100
100
100
100

,000
50
50

100
50
50

50
,000

200
100
Container


P,G

P.G

P.G

P.G


' • P.G
P,G
P.G
P,G

P,G
P.G
P only

P.G
P.G
P.G

P.G
P.G

G only
P.G
Preservation


Filter on site
Cool, 4°C
Cool , 4°C
H2S04 to pH < 2
Cool , 4°C

Filter on site
Cool, 4°C

Cool , 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool . 4°C
Cool , 4°C

None Req.
IIN03 to pH < 2
Cool, 4°C

Cool . 4°C
Cool, 4"C
t ml zinc
• acetate
Cool, 4°C
Get. on site

Cool , 4°C
Cool. 4°C
Holding
	 tte* 	


24 hrsd

24 hrsd

24 hrsd

24 hrsd


7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days

24 hrs
6 months
7 days

24 hrse
7 days
24 hrs

24 hrs
None

24 hrs
7 days
StjtuUrd
Method
Number'^


4E5








208




208
318
426

205
427
428

429
212

206
214
  a  More  specific  instructions  for  iirusorvatlon  and  b-imiil Iny  oru found with
       cjcn procedure as detailed in the literature (25).
  b  Plastic or ylass

  c  If  samples cannot  be returned to the laboratory  in  less  than  6 hrs and
       holding lime  exceeds  this  limit,  the  final  reported data should  indi-
       cate the actual holding time.

  d  Mercuric chloride may be  used as an alternate preservation at a concen-
       tration of  41} iwj/1,  especially if a  longer  holding time is  required.
       However, the  use  of  mercuris  chloride  is  discouraged  whenever pos-
       sible.

  c  If  thu sample is  stabili/od  by,cool ing,  it  should be wanned to 25°C for
       reading or  temperature correction made and results  reported  at 25°C.

  f  It  has  been  shown  that  samples properly  preserved may  be  held for
       extended periods beyond the recommended holding time.

  9  The  numbers   in this column refer  to  the  appropriate  parts  of   the
       "standard  Methods  for  the  Examination of Water  and  Wastewater, 14th
       edition, APHA-AHWA-WPCF, 1975.
                                     C-19

-------
           Sulfates.
           Total organic carbon.
           Ni trate-ni trogen.
           Total phosphorus.
           Methylene blue  active  substances  (surfactants).
           Selected metals or toxic  substances, where applicable.
           Indicator microorganisms.

Regulatory agencies  may  require fewer  or more  parameters  than  listed
above,  depending  on the  sensitivity of  the aquifer  being  sampled and
other factors.

     C.4.5 Ground Water Monitoring  in the  Unsaturated Zone

The unsaturated soil zone is  the soil located vertically between  ground
surface and the top of the water table.   Collection devices installed in
the unsaturated zone will collect samples of the  leachate migrating down
from the  sludge amended  surface  soil to the  ground  water aquifer, and
can  provide early warning  of potential   future  ground water contamina-
tion.  Unsaturated zone monitoring  is rarely required  or used.   Possible
uses  are   for  research  and demonstration  projects or occasionally for
dedicated  land  disposal  sites.  The  most commonly used devices to col-
lect leachate  are pressure-vacuum  lysimeters.   They  are relatively in-
expensive  and  fairly  reliable.  A  typical  pressure-vacuum lysimeter is
shown  in   Figure  C-2.    In an  optimum  arrangement, lysimeters  are in-
stalled at various depths  in  the unsaturated zone.  Bentonite plugs are
placed at  the top and bottom  of• each hole  during  backfilling to prevent
channeling  of  contaminated  surface  water  directly  to the  lysimeter.
Alternatively,  the  lysimeters  can  be  installed  horizontally  into the
soil or at angles along  the  edge of the  site.  There  is some indication
in  literature  that  horizontal  placement  is better than vertical  place-
ment.  The porous ceramic cup  in each lysimeter  should be surrounded by
a slurry of wet, fine quartz which ensures  hydraulic continuity with the
surrounding soil.

After the  lysimeters are in place, a  vacuum is applied to the system and
the tubes  are  clamped  off.  To  collect  leachate samples,  the vacuum is
released and  the  discharge tube  is placed  in a  sample  container.  Air
pressure is applied to  the other tube which forces the leachate up the
tube and into the sample container.

The degree to which the  porous cup  selectively filters various elements
may  pose   a potential   problem  for  collecting  representative  samples.
Preliminary testing should be  conducted  to  evaluate whether the parame-
ter of concern is filtered out by the porous cup.

C.5  Surface Waters

Properly   designed   sludge-to-land   application   sites   are   generally
located, constructed,  and operated to minimize  the   chance  of  surface
water  runoff  containing sludge  constituents.   For sites  utilizing the
                                   C-20

-------
                    —Screened
                     Backfill


                    —Bentonits
                     -Screened Backfill
                     Bentonite
                                 Access Tube
                                 (Pressure/Vacuum)

                                 Access Tube
                                 (Discharge)

                                 Clamp Ring

                                 Nepprsne
                                 Plug
                                  Body Tube

                                  Porous Ceramic Cup
Figure C-2
Typical  pressure/vacuum  lysimeter
for  leachate monitoring.
                                  C-21

-------
agricultural  utilization  option at  agronomic rates  of  sludge applica-
tion, surface  water monitoring is rarely  required.   Generally, surface
water monitoring  is done  only in one,  or  more,  of the following situa-
•H one •
tions:
          Surface water  runoff from the site  is  collected,  stored, and
          discharged  to  surface  waters  outside  the application  area
          under an NPDES permit.
          The sludge  application  site is in  close  proximity  to surface
              >rs  which  are  sensitive  (e.g.,  drinking  water  supplies,
          waters  which are  sensitive  (e.g.,  drinking  water supplies,
          swimming areas,etc.), and monitoring is required by the cogni-
          zant regulatory agency to ensure that migration of sludge con-
          stituents to these surface waters is not occuring.

     t    It  is  desirable  for public  acceptance purposes  to  moderate
          community concern about surface water quality  impacts.

     C.5.1  Surface Water Monitoring Procedures

Selection of  surface  water  sampling stations,  equipment, and procedures
should  follow a  systematic plan.   Surface sampling  stations  should be
located  in  areas which represent .the  greatest  potential for contamina-
tion.    These points  can  be  determined after  examining  the  pathways
available for runoff  to enter a surface  water  body.   Flow patterns and
seasonal variations should be noted when applicable.

          C.5.1.1  Rivers and Streams

Sampling  stations  should be  established at  stream  sections where the
water composition  is  relatively  uniform.  Such  sections can be located
on small- and medium-size streams, but are frequently impossible to find
on large  rivers.   Where uniform sections can  be found, sampling proce-
dures may  often  be simplified to  the extent that  a  single grab sample
may be obtained that is representative of the stream composition in that
general  location.

          C.5.1.2  Lakes and Reservoirs

A thorough  study of water  composition can  be made by  sampling  along a
three-dimensional  grid pattern;  samples  can  be  collected  at different
depths at each grid intersection.  A more economical approach is to sam-
ple a different depth along selected cross sections and  sampling points.
When only one sample is collected to define the average  character of the
lake or  reservoir,  it should be collected near  the center of the water
mass.  However,  a  single sample  is  completely  inadequate for a study of
a lake of any size,  and at  best  provides only an approximation of aver-
age water quality.   To evaluate the quality  of  reservoir water for po-
tential  downstream users, the sampling site should be located at or near
the point of  discharge.
                                  C-22

-------
Surface water sampling equipment  should  be  suited  to  the  goals  of  a  par-
ticular monitoring  program.  Sampling  equipment  and procedures  can range
from  continuous  or intermediate automated samplers to manual collection
by filling a container by hand.   Manual  sampling is generally considered
to be adequate.

     C.5.2  Surface Water Sample  Preparation

See Table C-7.

     C.5.3  Surface Water Parameters

Generally, the parameters of concern in a surface water monitoring  pro-
gram are those which either may affect public health, or those  which may
contribute to eutrophication,  e.g.,  nitrogen and phosphorus.   An  illus-
tration of parameters which  are often  analyzed in surface water samples
taken in connection with sludge application site(s) monitoring is shown
in the following list:

          Fecal  coliforms.
          Total-P.
          Total  N (Kjeldahl).
          Dissolved oxygen.
          BOD or TOC.
          Temperature.
          pH.
          Suspended solids.

