PB82-181082
Spreading Lagooned Sewage Sludge on Farmland:
A Case History
C. M. Robson, et al
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
March 1982
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
P382-181032
EPA-600/2-82- 019
January 1982
SPREADING LAGOONED SEWAGE SLUDGE ON FARMLAND:
A CASE HISTORY
by
C. Michael Robson
and
Lee E. Sommers
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Contract No. C2575NASX
Project Officer
Gerald Stern
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fnsrjuctjon on the reverse before corn pie an!)
1 Eponr NO 2. i 3 RECIPIENT S ACCESSIOr.NO
EPA- 600/2-82-019 ORD Report PBB2 1 8 1 0 3 2
4 TLE AND SUBTITLE
Spreading Lagooned Sewage Sludge on Farmland:
A Case History
S REPORT OATE
March 19B2
B PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 UT 4Cl (5)
C. Michael Robson and Lee E. So ers
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
B PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
C. Michael Robson
6330 Brlxton Lane
Indianapolis, Indiana 46220
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
CAZBIB, DU B—ll3
Task C/52
11 tONTRACI/GRANTNO
C2575NASX
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory— Cm., 01
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Gerald Stern 513—684—7654
16. ABSTRACT
This project demonstrated that land application is feasible and practical for a
metropolitan treatment plant for disposal of a large volume (265,000 in 3 ) of
stabilized, liquid sewage sludge stored in lagoons. The project involved
transportation of sl’idge by semi—trailer tankers and either surface or subsurface
application with conventional equipment to cropland. All sludge was applied on
privately—owned land in an adjacent, rural county through a cooperative agreement
between the farmer and contractor.
The report illustrates that the planning and conduct of a land app1 cation project
requires expertise from a diversity of technical and sociological disciplines.
Critical areas identified during this project included materials handling and
transport, public relations, sludge application equipment, soils and crop
production, soil, crop and ground water monitoring, sludge application and crop
production scheduling, experience in relating to farmers and their problems,
obtaining regulatory approvals, and establishing the mechanisms for flow of
project data and information.
17 EY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
13. 3IS7RIBUTIO
RELEASE
N STATEMENT
TO PUBLIC
1
SECURITY CLASS (ThnReporr,
Unclassified
21 NO OF RAGES
116
20
SECURITY CLASS (T)iss page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
b.IOENT1FIERS/OPEN ENOED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Grouo
PA F r,n 2220.1 (9.73)
I
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does men—
tion of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
ii
-------
FORE RD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of in—
creasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to
the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water,
and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay between
its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publica-
tion is one of the products of that research; a most vital communication
link between the researcher and the user community.
This report describes the development of a project involving the appli-
cation of approximately 265,000 cubic meters of lagooned sewage sludge
from a metropolitan area on privately—owned farmland in an adjacent, rural
county. The sludge application project was initiated to enable use of the
land occupied by the lagoons for expansion of the sewage treatment plant.
The procedures developed will be valuable to those proposing to practice
land disposal of stabilized sludge as part of the Nation’s resource conser-
vation program.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The City of Indianapolis, Indiana, was required to construct advanced
wastewater treatment facilities at the Belmont Treatment Plant. The most
cost effective site for these new treatment facilities was the 10 sludge
lagoons containing 420,000 cubic meters (111 million gallons) of digested
sewage sludge stored for up to 50 years. (Of the 420,000 cubic meters of
sludge originally contemplated for disposal by land spreading, 265,000 cubic
meters of this lagooned sludge was actually spread on land and the remainder
disposed of in a landfill). The site preparation contract was awarded to a
contractor who chose to dispose of the lagooned sludge by applying it to
privately—owned agricultural cropland in adjacent Boone County, Indiana.
The project consisted of the following major tasks: (1) obtaining
approval from regulatory agencies; (2) obtaining cooperation of landowners
and farmers; (3) removing, transporting, and applying the lagooned sludge;
and (4) monitoring the impact on crops.
Undefined state and federal regulations hampered initiation of the
project. To determine appropriate rates for sludge application on cropland,
extensive analyses of the lagoons were conducted. As expected, the solids
content of the sludges was extremely variable, ranging from < 1% near the
surface to > 30% at a 5 m depth. The cadmium (Cd) and PCB content of the
sludges were major constraints in detertnirting sludge application rates to
cropland. The cadmium concentrations ranged from 122 to 241 mg/kg (average
179 mg/kg). Sludge application rates were initially based on 1.1 kg Cd/ha
and later increased to 2.1 kg/ha. The maximum amounts of lead, zinc, nickel,
and copper applied were less than 26, 48, 22, and 2.6 kg/ha, respectively.
Corn and soybeans were the crops grown and a single application of sludge
was made.
The subcontractor responsible for sludge application developed an
effective public relations program involving demonstration plots, radio, and
newspaper advertising, and written materials. Landowners consigned about
6,000 ha (15,000 acres) for sludge application. The subcontractor collected
all soil samples, provided soil and sludge analysis data, and applied lime-
stone if soil pH was below 6.5. The only resistance in Boone County orig-
inated from the installation of two temporary sludge storage lagoons.
The sewage sludge was resuspended in each lagoon, pumped into semi-
trailer tankers, trucked to Boone County, and either applied immediately or
placed in- temporary storage lagoons. Because the application rate was based
on cadmium levels in the sludge solids, frequent solids analyses were used
to determine the appropriate application rate. A variety of equipment was used
to surface apply or inject sludge into the soil. Adverse weather conditions
reduced the time available for sludge application and thereby delayed project
iv
-------
completion by several years. No measurable increases in the cadmium and PCB
content of grain were found after a single sludge application.
During the course of this project, techniques evolved for removal,
transportation, and application of lagooned sludges as well as procedures
for administering and monitoring such a program.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. C2575NASX by
C. Michael Robson and Lee F. Sommers, under the sponsorship of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period of July 1,
1975, to December 31, 1980, and the work was completed as of June 1981.
V
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures
Tables
1. Introduction i
2. Conclusions 5
3. Recommendations 7
4. Background Information 8
Indianapolis wastewater treatment plant expansion . • 8
Behavior of sewage sludge components in soils 11
Pathogens 11
Persistent organic compounds 12
Heavy metals 13
Nitrogen 17
General design criteria for land application 18
General characteristics of land application area . . . . 19
5. Regulatory Agency Requirements
Agenciesinvolved 21
Local agencies 21
Indiana State Board of Health . 22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 24
Final regulatory agency requirements 24
Contractor’s responses to regulatory agency
requirements 26
Sampling and analysis of sludge lagoons 26
Contractor’s environmental assessment document . . 27
Construction of interim sludge lagoons 30
ocumentation of land application sites 32
6. Agronomic Considerations and Public Relations 33
Agronomic considerations 33
Public participation and public relations 36
7. Sludge Removal, Transportation and Application 41
Semi—Liquid Sludge Disposal 41
Removal of semi—liquid sludge from lagoons . . . . 41
Transportation of semi—liquid sludge 42
Application of semi—liquid sludge 43
Spreading operations of 1977 . . . 43
Spreading operations of 1978 43
Spreading operations of 1979 . 44
Spreading operations of 1980 . , . . . 44
Preceding page blank
vii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
• . .
• . .
• a •
• . I
• . .
• . I
• . .
• . I • 44
• . . . 45
• . . • 45
• . . . 45
• . . • 47
• . . . 47
• . . . 47
• . . . 47
• . . . 47
• S I • 49
50
50
51
51
51
56
A. Bid document . . . • •
B. Public relations material . • . . .
PressreleaseA . . . . • . . • . .
Press releaseB . . . . . • . • • .. . . .
Radio advertisement . . . . . . • . . . . . •
New paperarticles. . . . .
Material distributed to potential users . . .
C. Letter of intent . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Release forms . • . . . . . . . . . . .
Application • • . • . . • . . .
Storage . . . . . • • •
E. Forms and maps used to identify application sites .
Application field and land owner identification
Example soil survey map with field identification
Key to soil surveymap • . . . . . . . .
Identification of surface and incorporation
application areas . • • • . . . . • . . • .
Example of soil test data . . • . . . . • . .
F. Forms used to monitor sludge removal, transport and
applications
Form A . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . .
Form B .
Form C • . . . . . . . .
Form D • . . . . . . . . . .
Form E . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Observation of land application of sludge
Operation control procedures .
Dispatching . , . . ,
Receiving . . . .
Spreading . • .
D isking . .
Recording
Disposal of Other Sludges • . • . •
Ash Disposal . . . . •
Semi—solid sludge disposal . . •
Creaseremoval • . • .
8. Project Overview
Experience with sludge handling equipment
Retention of consulting agronomist . •
Monitoring of crop composition . • . •
Problems associated with the project •
References •
Appendices
• S • • •
•
I
• . S S I I
• • .
• S •
• • .
• S
• S
. I
• .
• I
• S
.
61
75
75
76
78
78
82
85
89
89
90
92
92
93
94
95
96
• . . 97
• S • 97
. . . 98
• . 5 99
S I I 100
• S 101
• . • 102
viii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
H. Summary of specifications for the sludge spreading
equipment used on the project 104
Fie ldGymmy 104
Terra Gator 2505 105
Big A 4500 105
ix
-------
F IGIJRES
Number Page
1 Sludge lagoons at Belmont treatment plant 9
2 General area map showing Belmont treatment facility and area
ofsludgeapplicatjon . 20
3 Relationship between percent solids in sludge and application
rate based on 1.1 and 2.1 kg Cd/ha 46
TABLES
Number Page
1 Projectchronology . 2
2 Maximuj amounts of lead, zinc, copper, nickel and cadmium
that can be applied to agricultural cropland 16
3 Variability in the solids content of Belmont lagoon sludges . 27
4 Characteristics of Belmont lagoon sludges 28
5 Application rate for lagoon sludges based on a 1.12 kg
cadmium/ha limit and the amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus,
lead, zinc, copper, nickel and PCB’s applied 34
6 Application rate for lagoon sludges based on a 2.1 kg
cadmium/ha limit and the aniounts of nitrogen, phosphorus,
lead, zinc, copper, nickel and PCB’s applied . . 35
7. Concentrations of cadmium and PCB’s in corn and soybean
grain grown on sludge—treated and untreated soils in
Boone County 52
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Disposal of sludge produced during municipal wastewater treatmeuL is a
severe problem. To select a disposal method, the operating agency must
consider numerous factors including the following:
• Total costs, including capital investment, operation and
maintenance
• Public health protection from direct contact with pathogens and
contamination of the human food—chain with potentially toxic
inorganic and organic constituents
• Pollution control, including water (ground and surface), air,
and soils
• Public acceptance
• Resource conservation and recovery
Land application of stabilized sewage sludge has become a viable sludge
management process. The potential benefits of this disposal method results
from sludge serving as a low analysis fertilizer material and also as a soil
conditioner.
This report is a case history of the utilization of anaerobically di-
gested (stabilized) sewage sludge on agricultural land. Although the specific
project described involved a single application of sludge to soils, it re-
vealed much about equipment, procedures and regulatory agency requirements.
This case history describes the disposal of approximately 420,000 cubic
meters (ill million gallons) of sludge and other materials that had been
stored in lagoons at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant which is owned
and operated by the Department of Public Works of the Consolidated City of
Indianapolis, Indiana. Of the 420,000 cubic meters of sludge originally
contemplated for disposal by land spreading, 265,000 cubic meters of this
lagooned sludge was actually spread on land and the remainder disposed of in
a landfill. The sludge (stabilized by prolonged storage in the holding
lagoons) and other materials were removed to enable the construction of new
wastewater treatment facilities on portions of the Belmont site previously
occupied by the sludge lagoons. The project history spans the period 1972
to 1980 (Table I).
I
-------
TABLE 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Date Project Status
1972
September 13 — Court Order requires City of Indianapolis, Department of Public Works (DPW) to
upgrade Belmont and Southport wastewater treatment plants.
1973
— Pilot plant work carried out to select advanced wastewater treatment (AWT)
process for Belmont and Southport treatment plants.
1974
— Pilot plant program completed for AWT processes.
— Facility plan preparation for new site of the AWT plant.
N) 1975
March 11 — Facility plan submitted that recommended the construction of the Belmont AWT
facilities on the site of existing sludge lagoons.
— Initial bid documents prepared and issued for Belmont General Sitework Project
including removal of sludge from lagoons 1 through 10.
October 21 — Initial bids for Belmont General Sitework opened.
— DPW made tentative award to low bidder.
— DPW rejected all bids as a result of a taxpayer’s suit to allow off—site disposal
of the lagooned sludge.
1976
— DPW prepared documents for rebidding of Belmont General Sitework allowing both
on—site and off—site sludge disposal.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
Date Project Status
1976
November 23 — Bids received based on revised bid documents. Low bidder proposed land spreading
of sludge in adjacent Boone County.
December 6 — DPW made tentative award to low bidder.
1977
January 11 — Public hearing required as part of Environmental Assessment held in Boone
County,
February 1 -, Contractor submitted Environmental Assessment.
— Resarupling o sludge lagoons completed.
— Analytical data from resampling of sludge lagoons evaluated by contractor and state
regulatory agency.
May 23 — DPW issued qualified notice to proceed ( rio sludge to leave the Belmont Site) to
contractor based on State and EPA qualified endorsement.
June 6 — Boone County citizens protested construction of interim sludge lagoons in Boone
County.
June 16 — Restraining Order issued by Boone County judge halted interim lagoon construction.
August 31 — Agreement of understanding enabled recommencement of Boone County interim sludge
holding lagoon construction.
September 26 — Indiana State Board of Health issued approval for land application. Land applica-
tion of sludge in Boone County commenced.
November 28 — Sludge application ceased due to severe winter weather.
(continued)
-------
TABLE I (continued)
Date Project Status
1978
May 29 — Sludge spreading started in Boone County.
June 13 — Sludge spreading stopped. Zoning problem precluded sludge hauling to interim
lagoons.
August 8 — Zoning problem resolved and sludge hauling to interim lagoons recommenced.
September 25 — Sludge spreading started.
December 19 — The state approved an increase in cadmium loading rate from 1.12 kg/ha (1.0 lb./acre)
to 2.1 kg/ha (1.875 lb./acre).
December 24 — Sludge spreading stopped.
1979
October 5 — Sludge spreading started,
December 10 — Sludge spreading stopped.
1980
October 11 — Sludge spreading started.
November 10 — Sludge spreading finished.
December 31 — Interim sludge holding lagoon sites restored to original condition.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1. This project demonstrated that land application is feasible and practical
for a metropolitan treatment plant to handle a large volume (265,000
cubic meters) of liquid sewage sludge stored in lagoons. The project
involved transportation of sludge by semi—trailer tankers and either
surface or subsurface application with conventional equipment to crop—
land. The sludge was applied on privately—owned land in an adjacent
rural county through a cooperative agreement between the farmer and
contractor.
2. The planning and conduct of a land application project requires exper-
tise from a diversity of technical and sociological disciplines. Crit-
ical areas identified during this project included materials handling
and transport, public relations, sludge application equipment, soils
and crop production, soil, crop and ground water monitoring, sludge
application and crop production scheduling, experience in relating to
farmers and their problems, obtaining regulatory approvals, and
establishing the mechanisms for flow of project data and information.
3. Delays in applying sludge were caused by adverse weather conditions.
The growth of row crops (corn and soybeans) also minimized the number
of days that sludge could be applied to soils. Coordination of crop
production and sludge utilization programs is difficult due to uncertain-
ties caused by adverse weather conditions.
4. A public relations program must be started very early in a project and
must first obtain support of the agricultural community. Both the
benefits and problems must be presented to all interested parties.
5. The project showed that numerous new procedures can be developed for
monitoring sludge application rates, recording areas receiving sludge
treatment, and maintaining a wide variety of records.
6. The equipment initially chosen for applying sludge did not perform as
anticipated. Alternative equipment was selected which could withstand
continuous use. All equipment should be evaluated on—site before
purchase.
7. A single application of sewage sludge at a rate ranging from 1.12 to
2.1 kg Cd/ha did not cause measurable increases in the cadmium content
of corn and soybean grain, nor was any plant uptake of PCB’s observed.
5
-------
8. L at all possible, off—site storage of sludge in either temporary or
permanent lagoons should be avoided. It is far preferable to locate
storage lagoons near the treatment plant and then transport sludge just
prior to land application. The temporary storage lagoons located in
Boone County resulted in the only negative public response to the land
application project.
9. The project demonstrated that a large metropolitan sanitary district can
transport and apply sludge to croplarid in a neighboring rural area
without widespread public resistance. To accomplish this goal, it was
essential to involve local agricultural leaders, develop an effective
and honest public relations program, utilize aesthetically acceptable
methods for sludge application and develop sludge application
procedures compatible with prevailing farming practices.
6
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Additional case histories are needed to describe projects using sludge
application on cropland. Each report should emphasize public relations
approaches, determination of sludge application rates, monitoring of
soils, crops and groundwaters, and mechanisms for recording project
information.
2. Studies are needed to evaluate sludge handling and application equipment.
3. Techniques should be developed to increase the effectiveness of public
relations programs before a land application project is initiated.
Variables influencing public acceptance require quantification.
4. Documentation should be developed to describe the relative health
effects resulting from application of sewage sludge on cropland as
compared with other disposal technologies. Even though minimal health
risks have been shown in the past, a general fear of pathogens and toxic
materials still exist in the minds of the public.
5. A manual is needed to describe the steps and procedures involved in
establishing a land application program.
7
-------
SECTION 4
BACKGROUND INFORMAT ION
INDIANAPOLIS WASTEWATER TREATMEENT PLANT EXPANSION
Indianapolis, Indiana, is one of the few major cities of the United
States that is not situated on a large body of water to which it can dis-
charge its liquid wastes. The White River, the major stream of the area,
has a 10—year — 7 day low flow capacity of 135,475, cubic meters/day (35
mgd). Therefore, the City has provided activated sludge treatment to its
wastewater since 1924 at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
capacity of the Belmont plant has increased, over the years, to a capacity
of 454,200 cubic meters/day (120 mgd). Additional wastewater flows are
treated at the 211,960 cubic meters/day (56 mgd) Southport Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant situated on the White River, some seven miles downstream of the
Belmont Plant. Sludge from both plants is treated at the Belmont site.
Water quality sampling programs performed in the early 1970’s indicated
depressed dissolved oxygen levels some seventy miles downstream of Indian-
apolis. Although the City was discharging wastewater that received a high
degree of biological secondary treatment, it was concluded that the degree
of treatment was not sufficient to maintain the required dissolved oxygen
levels in the White River downstream of Indianapolis. The negotiated Court
Order of September 13, 1972, required the City to upgrade the level of
treatment to maintain a daily average of 5 mg/i dissolved oxygen and a
minimum of 4 mg/I dissolved oxygen downstream of Indianapolis. Construction
of the new facilities was to be completed by May 1976.
A Facilities Plan for Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities at the
Belmont and Southport Treatment Plants was prepared by the City’s design
consultant, as part of a Step 1 U. S. EPA Construction Grant Program require-
ment. The purposes of the facilities proposed in the Plan were to increase
the capacity of the wastewater treatment plants and to upgrade the effluent
quality in accordance with effluent standards. Pilot plant studies of
various treatment processes were undertaken prior to completion of the
Facilities Plan. Process additions and modifications included the nitrifica—
tion of ammonia and improved removal of BOD 5 and suspended solids.
Since 1924, approximately 25 hectares (62 acres) of sludge lagoons have
been constructed at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant, to store the
sludge or incinerator ash from the operation of the City of Indianapolis’
wastewater treatment plants (Figure 1). Approximately 12 hectares (30 acres)
of lagoon area, occupied by lagoons 1 through 10, were needed for the con-
struction of the new treatment facilities. A cost analysis of possible sites
8
-------
Figure 1. Sludge lagoons at the Belmont sewage treatment plant.
9
-------
for the new facilities indicated that the area occupied by the lagoons was
the most cost—effective alternative.
The concept evaluated during the original design period was to chemi-
cally stabilize the sludge from the ten lagoons and dispose of it on the
site of an old sanitary landfill at the north end of the Belmont treatment
plant property. Plans and specifications were prepared based on this con-
cept. However, an alternative sludge disposal method based on off—site
disposal by application on agricultural land was added to the bid documents
as a last minute, regulatory agency requirement. Bids were opened on
October 28, 1975, but were later rejected by the Indianapolis Board of
Public Works as a result of a taxpayer’s suit. The suit was procedural and
not related to the sludge disposal method.
Preparation of plans and specifications for rebidding of the General
Sitework Project, which included the removal of contents of the sludge incin-
erator ash lagoons as well as the sludge lagoons, commenced early in 1976.
Off—site disposal of the sludge by land application was reviewed critically.
While the concept was philosophically attractive, it was recognized that
there were few guidelines on which to prepare bid documents. Requirements of
both state and Federal regulatory agencies were not clearly defined, par-
ticularly for possible disposal sites outside of Marion County in which the
City is located, or even outside the State of Indiana. An additional on—
site disposal method was considered which consisted of dewatering the con-
tents of all 18 sludge and ash lagoons and then depositing the resulting
sludge cake in lagoons 11 through 18. Because the funding agencies continued
to require evaluation of off—site sludge disposal as an alternative, the
plans and specifications prepared included the following four sludge disposal
options:
1. Chemical fixation for on—site disposal
2. Sludge dewatering for on—site disposal
3. Off—site disposal by landspreading on agricultural land
4. Other off—site disposal methods
A copy of the specific section of the bid documents covering sludge disposal
is included as Appendix A.
Eight bids, for various sludge disposal methods submitted by four con-
tractors, were opened on November 23, 1976. The lowest responsible bidder’s
selected mode of sludge disposal was landspreading on agricultural land in
adjoining Boone County, utilizing the services of subcontractors for hauling
and applying the sludge. A tentative award was made to the low bidder by
the Indianapolis Board of Public Works on December 6, 1977, subject to state
and EPA financial and technical approval of the project.
10
-------
The design engineer’s analysis had indicated that the most cost effec-
tive means of sludge disposal was sludge dewatering for on—site disposal
as previously described. However, the reality of the competitive bid
process indicated, for this site and time specific case, that land spread-
ing on agricultural land was the most cost effective method. The unit
price quoted by the contractor for sludge disposal in Boone County was
$15.40/cubic meter($ll.79/cubjc yard) In terms of 1977 bid prices. This
bid price included a $ 54 . 3 0/hectare($22/acre) credit for sale of the sludge
to farmers. The $ 5 4.30/hectare charge to the farmers was waived after 1977
to avoid a zoning problem in Boone County.
BEHAVIOR OF SEWAGE SLUDGE COMPONENTS IN SOILS
Sewage sludges contain the major (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium)
and minor (e.g., zinc, copper, iron) nutrients required by crops and thus
can be readily substituted for conventional fertilizer materials. However,
sewage sludges may also contain constituents which are potentially hazardous
to plants or to animals or man after assimilation into crops. When con-
sidering application of sewage sludges on agricultural land, the sludge con-
stituents of greatest concern are pathogens (human or animal), persistent
organics (primarily chlorinated hydrocarbons), and heavy metals (e.g.,
lead, zinc, copper, nickel and cadmium). Most of these constraints can be
overcome by proper management. The following section discusses general
considerations for applying sewage sludge on cropland and incorporates the
current U.S. EPA (10) regulations even though they were not in effect when
the Belmont lagoon sludge project was being developed.
Pathogens
The majority of sewage sludges applied to agricultural land are treated
by a process to minimize the potential for dispersal of pathogens, to reduce
odors, and to control vectors. Typical sludge treatment processes include
anaerobic or aerobic digestion, lime (CaO) treatment, extended storage in
lagoons or on drying beds, and composting. In spite of these stabilization
practices, sludges typically contain reduced levels of coliform organisms,
bacterial pathogens (Salmonella, Shigella), protozoa (Entamoeba), helminthic
parasites (Ascaris) and viruses (1). Disease transmission could conceivably
result from sludge applications which contaminate crops consumed raw by
humans (e.g., vegetables), adhere to forages grazed by animals or enter
surface or ground waters through runoff or leaching. In all cases, the
ability of the organism to survive in soils or on plant surfaces is a
prerequisite for the existence of a health problem.
The survival of selected pathogens that may be present in sewage sludges
has been recently reviewed (1). The majority of bacteria can persist for
time periods ranging from several days to 10 months In soils or on vege-
tation, Ascaris ova are capable of withstanding adverse environmental con-
ditions in soil resulting in survival for periods up to 7 years. The sur-
vival of viruses in soils amended with sewage sludge has not been adequately
evaluated but viruses have been isolated from soils 8 to 13 days after
11
-------
sludge application (2,3). Several factors influence the survival of patho—
gens in soils including temperature, moisture, pH, sunlight, toxic substances,
competitive organisms, and nutrient supply (4). Studies on the survival of
salmonellae in soils indicate a survival time of 7 days in dry soils at 39°C
(5). Survival was strongly influenced by interactions between soil moisture,
temperature and inoculum carrier (waste or saline solution). Fecal coliforms
added to crops through wastewater irrigation are retained in the upper 8 cm
of the soil and exhibit a 10% survival over 48 hours (6). In addition, 10
hours of bright sunlight completely eliminated fecal coliforms on alfalfa
forage (7). The application of sludge to cropland, managed to prevent
erosion, has been shown to have minimal impact on the coliform and virus
levels in both surface and ground waters (8). Except for Ascaris ova, the
majority of sludge—borne pathogens will be at very low levels in soils
amended with sludges after a one year period (1,9).
Proper management of a sludge application site is essential to minimize
any potential pathogen related problems. Sludge application guidelines are
being developed by numerous states as well as by the U. S. EPA (10). The
current recommendations to manage pathogens can be summarized as follows
(details provided in reference 10):
1. All sludges applied to soils growing human food—chain crops
should be stabilized by a process which significantly reduces
pathogens (i.e., aerobic or anaerobic digestion, lagooning,
air—drying, heat—drying, composting, lime (CaO) treatment).
2. Stabilized sludges should not be applied to root or vegetable
crops which can be consumed raw; root or vegetable crops can be
grown on the site 18 months after sludge application.
3. Animals should not be grazed on pastures treated with sludge
for one month after application.
Even though concern has been expressed about the addition of pathogens to
soils in sludges, there has been no report of any significant disease
problems associated with land application of stabilized sludges.
Persistent Organic Compounds
Many sewage sludges contain organic compounds, such as chlorinated
hydrocarbons, which are relatively resistant to dcomposition in soils and
are of concern from a human health standpoint. The chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides and the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) are the principal
sludge—borne organic compounds receiving attention. A recent survey has
indicated that the majority of sewage sludges contain relatively low concen-
trations (< I to 10 mg/kg) of these compounds although specific industrial
inputs to the sewage system can result in elevated sludge levels (12). A
recent survey of sludges produced in Indiana indicated that the median PCB
12
-------
concentration was 7 mg/kg (12) while sludges from Michigan typically contain
< 1 mg PCB’s/kg (13). Because PCB’s are no longer being widely used for
industrial purposes, the concentration in sludges should decrease with time.
Both chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (14) and PCB’s (15) are resistant
to rapid degradation in soils. For PCB’s, the rate and extent of degrada-
tion increases as the percentage chlorine in the compound decreases (16).
Even though chlorinated organics persist in soils, they are not generally
assimilated by plant roots and translocated to above ground parts such as
the grain or fruit. Elevated concentrations of PCB’s were found in whole
carrots grown in soils containing 100 mg PCB/kg of soil (17). However, 97%
of the PCB was located in carrot peelings suggesting that physical adsorption
to the root occurred rather than plant uptake. In addition, the carrot
foliage did not contain detectable levels of PCB’s. Similarly, essentially
no plant uptake (orchard grass and carrot foliage) has been found when
polybrominated biphenyls are applied to soils (18). Since PCB’s are some-
what volatile, application of sludge to the soil surface could result in
absorption of volatilized PCB’s by plant stems and leaves (19). This
mechanism of plant contamination with PCB’s can be eliminated by incor-
porating sludge into the upper 10 to 15 cm of soil.
The principal problem arising from chlorinated hydrocarbons is direct
ingestion by animals grazing on pastures where surface—applied sludge
adheres to the forage. Research has indicated that sludge solids may con-
stitute from 22 to 32% of the forage dry weight immediately following sludge
application (19). The application of sludge to the stubble after removing
the forage resulted in less contamination. Dairy cattle are most suscepti-
ble to PCB contamination of forages because PCB’s are readily partitioned
into the milk fat. The allowable level of PCB’s in animal feedstuffs is 0.2
mg/kg and thus it is possible to calculate allowable PCB levels in sludge
given a sludge application rate, forage yield, percent sludge retention on
forages and an assimilation factor for the animal (21).
Based on the above considerations, the following recommendations are
pertinent to managing PCB’s and other persistent organics in land application
systems:
1. Sludges containing > 10 mg PCB/kg should be incorporated into the
surface soil (0—20 cm).
2. Sludges should not be surface applied on forages grazed by dairy
cattle. For other animals, forages can be grazed 30 days after
application.
Heavy Metals
The heavy metals of most concern when applying sewage sludge to
agricultural land are lead, zinc, copper, nickel, and cadmium. Several
studies have been conducted to determine the range of metals in various
municipal sewage sludges (12,38,39). Although both domestic wastes and
urban runoff contain metals, it is felt that industrial wastes contribute
13
-------
the majority of metals found in municipal sewage sludges and that industrial
pretreatment can significantly reduce the metal content of sludges (22).
This view is also supported by the low metal content of sludges from treat-
ment plants serving only residential areas. It has been suggested that a
“typical” domestic sewage sludge would contain 2,500 mg zinc/kg, 1,000 mg
lead/kg, 1,000 mg copper/kg, 200 mg nickel/kg and 25 mg cadmium/kg (23).
However, since sludge—borne metals added to soils accumulate in the plant
root zone (upper 20 cm), heavy metal accumulation in soils is a considera-
tion even when low metal sludges are applied to agricultural land.
The rationale for considering lead, zinc, copper, nickel and cadmium
involves protecting the human food—chain from metal contamination and
preventing the deterioration of soil productivity. Lead additions to soils
are limited because of the potential for direct ingestion of lead contamin-
ated soil or dust by animals or infants. It is well established that
sludge applications do not result in appreciable increases in the lead
content of crops (23,24). Even though copper and zinc are essential micro—
nutrients for all crops, excessive additions of copper and zinc, along
with nickel, can be toxic to plants resulting in undesirable depressions
in crop yields. Fortunately, additions of sludge—borne copper, zinc, and
nickel to soils will not pose a health risk to animals or humans because the
plant concentrations of these metals which cause phytotoxicity are lower
than those causing health problems (24).
Cadmium has received the greatest attention as a potential human health
problem resulting from application of sewage sludges on cropland. Excessive
cadmium levels can occur in plant tissues before crop yields are reduced.
The concern over cadmium arises from current estimates of dietary cadmium
intake by the U.S. population (26). After ingestion, cadmium accumulates
primarily in the kidney and, after extended exposure to elevated dietary
cadmium, a chronic kidney malfunction (proteinuria) may result (27). Thus,
if sludge applications should significantly increase the cadmium content
in the human diet, there is the potential for a health problem after 20
to 50 years. It should be noted that only 1 to 2% of the agricultural
cropland is required for the annual application of all municipal sewage
sludge produced in the U.S. (24). Consequently, dangers from cadmium uptake
need to be considered, but they do not represent an imminent threat to
human health.
Plant species differ markedly in their response to application of
cadmium contained in sewage sludges. In general, leafy vegetables tend to
accumulate gteater concentrations of cadmium than fruit, tuber or grain
crops. Also, the vegetative parts of most plants contain higher concentra-
tions of cadmium than the reproductive or storage organs. Even though the
leaf can contain elevated cadmium levels, only minimal increases in grain
cadmium are observed for corn (22,24,28—30), suggesting that corn is an
ideal crop for soils treated with sludge. Other grain crops, such as
soybeans, oats and wheat, also exclude cadmium from entering the grain but
to a lesser extent than corn (24). In addition to species differences in
uptake of cadmium from soils, cultivars of corn (31), soybeans (32),
and lettuce (33) vary in cadmium accumulation, indicating a potential for
14
-------
plant breeding programs to develop cultivars which are ideally suited for
growth on soils amended with sludge.
In general, the concentrations of zinc in crops tend to parallel those
of cadmium while copper and nickel are altered to a smaller extent by sludge
applications (24). As with cadmium, zinc concentrations are greatest in the
vegetative parts of plants rather than the fruit or grain. The effects of
sewage sludge on the zinc and cadmium content of crops was discussed in a
recent CAST report (56).
Soil properties exert a strong influence on the uptake of metals by
crops. The solubility of heavy metals in soils is likely controlled by
sorption onto clay minerals or hydrous oxides of iron, aluminum and
manganese, chelation or complexation with organic matter and precipitation
with phosphate, sulfide or carbonate anions (24). Either directly or
indirectly, soil pH has a marked effect on the above metal retention mechan-
isms. Soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a function of soil clay and
organic matter content and pH and has been used as an index of those soil
properties minimizing metal solubility and thus plant uptake (34,35).
However, recent studies indicate that soil CEC, per se, is not likely to
influence cadmium concentrations in crops (36,37,56).
Soil pH appears to be the critical parameter for minimizing uptake of
sludge—borne metals by crops. tn most cases, substantial reductions in
plant cadmium concentrations result from liming acid soils. Zinc concentra-
tions in plants have been found to decrease from liming to a greater extent
than cadmium in some crops. It is also apparent that crops differ in cadmium
uptake following lime additions to increase soil pH. Metal uptake will be
minimized by sludge applications to calcareous soil where the pH is con-
tinuously buffered by the presence of calcium carbonate. In addition,
the cation exchange sites in soil organic matter are weakly acidic func-
tional groups which serve to buffer soil pH. Thus, CEC may be important
in non—calcareous soils by minimizing pH changes during the oxidation of
reduced nitrogen and sulfur contained in sludges.
The U.S. EPA in addition to some state regulatory agencies have
developed regulations concerning the maximum amounts of lead, zinc, copper,
nickel and cadmium allowable on agricultural land used for growing food—
chain crops. Food—chain crops are typically defined as those crops that
can enter the human diet either with (wheat, corn) or without (leafy
vegetables) processing. Researchers in the USDA and Agricultural Experi-
ment Stations proposed limits for lead, zinc, copper, nicke], and cadmium
which should allow the growth of all crops after termination of sludge
applications, provided the soil pH is maintained at 6.5 or above (34).
The metal loadings suggested are shown in Table 2. The use of soil CEC
was based on the fact that metal solubility and thus, plant availability
tends to decrease with increasing CEC in most soils of the north central
United States. The CEC concept may be valid for copper, zinc and nickel
but it does not appear to be related to the plant availability of cadmium
(36,37). Scaling metal additions to soil CEC does not imply that sludge—
borne metals are present in soils as exchangeable cations because it has
15
-------
TABLE 2. MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF LEAD, ZINC, COPPER, NICKEL AND CADMIUM
TUAT CAN BE APPTT n TO AGRTCULT1T1 AT. i npi. m* (34,35)
—— -
Metal
Soil cation exchange ca
pacity, meq/l00 g
<5
5—15
kg/ha
>15
lead
zinc
copper
nickel
cadmiumt
500
250
125
125
5
1,000
500
250
250
10
2,000
1,000
500
500
20
*Soil must be maintained at pH 6.5 or above.
tContained in U.S. EPA Criteria (10).
been well—established that nearly all metals in sludge—amended soils are
nonexchangeable with a neutral salt (40,41).
The U.S. EPA has developed regulations only for cadmium additions to
cropland (10). These limitations can be summarized as follows:
1. The H of the soil/sludge mixture must be 6.5 at the time
of sludge application.
2. Annual cadmium additions are limited to 0.5 kg/ha/yr if leafy
vegetables, root crops, vegetables or tobacco are grown.
3. For other food—chain crops, the annual cadmium additions follow
a phased reduction from 2 kg/ha/yr (present to 6/30/84), to
1.25 kg/ha/yr (7/1/84 to 12/31/86), to 0.5 kg/ha/yr
(after 1/1/87).
4. The cumulative cadmium applied must be <5 kg/ha if the background
soil pH is 6.5.
5. The cumulative cadmium applied is as shown in Table 2 for soils
with a background pH 6.5 and for soils with a background
pH 6.5 provided the pH is 6.5 at the time food—chain crops are
grown.
For soils used for growth of animal feed only, neither annual nor cumulative
cadmium application limits were established but soil pH must be 6.5 and a
detailed facility plan is needed to prove that the crop will not directly
enter the human diet. Guidelines rather than regulations have been
established for lead, zinc, copper and nickel by the U.S. EPA (35). The
U.S. EPA has also recently recommended that cumulative additions of lead
to agricultural soils be limited to 800 kg/ha (58) rather than the values
shown in Table 2.
16
-------
Nitrogen
The factor limiting the annual application rate of many sludges is the
available nitrogen content. A potential problem In land application of
sludges is the leaching of nitrate below the plant root zone and ultimately
into ground water. This can occur when available nitrogen additions to
soils exceed the nitrogen requirement of the crop grown, whether the nitrogen
added is from sludge, animal manures, or fertilizers. Thus, a well—designed
system will use annual sludge application rates which are consistent with
the nitrogen needs of the crop grown.
Several fractions of nitrogen in sewage sludge are available for plant
uptake. In anaerobically digested sludges, ammonium constitutes from 25
to 50% of the total nitrogen while nitrate is present in only traee amounts
(42). Both amjnonjum and nitrate are readily available for plant uptake.
The organic nitrogen applied to soils in sewage sludge will undergo partial
decomposition resulting in release of plant available inorganic nitrogen.
The amount of organic nitrogen mineralization is usually estimated from
laboratory or field decomposition studies which suggest that from 15% (43)
to 20% (34) of the organic nitrogen is released the first year after
application. In subsequent years, the percentage of organic N mineralized
decreases.
Part of the nitrogen in sewage sludge applied to soils will be lost
through volatilization or denitrification. Following surface application of
sludges, up to 60% of the ammonium nitrogen can be lost through ammonia
volatilization (44). Thus, the rate of sludge applied each year to provide
adequate nitrogen for plant growth is greater for surface than incorporated
applications (34,35). Nitrate losses can also occur after sludge application
through denitrification (microbial reduction of nitrate to nitrous oxide
and nitrogen gas under anaerobic conditions). This nitrogen loss Is not
corrected for directly but it has been considered in the development of
conventional nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for various crops.
Nitrogen fertilizer recommendations have been developed for the major crops
grown in all regions of the U. S. and these values are used in determining
the appropriate sewage sludge application rate for cropland.
Several field experiments have been conducted to compare yields of
crops grown on soils fertilized with sewage sludge and conventional inorganic
fertilizer materials (25,45,46,47). In general, crop yields are increased
by Increasing rates of sludge application. Corn grain yields have been deter-
mined on soils treated annually with ammonium nitrate and three different
anaerobically digested sludges (47). Sludges applied at a rate of 200 kg
N/ha gave similar corn grain yields as 100 kg N/ha added as ammonium
nitrate. On a loamy sand soil, no yield response was obtained for either
ammonium nitrate or sludge. The yield response of corn was similar for all
three types of sludges. Soil analysis indicated that nitrate concentrations
in the 0—15 cm depth averaged 92 and 59 mg N/kg for soils treated with
400 kg N/ha as ammonium nitrate and sludge, respectively. This study
concluded that the optimum rate of sludge application was 200 kg N/ha for
corn resulting in minimal leaching of nitrate into ground water. In a
17
-------
related study, it was shown that yields of both rye forage and corn grain
increased with increasing sludge application rates (46). Corn grain yields
were significantly increased for three years following a single application
of sludge. This result is consistent with mineralization of organic
nitrogen for several years after sludge is applied to soils. The studies
cited along with others indicate that optimum yields of agronotnic crops
can be obtained with an appropriate rate of sludge application.
GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR LAND APPLICATION
As discussed in the previous sections, major considerations in the use
of sewage sludge on agricultural land are: (1) pathogens; (2) persistent
organics; (3) heavy metals — lead, zinc, copper, nickel and cadmium and;
(4) available nitrogen. In addition, sludge applications should not result
in contamination of surface waters as a result of runoff. This potential
problem can be alleviated by incorporating the sludge into the soil, surface—
applying sludge on only relatively level soils (i.e., <6% slope), and
minimizing sludge application on frozen or snow covered soils. Additional
information on other site selection considerations has been discussed in
recent reviews (34,48,49).
The sludge utilization project described in this report was based on a
single application of sludge to cropland. To design such a project, infor-
mation was required on the (1) composition of sewage sludge; (2) chemical
properties (plant available phosphorus and potassium, pH, and CEC) and
fertility status of the soil and; (3) type and yield level of crop to be
grown. Based on this data, sludge application rates and supplemental
fertilizer needs were determined for the crops grown. Although not
proposed by the contractor, the total amount of sludge that could have been
applied over a period of years would have been based on cumulative additions
of lead, zinc, copper, nickel and cadmium. This basic approach can be
summarized as follows (50,57):
1. Obtain fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) recoinmenda—
tion for crop grown based on soil test data.
2. If first sludge application proceed to step 3
a. Correct fertilizer recommendation for amounts of residual
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from previous sludge
applications.
3. Select minimum sludge application rate from:
a. Nitrogen limitation — sludge—borne plant available nitrogen
(ammonium + nitrate + 20% of organic nitrogen) applied should
equal corrected nitrogen fertilizer recommendation.
b. Cadmium limitation — as specified in the U.S. EPA Criteria (10).
4. At the rate selected in step 3, calculate the amounts of
phosphorus and potassium needed to optimize crop yield.
18
-------
5. Sum the lead, zinc, copper, nickel and cadmium added each year.
6. If a metal limit has been exceeded (Table 2) terminate sludge
applications; otherwise, proceed to step I.
This approach assumes that soil pH is maintained at 6.5 or above whenever
sludge is applied. Since the annual application rate is consistent with
current fertilizer practices, monitoring in excess of routine soil testing
for available phosphorus and potassium and pH is not required. It must be
realized that the above steps only apply to sludges that have been stabilized
by an appropriate process and that persistent organics (i.e., PCB’s) are not
present at concentrations > 10 mg/kg. Using this approach, sewage sludge
can be readily used in the production of agronomic crops to obtain yields
comparable to those from using conventional fertilizer materials.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND APPLICATION AREA
The area chosen for sludge utilization was near Lebanon in Boone County,
Indiana (Figure 2). The climate is characterized by a mean annual tempera-
ture of 12°C (53°F) and a uniform distribution of rainfall throughout the
year (total precipitation of 99.1 cm (39 in). Snowfall ranges from 50.8 cm
to 63.5 cm (20 to 25 in). The soils in the county were developed from
glacial materials (Wisconsin glaciation) deposited in a nearly level till
plain and some gently sloping moraines. In excess of 95% of the soils
possess slopes of < 5%, resulting in minimal concern for surface runoff
following sludge applications.
The soils and climate of the area are optimum for the production of
grain crops such as corn, soybeans and winter wheat. These three crops
account for > 90% of the acreage planted to agricultural crops with the
majority being marketed as cash crops. Some corn and forages are also grown
as feed for hogs and dairy and beef cattle. Although they are a function of
soil fertility and management, the crop yields attainable are in excess of 9
metric tons corn/ha (150 bu corn/acre), 3 metric tons soybeans/ha (50 bu
soybeans/acre), and 4 metric tons wheat/ha (70 bu wheat/acre). Previous
research had shown that sewage sludge could be used as a fertilizer material
for the crops grown in the area.
19
-------
Boone County
S 43210 5
— -------- — r
SCALC 0 MIL.tS
Figure 2. General area map showing Belmont treatment facility and area of
of sludge application.
1
LOCATION
OF
COUNTIES
I—
r
Marion County
20
-------
SECTION S
REGULATORY AGENCY REQUIRENENTS
AGENCIES INVOLVED
Three public agencies were involved in development and implementation
of the project, namely Boone County (Planning Board and Health Department),
the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA).
Local Agencies
Boone County agencies were generally receptive to the project. As
reported in several newspaper articles, local officials believed that the
proposed sludge application project was based on sound principles and
did not constitute a threat to local farmland or water supplies. The County
Sanitarian, however, was quoted as saying that studies conducted to date
by the ISBH and the US EPA had not been conclusive enough to determine
if the proposed project was safe or unsafe. Sludge was only applied on land
zoned for agriculture so no zoning variances were needed.
The contractors initially intended to construct two temporary storage
lagoons for holding sludge near the application areas when inclement weather
prevented immediate applications on soils. Originally, it was planned that
all sludge stored in the temporary lagoons would be applied to land operated
by the owner of the lagoon. As such, the lagoon was not considered a place—
of—business and no zoning changes were needed. However, due to an early win-
ter in 1977 and a late and wet spring in 1978, the schedule for application
of sludge on land and for removal of the sludge from the Belmont site was
greatly delayed. A proposal was submitted by the contractor to the farmer
owning the lagoon and to the local Planning Commission requesting that the
additional sludge be stored in each lagoon and that this sludge be applied
to land not controlled by the lagoon owner. This proposal was initially
rejected by the farmer but he subsequently changed his mind and allowed the
additional sludge to be stored in the lagoon and applied elsewhere. The
Zoning Commission also approved this change of plans. As will be discussed
later, construction of the temporary storage lagoons was the only phase of
the project which prompted strong objections from the local citizens. In
general, the contractors had established good rapport and credibility with
local officials. They obviously felt that the contractors would perform the
job as proposed and that adequate data had been collected on sludge and
soil properties to prevent any adverse environmental effects.
21
-------
Indiana State Board of Health
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB) is the regulatory
agency within the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) having authority to
approve a land application project. Several ISBH professionals were
knowledgeable on current practices and research involving application of
sewage sludge on cropland. These individuals evaluated the various plans
submitted by the contractors and made recommendations to the SPCB, who
approve or disapprove all wastewater treatment projects in the state.