C.6  Sludge

Virtually all POTW's  which  intend to  apply  sludge  to land under one of
the sludge utilization  options covered by this  manual  will  be required
to routinely  sample and  analyze  the  sludge  being applied.   Among  the
many purposes for sludge monitoring are:

     0    To obtain baseline data on sludge  physical  and chemical  char-
          acteristics  prior to  design  of the  sludge to land utilization
          system (see  Chapter 3).   This data is necessary to design vir-
          tually every component  of  the  system,  e.g., sludge transport,
          application  site size, sludge application rates, etc.

     a    To provide  records  of  the  quantity  of  sludge  constituents,
          e.g.,  nutrients, metals, etc., being applied to the sludge ap-
          plication site(s).

          To  verify  adequate  sludge
          POTW.
stabilization  operations  at  the
          To satisfy regulatory agency requirements.
                                  C-23

-------
     C.6.1  Sludge Sampling Frequency

The frequency  of sludge sampling  necessary will usually  be  set by the
regulatory agency, and may vary from daily  samples for a very large sys-
tem to  quarterly samples for  a  very small  system.   See Section 11.5.2
for a general  discussion of  factors  involved in determining sludge sam-
pling frequency.

Since concentrations of many constituents in sewage sludge from the same
POTW vary  significantly  over time (see Appendix  A),  a single sample is
generally not  representative of sludge quality over time.  Multiple sam-
ples should be taken  to assure statistically  valid  estimates  of sludge
constituent concentrations.   A typical  simplified procedure is outlined
below.

     t    Step  1:   Take weekly  composite  samples for five consecutive
          weeks  and analyze  the  constituents  of  concern (e.g.,  percent
          solids, nutrients,  heavy metals,  etc.)  for each of  the  five
          samples.

     •    Step 2:  Calculate the  average concentration for each constit-
          uent  by summing  the  sample  concentrations  and dividing  by
          five.

     •    Step  3:   Calculate the statistical  variances  to determine if
          there  is a 95  percent  probability that the average  determined
          in  Step 2  is within  ±25 percent  of  the  "actual"  average.
          "Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater" (4)
          contains a section on precision and accuracy which details de-
          termination  of 5  percent probability.  The  formula  below can
          be used:
          Variance = (0.25 x (x-y)

          Where: x  =  the sum of  the squares of the  five  weekly
          concentrations; and y-.= one-fifth the square of the sum
          five weekly sample concentrations.
sample
of the
          Step 4:  Multiple 123.3 times  the  variance  and divide the re-
          sult by the square of the  average  calculated  in Step 2.  This
          provides a "testing  number."  If the "testing number" is below
          5..00,  then the average concentration  calculated in  Step 2 has
          statistically  95 percent  probability.

          If the  "testing  number"  is above  5.0,  additional weekly com-
          posite sludge  samples should be taken  until  an average concen-
          tration with 95 percent  probability is obtained.
                                  C-24

-------
      C.6.2  Sludge  Sampling  Location
 The  sludge samples should be representative of  the  sludge  being  applied
 to  the application  site  (5).    If  sludge is being  hauled  directly  from
 the  POTW,  and applied without intervening storage,  sample  may  be compo-
 sited  at  the' POTW.   However,  if  sludge is stored at. an  intermediate
 facility  prior to field  application,  the sludge samples should  be  com-
 posited  after withdrawal   from  the  storage  facility.   Many sludge  con-
 stituents  .usually   increase,  but  ammonia  nitrogen  concentration   de-
 creases.   Obviously,  the best. location  for sludge sampling  is  at  the
 sludge application  site itself  during  application  operations.

     C.6^3  Sludge  Sample Preservation

 Sludge  samples should be refrigerated at approximately 4°C immediately
 after collection, which provides  adequate preservation  for  most types of
 sludge  physical   and  chemical  analyses  for  a  period  of up to 7 days,
 i.e., sufficient  to obtain a weekly composite sample.   Analysis for  bac-
teria,  parasite,  etc.,
24 hours.   If this is
 should  be  made  as  soon as possible, e.g., within
not possible, the samples may be frozen.
     C.6.4. Sludge Parameters

The common analyses for sludge are as  follows:

          Percent solids.
          Percent volatile solids.
          Ammonia nitrogen*
          Total-nitrogen.
          Heavy metals (Zn, Ni, Cu, Pb, and Cd).
          Total phosphorous.

Other analyses  may  be performed routinely because  of. a specific sludge
characteristic known to be significant or because of regulatory require-
ments.  These may include:

         • Chromium'.
          Mercury.
          Arsenic.
          Various' pesticides and other persistent organics.
          Phenols.
          Biological.

Table C-8 lists standard extraction methods for certain sludge elements.
When the element is in solution, see Table.C-3 for analytical methods.
C.7  References   '

 1.  Black, C. A.,  ed.   Methods of Soil Analysis.
     Agronomy, Madison,  Wisconsin, 1965.  1572 pp.
                              American Society  of
                                  C-25

-------
                          TABLE C-8
             EXTRACTION METHODS FOR  SLUDGES
El ement
Nitrogen (N):
Total N
N-ammoni a
N-nltrate
N-nitrite
Phosphorus (P):
Total P
Organic P
Inorganic P
Carbon (C)
Organic C
Reference
Method Number

Kjeldahl digestion
Extract with 2N KC1
Extract with 2N KC1
Extract with 2N KC1

Persulfate digestion
Persulfate digestion
Total P minus organic P

a) IN K?Cr?0,
u \ 	 _-.=•_ 4.±r-..& ,,»j u en

i
i
i
i

4
4
-

1
Page
1164
1191
1191
1191

474
474-
-

1374
  Total C
  Inorganic C
Metals
c) water

Digestion with 60:40
  concentrated
  H2S04/85% H3P04

Digestion with concen-
  trated HoSOd
  and FeS04 .  7H20

Digest with HNO, +
  HC104
1350



1386


 144
                             C-26

-------
  2.   Walsh,  L.  M.,  and J.  D.  Beaton,  eds.   Soil  Testing and Plant Analy-
      sis.   Soil  Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, 1973.

  3.   Woolson,  E. A., 0. H. Azley,  and  P.  C.  Kearney.   The Chemistry and
      Phytoxicity of Arsenic in Soils.  Soil  Science Society  of America,
      1973.   pp.  254-259.

  4.   Standard Methods  for  the  Examination  of Water and Wastewater.   14th
      Edition.    American  Public  Health Association,  Washington,  D.C.,
      1976.   1193 pp.

  5.   Ellis,  R.   Sampling and Analysis  of Soils,  Plants,  Wastewaters, and
      Sludge:   Suggested Standardization and  Methodology.   North  Central
      Regional  Publication   230,  Agricultural  Experiment Station,  Kansas
      State University,  Manhattan,  December 1975.   20 pp.

  6.   Methods  for Chemical  Analysis of  Water and Wastes.   EPA-625/6-74-
      003a,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Cincinnati, Ohio,  July
      1976.

  7.   Lindsay, W.  L., and W. A.  Norvell.  Development of  a  DTPA  Soil  Test
      for Zinc,  Iron, Manganese, and Copper.   J., 42:421-428,  1978.

  8.   Walsh,  J.    Process Design Manual for Municipal  Sludge Landfills.
      EPA-625/1-78-010,  SCS Engineers,  Reston,  Virginia,  October  1978.
      331 pp.

  9.   Blakeslee,  P. A.   Site Monitoring Considerations.   In:   Application
      of Sludges  and Wastewaters on Agricultural Land:   A Planning  and
      Educational  Guide,  B.  D.  Knezek  and  R. H. Miller, eds.  Ohio Agri-
      cultural Research  and  Development Center, Wooster,  1976.   pp. 11.1-
      J. J. • 0 o

10.   Loehr, R. C.,  W.  J. Jewell,  J. D. Novak, W. W. Clarkson,  and G. S.
Friedman.   Land Application  of  Wastes,  Volume  2.
Reinhold, New York, 1979.  431 pp.
                                                            Van Nostrand
11.  Environmental  Protection Agency  National  Primary  Drinking  Water
     Regulations.  40 CFR 141.

12.  Environmental Protection  Agency National Secondary  Drinking  Water
     Regulations.  40 CFR 143.

13.  Edmonds, R.  L.,  and D.  W.  Cole.   Use  of  Dewatered Sludge  as an
     Amendment for Forest Growth.   College  of Forest Resources, Univer-
     sity of Washington, Seattle, August 1977.