The contractor initially contacted the ISBH in 1975 to obtain informa-
tion on current regulations and guidelines for application of sewage sludge
on agricultural cropland. The ISBH did not have any formal regulations for
land application of sludge, but some general guidelines had been developed
by their technical staff. These guidelines were meant to be an aid in the
selection of appropriate application rates for sludge on cropland. Because
no regulations were in effect, each project proposal concerning land applica-
tion of sludge was evaluated on an individual basis. As a result, the con-
tractor was never confident that he was submitting the appropriate or needed
information to the ISBH.
The ISBH was reluctant to give rapid approval for the project even
though rather complete documentation had been provided by the contractor
concerning (1) nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, lead, zinc, copper, nickel,
cadmium, PCB, and pathogen content of the sludge; (2) application rates to
soils based on a maximum single addition of 1.12 kg cadmium/ha (1 lb/acre);
(3) liming all soils to pH 6.5 to minimize metal uptake by plants; and (4)
not applying sludge to frozen soils. At that time, U. S. EPA did not have
any formal regulations concerning either cadmium or PCB applications to
soils (these were not developed until September 1979 (10) and as a result,
the ISBH could not receive any definitive guidance from either EPA Head-
quarters or from the EPA Regional Office. The ISBH was undoubtedly
reluctant to set a precedent for rates of Cd and PCB applications to soils
if the values selected were later found to be more liberal than those
adopted by U. S. EPA. An additional factor was the gross PCB contamination
of sewage sludge in Bloomington, Indiana. A local farmer had been applying
PCB contaminated sludge (> 500 mg PCB/kg) on a pasture grazed by dairy
cattle, resulting in the direct ingestion of sludge adhering to the forage
and increases in the PCB levels in the milk. This highly publicized
incident sensitized many individuals to the potential problem arising from
PCBs in sewage sludge, especially when these sludges are applied to soils
used for growing crops for human or animal consumption.
Prior to presenting the specific conditions placed on the project by
the ISBH, it is informative to review the interim guidelines drafted by the
ISBH in 1975. These were as follows:
1. General Limitations
a. Sludge was to be stabilized by a process that reduced organic
content by 40%.
22
-------
b. Grazing of dairy cattle on pasture land treated with sludge
was prohibited for 2 months.
c. Growing of food crops eaten raw (e.g., leafy vegetables and
root crops) was prohibited for one year.
2. Site Selection.
a. The spreading site was to be located a minimum of 90 m (300 feet)
away from inhabited dwellings and public roads, and a minimum of
450 m (1500 feet) from a residential development.
b. No sludge was to be applied within 90 m (300 feet) of wells,
springs, intermittent streams, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes,
or the high water marks of 10—year flood of any body of water.
c. A maximum slope of land surface for sludge disposal was to be
6.0%. When the ground slope was in excess of 6%, sludge was to
be injected or incorporated into soil.
d. The minimum groundwater level from the surface was to be about 1 m
(3 feet). However, areas of known crevices underlain with
limestone was to be carefully evaluated.
3. Total Amount of Sludge Allowed.
The number of years sludge could be applied was based on cumulative
amounts of zinc, copper and nickel to prevent reductions in crop
yield and the cumulative amount of cadmium to minimize cadmium
in food crops.
a. The zinc equivalent approach was used to calculate total
allowable additions of zinc, coppe; and nickel (the percent
of the soil cation exchange capacity that could be added on a zinc
equivalent basis). The zinc equivalent (mg per kg sludge) was
calculated from: zinc equivalent = Zn.+ (2 x Cu) + (4 x Ni).
(It should be noted that even though the zinc equivalent is not
currently used to determine total metal loading on soils; it was
being discussed by US EPA and several state regulatory agencies
in 1975 to 1977.)
b. Total cadmium additions could not exceed 11.2 kg/ha (10 lbs/acre).
4. Annual Sludge Application Rate
The maximum annual application rate was limited by either the
nitrogen required by the crop grown or a 1.12 kg/ha (1 lb./acre)
cadmium limitation.
a. The rate based on nitrogen considered the nitrogen requirement
of the crop grown, the release of residual nitrogen from
previous applications of sludge, and the amount of plant avail-
able nitrogen in the sewage sludge. The potential for nitrate
23
-------
leaching into ground water was minimized by limiting the amount
of nitrogen applied each year.
b. If the cadmium/zinc ratio in the sludge exceeded 1%, then the
annual amount of cadmium applied was not to exceed 1.12 kg/ha
(1 lb./acre).
The state interim guidelines also contained guidance on management of
spreading operations, monitoring and reporting, sludge and soil information
to be provided and information on the sites used and sludge volumes applied.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The passage of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act encouraged the
beneficial use of waste materials, including sewage sludge. In 1975, at
the time the project was initiated and in 1976—1977, when state and federal
approvals were sought, no definite regulations regarding application of
sludge on cropland had been developed by US EPA. There was, however, con-
siderable concern expressed by numerous individuals at the national and
regional levels within US EPA concerning the potential harmful effects of
increasing the cadmium and PCB levels in the human diet. Extensive re-
search was being conducted by US EPA, US Department of Agricultural, and
universities to determine the effect of sludge applications on the cadmium
and/or PCB content of numerous crops. Although, the ISBH and SPCB re-
ceived general guidance from US EPA, they did not provide specific values
for acceptable application rates of cadmium and PCBs. Since US EPA
Construction Grants funds were being used for the project, the land
application plan required approval by Region V of US EPA.
In November of 1977, the Technical Bulletin (35) was published by
US EPA. This document only provided guidance to the Construction Grants
Program and did not constitute regulations. The Technical Bulletin did
prove quite useful to the contractors in their request to increase the
cadmium application rate from 1.12 kg/ha (1 lb./acre) to 2.1 kg/ha (1.875
lbs. /acre)
FINAL REGULATORY AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
The SPCB issued an approval for beginning site work/sludge disposal
by land application on April 19, 1977. This permit allowed awarding the
contract prior to submittal of additional materials needed for final
approval. The notice to proceed stipulated that additional information
was to be submitted as follows:
1. Submittal by April 27, 1977, and approval by the ISBH and US EPA
that “Conditions of Approval” had been satisfied for land applica-
tion on remaining acreage.
24
-------
2. Submittal by June 15, 1977, and approval by the ISBH and the US EPA
that “Conditions of Approval” had been satisfied for land application
on remaining acreage.
“Conditions of Approval” for construction as agreed to by EPA Region V and
the SPCB to be met prior to a Notice to Proceed included the following:
1. The contractor will hold the original bid price.
2. Sludge from lagoons No. 6 and No. 16 shall not be used for land
applications. This sludge must be disposed of on the Belmont
Site.
3. Lagoons No. 1 through 10 shall be cleared and the area prepared
for site work.
4. Sludge removed will be calculated and paid for, on the basis of
vacated volume resulting from sludge removal (lagoons 1 through 10).
5. Only 1.12 kg of cadmium may be applied per hectare. Sludge applica—
tion shall be for one year only and no second year application
shall be made.
6. The amount and location of land used, the amount of heavy metals
(nickel, copper, zinc, lead), PCBs, and cadmium applied shall be
recorded at the County courthouse with respect to each parcel
of land and shall be a permanent record transferred in the
subsequent sale or transfer of the property.
7. All soil shall be tested for cadmium and heavy metals before
applying sludge and recorded at the County courthouse with respect
to each parcel of land and shall be a permanent record transferred
in the subsequent sale or transfer of the property.
8. If pH of the soil is not at least 6.5, the pH must be adjusted to 6.5
before applying sludge.
9. Only corn and/or soybeans shall be planted the first year. Prior
to harvest, representative samples of crop must be tested for PCB
concentration and notification of the results provided to the EPA
and Indiana State Board of Health.
10. No stalks shall be removed and no grazing of animals permitted for
one crop year after application of the sludge.
11. No sludge shall be applied after the crop is planted.
12. Monitoring, recording and reporting of application rates shall be
conducted as specified in the present contract.
13. Final payment will not be made until the temporary holding lagoon
is cleared of sludge and filled in.
25
-------
Additional state and US EPA conditions of approval were those presented
at the January 11, 1977, Public Hearing as follows:
1. Application rates must be determined for each site based on
both the sludge and soil characteristics.
2. A hold harmless agreement between the land owner and the State
of Indiana was to be established.
3. Liability insurance or bond in an amount agreed upon in excess
of one million dollars to protect the State of Indiana was to be
purchased.
4. The sludge application rate was to be reviewed by the ISBH staff
but the review of the application rate does not absolve the
applicant from any liability, as the Board did not (as yet)
recognize any application rate as being environmentally fool proof.
Also the City was reminded of a requirement of the original grant offer that:
“...the grantee agrees to provide, concurrently with the sub-
mission of bidding information to the State, (1) Such supple-
mental environmental data, including, but not limited to,
location, methodology, proximity of habitation, soil and ground-
water characteristics,* etc., which otherwise were not
addressed in the environmental assessment accompanying the
application for the subject grant...”.
* To establish potential for groundwater pollution and need
for lining the temporary holding lagoons.
CONTRACTOR’ S RESPONSES TO REGULATORY AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
Sampling and Analysis of Sludge Lagoons
The contents of lagoons 1 through 10 had been sampled and analyzed as
part of the Engineer’s initial design effort. However, the sampling and
analyses were performed at the time when sludge disposal was to be on the
Belmont site. The results of Engineer’s sludge sampling and analysis pro-
gram were presented as part of the contract documents. The bidders were
then required to verify the data provided with the bid documents.
One of the major problems encountered was obtaining satisfactory and
consistent data for the chemical composition of the lagooned sludges.
Sampling the lagoons was a major obstacle because the solids content in-
creased with depth. The data presented in Table 3 illustrates the vari-
ability found in solids content for different sets of samples obtained from
the lagoons. Some variations were also found for the heavy metal content of
the sludge but it was substantially less than the 5 to 10 fold range found
for the solids content.
26
-------
TABLE
3. VARIABILITY IN THE SO
LIDS CONTENT
OF BELMONT LAGOON
SLUDGES
LAGOON
NUMBER
SAMPLE
1
SAMPLE
2
SAMPLE
3
SAMPLE 4
O.8m
2.lm 3.6m
46 a
7. solids
(wet weight)
i
39.9
11.9
—
—
— —
30.6
2
43.5
12.0
—
—
— —
—
3
20.4
3.9
28.0
—
— —
—
4
24.5
10.2
43.0
2.3
27.9 27.6
—
5
14.9
3.3
70.0
5.6
5.2 10.2
18.4
7
13.7
3.7
33.0
7.3
9.1 14.8
21.7
8
10.6
3.6
12.0
7.0
8.3 17.8
—
9
13.6
3.7
12.0
—
— —
—
10
13.5
3.8
13.0
—
— —
—
11
23.6
—
—
7.6
10.9 17.5
38.2
12
13.5
—
13.0
7.4
12.5 12.8
16.9
13
10.1
—
—
2.7
8.4 9.8
18.8
14
9.7
—
—
10.2
11.7 14.5
13.2
15
13.7
—
—
6.3
5.9 10.6
18.6
17
7.2
—
—
0.7
1.9 3.0
1.2
18
10.3
—
—
5.5
4.4 4.6
19.7
aDeepest sample ranged from 3.8m to 5.lnr.
ISBH concerns regarding previous sampling and analytical procedures
on which sludge application rates were to be based resulted in a January
19, 1977, meeting attended by representatives of US EPA, ISBH, the contrac-
tor, design engineer, and the City. After prolonged discussion, a sampling
procedure was agreed upon to be performed by the contractor and monitored
by representatives of the US EPA and the design engineer. The majority
of the analyses were to be performed by the US EPA. Sampling was performed
in February, 1977. The unseasonably cold weather proved beneficial as
sampling could be performed through the 30 cm (12 inch) thick ice layer
covering the lagoons. The majority of the analytical data were available
by March 15, 1977, and are summarized in Table 4.
Contractor’s Environmental Assessment Document
The bid documents required that the contractor take responsibility
for preparation of an Environmental Assessment of sludge disposal involving
sludge removal from the Belmont site. The responsibility for preparation
of this document was accepted by the general contractor’s sludge disposal
subcontractor.
The Environmental Assessment by the sludge disposal subcontractor
satisfied the regulatory requirements of such a document. It compared
the proposed sludge disposal method to other alternatives listed in the bid
27
-------
TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF BELMONT LAGOON SLUDGES*
Lagoon
Total
Total
Total
Aimnonium
Nitrate
Total
Total
Total Cyanide Fecal
Number
Solids
Volatile
N
N
N
P
Al
Ba
Coli Forms
Solids
% % mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg MPN/l00 x lO
1 39,9 29.0 1.50 1.50 <0.01 1.20 0.84 0.12 31 0.2
2 43,5 29.5 1.50 0.45 <0.01 1.10 0.73 0.08 46 0.2
3 20.4 33.3 1.80 0.51 <0.01 2.10 1.52 0.11 87 0.2
4 24.5 29.0 1.50 0.26 <0.01 2.20 1.55 0.09 74 4
5 14.9 36.5 1.70 0.55 <0.01 1.10 0.87 0.10 43 460
6 13,2 40.3 2.00 0.68 <0.01 2.40 1.57 0.10 100 75
7 13.7 39.4 2.30 0.72 <0.01 2.50 1.28 0.10 100 93
8 10.6 48.0 2.70 0.86 <0.01 2.60 1.15 0.09 140 2,400
9 13.6 43.8 2.60 0.87 <0.01 2.30 1.25 0.10 130 75
10 13.5 44.2 2.50 0.82 <0.01 2.20 — 0.09 110 2,400
11 23.6 53.3 1.50 0.47 <0.01 1.40 1.00 0.11 52 4
12 13.5 39.8 2.20 0.84 <0.01 2.10 1.05 0.09 150 43
13 10.1 41.3 2.60 0.95 <0.01 2.50 1.30 0.11 130 11
14 9.7 45.7 3.10 0.98 <0.01 2.60 — — 170 460
15 13.7 48.9 2.10 0.79 <0.01 1.40 1.12 0.11 130 2.4
16 7.9 46.8 3.00 1.01 <0.01 2.30 1.11 0.10 170 4
17 7.2 43.6 3.00 1.20 <0.01 2.40 1.23 0.10 150 460
18 10.2 45.5 2.80 0.92 <0.01 2.60 1.14 0.09 92 460
*
All data expressed on an oven—dry solids basis except for total solids.
-------
TABLE 4
(continu
ed)*
Lagoon
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Number
PCB
Pb
Zn
Cu
Cd
As
Co
Cu
Mn
Fe
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
1 <3 1,410 >650 909 122 50 51 543 398 2.37
2 21 1,510 1,810 918 123 20 49 547 619 2.21
3 9 1,940 3,040 1,410 241 15 57 1,010 467 2.48
4 17 1,450 >630 1,300 174 50 50 960 432 2.20
5 11 1,370 2,590 1,130 124 25 63 967 400 2.30
6 60 1,080 3,370 1,390 178 20 67 1,420 517 2.46
7 20 1,480 3,260 1,490 166 25 50 1,210 458 2.05
8 24 1,240 3,270 1,520 144 15 58 1,360 440 2.27
9 22 1,340 3,000 1,540 202 23 58 1,460 437 2.58
10 26 1,490 2,870 1,540 157 25 49 1,080 392 —
11 26 1,490 2,850 1,320 207 24 62 1,190 444 2.73
12 17 1,510 2,810 1,330 187 26 48 1,330 363 2.16
13 41 1,550 3,270 1,570 200 21 58 1,420 503 2.45
14 24 — — — 24 — — — —
15 18 1,790 3,100 1,550 240 27 63 1,440 465 2.71
16 66 1,110 3,220 1,520 259 30 58 1,950 473 2.51
17 30 1,230 2,990 1,450 188 23 54 1,440 493 2.25
18 22 1,270 3,370 1,710 192 30 51 1,600 467 2.26
*
All data expressed on an oven—dry solids basis.
-------
documents. Procedures were described for transporting sludge to Boone
County and for application to agricultural land. A price of about $54.30!
hectare ($22/acre) for one application of sludge was quoted to the farmers.
The public hearing required by the Environmental Assessment procedure
was held in Boone County on January 11, 1977. Formal statements concerning
the project were presented by representatives of the Indiana State Board of
Health (ISBH). Statements made by the sludge spreading subcontractor at the
hearing established many of the constraints which were to affect the sludge
disposal procedure throughout the contract. The tone of the public hearing
was favorable to the landspreading project.
The struggle to obtain and retain regulatory and funding agency approvals
was a continuing effort throughout the life of the project. The City’s
submission of the contractor’s Environmental Assessment and associated docu-
ments was only the first of the innumerable submissions and associated meet-
ings and hearings that were required to enable the construction work to
first cou ence and then to continue.
The contractor was not experienced or prepared to respond rapidly to
the continuing requirements of the regulatory agencies for “further informa-
tion.” The City and its consultants were, therefore, required to review,
edit, and expedite the contractor’s responses to the agencies.
The City’s attempt, by the contract documents, to assign the contractor
all responsibility for obtaining and maintaining regulatory agency approvals
failed. The regulatory agency approvals maintained that the City was
responsible for the sludge almost in perpetuity and therefore the City could
not assign its responsibility to the contractor.
Construction of Interim Sludge Lagoons
The Environmental Assessment documents submitted by the contractor, as
part of his bid, called for an off—site interim sludge lagoon to be con-
structed in Boone County. The proposed lagoon was to be used to hold sludge
which could not be immediately spread on the land and was to be located on
the Morton farm (North Lagoon) as shown in Figure 2. The prolonged period
required to obtain the regulatory agency approvals in early 1977 made it
clear that additional off—site sludge storage capacity would be required.
The contractor therefore proposed to construct a second interim sludge
storage lagoon éDuff [ e1d i ope ty ( o iEh Lagoon) as shown in
Figure 2.
The ISBH required the submission of the construction and monitoring in-
formation prior to construction of the two interim sludge lagoons. Per-
colation tests were devised to determine whether a clay liner would be
necessary. It was found that sludge completely sealed the soil surface.
Monitoring wells were required on all sides of the temporary holding ponds
with the following analyses to be performed on a monthly basis: (a) ammonium;
(b) nitrite + nitrate; (c) iron; (d) chloride; (e) conductivity; (f) pH
(on—site); (g) PCB’s; (h) zinc; and (i) total organic carbon. Review of data
obtained over the period of the project showed no significant variations in
30
-------
the water quality parameters measured.
The contractor continued to gather and prepare information for sub-
mission by the City to the ISBH in response to the requirements of the
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board letter of April 19, 1977. During
this period two 85,165 cubic meter (22.5 million gallon) temporary
sludge holding lagoons were being constructed in Boone County. One reac-
tion to this construction was the June 16, 1977, filing of a restraining
order by 34 residents of Boone County. Despite the fact that more than
three months were to pass before any sludge was to leave the Belmont Plant,
the plaintiffs alleged that sludge was already being hauled to Boone
County and that:
"That said sludge attracts insects, fouls the air, and said
materials contained in the sewage are being percolated through
the soil and are reaching the water tables that the afore-
mentioned plaintiffs use to drink via wells located within their
geographic area."
and
"That due to the location of the sludge pond at 250 N. 400 East,
the adjoining landowners, and the individuals who reside within
that geographic location cannot go outside due to the smell and
due to the great inflow of disease bearing mosquitoes and same
is creating a health and nuisance hazard to said location."
A Court hearing on August 31, 1977, resulted from the plaintiffs'
request for a restraining order. An Agreement of Understanding resulted
from discussions between the attorneys for the various parties. The
salient requirements of the Agreement of Understanding were as follows:
1. All sludge to be removed from the South lagoon and site
restored to its original condition on or before December 31, 1979.
2. Only sludge from the Belmont Plant to be transported to the
South or North lagoons. Sludge hauling to be completed within
150 days of first day of hauling.
3. Water samples to be collected periodically from test wells
located on all four sides of both lagoons for analysis by the
ISBH.
4. All sludge to be removed from either or both lagoons if ISBH
finds that leakage from the lagoon is endangering the water supply
of adjoining property owners.
5. Only the sludge involved in the current contract with the City
shall be transported to or stored in the lagoons.
31
-------
6. “No “raw sewage with excrement odor” to be stored in the lagoons.
7. The ISBH will collect samples from the plaintiffs’ wells as soon
as possible and will continue periodic sampling.
The ISBH issued a letter approving landspreading of 1053 hectares
(2602 acres) on August 30, 1977, which was subsequently endorsed by US EPA
letter of September 8, 1977. The erratic availability of these areas
discouraged the contractor from starting to haul off—site until ISBH
approval of the two lagoons was issued on September 15, 1977, endorsed by the
US EPA letter of October 13, 1977. Based on the verbal assurance of US EPA
endorsement of the State project approvals, the first load of sludge left
the Belmont site on September 26, 1977.
Documentation of Land Application Sites
Prior to transportation of sludge from the Belmont lagoons to Boone
County and application on agricultural land, the contractor began collect-
ing the necessary information for compliance with the requirements set forth
by the SPCB. The information needed included:
1. Letter of intent describing the sludge application program
(including sludge analysis) and stating the land area
involved was signed by the owner and/or operator (Appendix C).
2. Release form was signed by the owner and/or operator (Appendix D).
3. A large scale, detail map (2.5 cm = 200/rn; 1 in = 660 ft.) showing
setback distances, inhabitated dwellings, roads, and area for
surface or incorporated sludge application was submitted for each
site.
4. Soil analysis was performed on each individual field to be treated
with sludge. All soil samples were collected by the contractor
and sent to a commercial laboratory. The analyses performed
on each soil sample included: a) organic matter; b) plant avail-
able phosphorus and potassium; c) pH and lime requirement if pH
<6.5; d) exchangeable potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium
and hydrogen (the sum equals cation exchange capacity) and;
total zinc, lead, copper, nickel and cadmium.
The location of soil sample collection and sludge application was also
identified on a copy of the soil survey map. The soil survey map also
contained the needed information on slopes. If desired, it was then possible
to correlate the results of soil analysis with the soil series. Each
owner/operator was assigned a permanent identification number to facilitate
data handling. The area available for an owner/operator was tabulated
on a master sheet. Examples of the various forms and maps used are shown
in Appendix E.
32
-------
SECTION 6
AGRONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
AGRONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The contractor’s program involved a single application of sludge on
cropland. The elevated cadmium concentrations in the lagoon sludges pre-
cluded the application of sludge at a rate which satisfied the nitrogen
demand of the crop. Initial approval of the project was based on limiting
cadmium additions to soils at 1.12 kg/ha (1 lb/acre); this rate was later
increased to 2.1 kg/ha (1.875 lbs/acre). Because the sludge cadmium con-
centrations varied for each lagoon, the application rate ranged from 4.6 to
9.2 metric tons/ha (2.1 to 4.1 tons/acre) at 1.12 kg Cd/ha (Table 5) and
from 8.7 to 17.1 metric tons/ha (3.9 to 7.7 tons/acre) at 2.1 kg Cd/ha
(Table 6); sludge composition data are shown in Table 4.
The amounts of plant available nitrogen and total phosphorus, lead,
zinc, copper, nickel and PCB’s applied in a single application of lagoon
sludges are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Soil analysis was conducted on each
field treated with sludge so the plant available levels of phosphorus and
potassium in each soil were known. Because plant available phosphorus
levels ranged from low to very high, representative phosphorus fertilizer
additions are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Soybeans are not fertilized with
nitrogen because they can “fix” atmospheric nitrogen. If supplied with an
external source of nitrogen, soybeans actually have the capacity to
assimilate greater quantities of nitrogen than corn. For a corn yield of
9,400 kg/ha (150 bu/acre), the amount of plant available nitrogen applied in
the lagooned sewage sludge satisfied from 20 to 80% of the nitrogen require-
ment. The phosphorus requirements of both corn and soybeans can range from
10 to 25% of those for nitrogen. As a result, a single sludge application
should provide sufficient phosphorus for 2 to 3 cropping seasons. The
sludge contained low concentrations of potassium resulting in essentially no
change in the potassium fertilizer needed to optimize crop growth.
In general, the major benefit obtained from the single application of
sludge was a significant increase in plant available phosphorus. A portion
of the nitrogen required by corn was also satisfied by sludge additions.
Other benefits derived from sludge application was the addition of nearly
all trace elements required by corn and soybeans. A single application of
sludge provided significant amounts of zinc, copper, cobalt, iron, and
manganese, relative to the requirements of corn and soybeans.
33
-------
a 1007 , of NH 4 +_N plus 20% or organic—N
bTypical fertilizer applications assuming medium soil
P and K; crop yields of 9,400 —11,000 kg/ha (150—175
and 3,360—4,000 kg/ha (50—60 bu/acre) for soybeans
CN fertilizer not applied to soybeans due to symbiotic N 2 fixation
dTotal metal additions suggested by U.S. EPA (1977), for a CEC of 5—15
meq/100 g
TABLE 5. APPLICATION RATE FOR LAGOON SLUDGES BASED
LIMIT AND THE ANOUNTS OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS,
NICKEL AND PCB’s APPLIED
ON A 1.12 kg CADMIUM/ha
LEAD, ZINC, COPPER,
Lagoon
Number
Applic.
Rate
metric
tons/ha
Plant
Avail. N 8 P
Pb Zn Cu Ni PCB
kg/ha
1 9.2
39
111
13
24
8
0.5
0.028
2 9.1
60
100
14
16
8
0.5
0.191
3 4.6
36
98
9
14
7
0.5
0.042
4 6.4
33
142
9
17
8
0.6
0.109
5 9.0
70
99
12
23
10
0.6
0.099
7 6.7
70
169
10
22
10
1.1
0.135
8 7.8
96
202
10
25
13
1.4
0.187
9 5.5
67
128
7
17
8
0.9
0.122
10 7.1
82
157
11
20
11
1.1
0.185
11 5.4
37
76
8
15
7
0.6
0.141
12 6.0
67
126
9
17
8
0.6
0.102
13 5.6
72
140
9
18
9
1.1
0.230
15 4.7
49
65
8
14
7
0.6
0.084
17 6.0
93
143
7
18
9
1.0
0.179
18 5.8
76
152
7
20
10
1.1
0.128
Fertilizer applied
220 C
for corn or
soybeansb
Suggested allowable
additiond
—
1,000
2,000
250
250
test levels for
bu/acre) for corn
34
-------
TABLE 6.
LIMIT
Lagoon
Number
Applic.
Rate
metric
tons/ha
1 17.2
2 17.1
3 8.7
4 12.1
5 16.9
7 12.6
8 14.6
9 10.4
10 13.4
11 10.1
12 11.2
13 10.5
15 8.7
17 11.2
18 10.9
Fertilizer applied
for corn or
soybeansb
Suggested allowable
additiond
kg/ha
24 46 16 0.9
26 31 16 0.9
17 26 13 0.9
17 32 16 1.1
23 44 19 1.1
19 41 19 2.1
18 48 22 2.6
14 31 16 1.7
20 38 21 2.0
15 29 13 1.0
17 32 15 1.1
16 34 16 2.0
16 27 14 1.1
14 33 16 2.0
14 37 19 2.1
0.052
0.359
0.078
0.205
0.186
0.253
0.350
0.229
0.348
0.264
0.191
0.431
0.157
0.335
0.241
a +
100% of NH 4 —N and 20/ of organic—N
bTypical fertilizer applications assuming medium soil
P and K; crop yields of 9,400 —11,000 kg/ha (150—175
and 3,360—4,000 kg/ha (50—60 bu/acre) for soybeans.
cN fertilizer not applied to soybeans because of symbiotic N 2 fixation
dTotal metal additions suggested by U.S. EPA (1977) for a CEC of 5—15
meq/100 g
APPLICATION RATE FOR LAGOON SLUDGES BASED ON A 2.1 kg CADMIUN/ha
AND THE AMOUNTS OF NITROGEN, PHOSPHORUS, LEAD, ZINC, COPPER,
NICKEL AND PCB’s
APPLIED
Plant a
Avail. N
P Pb Zn Cu Ni PCB
72
113
67
61
132
131
179
126
155
69
125
134
92
174
142
208
188
183
266
186
316
379
239
294
142
236
263
122
268
284
35
1,000 500
250 250
test levels for
bu/acre) for corn
35
-------
The amounts of PCB’s (polychiorinated biphenyls) applied are also pre-
sented in Tables 5 and 6. The concentration of PCB’s in the sludges ranged
from 20 to 30 mg/kg, values in excess of those found in most sludges.
After application, the concentrations of PCB’s in the soil were calculated
to range from 0.01 to 0.18 mg/kg. These levels were not anticipated to
have an adverse affect on crop quality.
Even though the sludges contained relatively high concentrations of
lead, zinc, copper and nickel, a single application did not approach the
limitations suggested by U.S. EPA (Tables 5 and 6). The metal limitations
were designed to prevent the development of phytotoxicities from zinc,
copper and nickel and the contamination of crops with lead. If the project
had been designed for annual applications of sludge until a critical accumu—
lation of metals occurred, cadmium would still have controlled the total
allowable amount applied to agricultural cropland rather than lead,
zinc, copper or nickel.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
Two sectors of the community were addressed during development of the
sludge utilization program. The first group was the farmers who are
receiving the sludge. They must see an economic benefit to the use of sludge,
an unknown quantity in their mind, when compared to conventional fertilizer
materials. Secondly, the fears and objections of the farmers’ neighbors
were addressed. The initial response to a sludge application project
may be similar to that when a new landfill site is discussed — yes, we
need a new landfill, but not near my property.
The most common objections or concerns to use of sludge on cropland
include: a) fear of odors; b) concern about toxic effects to land and
contamination of wells with toxic chemicals; c) resentment about a sophisti-
cated sales approach (lacks credibility); d) insufficient data to support the
benefits claimed for land application; e) reports of excess applications
by other projects resulting in decreased crop yields or odor problems and;
f) complaints will not be handled courteously or rapidly. Above all, there
may be a general feeling that a large city is trying to dump its problem
on a small, rural community.
The contractor realized that an effective public relations program was
essential to insure acceptance of sludge utilization in Boone County.
Even though a technically sound sludge application system may be designed,
public opposition could prevent the program from being initiated. The
contractor’s public relations approach was to present all available
information, both positive and negative, to the general public and
especially to the farmers who were directly involved in the project.
To understand such a recycling approach, the general public must be
educated on sludge utilization and they must also have direct input into
developing the project. Factual information can be conveyed by personal
contacts, public hearings and educational meetings, newspaper articles,
and radio and/or television releases. Above all, the information must be
36
-------
technically sound and it must equally emphasize the positive and negative
aspects of sludge use on cropland.
The public relations approa ches utilized by the contractor can be
summarized as follows:
1. Individual and group meetings were held with many farmers
interested in using sludge on their cropland.
2. Meetings were held with the County Planner and County Sanitarian
of Boone County, Indiana.
3. Interviews were conducted with the Lebanon Reporter, the newspaper
with the largest circulation in Boone County.
4. Interviews were conducted with radio station NON of Lebanon,
Indiana, resulting in news broadcasts.
5. Meetings were conducted with all agricultural extension agents
in Boone County and surrounding areas. Representatives from the
Indiana State Board of Health, the consulting engineer firm
and Purdue University were present at many of these meetings.
6. A public demonstration of sludge application on cropland was held
in November, 1975. This demonstration involved the application of
Belmont sludge at the planned 8.96 metric ton/ha (4 tons/acre)
rate on farmland in Boone County. Equipment with high flotation
tires was used to apply the sludge. Approximately 200 people
attended the demonstration including county officials, members
of the press, and other interested parties. Information describ-
ing the chemical composition of and application rates for Belmont
lagoon sludges, along with copies of press releases and extension
bulletins, was given to all people attending the demonstration.
The demonstration was advertised by: a) a quarter page ad in the
Lebanon Reporter; b) spot announcements on radio station WNON,
Lebanon, Indiana, and; c) News article in Lebanon Reporter 5 days
before the demonstration.
7. A public relations firm located in Indianapolis, Indiana, was
retained to develop news releases and other public participation
programs.
8. Prior to the public hearing in January, 1977, a letter describing
the sludge utilization project was sent to numerous environmental,
service, and governmental organizations. This letter urged their
attendance and input into the program. A partial list of organiza-
tions contacted included:
37
-------
Indiana Coal Association
Department of Natural Resources
TV and radio reporters
Newspaper reporters
Farm Bureau Co—op
Soil Conservation Service
Extension Agents
North Side Environmental
Action Committee
League of Women Voters
Indiana Assoc. of Cities
and Towns
Boone County Board of
Zoning and Appeals
Nature Conservancy
Indianapolis Environmental Action
Local Bankers
Consulting Engineers
Indiana State Board of Health
County Sanitarian
News wire services
Izaah Walton League
Save the Dunes Council
Audubon Society
Indiana Conservation Council
Coalition for the Environment
Lafayette Environmental Action
Federation
Citizens Organized to Protect
our Environment
Sierra Club
9. Development of written materials for distribution to anyone
interested in the sludge application project. This material
described the company involved, sludge composition, rates of
application, potential problems, cost and liability insurance.
Examples of this information are included as Appendix B.
One of the major factors in the above program was the direct involve-
ment of a local farm management firm. This organization had been in business
in the Lebanon area since 1939 and as a result was respected and trusted
by local farmers. Farmers were likely more receptive to the program since
a local firm was directly involved in the daily operations of the project.
Their attitude might have been different had the project been controlled
by a “big city” firm. Furthermore, the farm management firm was directly
involved with farming 75% of the land area subscribed for application of
sludge.
Essentially no objections were raised concerning the application of
sludge on cropland by either the farmers or neighbors. However, the
proposal also involved the construction of two temporary storage lagoons
on land controlled by the farm management firm (Figure 2). The lagoons
elicited a strong negative response not from the farmers but from the
neighbors. They felt that the lagoons would cause significant odor problems
and contamination of local wells used for drinking water. The concerned
citizens obtained an attorney and filed an injunction to halt construc-
tion of the temporary storage lagoons. Even though the contractors pre-
sented technically sound answers to questions and concerns raised by the
citizens, the emotional nature of the issue precluded a rational settlement.
The public attitude was undoubtedly influenced by information presented
in local newspaper reports such as the following:
“A person at the meeting said they were concerned about water
lines, wells, and streams.
38
-------
Ball said, “They (Organic Materials) have to prove to us if the
lagoons are safe, or not. All we hear is bad stuff. They have to
convince us it is safe”.
About the same people were on hand last night as those who assembled
Wednesday night at the lagoon site east of town where Duff, president
of Organic Materials, and John Tait, vice president, fielded a myriad
of questions but remonstrators were not satisfied with the answers.
Mrs. Sam Rogers last night reported that a relative near Arcola,
Ill., was in close proximity of a similar lagoon and that at times
the odor was bad. The relative, this morning via telephone con-
versation with this reporter, said that there was some concern that
the crops would take up undesirable elements out of the thick,
heavy liquid, but that he had recently read some article on this and
no conclusion had been reached that the crops take up enough to be
harmful. “Your Boone situation may be different,” he said, “but at
times the odor was bad.” However, the Illinois farmer, who was
about three miles from the lagoon, said that at times there were
some little problems with wells nearby and drainage ditches.
But he concluded the Soil Enrichment Materials Company, which
hauled the waste material out of Chicago and spent millions of dollars
installing rail lines and buying land, went bankrupt and the lagoon,
still full, has been abandoned.”
This article alludes to the contamination of streams and wells by the
sludge lagoons. Even though such claims were never substantiated, the
fear of such contamination had a substantial impact on people’s attitudes.
The article also mentions uptake of “undesirable elements” by crops in
spite of the fact that the contractor had spent considerable effort in
educating the public on sludge constituents, both beneficial and detri-
mental, to crops.
One critical feature of the public relations program was a detailed
knowledge of sludge composition. To describe the positive and negative
aspects of sludge application on cropland, it was essential to have detailed
chemical analysis of the lagooned sludges. Based on this data, it was
possible to state the exact rates of sludge application and explain why
these rates were chosen.
It was also the position of he ludge spreading subcontractor that
a nominal charge should be assessed per hectare for sludge application.
The rationale for this was that, if sludge truly has value in crop pro-
duction, then a firm would not give it away free—of—charge but would charge
at least a portion of the value obtained by the farmer. An additional
important factor is that each farmer did not have to purchase additional
equipment for applying sludge. The contractor not only applied the sludge
but he also applied any agricultural limestone needed to adjust the soil
to pH 6.5. All soil sampling and analysis was conducted by the contractor
at no charge to the farmer. After sludge application, the contractor
incorporated the sludge into the soil surface by disking. The approach
39
-------
used by the contractor did not place any additional workload on the farmers,
and this undoubtedly enhanced acceptance of the sludge utilization project
by the farmers.
The general contractor and others associated with the project con-
tinued to seek good public relations through the various avenues available
to them. Examples of this effort included the following:
a. General contractor and City personnel made themselves readily
available to the media. One television station produced
a series of favorable reports on the project despite start—up
problems that included showering commentator and cameraman
with sludge in one instance.
b. A construction magazine published a detailed technical description
of the project and the equipment used (58).
c. The general contractor made a professionally prepared, twenty
minute, color movie of the project available for viewing by a
broad spectrum of technical and public interest groups.
A public information deficiency associated with the construction of
the second interim (south) sludge lagoon resulted in project delays and
costs culminating with the court hearing of August 31, 1977.
40
-------
SECTION 7
SLUDGE REMOVAL, TRANSPORTATION AND APPLICATION
SEMI-LIQUID SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Removal of Semi—Liquid Sludge From Lagoons
Removal of sludge from lagoons is not a simple task. The material is
frequently stratified in the lagoons with concentrations ranging from
nominally clear liquid at the surface to greater than 20 percent solids near
the sludge—soil interface at the lagoon bottom. Various methods have been
used on other projects to remove sludge from lagoons, including use of
dredges. As will be shown later, the wide range of sludge concentrations
created problems in selecting the appropriate handling process.
The contractor had developed a procedure for removing sludge from
lagoons in a previous sludge relocation contract at the City’s Southport
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Southport project required that the con-
tractor move sludge from several existing lagoons to others on the same
site. It did not require off—site sludge disposal. Nevertheless, the
contractor was able to use the Southport project to evaluate various methods
of removing sludge from lagoons and to develop site—specific procedures and
equipment.
The contractor’s removal method commenced with agitation of the lagoon
contents by means of a pontoon mounted device. The location of the floating
“agitator” on the surface of the lagoon was controlled by cables connected
to a double drum electric hoist. The time required to homogenize the 34,065
to 37,850 cubic meters (9 million to 10 million gallons) of sludge in a
lagoon was determined empirically but normally required a minimum of 24
hours.
- The winches used to control the floating agitator were mounted on a
structural steel framework which also served as a pump station for removal
of the homogenized sludge. Two 3.78 cubic meters/mm (1,000 gal/mm)
submersible pumps were suspended from the framework and removed the sludge
as it flowed to the pump station. Flow of sludge to the pump station was
directed by means of a pontoon mounted “skimmer” which was operated in a
similar manner as the agitator. The skimmer was used to maintain a com-
paratively even rate of sludge flow across the lagoon surface. The sludge
was pumped through a 30 cm. (12 inch) diameter, quick coupling, aluminum
piping system from the existing lagoons to a 1665.40 cubic meter (440,000
gallon) holding pond. The holding pond, which was lined with 5 cm. (2 inches)
of Gunite, served as an equalization basin between the sludge lagoon pump
system and the truck loading pumps. It was not necessary to agitate the
contents of the holding pond to maintain solids in suspension because of the
short detention time in the pond.
41
-------
The station for loading the sludge hauling trucks was similar to a bulk
fuel loading facility at an oil refinery. Each of four 4.2 cubic meters/mm
(1,100 gal/mm) submersible pumps discharged to one of four loading bays.
Each bay was capable of pumping 21 cubic meters (5,500 gallons) into the
semi—trailer tanker trucks in five minutes.
Transportation of Semi—Liquid Sludge
Sludge was hauled from the Belmont site to Boone Bounty with 29.5 cubic
meter (7,800 gallons) semi—trailers attached to conventional highway tractors.
The twenty semi—trailers were specially designed and constructed for the
sludge hauling operation. The contractor indicated that the twenty semi—
trailers contained special provisions for rapid sludge discharge and special
materials of construction. The trailers were loaded at less than their
nominal capacity because of state highway load restrictions.
A twenty hour per day hauling and spreading schedule was projected,
divided into 2 ten—hour shifts per day. Up to 3,785 cubic meters (one
million gallons) of sludge per day were transported by the sludge haulers.
The trucks were dispatched to the spreading sites or to one of the interim
sludge lagoons, if landspreading was not possible at the time. Spreading
was halted at times for reasons that included:
a. Sites approved by the regulatory agencies were not always
available.
b. Soils at the spreading site were wet or frozen.
c. The period of time between planting and harvesting was too short.
d. Spreading equipment was not always operational.
Hauling from the Belmont site to Boone County was hampered and some-
times halted by a number of factors that included the following:
a. Excess load limits on Boone County roads during the spring thaw
period.
b. Vandalism of trucks.
c. Harrassment of drivers by shooting at and sideswiping of the
trucks.
However, the transport of the sludge was generally a smooth operation that
presented a minimum of problems to the general contractor.
42
-------
Application of Semi—Liquid Sludge
Spreading of sludge on agricultural land In Boone County, Indiana,
was carried out in the four year period of 1977 through 1980. The spread-
ing methods and equipment used varied over this period. Therefore each
year will be described separately below. Detailed specifications of the
major sludge spreading units are included in Appendix H.
Spreading operations of 1977
Start of spreading operation on September 22, 1977, was comparatively
smooth. Sludge was transferred from the transport semi—trailers tQ the
field spreading units by means of an electrically driven 3.78 cubic
meters/mm (1,000 gpm) centrifugal pump. Power for the pump was provided
by a mobile diesel generator. The basic field spreading units for broad-
casting sludge on the soil surface were six BetterBilt, 12 cubic meters
(3150 gallon) capacity units mounted on four, high flotation tires. The
field spreading units were pulled by Ford 9700 farm type tractors. Two
7.6 cubic meter (2000 gallon) GMC Field Gyinmys equipped with high flotation
tires and rear mounted, shank injectors were used when sludge injection
was required. Sludge injection was required in a zone ranging from 15.24 m
(50 feet) to 91.44 m (300 feet) from streams, creeks, roads, ponds, and
lakes. No sludge was to be applied within 91.44 m (300 feet) of water
supply wells, springs, and inhabited residences.
At the peak of the operation, in the fall of 1977, the operation was
continued 24 hours per day, six days per week, resulting in approximately
3,785 cubic meters (one million gallons) per day of sludge being removed
from the Belmont site. Aproximately 62,360 cubic meters (16.3 million
gallons) of sludge were spread on the land and 61,600 cubic meters
(16.1 million gallons) were hauled to the Boone County Storage lagoons
before unfavorable weather terminated operations for 1977.
Spreading operations of 1978
A wet, late spring delayed the start of landspreading In Boone County
in 1978. Approximately 4,975 cubic meters (1.3 million gallons) were
hauled from the Belmont site for spreading during the period June 2, 1978,
through June 13, 1978. The procedures and equipment used were similar
to those used in the Fall of 1977, except that two Terra—Gator 2505 units
were substituted for the Field Gyinmys used in 1977.
Resolution of a nine week zoning problem associated with the interim
sludge lagoons enabled the commencement of sludge hauling from the Belmont
site to the Boone County interim storage facilities. A total of 53,438
cubic meters (14.1 million gallons) were hauled in the period August 10,
1978, through September 23, 1978.
Completion of harvesting by a number of farmers enabled the resumption
of sludge application in late September 1978. A total of 64,805 cubic
meters (17.1 million gallons) were hauled and spread in the period
43
-------
September 25, 1978, through November 11, 1978, when winter weather terminated
operations. A small amount 9,035 cubic meters (2.4 million gallons) was
hauled to the interim lagoons, when site conditions precluded landscaping.
Spreading operations of 1979
Approximately 10,700 cubic meters (2.8 million gallons) of semi—liquid
sludge were hauled from the Belmont site to the Boone County interim holding
lagoon during the period of March 21, 1979, through April 14, 1979. This
represented the last of the semi—liquid sludge that was hauled to Boone
County from the Belmont site. No sludge was spread during the first half of
1979 due to a late, wet spring.
Approximately 55,000 cubic meters (72,000 cubic yards) of sludge from the
Boone County South lagoon was spread in the period October 5, 1979,
through December 10, 1979. This period marked the use of new sludge spread-
ing equipment by the project. At one time, two Terra—Gator 25O5s, one
Big A 4500, and two Field Gymmys were in operation hauling directly from the
South lagoon. The Terra—Gator 2505 unit was equipped with five high flota-
tion tires capable of transporting 14.38 cubic meters (3800 gallons) in a
pressure/vacuum tank. The Big A 4500 unit was equipped with four high
flotation tires and was capable of transporting 13.25 cubic meters (35,300
gallons) in a pressure/vacuum tank.
Spreading operations in 1980
A late winter precluded sludge spreading in the Spring of 1980. However,
the contractor carried Out a vigorous program in the Fall of 1980 to satisfy
the requirements of a one year extension of the August 31, 1977, agreement
with the Boone County residents.
The spreading operations were based on high capacity equipment and on
techniques proven in past years. Approximately 125,000 cubic meters (164,000
cubic yards) of sludge was spread from both the North and South lagoons in
the period October 11, 1980, through November 10, 1980. A large fleet of
equipment was assigned to the task including up to four Terra—Gator 2505s, 2
Big A 4500s, 7 semi—trailer type tankers, as well as support equipment. The
spreading and lagoon site restoration program was completed by the December
3, 1980, deadline.