14.  Fenn, D. G.   Procedures Manual  for Ground Water Monitoring at Solid
     Waste  Disposal   Facilities.     EPA/30/SW-611,  Wehran  Engineering,
     Mahwah, New Jersey, August 1977.  283 pp.
                                  C-27

-------

-------
                                APPENDIX  D

                 CASE  STUDY  OF  SLUDGE  USE FOR  RECLAMATION
        OF DISTURBED MINING LANDS IN VENANGO COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
The  Venango  County,  Pennsylvania,  demonstration  project  provides  an
example  of  a well-planned  and managed  reclamation  project  that used
sludges  from  local  small  cities to reclaim a bituminous coal strip mine
spoil  bank  that had been  recontoured  without  topsoil  replacement.  The
post-mining land utilization of the site was vegetation establishment to
reduce  soil   erosion  and  sedimentation  followed by  natural succession
leading  to a  mixed hardwood forest cover.

D.I  Site Location

The  site was mined  by  a  coal  company in 1965,  and  is located in Irwin
Township, Venango  County,  Pennsylvania.   It was mined prior to the pas-
sage of  the  current surface mining regulations  (PL  95-87) that  require
topsoil  replacement.  Three previous attempts were made by the coal com-
pany to  reclaim the area  using lime, commercial  fertilizer,  and seed;
however,  these  efforts were  unsuccessful  and the site  was essentially
barren.   Four ha  (10 ac)  of the approximate 40  ha (100 ac)  area  was se-
lected for  sludge  application  in a demonstration  project.   To maximize
the  value of the  project,  both liquid and dewatered  sludges  at  a high
and low  rate  were  applied.   After  completion  of the demonstration proj-
ect, it  is planned to  continue to  use sludge to complete reclaiming the
remaining 36  ha (90 ac).

D.2  Preliminary Preparations

     D.2.1  Pretreatment Soil Sampling

Twenty-one soil  pits were  excavated  on the  demonstration  site  with  a
backhoe  to a  depth  of  90  cm (36 in).   Each pit was used for the collec-
tion of  soil  samples and  for the installation  of suction lysimeters for
percolate water  sample  collection.   Three  soil  pits  were  excavated  in
each sludge treatment sub-plot and in an adjacent control.  Soil  samples
were collected at  the   0  to 15 (0  to 6 in) 15 to 30 (6 to 12 in), 30 to
60 (12 to 24  in), and 60 to 90 cm (24 to 36 in) depth for chemical anal-
yses.  For a  site  not  being used  as  a demonstration, only  3 to  4 soil
pits would be needed for monitoring purposes.   Surface soil samples were
collected from the area for initial soil  pH to determine liming require-
ments,  and the cation exchange capacity of the area.

     D.2.2  Monitoring  Instrumentation

A monitoring  system was established as required  in Pennsylvania,  to de-
termine the effects of the sludge applications  on chemical  and bacterio-
logical  quality  of  ground  water  and  soil  percolate,  on the  chemical
properties of the soil, and on  the  vegetation.
                                   D-l

-------
Two suction  lysimeters were  installed  in  the  excavated  soil  pits at the
90 cm (35 in) depth  for  the  collection of percolate water samples.   One
was used  specifically  for the collection of  percolate  water  for bacte-
rial analyses (total and fecal coliform) and the other for routine chem-
ical water  quality  analyses.  Samples were collected bi-weekly  for the
first five  months and then  monthly thereafter.   For non-demonstration,
large-scale projects in Pennsylvania, only monthly sampling is required.

Three 15  cm (6  in)  diameter  ground water  wells  were drilled  to  monitor
the effects  of  the  sludge application on  ground  water  quality.   Ground
water well  sites  were  located by  geologists  of the Pennsylvania  Depart-
ment of Environmental  Resources to collect samples upgradient and down-
gradient of the sludge application site.  The depth of each well  and the
depth to the water level at  the time of drilling was as follows:
        Well No.

     1 (upgradient)
     2 (downgradient)
     3 (downgradient)

Metric conversion factor:

  1 m = 3.281 ft.
18.0
17.8
11.4
 Depth to
Water Level
    (m)

    5.3
    3.3
    2.1
Ground water  well  samples were collected on the same schedule as perco-
late water samples.  Samples were collected with both a submersible pump
and  a Kemmerer  water  sampler.   The pump  was used to  remove standing
water and  draw-down  the  well.   After recovery, the pump was used to ob-
tain a sample of fresh water in the well.  For nondemonstration projects
in  Pennsylvania,  only one downgradient  ground  water  monitoring  well  is
required.
Water  samples  were also collected from two
stration  plots.   The samples were analyzed
the  soil  percolate water  samples.
             lakes adjacent to the demon-
             for the same constituents as
      D.2.3   Background  Sludge  Sampling

 Sludge  for  the  demonstration  project was  obtained from  POTW's  at the
 cities  of Parrel!,  Franklin,  and Oil City, Pennsylvania.  Liquid sludge
 was  obtained from Farrell  and  Oil City,  and dewatered  sludge from Frank-
 lin  and Oil  City.   Sludge  samples were collected from  each plant and an-
 alyzed  to determine the loading  rates  and acceptability of the sludges
 for  land application.   Analysis of the  sludge constituents as they were
 applied to the  site are presented  in Tables D-l and  D-2.
                                    D-2

-------
                  TABLE D-l
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF DEWATERED SLUDGE APPLIED
  ON THE VENANGO COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PLOTS

Constituent
PH


Total P
No3-N
NH4-N
Organic N
Total N
Ca
Mg
Na
K
AT
Mn
Fe
Co
Zn
Cu
Pb
Cr
Ni
Cd
Hg
PCB

Mean
7.9


4,624
46
727
12,188
12,962
9,970
2,082
286
93
6,133
1,651
29,709
22
811
661
349
413
69
3.2
0.6
1.2
Range
High
8.2
nnm nn Hr*v wo "inhi* K^cic
p pill Ul i Ul Jr WC I y 1 1 U U Q o 1 o
6,327
52
839
14,612
15,500
12,699
3,108
350
142
8,641
2,703
44,561
34
1,008
967
377
665
111
4.1
0.9
1.4

Low
7.7


2,701
40
635
9,990
10,768
3,805
590
235
44
1,208
285
5,912
13
295
471
302
180
55
1.2
0.4
1.0
                      D-3

-------
                     TABLE D-2
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF LIQUID DIGESTED  SLUDGE  APPLIED
     ON THE VENANGO COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PLOTS

Constituent
pH
Total P
No3-N
NH4-N
Organic N
Total N
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Al
Mn
Fe
Co
Zn
Cu
Pb
Cr
Ni
Cd
Hg
PCB

Mean
6.8
5,883
1,780
4,217
20,509
26,506
39,726
6,689
6,264
407
19,545
808
28,517
21
1,796
1,750
999
1,560
113
8.8
0.9
1.5
Range
High
7.0,
Dorn on drv weidht basis
iJLflll \j 1 1 Mljr »• t , lyiii* u \A~J t *j
7,293
3,869
6,295
25,021
35,185
63,836
12,051
8,734
542
42,083
1,022
34,460
25
2,138
2,481
1,201
2,521
129
14.1
1.6
2.7

Low
6.6
4,819
528
2,633
18,010
21,750
26,344
4,707
3,935
304
6,667
531
20,909
19
1,031
793
741
409
95
5.7
0.4
0.1
                         D-4

-------
D.3  Site Preparation

Four 1-ha  (2.5-ac)  plots
tion.  Two of these-plots
dewatered sludge.

     D.3.1  Scarification
were  laid  out and marked  for  sludge  applica-
received liquid digested sludge, the other two
Prior to application, a  portion  of  the  demonstration  area was scarified
with a tractor and  chisel  plow.   This  was necessary because the surface
spoil material had been compacted in the backfilling and leveling opera-
tion.  In addition, the roughened surface would prevent runoff of sludge
should an  unusually heavy rainfall  occur during  the  sludge application
operation.   The  area  to  receive  the  dewatered  sludge  was  completely
scarified.  However, the chisel plow dug up many large rocks and brought
them to  the surface.   As  a  result,  it  was decided to  scarify  only the
perimeter of  the  plots  to receive liquid digested  sludge,  as a precau-
tion against sludge runoff.