Operation Control Procedures
The farm management firm informed the spreading subcontractor of the
fields that were available for sludge application and provided a schedule of
the order in which the fields were to be spread. The firm also coordinated
lime application on fields where prior soil analysis showed pH’s less than
6.5. All of the fields were staked to designate the areas where no sludge
was to be spread, and the areas for injection or broadcast application of
sludge. The fields were then placed on a schedule for spreading operations.
44
-------
Dispatching
The sludge spreading subcontractor used an OHAUS (Model No. 6010—PC)
Moisture Balance to determine the percent total solids of representative
sludge samples transported from the Belmont site to Boone County. Because
more than 99 percent of the cadmium in the sludge was associated with the
solids, careful monitoring of the percent total solids was needed to
accurately determine the amount of cadmium applied to the soil. The cadmium
application rate was limited to 1.12 kg/ha (1.0 lb/acre) initially and adjusted
upward to 2.1 kg/ha later in the project. Figure 3 illustrates the relation-
ship between percent total sludge solids and the sludge application rate
calculated for one lagoon. This relationship was determined for the sludge
in each lagoon.
A sludge sample was tested at the beginning of every shift for percent
total solids. This total solids analysis took approximately one hour to
complete; therefore, the rate of application of the previous shift was used
until the results of the new solids analysis enabled determination of a new
application rate. Normally, four total solids analyses were performed per
shift, thereby insuring consistent monitoring of sludge solids concentra-
tions and the associated rates of sludge application. Percent solids, to
the nearest 0.1%, was used to calculate the application rate in cubic
meters/ha (gallons/acre). In general, the sludge application rate was not
changed if the last solids analysis was within 0.1 to 0.5% solids of the
previous value.
The spreading contractor maintained records of the total number of
tanker loads delivered to a field and the rate of sludge application (see
Form A of Appendix F). Each time the rate of application or the field of
application was changed, a new Form A sheet was started.
Receiving
All tankers were received at the application site by a representative
of the spreading subcontractor who recorded the tanker’s time of arrival and
signed the trip ticket. After the tankers had delivered their loads, they
returned to the Belmont site with three copies of the trip ticket. The
general contractor, the spreading subcontractor, and the hauling contractor
each received one of the three remaining copies of the trip ticket.
Spreading
Sludge was spread using the subcontractor’s personnel and equipment.
Records were maintained of tanker loads received, application unit dis-
patched, the sludge application field and rate of sludge application (see
Form B of Appendix F). Each time the rate of application or the field of
application was changed, a new Form B sheet was started.
45
-------
15
Percent Solids
Figure 3.
Relationship between percent solids in sludge and application
rate based on 1.1 and 2.1 kg Cd/ha.
1200-
1000-
2.1 kg Cd/ha
E
a
0
cc
0
0
0.
0.
800-
600
400
200-
6
1.12 kgCd/ha
________
5
10
20
46
-------
Separate Form B sheets were maintained for tanker loads delivered to the
interim sludge lagoons.
Disking
The date that the applied sludge was disked—in was provided by the farm
management firm to the spreading subcontractor to complete the record of
sludge application on a specific field (see Form B of Appendix F). The
recording of the date of disking and the forwarding of that record to the
general contractor completed the sludge application and the monitoring
responsibilities of the spreading contractor.
Recording
Recording and consolidating of operational reports was performed at the
Belmont site by the spreading subcontractor. Daily records were consolidated
into weekly records which, in turn, were consolidated into monthly records.
(See Form C, D and E of Appendix F). Monthly summary sheets were forwarded
to the general contractor to support claims for monthly progress payments.
Additional information concerning control procedures is outlined in
Appendix C.
DISPOSAL OF OTHER SLUDGES
Ash Disposal
Ash from years of sludge combustion in the Belmont Wastewater Treatment
Plant’s multiple hearth incinerators represented the majority of contents in
lagoons 1 and 2 at the Belmont site (Figure 1). This material was loaded
into tn—axle dump trucks with a crane and a 1.15 cubic meter (1.5 cubic
yard) drag line bucket and deposited on a portion of the Belmont plant site
north of the existing treatment facility at a unit price of $1.97/cubic
meter ($2.58/cubic yard). The ash disposal site was shaped to a prescribed
grading plan and seeded.
Semi—Solid Sludge Disposal
Lagoons 1 and 2 of the Belmont site also included layers of concen-
trated sludge which were capable of supporting the weight of heavy con-
struction equipment. A residue of semi—solid, “heavy sludge” (generally
with a sludge concentration in excess of 20% total solids) remained in the
other lagoons after they had been drawn down by the semi—liquid sludge
handling procedures described previously. The concentrated sludge of
lagoons 1 and 2 and the heavy sludge could not be handled using the pro-
cedures developed by the contractor for semi—liquid sludge.
The contractor identified an abandoned landfill situated near the
Belmont site as a potential disposal site for the semi—solid, heavy
47
-------
sludge material. The landfill site had been utilized for over sixty years
as a refuse landfill and for the immediate past twenty years as a demo-
lition debris disposal area. The building debris was exposed above
ground level and served as the primary fuel for an underground fire which
broke out at the site in November, 1976. Prolonged and vigorous efforts
by the landfill operator to extinguish the fire, which represented a
health and safety hazard to a large portion of the south side of Marion
County, had failed.
The landfill operator proposed in September, 1977 to the Indiana
Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB), that the concentrated sludge from
the Belmont site be used in conjunction with other materials to cover the
landfill site in an effort to eliminate the landfill fire as an environ-
mental hazard and public nuisance. The building debris site was to be
levelled and a fly ash—lime sludge base spread over the site. A subse-
quent sewage treatment plant sludge layer was to be placed over the fly
ash—lime sludge layer, both for the purpose of smothering the underground
fires which remained and serving as the base for a subsequent layer of soil
that was to be provided to finish the site. The sludge from the Belmont
lagoons 1 and 2 was disposed of in the manner described upon receipt
of SPCB approval.
The concentrated sludge of lagoons 1 and 2 was insufficient to cover
the entire landfill site. Therefore, the landfill operator sought SPCB
approval to utilize the semi—solid, heavy sludge remaining in Belmont
lagoons 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in a similar manner to lagoons 1 and 2.
Semi—solid sludge was subsequently hauled from lagoons 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10
based on the City’s review of SPCB documents that appeared to permit the
landfill operator to accept the sludge at the landfill. Semi—solid
sludge disposal was interrupted by the January 29, 1979 SPCB letter which
stopped all sludge disposal at the landfill. Subsequent to that action,
hauling of the semi—solid sludge from lagoon 3 was allowed but not that
of lagoon 7. The contents of lagoon 7 remained on site in a newly
constructed holding lagoon.
Previous correspondence had led the City to believe that the regulatory
agencies position was that no further environmental review was required
when a State approved landfill was utilized for sludge disposal. SPCB
concern regarding the environmental consequences of sludge placed in the
landfill caused discontinuation of progress payments under the US Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) Construction Grant Program.
The City subsequently had a comprehensive Environmental Impact
Assessment prepared that addressed landfill disposal of the semi—solid sludge
The Assessment concluded that the deposited sludge would not have a sig-
nificant negative effect on the environment and that the sludge remaining
on site and that the contents of lagoon 7 still retained on site should be
disposed of in a similar manner. A SPCB letter of March 12, 1981 appeared
to support the Assessment’s conclusion regarding the sludge already
deposited in the landfill but rejected the conclusion regarding the
sludge remaining on the Belmont site.
48
-------
Construction Grant funds for landfilled sludge continued to be withheld
and sludge from lagoon 7 remained at the Belmont site as of August 15, 1981.
Grease Removal
One part of the project called for removal of a sizable grease lagoon,
contaminated with PCB’s at a unit price of $27.41/cubic meters ($35.86!
cubic yard). No approved landfill was available within Indiana to handle
the waste containing the high concentration of PCB’s in the grease. An
approved landfill was located by the contractor in Wayne County, Michigan.
The material was loaded into lined semi—trailers and hauled to the disposal
site.
49
-------
SECTION 8
PROJECT OVERVIEW
EXPERIENCE WITH SLUDGE HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Experience gained with the equipment used in this project may be of
value to those considering similar projects. It must be noted, however,
that the information offered may be specific to this project in many cases.
The equipment and procedures used to remove the sludge from the
Belmont site lagoons worked well up to a sludge concentration of 20%
total solids. It is impossibLe, at this time, to determine whether removal
of sludge in concentrations greater than 20% could have been achieved
by modifications of the system, such as extended periods of agitation or
addition of water followed by agitation. The truck loading facility
worked well throughout the period of the project.
The semi—trailer tankers used to haul semi—liquid sludge more than 81 km
(50 miles)from the Belmont site to Boone County were appropriate for the
purpose. Although the special features of their design claimed by the
spreading contractor remain proprietary, the units did not manifest
problems during their sludge loading—transporting—unloading work cycle.
The direct transfer of sludge from a semi—trailer tanker to the applicator
vehicle did not pose any problems.
The equipment used for spreading of the semi—liquid sludge on the f arm—
land evolved over the life of the project as described in Section 7. In
1977 and 1978, the basic sludge spreading units were farm tractor—drawn,
wheel—mounted units as developed for application of liquid animal wastes.
This equipment proved to be too slow in moving over the fields for this
scale of a project. The Field Gymmy equipment experienced structural
damage when operated across the furrows of plowed fields by drivers
unfamiliar with this type of driving condition. Summary specifications
of the Field Gymmy and other self—propelled spreading equipment are
provided in Appendix H.
A different subcontractor carried out the spreading operations in
1979 and 1980. The subcontractor did not use the farm tractor—drawn
applicator units but substituted comparatively high speed, 48.3 km/hr (30 mph),
self—propelled, off—road vehicles, designed for applying sludge to soils.
This equipment was able to serve both as a spreading unit and as an injec-
tion unit. This type of equipment appeared to be more appropriate for the
high production operation required for this project.
50
-------
RETENTION OF CONSULTING AGRONOMIST
The City identified a need for a person with specialized expertise in
the field of sludge disposal on agricultural land. It was felt that this
expertise would provide added project credibility with both the general
public and the regulatory agencies and additional technical assistance to
the project. At the request of the City, the consulting agronomist prepared
an evaluation of the agronomic implications of the project. His evaluation
was that the project was well designed and incorporated the latest concepts
for land application of sludges. The consulting agronomist supported the
ISBH requirements for continuous monitoring of the sludge removal and
spreading operations. He continued to be associated with the project in a
consulting role and was also involved in designing a program for sampling
and analyzing the corn and soybean crops raised on sludge—treated fields.
MONITORING OF CROP COMPOSITION
The SPCB required that samples of corn and soybean grain be collected
and analyzed the first year after sludge application. Random samples of
grain were collected by hand harvesting in September of each year. Samples
were collected from both sludge—treated and an adjacent field not treated
with sludge. Because the same variety of corn or soybeans was not neces-
sarily grown in adjacent fields, the comparison of cadmium (Cd) and PCB
concentrations of crops grown on treated and untreated areas may reflect the
influence of both crop variety and sludge application. The data obtained on
the cadmium and PCB concentrations in corn and soybeans are presented in
Table 7. All crop samples were obtained during the first cropping season
after sludge application. In 1978, some corn grain samples showed slightly
increased concentrations of cadmium. All subsequent samples of corn and
soybean grain contained nondetectable levels of both cadmium and PCB’s.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT
Hindsight enables identifying what caused many of the problems asso-
ciated with the conception and performance of the sludge disposal project.
Insight derived from reviewing many of the identified problems are presented
in the following paragraphs.
The original sludge sampling and analysis was inadequate in light of
subsequent regulatory agency concern for heavy metals and toxic substances
in the sludge. A minimal program of sampling and analysis was conducted by
the contractor and it failed to properly identify the quantity, range of
solid concentrations, and chemical constituents of the lagooned sludge. A
critical sludge constituent, PCB’s, was not determined during the original
sludge sampling and analysis and it subsequently inhibited the contractor’s
activities. The original sludge data may have led the contractor to under—
estimate both the quality and quantity of sludge contained in the lagoons.
51
-------
aNumber in parenthesis indicates the total number of samples analyzed.
TABLE 7. CONCENTRATIONS OF CADMIUM AND IN CORN AND SOYBEAN GRAIN GROWN ON
SLUDGE—TREATED AND UNTREATED SOILS IN BOONE COUNTY
U’
Year
Crop
PCB
in
grain
Cd
in
grain
Sludge—treated
Untreated
Sludge—treated
Untreated
pg / kg
1978
Corn (9)
Soybeans
(6)
<1
<1
<1
1
100
60
<20
<50
1979
Corn (9)
<1
<1
<50
<50
1980
Corn (12)
<1
<1
<50
<50
-------
A more comprehensive sludge sampling and analytical program was
required by the regulatory agencies after bids had been opened. Collection
of samples was facilitated by a thick ice layer (-30 cm) that covered the
lagoons during the sampling period. The identification of PCB concentra-
tions in two lagoons considered too high for land application further
dislocated the contractor’s planning efforts. The final, detailed sampling
and analyses performed after bids were opened have proved to be accurate
in view of the total amount of sludge solids measured during emptying the
lagoons.
Additional problems were caused by the general nature of the bid
package (Appendix A).
The bid package permitted a choice of sludge disposal methods,
including: 1) Chemical Fixation Processes; 2) Chemical Conditioning,
Dewatering and On—Site Disposal; 3) Land Application and; 4) Other
Disposal Techniques. Although each option was required to satisfy a basic
requirement — to be “environmentally acceptable” — the options were hardly
comparable on an “apples—to—apples” basis. The decision to allow
alternative sludge disposal processes was a result of the “and/or equal
requirements” of the US EPA Construction Grant Program. However, consider-.
ing the emotional, technical, and political sensitivity of municipal sewage
sludge disposal, the City should have either specified only a single
sludge disposal method or conducted a more intensive planning effort to
develop detailed specifications for each disposal option.
The specifications attempted to assign all responsibility and
liability associated with sludge disposal to the contractor but both State
and US EPA regulations did not permit the City to divorce itself from
responsibility for off—site sludge disposal.
The necessity for sufficient interim off—site sludge storage was not
fully recognized and required a “crash” effort to provide more sludge
storage in the vicinity of the sludge application sites. Storage volumes
equal to the volume of the lagoons which were to be emptied should have been
provided. The rate of sludge removal was inhibited by the maximum rate
of land spreading, the volume of off—site interim sludge lagoons, and
highway load restrictions.
Recognition of the need for additional off—site sludge holding capacity,
after bids were accepted, resulted in the only citizen opposition to the
project. The spreading of sludge on agricultural land appeared to be
universally accepted in Boone County as a beneficial activity. Much of
this acceptance may well have been a result of a vigorous public relations
program. However, the construction of an interim sludge lagoon, with
little public information, aroused an almost hysterical reaction causing
legal action which delayed the project.
Use of an interim sludge lagoon presents other problems such as
zoning. Holding sludge in the interim lagoon for ultimate sale and
spreading on land under ownership other than that on which the lagoon
is built, implies that the property is now being used for storage of a
53
-------
salable commodity and may require rezoning from agricultural use. While
rezoning is not an insurmountable task, it does take time and leaves the
project open to additional exposure and organized oppositions.
The bid documents and the contractor did not place sufficient impor-
tance on the very short period of time actually available to spread sludge
on land that is being used for growth of row crops by individual farmers.
Indiana State Board of Health regulations would not permit sludge spreading
on frozen ground. From a practical standpoint, sludge could not be spread
after planting and before harvesting the crop. The contractor was there-
fore restricted to two short periods of time for sludge application;
after the soils thawed and before spring planting, and after harvesting
and before the soils froze.
The high level of monitoring and record keeping was not initially
recognized by the contractor or City. It was finally appreciated that
continuous field inspections by the design engineer’s personnel would be
required to assure that the maximum sludge application rates were not
exceeded. A massive array of documentation was required of the program
ranging from the initial signed release form of the land owner to the
final chemical analysis of the harvested crop from the land. The time
and cost of preparing and maintaining the required level of documentation
has been a significant burden on the project. It now appears that some of
the records will have to be maintained in perpetuity. The time, effort,
and cost of the monitoring program associated with this type of project
is considerable and must be recognized.
The contractor attempting this type of project must have a number of
specialized skills including those of heavy construction, materials
transport, and crop production. An equally important skill is an under-
standing of and experience in dealing with regulatory agencies. The
contractor had difficulty in dealing with bureaucracies. Statements made
by the spreading subcontractor in the environmental assessment document
unnecessarily restricted the rate of sludge application. Obtaining relief
from these self—induced restrictions required a great deal of subsequent
time and effort.
The equipment selected and used by the contractor was inadequate for
land disposal of heavy, “bottom” sludges with concentrations in excess
of 20 percent solids. The contractor set up an expensive and overall
efficient system to handle sludges with concentrations less than 20 percent
total solids but the pumping, hauling, and spreading equipment was
generally unable to handle sludges in excess of 20 percent. It can only
be speculated whether, the contractor would have selected other equipment
if the large quantity of “heavy” sludge had been identified.
It is doubtful whether the contractor or others associated with the
Project properly recognized the specialized skills and experience required
for such an effort. The spreading subcontractor, though well able to relate
to the agricultural industry, could not develop the organization to
satisfy the high rates of activity necessary to meet the project schedule.
The general contractor was required to reorganize and supervise the
54
-------
spreading subcontractor’s activities to maintain the schedule.
Standard agricultural quality equipment was unable to meet the demands
of maintaining high utilization rates on a round—the—clock basis. This
problem was intensified by the use of union equipment personnel to operate
the spreading equipment. This type of operator, who had no familiarity
with the specific procedures or equipment, increased the stress on the
machinery. It was recognized, by the end of the first spreading season,
that heavier, faster, construction grade equipment was necessary in place
of the lighter, slower, agricultural grade equipment that had been used
in the first season.
55
-------
REFERENCES
1. Burge, W. D., and P. B. Marsh. 1978. Infectious disease hazards of
land spreading sewage wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 7:1—9.
2. Wellings, F. M., A. L. Lewis, and C. W. Mountain. 1974. Virus survival
following wastewater spray irrigation of sandy soil. pp. 253—260. In
J. F. Malina, Jr., and B. P. Sagik (Ed.), Virus Survival in Water and
Wastewater Systems. Center for Research in Water Resources, Univ. of
Texas, Austin, TX.
3. Sagik, B. P., and C. E. Sorber. 1978. Risk Assessment and Health
Effects of Land Application of Municipal Wastewater and Sludges.
Center for Applied Research and Technology, Univ. of Texas at San
Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
4. Gerba, C. P., C. Wallis, and J. L. Melnick. 1975. Fate of wastewater
bacteria and viruses in soil. J. Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Amer. Soc. Civil Engineering IR 3:157—174.
5. Zibilske, L. M., and R. W. Weaver. 1978. Effect of environmental
factors on survival of Salmonella typhimu.rlum in soil. J. Environ.
Qual. 4:593—597.
6. Well, R. C., and J. B. Bole. 1978. Elimination of fecal coliform
bacteria from soil irrigated with a municipal sewage lagoon effluent.
J. Environ. Qual. 7:193—196.
7. Bell, R. G. 1976. Persistence of fecal coliform indicator bacteria on
alfalfa irrigated with municipal sewage lagoon effluent. J. Environ.
Qual. 5:39—42.
8. Zenz, D. R., J. R. Peterson, D. L. Brooman, and C. Lue—Hing. 1976.
Environmental impacts of land application of sludge. J. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 48:2332—2342.
9. Elliott, L. F., and J. R. Ellis. 1977. Bacterial and viral pathogens
associated with land application of organic wastes. J. Environ. Qual.
6:245—251.
10. Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices: Final, Interim Final, and Proposed Regulations (as corrected
in the Federal Register of September 21, 1979). 1979. Federal Register
44:53438—53469.
56
-------
1].. Furr, A. K., A. W. Lawrence, S. S. C. Tong, M. C. Grandolfa, R. A.
Hofstader, C. A. Bache, W. H. Gutenman, and D. J. Lisk. 1976.
Multielement and chlorinated hydrocarbon analysis of municipal sewage
sludges of American cities. Environ. Sd. Technol. 10:683—687.
12. Echelberger, W. F., Jr., J. M. Jeter, F. P. Girardi, P. M. Ramey,
C. Glen, D. Skole, E. Rogers, J. C. Randolph, and J. Zogorski. 1979.
Municipal and industrial wastewater sludge inventory in Indiana:
Chemical characterization of municipal wastewater sludge in Indiana,
Part 1. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47401.
13. R. Sprague, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Personal
Communication.
14. Helling, C. S., P. C. Kearney, and M. Alexander. 1971. Behavior of
pesticides in soils. Advan. Agronomy 23:147—240.
15. Iwata, Y., W. E. Westlake, and F. A. Gunther. 1973. Varying persistence
of polychlorinated biphenyls in six California soils under laboratory
conditions. Bull. Environ. Contaniin. Toxicol. 9:204—211.
16. Clark, R. R., E. S. K. Chian, and R. A. Griffin. 1979. Degradation of
polychiorinated biphenyls by mixed microbial cultures. Applied Environ.
Microbiol. 37:680—685.
17. Iwata, Y., F. A. Gunther, and W. E. Westlake. 1974. Uptake of a PCB
(Aroclor 1254) from soil by carrots under field conditions. Bull.
Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 11:523—528.
18. Jacobs, L. W., S. F. Chou, and J. M. Tiedje. 1976. Fate of PBB’s
in soils: Persistence and plant uptake. J. Agric. and Food Chem.
24 :1198—1201.
19. Haque, R., D. W. Schmedding, and V. H. Freed. 1974. Aqueous solubil—
ity, adsorption, and vapor behavior of polychiorinated biphenyl
Aroclor 1254. Environ. Sd. Technol. 8:139—142.
20. Chaney, R. L., and C. A. Lloyd. 1979. Adherence of spray—applied
liquid digested sewage sludge to tall fescue. J. Environ. Qual.
8: 407—411.
21. Fries, G. F. 1980. An assessment of potential residues in animal
products from application of sewage sludge containing polychlorinated
biphenyls to agricultural land. Presented at Symposium on Evaluation
of Health Risks Associated with Animal Feeding and/or Land Application
of Municipal Sludge, Tampa, FL.
22. Chaney, R. L., and S. B. Hornick. 1978. Accumulation and effects of
cadmium on crops. Proc. First International Cadmium Conference.
pp. 125—140.
57
-------
23. Chaney, R. L., and P. M. Giordano. 1977. Microelements as related
to plant deficiencies and toxicities. In L. F. Elliott and F. J.
Stevenson (eds.), Soils for Management of Organic Wastes and Waste—
waters, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. pp. 235—279.
24. Application of sewage sludge sludge to cropland: Appraisal of potential
hazards of the heavy metals to plants and animals. Rpt. No. 64,
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA. (Also
reprinted as MCD—33 (EPA—430/9—76—013) by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency).
25. Chaney, R. L. 1973. Crop and food chain effects of trace elements
in sludges and effluents. Proc. of Conference on Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land, National Association of State Universi-
ties and Land Grant Colleges, Washington, D.C. pp. 129—141.
26. Braude, C. L., C. F. Gelinek, and B. Corneliussen. 1975. FDA ’s
overview of the potential health hazard associated with the land appli-
cation of municipal wastewater sludge. In Proc. 1975 National
Conference Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal. Information
Transfer, Inc., Rockville, MD. pp. 214—217.
27. Doyle, J. J. 1977. Effects of low levels of dietary cadmium in
animals——a review. J. Environ. Qual. 6:111—116.
28. Hinesly, T. D., R. L. Jones, E. L. Ziegler, and J. J. Tyler. 1977.
Effects of annual and accumulative applications of sewage sludge on
the assimilation of zinc and cadmium by corn (Zeanlays L.). Environ.
Sd. Technol. 11:182—188.
29. Hinesly, T. D., E. L. Ziegler, and G. L. Barrett. 1979. Residual
effects of irrigating corn with digested sewage sludge. J. Environ.
Qual. 8:35—38.
30. Webber, L. R., and E. G. Beauchamp. 1979. Cadmium concentration
and distribution in corn (Zea mays L.) grown on a calcaerous soil for
three years after three annual sludge applications. J. Environ. Sd.
Health B—l4:459—474.
31. Hinesly, T. D., D. E. Alexander, E. L. Ziegler, and C. L. Barrett.
1978. Zinc and cadmium accumulation by corn inbreds grown on sludge
amended soil. Agron. J. 70:425—428.
32. Boggess, S. F., S. Willavize, and D. E. Koeppe. 1978. Differential
response of soybean varieties to soil cadmium. Agron. J. 70:756—760.
33. Giordano, P. M., D. A. Mays, and A. D. Behel, Jr. 1979. Soil tempera-
ture effects on uptake of cadmium and zinc by vegetables grown on
sludge—amended soil. J. Environ. Qual. 8:233—236.
58
-------
34. Application of Sludges and Wastewaters on Agricultural Land: A Planning
and Educational Guide. 1976. B. D. Knezek and R. H. Miller (eds.),
North Central Regional Research Publication 235, Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH. (Also reprinted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as MCD—35).
35. Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors. 1977. MCD—28
(EPA—43O/9—77—OO7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
36. Latterell, J. J., R. H. Dowdy, and G. E. Ham. 1976. Sludge—borne
metal uptake by soybeans as a function of soil cation exchange capacity.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Analysis 7:465—476.
37. Haghiri, F. 1974. Plant uptake of cadmium as influenced by cation
exchange capacity, organic matter, zinc and soil temperature. J.
Environ. Qual. 3:180—183.
38. Sommers, L. E. 1977. Chemical composition of sewage sludges and
analysis of their potential use as fertilizers. J. Environ. Qual.
6:225—232.
39. Chaney, R. L., S. B. Hornick, and P. W. Simon. 1977. Heavy metal
relationships during land utilization of sewage sludge in the northeast.
In R. C. Loehr (ed.), Land as a Waste Management Alternative. Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 283—314.
40. Silviera, D. J., and L. E. Soimners. 1977. Extractability of copper,
zinc, cadmium, and lead in soils incubated with sewage sludge. J.
Environ. Qual. 6:47—52.
41. Latterell, J. J., R. H. Dowdy, and W. E. Larson. 1978. Correlation of
extractable metals and metal uptake of snapbeans grown on soil amended
with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 7:435—440.
42. Sommers, L. E., D. W. Nelson, and K. J. Yost. 1976. Variable nature of
chemical composition of sewage sludges. J. Environ. .Qual. 5:303—306.
43. Keeney, D. R., K. W. Lee, and L. M. Walsh. 1975. Guidelines for the
Application of Wastewater Sludge to Agricultural Land in Wisconsin.
Technical Bulletin No. 88, Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
44. Beauchamp, E. C., C. E. Kidd, and C. Thurtell. 1978. Ammonia volatili-
zation from sewage sludge applied to the field. J. Environ. Qual.
7:141—146.
45. Hinesly, T. D., R. L. Jones, J. J. Tyler, and E. L. Ziegler. 1976.
Soybean yield responses and assimilation of Zn and Cd from sewage
sludge—amended soil. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 48:2137—2152.
46. Kelling, K. A., A. E. Peterson, L. M. Walsh, J. A. Ryan, and D. R. Keeney.
1977. A field study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge: I. Effect
on crop yield and uptake of N and P. J. Environ. Qual. 6:339—344.
59
-------
47. Soon, Y. K., T. E. Bates, E. G. Beauchamp, and J. R. Moyer. 1978.
Land application of chemically treated sewage sludge: I. Effects on
crop yield and nitrogen availability. J. Environ. Qual. 7:264—269.
48. Witty, J. E., and K. W. Flach. 1977. Site selection as related to
utilization and disposal of organic wastes. In L. F. Elliott and F. J.
Stevenson (eds.), Soils for Management of Organic Wastes and Waste—
waters, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. pp. 327—345.
49. Principals and design criteria for sewage sludge application on land.
1978. In Sludge Treatment and Disposal, Part II, Sludge Disposal.
Environmental Research Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA—625/4—78—012). pp. 57—112.
50. Sommers, L. E., and D. W. Nelson. 1978. A model for application of
sewage sludge on cropland. In Proc. First Annual Conference of Applied
Research and Practice on Municipal and Industrial Wastes, Madison, WI.
51. Kelling, K. A., D. R. Keeney, L. M. Walsh, and J. A. Ryan. 1977. A
field study of the agricultural use of sewage sludge: III. Effect on
uptake and extractability of sludge—borne metals. J. Environ. Qual.
6:353—358.
52. Ham, G. E., and R. H. Dowdy. 1978. Soybean growth and composition as
influenced by soil amendments of sewage sludge and heavy metals: Field
studies. Agron. J. 70:326—330.
53. Dowdy, R. H., and W. E. Larson. 1975. The availability of sludge—borne
metals to various vegetable crops. J. Environ. Qual. 4:278—282.
54. Giordano, P. M., and D. A. Mays. 1977. Yield and heavy—metal content
of several vegetable species grown on soil—amended with sewage sludge.
In H. Drucker and R. E. Wildung (eds.), Biological Implications of
Metals in the Environment. National Technical Information Services,
Springfield, VA (Conf—750929). pp. 417—425.
55. Chaney, R. L., P. T. Hundemann, W. T. Palmer, R. J. Small, M. C. White,
and A. M. Decker. 1978. Plant accumulation of heavy metals and phyto—
toxicity resulting from utilization of sewage sludge and sludge composts
on cropland . In Proc. Conf. on Composting of Municipal Residues
and Sludges, Information Transfer, Inc. Rockville, MD. pp. 86—97.
56. CAST. 1980. Effects of sewage sludge on Cd and Zn in crops. Report No.
83, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.
57. Sonimers, L. E., D. W. Nelson and C. D. Spies. 1980. Use of sewage
sludge in crop production. AY—240, Extension Service, Purdue University,
W. Lafayette, IN.
58. Annonymous. Sludge removal techniques set pace for new market.
Construction Digest, December 8, 1977.
60
-------
APPENDIX A
BID DOCUMENT: SLUDGE, CONTAMINATED MATERIALS, NON—CONTAMINATED SOILS
GREASE AND ASH DLSpOSALa
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION
A. Work under this section includes but is not limited to the following:
1. Treatment and disposal of sludge, contaminated soils, non—
contaminated soils, grease and ash.
B. Related work specified elsewhere includes but is not limited to the
following:
1. Sitework — Section 02000
2. Excavation, Trenching and Backfilling — Section 02221
3. Mass Excavation and Engineered Fill— Section 02222
4. Bentonite Clay Lining — Section 02244
5. 120” Effluent Pipe — Section 15063
1.02 DEFINITIONS OF MATERIALS
A. Sludge — Dark organic and inorganic material in combination with
water located in Lagoons No. 1 through 18, excluding the ash in
Lagoons No. 1 and 2.
B. Grease — A group of substances including fats, waxes, free fatty
acids, calcium and magnesium soaps, mineral oils, and certain other
nonfatty materials located in the grease pit shown.
of original bid document modified where necessary to incorporate
subsequent addenda. All sections added to the original bid document are
enclosed in brackets.
61
-------
C. Contaminated Soil — The eighteen (18) inches of soil immediately
adjacent to and in contact with the sludge in the bottom and sides
of a sludge lagoon and any soils that by visual inspection of the
Project Engineer are seen to be mixed with grit, grease, sludge,
or other organic wastes.
D. Unsuitable Soils include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. All soil containing more than five (5) percent organic matter
by weight.
2. All soil containing rubble, debris, wood, paper, metal,
grease, or other man—made objects.
3. Any granular soil material with a relative density less
than 70 percent.
4. Any cohesive soil with shear strength and compressibility
characteristics which will result in either bearing capacity
failure or excessive settlement of foundations when used
for fill or sub—grade for the proposed facilities.
E. Ash — The residue left from the products of combustion resulting
from the incineration of sludge. The ash is located in Lagoons
No. 1 and No. 2.
F. Non—contaminated Soil — Any soil other than soil defined as
contaminated soil herein.
1.03 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL WORK UNDER THIS SECTION
A. Contractor shall plug and abandon or remove all overflows and
drains from existing lagoons as shown.
B. Contractor shall install drains, sewers and inlets necessary to
collect all runoff and leachate from all disposal areas constructed
at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant and as shown.
C. All disposal areas constructed at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment
Plant except for ash and non—contaminated soil disposal sites,
shall be sloped and drained during construction and all runoff
collected and disposed of at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Contractor shall provide all piping and equipment necessary
to transport all such run—off during construction. The run—off
shall be transported to the wastewater treatment plant as directed
by the Project Engineer. All runoff and drainage collected and
transported to the wastewater treatment plant, with the exception
of the filtrate from Option No. 2, will be treated without
additional charge to the Contractor.
62
-------
D. Methods of disposal and transportation of all materials shall have
the approval or concurrence of all agencies having jurisdiction.
E. Contractor shall prevent any sludge, contaminated material or
leachate from entering or spilling into any body of water, any
aquifer, or onto any lawn or pavement, and shall maintain the
integrity of all adjacent sludge lagoons that are not being
emptied.
F. “Approved Landfills” shall be defined as landfill sites that have
the written approval of all agencies having jurisdiction for the
disposal of the specific material proposed to be disposed of therein.
[ C. The Contractor shall provide within forty—five (45) consecutive
calendar days after Tentative Award of the Contract, a release
from each landowner, tenant and any other party having an interest
in said land or crops of said land, where an off—site disposal
area is to be located in the following form; subject to such
additions as may be approved by the Owner to explain the use
of the sludge or waste material, and which will not impair the
legal effects of the release:
RELEASE
The undersigned (party) (Parties)* having an interest,
as indicated below, in property, or crops on said
property, upon which sludge or waste materials removed
from the Belmont Treatment Plant of the City of
Indianapolis is to be (applied), (stored) (or disposed
of),* acknowledge(s) that results of testing of the
material being stored) (applied) (or disposed of)*
made by
(Name of Testing Entity)
have been made available to them, but that it is
impossible to know the exact contents of all the
material or the possible effects of the material
and its contents upon land, personal property, crops,
animals or human beings.
In consideration of being permitted to (purchase)
(or acquire)* said sludge or waste materials from
_____________________________________________ the
(Name of Contractor or Subcontractor)
undersigned (does) (do)* hereby release the City of
Indianapolis, its Project Engineer, the Project
Engineer’s Consultants, and their agents and employees
from and against all claims, damages, losses and
expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of
or resulting from the (storage) (application of)
(or disposal)* of such materials, including claims
based upon the negligence of the released party.
63
-------
Signatures___________________________________
Interest in Property and/or Crops
*Strike Inapplicable Words]
H. Disposal sites, except those for ash and non—contaminated soils,
constructed on the site of the Belmont Wastewater Treatment
Plant shall have bentonite clay liners installed as specified
in Section 02244 and sloped to drain to points shown and specified.
I. Where ash is disposed of at the Belmont North Disposal Site no
bentonite clay liner will be required. The ash shall be covered
with one foot of soil suitable for growing grass, mulched seeded
and sloped to drain to the southeast of the site. The Contractor
shall control erosion of the covered area until the grass cover
is established. Contractor shall maintain the area until
time of acceptance by the Owner. Ditches and storm sewers shall
be constructed to handle run—off equal to a two—year one—hour
storm intensity of 1.25 inches. The storm sewer shall cross
under the road and drain to approximate coordinates 5344N/2264E.
Contractor shall submit plans, including calculations to the
Project Engineer for review. These plans shall include grading
and drainage system plans and shall be prepared by and under the
seal of a professional engineer registered in the State of Indiana.
3. All ash disposed of off—site shall be disposed of in a landfill
approved for this material and conforming to the requirements of
paragraph l.O2F. above.
K. Non—contaminated soil may be used, if suitable, for fill materials
in the Work. Portions of such materials that are unsuitable for
fill or in excess of that needed for fill shall be deposited on—
site in areas directed by the Project Engineer.
L. The Contractor’s attention is called to the fact that the Belmont
North Disposal Site referred to in these Contract Documents is
on top of a previously covered garbage landfill. No borrow
material shall be obtained from and no excavation shall be performed
in this area except for the excavation required for the construction
of the drainage facilities.
64
-------
EM. Contaminated materials as defined may be found within the
Central Site Limits and within the South Disposal Site Limits
shown and at the interface of the ash or sludge and the
bottoms of Lagoons No. 1 through No. 18 as well as the
interface of the grease and the bottom of the grease pit.
Contaminated materials may be disposed of in any of Lagoons
No. 11 through 18 that have been dewatered and lined with
a bentonite/clay liner if space is available.]
N. Materials removed from Lagoons 11 through 18 may be returned
to these same lagoons after these lagoons have been lined as
specified herein.
[ 0. Ul sludge, ash, and contamined materials not disposed of
on—site and all grease shall be disposed of only at “approved”
landfills. I
[ P. The Owner will treat any filtrate, supernatant, subnatant or
other waste flow resulting from any process the Contractor uses
in treating the sludge or other materials subject to the following
rates and restrictions:
a. Formula for determining treatment costs for all waste flows
that are treated in the Owner’s treatment plant:
S = V x 8.34 $O.Ol7x(BOD) + $0.0244 (SS))
Where:
S = Is the charge in dollars
V = Is the sewage volume in million gallons
8.34 Converts parts per million to pounds per gallon
$O.017 = Is the charge for BOD in dollars per pound
BOD = Is the BOD 5 (biological oxygen demand) in
parts per million by weight
$O.02244 = Is the change for suspended solids in
dollars per pound
SS = Is the suspended solids in parts per million
by weight]
b. The Contractor shall use no chemicals in his process that
will result in a waste flow chemical content that will
cause deterioration of the effluent quality of the waste—
water treatment plant.
65
-------
c. The Contractor shall provide all necessary piping and
equipment required to transport the waste flow to the
inlet of the aeration tanks as directed by the Project
Engineer.
d. The daily average suspended solids concentration in the
waste flow shall be 2,000 milligrams per liter or less
and at no time shall the waste flow contain more than
3,000 milligrams per liter suspended solids. The
maximum quantity of solids directed to the Owner’s
aeration tanks shall not exceed two (2) tons of dry
solids per day.
e. The weekly average BOD concentration in the waste flow
shall be 2500 milligrams per liter or less and at no
time shall the waste flow contain more than 3,000 milli-
grams per liter BOD.
f. The Contractor shall collect samples of the waste flow
at the point where the waste flow enters the treatment
plant and shall provide total suspended solids and BOD
data on such samples to the Project Engineer. One sample
shall be taken every four hours, or fraction thereof, of
operation of the processing equipment and composited with
other samples taken during each (8) hour shift. A total
suspended solids analysis shall be conducted on the
composite sample from each shift and a daily BOD analysis
shall be conducted on another composite sample made from
all samples taken in a day by a laboratory approved
by the Owner and according to “Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater” (APHA, AWWA, and
WPCF). This data shall be provided the Project Engineer
on a weekly basis and shall be available for inspection
upon request of the Project Engineer.
g. No dilution water may be added to waste flows to reduce
suspended solids or BOD concentrations.]
Q. Contractor shall execute the mixing, removal, transport, and
treatment of all sludge in a manner to minimize the release of odors
into the atmosphere. Contractor shall also conduct all work
relative to the mixing, removal, transportation and treatment of
the sludge in conformance with the requirements of all agencies
having jurisdiction. Contractor shall be responsible for
providing all necessary scrubbing, filtering, masking, or other
methods of odor control required in the prosecution of his work
by the foregoing agencies. In the event the air pollution require-
ments of all agencies having jurisdiction are not met, all work
affected by said regulations shall be halted immediately and
necessary action shall be taken to cause such work to conform
to said requirements prior to re—commencing such operations.
66
-------
R. All sludge and contamined materials removed from the Work Site
shall become the property of and the sole responsibility of the
Contractor.
[ S. The Owner will make progress payments for sludge or other
materials taken off—site and temporarily lagooned or stored
prior to final disposal subject to the retainage requirements
of Section 01370, Schedule of Values, but not to exceed the
actual costs incurred by such lagooning or storing or the
costs for this work set forth in the Schedule of Values.]
[ T. Sludge, ash, and grease from Lagoons 1 through 10 shall be
removed and treated as required by the specific option. The
sludge from Lagoons 12 and 16 shall be removed to allow con-
struction of the 120” effluent line. This sludge may be
temporarily stored in any lagoon that has been emptied for
construction. After the construction and sealing of this line,
and the construction of a bentonite/clay liner in Lagoons 12
and 16, as specified, such sludge may be replaced in Lagoons
12 and 16. The contractor does not have to treat the sludge
that he removes from, and replaces in Lagoons 12 and 16 unless
he desires to do so as part of his treatment and disposal of
sludge removed from the central site limits.]
[ U. The Contractor shall provide a plan with his bid showing how
he proposes to dispose of any materials at the Belmont North
Disposal Site.]
PART 2 - MATERIAL DISPOSAL OPTIONS
2.01 Option No. 1 — Chemical Fixation Processes
A. Chemical Fixation is one on—site method for the disposal of the
sludges removed from lagoons 1 through 10 at the Belmont Wastewater
Treatment Plant No. 1.
[ B. If chemical fixation is used, the sludge shall be disposed of
at the Belmont North Disposal Site. Grease that is removed shall
be disposed of off—site in an approved landfill for
such material. Ash may be disposed of at the Belmont North
Disposal Site or off—site in an approved landfill for such
material.]
C. The Belmont North Disposal Site shall be prepared for the installa-
tion of the chemically fixed sludge by sloping the bottom to allow
drainage to the southeast corner of the disposal site at
approximate coordinates 5750N/2350E. A bentonite/clay liner as
specified in Section 02244 shall then be installed as specified
and a system of leachate underdrains and other facilities, as
necessary, shall be installed immediately above the bentonite/clay
liner and piped under the road as shown to an existing manhole at
67
-------
approximate coordinates 6280N/23l4E. After the chemically fixed
sludge has been placed in the area with maximum slopes of 3:1,
one foot of clay and six inches of soil suitable for grass cover,
shall be installed on top of the chemically fixed sludge. The
surface shall be sloped to drain to the southeast corner of the
disposal site and necessary catch basins and storm sewers constructed
to connect to a storm sewer that shall be installed under the
road in order to drain the surface of the North Disposal Site to
the area at approximate coordinates 5344W/2264E. The soil shall
then be mulched seeded as specified. Contractor shall control
all erosion and maintain seeded areas until acceptance by the
Owner. Contractor, before placing any chemically fixed sludge on
the Belmont North Disposal Site shall submit grading plans,
drainage plans, subsurface drainage plans, leachate control
scheme and all calculations to the Project Engineer and the
Indiana State Board of Health for review. These plans shall be
prepared by and under the seal of a professional engineer registered
in the State of Indiana. A two year — 1 hour storm intensity of
1.25 inches shall be used in calculations for the surface runoff.
D. Chemical fixation, if used, shall be accomplished by processes,
methods and equipment capable of producing a product that has
mechanical properties suitable for landfill on top of ground
surfaces, capable of being contoured and capable of supporting a
bearing pressure of 1,000 PSF. The processed sludge shall also
possess leachate properties defined as follows:
1. The chemical characteristics of the leachate listed as
maximum levels in milligrams per liter (mg/L) shall be
as follows: Cadmium (Cd) 1 mg/l or less. Total chromium
(Cr) 1 mg/l or less. Lead (Pb) 1 mg/l or less. Mercury (Hg)
0.1 mg/l or less. Nickel (Ni) 1 mg/i or less. Zinc (Zn) 1
mg/i or less. Copper (Cu) 1 mg/l or less.
2. The chemical characteristics of the leachate shall be
determined by standard leachate tests which shall be con-
ducted in the following manner:
a. One hundred (100) grams of the material to be leached
shall be placed In a forty by six—hundred (40 x 600)
millimeter chromatography column containing one inch of
glass wool at the bottom interface.
b. The material to be leached shall then be compacted in
the column.
c. Distilled water shall be used as the diluent. The
remaining volume of the column above the material to be
leached shall be filled with distilled water.
68
-------
d. Diluent water shall be allowed to seep through the
material at a rate of approximately one (1) cubic
centimeter of water per minute. The diluent water
which seeps through the material is called the “leachate”
and shall be collected.
e. The leachate shall be collected in one—hundred (100)
cubic centimeter portions.
f. Leachate portions or various composite portions shall
be analyzed by Atomic Absorption, Spectrographic,
Colorimetric or wet methods (as required) to determine
the concentration of any constituents which were
leached from the material under analysis. Results
shall be reported in milligrams per liter.
3. Volume increase of the sludge after chemical fixation shall
be limited to a maximum of 10 percent.
E. Timing of the Work to be performed under these Contract Documents
is critical to the completion of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Project at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Obtaining
the required approvals or concurrences to dispose of the sludge or
other materials as proposed may be delayed by the nature of the
remonstrance and other response to the hearing(s), if any, as well
as by other unforeseen legal or technical considerations. If
delays in obtaining the necessary approvals or concurrences for
the proposed disposal method for the sludge or other material extend
later than ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the Tentative
Award of the Contract, the Owner may deem the bid non—responsive
and award the Contract to another bidder.
F. Contractor using this option shall provide, at Project Close-
out, Certificates of Insurance that will provide $10,000,000
Excess Indemnity Limits covering the following for a period
of two (2) years after Project Close—out:
1. Stability of chemically fixed sludge.
2. All off—site disposal of materials.
3. All off—site stored materials.
4. All off—site transportation and operations.
2.02 OPTION NO. 2 — C}1ENICAL CONDITIONING, DEWATERING AND ON-SITE
D ISPOSAL
A. Chemical conditioning and dewatering of the sludges in lagoons 1
through 18 and then storing the dewatered sludge in lagoons 11
through 18 is another method of removing the sludge from
lagoons 1 through 10. If this method is used, the resulting
69
-------
dry cake, after dewatering, shall have a minimum of 25% solids
by weight and shall have a volume no greater than one—half the
sludge’s original volume.