     D.3.2  Liming

Analyses of surface soil  samples  indicated  that the average soil pH was
3.9  (buffer pH 5.9) in the area to receive dewatered sludge.  Therefore,
agricultural  lime was  applied at  the  rate  of 12.3  mt/ha  (5.5 T/ac).
This amount of lime was  sufficient  to  raise the soil  pH to 6.5.  Liming
is a Pennsylvania regulatory  requirement  and is necessary to immobilize
the  heavy metal constituents  in  the  sludge  and prevent them from leach-
ing  into the ground water.

Lime was also applied to one plot (1.0 ha; 2.5 ac) to receive liquid di-
gested sludge.  Average soil  pH was 6.1  (buffer  pH was  6.6).   Lime was
applied at the rate of 4.5 mt/ha.

     D.3.3  Diversions and Berms

Diversion ditches were  installed to  prevent  sludge  runoff in the direc-
tion of the two lakes on  the  property.   A berm was constructed on three
sides of the  dewatered  sludge  unloading  and storage area to prevent any
movement of sludge  from the area and to  prevent  water running  into the
sludge unloading  area from higher ground.

D.4  Sludge Application and Incorporation

Because of the diversity  of waste treatment processes and the variation
in concentration  of  constituents  in the sludges, it  was  decided to mix
the  sludges  on the  site prior to  application.   Samples of  the sludge
mixture were  collected  as the  sludge  was applied  on  the demonstration
plots.  Six composite samples were collected as the dewatered sludge was
applied and five  composite samples  were collected  as  the liquid sludge
was  applied.  The results  of  these  analyses are given in Table D-l (de-
watered sludge) and Table  D-2  (liquid digested sludge).   Average solids
                                   D-5

-------
content for the  liquid digested sludge was 3  percent  and  for the dewa-
tered  sludge  was 52  percent.   Average  total  nitrogen content  was  1.3
percent for the dewatered sludge and 2.7 percent for the liquid digested
sludge.

Results of the sludge analyses were used to calculate the amounts of se-
lected nutrients  and  trace elements applied in the  various application
rates.  These amounts are given in Table D-3.

A  comparison  of the  maximum sludge application  rate"with the  EPA  and
PDER recommendations is given in Table D-4.  The amounts of trace metals
applied in the  sludge were below the  PDER  recommendations  with  the ex-
ception of copper.   The amount of  copper  applied  slightly exceeded the
POER recommendation but was well below the EPA recommendation.

The commercial  fertilizer  equivalents  of the  various sludge application
rates are given in Table D-5.  The highest sludge application rate would
be  equivalent  to applying  10 mt/ha (4.5 T/ac) of  an  11-9-0 commercial
fertilizer.  The  value  of  the  sludge  as a commercial fertilizer substi-
tute is quite obvious.

     D.4.1  Liquid Digested Sludge

During May 17-23, 1977, liquid digested sludge was hauled in tank trucks
(19,000 to 26,000 1;  5,020 to  6,869 gal) from the cities of Farrell  and
Oil City.   At the  site the liquid sl'udge was  emptied  from the  tankers
into a temporary small  holding pond with a plastic liner.  The pond pro-
vided  a means  for mixing the two  sludges.  A  vacuum tank  liquid manure
spreader with a  5,700  1 (1,506  gal) capacity  pumped the sludge from the
holding pond  and spread it on the  plots  (Figure  D-l).   One-half of the
demonstration area  received  liquid  sludge  at  an application rate of 155
nr/ha  (equivalent to  11 dry mt/ha; 4.9  T/ac).   The other  half received
sludge at the  rate  of  103 m /ha  (equivalent to 7  dry mt/ha; 3.1 T/ac).
It was not possible to apply the liquid digested sludge at the proposed
design rate of 20 mt/ha because infiltration was restricted, and no more
sludge could be applied without the threat of producing surface runoff.

     D.4.2  Dewatered Sludge

During May 18-21, 1977, dewatered  sludge was  transported by coal trucks
from the cities of Franklin and Oil City.  A total of 588 wet mt (647 T)
of  sludge was  transported to the  site.   The  sludge from the two treat-
ment plants was  unloaded at the site  and  mixed with a front-end loader
prior to application with  a farm manure spreader (Figure D-2).  One-half
of  the demonstration  site  (1.0  ha; 2.5 ac)  received  an  application of
dewatered sludge  at the rate of 90 mt/ha (40.0 T/ac) and the other half
(1.0 ha;  2.5  ac) received 184 mt/ha  (82.1  T/ac).   Sludge  spreading was
completed by  May 25,  1977.   On May  26,  1977, a tractor  with a 6.4-mt
(7.04  T)  disc attachment  was  used to incorporate  the .sludge  into the
surface 10 cm (4 in) of spoil material  (Figure D-3).
                                   D-6

-------
                        TABLE  D-3
       AMOUNTS OF SELECTED NUTRIENTS  AND TRACE
 ELEMENTS APPLIED BY  EACH SLUDGE APPLICATION  ON  THE
        '  VENANGO COUNTY  DEMONSTRATION PLOTS
                Sludge Application Rate in Metric Tons/Hectare

Constituent        184          90          11         ]_

                	 ---___ kg/ha -  	
Total N. •
P :
K
Cu
Zn
Cr,
Pb . • -. .
Ni
Co
Cd
Hg
2,388
918
' 18
129
147
74 .
55 .
12
3
0.6
0.09
1,165
448
9
63
72
36
27
7
2
0.2
0.04
284
63
4
21
21
16
10
1
0.2
0.09
• 0.01
187
41
2
13
13
10 ,
7
0.7
0.1
0.07
0.007
 Metric conversion factors:

  1 kg/ha .= 0.89 Ib/ac.
  !• rat/ha = 0.446 T/ac.
                      TABLE D-4
    COMPARISON OF TRACE METAL LOADINGS AT THE
    VENANGO  COUNTY  DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WITH
       •• EPA  AND PDER RECOMMENDATIONS  (13)



Constituent


Cu
Zn
Cd
Pb
Ni
. 'Cr
Hg
Sludge
Application
Rate
184 rat/ha

,
129
147
0.6
55
12
'74
0.09
Recommendations

EPA .
(CEC 5-15)
- - kn/ha _______

250
500
IP
1,000
250
NRf
NR1"



PDER


112
224
, 3
112
22'
112
0.6
* Average CEC of site ranged from 11.6 to 15.2 meq/lOOg.
t No recommendations given by EPA.

Metric conversion factors:
  1 mt/ha
  1 kg/ha
0.446 T/ac
0.89 Ib/ac.
                            D-7

-------
                             TABLE  D-5
             COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER EQUIVALENTS OF THE
            SLUDGE APPLICATION RATES IN VENANGO COUNTY
SI udge
Application
Rate
mt/ha .
184
90
11
7
Fertil
Amount
kg/ha
22,400
11,200
2,240
2,240
izer Equivalent
N
kg/ha (%)
2,388 (11)
1,165 (10)
284 (13) '
187 (8)
(Fertilizer
P2°5
kg/ha (%)
2,103 (9)
1,026 (9)
143 (6)
95 (4)
Formula)
K20
kg/ha (%)
21 (0)
11(0)
6 (0)
2 (0)
Metric conversion factors:

  1 mt/ha - 0.446 T/ac
  1 kg/ha = 0.89 Ib/ac.
                                D-8

-------
Figure D-l.   Applying liquid digested sludge with a vacuum liquid
             manure spreader on a bituninous strip mine spoil  bank,
 Figure  D-2.
Applying composted sludge to a strip mine site after
top soil replacement and liming.
(Courtesy of Dr. William Sopper)
                                D-9

-------

                          cssy-'-v** . »•,**
                                                             '
                       £*&£*•$ •*?<"*:?: ^ '*£*& *%&&&£&&  *
 Figure  D-3.
 Incorporation  of 184 mt/ha  of dewatered  sludge  with  a
 disc on an  abandoned strip  mine  site  in  Pennsylvania.
 (Courtesy of Dr. William  Sopper)
Figure D-4.
Portion of same site as shown in Figure      three
months after sludge incorporation and seeding.   Note
complete lush vegetative cover.   Within five years
the grass species shown was almost completely replaced
by permanent legume species.
(Courtesy of Dr. William Sopper)
                                D-10

-------
D.5  Seeding and Mulching

During May  27-31,  1977, the sludge-treated areas were  broadcast  seeded
with a mixture  of two  grasses  and  two legumes.  The seed  mixture  used
was:
     Kentucky-31 tall fescue
     Pennlate orchardgrass
     Penngift crownvetch
     Birdsfoot trefoil

     Total

Metric conversion factor:

  1 kg/ha = 0.89 lab/ac
kg/ha

  22
  22
  11
  66
This  seeding  mixture was selected  so  that the two  grass  species would
germinate  quickly,  and  provide  a  complete  protective cover  the first
year  allowing time  for  the  two  legume  species to  become established and
develop into the final vegetative cover.