[ B. If the chemical conditioning, dewatering and on—site disposal
method is used, the lagoons dewatered in the South Disposal
Site Limits for use in disposal of sludge shall be lined with
a bentoriite/clay liner as specified in Section 02244. All
of the ash shall be disposed of at the Belmont North Disposal
Site as specified in paragraph 1.021 above or at an approved
landfill. The grease shall be disposed of off—site in an
approved landfill. Contaminated materials shall be disposed
of in Lagoons No. 11 and 18 at the Belmont Wastewater
Treatment Plant if sufficient volume is available after
deposition of the chemically conditioned, dewatered sludge.]
C. Excess sludge, ash, grease or other contaminated materials shall
be disposed of only at “approved” landfills.
D. Timing of the Work to be performed under these Contract Documents
is critical to the completion of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Project at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Obtaining
the required approvals or concurrences to dispose of the sludge
or other materials as proposed may be delayed by the nature of the
remonstrance and other response to the hearing(s) if any, as
well as by other unforeseen legal or technical considerations. If
delays in obtaining the necessary approvals or concurrences for
the proposed disposal method for the sludge or other materials
extend later than ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the
Tentative Award of the Contract, the Owner may deem the bid
non—responsive and award the Contract to another bidder.
E. The Contractor using this option shall provide, at Project Close-
out, Certificates of Insurance that will provide $10,000,000 Excess
Indemnity Limits covering the following for a period of two (2)
years after Project Close—out:
1. All off—site disposal of materials.
2. All off—site stored materials.
3. All off—site transportation and operation.
2.03 OPTION NO. 3 — LAND APPLICATION
A. This method offers the option of off—site transportation and
disposal of the sludge using land application.
70
-------
B. Mi of the information required from the Bidder for obtaining
approval or concurrence of this method of sludge disposal from
all agencies having jurisdiction with the exception of the
public hearing response, if any, shall be submitted with the
bid. This information shall be prepared by and under the seal
of a professional engineer registered in the State of Indiana
and the state of the disposal site if other than Indiana and
submitted in the appropriate format to the appropriate agencies
having jurisdiction, and the Owner. Bidder shall also provide
with his bid a letter signed by an individual having authority
to do so (in conformance with paragraph 1.02 of the Instructions
to Bidders), warranting that he has procured the adequate land
area required for the sludge disposal and sludge storage
methods that he proposes using for his method of disposal.
The Owner will deem the bid of any bidder who fails to provide
this letter as non—responsive.
C. The public hearing(s), if required, for the land application method
shall be postponed until after a bidder proposing such a disposal
method receives Tentative Award of the Contract. The hearing(s)
shall then be held, if required, and all the information
obtained from this hearing(s), including the transcript and
all remonstrance and other responses, shall be submitted to
the Owner and the agencies having jurisdiction (five (5) copies
each) within forty—five (45) days after the date of the Tentative
Award. The transcripts shall be prepared and certified by a
qualified Court Reporter approved by the Owner. All remonstrance
or other responses shall be reported to the Owner in writing
during the ten (10) consecutive calendar day period following
the date of the hearing(s). All remonstrances shall be forwarded
in their entirety, if in writing, and thoroughly reported in
writing if verbal. All hearing(s), if required, shall be held
by the Contractor for the Owner and such hearing(s) shall
comply with all requirements of all agencies having jurisdiction.
The costs of holding the hearing(s), and the preparation of
transcripts and submittals associated with such hearing(s)
shall be borne by the Contractor.
D. If all required documentation is not provided the Owner within ten
(10) consecutive calendar days following the public hearing(s), the
Owner will deem the bid nonresponsive and award the Contract to
another bidder.
E. Timing of the Work to be performed under these Contract Documents
is critical to the completion of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Project at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Obtain-
ing the required approvals or concurrences to dispose of the
sludge or other materials as proposed may be delayed by the nature
of the remonstrance and other response to the hearing(s), if any,
as well as by other unforeseen legal or technical considerations.
If delays in obtaining the necessary approvals or concurrences for
71
-------
the proposed disposal method for the sludge or other materials
extend later than forty—five (45) consecutive calendar days from
the time of the Owner’s submission of the required documentation
to the agencies having jurisdiction, the Owner may deem the
bid non—responsive and award the Contract to another bidder.
F. The Owner has not conducted the sampling, testing, and analysis,
required to prove the viability and safety of any type of off—
site sludge disposal method. The Contractor shall provide all
sampling, testing, and analysis, required to prove the viability
and safety of the sludge disposal techniques that he proposes.
G. AJ.l sludges shall be disposed of in accordance with the require-
ments of this Article. All ash shall be disposed of at the Belmont
North Site, as specified, or in an approved landfill. All grease
shall be disposed of in an approved landfill.
H. If Option 3 is selected by the Owner and the Notice of Tentative
Award is received by the Bidder, the Bidder shall assist the Owner
in consulting with and obtaining approval or concurrence from
the appropriate agencies having jurisdiction and with the
Owner on the wording of the announcement of Public Hearing(s),
Location of the Public Hearing and the requirements for publication
and advertising the Hearing(s).
I. The Contractor using this option shall provide, at Project
Close—out, Certificates of Insurance that will provide $10,000,000
Excess Indemnity Limits covering the following for a period of
two (2) years after Project Close—out:
1. All off—site disposal of materials.
2. All off—site stored materials.
3. All off—site transportation and operations.
2.04 OPTION 4 - OTHER DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES
[ A. This method offers the option of using other on—site sludge
disposal methods or off—site transportation and sludge
disposal methods using any environmentally acceptable method
the Bidder proposes.]
B. All of the information required from the Bidder for obtaining
approval or concurrence of the proposed method of sludge disposal
from all agencies having jurisdiction with the exception of
the public hearing response, if any, shall be submitted with
the bid. This information shall be prepared by and under the
seal of a professional engineer registered in the State of
Indiana and the state of the disposal site if other than
Indiana and submitted in the appropriate format to the appropriate
72
-------
agencies having jurisdiction, and the Owner. Bidder shall
also provide with his bid a letter signed by an individual
having authority to do so (in conformance with paragraph 1.02
of the Instructions to Bidders), warranting that he has procured
the adequate land area required for the sludge disposal and
sludge storage methods that he proposes using for his method
of disposal. The Owner will deem the bid of any bidder who
fails to provide this letter as non—responsive.
C. The public hearing(s), is required, for the proposed off—site
disposal method shall be postponed until after a bidder proposing
such a disposal method receives Tentative Award of the Contract.
The hearing(s) shall the be held, if required, and all the
information obtained from this hearing(s), including the
transcript and all remonstrance and other responses, shall be
submitted to the Owner and the agencies having jurisdiction (five
(5) copies each) within forty—five (45) days after the date of
the Tentative Award. The transcripts shall be prepared and
certified by a qualified Court Reporter approved by the Owner. All
remonstrance or other responses shall be reported to the Owner
in writing during the ten (10) consecutive calendar day period
following the date of the hearing(s). All remonstrances shall
be forwarded in their entirety, if in writing, and thoroughly
reported in writing if verbal. All hearing(s), if required,
shall be held by the Contractor for the Owner and such hearing(s)
shall comply with all requirements of all agencies having
jurisdiction. The costs of holding the hearing(s), and the
preparation of transcripts and submittals associated with such
hearing(s) shall be borne by the Contractor.
D. If all required documentation is not provided the Owner within
ten (10) consecutive calendar days following the public hearing(s)
the Owner will deem the bid non—responsive and award the
Contract to another bidder.
E. Timing of the Work to be performed under these Contract Documents
is critical to the completion of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Project at the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Obtain-
ing the required approvals or concurrences to dispose of the sludge
or other materials as proposed may be delayed by the nature of
the remonstrance and other response to the hearing(s) if any as
well as by other unforeseen legal or technical considerations.
If delays in obtaining the necessary approvals or concurrences
for the proposed disposal method for the sludge or other materials
extend later than forty—five (45) consecutive calendar days from
the time of the Owner’s submission of the required documentation
to the agencies having jurisdiction, the Owner may deem the bid
non—responsive and award the Contract to another bidder.
73
-------
F. The Owner has not conducted the sampling, testing, and analysis,
required to prove the viability and safety of any type of off—
site sludge disposal method. The Contractor shall provide all
sampling, testing, and analysis, required to prove the viability
and safety of the sludge disposal techniques that he proposes.
[ G. All sludges shall be disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of this Article. All ash may be disposed
of at the Belmont North Site, as specified, or in an
approved landfill. All grease shall be disposed of in an
approved landfill. The Contractor shall comply with all
requirements of all agencies having jurisdiction and shall
install a bentonite/clay liner in any on—site area used
for disposing of any sludge or contaminated materials.]
H. If Option 4 is selected by the Owner and the Notice of Tentative
Award is received by the Bidder, the Bidder shall assist the Owner
in consulting with and obtaining approval or concurrence from
the appropriate agencies having jurisdiction and with the
Owner on the wording of the announcement of Public Hearing(s),
location of the Public Hearing(s) and the requirements for publica-
tion and advertising the Hearing(s).
I. TheContractor using this option shall provide, at Project Close-
Out Certificates of Insurance that will provide $10,000,000 Excess
Indemnity Limits covering the following for a period of two (2)
years after Project Close—out:
1. All off—site disposal of materials.
2. All off—site stored materials.
3. All off—site transportation and operations.
END OF SECTION
74
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC RELATIONS MATERIAL
PRESS RELEASE A
December 7, 1976
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Indiana agriculture will benefit from the recycled use of nutrients
in sewage sludge in an innovative program described today by J. Fred Duff
of Lebanon as a prototype plan meeting environmental needs of the state
and nation.
President of Duff Farm Management Services, Inc., which he has
operated since 1939, Duff also is president of the Organic Materials
Corporation. That company is a tentative sub—contractor in an Indianapolis
project involving the removal of almost 100 million gallons of sludge from
the Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Use of the sludge as a fertilizer is a feature of a tentative award
granted Monday by the Indianapolis Board of Public Works as part of its
$212 million project upgrading the city’s wastewater treatment facilities.
Affecting the site—preparation phase of the project, the award was given
Tousley—Bjxler Construction Company of Indianapolis on its bid of $12.1
million. Final approval is subject to concurrence by state and federal
governmental authorities.
Duff said Organic’s land application plan was given a public
demonstration in Boone County on November 25, 1975, and many farmers have
been enrolled for the program. “The material will be spread only when the
farmer asks for it and he will be buying it because it is a good deal
for him,” he stated.
“Not only will it reduce costs normally expended by farmers for
fertilizer, but the applications will match a chemical analysis of the
materials with the crop and soil needs of each farm tract,” Duff said.
The crop land applications will follow a criteria developed through
consultations with agronomists of Purdue University, and the standards
“will do more than comply” with over—all environmental and health guide-
lines, he said.
75
-------
The nearly 100 million gallons of seasoned and treated sludge is to
be removed from 10 lagoons in which it has been stored for more than 10
years. The lagoons are to be emptied to provide space for construction
work modernizing the treatment facilities.
Under the plan, the material will be hauled away in tank trucks and
transported to land application sites. There the material, which is made
up of five to 10 percent solids, will be sprayed on farm land as weather
and crop seasons permit. When inclement weather conditions prevent
immediate land application, the sludge will be stored temporarily in a
lagoon to be located in Boone County.
Duff said the sludge will be applied on approximately 9,200 acres
at a rate of four dry tons per acre, or at a depth of approximately one—
third of an inch. They will be sprayed by high flotation vehicles.
Primary nutrients applied by Organic will be nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium. The cost will be $22 per acre through 1977, which is compared
with a $110 per acre cost for traditional fertilizers with equivalent
nutrient content.
Nutrient tables developed by Purdue agronomists will guide Organic
and its farmer customers on land applications. The standards relate the
sludge’s nutrients to various typeso soi1s, various crops and their
desired yields, and fertilizer supplements which may be needed.
Duff stressed that odors normally associated with sludge will not be
present because odors involve sludge digestion during the early months of
storage and the material is more than 10 years old. He described the af-
fected material’s odor as a “musty earthy odor.”
Duff is a past president of the American Society of Farm Managers
and Rural Appraisers, an organization of 2,500 members. He attended
Wabash College and Purdue University, and has been active in Indiana
agricultural affairs.
Tousley—Bixier said one lagoon contains greases which will require
special depositing in a government—approved site not yet determined.
Among available sites is one in Illinois, the company said, emphasizing
that material will not be part of the land application program.
PRESS RELEASE B
December 28, 1976
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lebanon, md. -- An innovative plan for the application of sewage
sludge as fertilizer on farmland will be the subject of a public hearing
on Tuesday, January 11, here, Organic Materials Corporation announced
today.
76
-------
J. Fred Duff of Lebanon, president of the company, said the hearing
will be conducted in cooperation with the City of Indianapolis. The
city’s Department of Public Works has awarded a contract providing for
the agricultural use of approximately 92 million gallons of treated sludge
stored at its Belmont Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Duff said the hearing will be held in Boone County because farmers
there have been enrolled for the program and the county will be the site
of a short term, temporary holding lagoon. He said more than 75 per cent
of the material will be applied to farmlands owned or operated by Duff
Farm Management Services, Inc., including all of his own farmlands. Duff
has operated the farm management firm since 1939 and is a past president
of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.
Duff said the Organic Materials Corporation land application plan
will benefit both farmers and city government. It is “a scientific approach
to the recycled use of nutrients in sludge, and it avoids costly problems
involved in old methods of continuous storage on small land areas at
treatment plants or elsewhere,” he said.
The sludge’s use will follow criteria developed by Purdue University
agronomists, who completed chemical analysis of the material and recommended
standards for a controlled land application of it, he continued. Applica-
tions will consider soil and crop needs of each farm tract, and all material
applied will be disced in or plowed down within 72 hours of application,
he said.
The public hearing will open at 9:15 a.m. in the Boone County 4—H
Club Building at the south edge of Lebanon. The meeting will follow
standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Documents related to the project are available for public examination
at the company’s offices in the Lawler Building, 122 East Washington
Street, Lebanon.
Duff said details of the plan are familiar to Boone County farmers
and others who witnessed a demonstration of it on November 25, 1975. He
said the material will be applied only on lands of farmers who have ordered
it. Because of the savings in costs normally incurred for fertilizers,
“the farmers are buying it because it is a good deal for them,” he added.
Explaining the use of the temporary lagoon, Duff said most of the
material will be transported from Indianapolis for immediate land applica-
tion. Lesser amounts transported on days of inclement weather will require
placement temporarily in the lagoon, he said.
The sludge’s primary nutrients are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
It is made up of five to 10 per cent solids and will be applied over
approximately 5,600 acres at a rate of four dry tons per acre, or at a
depth of approximately one—half an inch. The material has been stored
for 10 to 50 years in eight lagoons at the Belmont Avenue plant in
Indianapolis.
77
-------
Organic Materials Corporation is a sub—contractor to Tousley—Bixier
Construction Company of Indianapolis for site—preparation work making way
for an expansion of the city’s wastewater treatment facilities.
Farmers who have entered contracts for the use of the material in
1977 are in Center, Clinton and Eagle Townships in Boone County. The
farmlands are in portions of Sections 15—22—16—23 in Center Township,
portions of Sections 22—32—33—27—5—4—6—8—9 in Clinton Township, and
portions of Sections 7—8 in Eagle Township.
RADIO ADVERTISEMENT
Organic Materials Corporation November 19, 1975
The following was used by WNON, Lebanon, IN on November 19, 1975
This is a message of great importance to all farmers. A liquid fertilizer
that can Cut your costs by at least two thirds. Thats right — at
least a two—third reduction in your liquid fertilizer costs. The Organic
Materials Corporation of Lebanon invites all cost conscious farmers
to see a demonstration of the application of this product at the Duff
Farm this coming Tuesday. The basis of this product is sludge — that’s
right — sludge. But’s it’s acceptable — there’s no odor problem — it
does the job efficiently and it can cut your costs to a great extent.
The application is being used effectively In many areas of the state.
You just can’t afford to miss this demonstration with a full line of
equipment. The demonstration will be at the ’Duff Farm— 2 miles north
of State Road 32 on 400 East. That’s the intersection of County Road
400 East and 200 North. Tuesday, November 25th from 10 to 2. Tuesday
from 10 to 2 at the Duff Farm.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
The following article appeared in the Lebanon Reporter on
October 30, 1975.
PUBLIC HEARINGS SLATED ON BOONE SLUDGE OPERATION
A hearing is expected to be slated within a month on the proposal by
Organic Materials Corporation for the construction of a lagoon in northwest
Boone County and the utilization of sludge as registered fertilizer on farm
land in Boone County.
78
-------
John Tait of Noblesville, a fulltixne employee of the corporation
and one of the directors, stated today that the Indiana Stream Pollution
Control Board, Boone County Board of Health, Indiana State Board of Health,
Boone County Planning Coniniission and possibly the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency would be involved in the hearing which is open to the public.
The date of the hearing will be announced later. The recently formed
corporation is headed by well known Lebanon resident J. Fred Duff. The
firm is proposing the establishment of a lagoon for the treatment of the
sludge near State Road 47, about quarter to one—half mile west of US 421
on the south side of the state highway. The land, consisting of 120
acres, is being purchased at present on contract by Rene 0. and Barbara
Hoffman from Herbert Hoover and adjacent property is owned by Myron Lyon.
The corporation has options to buy the land.
Tait said the lagoon would consist of five to eight acres. In
conferring with farmers in the area, “We have found no objections and even
have letters of intent to purchase the fertilizer as soon as we can
make it available,” Tait said.
Boone Planner Bruce Stauffer saw the plans yesterday and said that
he had not had time to analyze them, but that his first thoughts would
be on zoning, if it is to be a commercial plant.
However, Dave Richey, attorney for the organization, said that his
opinion, based on an Illinois Supreme Court ruling on a similar situation,
is that the land would not have to be rezoned as its usage would still
be that of agriculture.
The organization has been working on the project for over two years.
It has worked closely with Purdue University which has made analysis of
this material.
“We have agreed to completely follow the recommendations of the
Agronomy Department of Purdue as to rate of application on farmlands and
to follow to the letter all recommendations of the Indiana State Board
of Health,” Tait said.
The fertilizer, which is to be registered with the state of Indiana
and a trade name acquired, contains primarily nutrients of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium and can be applied at $22 an acre compared to
$110 for other fertilizer, according to Tait.
The main headquarters are to be located in Lebanon. A site for
offices is being studied and the potential number of employees is about
25, including office personnel. “We would have six vehicles, flotation
type, to apply the treated sludge and would work six days a week, two
shifts a day. The lagoon would be fenced in and we would have a 24—hour,
seven—day watch with a mobile guard home at the lagoon site.”
Tait further indicated that soil engineers are checkin soils to
assure that there will be no leaching on surface or subtert’anean levels. If
79
-------
this does propose a problem, then the lagoon would be completely encased or
sealed.
Further, Organic Materials Corporation hopes to acquire from the city
of Indianapolis 100—million gallons of sludge, now resting in lagoons
at the Belmont Avenue sewage plant, and have the operation going by
January. The firm also plans to contact the Lebanon Utilities which now
has a yearly contract for disposal of its sludge with Art Casper of
Crawfordsville.
Indianapolis officials want to remove the sludge from its lagoons
and close them to permit expansion of the existing sewage—treatment
facility. It is estimated that it would take one to two years to remove
this sludge.
The sludge would be stored in the proposed Boone lagoon for a minimum
of one year so that when application is made there is no odor.
“We are interested in any group wanting to learn about this project
and will bring in experts or others to talk and show study facts and
findings,” Tait assured. “We are not trying to hide anything. We
want the public to know what we propose to do and how it will benefit
the farmers and others.”
The following article appeared in The Lebanon Reporter on
November 20, 1975.
ORGANIC MATERIALS TO HOLD LIQUID FERTILIZER DEMONSTRATION
As interest and concern mounts over a proposed sludge lagoon in
Boone County, Organic Materials Corporation announced today that the public
is invited to a demonstration for application of the liquid fertilizer.
The demonstration will be held Tuesday, November 25, from 10 a.m.
to 2 p.m. two miles north of State Road 32 on County Road 400 East or
three miles south and one mile west of Elizaville (State Road 47) at
intersection of County Roads 400 East and 200 North.
J. Fred Duff is president of Organic Materials Corporation which is
proposing a holding lagoon in Marion Township on some 120 acres of land
on which they have taken an option.
A hearing to explain the facility was set for December 5, however
this has been cancelled.
According to Bruce Stauffer, Boone area planner, the hearing to be
conducted by the Indiana State Stream Pollution Control Board and the
Indiana State Department of Public Health is not necessary because there
80
-------
are already 37 similar lagoons in operation in the state utilizing sludge
and no problems are indicated as to environmental status.
Neither Duff nor other officers of Organic Materials nor Indiana
Stream Pollution Control authorities were available for comment, at press
time.
Stauffer indicated earlier this week that he was of the opinion that
a reckoning of the land from agriculture to commercial might be necessi-
tated since the corporation proposes to sell the liquid fertilizer to
farmers.
Today, he stated, “I have not changed my opinion at this time,
however, I am open to various legal opinions and consultations. The
ultimate decision will rest with the Planning Commission.”
As to the operation of the proposed facility to be located west
of U.S. 421 on the south side of SR 47, “this is not my bailiwick”
Stauffer noted. He did add that Organic Materials has made a concentrated
and concerted study of the operation and presented a complete, encompassing
study of all aspects incorporating studies and suggestions from Purdue
University, even down to the most ideal and suitable rate of application
per acre, based on soil content. He further noted that Organic Materials
has assured that there will be no leaching, even if a walled lagoon is
necessitated.
Earlier it had been reported that the December 5 hearing was cancelled
because Indianapolis was not going to sell its sludge from the Belmont
Street Sewage Treatment plant to Organic Materials. This could not be
verified from the Indianapolis Public Works, Liquid Waste Division.
Stauffer further explained that the proposed Boone site would merely
be used as a temporary holding facility, not a treatment plant.
The Organic Materials Corporation had offered to buy the sludge
from Indianapolis and bring it to Boone, firm officials noting that it
would be beneficial and economical for area farmers. This is only a
small aspect of a $183 million project federally funded, under which EPA
has told Indianapolis that it must build a sophisticated sewage treatment
plant at the Belmont Avenue site, necessitating a new building which
Indianapolis wants to place adjacent to the existing facility and would
be over the lagoon site. Thus, the sludge must be cleared out.
Stauffer further pointed out that there are two stages, biologically,
of the sludge from sewage plants. The first is a bacterial breakdown
causing release of gaseous odor. After a nine—month to year holding,
the sludge has no significant odor.
The pre—held sludge would be removed and whenever weather permits
applied directly to fields. Application is not done during rains or when
soil is frozen. The sludge is held in lagoons during these periods.
81
-------
MATERIAL DISTRIBUTED TO POTENTIAL USERS
GENERAL INFORMATION
Organic is an Indiana Corporation with corporate headquarters in
Lebanon, Indiana. Ul of the shares of the Company are owned by eight
Indiana residents, all of whom have skills which will assist in plans
and growth. Two years of extensive planning and research had been done
before its incorporation.
The Corporation expects to be the successful bidder for the removal
and disposition of one hundred million plus gallons of seasoned treated
sewage sludge from storage lagoons located in the City of Indianapolis.
In the future other bids to other Indiana cities will be made.
What are the benefits possible from the use of this material, and
what are the limitations or restrictions regarding its use?
TYPICAL ANALYSIS
Purdue University through the Agronomy Department made an analysis
of sludge samples from two different levels at two separate locations
from each of ten lagoons. Dr. Lee Sommers of Purdue has completed a
detailed report. (A full copy of this report is available at your
request.)
Since the samples analysed were from ten different lagoons that
were filled and stored over a period of the last fifty years, the
chemical characteristics varied slightly from lagoon to lagoon. The
solids content also varied from one lagoon to another.
Before removal of any material for transportation for farmland
application, a separate chemical analysis f or each lagoon will be
made. A registration of this material as a fertilizer with the State
Chemist will insure that the stated nutrient content will be present.
Tables number three and four from the Purdue report show the
recommended maximum application for various type soils, the available
nutrients, and the amounts of additional chemical fertilizers which
would be required for various crops for various desired yields. The
nutrient values shown on table 4 are based upon the application of four
(4) dry tons per acre of liquid sludge. If the material is 10% solids,
this represents an application of ten thousand gallons per acre, or
slightly more than 1/3 of an inch.
82
-------
From table 4, the primary nutrients applied per acre would be:
Nitrogen, (available) 125 pounds
Phosphorous — 207 pounds (Since this is
Pure P, it is the equivalent of approxi-
mately 1000 lbs of 0—46—0 Super Phosphate)
Potassium 17 pounds
Based upon the crops to be planted and yields sought, more N and K
might be required and an excess of P would be present.
The Purdue table would indicate that the most economical use of
this material would be only every second or third year with N and K only
used by the farmers in the years our product was not applied.
COST
The cost of this material applied by high flotation vehicles will
be $22.00 per acre throughout 1977. The terms will be:
Five per cent (5%) cash discount for payments received
within ten days of the completion of any applications.
ti the ten day cash discount is not used, payments may be
made anytime prior to January 15, 1978, without penalty,
interest, or carrying charges for 1977 applications.
ODORS
The material proposed has been stored in lagoons. The primary
source of odors from sludge is the partial denitrification that takes
place in the first nine months of storage. The odor, if any, of
the material in the lagoons could best be described as a musty earthy
odor. As the material is removed from the lagoons, and if the lower
level stored material has an offensive odor, discing in of material
within twenty—four hours of its application would be done by the
Corporation without additional charge.
GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION
The Indiana State Board of Health, and possibly the United States
Environmental Protection Agency will require that strict guidelines be
followed. All such guidelines plus the recommendations of Purdue
University will be complied with.
83
-------
PROPERTY DAMAGE, PRODUCT LIABILITY
A ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) insurance policy by a major
insurance company is carried by Organic covering any property damage or
possible damages resulting from the use of this material. A representa-
tive of Organic will meet within twelve (12) hours with any farmer who
makes a complaint.
We are seeking your ideas, or suggestions, on methods the company
plans to use. Your criticisms will be Just as welcome as your praise,
as we are interested in initially performing an efficient beneficial
service with a goal of constant improvement. Please write or call us.
Sincerely,
JFD/nb
Attachment:
Table 3
Table 4
Agronomy Guide — Disposal of Sewage Sludge on Cropland
by J. V. Mannering, D. W. Nelson and
L. E. Sommers, Agronomy Department
84
-------
APPENDIX C
LETTER OF INTENT
LETTER OF INTENT
Organic Materials Corporation, an Indiana corporation with
principal office in Lebanon, Indiana (“Organic”), has presented a program
to me/us for application of seasoned, lagooned sewage sludge (sometimes
referred to as “material”) on the farms owned, managed or operated by
the undersigned.
A representative of Organic has explained that bidders other
than Organic Materials may be awarded the contract for such removal and
disposition. If Organic is unsuccessful in its bid or the sludge
is otherwise unavailable, this Letter of Intent is void.
I/we acknowledge receipt of this Letter of Intent together with
a form of Release to be signed by me/us, and also the following items:
1. The chemical analyses made by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency “EPA”) and Moseley Laboratories, Inc. of
samples of material from the Indianapolis Belmont Avenue
Wastewater Treatment Plant, lagoons one (1) through
eighteen (18).
2. A copy of the Environmental Assessment submitted with
Organic’s bid as a subcontractor on EPA Project No. C—18O747—O2.
This Environmental Assessment includes certain chemical analyses
of samples of material from the Indianapolis Belmont Avenue
Wastewater Treatment Plant lagoons one (1) through ten (10) by:
a. The Indiana State Board of Health Water Laboratory.
b. Purdue University.
c. Jones and Henry Laboratories, Inc.
d. 0. A. Laboratories.
e. Moseley Laboratories, Inc.
3. The Environmental Assessment also includes information
specifying the amount of material to be applied per acre for
various crops and different types of soils prepared by the
Purdue University Agronomy Department.
85
-------
4. A bottle of sewage sludge from the Indianapolis Belmont
Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant lagoons. (The under-
signed understands that the sewage sludge contained in
such bottle may not be a representative sample of the
sludge actually applied.)
5. Also included in the Environmental Assessment is a
description of the methods which Organic Materials
Corporation expects to use in the application of this
material. Certain restrictions on rate of application
and manner in which material may be applied are to be
followed scrupulously.
I/We understand that a public hearing was held in Boone County
on January 11, 1977, regarding this program and that a copy of the
hearing transcript, hearing exhibits and post—hearting exhibits are
available for inspection by the undersigned at the principal offices
of Organic, 124 East Washington Street, Lebanon, Indiana 46052.
I/We recognize and understand that the material’s chemical
content (including, but not limited to, nutrients and metals) and the
material’s liquid percentage may vary somewhat since the material
has been stored in eighteen (18) different lagoons for different
lengths of time. I/We further recognize and understand that the
material applied on my/our farmlands may be taken from any one of
lagoons numbered one (1) through ten (10), or lagoons numbered eleven
(11) through eighteen (18) if these additional lagoons should be
made a part of Organic’s contract.
It is expressly understood that prior to any application of
material I/we will be given a copy of a Certificate of Insurance
issued to Organic in an amount of not less Fifteen Million Dollars
($15,000,000) and among its provisions will include general liability
and property damage.
Soil samples of my acreage will be taken for an analysis by
Purdue University for pH CEC: These tests will be made without cost
to me/us. It is understood that the optimum utilization of this
material is as shown in Table 3 of Purdue University’s chemical
analysis and recommendations contained in the Environmental
Assessment. No application in excess of the amounts shown on this
table will be made by Organic.
The “INTERIM GUIDELINES FOR MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL ON LAND,
NOVEMBER 1975 SWK, INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH” and Purdue
University’s recommendations (both contained in the Environmental
Assessment) require that a minimum soil pH of 6.5 is required on any
lands where sludge is to be utilized. It is agreed that the cost of
any lime up to three tons per acre necessary to increase the pH of the
soil to 6.5 will be shared equally by Organic Materials Corporation and
86
-------
I/we. Organic’s portion of this cost to be deducted from my/our $22.00
per acre cost.
The total cost of this material applied in the maximum quantities
shown in Tables 3 and 4 will be $22.00 per acre for acreage applied
anytime in the year 1977.
Terms: 10% cash discount for payments received within
ten days of the completion of any application.
If the cash discount for payment in ten days is
not used, payments may be made anytime prior
to January 15, 1978 without penalty.
I/we agree to disc in all material applied
within seventy—two hours of its application
(UNLESS WEATHER MAKES THIS INPOSSIBLE).
ORGANIC WILL DISC IN THIS MATERIAL IF I/WE
DO NOT DO SO AT AN ADDITIONAL COST OF THREE
DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($3.50) PER ACRE.
Organic may file with the Boone County Recorder’s Office information
regarding application of material on my/our farmlands. Any filing
fees in connection with such filing shall be paid entirely by Organic.
It has been explained to me/us that a joint program of determining
farming community and general public attitudes may be conducted by
Purdue University or Organic Materials Corporation. That as an induce-
ment to me/us, the undersigned, to participate in such an attitude study,
these materials will be available at a fraction of the handling and
application costs in 1977 to those willing to participate. The minimum
and maximum time required for such participation will be one hour unless
at my/our choice it is agreed to extend the one—hour period.
This participation will consist of the following:
a. Agreement to meet at my/our home with a representative of
Purdue University or Organic Materials Corporation
within one week after the material has been applied to
my/our acreage and faction; suggestions as to how the
material could be more effectively applied, or any
criticisms I/we might have. No use of our names
would be made without our specific approval in writing.
b. A similar interview will be made after the crops are
harvested from the areas where the material has been
used. I/we would be asked for frank opinions, sugges-
tions for improvements and criticism. Our name without
our specific approval would not be used or identified in
any way.
87
-------
The purpose of such a study is to analyze the results for improve-
ment of methods and to publish the results of such a study to assist in
formulating guidelines for such applications in other parts of the
United States.
I/we hereby state my/our intent to use the above described
materials supplied and applied by Organic Materials Corporation, subject
to all of the provisions outlined previously in this Letter of Intent.
The number of acres where this material will be utilized in 1977
are
Date: _____________________________
The farmlands are located in Section(s) ______________________-
_____________________________ Township, Boone County, Indiana.
Representative of Organic Farm Owner/Operator
Materials Corporation
Address
Phone Number
88
-------
APPENDIX D
RELEASE FORMS
APPLICATION
RELEASE
The undersigned (party) (parties)* having an interest, as indicated
below, in property, or crops on said property, upon which sludge removed
from the Belmont Treatment Plant of the City of Indianapolis is to
be applied, acknowledge(s) that results of analyses of the sludge
material being applied, made by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Moseley Laboratories Inc. (and other analyses by Purdue University,
0. A. Laboratories, Jones and Henry Laboratories, Inc. and Indiana
State Board of Health Water Laboratory) have been made available to
and have been reviewed by them, but that it is impossible to know the
exact contents of all of the sludge material or the possible effects
of the sludge material and its contents upon land, personal property,
crops, animals or human beings. The undersigned further acknowledges
that he is knowledgeable of the public hearing held on January 11,
1977, regarding the proposed use of such sludge in Boone County.
It is understood that Organic Materials Corporation is the sole
owner of such sludge materials. Therefore, in consideration of being
permitted to purchase said sludge from Organic Materials Corporation,
the undersigned (does) (do)* hereby release the State of Indiana, the
City of Indianapolis, the City’s Project Engineer, the Project
Engineer’s Consultants, and their agents and employees from and against
all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys’ fees
arising out of or resulting from the application of such sludge materials,
including claims based upon the negligence of the released parties.
Furthermore, any such claims, damages, losses and expenses arising out
of or resulting from the application of such sludge materials, including
any damage to fences or buildings, are the sole responsibility of
Organic Materials Corporation.
The said property upon which sludge is to be applied is
identified on the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, soil survey map(s) of Boone County, Indiana and the aerial
photograph(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
89
-------
(Signature)
(Printed)
(Signature)
(Printed)
Interest in Property and/or Crops
Interest in Property and/or Crops
*Strike inapplicable words.
S TORAGE
RELEASE
The undersigned (party) (parties)* having an interest, as indicated
below, in property, or crops on said property, upon which sludge removed
from the Belmont Treatment Plant of the City of Indianapolis is to be
stored, acknowledge(s) that results of analyses of the sludge material
being stored, made by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Moseley
Laboratories Inc. (and other analyses by Purdue University, 0. A.
Laboratories, Jones and Henry Laboratories, Inc. and Indiana State Board
of Health Water Laboratory) have been made available to and have been
reviewed by them, but that it is impossible to know the exact contents
of all of the sludge material or the possible effects of the sludge
material and its contents upon land, personal property, crops, animals or
human beings. The undersigned further acknowledges that he is
knowledgeable of the public hearing held on January 11, 1977, regarding
the proposed use of such sludge in Boone County.
It is understood that Organic Materials Corporation is the sole
owner of such sludge materials. Therefore, in consideration of being
permitted to purchase said sludge from Organic Materials Corporation,
the undersigned (does)(do)* hereby release the State of Indiana, the
City of Indianapolis, the City’s Project Engineer, the Project
Engineer’s Consultants, and their agents and employees from and
against all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys’
fees arising out of or resulting from the application of such sludge
materials, including claims based upon the negligence of the released
parties. Furthermore, any such claims, damages, losses and expenses
arising out of or resulting from the application of such sludge
materials, including any damage to fences or buildings, are the sole
responsibility of Organic Materials Corporation.
90
-------
The said property upon which sludge is to be applied is identified
on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, soil
survey map(s) of Boone County, Indiana and the aerial photograph(s)
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(Signature) (Signature)
(Printed) (Printed)
Interest in Property and/or Crops Interest in Property and/or Crops
*Strike inapplicable words.
91
-------
APPENDIX E
FORMS AND MAPS USED TO IDENTIFY SLUDGE APPLICATION SITES
SLUDGE FIELDS AND LAND OWNER IDENTIFICATION
Belmont Waste Treatment Plant Sludge Application
Owner Corn, John Tenant _______
Address R. R. 1 Address_______
Lebanon,_Indiana_46052 _______
Telephone 123—4567 Telephone______
OWNER IDENTIFICATION NO. 13
FIELD INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Field
No.
Broadcast
Acreage
Injection
Acreage
Location
13—1
49.2
12.9
RIE
T19N
Sec
23
Center
Township
13—2
40.0
0
RIE
T19N
Sec
23
Center
Township
13—3
11.3
9.8
RIE
T19N
Sec
23
Center
Township
92
-------
EXANPLE SOIL SURVEY MAP WITH FIELD IDENTIFICATION
0
0
1 Mi’e
5 000 Feet
93
-------
KEY TO SOIL SURVEY MAp(SEE MAP ON PAGE 93)
Map
Symbol Mapping Unit
Br Brookston silt loam, overwash
Bs Brookston silty clay loam
CrA Crosby silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
CsB2 Crosby—Miami silt barns, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
FcA Fincastle silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
FsA Fox silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
FsB2 Fox silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
FsC2 Fox silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded
Gn Genesee silt loam
HeF Hennepin loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
Ma Mahalasville silty clay loam
MaA Miami silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
MmB2 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
MmC2 Miami silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded
MmD2 Miami silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes, eroded
MmE2 Miami silt loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes, eroded
MsB3 Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, severely eroded
MsC3 Miami silt loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded
MsD3 Miami clay loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes, severely eroded
OcA Ockley silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
OcB2 Ockley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
Ba Ragsdale silty clay loam
Re Reesville silt loam
Sh Shoals silt loam
St Sleeth silt loam
Sx Sloan silt loam
We Westland silty clay loam
Wh Whitaker silt loam
94
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF SURFACE AND INCORPORATION AREAS FOR SLUDGE APPLICATION ON
THE EXAMPLE SOIL SURVEY MAP.
lcm=80 m
Injection area
Broadcast
area
5m
etback
Flood
plain
p
Scale
95
-------
EXAMPLE OF SOIL TEST DATA
Name: John Corn
Sample No. 1
Sample No. 2
Sample No. 3
Organic matter,
%
3.2
4.4
2.7
Available P, ppm
46
21
24
Available K, ppm
182
92
83
Magnesium, ppm
410
640
610
Calcium, ppm
2
,100
3,400
3,050
Water pH
6.5
6.7
6.9
Buffer pH
6.8
———
———
Cation exchange
capacity,
meg/lOOg
15.6
23.7
20.8
Total Zn, ppma
4.5
Ni, ppm
32
Cd, ppm
0.4
Cu, ppm
22
Pb, ppm
11.2
a
Composite sample
96
-------
APPENDIX F
FORMS USED TO MONITOR SLUDGE REMOVAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND APPLICATION
FORM A — SUMMARY OF SLUDGE APPLIED TO A GIVEN AREA(CONSTANT APPLICATION RATE)
Owner & field 1 /
Injection Acres ____________ Broadcast Acres___________ Total Gallons
Total Acres _____________ Application Rate___________ Needed____________
Date
Time
Trip Ticket
Gallons
Relocation!
# Dispatched
Dispatched
Trip
Ticket #
Relocated
97
-------
FORM B - SUMMARY OF SLUDGE APPLIED TO A GIVEN AREA(ALL APPLICATION RATES)
O mer & Field
Injection Acres -
Total Acres
— Date Lime Applied
- Broadcast Acres______
Application Rate________
Date Disced__________________
Total Gallons Needed___________
TOTAL GALLONS
BROADCAST
GALLONS RECEIVED
GALLONS APPLIED
co
Date
Time
Trip Ticket
II Received
Gallons
Received
Spreader
Injector
or
II
Gallons
Applied
Spreader
Injector
or
II
Gallons
Applied
Comments
__________
TOTAL GALLONS
RECEIVED
TOTAL GALLONS
INJECTED
-------
FORM C -DAILY SUMMARY REPORT OF SLUDGE REMOVED
Date:
DAILY REPORT SHEET OF SLUDGE REMOVED
FROM BELMONT AVENUE LAGOONS AND DESINTATIONS
TOTAL LOADS __________ —
TOTAL GALLONS APPLIED —
TOTAL GALLONS TEMPORARILY STORED
TOTAL GALLONS TRANSPORTED
Lagoon
Owner &
Trip
Gallons
Sludge
Gallons
Number
Field # /
Ticket
Applied
Stored in
Transported
Lagoon
II
Temporary
Lagoon
99
-------
FORM D - WEEKLY SUMMARY REPORT OF SLUDGE REMOVED
WEEKLY REPORT SHEET OF SLUDGE REMOVED
FROM BELMONT AVENUE LAGOONS
WEEK ENDING:
Date
Total
Total
Total
Gallons
Total
Gallons
Loads
Gallons
Transported
Temporarily
Applied
Stored
WEEKLY
TOTAL
LOADS
WEEKLY TOTAL
GALLONS APPLIED
WEEKLY TOTAL GALLONS
TRANSPORTED
WEEKLY TOTAL GALLONS
TEMPORARILY STORED
100
-------
FORM E - MONTHLY SUMMARY REPORT OF SLtJDGE REMOVED
MONTHLY REPORT SHEET OF SLUDGE REMOVED
FROM BELMONT AVENUE LAGOONS
MONTH ENDING:
Week
Total
Total
Total
Gallons
Total
Gallons
Loads
Gallons
Transported
Temporarily
Applied
Stored
MONTHLY
TOTAL
LOADS
MONTHLY TOTAL
GALLONS APPLIED
MONTHLY TOTAL GALLONS
TRANSPORTED
MONTHLY TOTAL GALLONS
TEMPORARILY STORED
101
-------
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION OF LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
The following was a list of items considered in developing an observation
program.
A. Information needed on trucks leaving Belmont Plant:
1. Truck number or other truck designation.
2. Time leaving Belmont Plant.
3. Destination of truck: farm or lagoon.
4. Check that farm has had clearance.
(a) List of approved farms.
(b) If lagoon, no clearance noted, except that lagoon is completed.
5. List number of lagoon from which sludge was removed.
6. Total suspended solids concentration.
(a) Based on total suspended solids of lagoon, calculate and
record the allowable spreading rate (gallons/acre).
(b) Acreage covered by applicator vehicle.
7. All the above information on multiple copy ticket with one
copy delivered to off—site observer.
B. Periodic Total Suspended Solids Analysis:
1. Contractor is to start with a minimum of four (4) samples per
shift/lagoon.
2. Grab samples should be taken periodically for analysis by inde-
pendent lab in accordance with City’s contract (one day turn
around on samples).
3. Duplicate samples collected by contractor should be run by
independent lab, especially at the beginning, to determine any
variations.
102
-------
4. Consulting firm will run periodic solids analyses on—site.
C. Information and procedures at the application site:
1. Observer takes ticket from dirver and marks arrival time.
2. Observer determines application area for sludge based on volume
of applicator vehicle and allowable application rate.
3. Observer checks setbacks on land from high water level,
inhabitant dwellings, wells, roadways, checking area for
injection and broadcasting.
4. Check weather and land conditions. Make sure they meet the
requirements for spreading.
5. Observer should note the type ofland being applied to — plowed,
disced, pasture land, crops, etc.
6. Check for discing within 72 hours.
7. Fill out daily tally sheet.
D. At the lagoon for incoming sludge:
1. Tickets collected — locate lockbox for driver to insert
information in as he delivers the sludge.
2. Occasional check of level in lagoon.
E. At lagoon for outgoing sludge:
1. Must have up—to—date cadmium analysis of sludge if taken from
more than one Belmont lagoon or use highest concentration of
cadmium for application rate determination. Suspended
solids concentration needed as at Belmont Plant.
2. Approximately same information needed as for sludge leaving
the Belmont Plant site.
103
-------
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SLUDGE SPREADING
EQUIPMENT USED ON THE PROJECT
FIELD GYMMY
Manufactured by: — Field Cynimy Incorporated
P. 0. Box 121
Glandorf, Ohio 45848
Engine — V—8, gasoline, 220 net H.P.
Transmission — Automatic
Steering — Full power
Brakes — Four Wheel, power
Front tires — 48 x 25.00 x 20, 6 ply, Goodyear
Terra Tread
Rear tires — 66 x 33.00 x 25, 6 ply, Goodyear
Terra Tread
Four Wheel Drive — Yes
Sludge Tank Capacity — 2000 gallon
Vacuum/pressure pump — 192 cfm
Subsurface Sludge Applicator — 3 shank, hydraulically controlled
104
-------
TERRA GATOR 2505
Manufactured by: Ag—Chem Equipment Co., Inc.
4900 Viking Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55436
Engine — Turbo—charged 350 FTP Cummins Diesel
Transmission — 10 speed, heavy duty manual
Steering — Full power
Brakes — Air over hydraulic power
Front tires — 66 x 43.00 x 25, 6 ply, Goodyear
Terra Tread
Rear tires — 66 x 43.00 — 25, 6 ply, Goodyear
Super Terra Tires
Four Wheel Drive — Rear four—yes, front wheel—no
Sludge Tank capacity — 3800 gallons
Vacuum/pressure pump — 192 cfm
Subsurface Sludge Applicator — 4 shank, hydraulically controlled
BIG A 4500
Manufactured by: Rickel Manufacturing Corporation
P.O. Box 626
3600 West Airport Road
Sauna, Texas 67401
Engine — Cummins Model VT903 35011P
V—8 turbo—charged diesel
Transmission — Allison 5 speed automatic, HT 750 CRD
Steering — Four wheel, drive, four wheel steer
Brakes — Power (air over hydraulic)
Front tires — 66 x 43.00 x 25, Goodyear
Super—Terra tread
Rear tires — 66 x 43.00 x 25, Goodyear
Super—Terra tread
Four Wheel Drive — Yes
Sludge tank capacity — 3500 gallons
Vacuum/pressure pump — 192 cfm
Subsurface sludge applicator — 5 shank, hydraulically controlled
105
------- |