The seed  of the  two grass species was  mixed together and applied with a
tractor-mounted  seeder.   The  seed of the two legume species was innocu-
lated, mixed together, and broadcast seeded with hand-carried whirlybird
seeders.   On  large-scale operations,   the entire  seed mixture  can  be
broadcast  seeded at one time with a tractor-mounted seeder.  Immediately
after  seeding,  the  entire 4-ha  (10 ac) demonstration  site  was mulched
with  straw and  hay  at the rate  of 3.8  mt/ha  (1.7 T/ac), although mulch-
ing is normally  not necessary unless required by state regulations.

D.6   Monitoring  Program

Some  of the monitoring  data  is  presented here as  an example of the type
of  information  which  are collected on  reclamation projects using sludge
in  Pennsylvania.

      D.6.1 Vegetation Growth Responses

Vegetation growth  responses were  evaluated  at  the end  of  each growing
season.   The  results  of these measurements are given in Table D-6.  All
sludge treated  areas  had a complete cover of vegetation by August 1977
(Figure D-4),  3 months  after sludge application.  Both vegetation height
growth and dry matter production  continually increased during the fol-
lowing 4-year period  with no additional  sludge additions.
                                   D-ll

-------
                                TABLE  D-6
                 VEGETATION HEIGHT GROWTH AND  DRY  MATTER
           PRODUCTION AT THE VENANGO COUNTY  DEMONSTRATION  SITE

Sludge
Application

7
11
90
184

1977

29
32
34
35
Heigh
1978

37
30
41
52
t
1979

52
43
41
44

1980

55
48
49
58
Dry Matter Production
---_----___ kn/ha

7
11
90
184
6,349
7,731
4,757
6,013
9,537
8,654
7,409
9,336
18,538
17,141
13,327
11,322
34,403
26,664
26,060
31,189
            Metric conversion factors:

             1 rat/ha = 0.446 T/ac
             1 cm = 0.3937 in
             1 kg/ha - 0.89 Ib/ac.
 During  the  first  two  growing  seasons, the  two grass  species  were the
 dominant  vegetation type on all  sludge treated plots.  During the second
 growing  season the  two grasses  (tall  fescue  and  orchardgrass)  produced
 prolific  seed  heads.    Seed heads  were collected  from 30  cm  (12 in)
 square  plots and weighed.   Results indicated a seed production ranging
 from  168  to 336 kg  (370 to 741 Ib)  of seed per ha  (150 to  300 Ib/ac).
 By  the  third growing season, the two  legume  species  were  well  developed
 and  had become  the predominant  vegetation  cover on the  plots  treated
 with  liquid  digested  sludge and  the  limed dewatered sludge  treated
 plots.  The unlimed dewatered sludge treated  plots were still  vegetated
 primarily  by the  two   grass  species  with only  a  few sparse patches  of
 legumes.

 Samples of  the  individual  grass  and legume species were  collected at the
 end of each  growing  season  for foliar  analyses.  Results for  tall  fescue
 and birdsfoot  trefoil  for the highest  sludge  application rate  are given
 in Table D-7 for 1977 to  1980.   Foliar  trace  metal concentrations gener-
 ally decreased  over  the 4-year period.   Overall, the  trace  metal  concen-
trations were  well  below the suggested tolerance  levels.   These  levels
 represent the  level at  which a  yield  reduction might occur and  do not
                                  D-12

-------
represent levels at which  severe toxicity  occurs.   There were no phyto-
toxicity  symptoms  observed  for any  vegetation on  the  sludge  treated
areas.                                                               .


                               TABLE D-7
          AVERAGE CONCENTRATION IN  UG/G OF  TRACE METALS IN THE
            FOLIAR SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THE 184 mt/ha PLOT
                AT THE VENANGO COUNTY DEMONSTRATION SITE
Species
Tall Fescue










Birdsfoot






Trefoil



Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1977
1978
1979
1980
Suggeste3 Tolerance
Level (11)
In general
(1977-1981
, the
) foil
Cu
9.4
8.6
9.2
3.5
13.9
7.7
9.2
8.2
150
In.
44.4
44.4
72.5
41.9
95.9
30.4
41.5
45.3
300
Or
0.8
0.8
0.5
1.1
1.0
0.3
1.7
1.9
2
vegetation cover improved
owing sludge application.
Pb
4.5
4.5
1.8
3.8
7.4
8.5
1.8
4.5
10
over
.No
Co
1.5
1.6
0.6
1.8
2.1
3.0
0.3
1.4
5
Cd
0.20
0.41
0.08
0.73
0.43
0.07
0.04
0.08
3
Hi
9.8
3.7
2.5
7.3
6.3
4.8
6.3
6.5
50
the five growing
deterioration in








seasons
vegeta-
mainder of the site, not treated with sludge, remained barren.

For  a non-demonstration project,  this type of information on vegetation
yield and quality  would  only have  to  be collected for  the first year
following sludge  aplication.

      D.6.2   Spoils

To  evaluate  the  effects of the sludge treatment on the chemical proper-
ties  of  the spoil,  samples  were  collected at  various  locations  and
depths  at the end  of  each year.   Results of spoil  pH  for the highest
sludge  application  (184  mt/ha;  82  T/ac)  area  are given  in Table D-8.
Surface  spoil pH  generally increased over  the  5-year period  following
sludge  application.   Results indicate that the lime and sludge applica-
tions did raise  the  spoil' pH significantly  and  that  the higher pH was
maintained.   Under  Pennsylvania  guidelines,  surface  spoil  samples must
be  collected at  the  end  of the  first  and second year following  sludge
application   to  document   that the  pH  has  not  dropped   below  pH 6.5.
Should  the  pH be below this  level,  lime must be applied  to raise it to
at  least  6.5.

Spoil samples were also  analyzed  for  trace metals.   A comparison of
trace metal  concentrations before and after sludge was applied is given
in  Table  D-9.   Even  at the highest sludge application rate (184 mt/ha;
                                   D-13

-------
                      TABLE D-8
       RESULTS  OF SPOIL pH FOR THE  185 mt/ha
      PLOT AT THE  VENAN60 DEMONSTRATION  SITE
Spoil Depth
   (cm)
  0-15
 15-30
                             Spoil pH
Before Sludge
    3.8
    3.8
1977
 6.2
 4.2
1978
 6.7
 4.6
1979
 7.3
 5.1
1981
 6.7
 5.1
Metric conversion factors:
  1 rat/ha = 0.446 T/ac
  1 cm = 0.3937 In.
                      TABLE  D-9
    ANALYSES OF  SPOIL SAMPLES FOR EXTRACTABLE
    TRACE METALS ON THE  184 mt/ha PLOT AT THE
         VENANGO  COUNTY DEMONSTRATION  SITE
Time of
Sampling

Before sludge
applied

Four months
after sludge
applied
Eighteen months
after sludge
applied
Normal range
soil (12)
Metric conversion
1 mt/ha - 0.446
1 ug = 2.2 x 10
Spoi 1
Depth
cm
0-15
15-30
30-60
0-15
15-30
30-60
0-15
15-30
30-60


factors:
T/ac
-9 Ib.

Cu

2.5
3.0
3.7
10.8
4.0
4.9
8.8
2.5
1.8
2-
100



Zn

2.9
2.4
3.6
7.7
2.0
2.9
7.7
1.7
1.8
10-
300



Cr

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

<0.
5-
3,00





2
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
1

0



Pb

uy/y
0.5
0.6
0.9
3.5
1.3
1.9
2.3
1.3
1.5
2-
200



Co

0.7
0.7
1.0
1.3
0.2
0.3
1.2
0.5
0.5
1-
40





0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.



Cd

02
02
03
07
01
01
02
01
01
01-
0



_Ni

1
1
1
0
0
0
1
o
0
10-
1,0





.1
.0
.6
.9
.4
.5
.2
.7
.7

00


                        D-14

-------
82.1 T/ac) the trace metal concentrations in the  surface  spoil  (0-15 cm;
0 to  6 in) were  only  slightly increased.   In  general, the trace metal
concentrations in the spoil were all extremely low  in comparison to pub-
lished normal  ranges  for soils.   For  a non-demonstration project, soil
samples need only to be taken one year  after the  sludge application.

     D.6.3  Water Quality

          D.6.3.1  Soil Percolate Water Quality

Results of  the analyses  of  soil  percolate  water at the  90  cm (36 in)
depth  for the  highest  sludge  application  and the control  plot  are given
in Table D-10.  Average monthly concentrations of N03-N in the  percolate
during the  summer months in the first  year (1977) on the plots treated
with  the  highest  applications  of  dewatered sludge were only slightly
above  potable  water standards  (10  mg/1).   The  highest monthly average
was 13.0 mg/1  for August.   Percolate NO^-N concentrations were surpris-
ingly  low during  May  and June immediatefy following the  sludge applica-
tion. This was probably due to the fact that rainfall during this period
was below normal.   As  a  result, there was little opportunity for leach-
ing of nitrogen from the sludge to occur.  By October, after development
of a complete  vegetative  cover, the concentrations of N03-N in the per-
colate decreased  to levels below  10 mg/1.   Concentrations  of NO--N in
the percolate  remained at low levels throughout 1978 to 1981.


                             TABLE D-10
              RESULTS OF ANALYSES FOR TRACE  METALS  AND
       NITRATE-NITROGEN FOR SOIL PERCOLATE AT THE 90-CM DEPTH
             FROM THE VENANGO COUNTY DEMONSTRATION  SITE
Sludge
Application
Rate Year*
mt /ha
0 1977
1978
1979
1980
184 1977
1978
1979
1980
EPA Drinking
Water Standard
C

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
u

63
14
10
08
24
04
07
02
00
Zn

2.75
1.20
0.68
0.90
5.91
1.16
0.87
0.51
5.00
C

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
:r

23
05
05
06
04
01
02
01
05
Pb

0.07
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.05
Co

0.67
0.22
0.12
1.10
1.50
0.19
0.20
0.06



0.
0.
<1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Cd

005
002
001
001
Oil
002
001
001
010
Ni

1.37
0.33
0.26
0.22
2.82
0.26
0.34
0.11



1.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
7.3
0.5
<0.5
0.6
10.0
       * Values represent the mean of all samples collected from the plot for
         the year.
                                  D-15

-------
Average monthy  concentrations  of  N03-N  in the' percolate at the 90 cm  (36
in) depth  on the  areas treated with, liquid digested sludge were slightly
higher  than those measured on the  dewatered  sludge  plots.   The highest
concentration was 33.9 mg/1 on the  11  mt/ha  (5 T/ac) plot and occurred
during  the first  month (June 1977) following  sludge application.  These
higher  concentrations w.ere  probably due in  part  to the  fact  that the
N03-N  concentrations  was  higher  in  the liquid digested  sludge (1,780
mg/1) than  in the dewatered sludge  (46  mg/1)  and nitrate-nitrogen in the
liquid  sludge is  more susceptible to  leaching  prior to vegetation estab-
lishment.   Concentrations  of  N03-N  in  percolate  water started  to in-
crease  almost  immediately after  sludge application.  By August  1977,
after development of  a complete vegetative cover, concentrations of N03-
N  in  percolate decreased  to  levels well below 10 mg/1  and  remained at
low levels  throughout the  study period.

Results of  the  analyses  for dissolved trace metals at the 90 cm (36 in)
depth for the highest sludge application as well as the control  plot are
also given  in Table D-10.

Results  indicate   that  percolate water  quality  met EPA  drinking  water
standards with  only  a few  exceptions.  During the first 3 months in the
first year  following  sludge application, the  concentrations'of Zn and Ni
significantly  increased  and  exceeded  drinking water  standards at  the
highest sludge  application rate.   Concentrations of Cr  and  Pb  slightly
exceeded drinking water standards on both the control  and sludge-treated
plots.  During the second  (1978) and third (1979) years, only concentra-
tions of Pb exceeded  drinking  water standards at  the  highest sludge ap-
plications.   These   concentration  increases  were minimal  and  pose  'no
threat to human or animal  health.  Note that the average monthly concen-
trations of Pb on the control  plot also exceeded potable water standards
during the  study  period (1977-1981).

Total  and  fecal  coliform analysis were conducted on  all  soil  percolate
water samples collected during the period May 1977 through October 1979.
No fecal coliform colonies were observed for any sample.

          D.6.3.2 Ground  Water Quality

Ground  water  samples  were collected biweekly from monitoring  wells  to
evaluate the effect of the sludge applications on  ground  water  quality.
Results of these analyses are  given  in Table  D-ll.    Well  No. 1  was
drilled as  a control  outside the  area of influence  of the sludge appli-
cations.   Ground  water flow under the  dewatered  sludge-treated  area  is
toward  Well  No.  2 located approximately 11  meters  downslope  from  the
plot.    Results  indicate that  the high  application of  dewatered  sludge
did not significantly  increase   the  concentration of  N03-N in  ground
water.  Concentrations of  N03-N were below  EPA limits  for potable water
(10 mg/1)  for all  months  sampled.   It also  should  be noted  that  the
average depth to  ground water in Well No. 2 was only 3 m (9.8 ft).
                                     D-16

-------
                                TABLE D-ll
                GROUND WATER ANALYSES FOR TRACE  METALS  AND
       NITRATE-NITROGEN FOLLOWING SLUDGE APPLICATION AT THE VENANGO
                        COUNTY DEMONSTRATION SITE
Well No.

Well No. 1
(Control )


Well No. 2
(Dewatered
Sludge)
(184 rat/ha)
EPA Drinking
Water Standard
Year*

1977
1978
1979
1980
1977
1978
1979
1980


Cu

0.22
0.23
0.17
0.04
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.03
1.00

Zn

4.13
2.02
1.48
0.84
3.39
3.29
1.83
1.01
5.00

Cr

0.01
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.05

Pb
- fm
- - ^iii
0.14
0.19
0.13
0.10
0.09
0.20
0.13
0,10
0.05

Co
a/1 1 -
s/ 1 1
3.19
1.04
0.58
0.59
2.12
1.16
1.92
0.82


C

0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

d

006
002
002
001
001
002
001
001
010

N

3.
1.
0.
0.
2.
1.
0.
0.


i

23
00
bO
51
67
26
97
72


N03-N

1.4
<0.5
<0.5
0.6
1.1
<0.5
<0.5
0.7
10.0

           * Values represent the mean of all samples collected from each well for
            the year.


Results of analyses  of ground water samples  for trace metals during the
four years after sludge  was  applied are also given in Table D-ll.  There
appears to be  no  significant increase  in  any of the trace metal concen-
trations in Well No.  2,  which  was  influenced by the sludge applications.
Average annual concentrations  were below EPA drinking water standards.
All ground water  samples collected during the  period  July 1977 to July
1981 were  also  analyzed for coliforms.   No  fecal  coliform colonies were
observed for any sample.
                                      D-17

-------

-------
                               APPENDIX E

                  CASE STUDY OF SLUDGE APPLICATION TO
                   AGRICULTURAL LAND AT SALEM, OREGON
E.I  Introduction
Salem, Oregon, initiated a formal program of sludge application to agri-
cultural  land in 1976, known as the BIOGRO program.  The system has been
highly successful, and recycles to local farmland approximately 90 to 95
percent of all  sludge  generated  by the  city's  Willow Lake POTW.  Infor-
mation utilized in this  case  study was  obtained from Reference (1), and
personal   communications  with  Ms. Dixi  Druery,  Director  of  the  Salem
BIOGRO Program  (2), and Mr. Tom Fisher, Environmental Specialist, Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Salem, Oregon (3).

E.2  Sludge Treatment, Quantity, and Characteristics

The  Willow  Lake  POTW  utilizes  both  trickling  filter  (old  treatment
chain) and  activated sludge  (1976 treatment  chain additions) treatment
processes.  Primary and secondary raw sludge is combined, thickened, and
anaerobically  digested  in heated digesters.   Secondary digesters store
the sludge prior  to  distribution for  agricultural  application.  A small
percentage (5  to  10 percent) of  the  digested  sludge is lagooned at the
POTW  when  sludge  hauling  is  not possible due  to  weather  or other fac-
tors.   Salem  is  a  major  fruit and  vegetable processing  center,  and
wastewater and  sludge volumes increase significantly during the process-
ing months of June through September.

Annual digested sludge volume in 1982  was  121,000 m3 (32 million gal),
of which 110,000 nr  (29 million  gal) were applied to agricultural land.
The average  dry solids content  of the  sludge  is approximately 2.3 per-
cent,  so the dry  sludge  solids applied to agricultural land was approxi-
mately 2,500 mt (2,800 T)  in  1982.

Typical digested  sludge  characteristics are shown  in Table E-l, based on
samples taken  in early  1983.   The sludge is  low  in metals  content and
high  in N content.   The  high  N content  is due  to the addition  of ammonia
nitrogen  during the  treatment process  because the raw sewage contains a
high  percentage of  food  processing  wastes which are deficient in nutri-
ents.   The  characteristics  of. the  sludge  vary through the  year, and
daily  sampling and  analysis  of "sludge is  done as described in Section
E.5.

E.3   Sludge Application  to Farmland

In  1982,   sludge  was  applied .to approximately 1,200 ha  (3,000  ac) of
local  agricultural  land.  Application sites are located as  far as 32 km
 (20 mi)  from the POTW, but the majority are located within  an  11-km  (7-
mi)  radius  of the POTW.   At virtually all  sites, the sludge  is applied
only  once  per  year.
                                    E-l

-------
                                  TABLE E-l
                     CHARACTERISTICS OF DIGESTED  SLUDGE
                     AT SALEM,  OREGON,  WILLOW LAKE POTW
           Constituent
Concentrationt
                                          Constituent
Concentration
Total solids, %
PH
Total N, %
NH,-N, %
P.X
K, %
Zn, mg/kg
Cu, mg/kg
Ni, mg/kg
Cd, rag/kg
2.5
7.3
10.3
5.9
2.0
0.96
980
470
43
7
Fe,
Pb,
Ba,"
Cr,
Mg,
Ca,
Na,
As,
Co,

mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg

21,000
230
720
60
200
12,200
3,000
<0.1
8

           * All constituents except pH reported on a dry weight basis.

           t Personal communication based on samples in early 1983.
Sludge  is  applied at calculated agronomic  rates  based on N needs of the
crop  (see  Chapter  6).    Sludge  application rates  average approximately
3.4 mt/ha  (1.5 T/ac),  and vary from  2.2  mt/ha  (1.0  T/ac)  to 6.3 mt/ha
(2.8 T/ac) (dry weight),  depending on  the  N uptake of the crop grown and
the N content  of  the sludge applied.   The  N applied varies from approxi-
mately  89  kg/ha  (100 Ib/ac)  to 267  kg/ha  (300  Ib/ac).   The following
section  presents  the method  of  calculation  used  to  determine  sludge
application rates.

The crops  to  which sludge  is  applied  are  predominantly grains, grasses,
pasture, and silage  corn.   Sludge  is also  applied to seed crops, Christ-
mas tree farms,  commercial  nurseries, and filbert  orchards.   No sludge
is applied to  fruit  and vegetable  crops which will  be processed by local
fruit  and  vegetable  processing plants.   The  DEQ  requires  an 18-month
waiting  period after  sludge  application  before  planting of  fruits and
vegetables which  may be'eaten  raw.

     E.3.1  Determination  of Sludge Application Rates

Each  sludge   application   site is  investigated  prior to obtaining DEQ
approval for   sludge  application.    If the site  is  approved  by  DEQ,  an
approval letter  is issued  stipulating  the  conditions  under  which sludge
can be applied.   Criteria and  guidelines used  by DEQ  are  summarized
below.

          E.3.1.1  Soils  Limitations

The soils  at   the  proposed application  site  are  sampled  by  the  city  of
Salem;  generally,  one soil  sample for every  2 ha (5 ac) of  site area.
Soil samples are taken at  depths of 0  to 30 cm (0 to 12 in), 30 to 60 cm
(12 to  24  in), and  90 to 120 cm  (36  to 48 in).  Analyses  are made for
cation exchange capacity  (CEC),  and pH.
                                   E-2

-------
The  SCS  drainage classification is used by DEQ  to  determine when sludge
may  be applied  during  the year.   For  poorly drained  soils,  sludge can
generally  only  be  applied  during the  period  from  April   15th  through
October  15th.   For well  drained  soils,  sludge can be  applied  anytime
except during  or  immediately  after  seasonal  rainstorms.    Other  soil
drainage   classifications   fall   between   these   allowable  scheduling
extremes.

CEC  is used to limit cumulative metal  loadings  added by sludge applica-
tion.   Table  E-2 lists these  cumulative  metal  loadings.   Note  that if
soil  pH is  less than  6.5 (as  it  is  in most of the  Salem  area),  then
cumulative  Cd addition  is limited to 4  kg/ha  (4.5  Ib/ac),  regardless of
soil  CEC.    Since the sludge generated  by  Salem is  very low in  metals,
application  sites  generally  have a  life  well  over 25 years, based on
cumulative  metal  loadings derived  from  annual  sludge applications.


                               TABLE E-2
                    CUMULATIVE SLUDGE  METAL LOADINGS
                  FOR  AGRICULTURAL  LAND, SALEM, OREGON
CEC
(raeq/
<5
5-15
>15
L *

400 (450)
801 (900)
1,602 (1,800)
In.
_ _ _ \tn
----- 
-------
where:

      6  =  Sludge  application  rate,  in  gal/ac

      N  =  Annual  N  need  of  crop,  in Ib available N/ac

      S  =  Solids  content of the sludge, expressed as a percent

      M  =  inorganic N  (NHo-N  and  N02-N) content of the sludge, dry weight
          basis,  expressed  as a percent

      T  =  Total  Kjeldahl N content of the  sludge,  dry  weight basis, ex-
          pressed as a percent

Surface Application with Incorporation into Soil Within 48 Hours:


                           P _   120,000 x  N                      ,c „,
                           b " S  (85M + 15T)                     {t~d)

Where all terms  are identical to the  formula in Equation (E-l) above.

As an example  of the use of  the  formulas above, assume the following:

      •  •  Sludge solids (S)  = 2.3%.
      •    Crop available nitrogen  need (N) = 200 Ib/ac/year.
      t    Inorganic nitrogen (M) = 3%, dry weight basis.
      •    Total  nitrogen (T)  = 6%, dry weight basis.

Given the conditions  above,   the sludge application  rate,  if the sludge
is surface-applied and  not incorporated  into  the  soil,  is  calculated as
fol1ows:
                     6 = -*-,
                                120,000 x 200
                         2.3 [(50 x 3) + 20(6 - 3)J


                     = 49,700 gal/ac  of sludge application

Given  the  conditions above, the  sludge application  rate,  if the sludge
j[S_ incorporated into the soil within  48 hours, is calculated as follows:

                     r =       120,000 x 200
                         2.3 [(85 x 3) + (15 x 6)]


                      = 30,250 gal/ac of sludge application

     E.3.2  Application Site Constraints and Guidelines

The State DEQ investigates each proposed agricultural sludge application
site prior to giving approval for sludge application.  The investigator
                                    E-4

-------
makes  his  recommendations  on  a  case-by-case  basis.    However,  general
guidelines/requirements are as follows:

     •    Minimum distance  of  sludge  application  to  domestic  wells  = 61
          m (200 ft).  .

     •    Minimum distance of sludge application to surface water = 15 m
          (50 ft).

     •    Minimum rooting  depth (effective depth  of  soil) = 0.61  m (2
          ft).

     •    Minimum depth to ground water at time that sludge is applied =
          1.22 m (4 ft).

     •    Minimum distance  of  sludge  application  to  public access areas
          varies with the method of sludge application, as follows:

          - If sludge is incorporated into soil = 0

          - If sludge is not incorporated into soil = 30.5 m (100 ft)

          - If sludge is pressure-sprayed ("big gun" type sprayer) over
            the soil = 91 to 152 m (300 to 500 ft).
          Sludge  application  is  not  approved
          developments, schools, parks, etc.
close  to  residential
     •    Minimum  slope  is  largely  left to  the  investigator's discre-
          tion.  Where no  surface  waters are endangered,  slopes as high
          as  30 percent  have been  approved.   Generally,  however,  the
          maximum allowable  slope is 12 percent, and in cases where sen-
          sitive surface  waters  are nearby, maximum  slopes  may be held
          to 7  percent or less.

E.4  Sludge Transport and Application Methods

Sludge is hauled and  applied to  agricultural land virtually year around
in  the  Salem BIOGRO  program.   All  hauling  is  done by a  fleet of four
tanker  trucks  with  a useful  capacity  of   20,000  1  (5,500  gal)  each.
Application  to  specific  sites is  scheduled on the  basis  of (1) farmer
requests as a function of crop planting and  harvesting patterns;
(2)  period  of  sludge application  to the specific  site  allowed by DEQ,
based on  site  soil drainage (see  Section  E.3.1.1);  (3)  weather (e.g.,
sludge  is  not  applied during  rainstorms);  and (4)  proximity of appli-
cation sites to each  other and to the POTW.

In  general, pasture and grassland receive sludge applications during the
winter  months,  and  agricultural  land, growing  seasonal   crops  receives
sludge  during the  summer  months,  before planting  or after  harvesting.
Since the BIOGRO program has been in effect  for 7 years,  past experience
                                   E-5

-------
enables management  to  anticipate which sites will  require sludge during
various times of the year.

Sludge is  usually  applied by the  haul  trucks  themselves,  using gravity
discharge  and a  splash plate (see Chapter  10)  to  distribute the sludge
at  an  average rate of approximately  1,700 1/min  (450  gpm)  (Figure E-
3).   The  haul  trucks  are not  equipped  with  flotation tires,  so  the
application site soil must be dry and  firm to allow application with the
haul  trucks.    If  the  application   site  soil is  wet,  or  otherwise
unsuitable for direct  truck  access,  then a  traveling  big  gun sprinkler
is  used  to   spray   the  sludge  onto  the   application  site.    In  this
procedure, the haul  truck is  parked  as close to. the application site as
practical  and connected   sequentially to  a  short  discharge  hose,  a
portable  pump (Figure  E-l),  portable  aluminum pipe  (if  necessary),  a
200-m  (600-ft)  long hose,  and  a big  gun  sprinkler  (Figure  E-2).   The
traveling  big  gun   sprinkler  is  capable of  spraying liquid  sludge  in  a
37-m (120-ft) radius at a rate of 1,360 1/min (360 gpm).

City  employees   do   all  of the  sludge  hauling and  spreading.   Three
permanent  full-time drivers  are used  year around,  and  two additional
temporary  drivers are  added during the summer months when sludge volume
and distribution activity is increased.

E.5  Monitoring Program

     E.5.1  Sludge  Monitoring
Each truck load of sludge leaving the POTW is sampled.  Samples are com-
posited at the end of each day, and the composite sample is analyzed for
total  solids,  total  N,  and NHg-N.  A  weekly  sludge sample is also com-
posited, and the  weekly composite sample is  analyzed  for  total  solids,
total  N, NH3-N, Cd,  Cu, Pb,  Ni,  In,  chromium, P, and K.  Monthly sludge
samples are  analyzed for all  of  the constituents  listed  in  Table E-l.
The  daily  composite  sludge sample analysis is  used to determine sludge
application  rates  required for  various  sites  to  meet the agronomic  N
requirement of the crop being  grown.   The less frequent sludge analyses
are  used to monitor  the cumulative metal  loadings  being applied to each
site.   Records  are kept of the annual  sludge application  to  each site,
including quantities per acre of dry solids, total   N, ammonia N, and the
various metals applied.

     E.5.2  Soil Monitoring

As  described  in Section  E3.1.1,  prior to  receiving sludge,  each  site
undergoes  soil  sampling and  analysis.    During the early years  of the
BIOGRO  program, the city  routinely  analyzed  the  sludge-amended  soil
yearly  or  every 3 years.   Results  showed  virtually no change  in  soil
chemical and  physical  characteristics,' so the  city no longer routinely
monitors  soils at  sludge application  sites.   Many  farmers,  however,
routinely have their soils tested by  laboratories  as a prudent agricul-
tural  practice.
                                   E-6

-------
Figure E-l.
Portable sludge pump (1).
(Note:- City also uses propane powered. Ford engine
and Cornell  pump which has been very satisfactory),
   Figure E-2.
   Big gun sprinkler (1).
   (Note:   City also uses  a self-propelled unit)
                              E-7

-------
Figure E-3.
BIOGROW sludge haul  truck
farmland (EPA photo).
distributing sludge to
                             E-8

-------
     E.5.3  Ground Water Monijtoring
                 •            i
During the early years of the>BIOGRO program, ground water from wells-on
or within  150 m  (500 ft) of  sludge  application sites was  sampled and
analyzed both before  and  after application.   The constituents monitored
were N02-N,  IDS,  col i form,  Mg,  As, and  methyl ene blue  activated  sub-
stances  (MBAS).   Since  results showed no  significant  changes in ground
water quality over a period of 3 years, the ground water monitoring pro-
gram has been gradually reduced.  Selected wells are now sampled approx-
imately every 3 years to check if any ground water degradation is occur-
ring.                                                              •

The  city  of  Salem and  the  Oregon DEQ report that  background levels of
nitrate N  were  very  high in ground water  samples  obtained from many of
the  wells  in  the  area north of  the POTW.   These  high  nitrate N levels
are  thought to  be  due to the  soil  characteristics  in  this area and the
application  of  commercial .fertilizers  over long  periods.    To  avoid
future claims of  ground  water  degradation, the  BIOGRO  program-does not
apply sludge to'areas north of the POTW.

     E.5.4  Crop Sampling

The  BIOGRO program conducted some limited crop tissue sampling and anal-
ysis during  the initial  years of  the  program.    Constituents analyzed
included Bo, Cd, Cu,  Mg,  Ni, Zn,  As,  Pb,  Mo, and Se.  Results showed no
significant difference  between crops grown on  sludge-amended soils and
control  crops.   Routine  crop  sampling and  analysis is  no  longer  con-
ducted.

     E.5.5  Surface Water Sampling

Application sites are selected to avoid the possibility of surface water
contamination, and no surface water monitoring is routinely conducted.

E.6  References

1.   CHoM Hill.  BIOGRO Program, Organic Solids Reuse, Willow Lake Waste-
    water Treatment Plant, Salem, Oregon, June 18, 1976.

2.   Personal  Communication with Ms.  Dixi Druery, Manager  of BIOGRO Pro-
     gram, Salem, Oregon, May 1983.

3.   Personal  Communication with  Mr. Tom Fisher, Environmental Special-
     ist, Oregon State Department of Environmental  Quality,  Salem,  Ore-
     gon, May 1983.
                                   E-9

-------

-------
        APPENDIX F

    CONVERSION FACTORS
(Metric to U.S. Customary)

Metric
Name •
Centimeter(s)
Cubic Meter


Cubic Meters
Per Day
Cubic Meters
Per Hectare
Degrees Celsius
Gram(s)
Hectare

Kilogram(s)
Kilograms Per Hectare
Kilograms Per Hectare
Per Day
Kilograms Per Square
Centimeter
Kilometer
Ki 1 owatt
Liter

Liters Per Second

/



Metric Tonne
Metric Tonnes
Per Hectare
Meter(s)
Meters. Per Second
Micrograms Per Liter
Milligrams Per Liter
Square Centimeter
Square Kilometer
Square Meter



U.S.
Customary Unit
Symbol
cm
m3


m3/d

m3/ha

°C
g
ha

kg
kg/ha
kg/ha/d

kg/cm2

km
kW
L

L/s





mt
mt/ha

m
m/s
ug/L
mg/L
cm2
km*
m2
Multiplier
0.3937
8.1071 x 10~4
35.3147
264.25
2.6417 x 10'4

1.069 x 10'4

1.8(°C) + 32
0.0022
2.4711
0.004
2.205
0.0004
0.893

14.49

0.6214*
1.34
0.0353
0.264
0.035

22.826,
15.85
0.023

1.10
0.446

3.2808
2.237
1.0 ,
1.0
0.155
0.386
10.76
Abbreviation
in
acre- ft
. ft3
Mgal
Mgal/d

Mgal /acre

°F
Ib
acce
mi2
Ib
tons/acre
1 b/acre/d

lb/in2

mi
hp
ft3
gal
ft3/s

gal/d
gal /rain
Mgal/d

T
T/ac

ft
mi/h
ppb
ppm
in2
mi2
ft2
Name
inches
acre- foot
cubic foot
million gallons
million gallons
per day
million gallons
per 'acre ,
degrees Fahrenheit
poiind(s)
acre
square miles
pound(s)
tons per acre
pounds per acre
per day
pounds per square
inch
mile
horsepower
cubic foot
gallon(s) '
cubic feet per
second
gallons per day
gallons per minute
million -gallons
per day
ton (short)
tons per acre

foot (feet)
miles per hour
parts per billion
parts per million'
square inch
square mile
square foot
          F-l
                          »U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993-750- OOZ60127

-------

-------